Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10-6-93 Agenda and Packet
AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIC FILE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1993, 7:30 P = CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. Preliminary plat to replat Lot 2, Block 1, Oudot C and Outlot D, Bloomberg Addition into 3 lots on property zoned CBD and located south of West 78th Street, east of Market Boulevard and west of Great Plains Boulevard. The applicant is also requesting site plan review of a hotel expansion and restaurant between the Country.Suites Hotel and Frontier Building,Lotus Realty Services and Bloomberg Companies, Inc. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Frank Reese to subdivide a 36,023 square foot lot to create one single family lot and an oudot to be combined with a lot located in Shorewood, on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6200 Chaska Road, Jean Addition. 3. Lundgren Bros. for rezoning property from RR, Rural Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres into 115 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit. The property is located on the west side of Galpin Boulevard, 1/2 mile north of Hwy. 5, Song-Carlson property. 4. Concept Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for a 232 unit residential development comprised of 21 buildings of either 8, 10 — or 12 units in each. The units are two story. slab on grade construction with attached one or two car garages. The property is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Galpin Boulevard Carriage Homes, Centex Real Estate Corporation (Betty O'Shaughnessy). NEW BUSINESS 5. Modification TIF District No. 2-1 and 2-2; Development District No. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 6. Planning Commission terms of office. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. CITY OF . _ 04;40'4cHANHAssEN 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: September 29, 1993 SUBJ: Country Suites Hotel Expansion Item Continued from September 1, 1993 BACKGROUND On September 1, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal from Bloomberg Companies and Lotus Realty for the following items: 1. Subdivision of Lot 2, Outlot C, D, Block 1 of Bloomberg Addition and Lot 1, Block 3 of the Chanhassen Mall. 2 Site Plan Approval for the expansion of 36 rooms for the Country Suites Hotel, remodeling and expansion of the Animal Fair building for a restaurant and modifications to the exterior of the Frontier Building (Chanhassen Mall). Staff had recommended tabling this item so that a parking study could be completed. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation and this item was tabled. Since that time a parking study has been completed. In addition, there were a couple of other concerns that the Planning Commission wanted more study of which included parking lot landscaping and the sign treatment. ANALYSIS Fred Hoisington, from Hoisington Koegler Group, completed a parking study for the hotel, restaurant and adjacent retail uses. The conclusion of the parking study is that with cross over easements between the hotel/restaurant and the retail center to the east, there is sufficient parking 90% of the time. Staff supports the finding that there is sufficient parking 90% of the time but will monitor the parking situation. The concern of the city is that the hotel/restaurant not infringe upon parking on the bowling alley site or the Southwest Metro park and ride facility. Planning Commission September 29, 1993 Page 2 • The city wants to ensure we have flexibility for other potential uses of the bowling alley property and possible expansion of the park and ride. For example, this past summer a community center and movie theaters were considered for this site. The hotel/restaurant must have sufficient parking without encumbering parking for the other two uses. If a parking problem occurs, the applicant will be required to provide hard surface parking at the rear of the hotel site on property owned by Bloomberg Companies. Access to this parking will be provided via a well lit pedestrian access between the "Animal Fair" building and the "Frontier Building." Delivery access to the restaurant has been redesigned. Originally, all deliveries were proposed in the front of the building. Staff had expressed concerns with trucks making the turn movements. Deliveries are now being proposed to be accessed from the rear of the building. This modification also provides for a friendlier pedestrian access between the proposed restaurant and the Frontier Building. The original garage door facade in front of the loading area has been removed. Landscaping The landscaping plan remains the same except that all trees located in the planters are limited to overstory including an equal mix of linden, maple, ash and hackberry. The percentage of landscaping is still around 3%. This is an existing site where additional right-of-way is being required. Improvements along West 78th Street will reduce the existing boulevard. Staff finds that because this is an existing parking lot in the CBD, achieving 8% interior landscaping that would be required under a pending ordinance amendment, would compromise the parking in front of the building. There are two interior court yards and both will be landscaped. Landscaping has been added to the west of the Frontier Building and east of the restaurant, where the delivery area has been modified. Signs The proposed sign package has been modified. Originally, a pylon sign was proposed. This sign has been changed to a monument sign. The proposed sign package includes sign treatment for the existing retail center as well as the hotel/restaurant. A wall sign band is proposed for the Frontier Building as well as a second monument sign for these tenants. Both monument signs are architecturally compatible with the respective buildings. The applicant has proposed the following sign plan (refer to site plan): 1. Hotel Addition Identification signs on the exterior of the building well within the sign bands designated as A and B on Exhibit A, said bands to be located on the north and south elevations. Planning Commission September 29, 1993 Page 3 The sizes of the signs shall not exceed: Sign Band A: 3' x 8', or 24 square feet Sign Band B: 8' x 8', or 64 square feet, with a maximum of two signs, one for each of the two proposed retail spaces. The sign at A shall be limited to identification of the hotel and the signs at B shall be limited to identification of the two retail spaces. 2. Restaurant Building One identification sign shall be allowed on the exterior of the building within the sign band designated as C on Exhibit A, located on the north elevation. The size of the sign shall not exceed 8' x 8', or 64 square feet, and shall be limited to identification of the restaurant. A directional sign shall be allowed at the sign band designated as D on Exhibit A at the entrance to the restaurant. The size of the sign shall not exceed 3' x 6', or 18 square feet. 3. Frontier Building and Extension of Retail Area easterly to the point where it meets the building which houses the Dinner Theatre and Furniture Gallery. Tenant identification signs shall be allowed on the sign band designated as E on Exhibit A. The sign band construction consists of electrical raceways bolted to building structure _ to which signage will be mounted displaying individual letters or groups of letters. The sign band shall be 3' in height. Individual signs shall not exceed 24 inches in height and shall be located within the sign band so that no part of the sign extends above or below the top or bottom of the sign band. A. Building Signage - Materials and Specifications All building signs shall be comprised of individual letters and/or logos. All individual letters and logos comprising the signs shall have a minimum depth of 5" and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over illumination. B. Monument Signs Planning Commission September 29, 1993 Page 4 1. One monument sign shall be allowed on Lot 2, Block 1, Bloomberg 2nd Addition, and one monument sign shall be allowed on the Frontier Building parcel at the locations designated on the site plan attached as Exhibit B. 2. "Monument Signs" as used herein are defined as freestanding signs, which are comprised of two sign faces attached to one or more pylons installed in the ground. 3. The height of each monument sign shall not exceed 8 feet. 4. Each monument sign shall contain no more than 64 square feet of sign area per face. 5. Each monument sign shall be constructed to reflect the architectural style of the hotel, restaurant and Frontier building construction and as represented on the attached Exhibit A. 6. There shall be an easement, maintenance and replacement agreement recorded for each sign for the benefit of the owners of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Bloomberg 2nd Addition and the Frontier Building Parcel. 7. The monument signs shall be constructed by Bloomberg Companies, Inc. to coincide with the completion of the construction of the restaurant. Staff supports the sign plan except the monument signs which shall not exceed 8' in height. This proposal will bring the existing Frontier Building signs into compliance with the city ordinances as well as have a uniform sign theme for the center. Covenants of the sign policy shall be created for this development/tenants. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition and site plan review for the addition of the hotel, restaurant and modifications to the Frontier Building as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment and loading docks shall be screened with similar building materials or landscaping. Planning Commission September 29, 1993 Page 5 2. Right-of-way along West 78th Street shall be dedicated at 40 feet from proposed centerline. 3. All trees located in the planters shall include an equal mix of sugar maple, linden, ash and hackberry. • 4. All signs must be in compliance with proposed sign plan as proposed as shown on plans dated September 23, 1993, except monument signs shall not exceed 8 feet in height. 5. Cross parking agreements between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlot A of Bloomberg Addition and Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall and Frontier Development Corporation shall be recorded at Carver County. 6. Compliance with conditions of Building Code requirements regarding lot lines through buildings. 7. Staff still encourages the applicant to leave parking entrance as it exists today and provide additional access points. 8. Sign covenants shall be created and filed with the development/tenants. ATTACHMENTS 1. Hoisington Parking Study dated September 14, 1993. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated September 1, 1993. 3. Original staff report dated September 1, 1993. 4. Revised site plans dated September 23, 1993. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. H 1< g i September 14, 1993 Mr. Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 REC=;VED Re: Hotel Expansion Parking Study !' " Cr: OF Dear Paul: Per the City's request, we have recalculated the parking supply and demand for an area defined as the Chanhassen Mall/Bloomberg Addition. More specifically, the study covers the Bowling Center/Filies, the Country Suites Hotel/Restaurant, the Chanhassen Dance Studio and the Frontier retail and office complex. We also counted the Dinner Theater's parking. Prior to calculating demand, we recounted the parking supply and conducted an occupancy survey on Wednesday, September 8, 1993 and Friday, September 10, 1993. We conducted the occupancy survey on those days because, according to the hotel operator, Wednesday is a peak weekday and Friday a peak weekend day. We went back and reassessed the occupancy on Saturday, September 11, 1993, to correlate it with the Friday count. The counts were consistent except for the Dinner Theater which uses a substantial part of the retail/office parking lot on Saturday evenings. The study area contains 657 parking spaces (52 of which are the Dance Studio's) and will be expanded to 705 with the 36 room hotel expansion. Based on the occupancy survey, the peak demand was reached on Wednesday, between 6:00 and 9:00 p.m. when a maximum of 191 vehicles were counted. This represented just 29 percent occupancy. The most important finding was that the hotel had only 0.53 cars per room on the peak day. We then calculated the parking required by ordinance for all of the existing uses and concluded that a total of 695 spaces would be required. With the expansion of the hotel and the addition of a restaurant and meeting rooms, the total parking required by ordinance would be 935 spaces. This alone would suggest a huge deficit for the hotel/restaurant/retail/office complex. We then calculated parking needs based on the survey adjusted parking demands plus adjustments for multi-purpose trips and time-of-day sharing of parking. We assumed that the Bowling Center and Filies would be operating at capacity which, as you can see from the occupancy survey, is not currently happening or likely to occur. We assumed that the meeting space portion of the restaurant facility would Land Use!Environmental • Planning i Design -300 Metro Boulevard'Suite 525 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 • (612)835-9960 • Fax:(612)835-3160 Paul Krauss September 14,1993 Page 2 have a parking demand of one person per two seats and a capacity of 150 persons. We also assumed 100 percent occupancy by non-hotel users which will occur periodically. We found that the peak weekday parking demand for the restaurant and hotel will occur between 6:00 and 9:00 p.m. probably on a Wednesday in July. The overall demand will be 485 cars, excluding the dance studio, with a supply of 646 cars or an overall surplus of 161 spaces. There will be a deficit in the hotel/restaurant/meeting parking lot but ample space will be available in the retail/office lot at that time. We also evaluated the supply and demand for the 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. weekday period and found that there will be a large surplus except that the hotel, restaurant and meeting facilities will run a 15 car deficit. Ample parking appears to be always available behind the hotel in what is the Bowling Center's entry parking lot during that period. There will also be space available in the retail/office lot during this period. The most critical period will be a Saturday evening in December, between 6:00 and 9:00 p.m. when, due to Dinner Theater pressures, there will be a periodic deficit for the hotel/restaurant/meeting/retail/office lots. We calculate the deficit at 25 plus spaces. Because of the Dinner Theater holiday programming, parking demand will likely exceed supply every Saturday night in December between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 p.m. We may have a problem at other peak performance times as well suggesting the need for the developer/owner to provide some amount of paved employee parking with adequate lighting behind or near the Frontier building. It is our opinion that there is sufficient parking available in the hotel, restaurant, retail and office parking lots to accommodate the restaurant and hotel expansion 90 percent of the time due to the ability to share parking. This does not mean that the parking will not occasionally be exceeded during December or other peak Dinner Theater periods. Parking lots are generally not sized to accommodate the absolute peak demand period. More important is the need for cross-easements for the West 78th Street parking lots to allow for joint-use. The system will not work unless everyone has the right to use the parking supply. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Fre Hoisington, AICP Planning Consultant FLH/glh (C4" Lgt i Q~ L• IN .... , ,..,,, Iii II r ® L 1,1 ® a 4 H yK'_I :1 (Iji } i.a (I! 411 a;.: 11 ' i laII r I . i i. N ( iii6 - i . 1 , a k.,m a k 1._ , . . ,:; , ,, ,,,i . ) . Vfilia ® 1 -y; I ® m i€ �! 1 11, I iii lil i i 4 . 0 1 8 z i L5 W 1:51 8Q Q O '^ L < =.J I ac et Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELLMLNARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2. BLOCK 1, OUTLOT C AND OUTLOT D, BLOOMBERG ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REOUESTING SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A HOTEL EXPANSION AND RESTAURANT BETWEEN THE COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL AND FRONTIER BUILDING, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES AND BLOOMBERG COMPANIES, INC. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Truman "Tim" Howell Architect for Applicant John Rice Attorney for Applicant _ Kevin Norby Landscape Architect for Applicant Herb Bloomberg Bloomberg Companies Vernelle Clayton Lotus Realty Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. Brad Johnson...Our plan this - evening is to make a review of where we're at. We're going to go through it part by part. It's kind of fun with the architect here to discuss the site plan, landscaping and then any questions ...plat itself which John Rice will address. Kevin Norby, who is our landscape architect will address the landscaping issues that exist and try to tie that into your current ordinance that you're considering after we're done here. As much as we can, as we said we would do... And then Tim Howell will address the basic...site plan. He's the architect for the project. We tried to bring quite a few visuals so you can kind of get kind of a picture of how this all will look when it's all done. ...tougher to deal with issues that are already there... As far as the staff report, our position so far is, and that's why we're going along with the parking study, that there is currently plenty of parking front of the buildings...Frontier and the hotel but you can't see it until you do a complete integrated study. We've done two other studies like this for this project and other projects that we've had and we've always had...so we'll see. As far as the plat, and some of the questions the building inspector has raised, we just have to assume that whatever we're going to do, we'll meet those standards. We're not prepared to agree however with everything today because we did buy this from the city and so they are part of, not the Planning Commission but the City. So we have to determine who has the 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 expense of making some of the major changes that may have to be made to the building they sold us. And finally on the signage, we will be asking later on for basically the standard signage plan that is available in the CBD district and we'll... So Tim, do you want to start off? Truman Howell: I'm Truman Howell.:.architect. Several years ago we prepared the and did the construction development design of a resident motel as you see it today. At that time there was some discussion of expansion. Future expansion and obviously...tying the restaurant and Frontier building. So as Kate indicated, one of the attempts was to try to tie these things together for that... However, as you can see there's obviously there's a large room in here. We've used the same elements in the construction of the actual new portion. I don't know if this is. Mancino. Can you bring that up? Truman Howell: When these ink drawings are blown up, by the way, the colors get a little garrished so believe me it's not going to be this garrish color. Farmakes: Excuse me. It would be helpful if you'd bring it in front of the podium so... Truman Howell. This is the new construction of the 36 room motel expansion attached to the existing motel with a colonnade...and would allow actually interior walking directly into what is now the Animal Fair building, which you'd have a new front put on it so the two would be connected There would be an outside dining area adjacent to the restaurant. Under the, I think this is a large tree that we've all seen in the front yard of the Animal Fair building. The reason behind this clone in here was actually suggested by the city. That we break that off so the thing ..and we have no problem with leaving that open, either partially or totally. But that was...trying to tie this thing together we do have, we didn't want to, not want to enclose the back of it because then all of a sudden you've got more retail space and what have you. It's merely protection coverage for the dock area. Then the Frontier building, as it exists now, extending down the mansard roof. Providing a walkway to the back. And using the...of the arches here, pulling the glass wall back so that it no longer is at the front of the building but it moves back so there is a colonnade under that as well. I haven't seen these photos which, so these are all new to me. However I have seen this one and what this is. Anyway, this is an attempt to, in this profession we call the hole inbetween. We're trying, we're filling the hole so to speak and this was then an attempt at having to see what would be filled in there. What it would look like. There's a considerable difference. I think this gives a better feel for the connection than perhaps the other drawing. This would be the new entryway for the restaurant, i.e. Animal Fair building. This would be the connection here. These obviously would be the same type of windows, dormers, etc, etc. Another building...was that taken 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 from the air? Krauss: It's taken from a hot air balloon. Truman Howell: Hot air balloon? That is very beautiful photo. Anyway, from the rear, there was a question of what is it going to look like from down the street by Market, or Highway 5. And this is basically the way it looks now and hopefully how that would be affected. Mancino: So you'll still see the old Frontier building from Highway 5 to the east of where we're looking? Truman Howell: In here? Mancino: Yeah. Truman Howell: Well the back of it would not be covered. Yeah, we're not building anything on top of that part Actually I took some photos, additional ones that. Aanenson: That's why... Truman Howell: Oh, okay. Fine. Well from the ground view, this is what you actually see. You see the bowling alley and the big, these are from Highway 5. Ledvina: Could you pass the bird's eye view? Truman Howell: Sure. Then I think the question has arisen as to the, I'm sure it's in your packet Whether or not a truck can get back into that area and turn out of there. This lane that we see in here is actually 27 feet. This one is 26 feet and I think the ordinance... Krauss: ...it's 26. Aanenson: We're talking about a delivery truck. Truman Howell: I understand. We're not talking about a semi because we're talking about a step up vehicle that in fact does most of the delivery of goods and foods, that kind of thing to restaurants. I've been...restaurants for 15 years and they don't bring semi's in. They do their turning of the buildings so they do bring step trucks and you would have to. Aanenson: They wouldn't all be semi's but they wouldn't all be steps. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Scott: Well it's like Sysco. I don't think I've seen Sysco make a step truck delivery and they seem to deliver to most restaurants in town. Truman Howell: Sysco? Yeah, they have large trucks for over the road deliveries. From here to Milwaukee but when they're delivering to locally, they're broken down into smaller units. This is the way it's done, I don't know maybe Perkins doesn't deal with them. I don't know. They bring in a smaller truck but if you're talking about bringing a semi into here and turning, I would grant you that that's probably going to be a problem. But standard driveways in most communities is 24 feet so I think we've got adequate space for bringing in a truck and turning it. As a matter of fact, we've got more length here than most areas do. We've got actually two lanes of parking that will allow us to bring in the truck, turn it back and then bring it out. And it's not right at this space either. It's several feet back. This width is 20 feet. We can certainly widen that. We can certainly reduce the size of these. Aanenson: That was the other question about the dumpster location and... Truman Howell: Oh the dumpster, it's behind the dock. We can actually go around behind the building and pick out a dumpster and the most logical place for it to be back in the back side of the dock. Back of the building which serves as a screen. That would not be a major problem. Harberts: You feel that with the, you can get a big truck in there with parking all around it? Truman Howell. I'm just saying that it's done every day like this. I would guess that it would make do here. You've seen, certainly you've seen the restaurants around this part of the country. In your own town here. How big is the space for the Riveria is taken care of. How big is the space where...McDonald's. They have to have...and this for example, this width is 20 feet wide. This is approximately, that's about 40 feet. This is only 6 feet and it's about 250 some feet deep. If you would like I could do some overlays of a truck. Aanenson: That's what the condition was to put a template on there... Truman Howell: I'll be happy to do that. The other issues...Basically the expansion. The connection into the restaurant. The wall we're talking about, I'm proposing a stairway on the Frontier, blocking out the view of the dock. The existing Frontier building. My understanding of the present sign ordinance is that we're allowed on each building 15% area of the front of the building and that each tenant can have one sign no greater than 64 square feet. I also understand that a pylon sign is allowed for each piece of property and this is what we assume that we'll be dealing with. We don't plan to violate any of those. We did 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 indicate in our submission that the type of sign we're looking at is the sign that you see on Team Sports, Sporting Goods front. And that would be, and I can identify for you a band of that across all the buildings if you would like. Farmakes: Are we to consider these three separate businesses then? Truman Howell: Well they're certainly three separate plots. Farmakes: Are these 3 separate businesses? Truman Howell: Yeah. Farmakes So this isn't an addition to an existing operation? Truman Howell: I'm talking about here, here and here. Farmakes: That wasn't my question. My question is, is of the development that we're reviewing in these plans, this is an addition to the Country Suites? Truman Howell: Yes. Farmakes: Is the restaurant to be considered a separate business? Truman Howell: Yeah. It's on a separate piece of property. Okay, in terms of where are you going I guess. Maybe I'm not understanding. Farmakes: I'm asking the question. If I'm looking at a Holiday Inn, they may have several buildings attached with a runway. One of them may have a restaurant in it. Truman Howell: This is a separate operation. Farmakes: Do we consider them a separate operation under separate ownership? Truman Howell: Yes. Farmakes: So they're renting tenants? Mancino: But it's only two because the expansion is expansion of the existing motel. Truman Howell: Exactly. And then this is separate. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Farmakes: So you're proposing that this is in fact three separate businesses? Or two separate businesses. Truman Howell: Three separate owners. Farmakes: Three separate owners? Brad Johnson: Each building is a multi-purpose building. Farmakes: So the signs that you're putting up then will be three separate signs? Three different signs? Truman Howell: I didn't say that. I said I think that's what the Code allows us to do. Farmakes: I'll let staff sort that out and that's ambiguous I think ansae to a pretty specific question but. Truman Howell: Are there, my understanding. There are three separate businesses here. There is a motel, there's a restaurant and there's a retail operation. I'm not trying to be evasive. That's what my understanding is. Farmakes: No, I'm even leaving the retail section out of that. In the expansion, we're talking about signage. We're talking currently about the three buildings that we're looking at. One is the existing Two are being proposed to be added onto that. Correct? Truman Howell: Okay, you're reading these as one building. Farmakes: No, I'm not saying they're one building. That's my question. Are they three separate businesses or are they two separate businesses, disregarding the retail across the way. Truman Howell: Yes. Yes, the restaurant is separate from the motel. And the motel expansion is a part of this operation. Farmakes: Is a part of that operation. Okay. So we're looking at sign, the sign packages you talked about also include the retail section? Truman Howell: Yes. That's one I think is very important for me to address that that be taken care of. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Farmakes: The confusion of what I was asking was when you're talking about the proposed buildings that we're looking at here with whether or not the addition, in terms of signage is considered a separate building. Truman Howell: No, but it would be part of this business. Brad Johnson: Jeff, if I could... under your guidelines, or the ordinances that we operate under in the downtown CBD district, we're allowed one sign per business. Is that correct? Wall sign. We're allowed one pylon per lot. Farmakes: I believe that it's dependent on frontage, isn't it? Brad Johnson: No. And the wall signs are 15%. The standard wall signs. The wall signs that we're allowed on a wall, all the buildings we've built so far in the city have the same standard 15% of the front of the building can be used for signage. But each tenant, and this is important to remember, can only have one sign and the maximum size of that sign is 64 square feet. So that limits the total number of signs you're having. I guess if you were to look at the hotel as a tenant in two of these locations, you could say the hotel can only have one sign. But it turns out that in the hotel addition, there's also retail. On the first floor. And then therefore, the businesses that are in there have a right to a sign based on your ordinances. This is not a PLTD. It's the downtown CBD where we would prefer to go strictly by your ordinances like we did at Town Square. Mancino: Kate, would this be in compliance with the new ordinance that's coming through? Aanenson: What they're proposing or what... Mancino: What they're proposing. What they're using as a guideline. Aanenson: The new sign ordinance does not allow pylon... Mancino: Just monument. No pylon sign. Okay. Farmakes: Did I overlook the retail on the 36 unit expansion? Is that in our packet? Truman Howell: On the first floor there's two shops... Mancino: It shows it on my drawings. Truman Howell: There's a beauty shop and gift shop. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Conrad: Okay, anything else? Does the restaurant have a name? Truman Howell: No, I don't think it does yet. Conrad: Brand name or? • Brad Johnson: No. Conrad: Anything else? Brad Johnson: I'd prefer...then I'd like to add some comments about the staff report. Farmakes: So on our plans on page 2 I think it is. Two areas that are marked as shop should be retail, right? Aanenson: I was unclear on that. Going on what they told me before, that there would be two shops, I was unclear... Farmakes: Yeah I looked at it and I thought it might have been maintenance or something. Aanenson: I thought it was something where they were going to have...I had no idea it would be like a beauty shop. • Conrad. Okay. It is a public hearing. Any other comments on the proposal? Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Brad Johnson: John Rice would just like to add a little comment now on the plat itself. Because you're ultimately doing a plat as part of this proposal. Conrad. Okay. Brad Johnson: And he'll give you some background information. And then Kevin will address the site plan, some modifications that we will be doing to that plan you received. John Rice: Hi. My name's John Rice. I'm the attorney for Bloomberg. I don't want to turn this into more than you ever wanted to know about Chanhassen Mall. I'll partly be guided by whether or not you have any specific questions. Herb did a colored in drawing, which I think he did, of the Chanhassen Mall and the Animal Fair buildings and this is before the major part of the Kirt building was, before that's right here. And the hotel then that was built right in here. And at the time that we did the Bloomberg Addition plat, we did the parking lot and 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 we put separate driveways and here's that open space that's now in there which is...about right here. This orange building which has been removed. And that was included in the Animal Fair portion of Lot 2. The part that was not required for the hotel. Now we're taking that part for the hotel and drawing a line with just a slight jog up to the street. Then in the Animal Fair building here, over here on the corner, that will, the new restaurant will require space down into the pink building here which at least Herb and I call the city building. Just by the fact that Bloomberg owns it but that's the large building and we were there the other day with the surveyor and Herb was looking at it and the extension down, partly in response to taking care of the problem with the wall. That we can't have a wall that meets the building code where you are right on the lot line. There is a set of columns across, running from east to west which would fit very well and would be a good place to put the wall that would be the dividing line between the new restaurant addition, this way and the old city buildings down to the south. And obviously that wall to be built would have to comply with the code requirements and would provide a good clean break as far as a new lot line for the south line of the restaurant. And that's really about it unless somebody had some questions I might be able to answer. Brad Johnson: Kevin. Kevin has addressed the site plan that you see that Tim gave us. Remember one of our jobs a couple of weeks ago was see what we could do about applying the new ordinance. Kevin. Kevin Norby: My name is Kevin Norby. I'm with Norby and Associates, landscape architects. I think what we want to do is just make it clear that we're working with staff and talked with Paul and attended the Tree Board meeting the other night pertaining to the new ordinance. I think Nancy's probably the only one of you that have seen the new landscape plan. We're just making some changes on the site plan that we're hopefully trying to meet the new ordinance, new landscape ordinance. Currently I just saw the report tonight and some of the recommendations and concerns there but we are falling short of the landscape requirements. I think in talking to Paul and Kate, I'm not sure that the new ordinance is what's going to be, we're going to be held to. I think the old ordinance, maybe because of the property, retrofit. So I don't know, maybe Paul has something to say about that but we have added some more landscape islands and some more trees and we're still working based on the number of parking stalls to try to make this all meet your requirements. I don't know if anybody's... Mancino: Well is what we have here. Kevin Norby: Well the plan that I had at the Tree Board meeting, it's different than that...and moving around a little bit and I'm not sure that even that is correct just based on information we got as far as the parking counts and that sort of thing. So I guess what I'm saying, we're 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 going to continue to work through and try to meet the ordinance and I think it's up in the air right now as to what you're going to require of us. Krauss: Kevin and I have talked about it. I think we're developing a pretty good parking lot landscaping ordinance. It's sort of difficult to throw that at a site that was developed 25 years ago and make it fit. When these things have occurred in the past, we've always taken the position of our intent is not to totally put a stop on any development from happening but to as realistically as possible approach the current standard and work out the issues. And I think Kevin's site plan is an attempt in that direction. I mean theoretically if were to throw the current ordinance, which... Mancino: 8%. Krauss: Yeah, they'd probably have to knock off 20 rooms of the hotel to make it a yard area because there's no way else for it to comply. Mancino: How close are we going to get? Kevin Norby: The plan that you saw the other night, ...require 5%. We're currently at about 3%. So I think there's some room there to work but we're not sure we've resolved all the parking issues either. Mancino: What's across the street in Town Square? Is that 5%? Aanenson: Market Square? Mancino: No, the one directly across the street. Krauss: I've got to believe... I mean that 5% has been a standard for a long time. Kevin Norby: I have a copy that I can lay in front of you if you want to look. I'm not sure that that's even the most current, I mean when you get into what we've got but I'm not sure this parking is accurate. Brad Johnson: Thanks Kevin. I'll just try to address some of these and then...somewhat difficult to change a lot of things quickly... As far as the landscaping is concerned, that parking lot was designed by the city and was paid for by the city. At the time...at that particular time. Maybe when we do the parking lot presentation Fred, we can talk a little bit about...periodically run into this kind of problem. Because you basically have a lot of buildings that are already in town and they are where they are and simultaneously we're trying 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 and many of them were developed as a lumber yard or as a...and they were not developed as a retail, specifically retail facing toward 78th Street. And when we came in as a redeveloper years ago, it's been a long range goal to try to get the whole city facing 78th Street...and as we go through the process of doing that...we're not planning something new, we're planning something old. We'll work with the site plan as much as we can and also remember that the only thing that we're really changing doing is the newest addition is strictly just the hotel addition. We're remodeling...in addition to that... As far as the parking is concerned, we agree with the staff that Fred should study this and figure out what the uses are and some technicalities do exist in that the hotel rooms themselves, or the meeting rooms and the restaurant are under a lease to the hotel. And they will be run by the hotel and for the use of the hotel, not the restaurant. So the restaurant will cater to the hotel guests and I think we commented...Those are meeting rooms for the hotel... We already do have meeting rooms in the hotel which we'll no longer use and they will be redone back to meeting, or back to hotel rooms, I think. That's part of the plan. Right now two hotel rooms have been turned into meeting rooms...corner and they're basically suites that were redesignated as a meeting room. So it's very important as far as the parking plan, from out point of view, for you to realize that these are two meeting rooms in the hotel itself, are not being used by the restaurant. And the parking therefore, at least a share of it, 50% or more, will be hotel guests that are already accounted for in our parking plan. Now we're doing a lot of this at the request of the city. The city, not the City Council or this, but the people in the community have wanted meeting rooms And we've had a number of requests from the industrial section who would like to use our hotel but we can't use the hotel because you have no meeting rooms like we'd like to have. Secondly, we'd like to use the hotel but you can't cater lunch and these are things that we've been going through. And so what you see before you is again, not a perfect configuration because we're retrofitting an area and trying to fill with that. As far as signage is concerned, I always concern myself about signage. I do not believe we've had a public hearing on any new ordinance. I do not believe that ordinance has been presented to the Chamber of Commerce. I do not believe, I just got a copy of it recently and it has had no public comment other than the meetings that the community has so I don't think it's fair at . this time to use that particular ordinance in advance of this approval, specifically because it has not been even presented to the business community as a whole. Correct? Scott: No. Brad Johnson: And in addition to that, so what we're saying is we'd like to apply what we've used in the downtown historically and modify that probably a little bit like we've done in the past. We've simply said, each tenant gets one sign for each business. That sign can be as big as 64 square feet if it's okay, and it has to do with how the building's laid out and that there is a pylon sign for each lot. So technically this particular project qualifies for a minimum of 2 pylon signs and a potential of 3. Because if you look at the hotel as an addition to, you 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 know the hotel use is just an addition and they've already got a pylon sign and they probably wouldn't want. They probably would want another pylon sign but that maybe something pushing a little too far. We do have businesses that are going to go into the lower level of the hotel addition. Two small ones. One is the hair salon. It's already in town and it's asked to move over there. And then we have a coffee shop potentially that would also be in there. Just a quick in and out like a donut shop or something that would ancillary to that site. The hotel, as we say doesn't have a name. We have not shown you on the plan where the sign would be and as Tim had said, we'd probably come back with a sign plan designating what you would call... That building may be a restaurant for a while. Maybe it's not a restaurant... but once we commit to a sign plan, that goes with the...in the downtown area so we have to be, it's very critical to the business people in this community that people can find them. Two main vehicles for advertising in this community, and...is their sign and the Villager. That's their primary sources of getting people from our community to some place. So one, we have to advertise for it and people have to be able to find it. And if you don't have a sign, it doesn't work. So that would be our sign proposal...and have sort of a schematic of what we can see that to be and then we'll deal with the staff...and decide not to apply your own ordinances, that's your own business. We have to ask for variances, I think you do too. As far as the site plan itself is concerned, there were a couple of questions. I think in general we have tried to, in absence of Fred's study, anticipate getting as much parking out here in front as possible. And I think let's just hold off the parking discussion until we see the various mixes of how parking looks. I suggest you drive by the Frontier Building tonight on the way home and see how many cars are parked out in front, which is sort of a peak restaurant time. And I suggest you come by the hotel around 2:00 and see how many cars are parking in the hotel parking lot during that time. There's just a certain swing. I mean it has sort of a... restaurants with hotels. There's a noon time...that time. But other issues that have come up is that, and these are things that as the...I wasn't sure I agreed to but we have closed this entrance here because it does get confusing and it also takes up a lot of parking. And with the new light going in over here, it was our feeling that we should direct the people there. Now I'm a resident of Chanhassen but I also work here and I know that certain things work and certain things don't work. For example, I was opposed to the curb in,you know where the curb is out here and the clock tower is, because I live here. I said that will never work. You need a straight road. It didn't go that way. Okay. And the engineers told me it couldn't but now some people have come back and said, well why is it the way it is. It should be a straight road where all the traffic comes down 78th. Well what's happening is that now that less and less traffic is using 78th and more are using Galpin, they said well that's going to be years away. Well we're trying to get to the point that that road is being used but they literally ought to close 78th to make it work and with the new stop lights over, it may be feel that 78th is that way. But the point being is, currently if you look at Town Square. We went through all these types of plans, there is no stacking requirement in a situation like that. Town Square has 3 restaurants and no stacking requirement for traffic to back up here. The 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 bowling alley and all that over here doesn't have it. All of the Dinner Theater, which has hoards of people coming out of there at a certain time of the day, and look. There are no stacking lanes towards the front. The point being is that when I leave this place today, I don't like, I park my car right here. I don't like to have to jog and go this way. Okay. It just doesn't work. Secondly, if this whole lane requires every car that comes in here to jog back up against the building, we're going to have a tremendous amount of traffic here and very little on that road. Thirdly, and Fred can substantiate this, the total amount of traffic into a restaurant. The restaurant, has anybody in the restaurant business? Okay, if you had one turn of every chair every hour, would you consider to be pretty good? In a sitdown restaurant situation. Scott: Well you'd like to do better than that. That's how long it takes somebody to eat generally speaking so. Brad Johnson: About an hour, okay. So and your code said they anticipate that each car that comes will have 2 people. That seems to be common. You know some come with 1 and some come with 4. So a restaurant that's very successful will generate on the average, 1 car per minute. And I'd welcome you to go look at the Riveria during it's peak time and watch how many cars come and go. It's not a lot of cars. A Hardee's generates 1 car every 30 seconds to a minute. There's not a lot of cars. Very successful McDonald's, about the same. Okay. So that's not a lot of traffic. Look at your clock and the next car that will come in and out of there. In the hotel side, which is over here, it has, or will have 120 rooms. Those rooms will fill between the hours of 4:00 in the afternoon to 8:00. So if everybody was coming and going a couple of times, the hotel will generate about 1 car every 2 minutes. So . you really don't have what you call a lot of traffic generators there. You have a lot of them parked but my only...I think that can remain open. I don't think Paul we've had any problem whatsoever at the Town Square one and that's how that's lined up and I don't think we've had. Aanenson: But you also have more curb cut openings into West 78th Street. You have a lot of traffic funneling into one curb cut. Brad Johnson: But you're saying a lot of traffic. Lots of traffic. Aanenson: I talking about access points onto West 78th Street. Brad Johnson: Town Square? Aanenson: Are you talking about Market Square or Town Square? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Brad Johnson: Town Square. Town Square is identical to what I'm suggesting and it's got 3 restaurants. Krauss: Town Square'' Brad Johnson: Yeah, it's got the Riveria, parking lot. It's got Chin's. It's got the video store and it's got Little Ceasars. If you look at all that. Aanenson: They also have more access... Brad Johnson: Two. Krauss: And the... Brad Johnson: I don't know how you expect me to handle it. I don't think there's any traffic...but I really think you're going to create a tremendous problem here. I don't have the money to hire the engineers to prove you wrong or right, okay. But I don't think we've got a problem. I think we get carried away with stacking and I think it just screws up parking lots personally. And if we do have, maybe that's the thing but I think that's an issue. I don't want to have to hire an expert but maybe Fred you could address the question as far as traffic in and out of your study, I don't know. But there's a way of saying yes, if we really need • stacking. I think it's a problem because I'm there. All you're really going to do is drive everybody over to here and it's just not going to work. It hasn't shown up yet because we • haven't closed this off. Krauss: I think it's real hard to deal with this out of context and maybe it is something that Fred can touch on. You know you're being asked to base your hypothetical decision on the fact that the problem doesn't exist today and there's nobody there in the first place. We're putting a stop light at that intersection. It's going to back people up and that's what stop lights are intended to do. They're going to back into the property. You're not going to be able to just spin out whenever there's a break in the traffic, which is the case now. There will be considerably greater levels of traffic than there are right now. Certainly, if nothing else it's going to be a 180 degree... Brad Johnson: My point is, I think we're creating a problem in the loss of this user friendly, that's all. I don't think the stacking...Market Square because they have over stack lanes and people are driving through them but that's my opinion... But I think that's an issue and I don't want to let it die because I think it's a poorly designed parking lot at that point...and I do not want to have to hire BRW or somebody but maybe Fred can just say, do a whole study at this time. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Conrad: For the same price Fred. Brad Johnson: Fred knows this parking lot probably better than anyone. In fact you may have... Conrad: I tell you, if anybody knows it Fred, you're going to help us. You don't even have to do a study. You could tell us right now but we'll hold off. Brad Johnson: As far as Highway 5. Somebody asked a question about Highway 5. If you take a look at, and I've used this with the HRA. If you drive down Highway 5 now and look at downtown Chanhassen, the Dinner Theater appears to have a peaked roof in the evening because you look right through the top and you're looking at the top of our two other buildings over there. I mean just drive down there, the whole line of it's changed over the years as we developed buildings in that area. So I don't know, has anybody done that? Drive over there tonight and you'll see. It appears that downtown Chanhassen now, it's sort of a flat roof...appears to have peaked roofs but you're really looking at the professional building and Heritage. It just looks a lot nicer and what we're suggesting here, as we fill in another void over there with that, it will take us a while to get around to the front or back, or whatever you want to call the Frontier Building, but I think we'll again help the visibility from that. We're not trying to do anything with the back of the Frontier Building...but the question comes up, I think you'll see a lot nicer effect. As far as, there's a number of things we're going to have to go back to staff this week with. You know Nancy came and visited yesterday She said, why are you going to be here? We're just looking for other objections or concerns and then we'll go back and work it out over the next few weeks but I just wanted to go over that right now... Agree with items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9. Mancino: You said you agreed? Conrad: With those, yeah. Mancino: Okay, 1. Brad Johnson: 1, 3, 6, 7, 9. We have some questions about dedicating additional right-of- way at this time to the city because we don't know what it means to us. It's a new wrinkle. ...again we're going to need it in the year 2000, well. Take it in the year 2000. We're not really, we don't really feel one way or the other about the 5 parking stalls in the service entry area. We said we know we need parking and until we know where we stand on parking, somebody says you can't build a building, you've got to tear down another building to get 5 parking spots, there's a lot cheaper place for us to get 5 parking spots. We're not...Nancy suggested maybe part of it should be landscaped. We don't care. We just need, we know we 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 need a certain amount of parking. As far as the sign, I gave you my opinion on the sign which we don't agree...and we don't think that's the current ordinance and probably isn't in good faith because the city put it there. They required us to move it there when they did up the parking lot. Now these are things that have gone on in the past. We made to relocate it to that location. So that's the way it works. We said we'll even improve the...we never used it. That kind of thing. Parking study we've agreed to. The right-of-way, we had a question and that's kind of where we're at. I think the one that we anticipate that we're going to have to talk with the staff with is parking, which we've got to wait for Fred. I don't know if we can talk to staff about the sign plan. You guys will have to read the ordinance because they have their opinion and we have our's. Conrad: And the next time you're going to bring in a schematic for us? I think that's real important. Brad Johnson: We've done enough sign plans for buildings here. We know it takes a while to get through this because we all understand signs but we use Town Square and Market Square as an example of how the sign will go. In all those cases we have set up sign bands and we've agreed on various height stipulations... I guess our only real argument here may be how many pylon signs we have. I think we probably want it to be 40 feet high so we can see it from the highway. They want to have it at the road but that's what we're going to have to discuss. We'd like more traffic off Highway 5...for the retailers, okay. That's where we are and I don't know if, we'd like to have some input from you on architecture and other things • that... Conrad: We'll give you some comments. Still public hearing. Any other comments? Anything else? Is there a motion to close the hearing? Farmakes moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: More than likely we're tabling this and so it's coming back. So as Brad just concluded, I don't know if it's the time to drill. It's a time to give them our opinions so then they know when they're coming back what they're fighting or what they're not fighting. Or issues that you want clarified so I really don't think now is the time that you want to make some detailed comments other than talking to the developers about where, certain of the conditions in here or anything else. But kind of in a little bit more general terms. Maybe. Diane. Harberts: Oh thank you. Kate, in your report you talked about the reluctancy to provide the cross parking agreement. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Aanenson: Without doing a parking study...and we need to make sure that that...enough parking for those uses without... Krauss: The Frontier Building's under different ownership, and John Rice and I have discussed this for years and it's one of the most complex, convoluted pieces of ownership you'll ever see. But there are different ownership situations and somebody who's going to the restaurant or owns the restaurant for the hotel has no right to send people over to the Frontier building. At some point in time it's very clear that it's going to be owned by somebody else who's going to say it's my private property. Get off. The only way to protect that is to have a permanent cross access easement. If in fact we conclude that there's sufficient parking over there, but that that cross parking isn't going to firmly guarantees the right...and Frontier building customers to cross over. Park on each other's property. That's standard. Aanenson: And that would apply to the bowling alley... Harberts: So are you saying that if it's deemed that sufficient parking, that there is not existing. If existing parking is not sufficient without these crossovers, are you saying then that you'll be knocking on the door for instance of Southwest Metro and saying can we use your. Aanenson: No, he's got additional parking to the rear of the building. Additional property to the rear of the building but we're saying there needs to be a way to get people to that location that's attractive and accessible. Krauss: Southwest Metro really doesn't enter into it for a couple of reasons. First of all, take for example room on Bloomberg owned land to resolve it. Secondly, as much as we respect Southwest Metro, you're not the property owner. I mean it's the city that owns it and you have a long term lease and we're obligated to maintain it. Harberts: And I'm sure that if it came to a discussion point that the City would consider the $96,000.00 investment that was using public tax dollars in that transit facility. Krauss: Right, but we're not in the habit of leasing the same thing twice. You can go to jail for that sort of thing but there's ample room to fix it. Diane, we've looked at this 8 or 10 times... Aanenson: Plus the parking will be in closer proximity than Southwest Metro. Krauss: It's too far away. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Harberts: I think it's good to table it simply because there's a lot of parking issues. I think the project is good. This area, I've been commenting to some people, is certainly kind of a focal point for Chanhassen and you know with the signage and everything, I'd like the plans. It's getting some of this other stuff worked out because it is retrofitting and we certainly recognize that. So I know some of the commissioners may want to understand why, some logic behind a variance, things like that but I do understand that it's a retrofit. Maybe it's a give and take thing and again, because it's a focal point of Chanhassen, I guess I'm concurring or I feel strongly with what staff is saying for the signage. So the comments in terms of the signage. Yeah, I wish it was a little bit cleaner but do you feel then that that parking study is going to help address some of this? Do we take the curb cut out here or whatever. Aanenson: We're going to ask engineering for more detail too based on the signal and stacking and that sort of issue. Harberts Okay. Otherwise I guess I really lend support to the concept here. I understand this is in the TIF district. I don't know if that makes any impact. Brad made a comment earlier though, confused me a little bit about somebody, with city ownership, who's responsible for some costs here. I don't know if that's an issue so I think it's good that it's being tabled so when the plans come back, that all these questions have been addressed or whatever from city staff perspective. Krauss: Well yeah, that was a new wrinkle for me but, and if there's anything to it, it's between Brad, or Mr. Bloomberg and the HRA. Brad Johnson: He's right. It's the HRA that sold it to us. Harberts. Oh okay. I guess my primary concern is just centered around the, if there is impact to the Park and Ride locations, that there will be some discussions occurring before it comes back for final site plan review. But I like it. I know Country Suites is very successful in terms of people utilizing the space so I'd like to see more of it. I think it will be a good addition to Chanhassen. Ledvina: Well I saw the first draft of the architectural proposal and one that we have in front of us tonight I must say is a great improvement so I'd like to commend the proposer as far as those changes are concerned. I think it works much better. I guess while I share Diane's concern about the parking and even the signage, I think there has to be some discussion. I understand the applicant's concern regarding future ordinances and that's a difficult situation as well but I think those things can be worked out. And I did note some things on my architect or my landscaping plan but I'm just going to pass on that and wait until we see a new plan on that and look at that next time. But other than that, I do support the proposal. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Conrad: Okay. Joe. Scott: Yeah, I like the proposal and I'll save my comments I guess for the more detailed package that we'll get when the parking gets taken care of. That's something that concerns me and it's going to be an interesting trick to see how you can utilize the land south of the property to get people who are going to be parking down there safely into the building but that's, I'm sure somebody can figure that out. So I have no more comments. Mancino: I don't really have any new ones. I would supper tabling this and figuring out parking. Landscaping, with the new ordinance, I would like to see reaching 8%. I mean I think 3% is too far away from 8% to me, which is what our new ordinance is suggesting. It hasn't passed yet but I would like to see something closer. Maybe a 5% in there with the landscaping. And what have we done in the past Kate about when we are in the process of creating a new signage ordinance or whatever the new ordinance is and someone comes in and gives us a plat to review. What have we done historically? Krauss: Well strictly speaking Brad, you're right. I mean an ordinance isn't an ordinance until it's had two readings and been brought before the City Council and the public. On the other hand, this is a project in the Chanhassen Central Business District. Everyone of which is done on a cooperative basis with the city. Just as a general rule, it seems inappropriate to _ be asking the city to be a partner to some extent in a project and then throw the book at us and say, well this is exactly what the Code says. I mean I think that there's a lot of, there's ample room in the process to reach an accommodation and that's what's been done in the past. Mancino: Okay. So that's what we would expect from this project also. To see the cooperation done between the applicant and the city. How much TIF funding are they receiving? Krauss: I honestly don't know. Maybe Brad can answer that. I think the last I heard, they were going with the standard. The 3. Brad Johnson: For any type of remodeling project in the downtown. Mancino: What is that? Brad Johnson: Three years of taxes. Mancino: Three years of taxes. Okay. Harberts: So what does that amount to? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Brad Johnson: How much? Harberts: Yeah. Ballpark figure. Brad Johnson: $120,000.00. • Harberts: Total, or per year? Brad Johnson: Total. Harberts. For 3 years. For the entire project? Brad Johnson: That's Frontier. Most of the TIF, by the way, is just generated by the motel. That's the only thing...It's more to make the whole thing feasible. You've got realize that any remodeling of an exterior increases rents and the only way to increase value and it's hard to deal with that over time but remodeling does not increase rents. Improving the property does not increase rents necessarily. Mancino: That's all I have. Conrad: Okay, Jeff. • Farmakes: I also support tabling this until we have a more concrete presentation. I will take the opportunity though to throw out a couple of reactions. I think the architecture is fine. Continuation of the Country Suites item. I think it's integrated fairly well with the walkway with the existing structures that are there now. It worries me I guess somewhat that we have such a long length of a wooden structure, I mean the entire length of 78th but there is, that's being modified I guess by the stone work on the walkway. I'd like to get, when this comes back, a legal opinion on the issues of our ordinance. Are we, for the current hotel. The proposed hotel and the restaurant and meeting rooms, if there are agreements for use between them or among them, are we dealing with separate businesses there. If there are long term use agreements between one business and another, should we be looking at that as a business or separate business? The two retail areas, in the current hotel and I've seen other uses similar to that. The Holiday Inn over by... They're talking about a coffee shop and haircut place. That seems inconsistent, although many types of operation do not have signage packages. They're considered part of the use within the hotel and the primarily customers are hotel customers and that brings me to the restaurant. Again, it seems primarily used as a revision marketing wise as a use for the hotel customers. And I understand that there are other ideas or for local usage. I'm not sure, does the city have for local use, has the city had any feedback as to what, I mean is there a commitment to that or is that pay as you go? I'm 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 talking about the meeting rooms in the restaurant and you were talking about for local use. That it's really a city need. You also stated that the meeting rooms, the-agreement for using the meeting rooms with the hotel. Is there an hour use or my question is. Brad Johnson: When you book a room, you get to use them. You have to stay there. Farmakes: I think as part of the presentation I would like to know more about what that agreement should be. Aanenson: What the relationship is. Farmakes: Correct. There will be a liquor license for the restaurant and the application? The restaurant is dining type. Brad Johnson: ...Bennigan's. Farmakes: So there is a bar out front? Brad Johnson: Chili's. Yeah, it's a standard. About 20% of it is...I'd love to have you tell me that 80% of the use is from the hotel because then we wouldn't need any parking but in real life about 80% of the business will be outside of the hotel. In total dollar amounts. Farmakes: I guess I'll wait and see what the presentation is on the signage issue. Some of that I think relates to, are we dealing with separate businesses here? Or are we dealing with 2, 3, 4. The retail section, I haven't heard as much about it. It just seems to be, so I'm not going to discuss that at this point. But my interpretation of what we're getting into talking about signage commitments and 40 foot tall pylon signs, I question if they work or whether or not the signage would work as identified for TH 5. They're too far away. Obviously the 40 feet would be certainly out of character. I'm a supporter of moderate signage but I also • agree that it is important to identify businesses depending again on the size of the business related to the size of the sign. So that we avoid the type of clutter and redundancy that accompanies poor signage use. I think under our current ordinance, on one hand in this presentation we're being asked to ignore some ordinances that we have on the books and on the other hand we're being asked to follow specifically other ordinances. I guess if I was convinced that these are certainly separate businesses and the city is willing to stand behind that, I'm certainly open to apply whatever that presentation is more...but as the point was made, I think the city is a partner in this and there certainly are areas for negotiation in the issue of parking and I don't see why there's not areas for negotiation on anything else. I certainly think that it would be a nice development addition for the downtown area. I certainly would support, if we can work out these other issues. I think certainly for the 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 signage proposal, I would ask that certainly the intent of what we're looking for be served. And I think also on the parking, I would like to kind of listen to reason on that because that particular area had been developed certainly years before... Brad Johnson: Can I add one comment? Appreciate what you said and I think we'll come back...but I just got to make sure we don't...in real life the restaurant is a totally separate operation...and there are two current tenants in town that would disappear I think if nobody... They're in the building now... Farmakes: I did want to list some concern about the signage subcommittee. There was a committee put together. Half of the committee was made up of Chan Chamber of Commerce members. President of the Chan Bank and Mr. Borg from McDonalds. Brad Johnson: There were no downtown retailers... Farmakes: Well I guess, it's hard to list the bank as being considered retail although...it's certainly located downtown. But they are a Chanhassen business owners and they do deal with the same problems that I think any business in town so I just wanted to let you know that there were members on that committee. In fact, they made up half the committee. Conrad. A lot of business people still have concerns with visibility. We struggle with that all the time and there's a compromise here but if you went and surveyed them, Joe you might know better but, I don't know. Even recent developments. They're always going to want • more. For sure, so it's hard to really assess accurately whether we're giving them fair exposure. But the one thing for sure is, we have to give them reasonable exposure, and that's easy to say but hard to define. But there's no reason to hide people. There just isn't. Just a couple, I like what I see. I think the challenge is to figure out how to get people from the back to the front. You shake your head Brad, I don't see it friendly. I see the front row friendly, and I'm not real concerned about the 3% because the front visually looks good and usually greenery breaks up big parking lots. It makes things look, for people. This looks, the front looks for people to me, and I know Nancy, and I'd like to have the 5 but on this case, and I'm not trying to say developer don't try. But on the other hand, the front seems real good. I'm concerned with the back. I'm concerned with the passageway to the front. I'd like to eliminate more parking in the front and dump it to the other side but Fred, I hope you can find some great solutions for us because I'd really like to take some parking spots from the front and put them some other place. But that's what your study's going to tell us. But again, I don't have a problem with, I know we're going to work out the signage. I don't have a problem with that. I just really do have a problem with the passageway. So I don't want it to be a dark, dreary place coming through. It's got to be friendly both sides and that makes it a workable project for the owners. That's my biggest concern. Nothing really, the other things 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 we're going to solve. There's no doubt in my mind. Anything else? Anything. Okay, is there a motion? We probably want to table this. Mancino: I move that we recommend that we table this request until a parking study has been done for the entire Chanhassen Mall, Bloomberg Addition and it comes back to us. Conrad: Is there a second? Scott: Second. Conrad: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Mancino moved, Scott seconded to table the preliminary plat to replat Lot 2, Block, Oudot C and Oudot D, Bloomberg Addition into 3 lots and a site plan review for a hotel expansion and restaurant between Country Suites Hotel and Frontier Building until a parking study has been done for the entire Chanhassen Mall, Bloomberg Addition. All voted in favor of tabling and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO LANDSCAPING REOUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS. Public Present: Name Address Harold Schobelstad Southwest Metro Transit Tom Dunlap Chanhassen Tree Board Kevin Norby Norby and Associates Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Harold Schobelstad: Good evening. My name is Harold Schobelstad. I'm a landscape architect with...I'm here to add a layer of complexity if you will to this particular ordinance. What I would like to do is make a couple of introductory comments and then address the ordinance in particular. Our office is a planning consultant to Southwest Metro Transit Commission. We are also planning consultants to Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, southern suburbs south of the Minnesota River, as well as Metropolitan Transit Commission 40 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 9/1/93 \ , ClIANIIASSEN CC DATE: 9/27/93 CASE #: SUB #89-9 SPR #89-2 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1. Subdivision Lot 2, Oudot C, D Block 1 of the Bloomberg Addition and Lot t 1 Block 3 of the Chanhassen Mall. Z2. Site Plan Approval for the expansion of 36 rooms for the County Suites Hotel, I Z remodeling and expansion of the Animal Fair building for a restaurant and Q modification of the exterior of the Frontier Building (Chanhassen Mall). V J LOCATION: 591 West 78th Street CL APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services, Inc. Bloomberg Companies, Inc. Q P.O. Box 235 P.O. Box 730 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 f PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District I ACREAGE: 1.16 acres DENSITY: not applicable I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - CBD, Central Business District S - BG, General Business and CBD Q E - BG, Country Suites and PUD Market Square ' W - CBD, Chanhassen Mall 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The northerly portion of the subject site is relatively flat although the larger parcel slopes to the south. Based on (f) adjacent topography the hotel addition will be seen from Highway 5. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial .r y i --. Y `-tir r c,a - -- • i LAKE �--�' \ ~ TWINMAPLE LANE 'tY` / _ ^moi .-. �....J� r� A\ �, , l _ �_ �1 - • `.�J ,� I • r. - ` 5ul'a 1".41L _ BASSWOOD CIRCLE Pig it . , „.,..,.. ._,,,...... . : `>,. . A . „, R r '''''' 0' i .1 11'. . ,, 1%. li, 7, -% • „,._ R 1 2 0 , ,5E-,,„eri ' .• .• • ... .. ,,... , ..... ... ,...x....±..7,,,,,_ __. ____ 2Aris \ ' • a, ..,, :sx--il 1 .cif •.. ,.. ,\ s'... .c...- — , . RAI . ori 3Tuiv �. - - �..�� r• ,,1 - r 'T, 4 .air ..%4 1:,!'" - ..' -. --/ Lii - ;;;:1"--i_._ "ii..________ "i..",tr -, ,./._:,1..'_:6 L..r.AI ! - ....7... (.7. —1........ ___jgrilliMIZI ;, , •-•r — , _,...-- .......„---1 1 !.. 4, ____. li, 14 , . . J rt 114:.---. _• ifib----1.' -f- .11 ----'-'.. 11 1 r . --- - 1----,-...:I a $G .� . A.NHaSS N �._�' -•i� : ESTATES OP 1 II AIL ice" `'�1.0111. " E ` -- I' 0 • • _-; � • �c I� �� 8.0o . pa ea , :''T: ..11 \\\it (.67 1 ‘..14, •\.0,\ ! ra IPA ' A If-:.'- In F . I. ., ,c.,. -, . - r‘ull 1 'H•'E'R/CE - - 8200 =, V.. MARSH;pep* -_i LAKE < tti 1 -RCPARK 830J 1 ''E SUSAN 'jI . \ ,..... — UD—R , ,.. 0 , , .\ //if,/.. I ' I ;. R/C 'SH L AKE 84- � � ' • a° _ -6 T 4, U. Fit -py•® -- -- - - -- --------- -8600 . of "--...,... R A ,....... A A. 21. P-. . -OS +— RSF _�- - e700 Q 1 9 Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicants, Lotus Realty and Bloomberg Companies, are requesting preliminary plat approval and site plan approval for an addition to the County Suites Hotel, a restaurant and modification to the Frontier Building. The platting includes property from the Bloomberg Addition as well as the Chanhassen Mall Addition. The purpose of replatting is to provide a separate lot for the restaurant and hotel. The site plan approval is for an addition of 36 units to the hotel, a restaurant and remodeling of the front of the Frontier building. The hotel expansion will be located to the east of the existing Country Suites and the "Animal Fair" building. This is the site of the old Instant Web building. The restaurant will be located in the building that currently houses Animal Fair. The restaurant will include two meeting rooms, a full service kitchen and a bar. The restaurant will be attached to the hotel and the "Mall" by an enclosed passageway/concourse. This concourse will run in front of the building. There are two areas of concern with staff. One is the amount of parking provided and the other is the proposed replatting of property lines inside of a building. The Building Official has recommended that all of Lot, Block 1 be combined with Lot 3, Block 1 of the Chanhassen Mall. This would permit more design possibilities for the Animal Fair and Instant Web buildings. The hotel and restaurant have a combined parking requirement of 200 stalls. In front of the hotel and restaurant there are only 74 parking spaces provided. The applicants have stated they feel based on parking demand and different user times, there is sufficient parking. Staff is recommending a parking study be completed for the entire Chanhassen Mall, Bloomberg Addition and Easy Rider Addition to determine if there is adequate parking available. Staff supports the elimination of one of the buildings between the Frontier Building and the Dinner Theatre. This area could be used as a parking lot and as an access to additional parking behind these buildings. Until proof of sufficient parking is provided, staff is reluctant to approve the request. BACKGROUND Country Suites hotel was approved by the city in 1989. The approvals back in 1989 included a rezoning, subdivision and site plan approval. The current site for the hotel was 3.1 acres and was zoned CBD (Central Business District) and BG (General Business). The entire site was rezoned to CBD. Lots 1 and 4 of Block 1 were replatted to provide outlots to accomplish city possession of the parking lots, while improvements were being made and Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 3 provide access to the site. The hotel currently has 84 rooms with an accessory swimming pool. The hotel is three stories high. The applicant is proposing replatting lots in the Bloomberg and Chanhassen Mall Subdivision. The replatting will provide for separate ownership of the three parcels. The Building Department has some concerns with the replatting because property lines split buildings, and are meeting building code requirements. SUBDIVISION The subdivision includes the replatting of four lots. Outlots C, D, and Lot 2, Block 1, Bloomberg Addition and Lot 3, Block 1 of the Chanhassen Mall will be platted into two lots (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Bloomberg 2nd Addition). The reason for replatting is to create separate lots for the hotel and the restaurant. Each of these lots will have frontage on West 78th Street. Lot 1 will contain .6 acres and Lot 2 will contain .56 acres. The Chanhassen Mall lot will be reduced to .85 acres. This entire lot encompasses the old Instant Web Building. The CBD district requires 100 feet minimum lot width. These lots are 90 and 96 feet, respectively. Staff supports a variance for the minimum lot frontage requirement for these lots. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires protection of openings occurring at property lines. The current buildings do not meet the opening protection requirements of the UBC. The subject of property lines, exterior walls and opening protection for these buildings was first broached in conjunction with Site Plan Review 90-7. The currently proposed subdivision creates many of the same problems. These problems need to be addressed before the property is replatted, because their resolution may affect the location of property lines. The requirements for wall and opening protection on property lines are intended to protect the buildings and property on each side of a property line from a catastrophe on the adjacent property. The closer the proximity of the buildings to the property line the higher the level of protection required. UBC table 5-A requires that a restaurant have exterior walls of two-hour fire-resistive construction if it is located 10 feet or less from the property line. The warehouse occupancy on the other side of the property line would be required to have a one- hour fire-resistive wall on the property line. Since these walls are intended to protect one structure from the other, the structure may not penetrate the walls. The walls are generally required to have parapets extending above the roof and, of course, footings are required to support wall and other loads. The proposed replat locates a property line inside a building. The plat, as proposed, would require the walls as described above to be constructed on each side of the property line. There are also requirements for protection of openings at property lines. The existing Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 4 buildings are currently in violation and must be brought into code conformance when new uses for them are established. One possible way to eliminate wall and opening protection requirements would be to combine Lot 2, Block 1, Bloomberg Addition with Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall. This would permit nearly unlimited design possibilities for the Animal Fair and Instant Web buildings. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The hotel will be similar in color and material as the existing hotel. It will be 3 stories and have a pitched roof with asphalt singles that match the existing hotel. There will be a brick coarse on the first floor with a clapboard siding on the remainder of the building. The color will be the same as the existing hotel. All mechanical equipment shall be screened. The restaurant will be located in the existing "Animal Fair" building. This building is all brick and has a mansard roof. Additions to the Animal Fair will be on the east and the northwest side of the building. The restaurant and the hotel are two different types of architecture. The architect has attempted to blend these two styles with some unifying themes and the concourse that connects the two uses. The concourse has been designed in an attempt to tie the buildings together using similar brick as the hotel and using arched windows found in the Frontier building. A widows walk (rod iron railing) is shown on the roof of the restaurant and is also shown over the roof of the hotel expansion. The existing stairs from the back of the Chanhassen Mall will be enclosed as will the exit from the first floor. The passageway will be extended to the face of the new dock screening wall. This wall and roof will extend from the Chanhassen Mall on the east to the proposed restaurant. The closure will have a face wall with doors to the passageways and overhead door for access to the existing dock at the proposed restaurant. The roof will extend to the south approximately 30' to provide coverage over the dock area but will have no wall on the south side. Staff is recommending that the employee parking (5 stalls) shown west of the mall adjacent to the "Animal Fair" building be eliminated. This area should be identified as access for deliveries only. The CBD district has no maximum lot depth or minimum setback requirements for front, rear or side yard. There is no maximum height requirements for principal or accessory structures. The hotel addition and the restaurant will have the same setbacks as the existing buildings. The height of the hotel addition will not exceed the existing hotel. The minimum lot size in the CBD district is 10,000 square feet, 100 feet of lot footage and 100 feet of minimum lot depth. Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 5 Refuse collection and mechanical equipment are not shown on the site plan. Staff is recommending that both be located behind the buildings and that they be screened with similar building materials or landscaping. ACCESS/PARKING The existing parking lot is proposed to be modified to provide additional parking stalls. The plans propose eliminating the right-in/right-out driveway access just east of Laredo Drive. Staff is acceptable to this change. However, the plans also propose to eliminate the curb median which divides the parking lot east of Laredo from the driveway access out onto West 78th Street (directly south of Laredo Drive). Staff strongly discourages this change due to anticipated congestion and confusion this will create at the driveway access out onto West 78th Street. Staff strongly believes that the current curb median should remain intact. All parking lot and access improvements should be compatible with the upgrading of West 78th Street. Attached is a copy of the construction plans with the proposed changes on West 78th Street that will affect this site. In conjunction with the City's West 78th Street Detachment Project, the City has recently acquired additional permanent and temporary easements over the property to facilitate street widening and traffic signals. Staff believes that at some point in the future it is still predictable that the street may be widened again. Therefore, at this time it would be wise to acquire additional dedication of right-of-way along the north 10 feet of the property. This will give a total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the center of West 78th Street. The site plan proposes to maintain a delivery access and parking area on the east side of the proposed restaurant. It appears there is one way to access the loading dock. The access appears to be from the front or north side of the building and will result in crossing over a proposed pedestrian walkway. In an effort to minimize conflict with pedestrian movements, staff recommends that this parking area be eliminated and restricted or limited to a delivery staging area. From the plans it is unclear whether or not a delivery vehicle may be able to access a loading dock from the south with the proposed cover. Staff is also concerned with the turning radiuses when the trucks exit the loading dock area to the north. It is recommended that the applicant be required to demonstrate that truck turning movements (small tractor trailer) can be accommodated with the parking lot configuration as proposed. The hotel and restaurant use requires a total of 200 parking stalls. Located in the front of the building are 74 parking stalls. The bowling center has designated parking as well as the Easy Rider subdivision which is being used by Southwest Metro Transit park and ride lot. Staff is reluctant to provide cross parking agreements without jeopardizing future parking demands for these two uses. Staff is recommending a parking study be completed on the entire Chanhassen Mall/Bloomberg Additions. In the long term, staff supports the elimination of the Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 6 building between the Frontier Building and the Dinner Theatre for a parking lot. In addition, parking may need to be provided behind the rear of the building. LANDSCAPING There is limited landscaping with this site plan. The landscaping is located in planters in the parking lot and adjacent to the building. The planters are 10' x 35' which is consistent with the minimums suggested in the revised landscaping ordinance. The landscaping plan calls for ornamental and deciduous trees in the planters. Staff is recommending that norway and sugar maples be located in the planters. The intent of parking lot landscaping is to require overstory trees which provide shade. The planters will also include deciduous shrubs including dogwood, potentilla rhododendron and spirea. There will be landscaping adjacent to the building including a mix of deciduous, conifers, ornamental and shrubs. There is streetscape along West 78th. There will be another landscaped court yard between the hotel expansion and the restaurant. GRADING/DRAINAGE In the overall downtown development plans, the City has designed and constructed the storm sewer system to accommodate storm runoff from the downtown area. In the remote parking area along the east side of the proposed restaurant, staff is unclear of how storm runoff will be handled. The applicant should demonstrate where and how the storm drainage will be accommodated. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE There are light standards currently located in the parking lot. Additional lighting would only be required in the rear of the building where additional parking may be required. Chanhassen Mall currently has a freestanding sign located at the Laredo entrance. The hotel has a sign located at the corner of West 78th and Market. The applicants are proposing to replace the sign on West 78th Street with a remodeled one in its same location. Materials would be consistent with the buildings. Signage for the retail area is proposed to be electric backlit, steel channel letters with colored acrylic faces, typical to the sporting good store. The signage for the restaurant is proposed to be located at the entrance canopy. The signage on the motel would be a wall sign. The location of the existing sign for the mall is not centralized and staff would recommend that it be eliminated. Staff would recommend that only a wall sign be permitted for the restaurant and hotel. Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 7 COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Area Lot Frontage Lot Depth Parking Square footage Feet Feet Number of Spaces Req Prov Req Prov Req Prov Req Prov Lot 1 10,000 26,120 100 96.09* 100 269.29 166 42** Lot 2 10,000 24,462 100 90.12* 100 249 40 32** Lot 3 10.000 37,136 100 103 100 250 N/A * A variance will be required for the lot frontage requirements. The ordinance requires 100 feet, Lot 1 is 96.09 and Lot 2 is 90.12. Both lots exceed the square footage and depth requirements. Staff supports the variance. ** Insufficient parking. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission table this request a parking study is completed for the entire Chanhassen Ma11/Bloomberg Additions. Should the Planning Commission support this request, staff recommends the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition and site plan review for the addition of the motel, restaurant, and modifications to the Frontier Building, as shown on the plans dated August 2, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment shall be screened, with similar building material or landscaping. 2. The employee parking (5 stalls) shown west of the mall adjacent to the "Animal Fair" building shall be eliminated. This area should be identified as access for deliveries only. 3. Refuse collection shall be shown on the site plan, located behind the building and shall be screened with similar building material. Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 8 4. The curb median which divides the parking lot east of Laredo Drive from the driveway access out onto West 78th Street shall not be removed. 5. A total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the center of West 78th Street. 6. The applicant shall demonstrate that truck turning movements (small tractor trailer) can be accommodated with the parking lot configuration as proposed. 7. All trees located in the planters shall be norway and sugar maples. 8. Elimination of the existing mall sign. One wall sign shall be permitted for the motel and one wall sign for the restaurant. No other signage shall be allowed. 9. Compliance with conditions of building code requirements regarding lot lines through buildings. 10. A parking study shall be completed on the entire Chanhassen Mall/Bloomberg Additions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Truman Howel dated August 2, 1993. 2. Letter from Vernelle Clayton dated August 26, 1993. 3. Existing Bloomberg Addition. 4. Proposed Bloomberg 2nd Addition. 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated August 26, 1993. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 26, 1993. 7. Site plan and building elevations. 8. Preliminary plat dated August 2, 1993. AUGUST 2, 1993 ` f %• Iel TRUMAN ;HOWELL ARCHITECTS' LA:SOC,IN NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE PROPOSED RDNKA BODUVARD wAril,r• MN 5576WORK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 3•Huc16711 Y4S161 WEST 78TH STREET IN DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN, MN. "\ SCOPE This proposed project is to include : — 1. The modification of the exterior of the retail building referred to a the "Frontier Building". The extent of this remodeling will be to : (a) Remove the glass between the remaining _ brick arches on the building similar to that already accomplished on the west end of the buildinc, on the first floor. (b) Extend the present mansard roof at each end of the buildings second floor to the first floor roof deck and to both the east and west sides of the building. The west end extention of this mansard roof will provide a covered s=ace under which there will be parking stalls created . 2. The existing stair from the back portion of the "Fontier Building" will be enclosed as will the exit from the first floor and the passageway will be extended to the face of the new dock . screening wall. This wall and roof will extend from the "Frontier Building" on the east to the proposed restaurant building presently called the "Animal Fair Building" . This closure will consist of a face wall with doors to the passageways described above and an overhead door for access to the existing dock at the proposed restaurant buildinc. The roof will extent to the south approximately 30 ' to provide coverage over the dock area but will have no wall on the south side. 3. The existing "Animal Fair Building" will be expanded and remodeled to provide a restaurant on that site. It is proposed that the present entry area will be eliminated and a glass enclosure will be built that will look out on the lawn area with heavy landscaping and a deck to be built for use in the summer months when tables and chairs will be moved from the inside of the restaurant, outside. Two meeting rooms will be built on the interior for use by the motel. A full service kitchen and bar are planned for the interior with some seating around the existing fireplace. The west side of the building will be extended to provide for dining adjacent to a glass wall looking out on an enclosed heavily landscaped courtyard. A new entry and waiting area will be created to the west of the existing building. NARRATIVE-CHANHASSEN 8-2-93 4. An expansion of 36 hotel suites will be placed in a three story building adjacent to the courtyard of the restaurant this facility will be an extension of the exiting motel operation and will be located between the restaurant and the existing motel. The same management will operate both facilities and therefore the new building will not need separate support facilities. On the ground floor an enclosed concourse will be built that will connect this new facility to the existing motel as well as the new restaurant. Two shops will be located along this concourse for the primary use of the restaurant and motel patrons. Another heavily landscaped courtyard will be created on the west side of the new motel expansion. ISSUES The above development proposal will have an effect on several issues that have been discussed previously with Chanhassen Staff. Parking The restaurant is planned to have a seating capacity of 150 . The meeting rooms that are planned in the building will be under contract with the motel and will be used primarily to accommodate the needs of the motel. The expanded motel will have 36 rooms . We have indicated an increased parking stall count and believe that under most conditions this will be adequate. The heaviest concentrations of patrons using the retail , restaurant, and motel facilities occur at times that will not conflict. The heaviest use of the retail areas will be between 10 : 00am to 4: 30pm. The restaurants heaviest use of parking will occur from 5 :00pm to 11 : 00pm and the heaviest use of the motel parking area will be from 10 : 00pm to 10 : 00am the next morning. Using cross parking easements parking stalls are available within a reasonable walking distance to all of the facilities. Signage The existing freestanding sign on West 78th Street will be remodeled in its present location using materials consistent with the buildings ie: wood and brick. The sign face will be replaced to indicate present businesses and will remain at its present size. Signage for the retail area described here is proposed to be electric backlit steel channel letters with colored acrylic faces . Typical would be the recent signage installed for the "TEAM sporting goods" store. The signage for the restaurant is proposed to be located at the entrance canopy of the facility and will be of either sandblasted wood or a backlit acrylic sign in a steel case. The signage on the motel expansion will be a wall mounted sign on the south face of the building. It will be a backlit acrylic faced sign in a steel case. All of the signs are indicated on the submitted documents. Materials The materials for the buildings have been indicated on the drawings. Landscaping As indicated on the submitted drawings . LOTUS REALTY SERVICES August 26 , 1993 TO: Kate Aanonsen FROM: Vernelle Clayton RE : Bloomberg - Hotel/Restaurant/Retail In our conversations and in discussing the proposal with the members of the HRA, a question regarding the use of the Hotel Meeting Rooms was raised in the context of evaluating parking needs . In response, I have been in touch with the operators of the hotel and this is intended to summarize their business plan and reasons for operating the two proposed meeting rooms to be constructed within the existing "Animal Fair" Building in Chanhassen. From their experience in operating Country Suites and other hotels , they have determined that a portion of their potential market cannot be reached unless they can offer not only restaurant facilities but also meeting room space for their customers ' use . Much of the success of the hotel has been attributed to the usage by businesses located in nearby business parks . These businesses want to be able to have meetings at the hotel for the groups they are booking . Therefore, as part of their plan for a 36 room addition, the hotel owners will also be leasing the two meeting rooms . The hotel will be leasing the meeting rooms from the building owner for use by their guests . The hotel will contract with the restaurant for catering the events scheduled in the meeting rooms when meal service is required . . The hotel will be responsible for all reservations of the meeting rooms and the restaurant will not be scheduling any meetings or banquets . 545 WEST 78TH STREET ■ P.O. BOX 235 ■ CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 ■ (612)934-4538 ■ FAX(612)934-1505 i1 I .,z2 A.Zf 10.0 S .,1 - OO LII 4 • •CC , 1 i:i CI I 01 la .-:.'_:-.. C>v. ...., :• ) L.. b .•, —i io o ..) ye . --: o-. o siLo u.0 -• CPI 0 /... .J I cy ....:, ii.,1 en 4---• ..• amm4 . ..3_02.t0.0 i -- 6..2- ... 1 g el.I -.7..! A : ••• to+ .... C.; io-uno «I.c, --(-- I. --- 0 __, ,0 ..... .,....., \ ,.. Mr ./ 0, ' t-,78-, ;?1 o7 ) so+ tr.+ O Ina I i: ••• ' so+ .. I • -• o. o• limi I "^i -. ._ . iv c f....) jo 0 A, ,.. 0,,.. LI b L• \ III 0 .44 . 01. • in • 0 ....e. • vt ,...- : 411111 ..1.•3_02. I \ • -• z t oV .... -, I . . _ 1 0 0 -1 . I- . ...-• a .. oo.zi t t 1 .4 g•-• / .._,- • 0 4 I . ... _ .... • 3 . d i.. c o ,.. c o 0 CO i " I CC ,.. I L.. 4., : ' 0 •••.\ c 14 - i0.7/0.2 OA la 0/ fit/SW(0a di es O.1 u, Iii , I ,• • . c„ ..(///,,,,„ put, /091/4' OW f/..r3 7) gla ‘1 = • 1 i Weii ..:.... ... . --11,4---...-.-.--------------,__4. _, .., .... 0 - C - -a 4D o _ • k(oi\.... II,•--...:;- 0, _rI _..-k_ .i.i._. ro_..I .3 0 0 ..... 1 . 1 1 / C3 --1 1 t.L I 1 .4 ,..:....„,..,.,„..4..r",,.„„ ,„,,,,,,,,„, ---_—jc,E . op , ..,_ 0.7110.4.4 mos', e 02 s : "of, p•sodowd.,_ . N 3-02.6G.0 N ke'Szcat4.9Cial • .attc.siv 10 VL r.I u., ta '9C•e1.idi V t,. I c : ... •.-: . - • -ILtt.,,,. ---. : . ,.., ,.. , -Lz '."•••••...,...... . • • 2 . .1/4,x,7,..:ti i„. ,-----._ • , 1/4 •- ' 1"--7—---------........ : iif kretw.".4"" . .404•.c" ........................ ---..-- •• a ,.... NJ ,ow ....1 0 0 I in -c a 0 •••.. k. +? ,.... .1.; t .. \ • \4 w (..-D 1 E4 o *<: i OD 1 E-4 U) 1 W It 1 o W I t � z E-4 ir1 1, . 1 0 1 U I •• 6Z'69Z 3 . C.40.00 N �I 1 .. 6CZOC Al .ZC.B0.00 S •;� pp 1 vi ' D Ilk l I'' 1- i l� O • o o 1'4 t w M 3 i -0 IIN4 ' I to la W '' n m LZ'ti9 t 2 W .. .06'M 00.4E LZ-Z6 t 3 ,,OZ .c o.0o S Oo — Nom ' ! • ,�', s 56 ,yg. 4 f:b -c,N- ....... (X O ECV) m l �� w �__ _ -- -� -�a ,— o a z _ .,,, 6Z f l Z 3 ., Z .S0.00 s l w c tiC'9Cl f•-: W 1 U .o OvLti !6 i O� e • z i` , � M .OZ ,C0.60 N v /1'.:'c to IF \r' 3 .9Q'QZ o co M 170I Cr) I . ,, L I O 1 P,1., 2 Ioz 3 Q a i ZO I o- N O m 1 — e I o CO CO m •od oa I z ... I Z. . ... ... I LC LD -.> n • �R. CITY OF 4,0%1 690 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, Assistant City Engineer /.1241- DATE: DATE: August 26, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition and Hotel Expansion Project No. 93-24 Upon review of the preliminary plat dated July 29, 1993 prepared Ron Krueger & Associates and the site plan dated August 2, 1993 prepared by Truman Howell Architects and Associates, I offer the following comments: 1. In conjunction with the City's West 78th Street Detachment Project, the City has recently acquired additional permanent and temporary easements over the property to facilitate street widening and traffic signals. Staff believes that at some point in the future it is still predictable that the street may be widened again. Therefore, at this time it would be wise to acquire additional dedication of right-of-way along the north 10 feet of the property. This will give a total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the center of West 78th Street. 2. The site plan proposes to maintain a delivery access and parking area on the east side of the proposed restaurant. It appears there is one way to access the loading dock. The access appears to be from the front or north side of the building and will result in crossing over a proposed pedestrian walkway. In an effort to minimize conflict with pedestrian movements, staff recommends that this parking area be eliminated and restricted or limited to a delivery staging area. From the plans it is unclear whether or not the delivery vehicle may be able to access a loading dock from the south with the proposed cover. Staff is also concerned with the turning radiuses when the trucks exit the loading dock area to the north. It is recommended that the applicant be required to demonstrate that truck turning movements (small tractor trailer) can be accommodated with the parking lot configuration as proposed. 3. In the overall downtown development plans the City has designed and constructed the storm sewer system to accommodate storm runoff from the downtown area. In Kate Aanenson August 26, 1993 Page 2 the remote parking area along the east side of the proposed restaurant, staff is unclear of how storm runoff will be handled. The applicant should demonstrate where and how the storm drainage will be accommodated. 4. The existing parking lot is proposed to be modified to provide additional parking stalls. The plans propose on eliminating the right-in/right-out driveway access just east of Laredo Drive. Staff is acceptable to this change. However, the plans also propose to eliminate the curb median which divides the parking lot east of Laredo from the driveway access out onto West 78th Street (directly south of Laredo Drive). Staff strongly discourages this change due to anticipated congestion and confusion this will create at the driveway access out onto West 78th Street. Staff strongly believes that current curb median should remain intact. All parking lot and access improvements should be compatible with the upgrading of West 78th Street. I have attached a copy of the construction plans with the proposed changes on West 78th Street that will affect this site. ktm Attachment: Future West 78th Street Improvements at Laredo Drive c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CD I I °°1 I 1co Gp I1 a+ I �'Yv nap n� 0�Re + l Cm rn n n n ) '_. ill c) z Vl 4 IliAllipr* o © Q o ° 'A o , _____ ______ _____„ A / 0CAIV + (0 NJ NA (NJ+UD cn �1Vt06 C it . ,..._ - -I- �r� ' r vo (,,, 000000cc at o °i�/ � 'l (7N I I C7 $?-13 INN _ .� I --ci CA CA CA CA LA CA LA NJ tsj NIP G7CIM 64 LA LA U+ ANNtDup6 C I 4- ♦ ♦ 4- 4- 4- -I- ♦ -I - 40 1.- 1I ♦NJ (4D UD CA 46 cn 46 La00L CA46ChiOWGlIa N CIV ♦ 4► � tDtD (D -• LI( ILL::,, C° I I I I P AQ .� I I Ut0000cov (D .1 — c 110i -4 ''' 74 71 74 71 -I --I - - ,1 - I Cli Pi-1 13 Com ♦ . a) • 000OOIC "m^AGI Q I I ' -0 1_ t• tik _ 1 rn 6- -o C7 O I • I I I 0 NN � � ` !'' Rc n + + + + + 4 1Din1 nF4‘til c' �,1,, -'1 II ni � U+ vv rm- =• iZp; N rn (D O (D -. t ) Uofz -'0 -4 : II i 1 o 0 z 1 + \ ._ o" C) K m 0 * t I La 1 _ N Z (D (D C 0 y (R I C . IQ (n I m II I CITY OF , -• .. '10$ 14CHANHASSEN 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 a l< DATE: August 26, 1993 SUBJ: 89-7 SUB and 89-2 Site Plan Review I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval. Background: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires protection of openings occurring at property lines. The current buildings do not meet the opening protection requirements of the UBC. The subject of property lines, exterior walls and opening protection for these buildings was first broached in conjunction with Site Plan Review 90-7. The currently proposed subdivision creates many of the same problems. These problems need to be addressed before the property is replatted, because their resolution may affect the location of property lines. Analysis: The requirements for wall and opening protection on property lines are intended to protect the buildings and property on each side of a property line from a catastrophe on the adjacent property. The closer the proximity of the buildings to the property line the higher the level of protection required. UBC table 5-A requires that a restaurant have exterior walls of two-hour fire-resistive construction if it is located 10 feet or less from the property line. The warehouse occupancy on the other side of the property line would be required to have a one-hour fire- resistive wall on the property line. Since these walls are intended to protect one structure from the other, the structure may not penetrate the walls. The walls are generally required to have parapets extending above the roofs , and, of course, footings are required to support wall and other loads. The proposed replat locates a property line inside a building. The plat as proposed would require the walls as described above to be constructed on each side of the property line. t«►, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C i TY O F PC DATE: Oct. 6, 1993 - CHANHASSEN CC DATE: Oct. 25,1993 CASE #: PUD #93-5 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned _ A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for a 232 unit residential development comprised F- of 21 buildings of either 8, 10 or 12 units in each. z _ < LOCATION: Southwest corner on Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard V APPLICANT: Centex Real Estate Corporation Westwood Engineering n— Baker Technology Plaza 14180 West Trunk Hwy 5 Q 5929 Baker Road, Suite 470 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Minnetonka, MN 55345 PRESENT ZONLNG: A2 Agricultural Estates ACREAGE: 89.59 gross 29.11 net DENSITY: 2.59 units/acre (gross) 8 units/acres (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2 Agricultural Swings Golf Q S - PUD, Trotters Ridge Subdivision E - A2 proposed Elementary School, RR Timberwood Subdivision W - A2, proposed Gateway Business Park Q WATER AND SEWER: Not yet available to the site. Applicant must petition for services. W I. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a large wetland complex with upland agricultural area that is farmed. There is a tree line along the property limits. The buildable area along Hwy. 5 is generally flat but then the site drops off toward the wetlands to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: North of collector street, Medium Density Snuth of ('nllectnr street Low Density A PARKART BGNl$p PARK D - 88 QQ S o o C Q s $ $ 8 g— $ g • n O 8 8 8 i N a F is !I w N N T • • n I A _ .•c I i � � pri- ,,t„a„..„. ....,,....„, • . _ AKE mac. . III t..•���w" tli.44 n-� N �����e77ii',' .'R�• � �.\ . 1i-- law � 41 1 A y 'moi•rd�- /("J"� ,): ` 4,':, cma.i. .i. ���:I'•�F 1 A --.-w-7---4...=-4. ' Itithrilir - ar.,..„,..A,..,7_,.., . __ ..,_. ..•..G. ..,. ,rren.lrier W.1411, P Vercv16"0,IHWR:_.%Toff --. 44- Attii'..:"-iii 4 __ - --- • •_•,,,_„...,-.. i., r .. ...... 1.___E_.,,I.,„,., . it. _ ,_,. e • ,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,, ..--s.,_,,w—,,,iii-, #7: ( ; 3 l e , 44=Qfli�o:ll to ,,I 6 r y�:loll faill � LAKE J LAKE t"At at-• M / N N E W A S H T A L r /J REGIONAL �,_ — I 70.1910• NAP .-.Ai - - -- 1 - PARK : _ ` _ 1 .._____ — ,,.......,,,,..•-a > f ST.rOE I�::. s _o r. C_.!741 ' / / I 0 o I t ,MI a 471 -� J� �' j I LY` is LI I�� i -7.[ . , in i) ,..z ___ s _, \ , 4.. I . ,, ONO —_ - j. i -.10- ,4 �_ T afib I ` % cc- ! ....: ..x 0 i .."11 7---) 04111ritiN Cs i w L is .. • J // YUAN 91 V7 :C A �8 1 7 ! Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Centex Real Estate Corporation is proposing to build 232 townhouses on the project on the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 21 buildings proposed four 8 unit, two 10 unit, and fifteen 12 unit buildings. This property is currently zoned A2, Agricultural Estate but is guided for Medium Density (4-8 units/acre) Development and Low Density (1.2 -4.0 units/acre) Development. The parcel is 89.59 acres all of which except for 29.11 acres is wetland. The property that is suitable for development will be split by the extension of the collector road that will connect Audubon Road with Highway 41. This road is part of the City Comprehensive Plan and the alignment was refined in the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. Although the guide plan shows this area as a mix of low and medium density, staff has supported this area as medium density. The collector road has been moved to the south to accommodate the school site. Based on the size of the development, parcels split by the road and the wetland it would be difficult to develop single family at this location and clustering of units is the only reasonable option. The applicants are seeking only conceptual approval at this time. The applicant still needs to provide additional information including compliance with the Hwy. 5 development standards, PUD standards, wetland alteration permit, petition for sewer service, and a tree inventory. Staff _ also needs to come to some conclusions about the location of any active portion for a park on this site as well as the location of the collector road as it adjoins the Gateway parcel. There are two possible locations for the active component of the park, on the Opus or Centex parcels. Recently, staff believed the Centex option was more appropriate but a problem has surfaced. The site has a large wetland complex and staff is concerned about the suitability of some of the soils especially in the western portion of the site. Upon investigation of soils on the eastern portion of the Centex site, 31/2 feet of peat and ground water one foot below grade was found. STS, the consulting engineers, who did the soil study stated in their opinion the site in unsuitable for park improvements unless the City undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and site drainage. Staff has concerns whether or not this area is suitable for building would recommend the applicant submit a soils report to verify buildings can be located on this western portion of the site. While the design of this project appears to reflect many of the Hwy.5 development standards, this is the first development to proceed after the drafting of the Hwy. 5 document. Careful measurement of this project against these standards needs to be made. Staff has asked for additional information on specific issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Hwy. 5 towards the development, impervious surface, etc. The applicant is prepared to provide more details as the project evolves. Staff believes the concept is consistent with city plans and ordinances and good planning practices but there are a number of issues and concerns that must be resolved before plans are Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 3 submitted for preliminary reviews. The proposed concept plan is serving its purpose in helping to define these issues. We are recommending that it be approved. Site Characteristics The site is currently agricultural, and has corn growing on the upland areas. An abandoned farm home and out buildings are located in the far northeast corner of the site. Shelter belt plantings of large spruce and pines are found around the farm home and along the highway with box elders, aspen and eastern cottonwood, black willow and American elm grow within delineated wetlands and on some uncultivated. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 89.59 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development. 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. The major site characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex. The portion of the site that is being developed adjacent to Hwy. 5 is relatively flat. The property along the western edge has trees including elm, box elder and some aspen. The - wooded area, with the exception of the frontage road crossing, will largely be left intact. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 4 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. Because of the wetland on the site and the collector street that bisects the property it is split into 4 development parcels. Block 1 is 12.93 acres, Block 2 is 8.47 acres, Block 3 is 5.46 acres and Block 4 is 2.25 acres. Because it is against city ordinance to have a subdivision lot to have direct access onto a collector, it would be difficult if not impossible to develop this property as a traditional single family subdivision. 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. The property to the west of the subject site is being developed as a business/industrial park. The site to the east is proposed as an Elementary School. Timberwood is just to the southeast of any proposed townhouses. While this is not the optimal location for single family housing, townhomes with their ability to be clustered and develop internal amenities are an appropriate transitional use. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive plan guides the area to the north of the frontage road for medium density 4 - 8 units an acre. The location of the collector streets has been modified since the adoption of the 2000 Land Use plan. This road has been shifted to the south to accommodate the proposed elementary school. It appears that the maximum buildable area for the site is around 29 acres. Staff would support the buildable portion of the site to be designated medium density. Any proposed single family development south of the collector street would be very small with an 8.5 acre area and a 5.5 acre area. 5. 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 Park and Recreation Commission is proposing a community park, approximately 100 acres in this area including the Trotters Ridge and Gateway property. A park (15 acres) will be located on this site or the Gateway property to the west or a portion of both. 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The price of the "for sale" units has not yet been determined. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 5 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground elevations. The grades have been designed around the location of the proposed frontage road. Berms were developed along the collector road and Hwy. 5. 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. The site will have access from Hwy. 5 and from Galpin Boulevard. A collector Street will tie this site with the property to the west and east of the site. This collector street will include a trail. Access to this site will not be through any existing single family neighborhoods. Finding. The applicants have stated that the trips generated from Low-Rise Residential Townhouse/ Condominiums units equals approximately 6 trips per units. The data was based on criteria obtained from the institute of Traffic Engineers,Trip Generation Manual. Based on the 23 units, the total trips generated would equal 1,392. 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 flexibility in standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees and wetlands) Improved architectural standards Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts Improved pretreatment of storm water GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The project has two sets of development standards to comply with, one is the PUD district and the other is the Highway 5 Corridor Development and Design Standards. There are a total of 21 buildings being proposed, including four - 8, two - 10, and fifteen - 12 unit buildings. The final project architecture is still being developed. The applicants have shown a similar product that they have built in Eden Prairie. All units are two story with living/dining/kitchen on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor. Some units have an additional loft area Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 6 on the second floor. All units have direct access to their own individual garage as well as an individual front entrance to the outside. The units also include a semi-private outdoor patio space adjacent to the living area. The floor plans range in size from approximately 1,170 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The units along Hwy. 5 have the garage door facing the highway. A landscape berm is proposed along the highway to act as a buffer, but staff would like to see any perspective to determine how much of he building will be seen from the highway. Staff would expect these dwelling units to have a similar design to the ones in Eden Prairie. The homes with brick on the bottom and maintenance free siding of the rest of the exterior. The roof line is pitched and the exterior walls have detailing that break up the long facade. The PUD district allows a maximum of 30 percent impervious surface. No information is given about the required amount of impervious surface at this time. Parking, as shown on the plan, meets the city requirements. Two parking stalls per unit are required, one of which must be enclosed, plus an additional 1/ space per unit. A total of 522 spaces are provided. The applicants have stated that they have provided 740 of which 316 are driveways. The development and design standards for the Highway 5 Corridor have been incorporated into the applicants development proposal. Building height is limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. This proposal is for two story buildings. If the materials used is similar to those used on the Eden Prairie project, they would be acceptable with the Hwy. 5 standards. The setback for buildings along Hwy. 5 are 70 feet minimum and 150 feet maximum. For the interior collector, the setbacks are 50 feet minimum and 100 feet maximum. Parking should not be in these setback areas. This proposal meets these standards. There will be no roof top equipment. Signage is proposed for the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and the proposed public frontage road. Detail specifications are not available at this time but the signage must be compatible with the project design and low profile. Lighting is proposed for the exterior of the building as well as the standard street lighting. Exterior lighting will be on garages and entrances. Exterior lighting will be controlled with photocells. Lighting shall be consistent with city standards of 1/2 foot candle at the property line. A landscaping plan has been provided. The applicants have stated that the plan is intended to reflect the addition of common and hardy plant material with the project area. The plants in this category are varieties of maple, ash, linden, Oak, pines and spruce. The proposed quantities and complete tree survey will be provided with preliminary review. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 7 WETLANDS Almost fifty percent of this site is characterized as agricultural/urban wetland according to the City of Chanhassen's wetland inventory and a site specific wetland delineation. The wetlands on site can be broken into three separate basins that are described as follows: Wetland A Wetland A is approximately 43.8 acres and it separates the eastern portion of upland from the western portion of upland on site. The wetland is characterized as a seasonally flooded palustrine wetland with emergent, forested, and scrub shrub classifications (Cowardin PEMC, PFO1 C, PSS1C; Circular 39 - Type 3 shallow marsh). This wetland is also a DNR protected wetland, 10-210W. An ordinary high water mark has not been established for this basin. Approximately 0.60 acre of wetland will be filled as a result of the proposed development for the construction of a frontage road that will connect the eastern and western portions of the site. In addition, 0.26 acres of fill is proposed for the southern portion of the eastern part of the site. It appears that this fill is necessary to efficiently use the upland that is available. Wetland B Wetland B is a 0.3 acre basin located near the west property boundary. The basin is characterized as palustrine emergent saturated wetland (Cowardin - PEMB; Circular 39 - Type 2 wet meadow). This basin will be filled as a result of the proposed development. Wetland C Wetland C is a 0.3 acre basin located in the northeast portion of the site. The basin is characterized as palustrine emergent saturated/seasonally flooded wetland (Cowardin-PEMB/Cd; Circular 39 - Type 2/3 wet meadow/shallow marsh). This basin will be filled as a result of the proposed development. Additional Wetland The western portion of upland was investigated by the Park Department for construction of ball fields and tennis courts. The area was found to be saturated with hydrophytic vegetation. The majority of the soils in this section are classified as peat in the Carver County Soil Atlas. This section seems to be characterized as wetland, and therefore, it is recommended that the wetland delineation be re-evaluated before a final mitigation plan is developed. The following table summarizes the delineated wetland areas that will be altered as a result of the proposed development: Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 8 Wetland Wetland Wetland Size Wetland Area Identification Type (acres) to be Altered (acres) • A Ag/Urban 43.8 0.86 B Ag/Urban 0.3 0.3 C Ag/Urban 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 44.4 1.46 It appears that there are additional wetland acres that would be filled as a result of the proposed development. If the area in question is wetland, the wetland alteration area could well exceed three acres. This would require an individual permit from the Army Corps of Engineers as well as additional mitigation area that is severely limited. Mitigation A minimum of 1.46 acres of wetland would need to be replaced as a result of the proposed development. Mitigation areas are proposed around the edges of Wetland A. All of the mitigation will occur around the western upland portion of the site, which is planned to be fully developed. It is recommended that the mitigation be designed with areas of deeper pockets to _ trap additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development. The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment of different vegetative zones. = Wetland A will eventually be receiving treated water from the proposed development and from portions of State Highway 5. One stormwater pond has been designed to collect all of the runoff from the proposed development. The stormwater pond must meet National Urban Runoff Pollution (NURP) control standards. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by the City with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet. Recommendations The western portion of the site does not appear to be developable land due to the peat and muck. If this area is developed, wetland mitigation may be necessary above the 1.46 acres calculated. Mitigation areas for the site are limited since nearly half of the site is currently wetland. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 9 The conceptual stormwater pond on the eastern portion of the site does not appear to be large enough to collect all of the stormwater runoff and treat it to NURP standards before it is discharged into the wetland. Wetland A is capable of maintaining a high functional value in an urban setting and should be maintained as open space for wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and recreational enjoyment. This wetland also provides water quality improvement and flood retention for the Bluff Creek Watershed District. STREETS The site is bordered by Trunk Highway 5 to the north and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) to the east. The concept proposes extension of an east/west frontage road which coincides with the City's land use guide for a frontage road south of Trunk Highway 5. The applicant has proposed an 80-foot wide right-of-way with a 36-foot wide face-to-face street section which is also in accordance with the City's guidelines. This road segment will be a continuation of a frontage road system which will originate from Audubon Road and terminate at Trunk Highway 41. This roadway corridor is designated as a State-Aid route and should be built in accordance with State Aid standards. The proposed frontage road will serve as a collector street for the townhouse development as well as a future industrial park (OPUS) which lies to the west. Staff has visited the site and found that the wetland areas are substantially larger than what is shown on the plan. The wetlands will pose difficulty from both a road construction standpoint and a permitting standpoint from the regulatory agencies. As stipulated in the narrative, the applicant is requesting that the City be the lead agency in acquiring the necessary permits. Staff is comfortable with working this scenario out with the applicant since the frontage road is a segment of the overall frontage road to be constructed south of Trunk Highway 5. As indicated in the September 24, 1993 staff report from Carver County Public Works Department, an additional trail easement (20-feet wide) should be considered outside the right-of- way since turn lanes and medians will utilize a majority of the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. In addition, to provide adequate space for berming adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. UTILITIES According to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive guide, this parcel lies within the Upper Bluff Creek District. The City currently has authorized Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sewer and Water Improvement which consists of extending sanitary sewer and water trunk service from the Hans Hagen development (Stone Creek) north to the cemetery which lies north of Bluff Creek and south of Timberwood Drive. According to the feasibility study for Upper Bluff Creek, Phase II, the proposed lift station will be constructed this winter to service future development to the northwest which includes this Centex development. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 10 Due to the City's current bonding capabilities, the applicant should formally petition the City for the extension of sewer and water trunk service to service this development now in order to get this next phase into the planning process for next year. Staff has reviewed the preliminary utility layout plan from a conceptual standpoint and feel that the plans are fairly well laid out. Placement of fire hydrants should be reviewed and approved by the City's fire marshal. All utility improvements should be construction in accordance with the City's latest Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. In conjunction with the City's trunk sewer and water improvement project (Upper Bluff Creek, Phase III), this parcel will sustain sewer and water assessments. In the past the City typically has credited a portion of the trunk assessments back to the applicant for reimbursement of the installation of the applicable trunk sewer and water improvements. The City considers sanitary sewer and water lines in excess of 8-inch in diameter to be trunk facilities and the applicant would be credited the cost difference between normal 8-inch diameter mainline utility. All sewer and water improvements proposed outside the City's right-of-way or drainage/utility easements would be constructed as private utility improvements. Whereas the City would not be responsible for maintenance and ownership. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be mass graded to achieve the street and drainage systems as well as building pads. The majority of the site appears to drain in a northeast to southwest fashion towards the wetlands and the Bluff Creek tributary. Again, based on staffs' visit to the site, it appears the wetlands are much larger than is shown and therefore raises the question whether or not Lots 17, 18 and 20 are even buildable. The applicant is proposing to "bench" the townhomes to maintain the rolling or diversified grades as the site appears today. Staff is unclear whether or not the slopes south of Trunk Highway 5 will be compatible with future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5. It is strongly recommended that the applicant contact and work with MnDOT to make the grades compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 west of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant has employed the use of retaining walls along the easterly portion of the site to match the existing properties adjacent Galpin Boulevard. Due to the height of the walls, the Building Department will require engineered drawings to verify the structural integrity. The grading plan proposes a storm water/sediment pond located north of the frontage road which will collect storm runoff from the entire development. Storm water will be treated in the sediment pond and then be discharged into the wetlands. The storm water pond should meet NURP standards. Staff's initial review suspects the pond may be undersized for the contributing acreage. All storm sewer systems should be designed and constructed for a 10-year storm event and ponding areas should be designed in accordance to the City's water quality standards. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 11 MISCELLANEOUS Since the development will include public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract. PARKS AND RECREATION In preparation for next Tuesday's report, Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and I walked the majority of the site on Thursday, September 23, 1993. The area of most concern being the land which is being considered as one of the park location options. Our suspicions that marginal soil conditions for construction would be found were confirmed. Examination of the Carver County Soil Survey further confirmed our findings, defining nearly the entire area being proposed for park as containing deep peat and muck soils. A portion of this site contains Hayden loam, a soil type which poses severe limitations for the development of play areas for intensive use. The peat and muck soils pose very severe limitations to any type of development (see excerpts from the Soils Survey, Table No.6, Degree and Kind of Limitations for Specified Recreational Uses). With this information known, the only action which can occur at this time in regard to this proposal would be discussionary. It is fair to say that many parks have been developed in similar conditions; however, limitations are inevitable and drainage problems are constant. Staff recommends tabling this item until further investigation of the soils in the area is completed, and other park alternatives are explored. Park and Recreation Director's Update (9/30/93): I am currently 90% certain that the Park and Recreation Commission will abandon the Centex site as a potential location for an active park site. The property does contain a knoll in its _ southwest corner which will be preserved as park, in addition to the large wetland area present on the site. Forthcoming soil analysis will allow the commission to reach final consensus in this regard. I anticipate the Park and Recreation Commission will review this application again on October 26, 1993. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the conceptual PUD with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to preliminary plat submittal. Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 12 2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as a tree inventory, perspectives from Hwy. 5 towards the development, impervious surface ratio. 3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development. The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment of different vegetative zones. The stormwater pond must meet NURP standards. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet. 4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping. 5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer. 6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. 7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10-year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP). 8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in the development contract. 9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993. 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993. 11. Compliance with the PUD and Hwy. 5 Design Standards and respond to other issued raised in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Summary from Centex dated September 7, 1993 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1993 3. Fire Marshal's memo dated September 23, 1993 4. Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993 5. Park and Recreation Director memo dated September 24, 1993 Centex PUD October 6, 1993 — Page 13 6. STS Soils report dated September 28, 1993 _ 7. Hearing Notice dated September 23, 1993 09 25 93 15:45 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA Boal Post-It'`brand fax transmittal memo 7671 of Dego* 4 r �� -From Go. r) Co. Lewd Dept i(1 r 'Phone S5-9 I0)00 September 28, 1993 Fax .ir 7:3 5.739 Fax Mr. Todd Hoffman City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 STS Project 95897 Re: Site Reconnaissance of Centex Carriage Homes Property in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hoffman: This letter confirms the discussion we had during our walk-through of the Centex Carriage Homes (Centex) property located south of T.H. 5 and west of Galpin Boulevard. The services that you requested were limited to the following? 1. Observe the general surface features during a walk-through of the parcel with City personnel. 2. Driii shallow hand auger borings to explore the local subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at selected locations on the parcel. 3. Provide :n a written report judgments or recommendations regarding the suitability of the encountered soils for structural support of park improvements. Background Information The City is interested in developing a park on this side of Chanhassen and is reviewing various sites. Figure One (attached) is a copy of the conceptual development sketch STS received from the City. l: indicates the locations of proposed park improvements for the Centex property, such as baseball fields, tennis courts, a multi-use building and access roads/parking areas. Site Surface Features As observed with you, the portion of the site where park improvements are proposed is predominantly a low, flat area with a four (4) to six (6) foot rise along the southwest side. The rise is wooded, while the low area is covered with grass and high weeds. A shallow, man-made ditch extends along the east boundary of the parcel. txlrs Comaadtunta Ltd. eort.utting Engineers 9eso Annapolr9 Lana Suite 120 Minreaooli6, Mirnesaa 55447 812_559.1900./Fax 812559.4547 09..28:93 15:45 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA Z002 . City of Chanhassen -- STS Project 95897 September 28, 1993 Ft.h? Page 2 — w • Soil and Water Conditions Three hand auger probes (HAP) were performed at the general locations noted on Figure One. Hand auger probe HAP-1 encountered 3-1/2 feet of very soft, black to brown peat with groundwater at 1 foot. Hand auger probe HAP-2 encountered 3-1/2 feet of firm to soft, black _ organic clay with groundwater at 2 feet. Hand auger probe HAP-3 was taken on the rise. Six inches of topsoil above 1-1/2 feet of mottled gray with brown clay were sampled in HAP-3. The mottled soil color is an indication of a high groundwater table, but no water was observed directly in HAP-3. Review of the soils mapped for the site in the Carver County Soil Survey you had on hand confirmed the soil conditions we encountered. Opinions and Recommendations We have developed the following opinions and recommendations based upon our site observations and the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the hand auger probes. Baseball Fields: As planned, the baseball fields would be located in a swamp that has deep — organic soils. The peat and organic clay soils are too weak to support a playing field and drainage would be a problem. Soil stabilization and drainage improvements would be very expensive as compared to a site without organic soils. — Tennis acid Basketball Courts: The tennis courts and basketball courts (and multi-use building) are _ even more dependent on stable soils and good drainage than the baseball fields. Pavements for these courts would be very expensive to construct properly. A:tornobile Drives/Parkinv: Pavements and pavement embankments would require expensive soft-ground" geotechnical engineering techniques for proper construction. Otherwise, continuous maintenance of aggregate-surfaced pavements would be necessary. . • — Summar:: In our opinion the site is unsuitable for the planned park improvements, unless the City undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and site drainage. In addition, any soil stabilization or drainage may require wetland permitting and mitigation, since most of this site may be a wetland. Wetland mitigation was. however, not part of this site reconnaissance. Closure The opinions and recommendations contained in this report were developed in accordance with — common geotechnical engineering practice for this locale and time. Other than this, no warranty of our work is implied or intended. 092893 15:46 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA 12003 • City of Chanhassen STS Project 95897 September 28, 1993 Et '01 Page 3 if you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further assistance in your park development work. please contact us at 559-19(X). Very truly yours, STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. Ronald A. Shaffer, P. ' Senior Consultant t�. James H. Overtoom. P.E. Principal Engineer RAS/dn Enc. I A-EL- - W►m ilJ — ! ,' I, i,)\'-'!'6;"4;4ill /1)/1:' S '. P' \\\ --- -- --\---- —)1— —'4-6—. ' • 7 ln RI I ( l' I ... 1N 41 W 15 e. . . ., / „ . I $,,,<.,.... '.......-' /-• " 1-,_._ -...-- 14 (. : Nilikk k i ' • 7 1, I , 1 . _.::-...,.......,—.. .._ __ V .-_-:._-7,./ i i1 ..i44,1,.•• r+Z�s ( ✓t�.<ya,, ti &1..i ear, K W n C I n•" �)e .,,,-4,0.,'Ys ai:1.A: ..,r. •r ,/ y iR,.m. G V < ',.1 Via , ----•-•--;,•,: y � •, ZJ (iri7 ,a pryJT` � ' '' 1t� y !�� 10-;x;" m _ . 1,a.,54, , ;1\ - ,.._, 4„„44,... ,,,,,..„-. ` , f `�y..; '"'s'Y't3"`T'l'- i lil� r f�. ,M s -"�',:Ynwdr A,s�l9 0 04 tit :» t�-�.. !' ,. .1' 4: 1 1 y +Gt<; A1 :4 Z 7(` �, -ti 4 K e, •- r' ^s' a -.144 it•• Cls... y ,. f` .›It ».KAr • ,- 1 '15U.'.1 r r " ,� -. -.i a� • •.; cry_ {n • \ • „• �• i �� t / • 4,v,.-4 , r.-01- p4 , . AA...1.--riam:rx2-•:,::•*A-",..4, 1 8 (1 i z 8 _ ' i ..'.!„-s,••:—.-- - .`,y64.f: :-takefs.-.. ...$4 'If. \ Jr `• `•'\ 1 •'.\V� uk \��•?•`r::•.. Pr 6 r ---.v- cr (11 1— g .4.. 7 --....-0 \ ( .(t..)\ — o ..• 1 i 0 3 4g 1 il y —� 1 1 iii‘l'. 11.1i,� 1 `. % Z CC V! VisI, ,, : t , i I i'—'----, .\-/-/- ‘ipo•__ A 1 l ' - (" ._ _ ,---.-- --- -•-- -- -r # 1 , . 4, . ...... ,. .--- ,,.... __., iiillit:Lt - s----:--_ --_,___,-- /(,-/----- - (-_-_ : . L...„......... "P"L ./(: rt. I i . _ I, • , .. : ___ .._______,,,_ „1-------1 (k.„,:i4, 4 oU ; 1 ! .....,- it , �(�.: �r _ en PROJECT PIO _ ��__��. . 11{� ! , 96397 • } 1 Mi . ' 1 . ... (jit ))///'' ,',...///.71, `) 1/ r STS P*GJ[GT nu 5 i i - 1 1 1 i , / / (7/ ,"--"," _ . i / t : ri ;if 1 iii i / \ j ti „ /•/ ......„.... ... .,.\ WS s14EEt NO. 1 OF 1 ()aryl 'MINIUM < tOOZ VIOS3SSIR SIS LOST 6SS ZT9 XVI 9t:ST C6,'V'. 60 CITY OF to, 04CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 N MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer i i 6 DATE: September 28, 1993 SUBJ: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Located in the Southwest Corner of Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) - Centex Homes LUR File No. 93-21 Upon review of the conceptual planned unit development plans dated September 7, 1993, prepared by Westwood Engineering, I offer the following comments: ACCESS — The site is bordered by Trunk Highway 5 to the north and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) to the east. The concept proposes extension of an east/west frontage road which coincides with the City's land use guide for a frontage road south of Trunk Highway 5. The applicant has proposed an 80-foot wide right-of-way with a 36-foot wide face-to-face street section which is also in accordance with the City's guidelines. This road segment will be a continuation of a frontage road system which will originate from Audubon Road and terminate at Trunk Highway 41. This roadway corridor is designated as a State-Aid route and should be built in accordance with State Aid standards. The proposed frontage road will serve as a collector street for the townhouse development as well as a future industrial park (OPUS) which lies to the west. Staff has visited the site and found that the wetland areas are substantially larger than what is _ shown on the plan. The wetlands will pose difficulty from both a road construction standpoint and a permitting standpoint from the regulatory agencies. As stipulated in the narrative, the applicant is requesting that the City be the lead agency in acquiring the necessary permits. Staff is comfortable with working this scenario out with the applicant since the frontage road is a segment of the overall frontage road to be constructed south of Trunk Highway 5. As indicated in the September 24, 1993 staff report from Carver County Public Works Department, an additional trail easement(20-feet wide) should be considered outside the right-of- Kate Aanenson September 28, 1993 _ Page 2 way since turn lanes and medians will utilize a majority of the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. In addition, to provide adequate space for berming adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. UTILITIES According to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive guide, this parcel lies within the Upper — Bluff Creek District. The City currently has authorized Phase H of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sewer and Water Improvement which consists of extending sanitary sewer and water trunk service from the Hans Hagen development (Stone Creek) north to the cemetery which lies north _ of Bluff Creek and south of Timberwood Drive. According to the feasibility study for Upper Bluff Creek, Phase II, the proposed lift station will be constructed this winter to service future development to the northwest which includes this Centex development. _ Due to the City's current bonding capabilities, the applicant should formally petition the City for the extension of sewer and water trunk service to service this development now in order to get _ this next phase into the planning process for next year. Staff has reviewed the preliminary utility layout plan from a conceptual standpoint and feel that — the plans are fairly well layed out. Placement of fire hydrants should be reviewed and approved by the City's fire marshal. All utility improvements should be construction in accordance with the City's latest Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. — In conjunction with the City's trunk sewer and water improvement project (Upper Bluff Creek, Phase III), this parcel will sustain sewer and water assessments. In the past the City typically — has credited a portion of the trunk assessments back to the applicant for reimbursement of the installation of the applicable trunk sewer and water improvements. The City considers sanitary sewer and water lines in excess of 8-inch in diameter to be trunk facilities and the applicant — would be credited the cost difference between normal 8-inch diameter mainline utility. All sewer and water improvements proposed outside the City's right-of-way or drainage/utility easements _ would be constructed as private utility improvements. Whereas the City would not be responsible for maintenance and ownership. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be mass graded to achieve the street and drainage systems as well _ as building pads. The majority of the site appears to drain in a northeast to southwest fashion towards the wetlands and the Bluff Creek tributary. Again, based on staffs' visit to the site, it appears the wetlands are much larger than is shown and therefore raises the question whether or _ not Lots 17, 18 and 20 are even buildable. The applicant is proposing to "bench" the townhomes to maintain the rolling or diversified grades as the site appears today. Staff is unclear whether or not the slopes south of Trunk Highway 5 will be compatible with future upgrade of Trunk — Kate Aanenson September 28, 1993 Page 3 Highway 5. It is strongly recommended that the applicant contact and work with MnDOT to make the grades compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 west of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant has employed the use of retaining walls along the easterly portion of the site to match the existing properties adjacent Galpin Boulevard. Due to the height of the walls, the Building Department will require engineered drawings to verify the structural integrity. The grading plan proposes a storm water/sediment pond located north of the frontage road which will collect storm runoff from the entire development. Storm water will be treated in the sediment pond and then be discharged into the wetlands. The storm water pond should meet NURP standards. Staffs' initial review suspects the pond may be undersized for the contributing acreage. All storm sewer systems should be designed and constructed for a 10-year storm event and ponding areas should be designed in accordance to the City's water quality standards. MISCELLANEOUS _ Since the development will include public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to preliminary plat submittal. 2. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping. 3. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer. 4. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State-Aid standards. 5. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10-year _ storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP). Kate Aanenson September 28, 1993 _ Page 4 6. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the fmancial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in the development contract. _ jms c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITYOF 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: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: September 23, 1993 SUBJ: 232 Unit Residential Development Hwy 5 & Galpin, Centex Real Estate Planning Case # 93-5 PUD I have reviewed the concept plan for the Galpin Boulevard Carriage Home and have made the following requirements: 1. In general, fire hydrant locations are good. However, because of the high density of residential units with wood frame construction, additional fire hydrants will be required. These will be indicated on the final submitted utility plan. 2. Fire apparatus access roads: The width of fire apparatus access roads shall not be less than 20 feet. All 20 foot access roads/driveways must be posted with "No Parking Fire Lane" signs per Chanhassen Policy # 06-1991. 3. Please advise me if the buildings will be fire sprinklered and to what NFPA requirements. 4. An approved turnaround is required on the south/east corner of building #14, the north/east corner of building #1, and the south/east corner of building #19. Pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(h). 5. Building numbers, street numbers, both public and private, must meet the requirements of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Pursuant to Chanhassen Policy # 29-1992. CITY OF ClIANHASSEN 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 -lc) — DATE: September 27, 1993 SUBJ: 93-5 PUD, Galpin Blvd. Carriage Homes (Centex) — Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some comments and proposed additions to the conditions of approval . Analysis : The applicant should be made aware that the City has adopted UBC — Appendix Chapter 38 as revised by the State. The proposed buildings will be classified as R-1 occupancies . Appendix Chapter 38 requires fire sprinklering of R-1 occupancies with 8500 or more gross square feet of floor area. The Project Summary indicates the smallest unit is 1170 square feet and the smallest building comprises 8 units . Based on these figures, the smallest building will be 9360 square feet and will require fire sprinklering. • — In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department . — Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents . Recommendations : Staff recommends the following condition be added to the conditions of approval : 1 . Submit street names, public and private, to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval . CITYOF CHANHASSEN . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: September 24, 1993 SUBJ: Carriage Homes, Centex Real Estate Corporation Attached please find a copy of the Planning Department's request for comments in regard to the above named application. Also attached is a narrative document supplied by the applicant and a preliminary plat. In preparation for next Tuesday's report, Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and I walked the majority of the site on Thursday, September 23, 1993. The area of most concern being the land which is being considered as one of the park location options. Our suspicions that marginal soil conditions for construction would be found were confirmed. Examination of the Carver County Soil Survey further confirmed our findings, defining nearly the entire area being proposed for park as containing deep peat and muck soils. A portion of this site contains Hayden loam, a soil type which poses severe limitations for the development of play areas for intensive use. The peat and muck soils pose very severe limitations to any type of development (see excerpts from the Soils Survey, Table No.6, Degree and Kind of Limitations for Specified Recreational Uses). With this information known, the only action which can occur at this time in regard to this proposal would be discussionary. It is fair to say that many parks have been developed in similar conditions; however, limitations are inevitable and drainage problems are constant. Staff recommends tabling this item until further investigation of the soils in the area is completed, and other park alternatives are explored. [Note: City staff will be conducting a second site visit with a soils specialist this afternoon. A report in this regard will be presented to the commission next Tuesday evening.] VI/ Park and Recreation Director's Update (9/30/93): I am currently 90% certain that the Park and Recreation Commission will abandon the Centex site as a potential location for an active park site. The property does contain a knoll in its southwest corner which will be preserved as park, in addition to the large wetland area present on the site. Forthcoming soil analysis will allow the commission to reach final consensus in this regard. I anticipate the Park and Recreation Commission will review this application again on October 26, 1993. ' --. i _' :'"- e4 , \ O I �NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING / , , , . ' T • 1 -, , ., PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, October 6, 1993 - P,,RK ;7 . _ _ :.., 7:30 P.M. IA .• A City Hall Council Chambers / 690 Coulter Drive , 1i,ij Project: Galpin Boulevard �t i 4 Carriage Homes -� c, Developer: Centex Real Estate ! I,I – Corporation 4 E------ # - .-_, _ Location: SW Corner of !^ ! Intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Centex Real Estate Corporation proposes a Concept Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for a 232 unit residential development comprised of 21 buildings of either 8, 10 or 12 units in each. The units are two story, slab on grade construction with attached one or two car garages. The property is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Galpin Boulevard Carriage Homes, (Betty O'Shaughnessy property). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing . through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to — submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. C.r Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on 9/23/93. q,3.. Ili 0 - CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS CITY OF CHANHASSEN HID ASSETS OF OSHKOSH, INC. 3610 HWY. 101 SO. C/O TREASURER 4275 NOREX DR. WAYZATA, MN 55391 690 COULTER DR. -CHASKA, MN 55318 P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _ MARK & J. TAINTOR CURTIS E. & J. BEUNING ANDREW & S. RICHARDSON 2381 TIMBERWOOD DR. 8120 PINEWOOD CIR. _CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _MITCHEL & MARY KRAUSE JAMES L. & LINDA J. HOWARD L. & L. JOHNSON 2380 TIMBERWOOD DR. LEIRDAHL 8250 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 2350 TIMBERWOOD DR. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TROLTERS RIDGE LMT. HI-WAY 5 PARTNERSHIP THOMAS & M. SCHMITZ -7951 POWERS BLVD. C/O DENNIS DIRLAM 8190 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 15241 CREEKSIDE CT. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 DALE & M. WANNINGER LAWRENCE & F. RASER PATRICK & K. MINGER 8170 GALPIN BLVD. 8210 GALPIN BLVD. 8221 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - JP'S LINKS INC. ROGER & G. SCHMIDT TIMOTHY & V. DEMPSEY 7750 GALPIN BLVD. 8301 GALPIN BLVD. 8241 GALPIN BLVD. - EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - LARRY & E. VANDEVEIER MILLS PROPERTIES INC. JAY C. DOLEJSI 4890 CO. RD. 10 E. 512 LAUREL ST. 6961 CHAPARRAL LN. CHASKA, MN 55318 P.O. BOX 505 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRAINERD, MN 56401 MID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL - SERVICES CORPORATION 2600 ARBORETUM BLVD. EXCELSIOR,M N 55331 September 7, 1993 GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES PROJECT SUMMARY & NARRATIVE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Ref. 93364 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Galpin Boulevard Carriage Homes REQUESTED ACTION Concept PUD LOCATION Southwestern corner of intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard OWNER Betty O'Shaughnessy 1000 Hesse Farm Road Chaska, MN 55381 (612) 496-1707 DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SITE PLANNER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR,AND ENGINEER Centex Real Estate Corporation Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Baker Technology Plaza 14180 West Trunk Highway 5 5929 Baker Road, Suite 470 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 937-5150 (612) 936-7833 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116)North, Range Twenty Three(23)West, Carver County, Minnesota. ALSO: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the North half of the Northwest Quarter of Section Fifteen (15);thence North 1254.00 feet (76 rods)to the center of Smithtown and St. Paul Road; thence South 76 degrees East 614.4 feet; thence South 19 degrees 21 minutes West, along the center of the North and South road, a distance of 1202.5 feet; thence West 155.15 feet to the place of beginning, all in Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North, Range Twenty Three (23)West, Carver County, Minnesota. ALSO: The following described tract of land: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North, Range Twenty Three(23)West, Carver County, Minnesota;thence East on the East-West Quarter line of Section Fifteen (15), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116)North, Range Twenty Three (23) West, a distance of 146 feet to a point; thence in a southwesterly direction a distance of 176 feet to a point; thence in a northwesterly direction a distance of 335 feet to a point in the East-West Quarter line of Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North, Range Twenty Three (23)West, which said point is 194 feet and 4 inches West of the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section Sixteen (16); thence East, on said East- West Quarter line, a distance of 194 feet 4 inches to the place of beginning. Excepting therefrom above the following two tracts of land: TRACT ONE: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section Fifteen (15), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116)North, Range Twenty Three (23)West, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, distant 130 feet; thence deflecting to the right 91 degrees 48 minutes distant 206.52 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 117; thence deflecting to the left 70 degrees 05 minutes, along said centerline, distant 20 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence deflecting to the left 90 degrees distant 200 feet; thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees distant 150 feet; thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees distant 200 feet to said centerline; thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees distant 150 feet to the point of beginning. TRACT TWO: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section Fifteen (15), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116)North, Range Twenty Three(23)West, Carver County, Minnesota; thence North, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, distant 130 feet; thence North 91 degrees 48 minutes East a distance of 206.52 feet; thence South, along the centerline of County Road No. 117 (formerly County Road No. 122), a distance of 138.28 feet to the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section Fifteen (15); thence West, along said Quarter Section line, to the place of beguuung, situated in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section Fifteen (15), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116)North, Range Twenty Three (23)West, Carver County, Minnesota. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES Page 2 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. DEVELOPMENT DATA ZONING: Existing Zoning: Agricultural Estate District Guided: Residential, Medium Density (4-8 d.u./ac.) Proposed Zoning: PUD SITE AREA: Townhome Area: Block 1 12.93 Acres Block 2 8.47 Acres Block 3 5.46 Acres Block 4 2.25 Acres Subtotal 29.11 Acres R.O.W.: 11.12 Acres Outlots A & B: 49.36 Acres Gross Area: 89.59 Acres PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Attached residential buildings on 4 blocks Block 1 8-12 unit Buildings 1-10 unit Building 1-8 unit Building 114 du on 13 acres Block 2 4-12 unit Buildings 1-10 unit Building 1-8 unit Building 66 du on 8.5 acres Block 3 3-12 unit Buildings 36 du on 5.5 acres Block 4 2-8 unit Buildings 16 du on 2.3 acres PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES Page 3 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. PROPOSED DENSITY: — 6.64 du/ac. excluding mapped wetland,proposed mitigation areas and all road right-of--ways PHASING: Phasing will begin at the north and east working south and west. The current estimate on timing(subject to _ market conditions)is as follows: Phase I: Buildings 1 through 10 _ Phase II: Buildings 11 through 16 Phase III: Buildings 17 through 21 PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES Page 4 — WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. DEVELOPMENT METHOD Centex will develop the site and build all the buildings. All units will be "for sale" and will likely be conveyed as condominiums. Copies of the proposed association documents are available upon request. HOUSING/LAND USE PROFILE Gross Site Area: 89.59 acres Outlot A (wetland plus .78 ac. of upland) 14.62 acres Outlot B (wetland plus 2.9 ac. of upland) 34.74 acres R.O.W. 11.12 acres Blocks 1 through 4 29.11 acres Buildings Proposed: 21 Dwelling Units Proposed: 232 Gross Density: 2.6 d.u./ac. Net Density: 6.64 d.u./ac. (not counting mapped wetlands, proposed mitigation areas and all right of way) 7.52 d.u./ac.(counting only the land in Blocks 1-4 and adjacent final upland areas) Parking Requirement: 2 per unit 464 spaces plus guest 1/4 unit total 58 spaces — Total 522 spaces Parking Proposed: Garage 316 spaces (1.38 space/DU) Driveway* 316 spaces (1.38 space/DU) "Guest" 108 spaces ( .47 space/DU) Total 740 spaces (3.19 space/DU) *Not counted toward requirement by the City PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES Page 6 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. PROJECT NARRATIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Galpin Boulevard Carriage Homes is a proposed 232 unit residential development, comprised of 21 buildings of either 8, 10, or 12 units each. The units are two story, slab on grade construction with attached one or two car garages. Each unit has an individual entrance as well as direct access to the garages. The site consists of 89.59 acres and is located in west central Chanhassen, south of Highway 5 and west of Galpin Boulevard. CITY GUIDE PLAN FRAMEWORKJZONING CLASSIFICATION The site is currently guided Residential Medium Density(4-8 dwelling units/acre). The proposed density is consistent with the guide plan. EXISTING LAND USE The site is currently agricultural, and has corn growing on the upland areas. An abandoned farm home and out buildings are located in the far northeast corner of the site shelter belt type plantings of large spruce and pines are found around the farm home and along Highway 5. Within the site, boxelders, aspen, eastern cottonwood, black willow, and American elm grow within delineated wetlands and on some uncultivated uplands. PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Upon satisfactory review by the City and other regulatory agencies, development of the site will begin in 1994. Site development is likely to be phased, with the northerly portions developed first. Building — construction will begin in 1994 and progress as the market allows. We currently estimate a two year build out for the project. OWNERSHIP Centex Homes is currently the contract purchaser of the proposed site from Ms. O'Shaughnessy. Easements on the site are in favor of the City of Chanhassen for streets and sanitary sewer. DEVELOPER Centex Real Estate Corporation(d.b.a. Centex Homes), 5929 Baker road, Suite 470, Minnetonka, Minnesota, 55345-5955, will be the developer and builder for the site. Centex is a national residential builder currently constructing 200-400 units per year in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Al!necessary financing will be secured by Centex. The Engineer and Surveyor for the project is Westwood Professional Services, Inc., 14180 West Highway 5, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES Page 5 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. GRADING This site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground elevations. We have designed the site grades around the proposed frontage road restrictions (properties to East and West) as well as the existing T.H. 5 grades. The grading plan considered all wetland boundaries and we have minimized the impacts to the wetlands as well as providing wetland mitigation in existing upland areas. Berms were developed where possible along the proposed frontage road, with additional berm screening along T.H. 5. The site drainage will be directed through a sediment pond prior to discharging into existing wetlands. We have proposed a pipe under the proposed frontage road to ensure continuation of the existing water movement. UTILITIES The water main service will be connected to the proposed trunk water main extension by the city of Chanhassen along the proposed frontage road. This trunk line is described in a report prepared by the City's consulting engineer and is entitled: Report for Upper Bluff Creek District, Phase II. Dated April 29,1993. The interior of the project will consist of 6" and 8" private water mains with hydrants spaced as required. Building services will include a 4" D.I.P. service connected to a 2" copper line at the face of the building. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by the proposed trunk sewer extension as outlined in the report as listed above. The line will serve the site from the South East and follow along the wetland edge of the site. The interior of the project will consist of 8" private sewer mains with 6" services to the buildings. Storm sewer will be provided to accommodate a 5-year rainfall event within the street and parking system. The site will contain overflows throughout the site to ensure that all finished floor elevations will be a minimum of 2'-0" above the 100-year high water mark. STREETS Bituminous paved streets will be constructed throughout the development as shown on the site plan. The width of the proposed frontage road as requested by the city engineer will be 36' wide, (face to face)with the remainder of the streets being 24' (back to back). All streets will be constructed with concrete curb and gutter. All private streets will have mountable curb and gutter, while the proposed frontage road will have • B-618 SIGNAGE/LIGHTING Project entry signage is proposed for the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and the proposed public frontage road. The required 30 foot sight line triangle for intersection setback will be maintained. Entry signage will generally be consistent with the attached exhibit. The exact information on materials, size and details will be based on the evaluation of similar entry monuments planned for construction in the next few months. Lighting will be accomplished with standard street lighting and exterior building lighting at garages and entrances. Exterior building lights will be controlled by photocells for uniform operations. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES Page 7 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. LEVEL I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has not been prepared for this site. Consequently, evidence of any wells, tanks or contamination have not been discovered. An assessment will be undertaken. WATER, WETLANDS, WILDLIFE The 89.6-acre site includes 44.4 acres of wetland distributed among three basins. Wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on April 16, 1993, using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). DNR protected wetland 10-210W, which the DNR lists as a 14-acre Type 3 (shallow marsh) wetland, is partially located on the southern portion of the site. The DNR has not assigned a shoreland classification to this basin and has not made an official determination of the ordinary high water level (OHWL). However, the edge of the cattail mat in the eastern portion of the basin corresponds to the 930 contour on orthophotomapping. A ditch draining into the DNR wetland from Highway 5 divides developable upland into two parcels and renders wetland fill unavoidable. The site includes parts of two wetlands identified by the City of Chanhassen wetland inventory. Wetland A16-4(2) is located in the northwest portion of the site. The forested portion of the wetland is dominated by black willow, eastern cottonwood, and boxelder. Green ash and American elm are also present. Reed canary grass dominates wet meadow portions of this basin. Wetland A16-7(1) includes DNR protected wetland 10-210W, and is dominated by cattail, sedges, and reed canary grass with a fringe of boxelder. _ The project will comply with all wetland setbacks and buffer zones required by the City. The wetland inventory conducted in April revealed that the two basins identified in the Chanhassen inventory are actually connected. Two additional 0.3-acre isolated wetland were delineated in April. These basins include: (1) a Palustrine emergent saturated(PEMB; Type 2 wet meadow) wetland dominated by reed canary grass and located near the west property boundary, and(2) a partially drained Palustrine emergent saturated/seasonally flooded (PEMB/Cd; Type 2/3 wet meadow/shallow marsh)wetland located in the northeast portion of the site and dominated by reed canary grass and cattails. Wetland within staked and surveyed boundaries include 10.4 acres more wetland than shown on the City of Chanhassen inventory. The majority of uplands on the site have been cultivated for agricultural crops. Corn was the predominant crop planted in 1993. During recent years, cultivation has been abandoned on the old field in the western portion of the site. Aspen predominates on the wooded knoll located south of the old field and north of the DNR wetland. The wooded drainage connecting the southern and northern wetland basins provides a potential wildlife movement corridor for large mammals. With the exception of the frontage road crossing, this wooded corridor will be left largely intact. Implementing the Preliminary Grading Plan would entail 1.46 acres of wetland fill and 1 to 1, on-site, in- kind wetland replacement. The majority of proposed fill would affect Palustrine emergent saturated/ seasonally flooded (PEMB/C; Type 2/3 wet meadow/shallow marsh) and thus, this type of wetland would be created for replacement. Of the wetland fill proposed, only 0.29 acres falls within wetland shown on the Chanhassen City Wetland Inventory and only 0.45 acres would affect forested wetland. Because both areas occur where the frontage road crosses the drainage that bisects the entire length of the site, they are unavoidable. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES Page 8 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Wetland replacement areas will feature gradual slopes, be topdressed with organic or black mineral topsoil, and be seeded with native grasses and wildflowers. Nearly all the created wetland periphery will have 10:1 or more gradual slopes. In compliance with the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activities recently developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, all storm water will undergo pre-treatment in an 0.29 acre, 3-foot deep storm water basin before discharging to wetlands. PROJECT ARCHITECTURE The final project architecture is currently under development. Attached in Appendix "A" is an example of an existing project by Centex and its elevations and floor plans. The building elevations and final plans will be consistent with those currently under construction elsewhere. The proposed units are all two story with living/dining/kitchen on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor. Some units have an additional loft area on the second floor. All units have direct access to their own individual garage (two-car garage on end units) as well as an individual front entrance to outside. _ The units also include a semi-private outdoor patio space adjacent to the living areas. The different floor plans range in size from approximately 1170 square feet to 1400 square feet. LANDSCAPING The landscape plan provided is intended to reflect the addition of common and hardy plant materials within the project area. The plants in this category are varieties of Maple, Ash, Linden, Oak, Pines and Spruce. All planted canopy trees will exceed 2 1/2" caliper and all planted evergreen trees shall exceed 6 feet tall. It is expected that along the site perimeter and wetland edge, most existing trees will be preserved. A complete tree survey shall be provided with the preliminary plat approval process. The proposed quantities of planted trees shall exceed one per dwelling unit and provide boulevard and perimeter planting effects. In addition to what is shown around the foundation area of each unit foundation, plantings will be provided. SOILS No geotechnical evaluations have been undertaken for this project. These will be undertaken prior to construction. SHORELAND ORDINANCE/FLOOD PLAIN RESTRICTIONS Because the site does not fall within 1,000 feet of any water body with a shoreland classification, shoreland regulations will not apply to this project. In compliance with requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, the lowest finished floor elevation will be at least two feet above the 100-year flood elevation of the DNR protected wetland. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES Page 9 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. TRAFFIC Based on criteria obtained from the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, the trips generated from Low-Rise Residential Townhouse/Condominium units, the Average Daily Traffic equals approximately 6 trips per unit. Based on 232 units, the total trips generated (two way) equals 1,392. The P.M. peak hour traffic equals approximately 0.55 trips per unit or 128 total trips. Of that total, 67%of the trips are inbound (85 trips) and 33%of the trips are outbound(43 trips). The City Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this area as multi-family residential. It is assumed that the design of the frontage road included the potential densities that this development presents. CRITICAL PUBLIC DECISIONS The City of Chanhassen has the predominant review authority over the development. P.U.D., and subdivision approvals by the City Council are the major critical public decisions to be made. At the concept level of the municipal P.U.D. approval process,the most significant issues are expected to be: 1. Land Use and Consistency with Guide Plan 2. City Park expectations on this site 3. Frontage road location 4. Project consistency with the Highway 5 corridor study recommendations The City of Chanhassen is also the Local Government Unit(LGU) administering the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. In cases such as this, where the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District has also accepted Wetland Conservation Act authority, the authority defaults to the City because the City is the LGU with zoning authority. The project will require certification of wetland replacement for the 1.46 acres of proposed wetland fill. Because no work is anticipated within the DNR protected wetland, no DNR permits will be necessary. Although a sanitary sewer will encroach on the wetland edge near the DNR wetland, the proposed sewer location is believed to be outside of DNR jurisdiction. If clarification of the sewer location reveals that it will cross DNR protected wetland, the project will require a License for Crossing Public Waters from the DNR Real Estate Management Bureau. All wetlands on the site fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fill in the two isolated basins will require pre-discharge notification to the Corps to verify that the project is covered under nationwide permit 26. The regional conditions to this nationwide permit require pre-discharge notification for 0.5 to 3.0 acres of fill in isolated wetlands. Because the frontage road wetland crossing will involve 0.6 acres of fill in wetland adjacent to and within 1,000 feet of a DNR protected wetland over 10 acres in size, the Corps will require an individual permit for this activity. The Corps regional conditions limit the applicability of nationwide permits to fills of 10,000 square feet or less in such "adjacent" wetlands. Because the frontage road will be a public street serving several developments, it follows that a public entity, such as the City of Chanhassen, would be in the best position to demonstrate public need for the project, apply for the permit, and obtain Corps approval. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRLAGE HOMES Page 10 • 1 E I If , =mom Ma OP ilm.N..- 1 I1 , I A - =U I , i i I ., ,..........,:........„..._ _ __ . .....---74.---- — 0 i ._,.........._ -7_7-7 .1 . ...2-_,____, .1= ....„,44_,/ I __ . imi. _ex. ip .... ... .. ,._, ..a NM 111•111 1 t it • � • %ao .. :a •, l I '-II )►, W,9.� . ' CD .� W � t .= al I Ciy..-tet l **V: = P . siir ` -, If` imm Min UIII) =N 111 !'Stl • 1 Imummat R NNW W \'® . .. . -1111 , . . _... _ , - .46-g— iirs rj ki,.. . - as 0 , / .„?... -r.•rst . ....o.. LJI - _ . 6 17 1 . a ILA, CARRIAGE HOMES Welcome to Pinebrook Carriage Homes...a wonderful new neighborhood of ideal living in Eden Prairie, one of the Twin Cities most desirable communities. Gracious, manicured grounds, striking building exteriors and spacious, uniquely designed individual homes. Enjoy two-story living with your own private entrance and private patio. Relax in a secure and convenient lifestyle with direct access from your own garage into your kitchen. Admire the beautifully landscaped lawns and handsomely detailed exteriors without the worry or hassle of maintenance. Pinebrook Carriage Homes are located in a choice area of Eden Prairie; close to shopping, entertainment and many recreational facilities. We invite you to come and live your life at Pinebrook Carriage Homes. _4 1114 _�.4.iii • rr- CD— CLI CENHOMES 12- Designed for today Built for tomorrow. 44- 3URDEPS UCtNSE.13.',3 • f - 111G— �— FEATURES r.•b.au...r•I These luxury features are included in your new Centex Home: -TITCHEN UTILITIES �5ingle lever faucet control with sprayer • Plumbing and electrical hook-ups • Cushioned vinyl no-wax flooring • 220-von electric service and vent for dryer - Oak krtcnen cabinets • Individual 100 AMP electric service with circuit breakers Electric range with oven • Automatic gas-fired forced air furnace -mange hood and fan • Glass-lined 40-gallon gas water heater • Built-in 3-cycle dishwasher with 2 level wash • Copper plumbing water supply Sound-shielded garbage disposal • Central air-conditioning )ouble bowl stainless steel sink • Individual garages • Rolled-edge decorator counter tops • Kitchen pantries as snown CONSTRUCTION '8 cubic foot refrigerator _Natenine for icemaker • 2 layers of W UL Gypsum drywall (party wall) • Double 2x4 walls 16' on center (party wall) rATHS • Acoustical batt insulation on two sides (party wall) • Manufactured roof trusses to engineering specifications •;rouble free single lever faucets • a/.' tongue & groove subfloonng • Low maintenance bathtub surroundings • Manufactured floor trusses • Vinyl flooring throughout • Subfloonng glued and nailed to floor trusses • )ak vanity with cultured marble top • Roofing: —King size bathroom mirror • 25 YR UL Class A fire-resistant shingles over • 'Anti-scald'tuoishower valves for your comfort • 15-lb impregnated fest paper over W extenor grade roof sheating I_ITERIOR — 9' CEIUNGS • Insulation: • Sliding glass doors with insulated glass with screen • R-38 (blown insulation) in attic areas • Oak Princeton trim • R-13 (fiberglass batt) in extenor walls • )ak doors and bifolds • On-site Centex Field Manager to ensure quality 4-Fire-wired for telephone and cable TV Exceptional financing is available through our in-house affiliate, CTX • Deadbott security locks on front door MORTGAGE • ;moke detectors on eacn level of your home ire protection system for safety anc peace of mind Homeowner's Warranty Program includes: • Triple glazed thermal barrier windows with screens • Transom windows 1. Workmanship and material for 1 year • Vall-to-wall carpeting 2. The mechanical systems for 2 years •-Decorator light fixtures 3. The structural integrity for 10 years • Gas log fireplace Ewiper etas Me been macho to stxurt.h°eoct the ones—_t»orceea n the brochure In the • Aaster bedroom with spacious walk-in closets ^e"'dany«'' °e"ee"°'e°r°a""e.the^'°°eand the Mere snot SOecihemono tor the protect. • Vasher and dryer included and installed as shown the°`r"one sp.cftdnna shwa control Neo.the conceived hone my very from the tom/Jure,the m°°er O.the plans to an extent consorr%with non?*tts°&custom.pier Ls en°torsions.Khei the construction n°ustry The renoerngs ere on,wt's conception one ore not igen°.° m D.actual °.pctnns ot the flCTER I O R Ouerteq,. mew °n•...,•, or MOM' Pteeee we our saes A.aernto vas sh°ub you haw fry awttnre. •_iecorator light fixtures on garage and patios • Extenor lights on photocell for security • \sphan driveways • 'artial brick extenor • Maintenance-tree exterior • Waterproof electrical outlet at each patio • ;oncrete patios with privacy fences • 'rofessionaly landscaped and sodded yard areas • Automatic underground lawn irrigation system • Underground utilities (electric, gas, Phone) • 'osrtive drainage directed to storm sewer system •_,:xtenor water faucet (located in garage) Crntinuing a Policy of Constant Research and Improvement. Centex Homes Reserves the Right ti lake Specification and/or clan Changes Without Notice or Prior Obligation. BROC:HUAESueresueerure�p°'c 8ue°n.cense e1333 0E.27f93 r . FLOORPLANS s . P.IN MOO ASTO N A wonderfully designed two-bedroom corner home,with unique side entrance and spacious upstairs loft,awaits your distinctive touch. Open kitchen design includes desk and snack bar areas. A private patio is included for family and friends to enjoy. The added convenience and security of the attached two car garage, which walks directly into your kitchen area, makes carefree living truly enjoyable. - I II w.I.C. IPTh BATli I. ii _ . v9..►►f.n•.r. I . U BEDROOM ia 1.1.N/ ago f ! iird,W ffP-4r4„„ y . •♦ t.1.1 ��, o' MR 1 ' I 1 i 'I i/ mainG � BEDROr _ OM II � 11% �., �� lTo BEOWI J , ___ ___ UPPER LEVEL — o KITCHEN KlTCt1EN DINING PATiO . . r-, --. E /T"'7_' i W .� a w �� tIrA,nno I I L_ 1iI 0 .1 ' I� t l I + t a. I — OPTIONAL L i p �, _,Jj POWDER ROOM GARAGE LIVING - MAIN LEVEL Eevanons shown are artist concepts. 7 Cooynght 1993 Centex Homes BURDEAS .:CENSE.1333 — Due:o our ooticv or conunuai research and orodua imorovement.Centex Homes reserve:he .^.gni:o once. pian Jr SDlCir1(;anOn _lahgeS without n(NICe or onor OOItCa[tprt. CE NTEX HOMES _ ! FLOORPLANS ..... I BENTLEY This absolutely unique two-bedroom home emphasizes convenience. The second floor laundry, large master bedroom with walk-in closet, and generous additional bedroom, make upstairs living very special. Downstairs, the walk-in pantry or powder room accent the efficient kitchen and comfortable living areas, which open onto a private patio for your entertaining. Direct access from the garage into the kitchen add convenience and security to this delightful home. UPPER LEVELn i J 1 F`, BATHi t. It 1 -~ —^ I , w � ,14_,'J W.I.C. ;I r--; I I 0 di.rl _ •..ar.rrr�rrr ' lit — — — arsr. �� MASTER _ *V IM/ lb r•04k• BEDROOM •ili ��_� Si 1 ��.. 1 BEDROOM illefibli1 '' VIP \lekVilik U I __ 75_ 1 J C —�� _ - �- wic. ' \ KITCHEN ~'-•_✓ KITCHEN DINING ,__. _ !SN1CK BSP / 111 DINING fi..[K/ur / t I1 OPTIONAL \ " ' ' To POWDER ROOM a" LIVING GARAGE — MAIN LEVEL - El evanons snown are amst ;anccots. Copyngnt 1993 Centex Homes BUILDERS uCENSE ^333 Due to our ooucv of;onnnuat researc^ Ina roouct !rnomverneat. :e^tea home_ reserve :ne ngnt to once. Stan or spec^icanon;^ar es rrmout nor ')o rga::or. T--EX Holy IES FLOO RP LANS L � 1\Ego � ix00 1""..i1.....' N CORDOBA A charming two-bedroom home with large living and dining areas for entertaining and socializing. A spacious second-floor master bedroom suite with walk-in closet and an activity area will enhance your private time. The secluded but easily accessible patio and attached garage with direct arr Pss to the kitchen, complete this captivating home. UPPER LEVEL -„ n .� L, W.LC. 1 ACTIVITY 1 BATH AREA 1 �. IrjJi L/ '' Immilmnmorp— --. • �// `U 1 ,1 BEDROOM `..... A ' '74 1 1.9IIV < ..._ ......„..__.......... _,_ 1....,..,' . , Bo BATH w .I° i- -,--2-_-9L- -__.,_-_-_41-7 J\/ ---18-8Ll__ CI KlTC}iENwlc. \/71- KITCHEN I . 0 it-lkAalk a AA-.7 l iFICIt-AR7 L_! tiGARAGE D*44NG ,iDINING OPTIONAL GARAGE V POWDER ROOM . • LIVING i t amommior .ob. PATIO MAIN LEVEL Eevauons shown are ants: conceors Copyngnt 1993 Centex Homes 3UiLOE,AS LICENSE 0333 Due ro our voticv or continual resear.n anC oroauct :morovement. Centex Homes reserve tee ngnr to once. ofann or soectiicauon _-ar.ges +t!tout nonce or unor ooliganon. 1 El V HOMES Lr —— :ha:VTR]rr,r!nth^.foul rer t,......-.... C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 10/6/93 •1 L C H A N H A SEN CC DATE: 10/25/93 - � CASE #: 93-3 PUD By: Krauss/Hempel/Desotelle:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Proposed Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval of 111.77 acres of Property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD to create 115 single family lots, Preliminary Plat Approval and Wetland Alteration Permit Z Q LOCATION: Generally located West of Galpin Blvd. and North of the Bluff Creek Headwaters V Wetland APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONLNG: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 112 acres DENSITY: Gross 1.05 units per acre Net 1.58 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING < AND LAND USE: N - RR, large single family residence S - RR, single family residences E - RR/RSF, Galpin Blvd. and large residential parcels Q W - PUD, Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner single family residential W WATER AND SEWER: Available PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Refer to report. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL\SUMMARY The applicants,Lundgren Brothers Construction,are requesting preliminary PUD and preliminary plat approval for the Song property. The site is a 111.77 acre parcel located west of Galpin Boulevard and north of the wetland that constitutes the headwaters of Bluff Creek. They are proposing to plat out 115 single family lots, one of which would be occupied by the existing Song homestead, the balance being made available for new construction. A wetland alteration permit to fill and mitigate 0.78 acres of wetland. Flexibility provided by the PUD is being used to allow for more sensitive development of a very unique area. Lot sizes range from over 85,000 square feet down to 11,470 square feet. The proposed new Song homestead, which is not included in the lot average computations, contains almost 9.5 acres. The average lot size of 27,519 square feet is far in excess of the 15,000 square foot average required by ordinance. Additional flexibility is requested on front and side setbacks where it can be demonstrated that tree preservation and wetland protection will be enhanced. Access is to be provided via two curb cuts on Galpin and an internal connection via a collector street to Highway 41 through an adjoining parcel that is also being developed by Lundgren. The streets are well designed and conform to City standards. Several years ago, when detailed investigations began on this area, staff agreed that the collector street would be built on a 60' rather then 80' right-of-way and to local street dimensions. Additionally, homes were to be allowed to directly access onto the street which is not normally the case with collectors. The terrain it crosses is very difficult and the wider street and required grading would have resulted in significant damage to trees and wetlands. It was our opinion that the continuity of the road between Galpin and Hwy. 41 was more important than size and the Commission and Council agreed when the adjacent plat, the Johnson/DolejsilTurner PUD, was approved. A street connection to the south to serve future development on an adjoining parcel is also illustrated. Several homes are to be accessed via two private drives. These will serve a total of five lots where a full sized city street would be particularly damaging. Utilities to service the area are currently under construction by the City and will be available next year to support development. Tree and wetland protection were of major concern throughout and both have benefited from the City's current policies in these areas and from the developers sophistication and experience. The site contains some of the better stands of trees found in the community with the primary species being oak and maple. Based upon information provided by the applicant, 717 major trees were surveyed. Of these, 99 will be lost to road and utility construction. Some additional trees will be lost to home placement although this has not been specified. Each lot would be individually graded to minimize tree loss and many of the major trees would be permanently protected by conservation areas. Staff has requested some additional information and modification in this area but it is anticipated that any changes would be minor. In particular, we are asking that the conservation areas be expanded. The site contains 8 identified wetlands totalling 22.86 acres. Of this, less than .6 acres would be filled and will be mitigated on-site. The applicant has Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 3 worked extensively with the City Water Resources Coordinator in this area. Wetlands will be protected by required buffer strips. The proposal has been reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission. They are satisfied with the applicants proposal to provide private recreational facilities on site. They have identified a site on an adjacent parcel for a neighborhood park and would utilize park fees from this project to help acquire and develop it. Trail easements would be provided along Galpin and in exchange for considerations with this proposal additional trail easements will be provided along the wetland fringe of the adjoining PUD being concurrently developed by the applicant. In summary, the proposal represents a well designed project that reasonably develops a sensitive and unique site. Due largely to the current., advanced state of City environmental regulations and programs, and to the developer's familiarity of responding to these concerns, few modifications are required. The only variance being requested is one that would allow varied side yard setbacks where trees can be saved. Rather than abide by the standard 10 feet, they are asking for 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas with there always being a minimum separation of 20 feet. Visually, this will have the appearance of a standard subdivision but the flexibility is very useful for protecting trees and is supported by staff. It is recommended that the Preliminary PUD Plan and Preliminary Plat for the Song Development be approved with the variance and appropriate conditions. SITE CHARACTERISTICS This site is one of the most interesting and attractive parcels in the city. It features extensive wetlands, heavily forested hills and areas of open farm fields. The high point of 1060' is found in the northwest corner where a hill overlooks Lake Harrison to the east. Many of the significant oak and maple trees are found on this hill and it is visible from a large area to the east. Lake Harrison is a small, non-recreational waterbody that is surrounded be a large wetland fringe. At 994', the lake represents one of the lowest areas on the site. The open/farmed area is found to the east along Galpin. The farmed area is by no means flat but is generally without significant vegetation. Eight wetlands have been identified by the applicant's consultant and one small additional one has been found by City staff. They vary significantly in size and quality. Two of them are small "natural" wetlands with the balance being "Ag/Urban" having been significantly altered by agricultural drainage practices. Surrounding land uses include: NORTH- Rural residential land containing a single large homestead that overlooks the north side of Lake Harrison. A portion of the lake is located on the adjoining parcel. SOUTH- Rural residential parcels containing several scattered home sites. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 4 EAST- Galpin Blvd. East of Galpin are large residential parcels including one occupied by Prince. Several parcels in the area are in the process of being developed with RSF plats including Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates. WEST- Land owned by Lundgren Brothers Construction and approved as the Johnson/DolejsitTurner single family residential PUD. BACKGROUND The site and surrounding area was incorporated into the MUSA line under the 1991 Comprehensive Plan update process. The applicant, Lundgren Construction, was actively represented in this process. While they did not have a direct interest in the site at that time they were exploring its potential development along with that of the neighboring parcel to the west, with the respective property owners. They prepared concept plans illustrating residential plats on these parcels that proved to be useful to the Planning Commission in determining the ultimate boundaries of the MUSA line. REZONING TO PUD Section 20-501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit developments. Planned unit developments are to be used to enhance flexibility in developing a site with unique features and when there is a desire to provide a variety of uses. In return for this flexibility, the city should receive a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been achieved through standard zoning regulations. Under this section of the City Code the following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide: (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and. scenic views. Finding The site contains some difficult topography, eight wetlands of varying value and heavily forested areas. Upon review of the preliminary plat, it appears that the applicant is locating the streets and lots with the natural features of the site taken into consideration. The blocks are situated around wetland and vegetated areas and the steep sloped areas are avoided in most cases. Varied setback standards, lot sizes and street right-of-way are effectively employed to minimize tree loss and wetland impact. This appears to be accomplished without any adverse impact on the quality or buildability of proposed lots or of the resulting residential neighborhood which should be highly attractive. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 5 (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 PUP allows the site to locate more dense development in previously farmed areas without significant features while creating open space around natural features. The proposal is providing pockets of open space throughout the site which will benefit the whole development and is providing a variation of lot sizes. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where impact will be minimized by using density transfer. (3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots adjacent to existing uses. There will be covenants recorded as part of the development to ensure that high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be provided. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. Finding The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential. Transitional development is not really a factor with this proposal. (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units/acre). The proposal has a net density (minus wetlands and roads) of 1.60 units/acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment for development with Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 6 sewer and water and as a single family development. The Comprehensive Plan also showed this property as a site for a collector street, which the applicant is providing. (6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. Finding, The applicant is providing open space throughout the site, including a private park. The Park and Recreation Commission has accepted this proposal but full park and trail fees will be required. No credit is being recommended for the private park. (7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. Finding The applicant is proposing a variety of lot sizes and housing units. Overall, the sites will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed. This project is not designed to address lower cost housing opportunities. The city is investigating this issue and is considering direct financial support to encourage its construction since the free market is unable to meet this demand. However, this site is not a likely candidate for such an approach. (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration but all homes will meet current energy codes. The level of tree preservation being provided should serve to decrease energy costs. (9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding The proposal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the west and was part of the Comprehensive Plan. The plat provides for multiple Song Property' October 6, 1993 Page 7 entrances and is designed with an internal connection serving a parcel to the south. There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement states the developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following guidelines: a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD (draft ordinance) allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations). The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a = 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. Finding The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 11,661 sq. ft. to 80,197 sq. ft. (not including wetland areas) with an average net lot area of 27,236 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area. The site is broken down into seven blocks which locate the lots around wetland and vegetated areas. The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site. Open space is found in undeveloped outlots, the private park and numerous wetland areas. The applicant has provided plans which demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area of protective easement as required under the draft PUD ordinance. This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without needing to resort to variances. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the development of the individual lots will not encroach within a protected area or setback. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 8 Finding All of the lots meet this requirement except for Lot 36, Block 4 which only has 85' at the setback. The plat must be adjusted to provide all lots with 90' of width at the building setback. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. Finding All of the lots exceed the minimum lot depth of 100'. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet Front Yard - 20 feet Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. Finding The proposal provides a 30' PUD exterior setback. The applicant is proposing to be permitted to have a 20' front yard setback where it will preserve natural features. This is acceptable to staff and consistent with the PUD ordinance. The narrative provided by the developer proposes a 6' interior side yard setback for garages and a 9' interior side yard setback of living area. The applicant has also stated that a minimum side yard separation of 20' will be provided between each principle structure. As long as a 20' minimum side yard separation is maintained, staff is comfortable with reduced side yard setbacks although this represents a variance from the PUD as needed to allow for this. The resulting flexibility will be used to preserve trees. The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied. e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 9 Finding The proposed layout of the single family lots and streets have taken into consideration the features of the site. Where possible, wetlands and mature stands of trees have been located where they can be protected. The applicant is proposing to reduce the right-of-way for the collector street from 80' to 60' to reduce the removal of trees and impact to site features. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this design on this site would result in substantial destruction of natural features. Additionally, H Street, which serves the hillside overlooking Lake Harrison, is proposed to be built with a 40' right-of-way rather than the 60' required for local streets. This is a highly sensitive area due to severe grades and extensive tree cover. Staff supports this approach although it represents a departure from normal standards. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to -- preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 10 Finding Consistent with recent practice in residential PUDs, staff is proposing that a minimum of two overstory trees at least 1 of which is to be located in the front yard be required on lots lacking tree preservation. The Galpin Boulevard exposure is probably the site's least attractive since it is devoid of vegetation. Code requires that landscape buffers be provided along collector streets. A landscaped berm has been illustrated along Galpin although details are lacking and should be provided at final approval. Additional landscaping is illustrated on the commonly held recreational outlot (F) and in scattered locations along internal streets. Staff has concluded that establishing a landscape buffer along A street, the internal collector, is not warranted due to its residential nature. g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide-for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Finding The developer has stated in the narrative that they will establish strict architectural and protective covenants and that the covenants will be recorded with the county. The city does not enforce private covenants recorded with the county, but in the case of a PUD, the covenants will be reviewed and adopted as part of the PUD contract. The applicant should provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the city. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 11 SUMMARY OF REZONING The subject site contains features that are ideally suited for a planned unit development. The flexibility of PUD standards will result in a reduction of impact to natural features due to road and building construction. The features which remain will be protected, and in some cases, enhanced. Staff is recommending approval of the Development PUD plan with the stated conditions. PRELIMLNARY PLAT The preliminary plat will subdivide the site into 115 lots, one of which will be occupied by an existing home. Additionally, there is a 9.5 acre homesite in the northeast corner of the site, that the existing owners, the Song's will utilize to construct a new home. All lots with one exception, meet or exceed code requirements as illustrated in a compliance table prepared by the applicant dated August, 10, 1993. The sole exception is Lot 36, Block 4, which has an 85' lot width at the setback. This can and should be increased to the required 90' at the time of final plat. Lot areas range from 11,661 square feet to 58,000 square feet exclusive of wetlands with the average (minus wetland acreage) being 27,519 square feet. There are a total of seven outlots in the plat as follows: Outlot A: 43,090 sq. ft., located south of the intersection of A street and Galpin. Will be used to accommodate a NURP basin and entrance monument Outlots B & C: located adjoining the entrance of E street onto Galpin they are small and will only be used to contain entrance monumentation. Outlot D: Containing 37,655 sq. ft. this parcel is located adjoining the west property line. It is intended that this will be subdivided and merged with previously platted lots in the Dolejsi PUD. This appears to be a reasonable use but the land should be conveyed with the final plat. Outlot E: With 258,540 sq. ft. it will contain a large wetland complex and associated NURP basin. Outlot F: This is the largest outlot with 818,550 sq. ft. It contains much of Lake Harrison and associated wetland complex. It will also contain wetland mitigation area for the small amount of wetland that will be directly impacted by the development as well as a NURP basin. This outlot also has a sizeable amount of high ground that will be Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 12 occupied by the proposed private recreational facility and a large, landscaped hill that will be used to screen the development from the Carlson property to the north. Outlot G: This is a small parcel designed to house entrance monumentation on the north side of the intersection of A street and Galpin. STREETS According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Galpin Boulevard is considered a Collector Class I designation with recommendations to upgrade to a four-lane roadway in the future. The study recommends a minimum of 100-foot wide right-of-way be acquired. Galpin Boulevard currently exists as a two-lane rural highway within a 66-foot wide right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an additional 17 feet of right-of-way to convey one-half of the total street width. Taking into consideration the topographic constraints, the street system is fairly well laid out. Access to the site is proposed from two locations. The first is from Street A which is designated on the City's comprehensive plan as a future east/west collector between Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard. The other street (Street E) located on the south end of the project will eventually tie back into Street A. The plat is proposing to dedicate right-of-way widths from 40 to 60 feet wide. The City's standard for local urban streets is 60 feet wide with collector-type streets ('A') 80 feet wide. Staff does understand the topographic constraints on the site and in an effort to minimize grading and tree removal, staff is comfortable in permitting a 60-foot wide right-of-way on Street A with the proposed street section to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes. The plans propose Streets B, D, G, H and I to have substandard 50-foot right-of-way widths according to City standards. This issue often arises within developments where there are trees or difficult grades. The typical discussion is to reduce the street width in an effort to maintain or save additional vegetation and limit grading. It is the Engineering department's contention that the installation of utilities along the right-of-way rather than the right-of-way width or street construction is the leading cause of tree removal. In addition, staff raises the question why should the City compromise in the street right-of-way width when the developer doesn't propose the same compromise by enlarging the lots or reducing the number of lots in an effort to preserve more trees? Staff strongly recommends that the street right-of-way width be maintained at 60 feet on Streets B, D and G with a 50-foot wide right-of-way on Streets H and I where street width is of major importance to protect trees. Staff is comfortable in preserving trees within the right-of-way whenever they can be saved and will work with the developer to refine plans to do so. However, staff is also concerned from a safety standpoint (both pedestrian and traffic) with the reduced street width of Streets H and I. Again, the question should be asked is public safety worth compromising street widths in an effort to save a few trees which through the installation of utilities may eventually be lost over a period of 5 years due to root damage? Staff recommends that the street width on Streets H and I be increased from 24 feet to 28 feet Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 13 with a 50-foot wide right-of-way. On Streets B and D, the applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide right-of-way. Staff sees no reason to compromise the 60-foot wide standard on these two streets since they are located in an area that was actually farmed and there are no environmental features to protect. Therefore, staff recommends that Streets B and D be increased to 60-foot wide right- of-ways. According to City ordinance, the minimum spacing between street intersections is 300 feet. The plans propose an intersection on Street A less than the minimum. Street 'B', located just west of Galpin Boulevard, is only 230 feet from Galpin Boulevard. The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan proposes A Street as a collector-type street. The City has petitioned the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to include this corridor as part of the City's State-Aid system. MnDOT earlier this spring concurred and the City has listed this corridor as a State-Aid designated route. This will require slightly more restrictive construction standards of Street A. They must meet State-Aid standards for the City to be able to qualify for receiving State-Aid funds in the future. This may impact the developer's request for a landscaped median on Street A at Galpin Boulevard. State-Aid standards may not allow a landscaped median in the right-of- way area. In addition, if turn lanes are required at the intersection of Street A and Galpin Boulevard, the center median may extend beyond the B Street intersection which would limit access to 'B' Street to a right-in/right-out only. This should be further reviewed by the applicant's engineer with MnDOT's State-Aid office, and the City to determine whether or not B Street needs to be located further west. Street grades in the development range from 0.5% to 8% which exceeds the City's ordinance of 7%. Upon review of the grading areas, it appears that on C Street and E Street the grades could be adjusted to meet City standards. On H Street, due to the steep slopes and heavily vegetated areas, staff is comfortable in granting a variance for the 8% street grade. Staff has also reviewed the proposed house pad elevation in relation to the street grades. On Lots 16, 20, 21 and 25, Block 7, the driveway grades will exceed the 10% limitation. In fact, on Lot 25, Block 7, the driveway grade would be in excess of 20%. It may be possible through the house design to lower the garage slab elevation to maintain the 10% or less driveway grade. The applicant should be aware that this is a concern of staff and needs to be further addressed prior to final platting. The number of lots proposed in this development and the corresponding development to the west (Johnson/DolejsilTurner a/k/a JDT) may generate traffic volumes at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Street A to warrant, at a minimum, right turn lanes as well as a possible bypass lane on Galpin Boulevard. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the Carver County Highway Department and City staff in determining whether warrants would be applicable for a bypass lane at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Street A. At the intersection of Street E and Galpin Boulevard, staff recommends at a minimum a right turn lane also be included as a part of the overall street construction plans. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 14 A very large lot (Lot 9, Block 1) is proposed just north of 'B' Street. Staff has reviewed potential accesses to Lot 9 from Galpin Boulevard and recommends that a private driveway between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 over the proposed sanitary sewer be pursued in lieu of a separate driveway curb cut on Galpin Boulevard. Staff sees no need to introduce a new curb cut on to Galpin Boulevard at this time. In the future this lot is further divided, an alternative access via a new street can be considered. This development is pretty much self-contained with the exception of a future stub street (F Street) to the Stockdale property which lies south of this development. The other streets, E Street and A Street, will connect into the preliminary plat of JDT properties to the west and extend out to Trunk Highway 41. In either one of these subdivisions (JDT property or Song/Carlson property) there is an opportunity for street extension to the north. Staff is very concerned with this since access off of Trunk Highway 41 is limited through MnDOT. It seems prudent to explore the possibility of extending a street to the north. Staff has preliminarily reviewed the street alignments and feels that Street H could be extended northwesterly to provide future connection to the parcels to the northwest; however, staff feels it may be more appropriate for a street to be extended northerly off the JDT property. Staff will leave this option up to the applicant to decide which street alignment he prefers to have extended to the north. Again, staff feels it is very important that another street connection be provided to serve properties north of these two developments. Private driveways are proposed for Lots 6 and 7, Block 5 and Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block 4. The driveways should be constructed in accordance with the City's ordinance which is 20-foot wide driveway and built to a 7-ton design with an acceptable turnaround design. UTILITIES The City is currently underway with the installation of trunk sewer and water improvements along Galpin Boulevard as well as E Street to service this parcel and the JDT property. The City project involves extending sanitary sewer and water from Galpin Boulevard back to the JDT property where a lift station will be constructed. This sewer and water project is anticipated to be constructed and completed yet this fall which will provide immediate service to these two developments. Preliminary review of the utility plans for the subdivision shows sewer service from two trunk systems. The northeasterly corner of the site is proposed to be serviced from the existing Lake Ann Interceptor and the remainder of the site through the Upper Bluff Creek trunk system which is currently being constructed. Both of these projects will sustain assessments against the development which need to be addressed in the development contract for the development. The utility layout for this project is fairly straightforward. A more detailed analysis will be given when the applicant submits detailed construction plans and specifications to the City for review and formal approval. All utility and street construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 15 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The City's Fire Marshal will also review fire hydrant placement. Typically, hydrants are spaced approximately 300 feet apart in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. According to the City's Comprehensive Water Study, a trunk watermain line is designated along the Street A alignment. Typically the City gives the developer a credit for the trunk utility improvements the developer installs within his development. The credit is given in the fashion of an assessment reduction against the overall development. For example, the applicant would be credited the cost difference between a proposed 16-inch trunk watermain line versus a lateral 8-inch water line. Upon completion of the project, the sewer and water lines will be extended to the neighboring parcels. Staff feels, however, on H Street the watermain should be stubbed to the westerly plat line between Lots 16 and 17 for a future looping of the watermain system. The plans also propose on stubbing a 10-inch sanitary sewer line north of A Street (within the JDT development) for future service to the northerly properties. The parcel does contain an existing home (Song's) which is currently on a well and septic system. As the sewer and water service becomes available, the property should be required to connect to it. The City ordinance requires within 12 months after the sewer becomes available, the household is required to hook up to it. Water service may be delayed until the well on the property becomes inoperational. SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE As described in the applicant's narrative, the site grading will be very selective in an effort to preserve wooded areas as well as minimize disruption to wetlands. The bulk of the site grading is proposed along the easterly one-third of the development. Over the remaining areas, grading will be performed only in the street right-of-way sections and storm ponding areas. The majority of these lots will be custom-graded. On the selectively graded home sites, each individual building permit should require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted as well as a tree removal plan for staff review and approval. The grading plans propose construction of earth berms partially into and adjacent to Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. With the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard, the Park and Recreation Department has expressed a desire to have a dual trail system along the roadway. Therefore, staff recommends that the grades be changed on the grading plan to be compatible with the future trail section along Galpin Boulevard. Another area of concern is wetland basin G which encroaches into Galpin Boulevard right-of-way (Lot 14, Block 2). Since this area will fall within the Galpin Boulevard trail system, it is recommended the applicant relocate the wetland basin so it is contained within the development parameters. The entire development proposes five storm water drainage basins (NURP ponds) to pretreat storm water prior to discharging into the wetlands. The plans also propose a series of storm Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 16 sewer catch basins to convey storm water runoff to the drainage basins. At the preliminary plat submittal, staff usually does not require any storm sewer calculations or ponding data; therefore, staff is unable to determine if the ponding or storm sewer system is adequately sized at this time. This is usually addressed in conjunction with final platting. As a rule, the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100- year, 24-hour storm event through the use of storm water detention/retention facilities. The subdivision's storm sewer system should also be designed for a 10-year storm event. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for staff review and approval prior to final platting. EROSION CONTROL The preliminary grading and drainage plan does propose erosion control measures such as erosion control barrier fence around the wetlands. Staff recommends that the erosion control measures around the wetlands be the City's Type III erosion control fence to minimize the chance of disturbance of the wetlands. Due to the lateness of the year, it is most likely no grading or utility work will transpire yet this fall. Typically, the grading on these projects when they are adjacent to wetlands, the City has normally required that no grading be allowed near the wetland areas during the waterfowl breeding season. Depending on which portion of the project (phase) they pursue this spring, this condition may or may not be applicable. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activity shall comply with the City's construction site erosion and sediment control Best Management Practice Handbook. WETLANDS AND PROPOSED ALTERATIONS The property contains eight wetlands and four of these wetlands will be altered or filled as a consequence of the project. The following is a brief description of the wetlands on site: Basin A - Basin A is known as Lake Harrison and classified as Minnesota Department of Natural Resources state protected water 8W. The basin is characterized as two different wetland classifications. Approximately 5.7 acres of the basin within the property boundary is characterized as an exposed palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland(Cowardin PUBG; Circular 39 Type 5 open water). Surrounding the open water basin is approximately 8.5 acres of seasonally to semi-permanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMC/F; Circular 39 Type 3/4 shallow and deep marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as a natural wetland indicating that the wetland has a moderate to high functional value. This basin will not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Basin B - Basin B is classified as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 wet meadow). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 17 to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 0.46 acres and the entire basin will be filled as a result of the proposed park development on the property. Basin C - Basin C is classified as a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMC; Circular 39 Type 3 shallow marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. Approximately 0.21 acre of the 7.5 acre basin will be filled in order to install a stormwater pond large enough to meet the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The stormwater pond should help to maintain the water quality within the basin. Basin D - Basin D is a drainageway classified as a seasonally flooded forested wetland (Cowardin PFO1 C; Circular 39 Type 1 bottom hardwoods). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as a natural wetland indicating that the wetland has a moderate to high functional value. Approximately 0.01 acre of the 0.6 acre basin will be filled to install a stormwater pond large enough to meet NURP standards. The stormwater pond should help to maintain the water quality within the basin. Basin E - Basin E appears to be a man-made excavated wetland that drains into Basin D via a 220 foot drainageway. The basin is approximately 0.2 acre and the drainageway is approximately _ 0.1 acre. It is classified as a semi-permanently flooded unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PUBF; Circular 39 Type 5 open water). The City of Chanhassen classifies this basin as agricultural/urban since it was created by man. This basin will not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Basins F and G - Both of these basins are sections of a road ditch which have revegetated with _ wetland vegetation. The City of Chanhassen classifies these basins as agricultural/urban since they have been impacted by the roadway. These basins will not be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Basin H - A portion of Basin H is within the project area. The basin is characterized as a ditched/partially drained saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 set meadow). The City of Chanhassen classifies this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the basin has a low to moderate functional value. The basin lies in Lot 9 of Block 1 and is planned to be a 9.48-acre single residential lot. No impacts to this wetland are expected as a result of the proposed development. Basin I - Basin I will be delineated and surveyed in the near future. This basin is classified as a temporarily flooded palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMA; Circular 39 Type 1 seasonally flooded). The City of Chanhassen classifies this 0.1 acre basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the basin has a low to moderate functional value. The entire basin will be filled as a result of a roadway for the proposed development. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 18 The following table summarizes the wetland areas that will be altered as a result of the proposed development: Wetland Wetland Wetland Size Wetland Identification Type . (acres) Area to be Altered (acres) A Natural 14.2 0 B Ag/Urban 0.46 0.46 C Ag/Urban 7.5 0.21 D Natural 0.6 0.01 E Ag/Urban 0.3 0 F Ag/Urban 0.1 0 G Ag/Urban 0.1 0 H Ag/Urban not delineated 0 I Ag/Urban —0.10 (needs to be --0.10 delineated) TOTAL 0.78 Mitigation The applicant is proposing to create 0.78 acre of mitigation on cultivated upland which is contiguous to wetlands that fringe Lake Harrison (Basin A) The mitigation plan will have to be adapted to meet the required 1:1 mitigation ratio required by the Wetland Conservation Act. The mitigation area shown on the current grading plan is approximately 0.68 acre. With the addition of Wetland I, the area will have to enlarged to a total of 0.78 acre or more. Basins B and I (Ag/Urban wetlands) will be entirely filled, but the wetland replacement for the loss will be incorporated into a natural basin (Basin A). The mitigation will help offset the wetland loss with a higher functional value replacement to the area. Basins C and D only require a small amount of fill in order to install stormwater ponds to help maintain the water quality within the basins. The natural drainage area to the existing basins will be altered as a result of the development. A hydrologic analysis of present and developed conditions shows that the amount of water Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 19 entering basins A, E, F, and G will not be significantly altered and the amount of water entering basins C and D will be increased. The following table summarizes the estimated results of the existing and developed hydrologic conditions. Drainage Existing 1-year Existing 10-year Developed 1-year Developed 10-year Area Storm Runoff Storm Runoff Storm Runoff Storm Runoff (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) A & B 0.99 4.12 1.14 4.20 C 0.79 3.87 1.50 5.52 D 0.06 0.38 0.20 0.83 E 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.09 F & G 0.13 0.78 0.14 0.77 Basin C will receive a 509k and 90% increase in runoff for a 10-year and 1-year storm, respectively. Since Basin C is classified as agricultural/urban, the increase in treated runoff may enhance the functional value to the basin. Basin D will also receive a significant increase in runoff to the basin. Increasing the size of the holding pond just north of Basin D may help to slow the rate of water entering the basin. It is recommended that this option be explored since the altered hydrology pattern may upset the ecological balance to this natural wetland. Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditions of Approval The applicant has submitted a table showing the wetland boundary and setbacks. This plan meets the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. The wetland ordinance requires different buffer strips for the natural and ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The structure setback and buffer strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip Natural 10-30 ft 20 ft Entire 40 ft Ag/Urban 0-30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 20 The buffer strip around the natural wetlands have to contain native vegetation. It is optional how much of the buffer strip must contain native vegetation around the agricultural/urban wetlands. Additional vegetation is not necessary where vegetation already exists. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a city approved monument on each lot. TREE PRESERVATION The tree preservation concept this proposal is based upon is a good one. The underlying plat design, street layout, lot configurations and locations, are all designed to maximize tree preservation areas and we generally believe that they did a good job. Submitted materials indicate that of 717 "large trees" (12 " or larger) 90% will be preserved. Of these, only 8 of the 99 trees 30" or larger would be lost. This is admirable and indicative of good planning however, we are not sure if we are "comparing apples to apples" here. This data is indicative of trees lost to construction of streets and utilities. It does not appear to include additional trees lost due to home placement. As with other recent plats, significant areas of the site will be protected by conservation areas. Plans dated June, 1993 illustrate cut/no-cut zones around individual building sites. However, these due not conform to the tree preservation areas that are illustrated on another document and may in fact prove to be too restricting when individual home plans are developed. Staff has worked with the Tree Board to develop a tree preservation ordinance and continues to do so although the process still is not complete. On recent plats, a great deal of effort has been placed upon not only identifying tree masses for preservation but also identifying individual trees on individual lots. This kind of micro planning has the theoretical advantage of maximizing tree preservation but it comes at a cost of limiting home buyers choices and greatly increased administration load. Given the fact that these lots sell at a premium and that most home owners want to protect trees, it may be more productive to place focus of our efforts on identifying the largest and most practical tree conservation easements and leave the decisions of how to site a particular home outside of that easement, up to the developer and buyer. What we are proposing can be divided into several areas. First of all, we are recommending that the City accept the proposed Lundgren approach whereby trees will be preserved in conservation areas where appropriate and through careful site development (streets and utilities). Secondly, we are recommending that the tree conservation areas illustrated by the applicant, be significantly expanded to more closely reflect the June 4, 1993, cut/no-cut figure prepared by the applicant. We received tree survey information from the applicant in several different formats and at several different times making illustration and interpretation difficult. The intent here is not to preserve trees on a tree-by-tree basis around building pads but rather to — Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 21 ensure that tree massings are protected in a reasonable manner and that road and utility plans can be adjusted as needed to maximize preservation. The third element is reforestation. The applicant is proposing to plant 208 overstory and 87 coniferous trees plus other plant materials in various locations throughout the site. Planting areas include a landscaped berm along Galpin; reforestation of the commonly held, private park area, in islands located in cul-de-sacs, at entrances onto Galpin and in scattered locations around the plat This goal is admirable however, from the submitted plans it is virtually impossible to understand where this material is going to be placed. For final approval we are asking that the following be incorporated: 1. Detailed plans for landscaping the cul-de-sac islands be developed for approval. 2. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped berm by developed for approval. This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned _ elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. 3. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. 4. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. One additional factor relative to tree preservation is worth noting. None of the applicant's materials recognize the fact that substantial tree preservation will occur on the 9.5 acre parcel being retained by the Song's for their own home. Located in the northeast corner of the PUD, this area is visible from Galpin and would be only minimally impacted by the construction of a single home. PARK AND RECREATION This item was first reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on July 27, 1993. The issue was tabled that evening for further review at a subsequent Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The attached staff report dated August 18, 1993, explains in detail the reasons for the delay in action. The evening of August 24 saw a Park and Recreation Commission with many of the concerns they had on July 27. The most prominent being the continuing lack of a public park. The commission felt it would be unfair to approve the Song application contingent upon the Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 22 acquisition of a public park elsewhere in this area. The applicant, however, elected to approve of such a condition with a 45 day time limit. Upon conclusion of the discussion on August 24, the following action was taken: Lash moved, Berg seconded to recommend that the preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development into 115 single family lots (Song property) be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission contingent upon the following conditions of approval being met: Parks 1. The private/association park be approved only if the additional amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. 2. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Trails 1. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. 2. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsifrurner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsirrurner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 23 for the Johnson/Dolejsiffurner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary PUD of 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. 2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. 3. Each lot to be provided with two trees, at least one of which must be located in the front yard where there would otherwise be no trees 6" or larger in this area. Trees to be selected from approved city list of over story trees, minimum 21/2 diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. 5. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for - review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 24 consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. 6. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. 7. Provide details of the proposed,private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs, financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. 8. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval, the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed. This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. 9. Tree Preservation/Landscaping: a. Detailed plans for landscaping the cul-de-sac islands be developed for approval. b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped berm by developed for approval. This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 25 e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the site. Expand the tree conservation areas as recommended by staff. 10. Park and Trails: Parks a. The private/association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Trails a. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsiaurner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 26 amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired. 11. Demcnstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat. 12. The :final plat shall be amended to include revised street right-of-ways on Streets B, D and C to a 60-foot wide right-of-way with Streets H and I to be 50 feet wide with the standard street section. 13. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right-of-ways including drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. 14. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. 16. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street. 17. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 27 18. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before October 31 each construction season except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control. 19. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and = water improvements which is considered anything over an 8-inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8-inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. 20. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 21. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The Song homestead shall gain access via a direct connection to "B" Street. 22. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval. 23. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. 24. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction. 25. A private driveway easement should be conveyed for access to Lot 9, Block 1 between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 off of B Street. 26. The street grades on C Street and E Street shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7.0% except on H Street which is 8% street grade. 'A' Street shall be constructed in accordance with State-Aid standards. Song Property October 6, 1993 Page 28 27. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension may be through either H Street or another Street location within the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to the west. 28. The landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and E Street shall be deleted. The cul-de-sac islands may remain subject to staff modifications. 29. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. 30. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain-of-title of all lots in the vicinity. • 31. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal." ATTACHMENTS 1. Tree Location Tabulation. 2. Letter from Carver County dated June 22, 1993. 3. Memo from Forestry Intern dated September 14, 1993. 4. Staff report for Johnson/DolejsiTurner (JDT) PUD. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED LUNDGREN BROS. (SONG PROPERTY) QUG ; . TREE LOCATION TABULATION CHANHAS6EN PLANNING DE BLOCK 1 Lots 1 thru 9 No Trees Lot 7 No trees Lot 8 No trees BLOCK 2 Lot 9 No trees Lots 1 thru 24 No trees Lot 10 No trees Lot 11 No trees BLOCK 3 Lot 12 No trees Lot 1 No trees Lot 13 No trees Lot 2 No trees Lot 14 No trees Lot 3 No trees Lot 15 No trees Lot 4 723 = 12" oak Lot 16 No trees Lot 5 No trees Lot 17 No trees Lot 6 No trees Lot 18 383 = 15" ash Lot 7 720 = 27" oak 385 = 36" box elder 721 = 20" oak 722 = 20" maple Lot 19 386 = 24" double oak 387 = 27" double oak BLOCK 4 388 = 24" ash Lot 1 No trees 389 = 27" double oak Lot 2 No trees 390 = 24" oak Lot 3 374 = 20" ash 391 = 20" oak 375 = 16" oak 392 = 15" oak Lot 4 376 - 26" oak 393 = 18" double oak 377 = 30" maple 394 = 12" ash 378 = 24" ash 403 = 30" oak Lot 20 395 = 18" oak 404 = 30" oak Lot 21 396 = 30" oak 405 = 12" double Lot 22 397 = 24" oak ironwood 398 = 32" oak 406 = 40" oak Lot 23 No trees 407 = 30" oak Lot 24 No trees 408 = 12" ash Lot 25 724 = 30" ash 409 = 12" double ash Lot 26 No trees 410 = 30" oak Lot 27 No trees 411 = 30" double oak Lot 28 No trees 412 = 16" oak Lot 29 No trees _ 413 = 36" oak Lot 30 476 = 32" maple 414 = 30" oak Lot 31 473 = 12" maple Lot 5 379 = 24" ash 474 = 20" maple 380 = 30" oak 475 = 20" maple 382 = 20" ash 477 = 24" maple 384 = 30" box elder 478 = 15" maple 401 = 30" oak 402 = 30" oak Lot 6 381 = 15" double ash 1 BLOCK 5 594 = 12" oak Lot 1 547 = 30" maple 607 = 16" oak 548 = 30" maple 608 = 22" maple 549 = 30" maple 609 = 14" maple 714 = 18" ash 611 = 18" maple 715 = 12" cluster of 612 = 20" maple birch 613 = 20" maple 716 = 15" double oak 614 = 16" oak 717 = 36" oak 632 = 22" maple 718 = 12" ash 633 = 20" maple • 634 = 15" maple Lot 2 546 = 26" basswood 635 = 24" oak 550 = 32 " maple 636 = 15" maple 551 = 30" oak 637 = 15" maple 655 = 15" oak Lot 3 539 = 18" maple 660 = 15" maple 541 = 26" basswood 656 = 24" maple 542 = 22" oak 657 = 15" maple 545 = 18" maple 552 = 14" ash Lot 5 574 = 14" oak 553 = 30" maple 595 = 12" maple 555 = 20" maple 596 = 14" oak 556 = 18" maple 597 = 12" oak 557 = 22" maple 598 = 14" oak 558 = 14" maple 599 = 18" double oak 559 = 24" maple 600 = 14" double oak 560 = 24" maple 601 = 18" double oak 561 = 16" maple 602 = 18" double oak 562 = 14" oak 603 = 16" ash 604 = 12" oak Lot 4 575 = 12" oak 605 = 14" oak 576 = 14" oak 606 = 14" oak 579 = 16" oak 615 = 14" oak 577 = 16" double oak 616 = 26" double oak 578 = 14" ash 617 = 12" oak 563 = 16" maple 618 = 18" oak 580 = 14" double oak 619 = 16" oak 581 = 16" maple 620 = 16" oak 582 = 18" maple 621 = 16" oak 583 = 12" maple 622 = 14" oak 583A = 14" oak 623 = 14" double oak 584 = 16" maple 624 = 14" maple 585 = 14" maple 625 = 12" double oak 554 = 12" maple 626 = 16" oak 586 = 14" oak 627 = 20" oak 587 = 14" oak 628 = 12" double oak 588 = 12" oak 629 = 14" double oak 589 = 14" oak 630 = 18" oak 590 = 16" maple 631 = 15" maple 591 = 16" maple 638 = 20" maple 592 = 14" oak 639 = 16" oak 593 = 12" oak 640 = 15" oak 3 237 = 18" oak 238 = 18" oak BLOCK 7 - continued 239 = 18" double oak Lot 6 242 = 18" oak 240 = 20" oak 243 = 18" oak 241 = 22" oak 244 = 32" oak 245 = 24" oak 285 = 26" oak 246 = 18" oak 286 = 24" oak 287 = 18" oak Lot 9 196 = 20" oak 288 = 16" oak 197 = 20" oak 289 = 16" oak 205 = 18" oak 290 = 18" oak 206 = 10" double 291 = 14" oak maple 292 = 20" oak 207 = 16" oak 293 = 20" oak 208 = 22" oak 294 = 16" oak 209 = 26" oak 295 = 26" oak 210 = 26" oak 333 = 18" oak 211 = 16" oak 334 = 34" oak 212 = 20" oak 335 = 20" oak 213 = 22" maple 336 = 24" oak 214 = 16" oak = 337 = 20" oak 215 = 14" oak 338 = 26" oak 247 = 18" oak 339 = 16" oak 248 = 26" oak 284 = 16" oak 249 = 14" ash 352 = 18" oak 250 = 18" oak 251 = 24" oak Lot 7 184 = 26" oak 252 = 14" oak 185 = 36" maple 253 = 20" ash 186 = 26" maple 254 = 24" oak 187 = 18" maple 255 = 20" oak 219 = 16" oak 256 = 12" double oak 220 = 30" oak 257 = 16" oak 223 = 32" oak 258 = 16" oak 224 = 26" oak 259 = 26" oak 225 = 16" oak 260 = 24" oak 226 = 20" oak 261 = 18" oak 227 = 24" oak 262 = 20" oak 228 = 18" oak 263 = 22" oak 229 = 16" oak 264 = 22" double oak 230 = 20" double oak 265 = 20" oak 231 = 14" oak 266 = 18" oak 232 = 22" oak 283 = 16" oak 267 = 12" box elder Lot 8 188 = 16" oak 216 = 20" oak Lot 10 133 = 36" oak 217 = 18" oak 135 = 12" box elder 218 = 20" oak 136 = 26" oak 235 = 22" oak 198 = 30" oak 234 = 20" oak 199 = 26" oak 233 = 20" oak 200 = 36" oak 236 = 24" oak 201 = 12" box elder 5 BLOCK 7 - continued 151 = 24" oak Lot 15 46 = 14" ironwood 152 = 42" oak 47 = 30" oak 153 = 16" oak 48 = 26" oak 154 = 16" oak 155 = 20" oak Lot 16 1 = 14" ash 156 = 18" oak 11 = 26" elm 12 = 26" oak Lot 20 157 = 26" oak 13 = 12" ash 158 = 18" oak 21 = 36" maple 159 = 32" maple 22 = 24" maple 160 = 30" oak 23 = 36" maple 161 = 28" oak 25 = 14" birch 162 = 18" oak 38 = 30" maple 163 = 24" oak 39 = 30" maple 164 = 24" maple 40 = 24" oak 165 = 20" oak 166 = 22 " oak Lot 17 55 = 22" ash 167 = 18" oak 56 = double oak 168 = 16" oak 57 = 30" oak 171 = 14" oak 59 = 26" oak 172 = 18" oak 60 = 26" oak 173 = 16" oak 94 = 22" oak 174 = 16" oak 95 = 30" oak 175 = 14" oak 96 = 36" oak 176 = 26" maple 178 = 18" oak Lot 18 88 = 26" oak 179 = 24" oak 89 = 26" oak 180 = 22" oak 90 = 34" oak 181 = 18" oak 91 = 26" oak 182 = 24" oak 92 = 26" oak 93 = 20" oak Lot 21 169 = 26" maple 97 = 34" oak 170 = 26" oak 98 = 26" oak 183 = 20" oak 99 = 20" oak 221 = 32" oak 100 = 22" oak 222 = 14" mullberry 101 = 22" oak 102 = 34" oak Lot 22 296 = 32" ash 103 = 26" oak Lot 23 297 = 28" willow 104 = 26" oak 298 = 26" willow 105 = 26" oak 299 = 32" oak 106 = 32" oak Lot 24 300 = 28" oak Lot 19 107 = 26" oak 301 = 26" oak 108 = 32" oak 302 = 26" double oak 109 = 26" oak 303 = 14" oak 110 = 36" oak 304 = 26" oak 111 = 24" oak 305 = 24" oak 112 = 30" oak 306 = 24" oak 113 = 26" oak 307 = 20" oak 114 = 24" oak 308 = 24" oak 150 = 20" oak 309 = 32" double oak 7 Street I 189 = 18" oak 190 = 26" oak 191 = 30" maple 192 = 20" oak 193 = 26" double oak 194 = 30" oak 195 = 18" oak Off Property (but located) 572 = 20" oak 692 = 20" double maple 693 = 14" maple 694 = 16" oak 695 = 16" oak 696 = 24" oak 697 = 18" maple 698 = 12" oak 699 = 16" triple oak 700 = 24" maple 9 K ( (l , /. CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE J% 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (6121448-1213 ik,N E Sul COUNTY OF CAQVEQ June 22, 1993 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Song-Carlson Property (93-3 PUD) Following are comments regarding the-pretiminary plat for the Song-Carlson Property transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated June 7, 1993. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 50 foot from centerline corridor shown would provide for a potential 100 foot corridor. This corridor would meet the. needs for an urban roadway. 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. 2. Drainage by the road structure has been a problem on this property. Any grading work should provide for positive drainage away from the road structure. 3. The plan includes provisions for a divided entrance. The County has approved similar designs in the past. The City may want to review for acceptance of this type of entrance on this roadway. 4. The City may want to review the overall transportation intersection alignments in this area to see if the proposed entrance location will provide for a safe entrance site. Afrmatire Attrin/Equal Opprntrntitl Emploier- Printed on Rended Paper 5. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 6. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 7. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 8. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. MEMORANDUM To: Paul Krauss, Planning Director From: Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern Date: Sept. 14, 1993 Subj: Issues related to the tree removal plan for the Song Property 1. This site contains primarily red oak and sugar maple trees, which are known to be among the most sensitive species to root disturbance in this area. An issue of primary importance on this site is going to be location of protective measures such as snow fencing and determining whether or not certain trees, mostly at the grading limits, will actually be saved. I feel that fencing at one and a half times the diameter of the drip line is necessary for the majority of the affected trees. There may be a few cases where the fencing could be closer depending mainly on the tree species involved. More retaining walls, particularly along H street and the western end of E street, may be necessary in the interest of preserving as much of the original grade as possible around the trees to be saved. Some retaining walls are already planned for these areas. 2. When I visited the property, I found it difficult to match the tree removal plans to the site, particularly in the heavily wooded areas. Although the trees are numbered on the tree removal plans, they are not labeled on site. This can lead to confusion when trying to locate particular trees that may be near the grading limits in the field, especially when many of the trees are of the same species and approximately the same size. Although I noticed faint spray paint marks on some of the trees, I also wonder if every significant tree has actually been recorded. There were situations where I was unable to determine if a tree in the field was on the plans or what number it was, if it was even on the plan. For example, in the rear of lot 25, block 7, there appeared to be at least one large oak that was not recorded. Other recent developments have included numbered tags on the trees (i.e. Lake Susan Hills 9th and Trotters) and these types of problems did not occur. 3. Since the site is poorly staked at best, it is difficult to determine exactly where the grading limits are located in the field. 4. At this time, I do not see any major problems with the placement of the roads, etc. For the most part, the plan appears accurate and seems to work well with the natural features of the site. •-, PC DATE: 8/19/92 � ITY 0F _ CC DATE: 9/14/92 • I CHANHASSEN may, CASE #- 92-4 PUD By: O1 i Ier el:Y, e . Ammininratm. Re el-1 STAFF REPORT : �.-. :c Ccrmissio PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning from A2 Agricultural Estate to PUD, Single Family Residential Planned Unit Development 2) Development Review, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 161 acres into Z 112 single family lots and 8 outlots 3) Wetland Alteration Permit for dredging, filling and development within protected wetlands ,J LOCATION: West of State Highway 41, North of State Highway 5, Adjacent to the CL BMT Site 0 Q APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates ACREAGE: Northern Portion 95 Acres (gross) and 61 Acres (net - less wetlands and streets) Southern Portion 66 Acres (Outlots G and H) DENSITY: 1.19 u/a (gross) and 1.85 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, single family/vacant — Q S - A2, vacant I"'7 E - A2, single family/vacant _r7.7 W - A2, Camp Tanadoona/vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Extension of utilities has been petitioned by the applicant. (/) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains steep topography, wetlands, and vegetated areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density o r ST fw #0,5,7„, t - -1.0.:il'AllecirA-- , -7,._- • ... • A , .." .. .. alba. - •-••••-$•-;';•1-:lni,'' 1-111,3i- .v- Sj... - ....,tr . .41....-...,:srl...-.- I i .. . jarI/sassas,---_, , -• • ,• -.1-f.,,..-• .•-ZPI. • .a.._.___....____ effiraillill ..-...% ,Cf/ag - 1 ...••.....:)•••...i.,;$7...,--,1.-3.... ,, :4 --. •\„,........„ ..., -ii,..\ !-_.:... ,„.."0.../....,0 ..I 4...... .- ....__ /,.., _ . . . , • -•..,,..;_. ,..,.1,..),„...,,:-..7 . I \ J." •i•:•;1.Z.t1 .••••'...:•-•,... )1, '.., ux-7"-",.....1... -‘-'1. .I...•._.•‘;-%j.•„„, I 6 11 ":4,3.d." ,...../ • • r'.1." AV.'4• ..•r I, ... • 11.'6.4 ' '' ''''.•-- ••• i I :;::•17).••••11?;1140.% , • •••..)7' . .••;: ..kie,,'1,.% 1‘;' ....,'.4• , '. • ..41.11.1••• .... ••,..14:4........k ‘ - ..,1 ..-3, - ' d'"o, •P "•-3. 1 . • ' .1,...••"%. /v.1 •.-A0.•• .,f • . i `',.`v 14 -, .• .71.': 1:,. 1 ''' •:.)..... • s . v .... :. — I 190,011.21%.1;.. './.......‹Z 4.1:1 •f*, .r:' :N.Z. 1 /" 1....• . :'' f2':_h•er • -N. el‘n.,7•:A..%'..1....• 'Z' 4-. • k-'.' /• •• -..*IOW-m•m•••ii i --k-ik .•%..---,:;..". ...,A.: ,--1,-cik \- -./ i, . .... . — '-1.- ; ?), r'VC 1'3•tt 7- z . :t1`7%'1 ••__ , . ..•. • ,.... , _ ...k. . a ,", -%.....0% --) ;•-•.::• ••V--- •-rt )::.° -.".:1-f`... li - si-1,-;•.7 Allhk.441CMISSL •. .( 'i•:•••••• % ------ - - • :),•,t •,..,- ,.c.vt . ,..t',. .. .• • •" -:. y•-1.-V,..i.'" ... • '''•-.. .."Nt " ,.. . • Le ,./ ,,i. • 1..; r....: — -- il:Ir :4"1;:5.7.1.1‘...'IN'''•:.:... .7:iZe.• ::1: 4._:.2:V.ill'.i i,- ' . 11 1•'•-1.'".•,.ai."(• \ -41 •• a •-• r•- -.--•-•.-e:7, • .-..-4.•,.-. -•-•'.:._-- ,--4 2)-... . ••icl-v..*: ,•-i-i••-7:4. .. '...'!..... . ., A - A••• tZ.1..*.%". ...:'• q‘ "--,.... :--7.:,..-:,.:1-1':•)•'-e: ‘.1":"-70 ' : '.1"‘I.') 'l-fliieVelS44. -1.,:::: •:‘.,.1-1-...=:,,...,-. .,i..: n."' ,.:.-.--. - '-... ;.i...,.-.-..-....... ,..•'''..—'„.,•'i...„...1;:f. ..., .. :P.,f•'•:: - . I ... . . I . - , • - _ +.• -: 3/4 3/44, '‘ .... ' "t • ... •'/. /•*:1/N•.••1 '•'••,^.:•%,..'.. .:4 4..;... .........i..•.64:....:,4:4 .. me • .3/4 3/4 .••• • L A E _ X r.t-''•--xs•'-r;).. :Cr r `.‘ PAW,. .. u / - -7,------__ .. le , ,-,,.c e„ .. .:yr. %,."___. • ,,.,.r; :•••,e•A-'-,--c-r s -• a r ::--- -'re-',--°•,-"f-'fr ' T' 4..".. -s../..l•w' ..., 0-.. •.... . ; NAPOPI,S•V 4% ... ,r.. - .-..;;„,:--c, •g'i,7r.•;• r*, C cr•••N- ,-P:( .•,c,•""4 .i., ,...c.t..,... .4..r • r.r....C...„,,.Ania,_•rts,:l . -4 ..P.r.''.i...": IC.'1:',•;.• rc- • -- NI: t• rf•,.i-- -T• f• .r:ti rerr• lia..44,_...._ 4 ..r.er:„.. .e c..p. : .„..4i.,..4....i.,.........,:.r ayAllfgr-itafte. sm. . 70, c,:rr:t..r.,‘,r.r."er-, n-14- Al kik ; -2-c,-.. ",,e.-. r ri;4.-e•,t.4 lir ai . , g . --lir ...... , _ -1rd al a D : i B .• I Atiadit . • o de I 0 /90 4t9 ..# i... 6 - Cli cer_v_rf • i . `1PrA .) C./ a PP 4 C.L A 4:2-RsEhrf . IA V / 4&, , •,,,,,..., no . L - 1 DY .r j99 , klRA n AIIIIIIIIII...... A‘ 1111: 11prAr olio ._ • . 101PF ,i:101 irr V:e./.. 'liaaPPFAIrlir'.oN ,G--.4, 1111141 ih, 4 a atkillir 4.--" ---a-MLAJEAK tipLzi._c,..Et_Ji JILJ1411. is- iik 71,11112,----.4 .1r.ir,g(40 .44.146..-z=.- IL i _ A.4,44,44Lrit7- A ..•.-. . . 11111 .. ............................... . m......-. - ::::::::•:•:•:•:•::::.-:•:•......:•:•.•::. .:- _ • -....................-• _... 111111. ......,.- ; . . • 11:1': 1 .' s4 a - • II , Co• • qr , . . .. • _ . . . . - I Illiklimi Nue NEN immia mardommis - st- ' • •. •• • •s . - • - • . ... •,..... \v ..., ,•• _ pigWA , . .. s. . \\. \, . • , , . • .....\,.., • . ,.." sc----- -- • • .\ , _ . .\... • 0- ' ' ' ' • . . • . • • Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY OF PUD • The applicant is proposing a single family detached residential planned unit development which subdivides 160.88 acres into 112 single family lots and 8 outlots. One of the lots will be occupied by an existing home, thus, 111 new home sites will result. (The concept plan proposed 113 single family lots, one lot was eliminated as the plan was revised to accommodate concerns that were raised). The site is located east of Hwy. 41 and north of Hwy. 5. The property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estates and is designated as Residential Low Density and 1995 Study Area. The northerly portion of the site is proposed as single family lots (PUD site) and the southerly portion of the site is proposed as an outlot for future development. The northerly portion of the subject site was included in the MUSA line as part of the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment after Lundgren Bros. made a presentation to the Planning Commission. It was concluded that the wetland which forms the site's southern boundary, was the appropriate dividing line between the MUSA area and the 1995 Study Area. The site contains significant environmental features which include ten wetland areas, steep topography and mature stands of vegetation. Due to the site conditions and the desire to provide a variety of lots and housing units, the applicant is pursuing rezoning of the property to planned unit development. A planned unit development will allow the site to be developed with reduced right-of-way and reduced setbacks to pull the building pads away from sensitive areas and will allow innovative techniques to be used with the wetland areas (buffer yards, native landscaping, etc.). The City Code currently provides standards permitting planned unit developments if certain requirements are met. Specific guidelines for single family planned unit developments have not yet been adopted, but have been approved by the Planning Commission and will be reviewed by the City Council in October. Staff will be using the existing PUD requirements and the proposed single family PUD requirements in the review of this proposed planned unit development. In addition, new wetland regulations are in the process of being reviewed for adoption by the city and these too will be used as guidelines for review of the proposed planned unit development. The development review for the PUD is only for the northern portion of the site proposed for the 112 single family lots. The southerly portion will remain zoned as A2. The applicant has taken care to work with the site's many natural features. Design flexibility allowed under the PUD ordinance is being put to reasonable use. The lot areas range from 11,550 square feet to 60,370 square feet (including wetland area) and range from 10,075 square feet to 57,813 square feet (not including wetland area). The total project density is extremely low for residential development in Chanhassen. There is a gross density of 1.18 units per acre with a net density (excluding wetlands and streets) of 1.84 units per acre. This compares to typical numbers of 1.7 and 2.0 units per acre respectively on typical single family development in Chanhassen. We also note that this type of density is considered to be extremely low relative to other developing communities in the Twin Cities. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 3 Major access to this site will be provided by a new street that will ultimately run between Hwy. 41 and Galpin Boulevard. Since the applicant is only in control of a portion of this alignment, only that section of the street which is located on the Lundgren parcel will be constructed at this time. The remaining piece would be constructed across the adjoining Song property when this area is subdivided. At this point in time, the applicant is negotiating with the Song's on development possibilities. However, staff is unsure at the time of writing as to when development might occur and who may actually be undertaking it. The Lundgren proposal was designed with some sensitivity to coordinating ultimate development of the Song property. The collector street right-of-way alignment is designed in a manner so that it can be similarly used to service the Song property. Location of a collector street in this area is illustrated on the city Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not purport to establish an alignment for this street. In early discussions with the applicant on this site, the Planning Director and City Engineer determined that it would be inappropriate to construct the collector street to typical collector street standards which would result in a road similar to Lake Lucy Road. This determination was based upon the extreme changes of topography and locations of wetlands on both the Lundgren and Song parcels. It would be impossible to construct a street to the standards without significantly impacting the site's natural features. Therefore, they agreed to recommend that the collector street be designed to high quality local street standards which reduce grading requirements and increase both horizontal and lateral design flexibility. The important thing, in their opinion, is that the road will provide continuity such that residents and emergency services will be afforded two means of ingress and egress into this area. Staff is also recommending that the local street right-of-way be reduced from 60' to 50' to further reduce impact to the site. The applicant is proposing alteration to some of the existing wetlands on the site. The wetlands that are proposed to be altered are in a degraded state and the alteration is being mitigated. The applicant is proposing the creation of buffer yards to protect the remaining wetlands and to be permitted a reduced setback from the 75' wetland setback. The proposal for the wetlands is consistent with the city's proposed changes to the wetland regulations, but staff has recommended some additional mitigation through combination of new and existing wetlands and by increasing the depth. The first step of the PUD process is conceptual approval. Concept review allows the Planning Commission and City Council to review the proposal in general terms to determine if it should be accepted as a planned unit development and what changes need to be made prior to action on the preliminary plat and rezoning. On August 19, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the concept plan for the PUD. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 single family lots with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff on the conditions presented in the staff report in accordance with the Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal _ August 19, 1992 Page 4 _ comments made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission felt that Conditions 4 through 9 could be reworded to allow some flexibility to the applicant and still meet staff's intent. The majority of the Planning Commission also felt that the cul-de-sacs "I" and "G" should remain (staff had recommended that they be connected) and that they liked the cul-de-sac islands (Attachment #1). The City Council reviewed the Concept PUD on September 14, 1992, and also approved of the concept plan. At the City Council meeting, the applicant presented the City Council with comments on staff's conditions and proposed changes to the conditions (Attachment #2). The City Council approved the concept plan with the applicant's proposed conditions. The major changes to the conditions were to remove the condition to connect the cul-de-sacs "I" and "G" and to permit the cul-de-sac islands. The second stage of the PUD process is the Development Review where the applicant receives preliminary plat and rezoning approval. The major concern of the city and staff during conceptual review was the amount of grading taking place on site and the resulting removal of trees. The city and staff recommended that the applicant review the grading plan and make changes in the house types, street locations and design, etc. to reduce the amount of grading on- site. The applicant has submitted revised grading plans for review. The new plans do somewhat reduce the amount of grading. The reduced grading is primarily a result of reducing the number and size of ponding areas and not always showing grading beyond the house pad. Some of the house types have been changed from walkouts to ramblers and lookouts which will reduce the amount of grading. Until the final storm water calculations are submitted for review, staff cannot verify that the proposed ponding areas will be adequate, but at this time the engineering staff feels additional ponding may be required. If this is the case, the applicant will have to increase the number of ponds and/or increase the ponding areas, either of which will result in more grading to the site. Although staff agrees the building sites should not be mass graded and that. the creation of usable rear yards could be done individually, the proposed grading plan showing some sites to not be graded beyond the house pad is not correct. There is typically at least a 15' area around the house pad which is altered during construction of the home. When this area is added to the revised grading plan, much of the areas of reduced grading will in fact be graded. During concept review, staff suggested the applicant review some significant changes to the plat such as pulling back the most southeasterly and south central cul-de-sacs (H and J streets). Staff has sketched out some alternatives, using private drives, to determine how many lots would be lost, how much vegetation would be saved and if what is saved is worth such a significant change. Such a revision would result in the removal of some significant lots and the applicant has not proposed such changes. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 5 The grading for lots located on "H" street are affecting a wooded ravine. The vegetation in this area is mostly box elder which does not warrant a drastic change in the lot configurations resulting in loss of lots. "J" street and the adjacent lots are resulting in the removal of significant vegetation, including large oaks. Staff worked on alternative street and lot configurations for this location to determine how to save some of the vegetation and found that, other than removing 3 or 4 lots, even the use of private drives and pulling back the cul-de-sac does not preserve the vegetation. Therefore, staff is agreeing with the layout presented by the applicant. It should be noted that the applicant did reduce the filling of "J" street which has reduce the amount of alteration to the area. Staff recognizes that the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated acceptance of the proposal to maintain two cul-de-sacs on I and G streets. We continue to believe that their connection is warranted due to issues of access and public safety, however, the proposed conditions reflect the direction you have given us. Similarly, the Engineering Department continues to have reservations with the proposal to provide landscaped islands in several streets and cul-de-sacs. Again, the conditions reflect your direction that these be allowed. Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is generally consistent with the guidelines established by the current and draft PUD ordinances. We also believe the applicant is using reasonable and sensitive development standards with an eye towards creating very high quality residential neighborhoods designed in a manner to protect a sensitive environment. Staff is recommending that the PUD Development Plan, Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit be approved with appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND The subject site was included in the MUSA line with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment_ At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council felt that the property was suitable for development with sewer and water. The proposal contains the BMT property (northeast corner of entrance). The BMT site is a nonconforming use (commercial in a residential district) which has the right to remain as long as it does not expand or intensify. The owner of BMT has sold the property to Lundgren Brothers with the condition of remaining until a new site is found or until 1994. The proposal designates one single family lot and an outlot on the BMT property which will be developed once the property is vacated. The applicant has initiated a feasibility study for sewer and water service to the site. Service to the site will not be possible until 1993. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site contains 10 protected wetland areas, steep topography, and heavily vegetated areas. The subject site is bordered by State Hwy. 41 on the west, State Hwy. 5 on the south, the Song property on the east, and residential/vacant property on the north. There are two exceptions shown on the plat. The first is located between State Hwy. 41 and street D. This property is under separate ownership and has its own access to Hwy. 41. To reduce the number of accesses to Hwy. 41 should this site be subdivided in the future, staff is recommending the site be provided with access to the adjacent cul-de-sac. The second exception is located to the north of the proposed private park. This site is separated from the subject site by steep topography. The landscaping plan shows extensive landscaping on Outlots A and F which is being used to meet the requirements for enhanced landscaping for the PUD. There also are landscaped cul-de- sac islands and median. Site terrain includes large variations in elevation. The large wetland that forms the southern boundary of the property is also the head waters of Bluff Creek. Much of the site contains large open field areas which were actively farmed in the past. REZONING TO PUD Section 20-501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit developments. Planned unit developments are to be used to enhance flexibility in developing a site with unique features and when there is a desire to provide a variety of uses. In return for this flexibility, the city should receive a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been achieved through standard zoning regulations. Under this section of the City Code the following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide: (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finddin The site contains some difficult topography, several wetlands of varying value and heavily vegetated areas. Upon review of the preliminary plat, it appears that the applicant is locating the streets and lots with the natural features of the site taken into consideration. The blocks are situated around wetland and vegetated areas and the steep sloped areas are avoided in most cases. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 7 (2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding The PUD allows the site to locate more dense development in areas without significant features while creating open space around natural features. The proposal is providing pockets of open space throughout the site which will benefit the whole development and is providing a variation of lot sizes. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where impact will be minimized by using density transfer. (3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots adjacent to existing uses. The applicant has also provided for future development with a future street connection. There will be covenants recorded as part of the PUD contract to ensure that high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be provided. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. Finding The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential and the proposal is accommodating existing uses and the potential for future development. Views of the site from the Hwy. 41 corridor will be protected by the tree preservation and required landscaping. A major land use transition south of the site is possible when this area is brought in the MUSA some time in the future. No decisions on the future of this area have been made pending completion of the Hwy. 5 Study. However, the large Bluff Creek wetland that separates the Lundgren site from the Hwy. 5 corridor has been established by the Comprehensive Plan as the buffer area. (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 8 Findin The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units/acre). The proposal has a net density (minus wetlands and roads) of 1.84 units/acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment for development with sewer and water and as a single family development. The Comprehensive Plan also showed this property as a site for a collector street, which the applicant is providing. (6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. Finding The applicant is providing open space throughout the site, including a private park. The Park and Recreation Commission has accepted this proposal but full park and trail fees will be required. No credit is being recommended for the private park. The Park and Recreation Commission conditioned approval upon dedication of a trail easement along State Hwy. 41. (7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. Finding The applicant is proposing a variety of lots sizes and housing units. Overall, the sites will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed. (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration or if this condition is relevant to single family home development. (9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 9 Finding The proposal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the east and was mentioned as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of the site is serviced by cul-de-sacs which are used to protect some of the natural features. Staff continues to recommend the connection of cul-de-sacs "G" and "I" to further improve traffic control. Although the Planning Commission and City Council have already taken action on this item and have agreed to not require the cul-de-sacs to be connected, staff feels we should still be on record of being in favor of connecting the two cul-de-sacs. In addition to the general planned unit development regulations, the city is in the process of adopting standards for single family planned unit developments. There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement states the developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following guidelines: a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD (draft ordinance) allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations). The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. Finding The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 10,075 sq. ft. to 57,813 sq. ft. (not including wetland areas) with an average net lot area of 20,601 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area. The site is broken down into six blocks which locate the lots around wetland and vegetated areas. Upon review of the concept grading plan and the impacts to the vegetated areas, staff was concerned that the proposed location of streets, lots and the housing types were removing more vegetated areas than may be necessary. Staff recommended that the applicant provide plans which lessen the impacts to the vegetated areas, such as: Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 10 - Remove Lot 1, Block 2 and use retaining walls along the south side of the street adjacent to Oudot B and Lot 1, Block 2. Remove the cul-de-sac, H Street and use private drives to remove the need to fill in the ravine area. Reduce the fill and pull back "J" Street and reduce the fill on adjacent lots. The applicant has submitted a revised grading plan which has reduced the amount of grading to the site. The type of vegetation which will be removed with the creation of Lot 1, Block 2 consists mostly of box elders and elms. Therefore, staff does not feel the removing Lot 1, Block 2 and installation of a retaining wall is warranted. The vegetation impacted by "H" Street and adjacent lots is also low quality consisting mostly of ash and box elder. Therefore, staff does not feel the removal of "H" Street is warranted. The area adjacent to "J" Street is where the most significant trees will be lost and where staff feels some significant changes may be warranted. There are a number of sizeable oaks which will be removed (see Attachment # 3, Area D). The applicant has changed some of the house types in this area and has reduced the fill of "J" Street, which will reduce some of the grading. Staff has sketched a revised plan using private drives and pulling back the cul-de-sac. Staff found that without removing 3 or 4 lots the tree removal would not be reduced. Given the already low density of the project and high quality design, staff cannot justify recommending elimination of these lots. We believe the applicant's tree preservation efforts, when viewed over the entire project, are satisfactory. Therefore, staff is agreeing with the proposed layout. It should be noted that the applicant has reduced the fill on "J" Street which has reduced the amount of grading to the site. The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site which benefits each block. Open space is found in undeveloped outlots, the private park and numerous wetland areas. The applicant has provided plans which demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area of protective easement as required under the draft PUD ordinance. This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without needing to resort to variances. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the development of the individual lots will not encroach within a protected area or setback. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 11 Finding There are 14 lots which do not have the minimum lot width of 90' at the building setback line. The lots which do not have a 90' width at the building setback are "pie shaped" lots which have adequate building width at the building setback. Staff is comfortable that the intent to provide adequate building pad widths is being accommodated. Essentially, the front setback line is proposed to be moved to the rear of the lot to the point at which a 90' width is achieved. The only concern that staff has with this is that some of these lot configurations will result in the building pad being pushed further back into sensitive areas of the site. We have asked the applicant to respond to this concern in the final plat. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. Finding All of the lots exceed the minimum lot depth of 100'. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet Front Yard - 20 feet Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. Finding The proposal provides a 30' PUD exterior setback. The preliminary plat provides a 20' front yard setback on certain lots (lots illustrated with a dot). The reduced front yard setback is permitted as part of a PUD to preserve natural features and should be used in this development. A majority of the lots have stands of trees and/or wetlands in the rear yard and reducing the front yard setback will further protect these areas. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and has noted additional lots which with a 20' front yard setback would reduce the impact to the site. The following lots are recommended to also maintain a 20' front yard setback: Lots 22-24, Block 2 Lots 30-31, Block 2 Lots 46-47, Block 2 Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 12 Lots 58-61, Block 2 Lots 66-72, Block 2 There were additional lots which would benefit by a reduced front yard setback (example, Lots 27-29, Block 2), except that they would then not have enough width at the building setback. Therefore, staff is not recommending the reduced setback on these lots. In the narrative provided by the developer, it has been stated that the minimum rear yard will be 30'. In many cases the rear yard will exceed 30' due to the presence of a wetland which requires increased setbacks. This is in keeping with the draft ordinance. The narrative provided by the developer proposes a 6' interior side yard setback for garages and a 9' interior side yard setback of living area. The applicant has also stated that a minimum side yard separation of 20' will be provided between each principle structure. As long as a 20' minimum side yard separation is maintained, staff is comfortable with reduced side yard setbacks. The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied. e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. Finding The proposed layout of the single family lots and streets have taken into consideration the features of the site. Where possible, wetlands and mature stands of trees have been located at the rear of lots so that they can be protected. As stated above, staff was at first concerned that in some areas the grading for building pads, streets and ponds was removing more vegetation than may be necessary. The applicant has made revisions to the plans which reduce the area of alteration. The applicant is proposing to reduce the right-of-way for the collector street from 80' to 60' to reduce the removal of trees and impact to site features. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this design on this site would result in substantial destruction of natural features. To avoid this staff determined that the street should be designed to ultimately provide continuity to Galpin Boulevard but to be designed to local street standards. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 13 In addition to reducing the collector street right of way, staff has also reviewed reducing the right-of-way on the local streets from 60' to 50'. Staff found that this reduction in right-of-way will help pull building pads from sensitive features of the site, and is recommending that this be done. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. Findin The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan which shows landscaping at the entrance of the PUD on Outlots A and F, on cul-de-sac islands, on an entrance median and along the boulevards. During the concept review, it was agreed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, that foundation and rear yard plantings would not be necessary. The landscaping along Hwy. 41 needs to be revised. A portion of the landscape buffering along Hwy. 41 is proposed to be provided by trees located in the Hwy. 41 right-of-way. These could well be lost at some time due to possible highway improvements. Therefore, the applicant must satisfy the landscaping requirements with landscaping on the subject site. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 14 g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. Whilethis requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Finding The developer has stated in the narrative that they will establish strict architectural and protective covenants and that the covenants will be recorded with the county. The city does not enforce private covenants recorded with the county, but in the case of a PUD, the covenants will be reviewed and adopted as part of the PUD contract. The applicant should provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the city. SUMMARY OF REZONING The subject site contains features that are ideally suited for a planned unit development. The flexibility of PUD standards will result in a reduction of impact to natural features due to road and building construction. The features which remain will be protected, and in some cases, enhanced. Staff feels that rezoning the property to planned unit development is appropriate for this site, but that the proposed concept plan can be revised to further protect natural features. Staff is recommending approval of the Development PUD plan with the stated conditions. DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to develop the 112 single family lots on 95 (gross)/61(net) acres. The gross density is 1.18 units/acre and the net density is 1.84 units/acre. The lots range in size from 10,075 net square feet to 57,813 net square feet. The single family lots are divided into six blocks which arrange the lots around natural features of the site. The lots meet the guidelines Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 15 for a single family residential PUD except for lots which do not have 90' of width at the building setback. The lots which do not have 90' of width at the 30' setback line do have 90' at the building site. Essentially, the developer is proposing to impose a larger than normal setback standard to relocate the line to a point where the lot widens out to 90'. Therefore, staff feels the intent of the regulation is being met. • Lot 4, Block 2 contains an existing single family residence and pool. The residence is in good condition and will remain. The pool, which is adjacent to the rear lot line, is in poor condition and will be removed by the applicant prior to filing of the final plat. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 contain the BMT site. The applicant has stated that BMT will remain at the site until they find a new site or until 1994. A condition of approval will be that Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6, be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The subdivision creates eight outlots (a-h). Outlots A through F will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and will be used as follows: - Outlots A and F - Open areas used for entry monuments and landscaping. Outlots B and C - Large wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space. Outlot D - Wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space. Outlot E - Private park and open space Outlots G and H will be owned by the applicant and are preserved for future development_ The applicant is pursuing the acquisition of the Song property to expand the proposed development to the east. Lots 77-83, Block 2 show extension of the lot lines into the adjacent property (Song property). The lot area in parenthesis reflects the addition of the Song property. The Song property should be removed from the plans until it is actually acquired by the applicant and then the plat can be amended if needed. Landscaping and Tree Removal The site contains several significant stands of trees. The applicant has stated that the layout of the site has taken into account the existing vegetation and has tried to locate streets and lots with the least impact to the site. The applicant has made changes to the proposed plans since Concept review and has reduced the amount of alteration to the site. Staff has also sketched alternative street and lot layouts and has found that the amount of alteration cannot be significantly reduced without removing a number of lots. The proposal already results in an unusually low gross and net density. Staff does not believe that overcrowding of the site is a problem and is not recommending that any lots be removed. The proposed standards for residential planned unit developments provide specific landscaping requirements. The landscaping plan shows landscaping of Outlots A and F, the entrance median, Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 16 the cul-de-sac islands and along the boulevard. The exterior landscaping along Hwy 41 needs to be revised to provide screening which does not include the existing trees within the Hwy. 41 right-of-way since these trees may be lost when/if the highway is improved. As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission and City Council are not requiring the applicant to provide foundation and rear yard landscaping due to the existing conditions of the site. The areas that are shown as tree preservation areas, on sheet 7 of the plans, will be protected by preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, AND STREETS Utilities- Sanitary Sewer On September 28, 1992, the City Council received a feasibility report for providing trunk utility improvements to service this development. The City Council also called for a public hearing to be held on October 26, 1992 to decide whether or not to authorize the project. The feasibility report estimates the project to be completed by August, 1993. The public improvements shown on the preliminary utility plan sheets could be constructed in conjunction with the trunk improvements in order to meet the scheduling needs of the applicants. The drainage and utility easements should be dedicated with the final platting process. The easement surrounding the lift station should be 25 feet wide on each side. The proposed sanitary sewer lines are fairly well-designed throughout the development although no provisions have been made for servicing adjacent parcels. Staff has reviewed aerial topography maps for the adjacent parcels and has determined that sewer and water stubs should be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant should extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary to serve a small portion of the adjacent property to the east. An individual sewer and water service should also be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. This parcel would pay the appropriate connection and hook-up charges to the City at time of connection. The City will then refund a portion of the fees back to the applicant for reimbursement of the cost of installation of the sewer and water service. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and the existing home (Lot 4, Block 2) will be required to connect to the municipal sewer line within one (1) year of the sewer system being operational. The existing water system (well) on these parcels may be utilized until the well fails, then connection would be required. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detailed plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with final platting. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 17 Utilities - Watermain The proposed municipal water system has been designed in general conformance with the recently approved feasibility study. The feasibility study proposes a 16-inch watermain to be extended by the City along Street A from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. This development proposes to connect on-to the 16-inch watermain to service each phase of the development. The applicant has proposed to loop the water system from Street B to Street A through Cul-de-sacs G and I. Fire hydrant spacing appears sufficient. Final review and approval of the fire hydrant locations will be subject to the City's fire marshal. Extension of municipal water service to the adjacent properties to the north should be extended with sanitary sewer services between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. Grading and Drainage The applicant has submitted a revised grading/drainage plan since the conceptual review process. The revised preliminary grading plan has reduced the grading limits in some areas of the development. This was accomplished by reducing street grades and elimination of sedimentation basin No. 7. As a result, tree loss has been somewhat reduced. In an effort to save trees staff has reviewed the possibility of shortening Street J and servicing the remaining four lots in the private drive. This however does not accomplish saving trees as so desired. It is recommended that Street J be left as proposed. The entire site drains in a southerly direction through a series of wetlands. Approximately 2.60 acres of wetlands are proposed to be filled as a result of the development. The applicant is proposing 2.81 acres of mitigation to compensate for the filling of wetlands. The grading plans shall be revised to include mitigation areas. Staff is also concerned with the size of the sedimentation basins proposed. No drainage calculations have been submitted to verify sedimentation basin storage capacity or water quality standards are being achieved. This may result in larger sedimentation/retention basins than are shown on the proposed plans. The applicant shall provide the high water elevation for all wetlands to determine drainage easement limits and lowest floor elevations on the homes adjacent to the wetlands. The grading plans also indicate realigning a drainage swale through Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 2. The new proposed drainageway brings the swale fairly close to the proposed homes. The appropriate drainage and utility easement over this drainageway will be required to maintain the drainageway. The applicant may want to consider shifting the drainage swale further from the building pads to allow for future anticipated decks or patios that would encroach the drainageway. The same scenario holds true for Lots 70, 71, 72 and 73, Block 2 and Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block 2. The wetland mitigation sketches show existing and proposed drain tiles. The drain tile systems should also be shown on the final grading plan and record drawings be provided upon Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 18 completion. We question the purpose of the drain tile at this time since the purpose of the wetland is to retain water and habitat for waterfowl, wildlife, etc. We understand the need for drain tile prior to the development phase when the land was under agricultural use. The applicant should provide reasoning why the drain tiles are still necessary with this subdivision. From the City's maintenance perspective, the drain tiles are typically difficult to locate as well as maintain a small diameter of pipe. Plans propose storm runoff from the streets and lawns to be conveyed through a series of storm sewers which drain to six different sedimentation basins located throughout the site. As previously mentioned, some storm drainage and ponding calculations have not been submitted. The ponding sizes may vary depending on final calculations. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10-year storm events and detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain surface water discharge rates at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed over the drainage areas as well as all storm sewers leading to and from the areas outside the street right-of-way. The storm sewer proposed through Lot 33, Block 2 should be extended to discharge into sedimentation basin No. 6. As proposed, the discharge would be in the middle of Lot 33. Drainage and utility easements should be provided along the centerline of the drainageway or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide property maintenance and to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100-year storm, 24-hour duration. Appropriate front, side and rear drainage and utility easements corresponding to lot lines should be provided with the final plat. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide in areas containing utilities with the exception where two utility lines may occupy the easement, i.e. sewer and water. In that case, a 30-foot wide easement should be dedicated. According to the EPA's federal guidelines, construction activities that are initiated after October 1, 1992 which disturb 5 acres or more need to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit administered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Due to the size of this development, the applicant will be required to apply. All erosion control measures should be designed to be consistent with the Chanhassen Best Management Practices handbook. Watershed District approval is required. Streets The major thoroughfare (Street A) is designated as an east/west collector street providing future connection from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. According to the City's ordinance, collector-type streets shall be constructed 36-feet wide face-to-face with an 80-foot wide right-of- way. The plans proposed what appears to be a 36-foot wide back-to-back street within a 60-foot right-of-way. Staff is comfortable in granting a variance for this right-of-way in an effort to minimize setback and tree preservation. The plans propose a typical roadway section for Street Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 19 A of 36-foot wide back-to-back. Staff recommends that the street be widened to 36-foot wide gutter-to-gutter to accommodate two 12-foot lanes and one 10-foot parking lane. The concrete sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Street A. The sidewalk is proposed to be constructed within one foot of the property line. This will leave a 41/2-foot green space between curb and sidewalk. The plans propose a series of landscaped islands in the cul-de-sac as well as in the center median on Street A at the Trunk Highway 41 entrance. Engineering Department staff strongly recommends removing the island median in the cul-de-sacs. This creates snow plowing problems, safety hazards and possible liability risks to the City. The Public Works Superintendent has indicated that the islands as proposed will restrict movements of the plowing equipment and require the plows to make pass between the island and the curbs, thus piling most of the snow in the homeowners' driveways. City plow crews typically utilize the entire cul-de- sac so as not to pile the snow in the homeowners' driveways. These islands will also create a parking problem. The street will have to be posted no parking to accommodate turning movements of garbage trucks, school buses and delivery vehicles, etc. Without the island, the vehicle would be able to maneuver to negotiate the cul-de-sac turning radius. As we are all aware, cul-de-sacs are fully utilized by the neighborhood children as play areas. The island will only be a magnet for children to play in and around. This will create a safety hazard with regards to vehicles utilizing the cul-de-sac not being able to see around the other side or when a homeowner is backing out of their driveway. The islands serve no purpose for traffic delineation, therefore, may result as a liability issue on behalf of the City. Islands also create added maintenance responsibility for the City. The applicant may desire to have the association maintain these islands. While Lundgren Bros.' developments appear to have cooperative homeowner associations, other developments may not. By allowing the island areas, the city is opening the door to all developments in the city. Engineering Department staff predicts the city will become overwhelmed with maintenance responsibilities requiring additional staff & equipment. The center median proposed along Street A at the entrance off Trunk Highway 41 has some of the same problems as previously mentioned. In addition, Outlot F at sometime will be built on and thus the vehicle will have to do u-turn at the first intersection in order to gain access to its lot. The applicant should delete the island median and construct an entry-type monument which should be place on one of the corner lots (Outlot A or F). There currently exists a driveway to serve the existing building located on Lot 1, Block 6. This driveway will have to be relocated to access off Street A. Staff predicts turning movements at Trunk Highway 41 and Street A will require roadway improvements on Trunk Highway 41 such as deceleration and acceleration lanes and/or bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41. The applicant shall incorporate these improvements into the street construction plans accordingly. An Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 20 access permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for work proposed in MnDOT right-of-way. Street grades range from 0.80% to 6.4% which is in accordance with City codes. Street B is proposed as a 1500-foot long dead-end street. Staff strongly recommends that Street I be extended to connect with Street G. The applicant is already proposing to extend sewer and water utilities along the same alignment. From a traffic engineering and safety standpoint, it is only prudent to have these two streets connected also. Miscellaneous Addresses for the existing homes in the subdivision as well as the businesses will need to be changed when the new streets are completed adjacent the property. Plans propose erosion control barriers adjacent to the wetlands. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher quality types of wetlands. There appears to be an existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. The applicant will need to resolve vacating the private road easement prior to final plat. The preliminary plat proposes drainage easements over all of the existing wetlands within the subdivision except for those on the outlots. Staff recommends that the applicant provide drainage and conservation easements over all wetlands including those on the outlots. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. Park and Recreation Commission The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal on August 11, 1992. A copy of the staff report presented that evening is attached. Residents were present at this meeting, as was Mr. Mike Pflaum, representing Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. One concern of the commission was in regard to the association or "private" park. It was their desire that the applicant be required to comply with the requirements of the 1992 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 1992 U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines for Playground Safety. The expectation that the applicant comply with the commission's request is reasonable. Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Schroers moved that the City Council require full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. At the time of permit application, the current fees are $500 and $167 per lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon: 1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on the general development plan. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 21 2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Highway 41. 3. The inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirements for public recreation and open space as part of a subdivision, therefore, no credit will be considered for the inclusion of this private facility. Mr. Pflaum did request that upon development of a trail along Highway 41, any unused portions of the trail easement be vacated. Staff acknowledged that this request would be honored but only for portions of the easement for which vacation would be reasonable. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The City is currently reviewing amendments to the Wetland Protection Ordinance. These amendments were initiated due to new state regulations and new information on treatment and protection of wetlands. The proposed standards contain innovative guidelines which staff feels appropriate to apply to this proposal. By reviewing the proposal as a PUD, the city is able to apply different standards from the existing city code if deemed beneficial. The current city ordinance on wetland protection protects all wetlands of type 2-8, any size. If there is any proposed alteration to a wetland, it must be mitigated with an equal amount of area. All structures are required to maintain a 75' setback from the edge of the wetland. The proposed ordinance protects all wetlands of type 1-8, any size. This requires equal mitigation in area for a wetland of equal value or mitigation in the form of an improved wetland. The city's wetlands have been mapped and classified as either pristine, natural or ag/urban. Each classification has different standards in terms of setbacks, buffer strips and mitigation. One of the major changes in the new wetland ordinance is that the wetland setback has been reduced and a buffer strip, which is landscaped with native vegetation and protected by easement, has been added. There is strong evidence that this provides significantly higher levels of protection for the wetland while improving the homeowners flexibility to use his or her lot. The following is a brief summary of the new standards: Pristine wetland- High quality wetland with unique features and little or no existing alterations. The pristine wetland basically cannot be touched and is further protected from adjacent development by a 100' setback and a 75' buffer strip which is required to contain native vegetation throughout the whole buffer strip. Natural wetland - High to moderate valued wetlands that have experienced some alteration, but offer or can be improved to offer high wetland values and functions. These wetlands may be impacted by development only when the city finds there is no reasonable or prudent alternatives. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 22 Wetland mitigation must be designed to offer improved value and function and should not receive untreated surface water drainage. The Natural wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 10'- 25' buffer strip which is 1/2 native vegetation. AG/Urban wetland - Moderate to low valued wetlands which may be impacted by development contingent upon the provision of mitigation/replacement plans. The city encourages replacement/mitigation plans which improve value and function to allow reclassification to a Natural wetland. The Ag/urban wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 0'-15' buffer strip with optional native vegetation requirements. Utilized - Water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland qualities. No setbacks or buffer strip. The site contains 10 wetland basins. There are three natural wetlands (3, 5 and 6) and the remaining seven wetlands are ag/urban (la, lb, lc, 2, 4, 7, 7a, 8, 9 and 10). Wetlands 1A, 1B, 3A and 6 will be preserved. The applicant is proposing to slightly alter two of the three natural wetlands (3 and 5). The applicant is proposing to fill .25 acres of wetland 3. The area proposed • for fill is a narrow drainage way which is part of the larger natural wetland. The area is proposed to be filled for a street and building pads. Staff does not object to this portion of the wetland being filled. The northerly portion of wetland 5 is proposed to be excavated for a storm water pond (.12 acres). The report prepared for the applicant by Summit Envirosolutions stated that the northerly portion of wetland 5 is an appropriate location for the proposed storm water pond. Staff has reviewed our wetland data and agrees the northerly portion of wetland 5 could be used for a ponding area. The storm water entering the pond is proposed to be pretreated and released into the wetland at the predeveloped runoff rate. The Engineering Department is concerned that the proposed ponding area may not be large enough for a 100 year storm. Should the ponding area be required to be larger, the additional ponding area must go to the north and cannot additionally impact wetland 5. The small area of fill to wetland 8 (.06 acres) is a result of street construction. The street is shown in this location so that a future connection to the east will be feasible. Therefore, the street cannot be moved to prevent any alteration to wetland 8. The applicant is proposing to completely fill wetlands 4, 7, 7a and to partially fill and excavate wetlands 1C, 2, 8, 9, and 10. After visiting the site, review of our wetland survey and the applicant's environmental assessment, it appears that the applicant is proposing to fill wetland areas which are in a degraded state and can be enhanced or replaced elsewhere on the site. The following table summarizes the proposed alterations: WETLAND AREA ALTERED REASON 1C .16 acres excavation for storm water pond 2.05 acres 2 .05 acres excavation for storm water pond Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 23 .21 acres filled for street 3 .25 acres filled for street and building pad 4 .17 acres filled for building pad 5 .12 acres excavated for storm water pond 7 .22 acres drained for lot 7A .08 acres drained for lot 8 .06 acres filled for street 9 & 10 1.23 acres filled for street, park, building pad and excavated for storm water pond TOTAL AREA ALTERED 2.97 acres For mitigation, the applicant is proposing to create 2.97 acres of wetland. The proposed wetland areas are located within the large wetland located along the southerly border and to the south of "C" street Attached to this report are details on the proposed mitigation. The proposed wetland mitigation replaces the altered wetlands in acreage but with some changes could greatly enhance the quality of the wetlands on the site. The proposed wetland just south of "C" street and directly adjacent to Hwy. 41 is receiving runoff through a tile line from Hwy. 41 and land across from Hwy. 41. This runoff will provide water to the wetland. The design of the pond is such that it could take on characteristics of a Natural wetland (6' depth, natural contours, etc.). Staff is recommending that the drain tile leading out of the new wetland to wetland la not be replaced. This will prevent water from being drained out of the wetland. If the applicant has a reason for the tile line remaining these should be presented to staff, but if there is no reason for the tile line, it should be removed. There is an existing source of water entering wetlands 7 and 7a from the Song property. This water is clean and is at a high enough rate to be present even during dry periods. The applicant is proposing to drain these wetlands for the creation of two lots and to redirect the drainage to the rear of the house pads and into the newly created storm water pond at the rear of lots 29 and 30, Block 2. Staff has concerns with drainage being directed to the rear of building pads because it is protected by an easement which prevents the use of this area by the resident and there is still a good chance that the basements could be flooded. Redirecting the drainage to the storm water pond is also a waste of clean, high quality runoff which would better serve the wetlands adjacent to lots 27 and 28, Block 2. Therefore, staff is recommending the runoff currently entering wetlands 7 and 7a be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to lot 28, Block 2. Staff also noted that one of the submitted plans (wetland boundary and setback) still shows wetland 7 and that the lots can meet the required setbacks with the wetland being maintained. Another plan (wetland mitigation) shows wetland 7 being drained and removed. If wetland 7 can remain without affecting the lots, staff is recommending that this be done. The water entering the site will then continue to enter wetland 7 and the drainage can then be piped from wetland 7 to the new wetland to the south. This will result in less drainage problems to the house sites and be better for the water passing through the site. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 24 To further enhance the wetland mitigation proposed adjacent to wetland la, lb and lc, staff is recommending the three proposed wetland basins have more depth than what is proposed (at least 6') and that the proposed wetlands to the north and south of wetland lc be combined with wetland lc and that this entire basin have a depth of at least 6'. Currently the proposed mitigation with the three basins will result in similar wetland characteristics as what currently exists within wetlands la, lb and lc. These wetlands are Ag/Urban type wetlands with monotypic vegetation and no open water. What staff is proposing will result in wetlands with natural wetland characteristics with more benefit to wildlife and which will be more aesthetically pleasing to the residents. The materials excavated from wetland lc for the storm water pond and from increasing the depth of the wetland can be placed in the newly created wetlands as an excellent base to the wetland and source of seeds for wetland vegetation restoration. The applicant has submitted a plan titled wetland boundary and setbacks. This plan illustrates the wetland boundaries and the proposed setbacks. The applicant has also submitted detailed information on each lot with a wetland as far as the buffer strip width and wetland setback (see compliance table). The new wetland ordinance regulations allow a reduced wetland setback from 75' to 40' (in most cases). In return for the reduced setback the applicant must provide a buffer strip which maintains a vegetative strip around the wetland for protection. The wetland setback does not include the buffer strip. Therefore, if the setback is 40' and the buffer strip is 10' the minimum setback for the principle structure(including deck) will be 50' from the wetland edge. The proposal submitted by the applicant included the buffer strip in the wetland setback. As a result, some of the building pads around wetlands are only 40' from the wetland edge. As an example, Lots 39, 40, 42, 43, Block 2, do not provide adequate setback from the proposed building pad. The applicant has been made aware of this and will be adjusting the plans to provide the required buffer strip and wetland strip. Reducing the right-of-way to 50' should help the applicant meet the wetland requirements. A revised plan should be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension and the proposed setback (not including the buffer strip) and dimension. It should be noted that the wetlands being created as mitigation must be included on this plan (they are not on the current plan). As previously noted, the site contains Natural and Ag/Urban wetlands. The Natural wetlands are wetland 3, 5 and 6. The wetland ordinance requires different buffer strips for the two types of wetlands as follows: Natural Ag/Urban Structure setback 40' 40' measured from measured from the outside the outside edge of the edge of the buffer strip buffer strip Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 25 Buffer Strip 10-30' 0-30' Buffer Strip Minimum Avg. Width 20' 10' % of Native Vegetation in Buffer Strip Entire Optional The buffer strips around the Natural wetlands have to entirely contain native vegetation. It is optional how much of the buffer strip must contain native vegetation around the Ag/Urban wetlands. If the buffer strip already contains vegetation the applicant does not need to provide additional vegetation. Where vegetation does not exist around Natural wetlands, it will have to be added. Where it does not exist around the Ag/Urban wetlands, the applicant will have to work with staff to provide some areas of vegetation.The revised plans should show that they provide the minimum average buffer strip width and how they meet the vegetation requirement. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation will have to be approved by staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit.. The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat (#92-4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions: 1. Lots 22-24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58-61, 66-72, Block 2 shall maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. 2. Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each principal structure, including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 26 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right-of-ways from 60' to 50' and reduce the cul-de-sac radius from 120' to 100'. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy. 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff. 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2, shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. 8. The area shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. 9. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees as the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Hwy. 41. 11. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for construction of the lift station within the development. 12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant shall extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 13. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 27 14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. 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 as well as show locations of existing and proposed drain tile systems. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle.10- year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to 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. 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 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. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 28 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de-sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of the cul-de-sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul-de-sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92- 9 with the following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland lA 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. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 29 3. The 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have a depth of at least 6 feet. The proposed wetlands to the north and south of Wetland 1C shall be combined with Wetland 1C and this entire basin shall have a minimum depth of at least 6 feet. 4. A revised wetland plan shall be'submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning." PLANING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning, preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit on October 7, 1992. After lengthy discussion over the conditions proposed by staff the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: Rezoning Unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning with staff's conditions. Preliminary Plat The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Several of the conditions were modified and condition #33 was added which requires cul-de-sacs G and I be removed and that the two streets be connected. Batzli and Erhart were opposed to the motion. Mr. Batzli opposed the motion because he felt the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal it was generally agreed that the cul-de-sacs could remain. Mr. Erhart opposed the motion because he felt we were going too far and were protecting trees over people by promoting the use of 20' front yard setbacks. Wetland Alteration Permit The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the wetland alteration permit with a modification to condition #3. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 30 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the City Council adopt the following motions. The proposed conditions have been changed to reflect the Planning Commission modifications. The changes in the conditions by the Planning Commission are shown in bold. "The City Council approves of the rezoning (#92-5) from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. • The City Council approves preliminary plat (#92-4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions: 1. The front yard setback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street right-of-way. The intent being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a new home on each home site. The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1, 14-19, 37-43, 52-57, 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78-81, Block 2. In addition to these lots, staff recommends similar flexibility on the following lots: Lots 22-24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58-61, 66-72, Block 2. shall maintain a 20 foot f: nt yard setback_ 2. Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each principal structure, including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right-of-ways from 60' to 50' .. - :- . - -. - - ...•. . . !' . !!'. except Street A and maintain the cul-de-sac radius at 120 feet. Cul-de-sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the City of Chanhassen, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius, and that no parking signs may be required. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy. 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 31 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2, shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. 8. The area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. Precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the developer and staff. 9. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees as the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Hwy. 41. 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 shall extending the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 13. - ' - . -. - • - • -- , = - .. - The existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be removed after January 3, 1994. 14. Except for the condition in Recommendation 3 above, All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 32 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 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 easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 33 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots, except for Outlots G and H which shall be replatted in the future. 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de-sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of the cul-de-sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul-de-sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. 33. Cul-de-sacs G and I be eliminated and that I Street and G Street be connected. The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #92- 9 with the following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland 1 A 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 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have an undulating a depth of at least 6 feet. - . .. •. - •. - - . . • • . - - -- - Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 34 at least 6 feet. 4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning." ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 19, 1992. 2. City Council minutes dated September 14, 1992. 2A. Applicant's proposed changes to concept plan recommendations. 3. Tree removal table. 4. Compliance table. 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 30, 1992. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman October 1, 1992. 7. Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 1, 1992. 8. Narrative from applicant. 9. Planning Commission minutes dated October 7, 1992. 10. Plans dated September 8, 1992. C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 10/6/93 .i C 11 A N 1I AEN CC DATE: 10/25/93 CASE #: 93-19 SUB • By: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request to split a 36,023 square foot lot into two lots. One lot would be 27,750 square feet and the other would be an outlot of 8,750 square feet z Q LOCATION: 6200 Chaska Road U J APPLICANT: Frank Reese *C" 6200 Chaska Road Q Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family ACREAGE: .83 acres more or less DENSITY: .75 units/acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - City of Shorewood, single or two family Residential Q S - RSF, Residential Single Family E - RSF, Residential Single Family W -RSF, Residential Single Family Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site �— PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The property is bordered by a Class A wetland to the north and contains a significant stand of trees. The site slopes down from Chaska Road towards the wetland. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density Jean Addition October 6, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The subject site located on Lot J, Bardwell Acres. Bardwell acres was platted in 1947. There is an existing home on this lot owned by William Swearingen. Lot J, Bardwell Acres was split in 1986 and the applicant, Mr. Reese, had the .83 acre lot created. Mr. Reese also owns the home and property to the north of this site, Lot 164 in Shorewood. Two lots are being proposed at this time on the .83 acre lot, one would be a buildable lot and the other an outlot which would unbuildable at this time. The applicant is proposing to combine the outlot with his property in Shorewood at a future date. There is a Class A wetland along the northern portion of all of the Reese property. In addition, there is a significant amount of trees on the site. Staff had asked for a specific home placement plan to ensure that the proposed dwelling can meet the wetland setback as well as limit tree removal. The only way the home can meet the wetland setback is to be located as proposed. Based on the home placement plan provided by the applicant, it appears that the home can be located to meet the wetland setback, which is 50 feet. The house will have to be located in the most southwesterly of the setback area. The significant trees found on the lot include black walnut and sugar maples. Staff is recommending that tree loss be kept to a minimum. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit. The second lot which is being created, is proposed as an outlot. This lot will be 8,750 square feet. This lot is unbuildable because it does not meet the city's lot size regulations. The purpose of the outlot is to provide Mr. Reese with a buffer from the proposed home and from his existing residence. Mr. Reese is also proposing to annex the outlot to his Shorewood residence at a future date. STREETS/ACCESS The parcel lies adjacent to Chaska Road which is a substandard urban street consisting of a bituminous surface with no curb and gutter. Access to the lot can be easily accommodated from Chaska Road. A driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. LANDSCAPING/ TREE PRESERVATION A tree survey was not completed by the applicant on this site. The significance of the trees was not noted until there was a field visit to the site by staff. Jeff Schultz, the city Forestry Intern, inspected the site and made the following observations. The site contains a significant amount of trees on the lot proposed for development. The site contains predominately young to mature black walnut, along with scattered sugar maples, green Jean Addition October 6, 1993 Page 3 ash and basswood. The majority of the tress are in excellent health and have a high quality form and appearance with little or no disease or decay problems. All of the trees are young to mature, approximately 20-50 years in age. The under story consists primarily of sugar maple, buckthorn, raspberry, and wild grape. If the staff were to prohibit tree removal on this lot it would be unbuildable. Staff is recommending that tree loss be kept to a minimum. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. WETLAND The proposed subdivision contains a wetland. This wetland has been classified by the city as agricultural/urban. The wetland will not be altered with this proposal. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 40 foot setback and a 10 foot buffer strip from the wetland. Diane Desotelle, the city's Water Resource Coordinator, noted that the buffer strip width shown on the grading plan is approximately 10 feet wide and that there is essentially no buffer strip near the area where the house and yard would be located. A buffer strip of 5 to 10 feet down from the house is recommended since this will be the area of greatest runoff along with the area of greatest potential of run off from lawn area fertilizers and chemicals. The close vicinity of the wetland and the grades associated with the lot will mandate erosion control. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot. GRADING/DRAINAGE _ According to the City Treasurer's office, the parcel has not been previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water because it was deemed unbuildable at that time. In addition, the City's as-built records show no sewer or water service has been stubbed to the property. The property can be serviced from an existing sanitary sewer and water line in Chaska Road, although the house type may be limited to a split-entry type home due to the sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home would most likely require an ejector pump for the lower level. The City has in the past allowed homes to be built where the lower level is on the ejector system and the upper level is serviced via gravity. The applicant would be responsible for the appropriate connection hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance for connection to City sewer and water. These fees may be assessed as well. Upon payment of these fees, the City will extend a sewer and water service across Chaska Road to the property line for the applicant to connect to. EASEMENTS At some future date when Chaska Road is upgraded, it may be feasible for the extension of a storm sewer line between Lot 1 and Outlot A to discharge storm runoff into the urban wetland. It is recommended at this time to have the applicant convey a 20-foot wide drainage and utility Jean Addition October 6, 1993 Page 4 easement centered on the common lot line between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm sewer considerations. PARK AND RECREATION Park and trail fees will be required at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. These fees are currently $600 for park and $200 for trail. COMPLIANCE TABLE Sq. footage Front Rear Side Wetland Setback Setback Setback Setback Required 15,000 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet 50 feet Lot 1 27,273 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet + 55 feet *Outlot A is unbuildable and will be noted in the development contact as such. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #93-19 for to create a 27,750 square foot lot and an 8,750 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on the plans dated September 8, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. 2. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. 3. A buffer strip of 5 to 10 feet down from the house is required since this will be the area of greatest runoff along with the area of greatest potential of run off from lawn area fertilizers and chemicals. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot. 4. The house type may be limited to a split-entry type home due to the sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home would most likely require an ejector pump for the lower level. 5. The applicant is responsible for the appropriate connection hook-up charges at the time Jean Addition October 6, 1993 Page 5 of building permit issuance for connection to City sewer and water. 6. The applicant convey a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the common lot line between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm sewer considerations. 7. Park and trail fees will be required at the rate in force at the time of building permit application. These fees are currently $600 for park and $200 for trail. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1993. 2. Preliminary plat dated September 8, 1993. CITY OF 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: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: September 27, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat to Subdivide and Create One Single-Family Lot Located at 6200 Chaska Road, Jean Addition - Frank Reese File No. 93-20 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat dated September 7, 1993 prepared by Merila & Associates, I offer the following comments and recommendations: STREETS The parcel lies adjacent to Chaska Road which is a substandard urban street consisting of a bituminous surface with no curb and gutter. Access to the lot can be easily accommodated from Chaska Road. A driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. UTILITIES According to the City Treasurer's office, the parcel has not been previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water because it was deemed unbuildable at that time. In addition, the City's as-built records show no sewer or water service has been stubbed to the property. The property can be serviced from an existing sanitary sewer and water line in Chaska Road, although the house type may be limited to a split-entry type home due to the sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home would most likely require an ejector pump for the lower level. The City has in the past allowed homes to be built where the lower level is on the ejector system and the upper level is serviced via gravity. The applicant would be responsible for the appropriate connection hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance for connection to City sewer and water. These fees may be assessed as well. Upon payment of these fees, the City will extend a sewer and water service across Chaska Road to the property line for the applicant to connect to. Kate Aanenson September 27, 1993 Page 2 MISCELLANEOUS At some future date when Chaska Road is upgraded it may be feasible for the extension of a storm sewer line between Lot 1 and Outlot A to discharge storm runoff into the urban wetland. It is recommended at this time to have the applicant convey a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the common lot line between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm sewer considerations. A development contract will not be applicable in this situation since no public improvements are being required. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate connection and hook-up fees at the time of building permit issuance. The hook-up and connection fees may be assessed against the property. 2. A drainage culvert shall be installed by the property owner in conjunction with constructing a driveway to the property. The appropriate construction plan should be submitted denoting the culvert size, elevations and location for staff review and approval. 3. The applicant shall dedicate with the final plat a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered between Lot 1 and Outlot A. 4. A grading and development plan should be submitted denoting the house type and elevation of lowest floor and garage floor elevation for staff approval. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer Co g g D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 8 o ii F g- 1 § PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Yotg.' �2. *Mit" 71%. K 1Iir"i in t W4 Wednesday, October 6 - 7:30 P.M. ' 2 r► �_l�iiit:iris:'" ''° ;4tiu• r �i iiipie..�i,' c r City Hall Council Chambers 1i F ► aoa�� II ' I� az � 690 Coulter Drive r PARK o �'��' ''�''' Project: Jean Addition ;„ ) o 111 o�� r ! Developer: Frank Reesei. . „ -�` ., off111 1 Location: 6200 Chaska Road. PARK ■ -�-1-- � ---__ % . w�wLjOw �� 1 Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Frank Reese proposes to subdivide a 36,023 square foot lot to create one single • family lot and an outlot to be combined with a lot located in Shorewood, on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6200 Chaska Road, Jean Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 23, 1993. MINNE SN TA A PARK CATIICARr B NEC N SA g RK 8 Q C/ p iI - - i _ . "0iit'" - .� ali./!'111;-(M:i MI _ 77-- -Y is allk' \ .7 5.17 am. 0001041MWinp 41..r. ..."*.z.._"61--iihti rc Taw',sin-=',411prethill: wil go 14) In j/ ��! ' .: IA LQ`` �c4tiu, -1 �� iiiii'JYiitcp:;, ,li;. �If1�111IiiiirFIELD C P r .i.ti,,7i!; 41,L. • i _ - I I �I PARK Me. ��'4,el.7I ' /� -� Vis" ..•� / h-� l ,:_!: it Lig 11 siO," a*ot.40.„-ir(,-:77.,.. ,7,-, ,s7, IP - ,i,fi , 4 erseo ., -= + rLAKE .,.. , X11® i ROAD ..aV w, M ! N N E IY A S N T A • lig REGIONAL i-L—- PARK z --I c.K! Q . IMPII•Sow ,_ill t 'CAKE s"'-^ w '` j i /\ I R. —u = .ST JOE \-k m. . �� ! 1 W --`-' a ........_•, -_, —, If w .6. _.. 0 .-; N. r ' _ 4 -- 7-- , airwirt c) -... AM I----- # 7:.—------1 l' - #241111P0,4 �ND it i 41;OMO §4 —- NIG WA. J il • + I v 1 \ I –_ I _4-:;10 I iii�• ' Pe� /(iIMO iTog t• I iit POND ' ' 1 ����y IN = � 1� TERRY VOGT HOMES, INC. TODD ROWE WAYNE G. & B. FRANSDAL -- 732 LAKE PT. 6270 MURRAY HILL RD. 6200 MURRAY HILL RD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JON & LAURA JO GEORGE & B. BAER JOSEPH S. MASSEE WILLIAMSCHEN 6300 CHASKA RD. 6381 HAZELTINE BLVD. - 6230 MURRAY HILL RD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PHILIP F. & S. BONTHIUS GREG GOLMEN & JUNIE ROBERT C. & DOLORES 2300 MELODY HILL HOFF-GOLMEN AMAN _ EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 2220 MELODY HILL RD. 2250 MELODY HILL RD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EIGHT ACRE WOODS ROBERT F. SOMMER ROBERT J. CRISTOFONO & 1580 OXFORD AVE. 6239 CHASKA RD. MARGARET A. CRISTOFONO DELANO, MN 55328 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 2210 SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DAVID & CHRISTINE JOHNS SCOTT & BONITA J. SMITH STEVEN & CAROL GOOD - 2220 SOMMERGATE 2230 SOMMERGATE 6245 CHASKA RD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KENNETH & NANCY MEYER DAVIDBRUSH & JOHN B. & DIANE E. LENERTZ 6251 CHASKA RD. ERIN KERANS 6269 CHASKA RD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 6257 CHASKA RD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JOHN & SHIRLEY BUTCHER FRANK & LYNDA KUZMAN THOMAS D. BAURLE 2240 SOMMERGATE 2241 SOMMERGATE 2231 SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PERRY C. HARRISON CLAUDE & KAYE BENSON SEVEN FORTY ONE 2221 SOMMERGATE 2211 SOMMERGATE PARTNERSHIP EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 123 3RD ST. N. - MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 SHELDON REBENSTEIN ET AL PARK NATIONAL BANK C/O SUPERAMERICA GROUP INC. MAR & LORENA FLANNERY ATTN: TIMOTHY OWENS TAX DEPT. 2350 MELODY HILL RD. 5353 WAYZATA BLVD. P.O. BOX 14000 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 LEXINGTON, KY 40512 - MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 GARY S. BRUNSVOLD WARD ALLEN & S. PUTMAN - 6287 CHASKA RD. 6285 CHASKA RD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 5 . 4 CITY of CHANHASSENi .- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager DATE: September 30, 1993 SUBJECT: Modification TIF District No. 2-1 and 2-2; Development District No. 2 _ Attached for your consideration is the modification of TIF Districts No. 2-1 and 2-2; of Development District No. 2 (see attachment #1). Under state statutes, the Planning Commission must find the proposed modifications to be consistent with the future plans for the City of Chanhassen (see attachment #2). The proposed modifications to the TIF plan consist of the following: 1. The city is proposing to purchase property that would be used for a park/recreational facility on a site within Development District No. 2. Findings: The City Comprehensive Plan highlights this area as a future school site, which is in the planning stage for this site right now. However, the city is also considering expanding upon the school site by adding additional ballfields (4 to 5) and a recreational facility. The facility is proposed to consist of one gym, locker rooms, and several multi- purpose rooms. 2. The city is also proposing to purchase property that would be used for a park and trail system on a site within TIF District No. 2-1. Findings: The Planning Commission approved the subdivision for the Chanhassen Business Center this past summer and one of the conditions of approval was that outlot A remain as open space. There was also discussion that the city would purchase this property for park and trail purposes. This plan modification would allow the city to go ahead with those plans, if they desire. Planning Commission September 30, 1993 _ Page 2 In staff's review of the proposed projects, the uses being considered and their locations are _ consistent with the city's land use policies. Recommendation — Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. 93-1 (see attachment #3) finding the modification to TIF District No. 2-1 and 2-2; and Development District No. 2 consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan." — Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Modified Plans for District 2-1 and 2-2 3. Resolution No. #93-1 — 1 1 ARB R ,, 30ULEVARD- ■■•• •■■ i _ V SCHOOL SITE/ I,,I \ 01) McGLYNJ - IIr 0 TIA 3ERWOOD _ MI No. 2-1 ' _ w lilk cla r_r/A' it ' po It ftiri .IIIIN 4: 1111116 4 � `is ii, RENAISSANCE ; am au — <(.D _ Z 7PARK EV SITE , . p / .011 Ill ICPNo. 2-2 , ill ;a // o11 N _ c4L ,IA � No. 2 0 ri 4 11101 FIGURE 1 DEVELOPMENT LIFT STATION -ITE DISTRICT NO. ir 19 Development District No. 2 " T.I.F. District No. 2-1 _ ullein■ T.I.F. District No. 2-2 0 1000' 2000' 3000' MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 and MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA October 11, 1993 Prepared By: HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 - and - HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. 7401 Metro Blvd, #340 Edina, MN 55439 — 4.4t1":04t% TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 1 A. Definitions. 1 B. Statutory Authority. 2 C. Statement of Objectives. 2 D. Environmental Controls. 3 E. Open Space to be Created. 3 F. Public Facilities to be Constructed. 3 G. Proposed Reuse of Property 3 H. Development District Financing. 3 I. Relocation 4 J. Administration of Development District 4 K. Description of Development District. 4 II. MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 5 A. Statutory Authority. 5 B . Statement of Objectives. 5 C. Statement of Public Purpose 5 D. Development District Program 6 E. Description of TIF District. 6 F. Development District Contracts. 6 G. Classification of TIF District. .6 H. Modification of TIF Plan. 6 I. Use of Tax Increment. 6 J. Excess Tax Increment. 7 K. Limitation of Increment. 7 L. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. 8 M. Limitation on Boundary Changes. 8 N. Relocation 8 O. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. 8 P. TIF Account. 8 Q. Estimate of Project Costs. 8 R. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. 9 S. Original Tax Capacity. 9 T. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. 10 U. Duration of the TIF District. 10 V. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. 10 W. Annual Financial Report. 10 X. Assessment Agreements. 12 I. MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 A. Definitions. For the purposes of the modified Development District Program and modified Tax Increment Financing Plan, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context otherwise requires. "Administrative Expenses" means all expenditures of the City other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of real property in the District, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178 of the TIF Act. Adminis- trative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants and planning or economic development consultants. "City" means the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota; "City Council" or "Council" means the Chanhassen City Council; "City Development District Act" or "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.124 through 469.134, as amended; "Comprehensive Plan" means the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City; "County" means Carver County, Minnesota; "Development District" means Development District No. 2 which was established on October 10, 1988, pursuant to and in accordance with the Act, and expanded on May 22, 1989, and March 9, 1992. The Development District is again being expanded as a result of this modification; "Development Program" or "Program" means the Development Program for Development District No. 2, which adopted by the Council on October 10, 1988, modified on May 22, 1989 and March 9, 1992, and which is hereby again being modified; "Project Area" or "Project" means the property within modified Development District No. 2, as described in the modified Development Program; "State" means the State of Minnesota; "Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with Development District No. 2 as stated in the Program and in the Plans for all Tax Increment Financing Districts within Development District No. 2 or any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds; RHB26639 CH13C-11 1 "Tax Increment Financing District" means Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1, established on October 10, 1988, pursuant to and in accordance with the TIF Act and which was expanded on May 22, 1989; "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended; and "Tax Increment Financing Plan" or "Plan" means the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 2 which was adopted by the Council on October 10, 1988, and which was modified on May 22, 1989, October 22, 1990, and March 9, 1992, and which is hereby being modified again. B. Statutory Authority. The City has determined that it is necessary, desirable and in the public interest to establish, designate, develop and administer a Development Program for Development District No. 2 in the City, pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The City has also determined that the funding of the necessary activities and improvements in Development District No. 2 shall be accomplished in part or in whole through tax increment financing in accordance with the TIF Act. C. Statement of Objectives. The City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the Development Program: 1. promote and secure the prompt development of property in = Development District No. 2 in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with minimal adverse impact on the environment, which property is currently less productive because of the lack of proper utilization and lack of investment, thus promoting and securing the development of other land in the City; 2. promote and secure additional employment opportunities within Development District No. 2 and the City for residents of the City and the surrounding area, thereby improving living standards and preventing unemployment and the loss of skilled labor and other human resources in the City; 3. secure the increase of property subject to taxation by the City, county, school district, and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entities to pay for public improvements and governmental services and programs required to be provided by them; 4. secure the construction and provide moneys for the payment of the cost of public activities or improvements in Development District No. 2, including the construction of public recreational facilities, which are necessary for the orderly and beneficial development of the Development District; and REB26639 CH130-11 2 5. promote the concentration of appropriate development within Development District No. 2 in order to maintain the area in a manner consistent with its significance to the City. D. Environmental Controls. It is anticipated that no development within the Development District will present major environmental concerns. All City actions, public improvements and private development will be carried out in a manner which will comply with applicable environmental standards. E. Open Space to be Created. The open space expected to be created within the Development District will be in accordance with the development controls of the City. F. Public Facilities to be Constructed. The City proposes to construct water and sanitary sewer within the Chanhassen Business Center area. The City also intends to develop a park and an adjacent recreational facility for use by city residents in conjunction with a new school proposed to be constructed by Independent School District No. 112. These will occupy a 40-acre site in the southeast quadrant of Co. Rd. 19 and Arboretum Boulevard within Development District No. 2. The City will purchase land for a second park within TIF District No. 2-2. All public facilities constructed within the Development District will be financially feasible and compatible with the City's long range development plans. G. Proposed Reuse of Property. Property will be acquired in the future for construction of the public improvements, parks and the recreational facilities associated with a new school discussed in Section F above. All proposals for the use of property to be acquired by the City must be consistent with Development Program objectives and financially feasible. Prior to acquisition of any property for reuse by a private developer, the City Council may require a development contract and other guarantees to ensure that sufficient tax increment or other funds will be available to repay the cost associated with the property acquisition. Appropriate restrictions regarding the reuse and redevelopment of property shall be incorporated into any development contract to which the City is a party. H. Development District Financing. The City has created two TIF Districts within Development District No. 2. Public improvement costs incurred in Development District No. 2 will be paid through the pledge of tax increment from TIF District No. 2-1 and TIF District No. 2-2. I. Relocation. The City anticipates that no relocation will be necessary but accepts its responsibility for providing for relocation pursuant to section 469.133 of the Act. If relocation is necessary, provisions will be made in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, sections 117.50 through 117.56, inclusive. REB 26639 CH130-11 3 J. Administration of Development District. Maintenance and operation of the public improvements will be the responsibility of the Administrator of Development District No. 2. Each year the Administrator will submit to the City Council the maintenance and operation budget for the following year. The Administrator will administer the Development District pursuant to the provisions of section 469.131 of the Act; provided, however, that such powers may only be exercised at the direction of the City Council. No action taken by the Administrator shall be effective without authorization by the City Council. The City does not anticipate the need to create an advisory board to advise the City Council on the planning, construction and implementation of the activities and improvements outlined in the Development District Program. K. Description of Development District. Land is being added to Development District No. 2 as a result of this modification. Figure 1 is a map of the new boundaries of the Development District as they will appear after adoption of this modification. AHB26639 CH130-11 4 II. MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 A. Statutory Authority. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, the City has adopted the Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 and has established TIF District No. 2-1 within Development District No. 2. The City is hereby modifying the Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 to provide authorization for additional public improvements and costs. No additional land is being included in TIF District No. 2-1 as a result of this modification. B . Statement of Objectives. In addition to the objectives outlines in Section I, subdivision C of the modified Development Program, the City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the modified Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 : 1 . provide employment opportunities within the City; 2. improve the tax base of the City and the general economy of the City and state; • 3. encourage development in an area of the City which has not been utilized to its full potential; 4. provide for water and sanitary sewer improvements; 5. provide for recreational facilities for residents of the community in coordination with other public entities in order to prevent unnecessary duplication of facilities; and 6. implement relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan. C. Statement of Public Purpose. In adopting the modified Plan, the City Council intends to make the following findings: 1 . Anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of TIF is deemed necessary; 2. The modified TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consis- tent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for development of the District by private enterprise; and 3. The modified TIF Plan conforms to general plans for development of the City as a whole. The conclusion summarized in paragraph 1 of this subdivision will be adopted by the City upon approval of this modification and is one which has been reached by the City Council following consultation with the planning commission and city staff. RHB26639 CH130-11 5 The conclusion has also been reached based upon the personal knowledge of members of the City Council regarding the property and development trends within the City. D. Development District Program. The City created Development District No. 2 at the same time as creation of TIF District No. 2-1 . The Program was modified on May 22, 1989 and March 9, 1992. This modification of the Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 includes a modified Development District Program as well. E. Description of TIF District. A description and a map of the boundaries of TIF District No. 2-1 were included with the modified Plan adopted on May 22, 1989. No additional property is being added to TIF District No. 2-1 as a result of this modification. F. Development District Contracts. The City will act in accordance with section 469.176, subd. 5 of the TIF Act and no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the land within TIF District No. 2-1 will be acquired by the City with bond proceeds without having concluded an agreement for development or redevelopment of the property. G. Classification of TIF District. TIF District No. 2-1 is an economic development TIF district, pursuant to section 469.174, subd. 12 of the TIF Act, for which certification was requested prior to May 1, 1990. No property is being added to the TIF District as a result of this modification. H. Modification of TIF Plan. The Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 is being modified at this time to authorize expenditures for park and recreation facilities to be developed in cooperation with Independent School District No. 112. The Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 may be modified again in the future by the City, provided that any reduction or enlargement of geographic area of the TIF District, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on the debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the City shall be approved upon the notice and after such discussion, public hearing and findings as required for approval of the original Plan. I. Use of Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469. 176, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, all revenues derived from TIF District No. 2-1 shall be used in accordance with this modified TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative costs of development activities within the Development District as identified in the modified Development Program and TIF Plan. RH1326639 CH130-1i 6 J. Excess Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469. 176, subd. 2 of the TIF Act, in any year in which tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the modified TIF Plan, the City shall use the excess amount to do any of the following, in the order determined by the City: 1 . prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of bonds; or 4. return the excess amount to the Carver county auditor who shall distribute the excess amount to the City, the county, and the school district in direct proportion to their respective tax capacity rates. In addition, the City may choose to modify the TIF Plan again in order to provide for other public improvements within the Development District. K. Limitation of Increment. 1 . No increment shall be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-1 after three years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the taxable real property in the TIF District by the county auditor unless within the three year period (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the TIF Act, or (b) the City has acquired property within TIF District No. 2-1, or (c) the City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within TIF District No. 2-1. 2. If, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1, no demolition, rehabilitation, or renovation of property or other site preparation, including improvement of a street or right-of-way adjacent to a parcel but not installation of underground utility service, including sewer or water systems, have been commenced on a parcel located within TIF District No. 2-1 by the City, or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the TIF Plan, no additional increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the TIF District. If these activities subsequently commence, the City shall so certify to the county auditor, and the tax capacity of the property as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue may be added to the TIF District. The City shall submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in TIF District No. 2-1. The evidence shall be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcels were certified as included within TIF District No. 2-1. RHB26639 CH130-11 7 3. No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-1 after eight years from the date of receipt by the City of the first increment or 10 years from the date of approval of the original TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. L. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. Pursuant to section 469.176, Subd. 3 of the TIF Act, Administrative Expenses are limited to 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures. Each time the City increases the budget of TIF District No. 2-1, the amount of tax increment money allocated to Administrative Expenses may be increased as long as the total of Administrative Expenses does not exceed 10 percent of the total budget of the TIF District. M. Limitation on Boundary Changes. The geographic area of TIF District No. 2-1 may be reduced, but cannot be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of original tax capacity by the Carver county auditor. This modification does not include an expansion of the boundaries of TIF District No. 2-1. N. Relocation. Although no relocation is anticipated, the City accepts as binding its obligations under state law for relocation and will administer relocation services for families, individuals and businesses displaced by public action. O. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. It is not anticipated that any property within TIF District No. 2-1 will be acquired in connection with the development proposals outlined in this modified TIF Plan. Funds will be used to acquire property for two parks and for community recreational facilities to be constructed in connection with a new school site. The parks and recreational facilities will be located within Development District No. 2 but outside TIF District No. 2-1 . P. TIF Account. The tax increment received with respect to TIF District No. 2-1 shall be segregated by the City in a special account on its official books and records and held by a trustee for the benefit of holders of bonds issued to finance development activities. Q Q. Estimate of Project Costs. The estimated budgeted amounts for the original TIF District were included in the Plan adopted on October 10, 1988. Additional expenditures were authorized by the TIF Plan modification approved on May 22, 1989, October 22, 1990 and March 9, 1992. The following are estimates of additional costs to be incurred as a result of this fourth modification: REB 26639 CH130-11 8 Land Acquisition (40 acres) $ 920,000 Resale of 20 acres to I.S.D. No. 112 (320,000) Roads and related public improvements 1,000,000 Recreational facilities 2,300,000 Administration expenses 100,000 TOTAL $ 4,000,000 The City has also initiated a special assessment reduction program for properties throughout the TIF District. Under the program, benefitted properties are eligible for reductions in assessments if there has been an increase in the assessed value of the properties due to new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of less than $30,000 per acre qualify for a reduction equal to seven percent of the value added to the property through new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of $30,000 per acre or more qualify for a reduction equal to 12 percent of the added value. The amount of the reduction for which a property owner is eligible is equal to the tax increment from the parcel (as determined by the auditor and adjusted for fiscal disparities contributions) for a three year period following construction and commencing with the year in which the City receives the first full year's increment, or such other three year period as may be agreed upon by the City and owner. However, the maximum reduction may not exceed the total special assessments levied and outstanding against the parcel for qualifying public improvement projects. Owners wishing to participate must enter into a special assessment reduction agreement with the City. R. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. The City has previously sold bonds to pay for the improvements to Audubon Road. The City does not intend to sell additional tax increment bonds to pay for the improvements authorized by this modification. S. Original Tax Capacity. Pursuant to section 469.177, subd. 1 of the TIF Act, each year the Carver county auditor will measure the increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of the property. Any year in which there is an increase in total tax capacity of property within the TIF District, an increment will be payable to the City. Any year in which the total tax capacity is below the original tax capacity of all property within TIF District No. 2-1, no increment will be payable to the City. Each year after the certification of the original tax capacity, the county auditor will increase or decrease the original tax capacity of property within TIF District No. 2-1 as a result of: 1. change in the tax exempt status of the property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the TIF District; RBB 26639 CB130-11 9 3. reduction of valuation by means of a court-ordered abatement, stipulation agreement, voluntary abatement made by the assessor or auditor or by order of the Minnesota commissioner of revenue; or 4. any change in tax classification under Minnesota Statutes, section 273.13 of property after it has been added to the TIF District. In addition, each year the auditor shall add to the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1 an amount equal to the original tax capacity for the preceding year multiplied by the average percentage increase in tax capacity of all property within the TIF District during the preceding five years. T. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. The City's estimate of captured tax capacity within TIF District No. 2-1 was contained in the modified Plan adopted on May 22, 1989. Since this fourth modification does not involve the addition of property to the TIF District, the City has not revised its estimate of captured tax capacity. U. Duration of the TIF District. In accordance with section 469.176, subd. 1 of the TIF Act, the City may continue to receive TIF payments until eight years from the date of the receipt of the first increment or 10 years from the date of the approval of the original TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. V. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. The City included its estimate of the impact of TIF District No. 2-1 in the original Plan adopted on October 10, 1988, and the modified Plan adopted on May 22, 1989. Since this fourth modification does not involve adding any property to TIF District No. 2-1, the City has not changed its estimate of the fiscal impact of the TIF District No. 2-1 on other taxing jurisdictions. W. Annual Financial Report. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd. 6 of the TIF Act, the City must file an annual financial report regarding TIF District No. 2-1 . The report shall be filed by July 1 of each year with the school board, the county board and the state auditor. The report to be filed by the City shall include the following information: 1. the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1; 2. the captured tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1, including the amount of any captured tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 3. the outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans incurred to finance project costs in TIF District No. 2-1; 89826639 CH130-11 10 4. for the reporting period and for the duration of TIF District No. 2-1, the amount budgeted under the TIF Plan and the actual amount expended for the following categories: a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; b. site improvement or preparation costs; c. installation of public utilities or other public improvements; d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the City; 5. for properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the City and the price paid by the developer; and 6. the amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported under clause (3) , which were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in TIF District No. 2-1 . In addition, the City must report annually by March 1 to the Minnesota commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the entire City: 1. the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payment that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. The City must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for TIF District No. 2-1 : 1 . the type of district, whether economic development, redevelopment, housing, soils condition, mined underground space, or hazardous substance site; 2. the date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. the captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 5. whether the Plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money R10326639 02130-11 11 may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment district; and 6. any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. X. Assessment Agreements. Pursuant to section 469.177, subdivision 8 of the TIF Act, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to section 469.176, subdivision 5 of the TIF Act, execute an agreement in recordable form with the developer which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of TIF District No. 2-1 . The agreement shall be presented to the Carver county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. RHB26639 CH130-i1 12 FIGURE 1 ) /� / f SCHOOL SITE f '\•►.4e4<.vNti /i _ - _ _ _ .: ti cpoNo. 2-1 ROI Ir. , 4 ' - 0, 4r,„ 2 ..... Illk ' - - - - r ._ ,/ ftilk& 0 i \ . RENAISSANCE /%°' MI \S°- � i N,17 PARK f — IP` % SITE rAig,, �.�° ii� No. 2-2 II .MI O " ---- -- - / - ==OMIMO MI OMI I / o ��_ till" cc No. 2 .5 en 1 o V 1,I 'i (I FI3URE 1 ,DEVELOPMENT � STATION LIFT - ITE DISTRICT NO. 2 If r in Development District No. 2 — -"""' T.1.1=, District No. 2-1t _ Nouns.... T.i.F. District No. 2-2 0 1000• 2000• 3400' MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA October 11, 1993 Prepared By: HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 - and - HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. 7401 Metro Blvd, #340 Edina, MN 55439 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-2 A. Definitions. 1 B. Statutory Authority. 2 C. Statement of Objectives. 2 D. Statement of Public Purpose 2 — E E. Development District Program 3 F. Description of TIF District. 3 G. Development District Contracts. 3 — H. Classification of TIF District. 3 I. Modification of TIF Plan. 3 J. Use of Tax Increment. 4 K. Excess Tax Increment. 4 — L. Limitation of Increment. 4 M. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. 5 N. Limitation on Boundary Changes. 5 — O. Relocation 5 P. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. 5 Q. TIF Account. 5 R. Estimate of Project Costs. 6 — S. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. 6 T. Original Tax Capacity. 6 U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. 7 — V V. Duration of the TIF District 7 W. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. 7 X. Annual Financial Report. 8 _ Y. Assessment Agreements. 9 (i) — MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-2 A. Definitions. For the purposes of the modified Tax Increment Financing Plan, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context otherwise requires. "Administrative Expenses" means all expenditures of the City other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of real property in the District, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the TIF Act. Adminis- trative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants and planning or economic development consultants. "City" means the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota; "City Council" or "Council" means the Chanhassen City Council; "City Development District Act" or "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.124 through 469.134, as amended; "Comprehensive Plan" means the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City; "County" means Carver County, Minnesota; "Development District" means Development District No. 2 which was established on October 10, 1988, pursuant to and in accordance with the Act, expanded on May 22, 1989 and March 9, 1992, and which is again being expanded; "Development Program" or "Program" means the Development Program for Development District No. 2, which adopted by the Council on October 10, 1988, modified on May 22, 1989 and March 9, 1992, and which is again being modified; "Project Area" or "Project" means the property within modified Development District No. 2, as described in the modified Development Program; "State" means the State of Minnesota; "Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with Development District No. 2 as stated in the Program and in the Plans for all Tax Increment Financing Districts within Development District No. 2 or any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds; RHB28376 CR130-11 1 "Tax Increment Financing District" means Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-2, which establishing pursuant to and in accordance with the TIF Act on March 9, 1992; "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended; and "Tax Increment Financing Plan" or "Plan" means the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 2-2 which was adopted on March 9, 1992 and is hereby being modified. B. Statutory Authority. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, the City has adopted the Plan for TIF District No. 2-2 and established TIF District No. 2-2 within Development District No. 2. C. Statement of Objectives. The City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the modified Plan for TIF District No. 2-2: 1. provide employment opportunities within the City; 2. improve the tax base of the City and the general economy of the City and state; 3. encourage development in an area of the City which has not been utilized to its full potential; 4. provide for additional water and sanitary sewer improvements; 5. provide park facilities for residents of the community; and 6. implement relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan. D. Statement of Public Purpose. In adopting the TIF Plan, the City Council intends to make the following findings: 1 . Anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of TIF is deemed necessary; 2. The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for development of the District by private enterprise; and 3. The TIF Plan conforms to general plans for development of the City as a whole. RHH28376 CH130-11 2 The conclusion summarized in paragraph 1 of this subdivision will be adopted by the City upon approval of the modified TIF Plan and is one which has been reached by the City Council following consultation with the planning commission and city staff. The conclusion has also been reached based upon the personal knowledge of members of the City Council regarding the property and development trends within the City. E. Development District Program. The City created Development District No. 2 on October 10, 1988, at the same time as TIF District No. 2-1 was established. The Program was modified on May 22, 1989 and March 9, 1992, and is being modified again at this time. This modified Plan for TIF District No. 2-2 is consistent with the modified Program for Development District No. 2. F. Description of TIF District. A map of the boundaries of TIF District No. 2-2 was included in the original Plan adopted on March 9, 1992. No additional property is being added to TIF District No. 2-2 as a result of this modification. G. Development District Contracts. The City has not entered into any development contracts for properties within TIF District No. 2-2. If necessary, contracts regarding property within the TIF District will be entered into in accordance with section 469.176, subd. 5 of the TIF Act and no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the land within TIF District No. 2-2 will be acquired by the City with bond proceeds without having concluded an agreement for development or redevelopment of the property. H. Classification of TIF District. TIF District No. 2-2 is an economic development TIF district, pursuant to section 469.174, subd. 12 of the TIF Act. I. Modification of TIF Plan. The City proposes to purchase property to be used for a park on a site within TIF District No. 2-2. The purpose of this modification is to amend the budget to provide for this expenditure. The Plan for TIF District No. 2-2 may again be modified in the future by the City, provided that any reduction or enlargement of geographic area of the TIF District, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on the debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the _ City shall be approved upon the notice and after such discussion, public hearing and findings as required for approval of the original Plan. RHE 28376 cH130-11 3 J. Use of Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, all revenues derived from TIF District No. 2-2 shall be used in accordance with the modified TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative costs of development activities within the Development District as identified in the modified Development Program and TIF Plan. K. Excess Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469. 176, subd. 2 of the TIF Act, in any year in which tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the TIF Plan, the City shall use the excess amount to do any of the following, in the order determined by the City: 1 . prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of bonds; or 4. return the excess amount to the Carver county auditor who shall distribute the excess amount to the City, the county, and the school district in direct proportion to their respective tax capacity rates. In addition, the City may choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to provide for other public improvements within the Development District. L. Limitation of Increment. 1 . No increment shall be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-2 after three years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the taxable real property in the TIF District by the county auditor unless within the three year period (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the TIF Act, or (b) the City has acquired property within TIF District No. 2-2, or (c) the City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within TIF District No. 2-2. 2. If, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-2, no demolition, rehabilitation, or renovation of property or other site preparation, including improvement of a street or right-of-way adjacent to a parcel but not installation of underground utility service, including sewer or water systems, have been commenced on a parcel located within TIF District No. 2-2 by the City, or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the TIF Plan, no additional increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the TIF District. If these activities subsequently commence, the City shall so certify to the county auditor, and the tax capacity of the property as most recently RHH28376 - cH130-11 4 certified by the commissioner of revenue may be added to the TIF District. The City shall submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in TIF District No. 2-2. The evidence shall be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcels were certified as included within TIF District No. 2-2. 3. No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-2 after eight years from the date of receipt by the City of the first increment or 10 years from the date of approval of the TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. M. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. Pursuant to section 469.176, Subd. 3 of the TIF Act, Administrative Expenses are limited to 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures. Each time the City increases the budget of TIF District No. 2-2, the amount of tax increment money allocated to Administrative Expenses may be increased as long as the total of Administrative Expenses does not exceed 10 percent of the total budget of the TIF District. N. Limitation on Boundary Changes. The geographic area of TIF District No. 2-2 may be reduced, but cannot be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of original tax capacity by the Carver county auditor. No additional property is being added to TIF District No. 2-2 as a result of this modification. 0. Relocation. Although no relocation is anticipated, the City accepts as binding its obligations under state law for relocation and will administer relocation services for families, individuals and businesses displaced by public action. P. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. The City will acquire property within TIF District No. 2-2 for a park. These properties are identified on Figure 1. Q. TIF Account. The tax increment received with respect to TIF District No. 2-2 shall be segregated by the City in a special account on its official books and records and held by a trustee for the benefit of holders of bonds issued to finance development activities. R. Estimate of Project Costs. The original Plan for TIF District No. 2-2 identified estimated costs totalling $1,890,000 for specified public improvements. The following is an estimate of additional costs to be incurred in connection with the modifed Plan for TIF District No. 2-2: 1110328376 CH130-11 5 Land acquisiton for park $ 115,000 Administration 5,000 TOTAL $ 120,000 The City has also initiated a special assessment reduction program for properties throughout the TIF District. Under the program, benefitted properties are eligible for reductions in assessments if there has been an increase in the assessed value of the properties due to new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of less than $30,000 per acre qualify for a reduction equal to seven percent of the value added to the property through new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of $30,000 per acre or more qualify for a reduction equal to 12 percent of the added value. The amount of the reduction for which a property owner is eligible is equal to the tax increment from the parcel (as determined by the auditor and adjusted for fiscal disparities contributions) for a three year period following construction and commencing with the year in which the City receives the first full year's increment, or such other three year period as may be agreed upon by the City and owner. However, the maximum reduction may not exceed the total special assessments levied and outstanding against the parcel for qualifying public improvement projects. Owners wishing to participate must enter into a special assessment reduction agreement with the City. S. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. The City does not intend to sell tax increment bonds to pay for the costs authorized by this modified TIF Plan. T. Original Tax Capacity. The original tax capacity of the land included within TIF District No. 2-2 was $3,676. Pursuant to section 469.177, subd. 1 of the TIF Act, each year the Carver county auditor will measure the increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of the property. Any year in which there is an increase in total tax capacity of property within the TIF District, an increment will be payable to the City. Any year in which the total tax capacity is below the original tax capacity of all property within TIF District No. 2-2, no increment will be payable to the City. Each year after the certification of the original tax capacity, the county auditor will increase or decrease the original tax capacity of property within TIF District No. 2- as a result of: 1. change in the tax exempt status of the property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the TIF District; 3. reduction of valuation by means of a court-ordered abatement, stipulation agreement, voluntary abatement made by the assessor or auditor or by order of the Minnesota commissioner of revenue; or R8H28376 CH130-11 6 4. any change in tax classification under Minnesota Statutes, section 273.13 of property after it has been added to the TIF District. In addition, each year the auditor shall add to the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-2 an amount equal to the original tax capacity for the preceding year multiplied by the average percentage increase in tax capacity of all property within the TIF District during the preceding five years. U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. The City's estimate of captured tax capacity within TIF No. 2-2 was contained in the original Plan adopted on March 9, 1992. Since this first modification does not involve the addition of any property to the TIF District, the City has not revised its estimate of the captured tax capacity. V. Duration of the TIF District. In accordance with section 469.176, subd. 1 of the TIF Act, the City may continue to receive TIF payments until eight years from the date of the receipt of the first increment or 10 years from the date of the approval of the TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. W. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. The City included its estimate of the impact of TIF District No. 2-2 in the original Plan adopted March 9, 1992. Since this modification does not involve additing any property to TIF District No. 2-2, the City has not changed its estimate of the fiscal impact of TIF District No. 2-2 on other taxing jurisdications. X. Annual Financial Report. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd. 6 of the TIF Act, the City must file an annual financial report regarding TIF District No. 2-2. The report shall be filed by July 1 of each year with the school board, the county board and the state auditor. The report to be filed by the City shall include the following information: 1 . the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-2; 2. the captured tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-2, including the amount of any captured tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 3. the outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans incurred to finance project costs in TIF District No. 2-2; 4. for the reporting period and for the duration of TIF District No. 2-2, the amount budgeted under the TIF Plan and the actual amount expended for the following categories: a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; 88828376 C5130-11 7 b. site improvement or preparation costs; c. installation of public utilities or other public improvements; d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the City; 5. for properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the City and the price paid by the developer; and 6. the amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported under clause (3) , which were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in TIF District No. 2-2. In addition, the City must report annually by March 1 to the Minnesota commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the entire City: 1 . the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payment that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. The City must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for TIF District No. 2-2: 1. the type of district, whether economic development, redevelopment, housing, soils condition, mined underground space, or hazardous substance site; 2. the date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. the captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 5. whether the Plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment district; and 6. any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. RHB28376 CH130-11 8 Y. Assessment Agreements. Pursuant to section 469.177, subdivision 8 of the TIF Act, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to section 469.176, Subdivision 5 of the TIF Act, execute an agreement in recordable form with the developer which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of TIF District No. 2-2. The agreement shall be presented to the Carver county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market - value contained in the agreement• appears in the judgment of the assessor to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. RHH28376 • CH130-11 9 FIGURE 1 -- f?!; I . ---_._–$oULEVAR°J— ■■.mmum.. 2V Ilik ) SCHOOL SITE �� No. 2-1 1111 Cr LI CP° 111 § 0 ft.114 ' "6. • Illk ' lib ilk& `! r� jfiEW►lS.SA►10E sem/ 1 NMI silll ith j PARK -- --_- ‘i SITE AV; ii: �� /,ii I �,\��, No. 2.2 a' ,•������ ______ii\ G A il _ _ '�- .._ N o 2 CC 1 o /� Lam, Q it— ac _ /' FI3URE 1 1 DEVELOPMENT LIFT STATION11110 DISTRICT NO. 2 R: Illi Development District No. 2 •'I."' T.I.F. District No. 2-1 .11MIONI=■ T.d.1=. District No. 2-2 illffilIMMINIMMINMI 0 1000' 2000' 3000' City of Chanhassen Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota Planning Commission DATE: RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION FINDING MODIFIED PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2, MODIFIED PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 AND MODIFIED PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-2 CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen (City) has authorized preparation of a modified Program (Program) for Development District No. 2; a modified plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1; and a modified Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-2 (collectively, the Plans) ; and WHEREAS, the Plans have been submitted to the planning commission to review regarding their consistency with the plans for development of the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a thorough review of the Plans and has compared them with the plans for development of the City as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota as follows: 1 . That the modified Program for Development District No. 2 and the modified Plans for TIF District Nos. 2-1 and 2-2 are found to be consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen as a whole. RHB58451 CH130-2C 2. It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen hold the public hearing required by law and approve the Plans. Passed this ;°Ln day of September, 1993, by the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen. Chairperson ATTEST: — Secretary — RHs58451 CH130-20 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 Vice Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Diane Harberts and Matt Ledvina MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY SALES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public' hearing to order. Conrad: I'm just going to open it up for, I'm not going to go round robin. Ledvina: Is this a public hearing? Conrad: It is a public hearing. We'll note that there is nobody from the public here but I don't. Aanenson: I think when we get a regular ordinances...we did talk with people from Target — today who did request pumpkin sales in front of the Target for their grand opening and the Council felt that, was uncomfortable with that. They felt that the pumpkins should be inside the store and not outside. Scott: Say what? Aanenson: I think we need to differentiate because we had this request often times...where they want to have a sidewalk sales and that sort of thing...and maybe that's the time that we can tie in with...or maybe they're in the Arts Festival or something like that when there...that that would be the appropriate time to have sidewalk sales. _ Mancino: But wouldn't that almost be used as an interim use? Only because they could plan ahead and do that. You know every year we were going to have a 4th of July outdoor sidewalk sale. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Aanenson: You could except I think you'd have to, you know get...I'm just looking at if you _ want to see that, if you establish a criteria and you feel comfortable with that, then I think we could go through that permit. If it's something you don't feel comfortable with or they don't agree to the criteria you've established, then I think you do want to look at it. Mancino: Well the only thing I'm not clear about, what is, would be under temporary sales. What's going to be under interim use and what's going to be under conditional use? I'm not — clear. Aanenson: I think the only one staff is a little uncomfortable with at this time is more on a produce kind of line where it's grown or maybe flowers, pumpkins, Christmas trees. Those sort of things. They're not looking at bringing in merchandise. Mancino: So that's seasonal? Aanenson: Right. — Mancino: Because if they have to be grown. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: So does that mean that our definition of temporary sales is temporary seasonal sal es? Aanenson: Yeah, that's how the staff feels comfortable doing it. — Scott: You could maybe call it seasonal agricultural products and then we don't have Elvis paintings, I know darn anyway. — Farmakes: My worry about that is, what if you, what if you get a bad load of shrimp up here or something? Scott: Well I don't know if you could, that's not agricultural though. Harberts: It is. Scott: No it's. Harberts: It's regulated under the Department of Agriculture. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Scott: Plant material. Farmakes: For temporary use, what we're saying is...I think they've got seasonal shrimp. They have the Christmas tree lot and they have the...or something showing up with a bar-be- que and they sell hotdogs. And on occasion, it seems quite often on occasion, they have truckloads of pop coming in for sale and I don't know if that's non-profit or if that's part of the supermarket that got a good buy on pop. They have teaser type sales stuff where there will run an ad at a very low price to get people to come in and do their shopping. So the limitations of doing that type of stuff, does that become. Aanenson: You can see the depth of the problem trying to define. That's one of the other things Target had requested too. Is to put a greenhouse...and you'll notice a lot of grocery stores they try to do that. In the summer there may be overflow parking. In the winter, unless they clear all the snow off, if you want Christmas trees down there, that could be a real problem. So they can really proliferate. That's why we need to be careful about what we allow and how many we allow on the site. Farmakes Do we limit, you limit a site location but do you limit, let's say for Market Square. You have how many stores there. Do you allow each store to do a promotion? Or do you limit the numbers or do you just limit it to that site itself? Aanenson: I think we would be saying...because that's part of an PUD, that whole center. I would say if you say they can have a grand opening or let's say they tie the 4th of July celebration. That would be the sidewalk sales. Whatever promotion they want to do then. Because with the sign ordinance, we want to allow them 3 times a year to have special signage and I think that's kind of what we would like to see...and then the seasonal thing...fall or summer and winter. Harberts: How would you categorize, I noticed when Festival does a brat wagon. Aanenson: That would fall under, that was kind of a summer festival kind of thing. A grand opening. We do allow one grand opening. I think that's what Target was going to do. Harberts: I think I counted it more than once though. Aanenson: They also have requests for Girl Scouts who want to sell cookies out front. It's a never ending thing. I think there's certain things we sort of want to control but do we want to be out there if someone's selling... 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Scott: No, because I think that, I mean I personally don't like to get hassled. It's a hassle enough to out and buy something at retail and it's especially bad I think when you have the Nestea Clown out there trying to get you to take a drink of something. So I mean I think if we're talking about, it's going to be we have the different zoning areas. I think also too when you talk about property owners doing something on their own behalf versus someone getting permission from a property owner, I think we need to be a little bit more restrictive in that sense. I think we should give a fair amount of leeway to non-profits. But the thing I don't want to see is. Harberts: Community based non-profit. Scott: Yeah, there you go. Yeah, community based non-profit. The thing I don't want to see is, I don't want to see people from who knows where getting permission from somebody and who knows what the heck they're going to sell. Farmakes: Can you target use to industry? I mean you're saying agriculture. Can you do that? Aanenson: Well I did speak to Roger about that issue and there is, you have to...I did call some other cities and ask what they do. Sometimes they restrict...but then they choose on the other hand, just to ignore the corn huts and that sort of thing. Farmakes: The only thing that worries me obviously, it's almost that corn or something have a built in protection. There are some perishable type foods. Who's responsible if that's not up to par, and I'm not familiar enough with that industry to know how they touch that or who's legally responsible if someone gets ill. Are those people gone in 2 weeks and back down to Florida? Mancino: I feel I take my chance when I stop at the hot meat man or the hot shrimp man or woman, and buy something and I don't know but that's kind of my responsibility. Are they going to be there the next day? I doubt it. Scott: Well that's why I think if we talk about local groups and obviously Christmas trees aren't grown locally but I mean we think about who sells Christmas trees. We're talking about the Lions. Well that's what I mean. I think if we're looking at the local non-profits and limiting it to, as we can legally, but I think we've got some leeway. I like what you're doing with, if you owned the property or you're something like Market Square. You have 3 of these a year and that's great. I'd actually like to see 4 of them a year so they can do something quarterly but you know, be that as it may. But I think we have to be really 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 careful. I think I know what you don't want. I know what I don't want to see is this random junk. People selling junk. Farmakes: So this wouldn't be for individual stores per se? This would be considered for the entire development? Conrad: It should be for stores. I think the stores should have the opportunity to do their, if they wanted a truckload sale, or if they wanted a special event. Farmakes: You have individual stores and you've got 16 stores and they each had 4, then you would multiply that times 16. Conrad: You've got that potential. Scott: But it doesn't, I think from a sanity standpoint, what the people tend to do at a shopping mall is that there's usually some sort of a loose association where they say okay. We all want to have this sidewalk sale. Let's all have it at once so the tendency, if you look at Market Square and some of the other places in town, where there's some sort of an association, they tend to do it all at once and it makes better business sense because you want to attract as many people as possible. Farmakes: But that's really a different animal. If you have a sole proprietor, you're not going to have the money to do the type of advertising for special events. So if they go through their association and they advertise an item, that's one promotion. You have an individual store doing a promotion, it usually has to be a fairly large store to advertise it. So you've got Festival say, how do you, does Festival go ahead and take up the 4 times versus the smaller store that doesn't have the opportunities of being able to do it even once a year. Aanenson: I think we need to break them into two categories. Like to see is one would be, a group that wants to find a space to sell Christmas trees... They're not tenants in the city currently. That's. Mancino: They're not owners of property. — Aanenson: Then we need another category of people that are in town already doing business that want to have a temporary or a grand opening or a summer sale, whatever. So I think right away I think there are two different types of uses. Farmakes: So do you figure that by how you classify what they're selling as non-merchandise and you do that solely by they're somebody totally separate. Say for instance I'm assuming 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 that somebody is coming in as an individual contractor selling pumpkins at Target. I assume that Target isn't selling pumpkins. Conrad: They could do it either way. Farmakes: That's not their typical merchandise. Conrad: No, but any other season departments, I don't know what they're doing. Farmakes: Moonlight sale or Crazy Days, that's getting rid of inventory. Conrad: Actually Target's garden department never used to be their's, and I'm not sure what it is right now. Aanenson: Yeah, one of the things they requested was... Conrad: But Jeff, it's one of those cases where Target has the responsibility. They are sanctioning that vendor to come in and so you have, on their property, so it's their integrity more than. At least we have somebody to count on to be checking them out. Farmakes: They usually a retailer is going to use them for one of two things. One is to bring people on a teaser item. And the other is, there's usually a section of parking lot that's dead. it's too far away from the store and it's usually during non-peak hours, it's usually a dead spot and it allows them to get some income out of either a percentage of sales or, it isn't necessarily part of their store. Then the question becomes, as we were talking before, the difference between merchandising and a seasonal type sales use. Christmas tree versus a... Scott: How would this also affect Septemberfest, Art Festival, St. Hubert's Harvest Festival? Aanenson: ...the city's really never done anything. Farmakes: Like if you had a flea market on a parking lot. Aanenson: Well one of the things we looked at too, if we did a park and ride...that'd be a great place for a farmers market and that may be a place where we...but that'd be a great place to make sure... Scott: So it's kind of what we need to do is to come up with 3 or 2 classifications of things. I mean it's like there's the agricultural stuff. Seasonal agricultural stuff. The local not for profit seasonal thing. Then there are, I don't know if you'd want to call them city sponsored 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 or local, a festival sponsored by local organizations. Maybe that's another little bucket but I think if we can separate these things out and then be able to deal with them individually, perhaps that's because I can see this thing being a huge octopus with all sorts of. Conrad: Well it shouldn't be complicated you know and I think there's also a trigger if there's, I think the rules will never be right. They'll always be, so the rules have to take care of a certain amount of things and if it doesn't, then they kick it into, then it comes to the Planning Commission and we take a look at it. Yeah, and that may take some time and that will discourage some people but that's the way it will have to be. This could be really a fiasco. You can out guess all the things we're talking about here and I'd rather not see a huge ordinance. I think the logic for what we're doing and not have it come through the Planning Commission. If we can come up with the standards that are simple, that are real clear that we know that we're controlling them, then it should be administrative approval. For those things we can't figure out because there are too many variables, they've got to come in to see us. Farmakes: Then I think you should clarify the intent of what we don't want up front. Maybe that's the... Conrad: The only other thing Kate, I think you've got to keep in the back of you mind, you know what other shopping centers and other retailers are doing. I don't think we're trying to be, well you see what they're doing. The sidewalk sales are very typical. Sometimes there are truckload sales, and I think some of those are fun things. I guess I don't feel that we need _ to discourage those. I think we're trying to prevent some of this other stuff from happening. That's the bulk of this ordinance. Not to keep Target from having pumpkins out in the front of their store. Scott: Isn't it what we don't want transient for profit merchandising going on in town, unless it's controlled very tightly. Conrad: Yeah, right. Scott: Is that kind of what we're doing? Aanenson: ...temporary sales currently being outdoor storage. Conrad: Right. Scott: That's like the first two sentences. This ordinance is designed to discourage the following, you know two sentences. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: It would be helpful though if we do get a farmers market type situation, that would be helpful to, so you don't have these kind of location signs all over the city and cardboard. You know, I'm not sure though, can you do an ordinance? I can see that we've done profit and non-profit for things like in signage. But can you designate that it has to be local non-profit? I've never heard of that. Scott: That's the intent but I mean I think. Mancino: Legally, I doubt it. Harberts: No because then you're discriminating. Farmakes: Particularly if you're targeting industries. I'm not sure if the signage I know that if it had to be fairly unrestrictive of industry that was applied across the board. A temporary sign for a house. A temporary sign for a building. Scott: Or do we grandfather in certain things that we. Farmakes: I noticed that...said it was illegal in the zoning to target, when we were talking about Highway 5, it was illegal to target a specific industry. That would make it more restrictive for hotels. Scott: Or auto related uses? Harberts: I'm guessing Kate that you've talked with other cities or continue to talk with other cities. You know I think that with an ordinance you could, what you don't want to do is get into a checklist situation and I think you have to look at what is your overall goal in terms of what you're trying to, I guess control. Because of whatever reason. If it's public safety related or whatever. I think that really has to be the basis. In terms of the overall goal that you're trying to achieve with the ordinance otherwise you start getting into a checklist and it's almost like you're creating a, I don't know, maybe to some extent a glass, a bubble around Chanhassen in terms of we'll allow you in or we won't allow you to do this and I don't think that's really what the role of government is all about. Farmakes: There's one other thing too that we're not, right now we do Oktoberfest and a couple other, two seasonal holidays. Excelsior does a lot more. They draw a lot of people in. Currently we don't really have a location for that unless we use the parking lot or baseball field. If the city does, say finish that park up in front, they may have, or the farmers market there may be an opportunity to have like a citywide type situation for that can be 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 conditions made for flea markets and that type of thing throughout the city. Again, that'd be on a limited basis. Harberts: Is there an opportunity to keep the ordinance to some flexibility? You know as maybe Chanhassen matures towards this type of issue, I think there's a lot of what ifs and I think we need to keep that ordinance, or potential ordinance somewhat flexible so we can maybe address those things as things develop here. But I think again the overall goal is to, what are we really striving to do. I don't think we want to make things burdensome for anyone but you know there's clearly reasons to regulate different sales. Temporary sales or whatever. Aanenson: In the past we haven't had any large anchors downtown before. So now...and we're not sure if we approve those uses...we want all this stuff outside. And so some of it does...with the community. I guess what we're looking for is... Scott: And if it's a tenant or a landowner, that's one thing and we can say you can do 4 of those a year. And then if it's somebody who's temporarily leasing, I think that's a whole other, different use and different type of merchandising and then throw in the non-profit piece so I think those three things, that keeps something fairly simple and you can always amend an ordinance you know. Conrad: Well, do you have enough input? I think that's pretty good. And I think the intent of this is real important. I think you've heard some good comments from the people here. Ledvina: I have some specifics. I don't know if you wanted to hear. Conrad: Go ahead. Now's the time. Ledvina: Well, I'll just start out and say that just kind of following up on Ladd's idea to provide some guidance on what constitutes an application that would necessitate it coming before the Planning Commission. I think maybe all these things that we've talked about go in an intent statement and then kind of a little blueprint for an applicant that serves as, if you're going beyond or cannot meet the requirements that are laid out here and you always have the right to go to the Planning Commission to discuss your proposal. So I think that would be appropriate. On page 4, standards for temporary sales on the bottom of the page. I have a real problem with that language. Just save the clause, including any additional conditions as may be established by the Planning Department. I think Diane would say, well enables you to have the flexibility but I don't know. That's kind of carte blanche and I don't kind of like that. So take a close look at that. If there's a way of saying it a little bit differently, I would prefer that. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Aanenson: It's hard to hit all things. Sometimes... Ledvina: I understand the difficulty but at the same time, you don't want a situation where the applicant feels that you have the power or you can point to this thing in the ordinance and say, well we can make you confine your operation to 10 x 30 rectangle or something like — that. And that's our condition. I don't know. Maybe that's obtuse but. Aanenson: I can think of a couple ways we can handle that. Why don't we just say, any other proof that would deemed necessary and then we could put a clause that would say, if staff feels that the information that's been provided is insufficient, then we would request that _ you come here. It'd be like what you're giving them... Ledvina: That's fine. If we could just take another look at that because. — Conrad: And that triggers a thought for things going through here. Is the City Council always the end? It doesn't have to be. Planning Commission could be the grantor of the permit. A lot of responsibility folks. Mancino: My shoulders are heavy. Conrad: That is an alternative to shortening the process. I think you can make us. They won't is my guess but. — Scott: We're usurping their. Conrad: It is a way to shorten it. Aanenson: To shorten the process and that's the part... Farmakes: Granting a permit, you don't waive the rest of the city ordinance? Say for temporary signs. There's a size limitation for temporary signs. They have to conform to — that.... Aanenson: ...limiting walls signs and we did... — Ledvina: That's another thing. That was my exact next point. If you've got the Boy Scouts, they don't even have a warming shack. I mean if they don't have, if they're limited to wall — signs, then they don't have any signs. Farmakes: Temporary signs don't necessarily have to be wall signs though. 10 — Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Ledvina: But it says right here. Farmakes: What is it, it's 4 x 8? Mancino: I thought they always had a warming shack. Ledvina: Okay, whatever. But I mean, a trash barrel or something. And then if you're saying they have to conform to the ordinance, which is, I think it's 15% of the wall space in the frontage or something like that. If they got this little bitty trailer, or whatever, they're not going to be happy with a 15% as a sign this big or something. I don't know. Farmakes: That formula gives them a minimum they can make. I think that's 4 x 8 on a temporary sign. And they could build that. That formula comes into play when you have massive Targets. Ledvina: I don't know. I guess I would just like you to revisit that item there. Conrad: Can they have banners? They can, can't they? Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know. I don't care. Streamers, banners. Conrad: Banners would typically be the way to do it. Ledvina: Little kids with sandwich signs walking around. Scott: Also too, if there are things like, I get concerned about the temporary food sales. And as part of the permitting process should be anything that's licensed by the Department of Agriculture or the State. The Board of Health or you know, whatever. I don't know who these authorities are. They should be made to produce a copy of their certificate or whatever that happens to be. I think we should take advantage of work that other governmental bodies have done to regulate stuff and piggy back on that as much as possible. Conrad: What else do you have Matt? Ledvina: And then I'd just like to go on record as saying that I think Target should have their 4 x 4 bin of pumpkins. Scott: That's all it is? Ledvina: It's 4 x 12, I'm sorry. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Mancino: 4 feet by 12 feet. Ledvina: Yeah. 4 feet by 12 feet. I think they should be able to have their bin of pumpkins. Scott: Yeah. I'd go on record as saying they should have their pumpkins too. Conrad: You know if you want to see an affect, Cub effectively merchandises the front of _ their store in a very presentable way so it's not tacky. We're trying to get rid of tacky but it's fun to walk into their store. Sometimes it's cut case stuff. Sometimes it spells out, you know merchandise that spells out things. Or it's pumpkins. Nice merchandising. Makes it a little friendlier. It doesn't last forever. Gee I'd hate to see us discourage them and become this clinical looking town. Antiseptic type of thing. I don't think we want that. Mancino: How long do you think of as temporary? Two months? Aanenson: Well, I think...each type of use. Now you have a produce stand, it may be 6 to 8 _ weeks. That's something we're going to have to try to establish with each different type. If it's the Christmas tree sales, probably Thanksgiving until the day after Christmas. So I think the one...seasonal. That they're leasing the space and try to give a time line for those. The owner occupied, the guy that owns the...pot sales, things like that, I think we limit those to maybe a week, 3 times a year or whatever we decide... Scott: You're heading in the right direction. I like that. Aanenson: Because if they do want to sell brats out there once a year... Ledvina: Other than that, I guess I support, generally I support the ordinance and I think it's reasonable. Reasonably good effort. — Conrad: Unless there's anything else, Kate I don't think we need a motion. Just go and do it and then we will, it will be a public hearing when it comes back. Okay. Farmakes: We should be aware too that there's, the Highway 5 situation, the sign ordinance is coming up. The architectural ordinance is in there. They're all sort of merged together. I think it wasn't necessarily planned that way but we have to be aware I think that there may be a perception to the Chamber that we are being anti business on some of these issues. And we should be aware of that potential and try and deal with that through communication. I know the last meeting we had, Brad stood up and said that for instance the parking ordinance was anti business. And you were talking about the signage package and saying, when in fact...It was half of the committee were members of the Chamber but they weren't part of Market 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Square. Well, I mean I think we need to be up front with that and let people know and talk about that. Address that every time it's brought up and try to be educational about that. Especially on the intent statements of what these things you're accomplishing, rather than arguing. No matter how you do it, it's going to affect somebody's business in some particular way and I think that the perception is that the people who are sitting on the Commission don't know anything about me trying to make a living in the business world and you're arbitrarily making restrictions on me when I'm trying to make a living and pay a couple of people and pay my bills and pay the taxes and so on and I don't need that type of bureaucracy thrown at me. In a way that's easy to come up and say and the opposite direction is kind of hard for us to come up with these ordinances to make a community that we want to live in. Scott: It's an interesting circumstance because I know that on the sign ordinance, even before, I mean when, before things got serious, I got a call from Paul saying Joe, we're going to do this sign ordinance. Can you give me some names of some people on the Chamber of Commerce who'd be interested and that's how Kevin McShane got on there and all those sorts of things. And I quite frankly don't have any sympathy for business people in town who don't get involved in the Chamber of Commerce because Kate sits on our Board. She's at every Board meeting and there are a large number of people who get involved in this kind of input, but I have no sympathy for business owners who don't get involved in the process and make this is a very, this is a commercial for the Chamber membership obviously. But if they want to get involved and they're members of the Chamber, they'll know what's going on and they will have the opportunity to have input. If they don't, c'est la vie. Farmakes: We're going to have to know that it's in someone somewhere's advantage to put up a 40 foot pylon signs down the main drag of downtown so that they can be seen from Highway 5. It's to someone's advantage and someone's going to want to do that. Who and when we feel we don't think it's right, you're dealing more ascerteric things. You don't think it's going to look good or I think that every time that comes up, particularly from the developer's standpoint, it's going to make them far more easier to sell a lease if they have that 40 foot sign. Scott: Then you can't, then another thing too is, you can kind of, I take a look at the Target situation is that within probably 2 to 3 months, the way Target markets, within 2 to 3 months of the time they have their grand opening, everybody who could potentially buy stuff there in their market area will know where it is. So a 40 foot pylon sign, you know. And I can see from a developer's standpoint, you know for rents, for leasing and that sort of thing, they have the opportunity to say well we're going to, this is the signage and signage and parking are the two hot things when you're trying to lease property. But then we also have to take it with a grain of salt because obviously they want the world so they can give part of that world to their lessee's. So when I hear business people talk about things, some of them are very, very 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 good at explaining, you know this is what I really need. Very straight forward versus the embellishment and I think as a Planning Commission, we have to see through the embellishment and kind of cut down to what do these people really need. Conrad: You have to give them reasonable exposure. That's a fundamental thing. That's part of the business. It's just where is, what is reasonable and whether it be, I can empathize. I work for a lot of people that depend on signage and Jeff, you know a lot about signage. Farmakes: But we don't seem to argue the intent. It's just, you know Brad was up here and he's...he wasn't arguing the intent. And that's what really seems that we should be communicating on. What the intent of what we're trying to do. The thing...come back on something that would fit in to how they're doing something, fine. Come forward and say what they are. Conrad: But it is, boy these are tough issues. Signage for services. Signage and strip type malls. Compare what's on the Frontier building. That doesn't light up but is relatively ugly. We don't find fault. At least I haven't heard a lot of fault with those signs but they're not attractive. They just don't light up. But we find a lot of fault with the ones that light up. And we find a lot of fault by putting more than 6 per running feet on 100 or 200 foot building. We find a lot of fault there if they're more than 14 inches. But go out and take a look. The signs on the Frontier building are not a piece of art. They're pretty ugly and again, it's tough to come to these conclusions. Or come to, not to a conclusion but come to what's the style for Chanhassen. I don't claim to know it. I just know that reasonable works and if you give them some reasonable exposure, nobody's going to complain and then the standards really make sense beyond that. To aesthetically keep Chanhassen a good looking community. — Farmakes: I said the same thing...we're looking for a reasonable type structures with reasonable type of quality. — Scott: High quality. Conrad: See that's where, I think the high quality is such an important deal. Farmakes: But we still deal with minimums. I mean we're selling high quality. Our ordinances deal with minimum requirements. Conrad: You're right. Mancino: Well I just want to add one thing, a little bit about the Tree Board. We are doing some new ordinances with landscaping and how much developer's can remove from the lots, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 etc and we invited them to our meeting last Monday night and not one showed up so we are going to hold a second meeting on the 27th of this month hoping that developers will show up because they have a concern about what we're doing for tree preservation. So we're hoping that before we get it into the Planning Commission that we have reviewed it with them and we've listened to them and made some revisions or whatever. So we're very definitely on the Tree Board trying to bring the developers into the process and making sure that we communicate with them before coming here. Conrad: That's good that you're doing that. That's the way the process should work. They shouldn't come to the meeting of the public hearing and raise issues at that point in time. Okay. CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVES NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Any comments? Ledvina: So we have to have, I saw three public meetings. Aanenson: We thought maybe just two meetings specifically on the plans and then one public hearing but if we need 3 meetings before we can hold a public hearing to go through the whole document. Ledvina: But how many public hearings do we need? Aanenson: One. Ledvina: One. Aanenson: Specifically we don't need a public hearing on the preferred alignment because that just needs to be an information meeting. We do need a public hearing on the Comp Plan amendment. Ledvina: How about the Environmental Assessment? Aanenson: The Environmental Assessment's...We don't need a public hearing specifically. We just need information which we have held but I think in fairness because of looking at the land use. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: Yeah, I would think that would be a good idea...with the property owners. Mancino: We had a lot of property owners. Farmakes: Give them an opportunity to come and verbalize. I would like to see an objective presentation bearing in mind that there was disagreement among the group as to some of those issues. Conrad: And who would, Jeff who would present that? Mancino: Barry? Farmakes: Well I'm assuming that Barry and. — Aanenson: Barton-Aschman. Farmakes: Yeah but there were three...choices. There was. Scott: You mean Deb Porter? — Farmakes: Deb Porter, yeah. It was primarily those three. • Aanenson: Deb did a specific function. Environmental Assessment document. First of all • we were trying to go with the hurdle that we felt uncomfortable with on the land use and Barry specifically...more than the study itself... — Farmakes: There are some issues that are not clear. In other words they were washy. Aesthetically, monetarily and others are very clear as to where the direction would be from — cost factor. From environmental factor. So I think the majority of what we disagreed with were issues where they were 6 to 1, half a dozen of the other. We need to go one way up or down and essentially it costs the same amount of money. The EPA is...same and it was more or less issues of long term use. Conrad: How about the issues Jeff, and the ones that sort of got me going a little bit were when the developers, and it could have been Brad, stood up and said that when the one alternative that's further away from TH 5, that is restrictive. That is this. That is that. That doesn't help. It's going to hard to sell that property. I need, I personally need some perspective on. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: It's long term use. Whether you're medium or high density or, right now the plan it's residential so I mean it's. Mancino: But they certainly didn't want their land divided. They didn't want it divided up so what we needed to see when the northern route was put before us, was how much acreage is going to be here between the northern route and Highway 5. I mean is it a substantial amount? Is it 16 acres? Are we talking about 10 acres? How many acres are we talking about? Because every one of them stood up and said, we do not want our land divided. And of course we know a street, a road is going to have to go in there regardless because you're going to have to get access. But they want to make the decision of where the land is divided. Aanenson: Just to add what Nancy is saying. We did do, in the study it does show the two alternatives and how the roadway, what size parcels would you have left so. Conrad: And I haven't gone through that yet but what I don't understand is what they said was, that's not. It is a function of how much acreage but it's also they're saying, hey. We may not be able to sell that. Nobody, there may not be any buyers that believe in this. Farmakes: You talk about market also. He was talking about marketing for a particular type of house versus another type that the market's out there for. So this is really a microcosm of just about everything that we've doing here and dealing with the growth issues. Development of retail issues that are coming up on TH 5 and TH 41. With the Mill's property. Small scale commercial. Residential. High density. It gets into the industrial areas. Just everything. It's just sort of everything. It's a complicated long term, lot of information to digest and to look at. And like I said, some things are really clear. And other things are not so clear. Aanenson: As we see it there's really three major components. One is the land use. There were some areas that we thought was inappropriate land use and we recommended a change when you do the Comp Plan. And you kind of tie into that is the setting component. Where should the northern alignment be. And a third point is, we've adopted, we're looking at really beefed up design standards and...but I think the critical part, as far as the time track that we thought we were on, was trying to get the land use and the road down first but now we've got the extra time. I think it's going to make sense to go through this in detail and get more public input and not have so much pressure and making good decisions. Scott: You know what would help too I think is a field trip. One of the things I had a conversation with Diane and she just said that Southwest Metro would be more than happy to come with a couple of vehicles. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Aanenson: We'd have to do that with the second meeting in October. The first one in October. Scott: It's like get on the bus and go to this thing and drive up the hill and get out and walk — around and say, well it's going to. And then make sure that someone can say, well the northern route is going to be coming through here. Not around here but something more specific because based upon our. — Mancino: I think I brought that up that that's something that I did. I walked. Scott: I've already been there but it was in the winter on a snowmobile you know. Mancino: ...part of it to see what it feels like. How close to the road you're going to be on — the southern route. How much noise you hear. Just everything. Aanenson: I thought it'd be good just to go over the major goals that we're looking at and try to preserve as much topography and just to get the feel of it. Scott: That would take half a day probably. It took me, a friend of mine gave me a — snowmobile ride up there during the winter and I could only kind of approximate but I was out there for 2 hours. Aanenson: Maybe we could start a little earlier than that. Scott: Guided tour you know. That would be really helpful because I think we could all — stand there and see and look around and envision what's going on. Conrad: Tagging onto that idea, it's totally different but Brian wanted us to go out to the — Arboretum and I think we really should take a look at. That issue's going to resurface and the concern about buffering the Arboretum. Ledvina: For cakes and tea. Conrad: Yeah, we could do that. But I think whether it's the same thing, maybe that's too — much Kate in one day but I thought that was such a good idea of Brian's that we go out there and know as we're putting industrial or whatever it was around their perimeter, what we're doing. And I think it'd be a chance to let Peter Olin lobby us too, which in this particular case I wouldn't mind. I'd like to hear rationale for buffering a buffer, which is always. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: One of the most controversial things that we probably did was the Mill's property issue. Or recommending that that... Mancino: But that was pretty much 100%. Farmakes: But what I'm saying is, that particular issue, essentially the City has been avoiding in making a firm decision on and it's sort of converged where that decision then had to be made. Even on the Comp Plan it was a study area and even when the U was looking at, how could you put a large scale commercial there and so on. They're certainly trying to do everything to envision as to how that would work if it did and I think 2 or 3 meetings ago we had the Mill's representative here and going over and went through some story about how we were in cahoots with local business owners to keep competition out or something. I never got that impression at any of those meetings. In fact the lawyers were there...as far as I know _ taking notes and I don't recall one instance where we, we said don't you have anything to say? Don't you have anything to tell us about when we stood up and said, Fleet Farm is. - This is what they are and basically he said, this is what they are and I conveyed that, this is what we will be. And apparently he spent a year listening to us and either he wasn't = informed about that or he just knew that it just wasn't going to happen and he was just putting in his time. Conrad: Okay. Mancino: Are these going to be separate work sessions or are these going to be part of our planning. Aanenson: ...field trip idea came up. That might be a good way to kick it off and do a separate meeting. If you want to do it on a Saturday morning or something and spend some time. Or if you want to take a regular Planning Commission... Scott: We can't do it at night. -- Aanenson: Well, we'd have to start earlier where we had enough light. We'd have to start at 5:00 to 7:30. Scott: Sure, or earlier. Mancino: What time does it get dark now? Aanenson: Or a Saturday morning. 9:00 to noon or something. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Conrad: It's almost got to be a Saturday morning. Scott: Early. Farmakes: On the issues...development too, we should probably be kept updated. Scott: Which one? — Farmakes: Well, there's a whole slew of them during the year meetings. There's been a whole slew of people who have threatened lawsuits and we should probably be aware of how we — should state our opinions or we might need some advice as to how do you respond to that? Or how the city wishes to pursue that...saying things on the record. What positions we should take and shouldn't take. Mancino: Actually they calmed down as the meetings went on but the first few meetings it was like, we're going to court if you put a road through my property. — Aanenson: ...make a decision based on Findings of Fact. Farmakes: For instance, as I said with Mill's situation. There was some story there that... Nothing in any of the meetings I was at that they were conveyed at... Conrad: So we have one general meeting first Kate and then go out and take a look. Aanenson: Or maybe go out and look first and then kind of do an introduction of what they...goals and then we can sit down and actually go through the document. I think... maybe that takes 2 meetings and then maybe 1 or 2 meetings on the architectural standards and what we're recommending for additions for design. Farmakes: One thing I'd recommend before we start having...on the presentation go over _ carefully what the intent. Aanenson: That's why I'm saying. I think we can do that on the field trip and end up at the — Arboretum. I think that'd be perfect. Farmakes: Because our meetings got so long and dragged on for so long, I think some of that got a little cloudy after a while. Aanenson: ...well we wrote our own intent statement for the master plan. — 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: Yeah, but we even changed it though. When we started out we kind of went back to that afterwards because it is such a complicated, multi faceted thing. Mancino: I did find an error in the land use. The color rendering of the land uses. Aanenson: So I'll try to set something up for that in October. If you have a certain date that doesn't work, just let me know. Harberts: First week of October I'm out of town for the entire week. Scott: Is anybody duck hunting?... Ledvina: October 9th? I can't make it. 16th is fine. Aanenson: 16th? Mancino: 16th sounds fine. Harberts: What's our time? Aanenson: In the morning and we're going to be riding on your buses. Harberts: Is that a request or a demand? Mancino: Can't we do horses? Conrad: Do you have an all terrain vehicle? Ledvina: I just scratched the surface of this document but I'm finding it to be excellent in terms of it's format and the readability and everything. I'm really, I think this is great. Aanenson: A lot of work done by the Task Force. They will be invited to the meetings too. Ledvina: Well I think they should definitely be commended. Hard to say it in just a couple of sentences but it appears to be excellent and complete. _ Mancino: Both of us, both Jeff and I were on the whole task force and we were both also on the design, architectural design specifications. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: ...signage that deal with other problems that we've been dealing with for years so... Harberts: Is there a need for the, with all the development going on in the city, that the _ Council considered accepting this as a preliminary concept? I don't know if that will help enable to guide that type of development? Aanenson: Well, as a matter of fact, we do have one of the first projects...coming in on the corridor and I gave these documents to them and will be referencing architectural standards as we review that project so even though it hasn't been adopted, we're using that. — Harberts: And we can do that? Okay. Aanenson: It's going to be a PUD. Harberts: Okay. You're lucky. — Mancino: What about being more far reaching on that? I'm thinking about Highway 101 where we're looking at the Mission Hills PUD with the commercial abutting TH 101? Aanenson: Why not?... Ledvina: A question... • Aanenson: That would be natural habitat in the future. Ledvina: Okay. But I was just wondering what it is. It doesn't identify. Conrad: It's 8:30. Anything else on this issue. Anything under New Business? NEW BUSINESS: Mancino: I would like the staff to look at redoing or amending the ordinance for subdivisions _ about setbacks between, what is in Galpin Boulevard where we have the new Rottlund subdivision. That first house is so close to the road and I've talked about this with Kate a little bit. That if we go ahead and expand Galpin Boulevard to 4 lanes, which we would — probably do in 10 to 15 years at least. I've kind of been told that and I live on Galpin. That that will be so close to the house that there will be tremendous noise and all sorts of stuff going on around there. Is there a way to get more setback between the corner lot on the subdivision and our roads? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Aanenson: Dave Hempel and myself did look at this issue and I think what we would recommend is that when we do have a lot...collectors, we do require larger setback... By the time you get the berm in there, it's going to be taking up a lot of that...front and having a narrow lot, we would...lot width on those. Scott: Something else too is kind of not necessarily new business but I had a chance to talk with our forestry intern and I think that person would be a great addition to any Planning Commission meetings where there's any sort of, well actually he should be at almost all of them. It was very educational and I think too, from talking to him and also going about town and looking at developments that are in process, there are few developers that are not taking this tree preservation stuff very seriously and unfortunately I've been contacted personally by people who have purchased homes and I think we all got some letters in one of our packets where, perhaps it's not the developer but maybe it's the builder or someone is, the snow _ fencing isn't going up. Stuffs getting compacted. They're filling things in and I would even go so far as to consider a fee per lot based upon, we're doing tree inventories now. A fee per lot with some sort of a tree evaluation and then some sort of a window where the developer, a responsibility party is financially liable for those trees. Aanenson: That's the ordinance that the Tree Board, Nancy and they're working on right now. That is part of Jeff s duties. Our forester is to go out and go through that subdivision. It's his job to make sure that the fencing gets out in the right place... Scott: And it's great because it's a little something. It's nice to talk and do all this wonderful stuff but if we don't have somebody knowledgeable going out, so I was very, very happy to see that. Aanenson: As far as the other issues, that's part of what the Tree Board is looking at. Significant tree preservation and what we do... Farmakes: There's primarily two things that keep on coming up over and over again. One is the trees plant or somebody moves in here and the tree dies back after they've moved in. The other is lake access. You might want to suggest those for the newsletter that the city sends out. An explanation of what lake access really means. And what the city is, you know we get these letters of mediation. What is the fact of...issue between the builder and the person who's buying the home. They should know what the city is responsible for and what we're trying to do and what in fact the builder is not doing. We hear these things over and over again. I don't know how to, they're the same things. The same type of things. Truth in Housing type thing where if these people were educated before they buy, and I don't know if that's the government responsibility really. It would be good not to ask the salesman. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Scott: It's a shame to see well educated individuals start a sentence, but the realtor said or _ but the developer said and you just kind of go, shake your head but then you realize. On the other hand, there are people who are, who's information and expertise are being relied upon by those who haven't made themselves educated on those things. — Mancino: And it's happening from some of our best developers. That's what bothers me. Farmakes: 90% of people who buy houses, I can guarantee you believe that the Building Inspector that comes out from the City is guaranteeing that the work is done correctly and that's, that's not what it is. And I don't know where people get that information, unless it's — taking somebody to Court which is always the most expensive but good information that you can get. But it sure would be helpful I think if we had a primer or something. I don't know how we'd get it to get people to come. You don't get a newsletter unless you've moved here. But it sure would be helpful if people knew that. In particular if they purchased lake property or property where they have a beachlot available or whatever. We really need to make these people aware of what they have and what they really don't have. Conrad: It's a good thought. Mancino: I was going to say... Conrad: Yeah, it's how you do it. Farmakes: Yeah, that's it. Conrad: You know you feel, they're real naive. We're all naive. Farmakes: And should the government be doing that? I hate to see these people come in and they're hurt, both financially and they're kind of defenseless when they're in here and they really expect us to do something about it. — Conrad: They wouldn't, Jeff they wouldn't even if we gave it to them. You only get concern when it's negative. When it's happening. You don't take the precautions. Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad: Any additions, deletions? Ledvina: I have a correction to make. On page 17. This is regarding the Pryzmus — application. We talked about condition number 15 and Nancy had made a friendly 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 amendment to that condition and it didn't really get in here. And the condition should read, if any of these conditions, number 2, 9, 12 and 13, etc, etc. The any of these conditions did not get in there so if we can make that change. Conrad: That's pretty good Matt. I'm impressed. Any other additions? Deletions, corrections. Minutes are noted. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Aanenson: Monday night City Council did approve Tower Heights subdivision subject to resolution of Nez Perce and the Shamrock development which is on Audubon, just to the west... Harberts: And what about Colonial? Or was that a discussion point afterwards? Aanenson: ...3 instead of the 8. Conrad: I was real impressed with the City Council. They reconsidered the issue and a 4 to 1 vote they went back. Back to what we recommended, 3. They had gone up to the 8 the first time through. Aanenson: And at the next City Council they'll be adopting Findings of Fact for reasons... Conrad: And this will be in Court when? No, I'm real impressed with the City Council. They did a very nice job of revisiting the issue. Harberts: Did Pryzmus Interim Permit go to City Council? Aanenson: No. That will be on the next City Council. Scott: Has he called or anything? Aanenson: No. That will be on the next City Council, on the 27th. Conrad: Okay, anything else? Scott moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss, Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 25 CITY OF vi ii ,,,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739 ., MEMORANDUM — TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director — DATE: September 28, 1993 SUBJ: Planning Commissioner Terms of Office The end of the year is closing in fast. There are two commissioners with terms ending as of December 31, 1993, Brian Batzli and Jeff Farmakes. Because this is a lengthy process with — advertising, receiving applications, and interviewing, staff would like to advertise within the next week. — When placing the ad for new commissioner applications, staff would also like to inform the public if the present commissioners are seeking reappointment. Please let me know if you wish to seek reappoint for another 3 year term. PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS Three Year Terms NAME APPOINTMENT DATE TERM EXPIRES — Nancy Mancino 1/11/93 12/31/95 Brian Batzli 1/1/88 12/31/93 Ladd Conrad 2/2/81 12/31/94 Diane Harberts 1/11/93 12/31/94 Joe Scott 1/11/93 12/31/94 — Jeffrey Farmakes 1/1/91 12/31/93 Matthew Ledvina 1/1/92 12/31/95 ONGOING ISSUES REVISED SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 ISSUES STATUS 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. 5 Materials presented to PC. Public hearings Corridor Study scheduled for late fall 1993. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow 3.* Sign Ordinance Draft ordinance has been completed and will be reviewed by the Hwy. 5 Task Force in May. CC asked that the committee look at limiting the number of sign boards on building exteriors for office buildings. To be completed by January 1994. 4. Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Work completed on upgrade parking lot of significant vegetative areas landscaping. Work on going on boulevard plantings and tree preservation standards. 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the ordinance. Initial comments delivered to Minnesota DNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. 6.* PC input in Downtown Planning and Ongoing. Work continuing on refining plans — Traffic Study for downtown community center proposal and senior housing development. Progress is reported to PC as it occurs. 7. Review of Architectural Standards to Hwy. 5 Task Force is working on this issue. Promote High Quality Design Will likely influence what is done in balance of city. 1 8. Bluff Creek Corridor Greenway Park and Recreation Commission is undertaking update of the recreational element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bluff Creek issues to be dealt with in this format. Working with Minnesota DOT to install bridges over creek for Hwy. 5. Recreational easements being taken over the creek in vicinity of Laurent farm near Pioneer Trail under proposed platting. Land for school site and trail south of Hwy. 5 and north of Timberwood acquired by City Council action. 9.* Temporary uses, sales - new PC reviewed. Staff given direction to make ordinance changes and bring back in November. 10. Sexually oriented businesses Scheduled for City Council review. 11. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC. 12.* Upgrade landscaping ordinance Completed standards to meet criteria established during Target Review. 13. Joint meeting with Park and Requested by PC. Recreation Commission on natural area preservation and Park Comprehensive Plan. 14.* Review land use designation of Recommendations for changing parcel located west of Hwy. 41 and comprehensive plan in this area are south of Arboretum. contained in the Hwy. 5 plan. 15.* Auto related uses. CC determined that new district not appropriate but wants lot by lot discussion of available sites and how best to control/ influence auto related uses. 16. Local/Collector Street Plan PC requested discussion of potential developing a map and plan. 17. Existing use zoning - BF District PC requested discussion. * Change in status since last report. 2 CITY OF . CHANHASSEN f 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning DATE: September 30, 1993 SUBJ: Report from Director At the Monday, September 13, 1993, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: 1. A resolution in support of development of the Hwy. 5 Pedestrian Overpass as cost sharing project using ISTEA funds was approved on the consent agenda. 2. City Code amendment to Chapter 10 regarding sexually oriented businesses, second and final reading, was pulled from the consent agenda by Councilman Senn and tabled. — Councilman Senn sought to expand the setback from sensitive uses from 500 feet to 1000 feet. This item will be scheduled at an upcoming Council meeting. Staff has concluded that the 1000 foot setback would not meet constitutional test since there is no reasonable commercial site remaining in the community. We expect to continue to recommend the 500 foot setback be used which is consistent with other communities' ordinances which have been upheld in court. 3. Preliminary and final plat to subdivide 1.18 acres into two single family lots for Jacques Addition was approved on consent. 4. On the visitors presentation, Jay Dolejsi, a property owner in the Hwy. 5 corridor requested that the Hwy. 5 1995 Study Area be brought into the MUSA line. Staff has prepared a written response to Mr. Dolejsi and the City Council which is attached to this memo for review. 5. Reconsider conditions of approval for Colonial Grove Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot. At the previous meeting, the several members of the City Council stated that they had received a number of phone calls regarding this beachlot proposal. The Planning Commission will remember that your original recommendation was that 3 boats be allowed at this dock, whereas, 8 had been requested. The City Council had Planning Commission September 30, 1993 Page 2 initially approved 8 boats. It appears as though the City Council had been receiving information that affidavits provided by the Colonial Grove beachlot association to demonstrate the presence of 8 boats in 1981 were provided under duress or were inaccurate. The City Council requested that this item be reconsidered. The Council voted to direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact to change their approval back down to the 3 boats that had been recommended by the Planning Commission. The item was tabled to an upcoming meeting where these findings can be adopted. 6. Proposal to rezone 11.5 acres of property zoned PUD and A2 to RSF, preliminary plat to subdivide 11.5 acres into 20 single family lots, south of Heron Drive, Shenandoah Ridge, Shamrock Development. This project was approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 7. Discussion of temporary sales request for Target. The Target Store management had delivered to staff a request to be allowed to sell pumpkins this fall when they open and a longer term request to have a nursery and temporary greenhouse in the parking lot. Staff asked the City Council for direction on the pumpkin sales since this was in a PUD but recommended that no action be taken on the greenhouse pending review and approval of the draft temporary sales ordinance. The City Council elected not to allow Target to sell the pumpkins either and preferred to wait until a new ordinance was in place to deal with any of these issues. At the City Council meeting of September 27, 1993, the following actions were taken: 1. Approval of findings of fact for Colonial Grove Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot. This item was pulled from the consent agenda. Cliff Whitehill representing the association lodged accusations that he was not given appropriate notice whereupon the Council determined that this item should be held over one meeting. Mr. Whitehill, then on visitor presentation, accused the Council of liabling him relative to reconsideration of this item. 2. Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot Non-conforming use permit clarification. Upon adoption of this permit by the Council, staff realized that an error had been made. The Planning Commission had recommended that an additional 10 foot section of dock be allowed to be installed at the end of the existing dock. Staff had no objection to this but omitted this modification when the item was approved by the City Council. When this was discovered, we processed an amendment to the Council approval that reinstated the 10 foot extension as envisioned by the Planning Commission. The amendment was approved by the City Council. 3. Interim use permit for expansion of a golf driving range, Swings Golf, John Przymus. The Council spent a fair amount of time discussing this matter and as the Planning Planning Commission September 30, 1993 Page 3 Commission knows, there is a long a confusing background on it. The Council seemed predisposed to working something out for Przymus in terms of setting an interim use permit period efficiently long that he could at least pay out of his SBA loan. However, everyone seemed to acknowledged that it was likely that pressures would be brought to bear to change the use of the site in advance of this date in any case. Staff and the City Attorney were directed to meet with Mr. Przymus and attempt to work out issues and return back to the Council. 4. Zoning ordinance amendment to landscaping requirements for site plan reviews. This item was approved on first reading with some minor changes being requested. 5. Zoning ordinance amendment to Section 20-575 -20-595 regarding lot sizes was approved for first reading. 6. Auto related use district. As the Planning Commission is aware, the City Council had requested that staff develop an auto related use zoning district as an outcome of the _ experience reviewing the Abra and Goodyear proposals last winter. The Council's idea was to develop a separate ordinance for auto related uses whereby their location could somehow be confined and restricted. Staff was never terribly comfortable with this approach but we did develop a position paper and draft ordinance which the Planning Commission was able to review. The Planning Commission indicated that you were not terribly supportive of the concept either. Realizing that this ordinance would make a number of existing businesses non-conforming, staff took this item back to the City Council for review of the ordinance. We indicated that if in fact they wanted to proceed with this, we would publish it for public hearing but the City Council needed to be aware of its implications. After some discussion, the City Council agreed that the auto related use district approach was not an appropriate one to follow. However, staff was asked to come back with a review of potential sites where auto related uses might be located and develop strategies for dealing with them. CITY OF011' CHANHASSEN r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM Ee R.,if _ Na TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning DATE: September 15, 1993 SUBJ: MUSA Line Amendments At the last meeting, Jay Dolejsi submitted in writing and on visitor presentation a request to consider the inclusion of the 1995 Study Area, located north of Hwy. 5, into the MUSA line. This matter was partially clarified by city staff, but I felt it would be appropriate to draft a memo to you regarding this issue. As was indicated by Planning Department staff, the city is in the process of completing and adopting the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The Plan will ultimately become an appendix to the city's Comprehensive Plan and the Highway 5 ordinance will become part of the zoning code. However, it should be clear that none of these actions are intended to initiate the inclusion of this study area at this time. Several years ago when the Comprehensive Plan was approved, staff was directed to undertake - studies that would help to define future land uses in both of the 1995 study areas. We agreed to do that and have achieved this goal for the Hwy. 5 study area with the Highway 5 plan. The south 1995 study area located south of Lyman Boulevard requires study in the near future. However, the act of actually bringing land into the MUSA line is a separate one requiring an extensive amount of documentation and ultimately approval by the Metropolitan Council. I think it is fair to state that the Metropolitan Council MUSA Line policies are in a state of upheaval at the moment and this is likely to be the case for at least another year. I think it is also fair to state that the Metro Council will not give us one additional inch of land within the MUSA line until we can demonstrate that land included in the previous MUSA line expansion is substantially utilized. I don't believe it is going to take too many years before we can demonstrate that this is the case, given current rates of growth in the community. It is my guess that we can probably demonstrate the need for additional land in the MUSA line by 1995. Don Ashworth September 15, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Dolejsi is asking that you initiate work to bring the study area into the MUSA line at the present time. This is not likely to be realistic for a while and I would also suggest that Mr. Dolejsi to contact other property owners in the study area so that at the appropriate time they can make a coordinated request. This request should then be received officially by the City Council who would then order staff to prepare the necessary documentation, undertake appropriate public hearings and gain Metropolitan Council approval. While the Highway 5 plan provides extensive documentation that could be utilized in this task, work effort acquired to achieve this goal will be significant. Staff is asking the City Council to review this memo and if further action is desired on the MUSA line issue at this time, that staff be directed to undertake this. pc: Mr. Jay Dolejsi -/ - y3 Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparrel Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 470-4437 August 25, 1993 Note: Mr. Dolejsi requested that this letter be forwarded to the City Council. He may or may not appear under the Visitor Presentation section on the agenda. Mayor Don Chmiel City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel : I would respectfully request that the City of Chanhassen incorporate the "1995 Study Area" along State Truck Highway 5 into the comprehensive Guide Plan. I believe that this would be an appropriate time to take such an action because of the proposed Arboretum Boulevard. The road alignment, zoning and land use in this area are all interdependent. The discussions of land use by the Highway 5 Task Force and the Planning Commission revolved around this interdependence and the uncertainty of land use in that area adding to the difficulty of planning. This uncertainty of land use also extends to the land owners who have difficulty in supporting the city's efforts in this area . With MNDOT delaying the next phase of the Highway 5 upgrade and the Highway 5 Task Force completion of its mission , this would be an appropriate time to unite the Task Force recommendations, road alignment, zoning and land use into the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Sinc- - \ 1 ` . I J. '. ejsi CITY OF 01 -1°4;r4CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director DATE: September 20, 1993 SUBJ: Auto-Related Use Zoning BACKGROUND Early last spring, the City Council gave staff direction to prepare an auto-related use zoning district. The intent of this zone was to give the city additional latitude and control for regulating these uses. Auto-related uses tend to be intensive, both in utilization and visual impact, and their location often poses significant issues for local government and nearby residents. This issue had "hit home" with the request to develop an Abra Auto Body and Goodyear Tire Center near the McDonald's on Highway 5. Staff was given direction from the Council in March defining what uses should be allowed and not allowed in this district. The position paper that was developed for the City Council was taken to the Planning Commission in May. Commissioners discussed it for an extensive period of time at their May 19 meeting. While they seemed to acknowledge the site design related issues pertaining to other related uses, they did not appear to be supportive of segregating them into their own district. Staff has in the past, voiced the opinion that much of the issue is one of _ site design rather than location. The Abra/Goodyear sites were developed under existing codes that inadequately dealt with some of these issues. They were not eligible for TIF financing either which the city has used in the past to leverage improved design. Therefore, there was considerable frustration over the city's inability to directly influence these proposals. The city has taken a number of steps to address these concerns as outlined later in this report. On June 21, 1993, I wrote to the City Attorney attempting to give him options of how such an ordinance would be developed. A few days later, Roger prepared a draft ordinance which is attached to this memo. I had some concerns with his approach, but proceeded to schedule it for public hearing before the Planning Commission. As you are well aware, the Planning Commission has been dealing with an exceedingly large volume of work this year. Our ability to take on special planning projects has additionally been severely limited by staff turnover, and Don Ashworth September 20, 1993 Page 2 more directly by my need to be out of the country and undertaking tasks related to the adoption of my daughter. Unfortunately, this puts the department in the position of being able to deal only with development proposals, code enforcement, and the most pressing special programs we had to complete, such as the Highway 5 project. We have honestly not been able to push the auto oriented use issue as fast as we may otherwise have been able to. PURPOSE Given the time that has elapsed and the work that has been done to date on this ordinance and several other areas, I wanted to come back to the City Council for guidance before proceeding to public hearings at the Planning Commission level. There have been some noteworthy accomplishments and other aspects of the city's regulatory control may have a bearing on this issue. HIGHWAY 5 PLAN AND RELATED ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENTS The Highway 5 Task Force completed its intensive effort to develop the Highway 5 Corridor Plan a few weeks ago. Staff is now in the process of bringing the Planning Commission up to speed on this document so that they will be a position to hold public hearings later this year. Many of you have been involved directly in the Highway 5 planning effort and have a good understanding of what is being proposed. While it must be stressed that the plan and related ordinance (copy attached) have not in any way directly prohibited or specially regulate auto- related uses, it will have a significant role to play in how they are to be developed when and if they are proposed. Much of the community's existing and potential commercial acreage is located within the Highway 5 Corridor or associated CBD District. Therefore, most of the potential auto-related use sites will come directly under the provisions of this ordinance. Yet it should be stressed that those codes will not regulate every potential auto-related use site in the city. What will be developed at neighborhood commercial centers, such as the Highways 7 & 41 area, what is planned around the Highway 101/212 interchange, and potentially a few others around the community, will not come under Highway 5 regulatory controls. However, the scale and number of these sites is minimal. The second ordinance of note is changes to the city's landscaping code that are currently winding their way through the approval process. This ordinance stems from what was another council directive and that was to implement the "Target standard" on all development in the community. This is based upon the extensive site planning and landscaping that was provided with the Target store. It was believed it could be applied as a minimum to all properties that are developed in the community. The Council directed staff to prepare such an ordinance amendment. Staff has done considerable work on this code as has the Tree Board and Planning Commission. This is being scheduled for Council review on the packet for September 27. Don Ashworth September 20, 1993 Page 3 Again, while neither of these two ordinances or the Highway 5 Plan directly restrict the ability of auto-related uses to locate on appropriately zoned sites, they will have a substantial effect on how they are developed. While staff is generally comfortable with the final outcome of the Abra/Goodyear situation, these two site plans did point out failings in our then current ordinance. Since neither of those two uses was requesting the support under TIF (and this was quite unusual for a downtown development), we did not have this mechanism to leverage additional design authority. As I recall, this was part of the frustration in dealing with these issues. These two ordinances and the Highway 5 Plan will help to ensure that at least when such uses are proposed, that they conform to the highest standards of site design. Draft Auto-Related Use Zoning The City Attorney has prepared a draft auto-related use district based somewhat on my memo to him (attached) as well as his interpretations of what you indicated that you were striving to achieve. A copy of the ordinance is attached to this report for your review. What this ordinance essentially does is establish a new district wherein defined auto related uses are located. Other ordinances, where these uses have previously been allowed, have auto-related uses deleted. The intent section is fairly detailed defining why such an ordinance is desirable and giving direction as to how and when such zoning may be appropriate. Roger then attempted to develop a list of permitted and conditional uses for this district. This ordinance appears to do what staff had been directed to achieve by the City Council. It does segregate all auto related uses into a new district. Theoretically, this could give you additional control as to where these uses would be located in the future. However, while we have tried to give some guidance as to when and where such uses may be appropriate, there is a potential for arbitrary decision making and/or difficult review processes where the appropriateness of such uses on a given parcel is put into question by not only the Planning Commission and Council but also residents and developers. In my experience, where the potential for such problems exist, they will often occur, and when this happens litigation cannot be far behind. The second consideration is that as potentially applied, this ordinance will make all existing auto- related uses non-conforming. This will occur since none of them will have appropriate zoning. Making them non-conforming has the long term potential of hopefully bringing some of them into compliance with new standards over time. However, this is somewhat hypothetical at best, in my experience. It will also have an immediate and significant effect on the value of these businesses and their ability to expand. As non-conforming uses, while they would be grandfathered in, they could not be rebuilt if significantly destroyed by an act of God and cannot be expanded even if such expansion leads to a more attractive site or into compliance with more current standards. This type of non-conforming designation may have a significant impact on the value of a business because it directly affects its ability to be resold and financed. Don Ashworth September 20, 1993 Page 4 Alternatively, you can avoid these problems by automatically granting "BA", Auto-oriented business district status to all existing auto-related uses. The question of making existing uses non-conforming is frankly one of the more important ones for me and one in which I am seeking your guidance. This city has always striven to gain as much public notice and input on new ordinance development as is feasible. Since this ordinance will have a direct and significant effect upon all existing auto related uses as well as property owners who seek to have these in the future, I can only conclude that publication of an ordinance such as this draft will result in significant input from these parties. While this is by no means an all inclusive list of properties that will be affected, they include: Tenants of the Hanus Building Gary Brown's Car Wash AMOCO Gas Station Holiday Gas Station Brook's Superette Total Mart McDonald's Abra/Goodyear SuperAmerica Gas Station Several uses on Hwy. 169 Emission control testing station If you wish to make a decision to make these uses non-conforming, we will develop the ordinance and bring it through the approval process. Given the expected reaction, we first need your direction on this important question. The third factor that needs to be kept in mind with this ordinance is that it does not affect proposed auto related uses that occur within existing or proposed PUDs. Outlot sites in the Market Square PUD and the Target PUD are in no way affected by the ordinance, nor would it affect the uses in future PUDs. This may not pose a major problem since the Council has come to realize that PUDs are a highly effective tool to obtain coordinated and high quality development. Since you exercise a great deal of latitude in the process of PUD approval, you would already have the ability to exercise appropriate controls over auto related uses. Summary As I noted earlier, staff is seeking the Council's direction on several questions before proceeding with public hearings on a draft ordinance. These include: 1. Is the draft ordinance satisfactory and does it achieve what you were seeking? Don Ashworth September 20, 1993 Page 5 2. If such an ordinance is to be implemented, should it make all existing auto-related uses non-conforming? Manager's Comments (9-23-93): I had a number of questions of the City Attorney on this item. After receiving his responses, I felt that the City Council might similarly benefit from his responses, i.e. 1. Q. Can the city create a new zoning district without having any properties located in that district? A. Yes. In an instance like that, you are in effect stating that you anticipate someone to apply under that designation, and here are the rules that will be considered = before granting a designation to the new district. 2. Q. If the city does not designate existing auto-related businesses as a part of the new district, what type of assertions/claims can be anticipated? A. Existing businesses would probably contend that their ability to obtain financing/ refinancing will be diminished; that the non-conforming status will affect their ability to sell their property; that they will not be able to modify or expand their business to meet changes in the industry; etc. 3. Q. Is there a variance procedure in place which would permit the council to approve a canopy at the Sinclair Station, add two parking spaces to Amoco, install a new tank at Holiday, etc.? A. Not as drafted, but one could be inserted. Similar to other variances, the approval of various forms of variances weakens the ordinance and must be similarly applied to all businesses making a similar type of request. 4. Q. Can all existing auto-related businesses be included as a part of the new BA district? A. Yes, but parcels which currently have an underlying zoning similar to that of any of the businesses that are being rezoned could reasonably be asked to be included in the BA designation themselves, i.e. the remnant parcel adjacent to Abra/ Goodyear, the Ward parcel, and the Charlie James property. The city would be forced to state why any of these parcels were different than the existing auto- _ related businesses who were converted to the new zoning district. Don Ashworth September 20, 1993 Page 6 Manager's Recommendation: I do not believe that the proposed ordinance is really going to accomplish what the council wants. In all likelihood, the ordinance will create major problems for existing businesses and then seeking solutions for those businesses will probably put us right back into the same kettle as it deals with trying to justify why the remnant Mason parcel should be treated differently than Abra/Goodyear/McDonalds/etc. It seems to me that we are using a wrecking ball to kill a fly. All of the property on the south side of Highway 5 from our existing business park to TH 41 has or will be designated IOP, school site or residential. Auto-related businesses are not allowed in those zoning districts (except as small components of a larger PUD) and, as the properties have not yet been developed, we can reasonably require that those properties conform to the standards being prepared under the Highway 5 corridor ordinance. Similarly, all of the property north of Highway 5, from CR 17 to TH 41, has been designated as some form of residential by the draft Highway 5 plan. Similar to IOP, auto-related businesses cannot locate in any of our districts. The above IOP comments are also true as it relates to the DataSery property and the parcel adjacent to The Press, i.e. auto-related uses cannot occur in these areas and the Highway 5 corridor standards can be applied to any new developments. If we left all of our zoning designations in place as they deal with businesses along Highway 5 that are in or adjacent to the downtown area (between Dakota Avenue and CR 17), we would only have three parcels to worry about as to whether auto-related uses could be established on those three parcels or not. The three parcels and comments regarding each are as follows: Ward Property (southeast corner of Market Boulevard and Highway 5): The Comprehensive Plan shows this parcel as IOP. The zoning ordinance has it designated as IOP or commercial. Most of the commercial type of uses that I can think of would not really be appropriate for this corner or would harm our existing development strategies for the downtown. Assuredly, we would not want to see this parcel become overly laden with auto-related uses. Accordingly, the simple answer appears to simply be one of modifying the city's zoning ordinance to show this parcel as IOP and thus be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Charlie James (northwest corner of new West 78th Street and CR 17): A convenience gas facility was previously approved for this property. I would anticipate that some form of fast food use or gas station is a logical use to occur on that property in concert with other commercial users. Staff will in all likelihood convince Mr. James to develop the parcel under a PUD status, similar to the Target PUD area in which case architectural or other types of controls could reasonably take away from any negative aspects of an auto- related use; and Remnant Mason Parcel (east of Abra/Goodyear): Although the owner can contend that the parcel abuts commercial uses on its west side and should therefore continue to have that designation, the fact remains that that final lot is so far away from Dakota Avenue Don Ashworth September 20, 1993 Page 7 as to take away from its commercial designation. Additionally, all of the property to the east of this lot is designated as IOP. Modifying the zoning for this parcel to be consistent with the zoning of other parcels to the east appears logical and eliminates the necessity to worry about whether or not someone will propose an auto-related use for that property. Conclusion Junk the current ordinance and instruct the City Attorney/Planning Director to institute procedures to correct the only two problems that I see we have, i.e. the designation on the Ward parcel as well as the designation of the remnant Mason parcel, and institute the Highway 5 Corridor development standards throughout this corridor. /Dr—) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING AUTO RELATED USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-692 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting: convenience stores without gas pumps. Section 2 . Section 20-693 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting: car wash (when accessory to automotive service stations) . Section 3 . Section 20-694 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting: convenience stores with gas pumps. Section 4 . Section 20-712 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting: fast food restaurants, car wash, convenience stores without gas pumps, automobile servicing within enclosed structures designed for the purpose where fuel is not dispensed. Section 5 . Section 20-714 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting: small vehicle sales, screened outdoor storage, convenience stores with gas pumps , motor fuel stations, emission control testing stations. Section 6. Section 20-732 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting: convenience stores without gas pumps. Section 7 . Section 20-752 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting: convenience stores without gas pumps, fast food restaurants. Section 8. Section 20-754 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting: truck, automobile, farm implement, recreational vehicle and boat sales and service, major auto repair and body shop, convenience stores with gas pumps, motor fuel stations. 6571 06/23/93 Section 9. Section 20-201 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following under Business Districts: "BA" , Auto Oriented Business District. Section 10. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article XXIX to read: ARTICLE XXIX. "BA", AUTO ORIENTED BUSINESS DISTRICT 20-1450 . INTENT. The intent of the "BA" District is to accommodate the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent uses. Property suitable for such zoning classifications should have the following characteristics: (1) The property should be located along streets that allow access without introducing traffic into residential neighborhoods. (2) Since auto related uses are associated with significant traffic generation, the property must accommodate = acceptable levels of traffic safety. When safety and traffic volume improvements are believed to be required by the City Council , approval of the use must be linked to their construction. (3 ) The City is concerned that a proliferation of auto related uses in a particular area can lead to excessive traffic visual and environmental impacts. A proliferation of such uses is ultimately destructive to the value of nearby properties and is detrimental to the City's goal of supporting high quality commercial development. Therefore this district will be employed to limit this proliferation. Alternatively, when auto related uses are proposed to be clustered in a limited area, they must be developed under a coordinated, comprehensive plan. This plan should offer high quality, coordinated architectural design, and site design consistent with the site surroundings. The plan should also demonstrate that the efficiency of landscaping, tree preservation, and surface water protection are maximized while limiting hard surface coverage. (4) Auto related uses have historically contributed to visual blight due to garish and/or franchise architectural designs, excessive signage, excessive noise emitted from traffic, speakers and auto repairs, proliferation of undesirable features such as garage doors in visible locations, disabled vehicles, drive-up facilities, and large parking lots. No auto related use will be permitted 6571 06/23/93 2 unless these issues have been addressed to the satisfac- tion of the City Council . (5) Rezoning must be consistent with the recommendations of the Highway 5 Corridor Plan and other such sub-area and special purpose plans as adopted by the City in the future. 20-1451. PERMITTED USES. The following uses are permitted in a "BA" District: (1) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (2) Fast food restaurants. (3) Car wash. (4) Automobile servicing within enclosed structures designed for the purpose where fuel is not dispensed. 20-1452 . CONDITIONAL USES. The following are conditional uses in the "BA" District: (1) Convenience stores with gas pumps. (2) Small vehicle sales . (3) Screened outdoor storage. (4) Motor fuel stations . (5) Emission control testing stations. (6) Truck, automobile, farm implement, recreational vehicle and boat sales and service. (7) Major auto repair and body shops. 20-1453. LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS. [TO BE FURNISHED] . Section 11. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 6571 06/23/93 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1993 , by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1993) . 6571 06/23/93 4 CITY TF _ - bil4t114CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director • DATE: September 17, 1993 — SUBJ: On-going Moon Valley Litigation The City has been working with Moon Valley to bring them under a city permit for nearly 3 years. Rather than comply, Moon Valley initiated litigation with the city which resulted in — counter claims being filed on our behalf. The litigation process has dragged on for a long period of time due primarily to 2 rounds of court proceedings and the unusually long time Judge Kanning takes to render a decision. In the initial round of litigation, the city prevailed in that the judge ordered Moon Valley to obtain a permit from the city, refused to grant non-conforming grandfathered status to additional land that had been acquired by the Moon Valley operator and by setting down guidelines for permit review. The second half of the litigation is not going quite as well. I have attached a copy of Judge — Kanning's Order. Essentially, it does the following: 1. Moon Valley will have to comply with the setback and slope standards established by the — city. 2. The city will be able to make Moon Valley supply funding for proper restoration, — however, the amount of said funding is yet to be determined by the judge and we are not sure he is favorably disposed to making sure there are sufficient dollars available. 3. If Moon Valley is currently in violation of setbacks, they will have to restore the property within 120 days of filing this order. 4. The judge declined to require Moon Valley to supply ongoing current engineering data on surface water drainage and erosion control issues. Staff believed this was essential to properly manage the site. — Don Ashworth September 17, 1993 Page 2 5. The judge agreed that some sort of performance guarantee from Moon Valley is warranted but is not supporting the scale or type of assurances that we believe are required. Since the time the judge made his ruling, a significant event has occurred on the property. After a recent heavy rain, the on-site retention basin developed by the Moon Valley operator appears to have blown out resulting in very significant amounts of material being deposited across Hwy. 169 into Rice Lake. City staff became aware of this and took some photographs of the results. We were then in contact with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service which operates the National Wildlife Refuge where the material wound up and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency which maintains another level of permit authority over the operation. The Fish and Wildlife Service is going to be approaching Moon Valley seeking to have them remediate the damage. The Pollution Control Agency had originally been favorably disposed to granting Moon Valley an MPDES discharge permit under relatively simple blanket permit requirements. Since Moon Valley refused to work with them even on this modest step, and since the damage they caused was significant, they are now seeking to either fine Moon Valley and/or require them a much more involved individual permit. I have asked to be copy on actions by both agencies so that this material can be forwarded to Judge Kanning for his consideration. Essentially, we think this recent unfortunate event bears out what the city has been maintaining all along, i.e. that appropriate controls and management techniques must be used by Moon Valley to ensure that no off-site damage to property and wildlife occurs. Staff will keep the Council posted as to any progress in this area. • • • STATE OF MINNESOTA • COUNTY OF CARVER _ J.E. Brill, Jr. Attorney at Law NOTICE OF: 0 100 Washington Square, Suite 1350 X FILING • _ Minneapolis, MN 55401 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT . - DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT 0 e Thomas M. Scott _ Attorney at Law 1380 -Corporate Center Curve #317 Eagan, MN .55121 COURT FILE NO. 90-27099 _ EN RE: moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. vs. City of Chanhassen - • ' You are hereby notified that 'in theabove entitled 'matter on _ 8-30-93 - a: • Findings and Order was 'duly filed. • Order was duly filed. • • Y Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment was duly filed. . • Judgment was duly entered. Judgment was duly docketed in the amount of $ • at - ( time ) on in favor of and against.. . Other • • Dated: 8-30-93 GRE9T M. ESS, Co • � Cort Administrator_ Copies attached. gyp. • _ �` `/ � 1 i • DepCi • Phone ( 12) 448-1201 . - Carver County Courthouse, Box 4 600 East 4th St.. Chaska, MN 55318 •• - A true and correct copy of this Notice has been served by mail apon the parties herein at the last known address of each, pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 77.Q4. - -n .� _ ren oN QS VT S6` IZ End d' d ` SHOf13 '8 1100S ` NOS1f1N�1 ` 1138dWIJ FILED STATE OF MINNESOTA / Jr 1993DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER CARVE COUNTY COURTS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc . , Court File No. 90-27099 a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW vs. ORDER AND MEMORANDUM City of Chanhassen, Defendant, The above-entitled matter came before the Honorable Philip T. Kenning, Judge of District Court, on February 23 , 1993 , at Carver County Courthouse, Chaska, Minnesota. Thereafter the Court made an on cite visit, and received supplemental documents from the parties . Appearing on behalf of Defendant is Thomas M. Scott, Campbell , Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. , 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite 317 , Eagan, Minnesota 55121 . Appearing on behalf of Plaintiff is J. E . Brill , Jr. , Seigel, Brill, Greupner & Duffy, P.A. , 100 Washington Square, Suite 1350, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 . Based upon the pleadings, papers on file herein and having heard the arguments of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . Defendant, City of Chanhassen, is a Minnesota municipal corporation. 2 . Plaintiff, Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc . , operates a mine on property located at 100 Flying Cloud Drive, between Highway 212 and Pioneer Trail , which is within the City of Chanhassen. 2.0' d 900. ON OS: VT 26` Ii End H' d BODS ` NOS1f1N;d ` 1133.dNHD 3 . On May 14, 1990, Defendant, City of Chanhassen (hereafter City) adopted Ordinance No. 128 . The effective date of the Ordinance was May 24, 1990 , the date of publication. 4 . Ordinance No . 128 required Plaintiff to obtain an earthwork permit from the City or to cease mining operations on or before November 24, 1990 . 5 . Following the Court 's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment of April 2, 1992 the Chanhassen City Council approved an Earth Work Permit on June 22, 1992 for the Plaintiff , subject to Plaintiff ' s compliance with fifteen ( 15 ) separate conditions set forth in the Council 's "Findings of Fact and Decision" (Exhibit 1 ) . 6 . Plaintiff notified the City (Exhibit 6 ) that it would comply with all of the permit conditions with the exception of the following six specific conditions ( Exhibit 5 ) , to which it objected: 1 . Paragraph 1 (A) . Certification of a professional engineer. 2 . Paragraph 1 (A) (ii) . Erosion control practices. 3 . Paragraph 1 (B) . Site restoration - sequential mining. 4 . Paragraph 8 . Setback of 100 feet with slopes not to exceed a 1 . 5 : 1 grade. 5 . Paragraph 10. Inspections upon notice. 6 . Paragraph 15 . Letter of credit in the amount of $51, 000 . 7 . Plaintiff also took exception to the proposal to require Plaintiff to post a $1 . 5-million bond in lieu of a phased restoration plan. 8 . The City provided factual findings that the north boundary of the property could not practically be mined with a slope steeper 2 t0' d 900. 0N tS: T't 26' Iz 5nt1 H' d ` SHaf .d 8 1100S ' NO'S1fNN ` 113SdWHD property line. than 1 . 5 :5 within 100 ft. of the pits findings City did not provide a factual basis for 9 . The C1 y Certification of Moon that a professional engineer make annual Valley' s drainage system. not provide a factual basis for its findings the 10 . The City did management practices or that Moon Valley need follow the best District Standards. Carver County Soil and Water Conservation goes to the restoration of 11 . The $51, 000 letter of credit g — the site. findings that periodic mining The City provided factual Valley was in 12 . that Moon to insure inspections were reasonable applicable the Permit Agreement and other pP - compliance with 4 _ findings that the regulations. The City ' s did not provide factual _ 13 . light restoration was a valid restriction in g and r nature of their sequential mining and ' s ""material brokering" general use . of Moon Valley legal nonconforming n operation and their status as a g _ miningfindings, as found in case law 14 . The City provided factual — that a restoration fund was reasonable to insure the restoration of the Moon Valley site . for the did not provide adequate factual basis 1, , The City 1 . 5 million. rmance bond in the amount of $ imposition of a perfoherein as additional 16 . The Memoranda is incorporated — Findings of Fact . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 , The condition which requires annual certification by a . 3 O• d 'a00' GN c'S: b� �6` �(' 6nd N' d ' SHJft� ilODS ` NOS1f1NN ` 1133dWN professional engineer is not related to health or safety issues. 2 . The condition which requires Plaintiff to sequentially mine and restore defined areas of its property in accordance with a predetermined plan is not in congruity with Plaintiff 's vested rights as a preexisting legal nonconforming use, is an onerous restriction, invalidly confiscatory, and patently unreasonable in light the less restrictive measure of a restoration fund and, therefore, violative of the April 2, 1992 order. 3 . The condition which prohibits Plaintiff from mining its property within 100 feet of its property line at grades of less than 1 . 5 : 1 is related to health or safety issues. 4 . The condition which requires Plaintiff to ptrmit periodic inspections of its property is related to health and safety issues and is not arbitrary or capricious. 5 . The condition which requires Plaintiff to provide an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $51 , 000 is arbitrary and capricious. 6 . The proposal to require Plaintiff to post a performance bond in the amount of $1 . 5 million is arbitrary and capricious . ORDER 1 . The City will reissue a Permit Agreement to Moon Valley excluding the conditions of Permit Agreement, para, 1 .A. i . , ii . ; 1 .13. i. ; 15 , (Exhibit 10 ) , and amending Permit Agreement, 1 . B. iii . , (Exhibit 10 ) , to conform with the proper restoration amount determined under Order No. 5 (see infra) . 2 . Moon Valley will comply with setback requirement of a 4 90' d 900. 0N 7S: GI 26' 12 End H' d ` SH9fId '8 11095 ` NOS1fNN ` 1103dNHJ 1.5 : 1 slope within 100 feet a property line, as stated in Permit Agreement, para. 8 (Exhibit 10) . . 3. If Moon Valley is currently in violation of the setback condition, Moon Valley will restore the property to comply with this condition, as stated in the Permit Agreement, para. 8 (Exhibit 10) . Restoration must take place within 120 days of the filing of this order. 4. Within 60 days of the filing of this order, Moon Valley will provide the City and the Court with such information necessary to determine a restoration fund amount which is not unduly burdensome to Moon Valley. 5 . Upon determination of a proper. restoratiQn fund, Moon Valley will make payments to the restoration fund forthwith. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Date Y. 3.p - /'k3 : BY THE COURT: Phil p T. arming, fudge. 5 1O ' d 900. 0N 'IS: VT £F' Tz 5T1 d' d ` SHJfld 1103S ` NOS1fN. ` 113gdNH MEMORANDUM On June 22 , 1992 , the Chanhassen City Council, in its Findings and Decision approved an earthwork permit for the operation of Moon valley's mining operation subject to certain conditions. Moon Valley has taken exception with six ( 6 ) of these conditions as well as a subsequent condition that they post a bond for $1 . 5 million, in lieu of sequential mining and restoration, to guarantee site restoration. The issue before the Court is whether the City Council clearly identified health or safety issues for the six (6 ) conditions and whether their decisions were arbitrary or capricious . The defendant ' s, by order of the Court, April 2 , 1992, were prevented from issuing "an Earth Work Permit relating to the South Parcel of the Plaintiff ' s property that has the effect of: " (a) limiting the quantity of material mined from the plaintiff 's property; (b) prohibiting mining on any portion of the property, such as slopes or wooded areas; - (c) limiting the depth to which the prriperty may be mined, so long as plaintiff has indicated its willingness to bring the property to the grades (as revised) shown on an end use plan designated Plan B in its application; (d) limiting the time within which the mining operation must be completed; and (e) preventing the plaintiff from continuing and maintaining its ongoing mining operation to the extent and scope to which it presently exists; unless related to health or safety issues, clearly identified by the City. Moan Valley v. City of Chanhassen, No. 90-27099 at 9 (April 2 , 1992 ) ; (emphasis in bold added) . The effect of the April 2, order is to place the burden of proof on the City to "clearly identify" how the permit requirements apply to health or safety issues . Because the permit will limit the ability of Moon Valley to mine to the extent of its property, and, therefore, restrict Moon Valley' s vested rights as a legal nonconforming use, the City has the affirmative duty to show, specifically, that a permit condition relates to health or safety issues as applied to Moon Valley. If reasons for the decision are given, the court examines the record to see if the reasons are legally sufficient and have a factual basis. VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N. W. 2d 503 (Minn. 1983 ) ; Odell v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W. 2d 792 , 796 (Minn. App. 1984) . When variances and other special uses are 6 PO' d 9!":10. 0N 2 t'T H' 12 6ni considered, a city council functions in a quasi-judicial capacity, and is subject to more extensive judicial oversight. Horan v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W. 2d 409, 417 (Minn. 1981) ; Odell, 348 N.W. 2d at 796 . Once the ordinances are enacted, less weight is given to the municipality's legal interpretations of its ordinances than on questions of fact . Frank's Nursery Sa es nc . v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W. 2d 604 (Minn. 1980) ; Odelk, 348 N.W. 2d at 796 . As the case law clearly mandates, the courts are not to take a rubber stamp approach to "findings of fact" which state conclusions only. The City forewarns that the Court may not look "to substitute its judgement as to how the public health and safety issues should be balanced against the amount of profit Mr. Zwiers should derive from this mining operation. " To prevent this, the City must provide clear and identifiable factual findings which will allow the Court meaningful review. The courts are not clairvoyant . It is this Court's duty to see that the health and safety issues are clearly identified, and not arbitrary or capricious in their application to Moon Valley. In the broadest definition, the issues presented in the permit can all be attributed to health and safety issues . This does not give the Chanhassen City Council authority to set its regulations arbitrarily or without proper factual basis. • SETBACK REQUIREMENT The City notes the testimony of Rick Sathre (hereafter Sathre) , Moon Valley's consulting engineer, who stated that as a practical matter, granular material cannot be excavated to a slope steeper than 1 . 5 : 1 . However, Sathre also testified that mining could take place within 20 30 feet of the north property line. Moon Valley claims that there is an over-burden of clay on the north property line which gives more stability to the bluff than would sand. The test of reasonableness of the City 's regulation is whether the City 's determination was cogent and not based on whim or caprice. "We examine the City's action to see if it does not have "the slightest validity" or bearing on the general welfare of the immediate area, or whether the reasons given by the body were sufficient and had a factual basis . " VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W. 2 503 , 508 (Minn. 1983 ) . Since the . evidence here is conflicting, and it may support a finding for either party, the Court must defer to the City's determination. Moon Valley claims it will be precluded from mining substantial amounts of clay material . The amount of Moon Valley's loss is irrelevant. If the City has clearly identified health and safety reasons for the 1 . 5 : 1 slope, and its determination is not arbitrary of capricious, the City may regulate. If the City has not clearly identified health and safety reasons for the 1 . 5 : 1 slope, it may not regulate. The City has reasoned from the testimony that a slope steeper than 1 . 5 : 1 within 100 feet of the adjoining property, may endanger the adjoining property. Therefore, the regulation stipulating a slope of 1. 5 : 1 within 100 feet of the property line is properly based on health and safety issues . The setback and 7 60. d 900. 0N VS: VT £6` Zi End d' d ` SHOld 8 11OOS ` NOS1AN>I ' 1138 dNH=1 slope regulation, as stated in Permit Agreement, para. 8 . is a valid condition (Exhibit 10 ) . EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE The issue of proper drainage and ponding is certainly related to health and safety. Requirements for adequate facilities to contain flood events are undeniably necessary. But , because of Moon Valley's status as a nonconforming use, the City must establish that there are health and safety issues as applied to Moon Valley. If Moon Valley currently has adequate ponding and drainage facilities, and those facilities are maintained in proper condition, then there is not an identifiable health and safety issue concerning Moon Valley. The City requires that Moon Valley have ponding basins that are sized to contain the runoff from a 100-year storm event of 24- hour duration, and that a professional engineer annually certify that Moon Valley has the requisite 100-year pond storage and follows the overall erosion control practices of the City and County. The City also requires that Moon Valley abide by the applicable best management practices (as defined in the City of Chanhassen Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practice Handbook) and the Carver County $oil and Water Conservation District Standards. Sathre testified that Moon Valley's Erosion Control Plan is better equipped for handling erosion control in a mining operation. Sathre testified that the City's Standards dealt mostly with Development of subdivisions and commercial/industrial properties. The City gave no comment on Moon Valley's Erosion Control Plan and gave no findings that the plan required by the City was necessary in lieu of the Moon Valley Plan. The City's requirement that Moon Valley comply with the city and county erosion control standards would prevent Moon Valley from continuing and maintaining its ongoing mining operation to the extent and scope to which it presently exists. The City has not clearly identified that its erosion control standards, as applied to Moon Valley, are related to health and safety issues. The City has presented no factual basis for the drainage and erosion requirement, as stated in Permit Agreement, para. 1 .A. ii . , and the requirement is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious (Exhibit 10) . The City has also presented no evidence that an engineer certification is a necessary means of regulating drainage and erosion control during mining operations. Sathre testified that the annual certification by a professional engineer was both unnecessary and an economic burden to Moon Valley. He further testified that the City Engineer could ascertain whether the drainage system was functioning properly by visual assessment . The City has brought no evidence to contest Sathre 's testimony, therefore, the City has not shown that annual certification by a professional engineer is clearly tied to health and safety issues . As there was no factual basis for the requirement of an annual certification by a professional engineer, as stated in Permit 8 ;= i ' d `a0 : ' GN : bI i6' Ii Gnu d' d ' SHJfld '8 110JS ' NOS1f1NN ' 113H. WJD ggxeement, para. 1 .A. , the condition is arbitrary and capricious (Exhibit 10 ) . RESTORATION FUND On the issue of the restoration fund, the City Council cites Dock Watch Hollow QuarryTownship of Warren, 361 A. 2d 12 (N.J. 1976 ) . In Dock Watch, the New Jersey Supreme Court approved a performance bond that was "in no event to exceed 1% of the highest annual gross sales of the quarry over the preceding six- year period, " and that such a bond was not "unreasonable, arbitrary, or unduly burdensome. " Id. at 22. The principle amount of the bond in Dock Watch, was $10, 000 . IA. Dock Watch, contrary to the City's interpretation, does not give carte blanche power to set the amount of restoration funding. Instead, a city must; 1) make a reasonable assessment, 2) which is not arbitrary, and 3 ) which is not unduly burdensome. The City has failed in two of these requirements. The City has shown that a $1 . 5 restoration fund is reasonable in relation to the total cost of restoration. However, the City must also show that the restoration fund will not impose an undue financial burden on the mine operator; there is no evidence that this is the case . The City admits that there will be a costs involved in acquiring a bond, but claims that there is no clear and convincing = evidence that the cost would in any way be prohibitive or that the bond would be unobtainable. This misstates the burden of proof . It is the responsibility of the City, in this case, to prove affirmatively, through clear and convincing evidence, and not the lack of it, that the restoration fund is not unduly burdensome. In order to do this, the City must provide a factual basis for its demands. Zwiers has testified that the bond will create a — financial hardship for Moon Valley. The City speculates that Zwiers, "the owner of the corporate Plaintiff, is a very credit worthy, bondable man of substantial means . " What is lacking in these statements is any factual accounting of Zwiers '/Moon Valley's finances. That it is possible for Zwiers. to obtain a bond does not equate to the bond not being an unreasonable financial burden. In order for the City to determine a reasonable amount for a restoration fund, it must have an adequate understanding of Moon Valley 's finances. The City has also, in demanding a performance bond, asked Moon Valley to instantly procure restoration funding for its 40 years of mining operations. As stated in the Dock Watch dissent; Here, however, the land was not in a virgin state when the regulation was adopted. The beauty of the quarry was long since destroyed on the effective date of the ordinance. No further quarrying will render the property more unsightly than it already is. The effect of this regulation is, therefore, tO require the qu rry at its own expense to reme y a condition which, when created, was entirely lawful . Id, at 28-29 . 9 11 ' d 900. oN 9S: V T £6' 12 End tI d "SH—MA 8 1103S ` NOS1f NI: ` 1138. JHJ The law supports the City's prerogative to require restoration. However, the City's desire to require a lump sum restoration bond for a condition preceded by , 40 years of legal mining is unreasonable and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, the City has provided no evidence that such a bond is timely. There is no indication that moon valley has any intention of halting operations in the near future. To the contrary, there is good reason to believe that Moon Valley will continue its operation for many years to come. The City' s approach, therefore, is also arbitrary. Had the City's Findings of Fact provided such information as to the approximate date of Moon Valley's completion of mining on the site, the City could set up a payment schedule into an escrow account for ultimate restoration. This would adequately assure the City of restoration. The arbitrary nature of the restoration fund is emphasized by the imposition of the letter of credit for re-vegetation (see infra) . The re-vegetation is clearly part of the overall restoration, and yet, is imposed as an additional condition to Moon Valley. No cogent reason has been cited for this condition. The requirement of a restoration fund, as stated in Permit Agreement, para. 1 .B. iii . , is not a valid condition (Exhibit 10 ) . The amount of the restoration fund, in this case, is arbitrary and unduly burdensome, based on the facts. The City`should attain from Moon Valley such information that will allow the City to ascertain a reasonable restoration fund program. LETTER OF CREDIT The City Council wishes to impose a $51, 000 letter of credit for the cost of re-vegetating the post-restoration plan site . Here, the City has found that the expense in obtaining a letter of credit, standing alone, is not unduly burdensome, and would probably cost Moon Valley approximately one percent ( 1% ) of the amount of the letter of credit, or $500 . 00 annually. Independently this condition appears valid. However, when looked at in conjunction with the restoration fund, this condition is arbitrary and unreasonable . The re-vegetating of the site is simply a component of the overall restoration. The City may break down the restoration plan into as many components as it likes, but the City may not' demand a letter of credit for each component while maintaining an umbrella fund which contains each of these components. The City is attempting to collect twice for the same health and safety issue. Thus, the requirement of a letter of credit, as stated in Permit Agreement, para. 15 . , is arbitrary and capricious ( Exhibit 10 ) . PERIODIC INSPECTIONS It is clear that inspection of the mine site is related to health and safety concerns. The Court will not legislate to the City how it is to carry out the inspection process absent proof 10 'T ' .d 900 . 0N 9+5: rT 526 ' 12 6nkl C' d ' SHDC1A '2 BODS ` NOSIAN: ` 1138dNH? that the inspection regulation is unlawful . Moon Valley does not oppose periodic inspections. Moon Valley only wishes to dictate the nature of how those inspections are administered. The City has clearly identified the health and safety concerns requiring periodic inspections. Moon Valley has provided no evidence to the contrary and does not oppose the inspections. Therefore, the requirement of periodic inspections, as stated in Permit Agreement, para. 10. , is a valid condition (Exhibit 10 ) . CONCLUSION Municipalities are given great discretion in passing and enforcing zoning regulations . The term "for the health and safety" has, in many jurisdictions, has been determined to mean everything from truly dangerous hazards to aesthetically unpleasing conditions. This power is curbed, however, when Municipalities attempt to regulate legal preexisting nonconforming uses. And Moon Valley's status as a legal nonconforming use provides it with certain privileges. The case law is divided as to whom the burden falls to prove the status of an entity as a legal nonconforming use. It is further divided as to how much a Municipality may regulate a legal nonconforming use . In this matter, Moon Valley 's position as a nonconforming use was settled. This Court then determined that it was the City's responsibility to clearly identify health and safety issues . Inherent in that determination was to place the responsibility on the City to prove up by a clear factual record what the health and safety issues related to and how the regulations would address those specific issues . The City did not challenge the Court 's ruling placing the onus of proof on the City. Therefore, the City is charged with fulfilling this duty to the satisfaction tf the law. The Court 's ruling in this matter reflects both the status of Moon Valley and the City's power to regulate for the public health and safety; the unmovable object versus the unstoppable force. As both can not exist in harmony together, the law, by its letter and in fairness, demands concessions from each. The rights of the parties and the concessions necessary to maintain the greatest extent of those rights are inextricable from each other, and from this ruling. 11 £T ' d c100' 0N ZS: VT £6' 12 End d' d ' SHJld 8 110-YE ' NOSIflN 'I ' 1-132dWH 'Jtk,e.a .! C,..—, s- 6l ` ~ ti: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency iiTiWSeptember 29, 1993 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Thomas Zwiers, President Hoon Valley Aggregate, Inc. 1111 Deuce Road Elko, Minnesota 55022 RE: DRAFT NPDES/SDS PERMIT MN 0061662 Moon Valley Mining Area Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Mr. Zwiers: In April 1993 we sent you a letter indicating that the wastewater discharges from your sand and gravel operation in Chanhassen would be covered for the present by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) general industrial storm water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Our letter also noted, "If conditions at the facility result in greater sediment runoff toward Rice Lake, we may determine that an individual NPDES permit will then be required. " Evidence at Chanhassen this summer indicates that due to lack of adequate maintenance and failure to improve storm water management at the site, large amounts of sediment have been transported from your operation through the Highway 169 grade toward the Minnesota River valley and Rice Lake. For this reason we are proceeding toward issuing an individual NPDES permit for this facility. We have enclosed a copy of this draft permit and the public notice. — If you have any questions please contact Jim Strudell at (612) 296-7238. Sincerely, eP\_.-2 / Douglas A. Hall Supervisor, Permits Unit Industrial Section -- Water Water Quality Division DAH/JS:mbo Enclosure cc: See attached page. Telephone Device for Deaf (TDD): (612) 297-5353 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% paper recycled by consumers -- 520 Lafayette Rd St Paul. MN 55155-4194: (612) 296-6300 Regional Offices Duluth•Bra nerd• Detroit Lakes• Marshall• Rochester . ..--. - •c.- -.. r.R-ir.v: i Pa0?. Mr. Thomas Zwiers Page 2 The following people received a copy of the attached letter. -Paul Krauss, Chanhassen Planning Director Eden Prairie Planning Department Carver County Environmental Services Carver Soil and Water Conservation District Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Tom Kerr, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Ceil Strauss, DNR-Waters Doug Norris, DNR-Ecological Services Gary Elftmann, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No: MN 0061662 PUBLIC NOTICE for the NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) AND STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM (SDS) PERMIT PROGRAM (Section 402, Clean Water Act, as amended, Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as amended, and Minn. Rules ch. 7001) Draft NPDES and SDS Permit to Construct, Install, and Operate a Wastewater Disposal System and to Discharge into Waters of the State Public Notice Issued On: September 29, 1993 Last Day to Submit Comments: October 28, 1993 Name and Address of Applicant: Name and Location of Facility: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. Moon Valley Mining Area — 1111 Deuce Road NE'4, NE'4, Section 36, T117N, R23W Elko, Minnesota 55022 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Receiving Waters: Rice Lake NOTICE: The above named applicant has applied for issuance of an NPDES/SDS permit to construct, install, and operate a wastewater disposal system and to discharge into the designated receiving waters. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Commissioner has determined that storm water discharges from this facility are contributing to a violation of a water quality standard, and has required the Permittee to be covered by an individual storm water discharge permit. The Commissioner also has found that the facility operations, — activities and discharge would be more appropriately controlled by an individual permit than a general permit. The permit will be issued by the MPCA for a term of approximately five years. — The application, draft permit, and other documents are available for inspection and may be copied any time between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. , Monday through Friday. Copies of the public notice are available at the address shown on page 4. If you have any questions regarding the draft permit or would like to receive a copy of the draft permit, please contact Jim Strudell at (612) 296-7238. — On the basis of preliminary staff review and application of applicable standards and regulations, the Commissioner has made a preliminary determination that — permit MN 0061662 should be issued subject to certain effluent limitations and special conditions. Telephone Device for Deaf(TDD): (612) 297-5353 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% paper recycled by consumers -2pn- Date: September 29, 1993 Permit No: MN 0061662 The principal activity at this facility is the open pit mining of sand and gravel, at an average production rate of 100,000 cubic yards/year. Mining is normally not carried out during the winter. No sand and gravel washing is conducted at the facility. The facility consists of all excavation areas, - materials storage areas, waste disposal areas and non-sewage wastewater disposal systems within the area designated on the map below. - The mine excavation is along the south-facing Minnesota River Valley bluff. Surface drainage from excavation areas and stockpiles at the facility is routed through various sedimentation basins. Drainage from storage sites for lime sludge from the Bloomington water treatment plant, and for topsoil, also flow to these basins. Flow from these sites, as vell as an adjacent rifle range, is routed by gravity through culvert outfall 010, on the south side of Highway 169, to Rice Lake (class 2B, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 waters). The location of the facility and the designated outfall is shown on the map below. ' t i) ` '3moi//J i l • 1 1 I; !f �=`o�l ' i' ; ( (1'6"'.., _,-_ -•-.-2.,'-..` _' • ;,71 �l %\ r- `� (pi. - 1 ',, (i i'‘,7---,--',, f:• �` - ,•- +. is�+ .fir, ,;3��\ ,, ` .�`_eoc rl '`; �;�";+ �% 1'''. = i . .v.ir or . ., A. ',;'AN I-"._-_-____. --.-- i.5• . ,) '----- -- ::::_---,,.-7L__., --.;,_ -'= ice ),—.41 )), , -4- __ _ __. _ ' �- e �/ - r. (1V ��- �4. r,,.- -,a.-- -.Ad.- ..--' - A. ..W.. Jam- :•!•. __.. .. — -- •- ..W- (..)1'2.l.Y — -•. _ " _ -yam -a4. •\ - W — 4 I _. BOUNDARY • -0 • AVER- CO z 1 �� �� y. _ COTT CO �- 766 7.- ''- ',..-\* r,4, • _ - �' rr 1 �� Trailer !; • p a'k -3pn- Date: September 29, 1993 Permit No: MN 0061662 The Commissioner's determination that the permit should be issued is preliminary. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments upon the proposed permit action. The comment period begins and ends as indicated on page one of this Notice. Any comments received no later than the last day of the comment period will be considered in the formulation of final determinations. Any comments submitted are required by Minn. Rules pt. 7001.0110 to include the following information: 1. A statement of the person's interest in the permit application or the draft permit; 2. A statement of the action the person wishes the MPCA to take, including specific references to sections of the draft permit that the person believes should be changed; and 3. The reasons supporting the person's position, stated with sufficient specificity as to allow the Commissioner to investigate the merits of the person's position. During the comment period, any person may submit a request for a public informational meeting or a contested case hearing on the proposed permit action. A public informational meeting is an informal meeting which the MPCA may hold to help clarify and resolve issues. A contested case hearing is a formal proceeding before a state Administrative Law Judge. Any request for a public informational meeting or a contested case hearing must include the items 1 through 3 listed above and also a statement of the reasons the person desires the MPCA to hold a public informational meeting or contested case hearing and the issues that the person would like the MPCA to address at the public informational meeting or contested case hearing. In the absence of any requests for a public informational meeting or contested _ case hearing, the final decision of the proposed permit action will be made by the Commissioner under a delegation made by the MPCA Board. However, any person may request that this permit be considered by the MPCA Board prior to final permit action. Such requests must be made in accordance with Minn. Rules — pt. 7000.0500, subp. 6. -4pn- Date: September 29, 1993 • Permit No: MN 0061662 Comments or requests should be submitted in person or by mail within the comment period to: Industrial Section Water Quality Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 The permit number should appear next to the above address on the envelope and on each page of any submitted comments or requests. Please be advised that the public is entitled to participate in the activities of both the MPCA Board and the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Rules pts. 7000. 1500 and 7000.1600. The permit will be issued if the MPCA determines that the proposed permittee or permittees will, with respect to the facility or activity to be permitted, comply or undertake a schedule of compliance to achieve compliance with all applicable state and federal pollution control statutes and rules administered by the MPCA and the conditions of the permit, and that all applicable requirements of Minn. Stat. ch. 116D and the rules promulgated thereunder have been fulfilled. Pursuant to the waiver provisions authorized by 40 CFR Part 123.24, this draft permit is within the class, type and size for which the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, has waived his right to review, object or comment on this proposed permit action. Please bring the foregoing to the attention of persons whom you know would be interested in this matter. `� yr- ; Page 1 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 — SEP 2 iy93 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE AND TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL AND OPERATE A WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM AND STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ; hereinafter the "Act"), Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as amended, and Minn. Rules ch. 7001, — MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE, INC. (hereinafter the Permittee) is authorized by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to construct, install and operate a wastewater disposal system at and to discharge storm water from the Moon Valley Mining Area, in a portion of the NEV,., NE44, Section 36, T116N, R23W, Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, to receiving water named Rice Lake, in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth herein. • This permit shall become effective on the date of issuance by the Commissioner. This permit and its authorization shall expire at midnight, October 31, 1998. The Permittee is not authorized to discharge nor to operate the disposal system after the above date of expiration. In order to receive such authorization beyond the above date of expiration, the Permittee shall submit such information and forms as are required by the MPCA no later than 180 days prior to the above date of expiration pursuant to Minn. Rules pt. 7001.0040. Date: Debra L. McGovern Manager, Industrial Section Water Quality Division For Charles W. Williams Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control MPCA Telephone Device for Deaf(TDD): (612) 297-5353 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% paper recycled by consumers Page 2 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I Page A. Description 3 B. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 4 C. Special Requirements 1. Pretreatment Requirements 5 2. Water Treatment and Chemical Additives 5 3. Reopening Clause 5 - 4. Runoff Control 6 5. Expansion 6 6. New Proposed Outfalls 7 7. Application for Permit Reissuance 7 8. Concrete, Asphalt and Wash Plants 7 9. Non-Storm Water Discharges 7 10. Inspections and Maintenance 8 - 11. Financial Assurance 8 D. Closure 9 E. Monitoring and Reporting - 1. Monitoring 10 2. Reporting 11 F. Definitions 13 G. Compliance Schedule 1. Temporary Protection and Permanent Cover 14 2. Sedimentation Basins 14 - PART II A. Management Requirements _ 1. Bypasses 16 2. Upsets 17 3. Noncompliance Notification 18 4. Adverse Impact 19 5. Change in Discharge 19 6. Facilities Operation and Quality Control 20 7. Removed Substances 20 . 8. System Reliability 20 9. Construction 21 10. Need to Halt or Reduce Not a Defense 21 B. Responsibilities 1. Transfer of Ownership or Control 22 2. Permit Modification 22 3. Toxic Pollutants 22 - 4. Right of Entry 22 5. Civil and Criminal Liability 23 6. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability 23 7. Liability Exemption 23 8. Minnesota Laws 23 9. Property Rights 23 10. Severability 24 11. NPDES/SDS Rules 24 12. Other Statutes, Rules and Ordinances. . 24 13. More Stringent Rules 24 - 14. MPCA Obligation 24 PART I Page 3 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 — A. DESCRIPTION The principal activity at this facility is the open pit mining of sand and gravel, at an average production rate of 100,000 cubic yards/year. Mining is normally not carried out during the winter. No sand and gravel washing is conducted at the facility. The facility consists of all excavation areas, materials storage areas, waste disposal areas and non-sewage wastewater disposal systems within the area designated on the map below. The mine excavation is along the south-facing Minnesota River Valley bluff. Surface drainage from excavation areas and stockpiles at the facility is routed through various sedimentation basins. Drainage from - storage sites for lime sludge from the Bloomington water treatment plant, and for topsoil, also flow to these basins. Flow from these sites, as well as an adjacent rifle range, is routed by gravity through culvert outfall 010, on the south side of Highway 169, to Rice Lake (class 2B, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 waters) . The location of the facility and the designated outfall is shown on the __ map below. �. \ � ' t I\, ,) rA r / ��"-)': »yl '�� �� �\ 900 _ • — l 1,\�, r. _ i .r /r ;,, -1��'1 ` 1``\ ,1` `: II�J1f%^�X1'i" `. !�%i'\ .ISI ( A\ .-t -..‘i-• �/ .� _,1.) • nil l q�,-,...,s,'-,'" ,"til ' Co , —t _ Z. ( -� \\' �% lei t _./r 4%c V!-A �3 , ' V' - .: ,'1 -/ 4- •�. BSO�4 ',i -;i'; -:-'JV �_ ))t (1 . .1 \`- , . ? , ...%••_. ` 1_ /" 11r,-- ,�1 BOC 7!f..',:� `%.`� s4k.:-..:").- :,-,:',- /` - -.. - � ���►�� �!tea% . . - _ _ . -:;..7.-..: 1‘),.‘',...: 4. 1th ' i Lifif, ": .1 „41 ',I...L::-/i;4:14' 171,1.1(rfr,tr,441 1;7 4-\\)1 cl::-/-:::::-':-.1--------:: ''''' ' ''''.:‘ '( .7,...7 .‘ 7.1s.i.:'' ' tt7"7 „.,1-: b,' ''''' ' C1 I. t 11 ?.....)iji 4,40,10 , _ fl.` "/ .I;i _ 80 ./f %I\\_,1;1'-':-.-/ ..;- O I �al� � � _ /� o•-:-_.- _ _ - - ,\ . .1 .•( 00."- " -'�"` -_„� :• ••'() '"_ ��e 698 J �"�--W -�- ,00 _ - \� __" tea.._ -...a. -."4.''•-. - .u. _++r __�\\ .._; -•=4"-- .w., mow. � ...L_ I JW. -#'_ �. R W- CITyY_ BOUNDARY - COTT CO--- - �/ � i W D.1„ a. L._ PART I Page 4 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until October 31, 1998, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 010. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monthly Measurement Sample Average Daily Maximum Frequency(1) Type Flow (million gallons/day) -- -- (2) Instantaneous Total Suspended Solids 30 mg/1 52 mg/1 (2) Grab The pH shall not be (]less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 and shall be monitored by periodic grab samples analyzed immediately. These upper and lower limitations are not subject to averaging and shall be met at — all times. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. The discharge shall not contain oil or other substances in amounts sufficient to create a visible color film on the surface of the receiving waters. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location: culvert outfall 010, on the south side of Highway 169. (;)During discharge events. (2)March and April: weekly. May through October: twice monthly. November through February: monthly. PART I Page 5 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 C. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Pretreatment Requirements No pollutant shall be discharged from this facility to a publicly owned treatment works except in accordance with pretreatment standards established in accordance with the Act or Minnesota Statutes or any such local standards or requirements. No pollutant shall be discharged into any publicly owned disposal system which interferes with, passes through inadequately treated or otherwise is incompatible with such disposal system. The Permittee shall not make modifications to. divert any discharge of pollutants authorized by this permit to a publicly owned treatment works without having first notified and received the approval of the Commissioner. 2. Water Treatment and Chemical Additives The Permittee shall not use nor increase the use of water treatment or chemical additives at this facility other than those additives noted in Part I,A, and in those amounts noted in Part I,A, without the prior approval of the Commissioner. The Permittee shall request approval from the Commissioner in writing at least 30 days in — advance of the proposed new use or increase in use of a water treatment or chemical additive at this facility. This written request shall include at least the following information for the proposed additive: a. Material Safety Data Sheets, and the complete product use and instruction labels; — b. The commercial and chemical names; c. Aquatic toxicity and human health or mammalian toxicity data; d. Environmental fate information (including, but not limited to, — persistence, half-life, intermediate breakdown products, and bioaccumulation data); e. Whether the chemical is a suspected carcinogen, mutagen or — teratogen; and f. The proposed methods, concentrations, and average and maximum rates and frequencies of chemical addition. This permit may be modified to restrict the use or discharge of a water treatment or chemical additive, or to require additional monitoring. _ 3. Reopening Clause This permit shall be modified, or, alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or limitation issued or approved under sections 301 (b)(2)(C) , and (D) , 304 (b)(2), and 307 (a)(2) of the Act, if the effluent standard or limitation so issued or approved: (1) Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent than any effluent limitation in the permit; or — (2) Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit . The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any other requirements of the Act then applicable. PART I Page 6 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 4. Runoff Control In addition to complying with the effluent limitations specified in PART I, B, the Permittee shall operate and maintain the facility and shall control runoff, including storm water, from mining waste disposal areas so as not to cause the water quality standards specified in Minn. Rules chs. 7050 and 7060 to be exceeded in waters of the state. Such waters include, but are not limited to: Rice Lake. The Permittee shall limit and control the use of materials at the facility when such use has caused or is likely to cause the water quality standards to be exceeded in the ground water. Such materials - include, but are not limited to, chemical dust suppressants, lubricants, fuels, drilling fluids, oils, fertilizers, explosives and blasting agents. 5. Expansion The Permittee shall notify the Commissioner in writing at least 180 days in advance of any expansion of the area covered by mine excavations, mining waste and wastewater disposal systems beyond the area designated on the map on page 3 of this permit. The Permittee shall submit to the Commissioner in writing at least the following materials at the same time as this notification is submitted. _ a. A map of the proposed expansion area, including the specific locations of the current and proposed excavation areas, stockpile areas, sedimentation basins and drainageways, with the directions of water flow indicated. b. A brief description of the proposed mining and processing methods. c. The projected increase in average and maximum discharge rates as a result of the expansion, and the basis for these projections. d. The dimensions, holding capacities and slope gradients of all proposed ditches and sedimentation basins. e. A description of the proposed inflow and outflow structures for the sedimentation basins. _ f. A brief description of how the sedimentation basins are proposed to be constructed and maintained. g. The proposed design plans and specifications for control of total suspended solids in the discharge from the proposed expansion area, including the engineering basis for such design. h. A map description of the lands that the Permittee controls, through lease or ownership. i . The proposed production rate after expansion. PART I Page 7 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 — 6. New Proposed Outfalls The Permittee shall apply in writing for and shall obtain a major modification of this permit in order to begin discharge from a new outfall location. Such an application shall be submitted at least 180 days in advance of the planned starting date of such discharge from a new outfall, and shall include at least the following: a. Detailed plans and specifications for the proposed methods of achieving effluent limits for total suspended solids, based in part upon representative water quality data for untreated wastewater; b. A detailed map and diagram description of the proposed design for the flow control structures, and route of the discharge to receiving waters; and c. The appropriate application fee, in accordance with Minn. Rules pt. 7002.0250. 7. Application for Permit Reissuance The Permittee shall include, with the application for reissuance of this permit, analytical data for at least the following parameters at outfall 010: a. Biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, fecal coliform, ammonia, temperature; b. Color, fluoride, nitrate-nitrite (as N) , total organic nitrogen, oil and grease, total phosphorus, chloride, sulfate, surfactants; and c. Aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, manganese, potassium, sodium, tin, titanium, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, lithium, nickel, selenium, silver, strontium, thallium, vanadium, zinc (all in total form) . These analyses shall be performed on a sample taken no earlier than 180 days before the date on which the application is submitted. The application also shall include information on the date of the sampling. 8. Concrete, Asphalt and Wash Plants The Permittee shall notify the Commissioner in writing at least 180 days in advance of locating a hot mix asphalt concrete plant, a ready mix concrete plant , or a sand and gravel water wash plant at the facility. Such additions may require modification of this permit. 9. Non-Storm Water Discharges This permit does not authorize the discharge of wash water, scrubber water, equipment maintenance water, spills, oil, hazardous substances or any wastewater other than storm water. PART I Page 8 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 10. Inspections and Maintenance The Permittee shall inspect and maintain the facility at least once every week, and within 24 hours after every rainfall at the facility, as follows: a. The Permittee shall ensure that temporary protection and permanent cover for all exposed areas are maintained in accordance with Part I, G.1. b. When the depth of sediment collected in a sedimentation basin reaches one-half of the riser height, or one-half of the basin design hydraulic storage volume, the Permittee shall drain the basin and remove the sediment. The Permittee shall drain and remove the sediment within three days of discovery that this sediment level has been reached. No outflow from the sedimentation basin shall occur while sediment is being removed from that basin. The sediment removed from the basin shall be disposed of at a site which drains to sedimentation basin(s) at the facility. c. If sand, gravel, soil or mud from the facility has been tracked by vehicles leaving the facility onto Highway 169, the Permittee within 24 hours of discovery shall remove this material from the road surface and return it to the facility so that the materials drain to sedimentation basin(s) at the facility. d. If sediment from the facility has entered Rice Lake, the Permittee shall within three days of discovery notify in writing the Commissioner and also the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Waters Division. 11 . Financial Assurance The Commissioner may require the Permittee to establish financial assurance for closure, postclosure care and remedial action at the facility. PART I Page 9 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 — D. CLOSURE The Permittee is responsible for closure and post-closure care of the facility. The Commissioner may require the Permittee to submit a Pollution Control Closure Plan for approval. The Permittee shall notify the Commissioner of any significant reduction or cessation of the operations described in PART I, A. If a Plan is required, the Commissioner will inform the Permittee in writing of this request, and will state the site-specific concerns that the Plan shall address and the date by which the Plan shall be submitted. The Plan shall provide for the implementation, including continued maintenance if necessary, of best management practices and best available technology and shall assure compliance with all applicable statutes, rules and regulations that apply to air quality, water quality and the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. The Plan also shall include provisions for financial surety for all closure, postclosure and contingency action activities. If a Plan is required, closure shall not proceed until this Plan is approved by the Commissioner. If the Permittee does not desire to continue the activities authorized by this permit beyond the expiration date of this permit, the Permittee shall apply for reissuance of this permit in order to authorize facility closure, or shall notify the Commissioner in writing that the Permittee does not intend to apply for reissuance of this permit, no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date of this permit. The Commissioner may require the Permittee to apply for reissuance or major modification of this permit in order to authorize facility closure. PART I Page 10 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 E. MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. Monitoring a. Representative Sampling Samples and measurements taken for the purposes of monitoring shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored activity. b. Certified Laboratory In order to insure the quality and validity of analytical data, all samples collected to determine compliance with this permit - shall be analyzed by a laboratory certified by the Minnesota Department of Health as provided by Minn. Rules pt. 4740.2040, Certified Test Categories. c. Test Procedures Test procedures for the analysis of parameters shall conform to regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 304 (h) of the Act , and Minn. Stat . § 115.03, subd. 1 (e) (7) as amended, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 136. The Permittee shall calibrate all field instruments in the field prior to sample collection. The Permittee also shall periodically calibrate and perform maintenance on all other monitoring and analytical instrumentation used to monitor parameters under this permit, at intervals to insure accuracy of measurements. The Permittee shall maintain written records of all such calibrations and maintenance. d. Recording of Results For each measurement taken or sample collected pursuant to the requirements of this Permit, the Permittee shall record the following information: 1) The exact place, date, and time of sampling; 2) The dates the analyses were performed; 3) The person who performed the analyses; 4) The analytical techniques, procedures and methods used; and 5) The results of such analyses. _ e. Additional Monitoring by Permittee If the Permittee monitors any parameter designated herein more frequently than required by this permit, or as otherwise directed by the MPCA or Commissioner, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of values submitted on the Discharge Monitoring Report Form. Any increased monitoring frequency shall also be indicated on such designated form. PART I Page 11 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 f. Recording and Records Retention The Permittee shall retain for a minimum of three years all records and documents in its possession or the possession of its divisions, employees, agents, accountants, contractors or attorneys that relate to this permit, including original recordings from any continuous monitoring instrumentation, and any calibration and maintenance records. These retention periods shall be automatically extended during the course of any legal or administrative proceedings or when so requested by the Regional Administrator, the MPCA, or the Commissioner. 2. Reporting a. Submittal of Monthly Report All monitoring results obtained pursuant to the provisions of this permit shall be summarized on a monthly basis and reported on the designated "Discharge Monitoring Report Form. " Reports shall be submitted monthly and received or postmarked no later than the 21st day of the month following the month during which the monitoring was completed. The first report is due on the reporting date following the first month where monitoring is required beginning on the date of issuance of this permit. Reports shall be signed by the Permittee or the duly authorized representative of the Permittee. Signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Commissioner at the following address: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Water Quality Division Industrial Section 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 b. Contents of Monthly Report The Permittee shall report the results of the monitoring in the units specified in this permit . The reports or written statements shall be submitted even if no discharge occurred during the reporting period. The report shall include: (1) A description of any modifications in the wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; (2) Any substantial changes in operational procedures; PART I Page 12 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 (3) Any other significant activities which alter the nature or frequency of the discharge; and (4) Any other material factors affecting compliance with the conditions of this permit and such information as the MPCA or Commissioner may reasonably require of the Permittee pursuant to Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116 as amended, and Minn. Rules ch. 7001. c. Availability of Data Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Act, and Minn. Stat. § 116.075, subd. 2, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the MPCA. Procedures for submitting such confidential material shall be pursuant to Minn. Rules pt. 7000.1300. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on any such report, confidential or otherwise, is subject to the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in Section = 309 of the Act and Minn. Stat. §§ 115.071 and 609.671. PART I Page 13 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 F. DEFINITIONS 1. The "Act" means the Clean Water Act, as amended 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. 2. "Best Available Technology" means the application to a treatment facility of the best available technology economically achievable as required by Section 301 (b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, United States Code, Title 33, Section 1311 (b)(2) . 3. "Best Management Practices" means practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of the waters of the state, including schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, and other management practice, and also includes treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge, or waste disposal or drainage from raw material storage. 4. The "Commissioner" means the Commissioner, or other MPCA staff as authorized by the Commissioner, of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as described in Minn. Stat. § 116.03 as amended. 5. "Daily Maximum" concentration means the greatest daily determination of concentration for any calendar day. 6. "Grab" sample is an individual sample collected at one point in time. 7. "Monthly Average" concentration is defined as the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) of all the daily determinations of concentration made during the calendar month. Daily determinations of concentration made using a composite sample shall be the concentration of the composite sample. When grab samples are used, the daily determination of concentration shall be the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during the calendar day. The arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) is the summation of each concentration times its respective flow divided by the summation of the respective flows. 8. The "MPCA" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, as constituted pursuant to Minn. Stat . § 116.02, subd. 1. — 9. "Pollutants, Toxic Pollutants, Other Wastes, Point Source, Disposal System, Waters of the State, " and other terms for the purpose of this _ permit are defined in Section 502 of the Act and Minn. Stat. § 115.01 as amended and Minn. Rules ch. 7001. 10. The "Regional Administrator" means the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region Administrator for the region in which Minnesota is located (now Region V) . PART I Page 14 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 G. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE 1. Temporary Protection and Permanent Cover No later than seven days after the issuance date of this permit, the Permittee shall provide and continue to maintain temporary protection or permanent cover for all exposed excavation areas, sand and gravel, stockpiles, waste disposal areas, and materials storage areas at the facility within the following time frames: Temporary protection or permanent cover where the area has not been, or will not be, Type of slope: worked by the Permittee for: Steeper than 3:1 Seven days 10: 1 to 3: 1 Fourteen days Flatter than 10: 1 Twenty-one days [In other terms, for example, an exposed area with a 6: 1 slope shall be left no longer than fourteen days without temporary protection or permanent cover. ] Temporary protection means methods used to prevent erosion on a short-term basis, such as the placement of mulching straw, wood fiber blankets, wood chips, or erosion control netting, or temporary seeding or planting. Permanent cover means final stabilization used to prevent erosion, such as the placement of riprap, sodding, or permanent seeding or planting. Permanent seeding and planting must have a uniform perennial vegetation cover of at least 70 percent density to constitute final stabilization. 2. Sedimentation Basins No later than 30 days after the issuance date of this permit , the Permittee shall install at least one sedimentation basin that will treat all runoff and surface drainage leaving the facility prior to discharge through outfall 010. This basin, or basins, shall: a. Be designed by a registered professional engineer, and be installed under the direct supervision of a registered professional engineer. b. Provide at least 1800 cubic feet, per acre drained, of hydraulic storage volume below the top of the outlet riser pipe. PART I Page 15 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 c. Have inlet(s) and outlet(s) designed to prevent short circuiting and the discharge of floating debris. The inlet(s) shall be placed at an elevation at least above one-half of the basin design hydraulic storage volume. The outlet(s) shall consist of a perforated riser pipe wrapped with filter fabric and covered with crushed gravel. The perforated riser pipe shall be designed to allow complete drawdown of the basin(s). d. Include riprap, splash pads or gabions at the outlet(s) to prevent downstream erosion. e. Have a design that allows for regular removal of accumulated sediment by a backhoe or other suitable equipment. PART II Page 16 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 PART II A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 1. Bypasses A bypass is an intentional diversion of a waste stream from any portion of the treatment facility. Bypasses are prohibited except as allowed by PART II,A.1, of this permit or as allowed by rules of the MPCA. a. Bypass not causing exceedance of permit effluent limitations. (1) A bypass that does not result in an exceedance of applicable effluent limits is allowed only if the bypass is necessary for essential maintenance to assure efficient = operation of the wastewater treatment facility. (2) The Permittee shall notify the MPCA in writing of the need for an anticipated bypass at least ten days before the date of the bypass. If the bypass was unanticipated, the Permittee shall notify the MPCA as soon as possible under the circumstances, but in no event more than 24 hours after the = bypass. b. Bypass causing exceedance of permit effluent limitations. A _ bypass that causes an exceedance of an effluent limit, whether anticipated or unanticipated, is prohibited except under the following conditions: (1) The bypass is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage. For the purposes of this paragraph, "severe property damage" means substantial — damage to property of the Permittee or of others; damage to the wastewater treatment facilities that may cause them to become inoperable; or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources that can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. "Severe property damage" does not mean economic loss as a result of a delay in production. (2) There is no feasible alternative to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or performance of maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventative maintenance. (3) In the case of an anticipated bypass, the Permittee has notified the Commissioner at least ten days in advance of the bypass or as soon as possible under the circumstances, and the Commissioner has approved the bypass. The Commissioner shall PART II Page 17 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 approve the bypass if the Commissioner finds that the conditions set forth in (1) and (2) above are met. The Permittee shall provide the Commissioner such information as the Commissioner — requires to make a decision on the bypass. (4) In the case of an unanticipated bypass, the Permittee has notified the within 24 hours of the bypass. The Permittee shall provide in writing the reasons for an unanticipated bypass. c. Water Quality Violations. In no event shall a bypass, whether anticipated or unanticipated, be permitted if it results in a violation of applicable water quality standards. d. Health Hazards/Nuisance Conditions. If an unanticipated bypass may cause a health hazard or nuisance condition to occur, the Permittee shall notify the MPCA immediately by calling the MPCA's emergency response number (612) 296-8100. e. Written Reports. The Permittee shall include with its next Discharge Monitoring Report a written report about any bypass that caused an exceedance of permit limits. The report shall contain the following information: (1) A description of the discharge, the approximate volume, and the cause of the bypass. (2) The period of the bypass including exact dates and times, and, if the bypass is still occurring, the anticipated time the bypass will continue. (3) A description of the steps taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the bypass. — 2. Upsets An upset is an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary exceedance of permit limits due to factors beyond the control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. PART II Page 18 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 a. Affirmative Upset Defense. If the Permittee exceeds permit limits due to an upset, the Permittee has an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought by the MPCA as a result of the noncompliance if the Permittee demonstrates the following by a preponderance of competent evidence: (1) The specific cause of the upset; (2) That the upset was unintentional; (3) That the upset resulted from factors beyond the control of the Permittee and did not result from operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or increases in production which are beyond the design capability of the treatment facilities; (4) That at the time of the upset the facility was being properly operated; (5) That the Permittee notified the MPCA within 24 hours of the upset; and (6) That the Permittee took all reasonable steps to minimize the adverse impacts on human health, public drinking water supplies, and the environment resulting from the upset. b. Written Report. The Permittee shall include with its next Discharge Monitoring Report a written report about any upset that occurred in the previous month. The report shall contain the same information required for a bypass report under paragraph II.A. l. f and in addition shall describe the steps taken to minimize the adverse impacts on human health, public drinking water supplies, and the environment resulting from the upset. 3. Noncompliance Notification. If, for any reason, the Permittee does not comply with, or will be unable to comply with, any effluent limitation or other condition specified in this permit, the Permittee shall report with the next Discharge Monitoring Report, at a minimum, the following information: a. A description of the nature and the cause of the noncompliance. b. The period of noncompliance including exact dates and times. c. The anticipated time of noncompliance if it is still . continuing. d. The steps taken to correct, reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. PART II Page 19 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 4. Adverse Impact The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact to waters of the State resulting from: a. All unauthorized discharges accidental or otherwise, of oil, toxic pollutants or other hazardous substances consistent with Minn. Stat. § 115.061 and 40 CFR PART 110 and 116; b. Effluent limitation violations; c. A bypass; or d. An upset. The Permittee shall immediately notify the Commissioner in writing of any occurrences as described in a. through d. above. Notification for bypasses and upsets shall be consistent with the requirements of PART II,A. 1 and A.2. 5. Change in Discharge a. All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the _ terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant more frequently than, or at a level in excess of, that identified and authorized by this permit shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. Such a violation may result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 115.071 and 609.671. b. Facility modifications, additions, and/or expansions that increase the plant capacity shall be reported to the Commissioner (Attn: Industrial Section, Water Quality Division) and this permit may then be modified or reissued to reflect such changes. c. Any anticipated change in the facility discharge, including any facility expansions, production increases, process modifications, new or modified industrial discharges, or change in the quality of existing industrial discharges to the treatment system that may result in a new or increased discharge of pollutants shall be reported to the Commissioner (Attn: Industrial Section, Water Quality Division) . Modification to the permit may then be made to reflect any necessary change in permit conditions, including any necessary effluent limitations for any pollutant not identified and limited herein. d. In no case are any new connections, increased flows, or significant changes in influent quality permitted that will cause violation of the limitations and conditions specified herein. PART II Page 20 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 6. Facilities Operation and Quality Control All waste collection, control, treatment, and disposal facilities - shall be operated in a manner consistent with the following: a. Maintenance of the treatment facility that results in impairment of treatment efficiency of the disposal system and/or degradation of water quality shall be scheduled as much as possible during non-critical water quality periods and shall be carried out in a manner approved by the Commissioner. b. The Commissioner may require the Permittee to submit a maintenance plan to eliminate water quality degradation. The Permittee shall operate the disposal system in accordance with this plan as approved by the Commissioner. c. The Permittee shall provide an adequate operating staff which is duly qualified under Minn. Rules ch. 9400 and, if applicable, as determined by the Commissioner pursuant to Minn. Rules pt. 7001.0150, to carry out the operation, maintenance and testing functions required to insure compliance with the conditions of this permit. d. The Permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all facilities or systems of control installed or used to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality assurance procedures. e. Necessary in-plant control tests shall be conducted at a frequency adequate to ensure continuous efficient operation of the treatment facility. 7. Removed Substances The Permittee shall dispose of solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed from or resulting from treatment or control of wastewaters in such manner as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the state. In disposing of such materials, the Permittee shall comply with all applicable water, air, solid waste and hazardous waste statutes and regulations. When requested, the Permittee shall submit a plan for such disposal for approval by the Commissioner. 8. System Reliability The Permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes at all times. The Permittee is responsible for insuring system reliability by means of alternate power sources, back-up systems, storage of inadequately treated effluent , or other appropriate methods of maintaining system reliability. PART II Page 21 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 9. Construction This permit only authorizes the construction of treatment works to attain compliance with the limitations and conditions of this permit, after plans and specifications for treatment facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Commissioner prior to the start of any construction. 10. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense It shall not be a defense for the Permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit. PART II Page 22 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 B. RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Transfer of Ownership or Control No permit may be assigned or transferred by the holder without the approval of the MPCA. In the event of any changes in control or ownership of the facilities, a Request for Permit Transfer, signed by both parties shall be sent to the MPCA (Attn: Industrial Section, Water Quality Division) . Any succeeding owner or controller also shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. 2. Permit Modification After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the following: a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit; b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; or d. Minn. Rules pts. 7001.0170 and 7001.0180. 3. Toxic Pollutants Notwithstanding PART II, B.2, above, if a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307 (a) of the Act or Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116 as amended, for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitations for such pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revised or modified in accordance with the toxic effluent standard or prohibition and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 4. Right of Entry The Permittee shall, pursuant to Section 308 of the Act and Minn. Stat. § 115.04, allow the Commissioner of the MPCA, the Regional Administrator, and their authorized representatives upon presentation of credentials: a. To enter upon the Permittee's premises where a disposal system or other point source or portion thereof is located for the purpose of obtaining information, examination of records, conducting surveys or investigations; b. To bring such equipment upon the Permittee's premises as is necessary to conduct such surveys and investigations; PART II Page 23 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 c. To examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to the installation, maintenance, or operation of the discharge, including but not limited to, monitoring data of — the disposal system or point source or records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; d. To inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring procedures required in this permit; and — e. To sample and monitor any substances or parameters at any location. 5. Civil and Criminal Liability Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from civil or criminal penalties for non-compliance with the terms and conditions provided herein. 6. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability — Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities, — liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject to under Section 311 of the Act and Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116 as amended. 7. Liability Exemption This permit authorizes the permittee to perform the activities described herein under the conditions set forth. In issuing this permit, the — state/agency assumes no responsibility for any damage to persons, property or the environment caused by the activities of the permittee in the conduct of its actions, including those activities authorized, _ directed or undertaken pursuant to this permit. To the extent the state/agency may have any liability for the activities of its employees, that liability is explicitly limited to that provided in the Torts Claim Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.736. — 8. Minnesota Laws Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal or administrative proceedings or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for violation of effluent and water quality limitations not included in this permit. 9. Property Rights The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal _ rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations. PART II • Page 24 of 24 Permit No: MN 0061662 10. Severability The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provisions of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected thereby. 11. NPDES/SDS Rules The Permittee shall comply with the provisions of Minn. Rules pts. 7001.0150, subp. 3 and 7001. 1090, subp. 1. 12. Other Statutes, Rules and Ordinances The MPCA's issuance of a permit does not release the Permittee from any liability, penalty or duty imposed by Minnesota or federal statutes or local ordinances, except the obligation to obtain the permit. 13. More Stringent Rules The MPCA's issuance of a permit does not prevent the future adoption by the MPCA of pollution control rules, standards, or orders more stringent than those now in existence and does not prevent the enforcement of these rules, standards or orders against the Permittee. 14. MPCA Obligation The MPCA's issuance of a permit does not obligate the MPCA to enforce local laws, rules or plans beyond that authorized by Minnesota statutes. cc- • September 27, 1993 Sharmin Al Jeff Planning Department City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Nez Perce Drive Extension Dear Ms. Jeff: This letter acknowledges receipt of notification that the City of Chanhassen has considered and denied a petition for an EAW on the above-named project. In accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3100, the prohibition on government approvals of the project is lifted. Notice of your decision will be published in the EQB Monitor on September 27, 1993. If possible, I would appreciate receiving a copy of your record of decision for the EQB files if you have not already supplied one with your notice of your decision. Sincerely, Ott - w 7wr Gregg M. Downing Environmental Review Coordinator (612) 296-8253 Toll-free: 1-800-657-3794 w Y t ENYIIINMENEAI 11111111 10310 158 CEIAI 1111E1, 11. PAIL, II 55155 112 211-2113 NI 117 211-3111 11111 PIIYIIEI II m PLANNING • CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 September 27, 1993 Mr. Don Slather 8508 Great Plains Blvd. — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Slather: I received a copy of your September 14 letter where you detailed issues concerning a series of disputes between yourself and your neighbors at 8506 Great Plains. Based upon your letter, I attempted to find out what we could from City files. First of all, the shed you refer to is actually a 26' by 38' garage for which a City building permit was requested and obtained. The survey that was submitted with the application shows the garage to be at least 45' from the property line, far in excess of City requirements. Site visits confirm that the structure is located in the correct spot. As to the use of the garage, it has been made clear that it must be for uses permitted in a single family district and at this time we have no information to the contrary. The City does allow some types of "home occupations" to occur in this district. I have attached a copy of the ordinance for your review. As to your statements regarding the ultimate development of their parcel, I have no information on this nor have any building permits been requested. When and if they are I can assure you that it will comply with City standards. Most of your concerns focus on the shared driveway. In this area I am afraid there is little the City can offer you. What you described is a dispute between two property owners over privately granted rights to use a driveway. There is no City easement at issue and we have no ability to influence the eventual outcome of this issue. The best thing I can advise you to do is to contact an attorney and find out what, if any, legal rights you have to maintain access over the driveway. § 20-959 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE provided that this section shall not apply to the storage or use of liquefied petroleum or natural gas for normal residential or business purposes. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 1(6-1-9), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-960-20-975. Reserved. DIVISION 3. HOME OCCUPATIONS Sec. 20-976. Compliance. A home occupation may be established and conducted only in accordance with this division. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-977. Subordinate use. The use of a dwelling unit for any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its residential use. Not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the floor area of one(1)floor of a dwelling unit shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation. No garage or accessory buildings except accessory agricultural buildings existing on February 19, 1987 shall be used for any home occupation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-8-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-978. Occupations permitted. The following home occupations are permitted: (1) Professional services such as architects, engineers, attorneys, office, real estate agents, insurance agents, and computer programmers, secretarial services, and manufactur- er's representatives. (2 1 Dressmaking, sewing, and tailoring. (31 Painting, sculpturing or writing. (4, Home crafts such as model making,rug weaving, lapidary work,pottery and cabinet making. (5) Tutoring services (eg. piano teacher). (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-8-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-979. Outside appearance. The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within a fully enclosed building. No change in the outside appearance of the building or land, or other visible evidence of the conduct of the home occupation shall be permitted. Outdoor storage of anything is prohibited in connection with a home occupation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-8-3), 12-15-86) 1238 ZONING § 20-1001 Sec. 20-980. Hours of operation. The hours of operation for any home occupation shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-84), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-981. Use of equipment. No mechanical or electrical equipment requiring the use of voltage in excess of two hundred twenty (220) volts single phase shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. — (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-8-5), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-982. Traffic and parking. No traffic shall be generated by any home occupation in greater volume than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and no home occupation involving the _ need for more than three (3)parking spaces for the occupants and visitors shall be permitted. Adequate off-street parking facilities required to serve the home occupation shall be provided. on the premises, but no such parking facilities shall be established within any required front _ or side yard, except upon an established driveway. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6.8-6), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-983. Retail and wholesale sales prohibited. No commodities, merchandise or supplies shall be sold or offered for sale upon or from the premises, whether at retail or wholesale. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-8-7), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-984. Nonresident employee. Only one (1) nonresident of the dwelling unit may be employed upon the premises of a home occupation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 8(6-8-8), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-985-20-1000. Reserved. DIVISION 4. ANIMALS Sec. 20-1001. Keeping. The following animals may be kept in the city: (1) Household pets are an allowed use in all zoning districts. (2) Horses in the A-1, A-2, RR and RSF zoning districts in accordance with chapter 5, article III. - (3) Farm animals are an allowed use on all farm property. Farm animals may not be confined in a pen,feed lot or building within one hundred(100)feet of any residential dwelling not owned or leased by the farmer. 1239 fill b City of Chanhassen Don Slathar Chanhassen,Minnesota 8508 Great Plains Blvd. e F :' 199 Chanhassen,Minnesota t,: , Dear Planning Commission of Chanhassen: September 14, 1993 I am writing out of concern for the volatile situation which exists between 8508 and 8506 Great Plains Blvd. due to a shared driveway. I, Don Slathar, have owned the property of 8508 and shared the driveway with 8506 for 33 years. In May of this year, 1993, George and Leslie Gilman bought and moved into 8506. They erroneously believed that the drive belonged to them exclusively. They had no idea where the actual property line was. After they had two surveys done, the property line was found to be approximately eight feet from where they claimed it was located. This means that, although the driveway is stilled shared,about 2/3 rd's is on my property and 1/3rd is on theirs. I have listed some of the incidents which have occurred due to the driveway 1) The Gilmans verbally warned us that we could no longer use the driveway. 2) The Gilmans verbally told our garbage man that he could no longer use the driveway. 3)The Gilmans taped a written notice to our door stating again that our garbage man could no longer use the driveway. 4)The Gilmans have approached our guests on several occasions and told them they could no longer use the driveway. 5)The Gilmans contacted UPS and told them that they could no longer use the driveway when delivering packages to us at 8508. 6) September 14 the Gilmans called the Carver County Sheriff trying to get a claim of trespassing filed against our friend who used the driveway. 7) September 15 the Gilmans called our garbage company three times threatening them that they make not use the drive way. The Sheriff again came out to clarify to them that the drive way is shared and that the Gilmans may not threaten us or anyone who uses the driveway for business at 8508. Meanwhile the construction of a shed in their front yard has made for trucks and trailers blocking the driveway at various times throughout the entire summer. They have parked on our yard, turned around in our portion of the driveway, piled brush and construction debris in our yard. The construction of their front yard shed is phase 1 of their remodeling plan. Phase 2 involves putting a security fence around all their property. Phase 3 involves building another garage that extends off the back of their house. This planned garage will end up being approximately 18 inches from the property line. Mr. Gilman's business is cabinet making. This neighborhood is not zoned for commercial use, yet all phases of his construction projects are aimed at just that. They have warned us that when the fence goes up it will split the driveway. This fence will not only make snow plowing difficult, but may require significant and costly changes to our driveway, yard and trees. As a resident of Chanhassen, a past member of this community's planning commission and the neighbor who has to deal with them, I would very much like a public hearing on these drive way, fence and construction projects before permits are issued. This is a civil problem that is only getting worse. This situation has involved the Sheriff on several occasions. It seems that perhaps by having an opportunity to discuss this situation at a Public Hearing, we could find a resolution to an escalating problem. Please inform me of what the planning commission decides to do with this situation.Thank you for your time and consideration. You can reach me at 469-7579. — p0'1/k. �G✓ _ Don Slathar