Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
New Business
CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Administrator Endorse t/ — Modified_ MEMORANDUM Rejec;e� Date - Date Submitted to Commission TO: Planning CommissionDectit Submitted FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: July 7, 1992 SUBJ: Sunny Slope Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot BACKGROUND The Association property is located outside of the Sunny Slope Subdivision. The association owns Lot 37 of Shores Acres. The lot is 5,000 square foot in area and has 50 feet of frontage, well under the area and frontage required for a beachlot. This property has a lengthy history. The following is a brief outline of that history. • 1977 - Sunny Slope Subdivision was approved • 1978 - Allen Gray, Developer for Sunny Slope, applied for a beachlot permit on Lot 37, Shore Acres Subdivision, it was withdrawn after neighborhood objection 1981- Sunny Slope Homeowners Association take possession of Lot 37, Shore Acres 1986 - The Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments recommend denial of the request for a variance and conditional use permit for a beachlot. The applicant asked that the application be withdrawn before the City Council took any action. • 4/25/88 - a request for a variance and a conditional use for a beachlot was denied by the City Council. Is tig4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Sunny Slope Recreational Beachlot July 7, 1992 Page 2 • 5/29/90 - District Court Finding upholding the denial of the conditional use permit and variance request. According to the staff survey taken in 1981, the site was not developed. Specifically, there was not a dock, no boats or swimming beach. Sunny Slope Association is requesting approval of 1 dock, 40 feet in length, and 3 boats. The association is stating that their intent was always to have a beachlot with boats at the dock. _ The Finding of Fact of the District Court stated that the "property may be used for recreational activities like swimming, picnicking, and other outdoor activities and sports." The Recreational Beachlot Ordinance states that all recreational beachlots, including beachlots established prior to February 19, 1987, to be used for swimming but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys that conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. SUMMARY The Planning Commission and the City Council have previously denied a request for a recreational beachlot at the subject site. The District Court has upheld their decision. The intent of the Non-conforming Beachlot Ordinance is to establish to a level of use in the summer of 1981. The association would like to have a dock (40 feet in length) with 3 boats, and a canoe rack. The ordinance would permit the association to have a swimming beach. Staff has documented that there was no activity at this beachlot in the summer of 1981, therefore, is no grandfathering status. The beachlot ordinance and the court finding have stated that a swimming beach is permitted. PLANvNING COMMISSION UPDATE At the July 15, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to allow the beachlot _ association a swimming beach only. Although there was testimony presented stating that there was a dock at the beachlot, it was not in the water during the summer of 1981. The Association stated it was always their intent to have a dock with boats and should be allowed to do so. The Planning Commission felt that the since the association did not have a dock in the water in 1981 they do not have a right to have one. The Planning Commission therefore, denied a dock, and mooring or docking of any boats, but did approve a swimming beach. NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION Association Sunny Slope Lake Riley Number of Homes 12 _ Size, square feet 5,000 Shoreline 50' Motor Vehicle Access not requested Off-Street Parking not requested Boat Launch not requested Buildings not requested — Picnic Tables not requested Grills/Campfires not requested Seasonal Dock 1 no — Diagram 40 feet Canoe Racks 1 no — Boats on Land not requested Boats at Dock 3 none Boats Moored not requested Swimming Beach yes yes _ Marker Buoys Swimming Raft not requested Miscellaneous — * Items requested by the Association for determination. — CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: So..11( LA S ( O pp CONTACT PERSON: -Vc1 n 0 p'4-L W 3 \4Pr ADDRESS: ?>'i I h-e P (' i- Tr .SS€ ( ti S3 I ") TELEPHONE (Day time) Lig 1` (33.7 TELEPHONE (Evening) : vG (9- 133 ? Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association C)u lT+( ILAI 2 . Length of shoreland (feet) 3 . Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) • S 00 0 4 . Number of docks ` 6. Length of dock(s) 40 Kir cu 7 . Number of boats docked 0 8 . Number of canoe racks C) 9 . Number of boats stored on canoe racks C) 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. C, 11. Number of boats on land 0 12 . Swimming beach Yes ) No Buoys Yes No ( 13 . Swimming Raft Yes No X 14. Boat Launch Yes No h 15. Motor vehicle access Yes No ) Number of parking spaces 16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets: RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Sunny Slope 12 homes Lake Riley 5, 000 sq. ft. 50 ' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access no no no Off-Street Parking no no no Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings no no no Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables no no no Grills/Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks no 1 not 1 not in in water water Approximate Length 40" 40 ' Canoe Racks no no no Boats on Land no 2 no canoes Boats Moored no no no Boats Docked no no no Swimming Beach no no no Marker Bouys no no no Swimming Raft no no I no Comments: not devel . Steve and Kathy Burke 9591 Meadow Lark Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 445-1772 April 7 , 1992 This letter serves as my affidavit of history of Sunny Slope Association, the Beachlot and dock issue . It is written to the best of my knowledge and I give Sunny Slope Association the right to use it in conjunction with other information as deemed necessary. We bought the house at 340 Deerfoot Trail , Sunny Slope Association, in June 1981 . Our decision was based on our liking the area and the benefits offered by the association as outlined in the attached brochure. We were especially enthusiastic about the lakeshore and _ the dock that was on the property. It was not installed at that time , but I was assured that it could be installed anytime for our use . We were the only family in the association for the next 2 1/2 years . I never installed the dock since I didn ' t have a boat over this period of time . In 1983 and 1984 other families built in SunnySlope and plans for installing a dock were made based on the Association belief that we could have a dock and boats as part of the benefits of ownership of a lakeshore lot . Chanhassen never notified Sunny Slope to the contrary at any time . A new dock was purchased in 1984 , the one currently on the property. The old one was given to Paul Olson, property owner at 9239 Lake Riley Blvd. Mr Olson owns the property next to the Association lakeshore property. He has used the dock over the past years . After installing the dock , the Association was requested by the city to remove the dock because they didn' t acknowledge the fact that there was a dock and that we were in violation of city regulations . Again, the Association never received any previous notice stating that we could not have a dock and associated docking rights . In recap , when we purchased our house in the Association there was a dock on the property and all representations for Sunny Slope Association included full lakeshore recreation privileges . I hope this letter eliminates any confusion in terms of the dock issue . I have since sold the house in Sunny Slope and have no gain from submission of the statement . Since ely :-ll�lli. Steve Burke Sunny Slope Association Intended Beachlot Usage Plans Sunny Slope Association is a 12 home association in — Chanhassen. The association shares ownership of two commons areas comprising of a center area of approximately 1 acre plus a Lakeshore lot on Lake Riley. The benefits of the association are tennis , playground, basketball and swimming . Boating and dock usage were to be part of the benefits of association membership also . The lake shore lot was part of the development plan from the start of Sunny Slope . See the attached Sales brochure and the referencing of access to the lake for Boating, — fishing and swimming. The plans also included the use of a dock and associated dock rights that was on the property at the time of purchase . The Association has no desire to overburden the area with usage , especially with the size of the lot . Our plans were to have one dock and overnight dockage for 3 boats . This is — the same benefit as any other residential property which we compared to in size in the area. We also wanted a storage rack for canoes . These are the only additional needs that we need to enjoy the benefits of our small Association. We currently have the _ rights to swim, fish and have other recreational activities on the property. Additional shrubs and bushes would be planted to help the lot maintain a finished look blending with the neighborhood. — To ensure the 3 boat overnight limit , the association planned to add control procedures for a 3 week rotational _ of boats owned by association members . These procedures would be incorporated into our Association Covenants and Bylaws . These procedures were not put into the covenants due to the ongoing dock issue over the past years with the City . In recap : 1 . The association had a dock in 1981 as per the affidavit from Steve Burke . 2 . The Association was sold to the homeowners with the _ understanding that they had full lake access through the lake lot . 3 . The Association ' s intention was to use this dock and provide the ability for overnight storage of 3 boats at a time on a rotational basis of member owned boats . 4 . A canoe storage rack would be available for member ' s canoes . — 5 . Procedures and controls would be established and added to the Associations covenants and bylaws . It is not Sunny Slope ' s intention to create unecessary burdens but to cooperate in the open spirit to resolve an — issue that should never had been an issue to start . Being a small association, it will be very easy for us to monitor and ensure compliance of the covenants of Sunny Slope in — this matter . We invite the City Planning Commission and Council to visit our association in this process . Any questions can be directed to: Ken Wolter Current Association President — 341 Deerfoot Tr . Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-496-1337 — F^.1�.-.w i S ` Y Y 1_ CAI „� YL ,...¢ i - l•3`.Y .. a'_"C` " r: F- .A. v cam. �'-1- ems• • Y i'" [ sh•_ 44' Fat:Y4ar+ ' -r—'S 3 f't�-fir ` ,1 -`, y�r S, s s i.-. v .. rr _r, ,•' 77 5 J la s:x "p 5-It Z �►� � gr gram 91' : A,-4- to i- ill 4 - ,a i.. �. _ ca• rpm !4 3 e PI � .^p.+ W ,- , ii $ 1tRDE EFIIIrF!!I ! A2. ,-,. .. E- ig-7.-13, n-- to `-= 7-, i— I 0 i 1 P.." =4.1 P gi" $O = a0 - - r, gr , 'r, —a T § cit stp a6Er §. Ls -p f: •w naa._= A g!).t ..,ft Q. wT _ 0 ° y 3 5• a 5 rt A f• �a?0, a • 0 (1) I ?R O a wrsw - "� ivv d d (n F • a) : C /1(.. ...-C."..%: \ — • cfiliS -. oo cri y °- is o- €...,Firlitori N �.#s i . . • �,�' n =7 I..i. t; ♦ _ ;' 4 i,... i. . - . Yy S tit • ^. sir 204. • iX . • F. - • 4 •' CL: C rr _. ti. • A.'.. .St .i 63 Y c m a-...-.,, �.. m .� ar. .`• C O en O of O X e+l �S .•fl - �� G 0I t ��. L 07 • .52 I- 0 O c f.. � .. AEA = CCuliE CC •E o � 0 c v' .G a c '- ° oiallla 'Qa O ue Q 0+.0 • ro co flil1 E3o•a � •a d E ... c y oV y— �, o ,R 71 0w g10 ca� AmE sa.,. c ` kZ' o c m r ,,.; � Q ` ° dd � c .� .c — J u A '�� `o .... 5 ac�i U t s y = o a 6) ty ,° c U E i V a? a ;a c 0► t O O r .• � 01.0 C ,.. _ p V O A E G O p p O a C C C R 'Q N el) e . G a R y Q3 C U N O G ui OL al C en a j t7.7 O ca E R N A d o. E E ao o 0 3 0 = ' , " w a 'o ¢ 2 c °' o u= 3 ea a O _c u• O_c 7.3 "2 O a) O w O •Z Q C. L v— r_ r^ O t .- ua a jo r- .� V3 v E m V <^ 07 G .Q U i 4 r Q - C 0 O y ,v y 0 A V a) -- y d ti, a c i V L, 67 y <n c G G G� C� C S: u� C c � ac3adoE _ � o •Rz u 8 a: En Vi �, .arn � as = � c � .� � a—° ° � oGin Ec .L to='Y =517Cc ZN � cnci > `c � Q Q aQ � s �. O rN � cQ = o„ny ._ ,� � r y _ C- - 3r3 .Ea a.a a� (A-- ' 8t • • • • • • • (n`CUeaaa)-215 .,i,,.,::::.1 ,;,I !t„ ;t:°::##'#;t:#;:'t;; S,jt"t;';; il!{f,r{{Et{;{tr•f{{#t{ ({1•# }"#)��iirff r tr r;, -zr- „{, , „;: 1t;t{i.,;E, tt!;,,Ett# #"EtEt I�i;;� t f E' . a:`- ,{�';;';;;i;ii�t tt;E!#ii;iii;t:;;{tt#{; ,, Ill: E ' .. ;If E t 3!{ it tt E (���1 'l!lEEEti t = • + t= l I , ,•, ;I it 11t#it;;E;;i�{t"itti' # ';:t;;,'; Et{t; II •- #i/,'tslE`�;l,�,tt:�;;;!� �l ;t#lii�rr3t,;E w t;,; • r g.:=-R, • i • nt.ii• #-:j;ti',{#;EE;! ; ;'t„{ttEE;,it V t 1 - J.ri, t n �. i iiiy,7 -7 ; tt ; EE l't\l"1.''1 ' "'; iiitiit E�{{i;t...i #i i T` �v . . .._1.. -'_:11":'"--";-7 i i i.1 ' ••as e_-_.u, i.i'--• •- Imi. •- - :.;--•;,--. -- .roir.::,:-..:* , '.._ '.IlittlYitill - 0 I ill Cil) 1:1C E it �,r • w ..� ! -- ti _sr iif.. O it;;tt .............. "--17fIE is,/ I) ( _�I 'i _ . ,.•-• :l�Y,,. • #t1l!Ei.it,tt i..,,�t - .f�11144\ .r It' - �-.: .- - 41 ;ot {#;a;c,,. it ri��i; •!..%_� sa: sus $ •`��� t,{ ,,,,,„., n„,., .,.. a/ • z '� -�' I „11,...,=,........ �„.. .. •f‘. ... .- • .'ti_ '� 3• .... »,,,Sim:. .Alai 3 _ '�I •413t-- .. - "-Ikeitii:-. -.1. c.2- ---' ;i:: , :t;i �,,,„. ;;:: ::: i "4.fit -4-4. . ,,,,fit l#f# lf!#IEEE# f##=t#c#;ult;t�#. 4,,..�. Cl. ' SUNNY SLOPE ADDITION on Lake Riley in CHANHASSEN For Jeannette Harrington. Requested by the Veteran's Administrat From Ernest Bundgaard, developer of Sunny Slope Addition WHAT YOU GET: Sunny Slope is a developement of 12 building sites, Outlot "A" which is composed of a park-like commons - with a tennis court and off the street parking, Outlo "B" which is the private street servicing the 12 homesites and is called Deerfoot Trail, and Outlot "Cu- which is in fact Lot 37 of Shorewood Acres of Chan- hassen. Outlot "C" is the "beach lot" for the Sunny Slope addition. Since Sunny Slope homeowners will form an association called The Sunny Slope Homeowners Association and since the association is restricted to the owners of the 12- lots of Sunny Slope Addition then each homeowner is part owner (1/12th) of Outlots "A" , "B" and "C" , in addition to the property on which his home rests. MANAGEMENT OF OUTLOTS: Each eligible member of the Association will be charged a maintenance fee (1/12th of the whole) for each lot - owned in Sunny Slope Addition such fee and/or fees to be used to defray the costs of such expenses as are occurred by the membership of the Association in the - maintainence of Outlots "A" , "B" and "C". Ordinary costs are expected to be lawn mowing, leaf, debris ana snow removal , the maintainence of such trees and shrug as are common to the property and the maintainence of such dock as may be established by the membership. The membership is also jointly responsible (1/12th for- each lot owned) to pay the taxes and assessments due on Outlots "A" and "C" . An initial meeting of the members of the Association - may be called at any time by any member. At. that meeting it will be determined what expenses are to be incurred by the Association apart from the expenses which have been agreed to by the developers i.e. stree surfacing, seeding and landscaping. At such meeting it will also be determined who shall become the officers in authority of the Sunny Slope Homeowners - Association. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA IN RE: Application of Sunny Slope Homeowner's Association for a Conditional Use Permit and variances for purposes of establishing a recreational beachiot on Lot 37, Shore Acres Addition On April 25, 1988, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of the Sunny Slope Homeowner's Association for a variance and a Conditional Use Permit to establish a recreational beachiot on Lot 37, Shore Acres Addition (9241 Lake Riley Boulevard) , in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The Applicant was present and the City Council heard testimony from all interested parties wishing to speak at the meeting and now makes the following Findings of Fact and Decision: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is located in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. 2 . A recreational beachiot requires a Conditional Use Permit, and the Applicant has the burden of proving that the standards for a Conditional Use Permit are met. 3 . Section 20-263 of the City Code places additional minimum standards on all recreational beachlots. 4. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot with the following improvements: (a) The installation of one dock adjacent to the lot of such size and shape as to conform to the requirements of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. (b) Allow the overnight storage of up to three watercraft. (c) Construct two (2) canoe racks capable of storing six canoes on each rack. (d) Install front and side lot fencing on the property to provide security and privacy. (e) Landscape the north side of the property to bring the contour of the lot in line with that of any neighbors to minimize soil erosion onto the lake. 5. The subject property has twelve (12) residential dwelling units which would have appurtential rights of access to the — lot. 6. The City Code requires a lot to have a minimum of 200 feet of lake frontage to receive a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot. The City Code requires a minimum of 200 feet of lakeshore, 30, 000 square feet and 100 feet of lot depth for a — recreational beachlot to have a dock. The proposed recreational beachlot has 50 feet of lake frontage, 110 feet of lot depth, and — 5, 500 square feet of lot area. 7. Approval of the application requires four (4) variances: (a) Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot without the required 200 feet of lake frontage. (b) Permit a dock on a recreational beachlot without the required 200 feet of frontage and 30, 000 square feet of — lot area. (c) Permit a canoe rack on a recreational beachlot — without a dock. (d) Permit one additional canoe rack over the permitted one canoe rack per dock. — 8 . A recreational beachlot is too intense a use of the small piece of property. -2- — 9. The beachlot would have an adverse effect upon adjacent single family homes. It would disrupt the quietude of the area by interjecting too many people into any area not designed to accommodate them. 10. The City's professional planner, in a report dated April 6, 1988 , and incorporated herein by this reference, recommended denial of the application. 11. Approving the application would generate additional boat traffic and congestion on the lake. 12 . The proposed recreational beachlot would depreciate adjacent property value. 13 . The Applicant has failed to show that the standards for granting a variance have been met. 14 . Strict enforcement of the provision of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance does not result in a hardship unique to the individual property. 15. There are no special circumstances or conditions concerning the land or its use which would necessitate a variance. 16. The lot can be put to reasonable use without the grant of the variances. DECISION 1. Based upon the foregoing considerations, Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot is denied. 2 . Based upon the foregoing considerations, Applicant's request for the four variances is hereby denied. -3- Adopted this day of 7 -. , 1988. CITY C HASSEN BY: ..� y7�. Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: z0 Don Ashworth, Manatger/Clerk -4- — STr.TE OF MINNESOTA Alonzo B. Seran Attorney at Law COUNTY OF CANNER 730 Second Ave. S #315 Minneapolis, Mn 55402 Clerk' s Notice of Filing Entry or Docketing Elliot B. Knetsch Attorney at Law Yankee Square Office III Suite 202 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 In Re : Anderson vs. City of Chanhassen, et al File No. 87-22730 — For the above entitled matter, you are notified that on May 29, 1990 X Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment and Judgment Order Judgment Other FilFn t was duly x Filed MAY 29 1990 x Entered r;3yii'vl$iiw+(OR Docketed in the amount Dated: May 29, 1990 Copies attached Joyce A. VanEyll Court Administrator By : 4 4'L�1.. - Lt �►tom Deputy • Court Administration Carver County Courthouse 600 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 Direct Dialing ( 612 ) 448-1201 Civil Divd sJ on 443-1202 Traffic Divisic 448-1203 Vital Statistic STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE 10 : OTHER CIVIL Court File No. 87-22730 Steven T. and Nancy L. Anderson, et al Plaintiffs, vs. - "7 INDINGS OF FACT, F r C NCLIISIONB OF LAW, O ER FOR JUDGMENT City of Chanhassen, et al JUDGMENT MAY 2 9 1990 Defendants. .ttt;IS7ritjTOR 1 The above entitled action was regularly placed on the court calendar and came on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of the above court on January 5, 1990, and April 18 , 1990. Alonzo B. Seran, Esq. appeared for and on behalf of plaintiffs; and Elliott B. Knetsch, Esq. appeared for and on behalf of defendants. Based upon the proceedings, files, records, and memoranda of counsel, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiffs applied for a conditional use permit and four (4) variances to operate a recreational beachlot on property they own in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. 2 . Public hearings were held before the City Planning Commission on April 6, 1988, and April 20, 1988. 3 . Plaintiffs were given notice of the hearings and representatives of plaintiffs attended the hearings. 4 . Proper notices of the hearings were mailed and published according to law. 5. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons and recommended denial of the conditional use permit and variances. An accurate verbatim transcript of the public hearings was made. 6. The Chanhassen City Council considered plaintiffs' application on April 25, 1988 . The City Council heard testimony from all interested persons. An accurate verbatim transcript of the meeting was made. 7 . Plaintiffs received notice of the meeting and represent- atives of plaintiffs attended. 8 . On May 23 , 1988 , the City Council adopted written findings of fact and denied plaintiffs' application. 9 . The City Council found, and the record supports, that: Lot 37 failed to meet minimum standards set forth in the ordinance for granting a conditional use permit; the proposed beachlot would have an adverse effect on adjacent single family homes; the use would disrupt the quietude of the area by interjecting too many people into too small an area; the use would generate additional boat traffic and congestion on the lake; the use would depreciate adjacent property value; the ordinance does not cause plaintiffs undue hardship; Lot 37 can be put to a reasonable use without the variances. 10. The City Council's findings are supported by facts in the record. The parties have stipulated that plaintiffs only -2- submitted one development plan for its property and that plaintiffs have not sought a variance for a single family home on Lot 37. 11. Plaintiffs' property may be used for recreational activities like swimming, picnicking, and other outdoor activities and sports. 12 . Plaintiffs have reasonable use of their property under the City's ordinances. 13 . The record contains no evidence that the City treated plaintiffs' application differently than similar applications. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The City Council's findings are supported by facts in the record. — 2. The City Council's findings are legally sufficient. 3 . The City Council's decision denying the variances and conditional use permit has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 4 . Plaintiffs have a reasonable use of their property under City ordinances; thus the City has not taken the property without just compensation in violation of law. 5. Plaintiffs' application was not treated differently than _ similar applications, thus the City's actions do not constitute a denial of equal protection of the laws. — 6. The City's recreational beachlot ordinance is consti- tutional, as applied here. -3- ORDER 1. The City Council's denial of plaintiffs' application for a conditional use permit and variances is affirmed. 2. The plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. JUDGMENT Let judgement be entered accordingly. Dated this C6 day of /1(16.1 , 1990. BY THE COURT: 1 PHIL T. KAN ING Jud• - • the istrict Cott JUDGMENT I hereby certify that the foregoing Order constitutes the Judgment in this matter. Dated this 29th day of May, 1990. BY THE COURT: Joyce A. VanEyll Court Administrator By: Deputy a IRAY 2 :� 1990 L�^;ter -4- M - BLVD-- -- - �, / Irl f Si6°40.W- a, I i.i iS6°40.W?) r -• -- —33s- - - . .t-_ ^ _ �� x r 1 /6 S /I . MJO ..." ! j 0 23.3 I vENCiL 0. PREWITT tO I. BK t32, F,I88 ! • r I ,_ //-1 o fT ' r �c c Q :. �2 ROBERT G ROGERS CTF 18026 •• In cc • :.. / 4 • — EeLlefl• I • / 6` — ? CO ' • y o co 8 o co .'1 N / — N ° g (y� O N 0 . rn •10 // / It — I` ! P` i 3 � /~ — a (y 14 - .12 - / O f 4 ‘b i ' .13 , 16 • - .... Y _ O / 17 M 9 E. • O 1 N \,\ 4 1 312 ' I • 181 s0 .`lt.PO4/\ .. _,.._. ` 18 1I z4 19 100-F-100—��_100—�F�-100 �1 i 1 W �: .S'f uTL r � • V C to 5 .a B 20 ' o °UrLor ��F + •• ' j ; W c « ��- . . q 12 21 .• ' M. •oN I- r �Q22 us I a . `' "' p l.T 1 W ; :aa / ii O23 m` o Z o�• 8 . / , J F W°Pn Q _ • 9 • _.. ae am I° o Wm � �' i 10 ` 24� �,' _ .l . 41 q kF 25 /� CO o i 40;'391i f 26 - / ' — \ _�/ �``. �` 35 34'33.32.31 .30 29 l _. : O. qo NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ONO- : - ) RD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 15, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. PU04 City Hall Council Chambers /NE/G/MS RE 690 Coulter Drive P " Project: Non-Conforming Use Permit j LAKE Applicant: Sunny Slope Homeowners RILE Y Association S' >- Location: Lake Riley — Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Sunny Slope Homeowners Association is applying for a non-conforming use permit for their recreational beachlot. 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 Aanenson 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 July 2, 1992. ** PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A MEETING TAKING PLACE PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FROM 5:30 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS WHICH MAY STILL BE IN PROGRESS ** RAYMOND & J. LEWIS BRENDA M. SCHAEFFER ALBERT & C. TRAPANESE 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8591 TIGUA CIRCLE 8571 TIGUA LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEVIN & S. SALLSTROM DAVID & C. NAGEL RICHARD & J. LARSON 1140 WILLOW CREEK 8550 TIGUA CIRCLE C/O MGM CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8590 TIGUA CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DALE & R. BOYER JOSEPH & G. HAUTMAN BENJAMIN & P. SWENSON 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8551 TIGUA CIRCLE 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD. _ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 P.O. BOX 129 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 VENCIL & C. PREWITT LESLIE O'HALLORAN RICHARD J. CHADWICK 421 LYMAN BLVD. P.O. BOX 683 420 LYMAN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - LELAND & L. WYMAN AL H. KLLNGELHUTZ JAMES & P. DOLEJSI 400 LYMAN BLVD. 8600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. 9260 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANNHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 T. J. HIRSCH MGMT. CO. KEITH & C. BARTZ NORMAN, JR. & K. GRANT SUITE 30 226 EASTIN ROAD 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 45 SOUTH 7TH STREET LEXINGTON, KY 40505 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MLNNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 MATTHEW & C THILL ARTHUR & J. MULLIGAN DAVID S. NICKOLAY 9610 MEADOWLARK LANE 8501 TIGUA CIRCLE 8500 TIGUA CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN & K BURKE WM & S PREDOVICH STEVE & CHAR. ZUMBUSCH 9591 MEADOWLARK LANE 9611 MEADOWLARK LANE 9794 CRESTWOOD TERRACE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 MICHAEL & M. WISTRAND DAVID AND LYNNE HIGH MICHAEL AND LISA REILLY 219 LOGAN AVENUE NORTH 4330 OAKVIEW LANE 2305 INDIAN RIDGE DRIVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405 PLYMOUTH MN 55442 GLENVIEW IL 60025 NEIL A. KLINGELHUTZ MARK & STARLA DANIELSON 1380 OAKSIDE CIRCLE 11150 SUMPTER CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON MN 55438 ROBERT & D ROGERS THOMAS & M ROGERS NORBERT & C LICKTEIG 4917 DIANE DR 14700 EXCELSIOR BLVD 9111 LAKE RILEY BLVD MINNETONKA MN 55345 MINNETONKA MN 55345 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 J & J HUNGELMANN JOHN JR & M GOULETT RICHARD & F OLIN -" 9117 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9119 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JIM & JAN HENDRICKSON TIM & PATTY BESSER CURTIS KRIER _9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9209 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREG & KELLY HASTINGS DENNIS & A BAKER EUNICE KOTTKE 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -ALAN & K DIRKS GEORGE & M DEWITT RONALD YTZEN 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD 3127 4TH ST SE 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FREDRICK & J POTTHOFF JOHN W ARDOYNO PAUL K OLSON 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS JOY TANNER LUCILLE REMUS -LESLIE TIDSTROM 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD 340 DEERFOOT TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG & K HALVERSON SIDNEY MOSMAN GARY EASTBURN 9283 KIOWA TR 7311 IZAAK WALTON RD 9355 KIOWA TR - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55438 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN JOHN W & B BELL HAROLD & J KING 9361 KIOWA TRAIL 9371 KIOWA TRAIL 9391 KIOWA TR _CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -DONALD & K SITTER PETER PEMRICK JR BARRY & H BERSHAW 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9251 KIOWA TRAIL 9271 KIOWA TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JIM & MARY E JESSUP 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD DEL & N SMITH BOB & S PETERSON CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAY & J LEWIS RAYMOND & C BRANDT ARTHUR & M HALL 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD PO BOX 722 9376 KIOWA TRAIL _ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM BERNHJELM ROBERT & M EICKHOLT RICHARD A MOSMAN ET AL 9380 KIOWA TRAIL 9390 KIOWA TRAIL 541 FAIRFIELD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST PAUL MN 55112 — PETER & G LILLIE MARK & P MOKSNES RANDALL DUSOSKI — 9355 KIOWA TRAIL 9381 KIOWA TRAIL 9270 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMIE & S HEILICHER FREDERICK & J AMRHEIN PAUL & M ZAKARIASEN 9280 KIOWA TRAIL 9350 KIOWA TRAIL 600 94TH ST W _ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ELDON BERKLAND 9261 KIOWA TRAIL — CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • nCn GNI Z66 L. CITY OF PC DATE: July 15, 1992 ` I C H A N H A S S E N CC DATE: August 10, 1992 r CASE#: 92-3 PUD, 92-4 REZ By: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Conceptual Site Plan Approval for 240 Unit Owner Occupied and Rental Multifamily Development 2) Rezoning of Property from R-12, Residential Multifamily to PUD, Planned Unit Z Development Q V LOCATION: Outlot B of Saddlebrook Subdivision and Lot 5, Block 1 of West Village Heights Subdivision CIL APPLICANT: Brad Johnson Q Lotus Realty _ P.O. Box 235 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Actbn 6Y CRC•lidratrOstittx PRESENT ZONING: R-12, Residential Multifamily ACREAGE: 25.29 acres (gross) 23.27 acres (net) - Ftejec'e" DENSITY: 9.5 u/a (gross) 10 u/a (net) Dete Sub tted to Cor .rule.; ADJACENT ZONING AND Date Su`,T"ted tc Gomcd LAND USE: N - RSF; Saddlebrook l0 -q 2 - S - BG; General Business E - R12; Multifamily and RSF; Residential Single Family �-- W - R12; Multifamily WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. w F- PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of the property. It contains a Class B wetland and has heavily vegetated areas, with a significant stand or oak trees. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting PUD concept plan approval to construct a 240 unit multifamily housing project. One hundred sixty units will be available for rent, while the remaining 72 units will be owner occupied and offered for sale. The housing style and density generally falls somewhere between townhome development and apartment type buildings. The 25 acre site is located between Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard. Access will be provided by a public street running between the two boulevards with an internal network of private drives. The site is currently zoned R12, Multifamily Residential and utilities are available for the area. Development on this site has a fair amount of history, although to date, not a single shovel of dirt has yet been turned. In 1989, several alternative plans were proposed by Cenvesco on this site. Originally, the plan started out 112 condominium units and a 70 unit apartment building on what was then a 19 acre parcel. The final version of that plan called for 110 condominium units and a 90 unit apartment building. This project never gained approval by the city. Numerous concerns were raised including the use of mass grading to level the site resulting with extensive loss of trees, poor architectural design of the buildings, and poor quality of site planning overall. Related concerns included high ratio of impervious surfaces, poorly designed emergency access and visitor parking and inadequate landscaping. Staff has worked extensively with the proposed developer of the Oak Ponds and Oak Hill project. We were pleased to see that a entirely new proposal has been offered that avoids virtually all of the concerns raised 3 years ago. The current site plan was designed from the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing mature oaks on the site must be preserved. The concept plan also recognizes that a high quality design must be offered since this is a prominent site having visibility over large areas of the community, including from the Highway 5 corridor in Chanhassen's CBD. Building styles were carefully chosen so that grading would be held to a bare minimum. As a result, there is only one mature oak tree on the site that will be lost and all wetland, low areas, steep slopes are virtually untouched. The proposal offers high quality architectural design with interesting building facades and relatively small building footprints. The building footprints allow for a great deal of flexibility in terms of grading and building orientation. Conceptual plans appear to be reasonably well laid out from an access and utility standpoint. Additional information will of course be necessary, particularly in the areas of drainage/water quality protection/wetland protection, internal roadway design, and traffic safety improvements that may ultimately be required on Powers Boulevard due to proximity of the proposed entrance with the 78th Street curb cut and anticipated high traffic volumes. These kinds of details, along with other site plan detailing, are commonly worked out with preliminary plat and PUD design and staff does not anticipate any unusual problems in these areas. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 3 Apart from greatly enhanced and sensitive design, this proposal deviates from the earlier Cenvesco project in two significant areas. The first deals with proposed road alignments. The Powers Boulevard curb cut is identical to the earlier proposal and there really is no reasonable alternative access point given local topography and location of wetlands. However,the alignment of the road as it runs to the east is significantly different. Original plans called for exiting the area through West Village Heights Apartments. In theory,this development was designed around the potential of extending a public street through to the current Oak Pond/Oak Hill site. However, staff is not entirely comfortable with this proposal since the site plan for these — townhomes seems to have inadequately considered the need to accommodate a public right-of- way. There are potential concerns raised with children and pedestrians crossing through this area and the apparent lack of available parking in this development causing people to park on the — right-of-way. The current plan proposes an alternate of realigning the street to the north entering Kerber Boulevard on site. Staff desires to maintain continuity of this road between Powers and Kerber, but we are comfortable with this revised alignment since we do not anticipate significant — levels of off-site traffic utilizing the street. However, if this new entrance is to be allowed onto Kerber Boulevard, it must be realigned to enter into a 4-way intersection with Santa Vera Drive to maintain traffic safety. The second major deviation comes in the area of park dedication. The original Cenvesco proposal did not incorporate public park dedication. However, during the course of review, the — Park and Recreation Commission ultimately determined that park dedication would be appropriate and additional land was acquired for the purpose. This land covers approximately 5 acres located in the northern edge of the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill project area. However, since this project never — proceeded, dedication never occurred. As noted above, the current applicant started with a clean sheet of paper in designing this project. They have come to staff proposing that cash dedication be provided in lieu of land dedication for parks. The final determination will be up to the Park — and Recreation Commission and City Council and they have not yet had an opportunity to review the proposal. However, staff does support the concept of receiving cash in lieu of land. We give several reasons for supporting this. The first is that this site is in very close proximity to both — City Center Park and Lake Ann Park. Both sites are, or will be accessible, by pedestrian paths. The second factor is that the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill project incorporates significant private recreational opportunities. Plans call for provision of a tot lot, outdoor swimming pool and a clubhouse facility that will be made available to all residents of the project. Thus, on-site recreational demands should be reasonably well accommodated. The third factor is that the city — stands to reap a significant cash dedication to support our park acquisition and development activities elsewhere. This project has the potential for generating over $140,000 that could be put to good use. Lastly, spreading the homes over a larger area serves to decrease the visible density of the project. In summary, staff finds this project to be quite well designed with particular emphasis placed on _ avoiding the problems that were presented by an earlier development proposal. Plans need to be refined and details added but this is fully consistent with the conceptual approval being requested. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill — July 15, 1992 Page 4 — The project is consistent with the underlying zoning, as well as with the Comprehensive Plan. Utilization of the PUD zoning offers two benefits to the city. The first is improved quality of design. The second is that it will give the city more control over what is to be built on this site, — particularly if for some reason, the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill project is not completed as proposed. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council grant PUD concept approval for the project. SITE PLAN APPROVAL — General Site Plan/Architecture The site is 25.29 acres, with a gross density of 9.5 units per acre. The net density, excluding the wetland, two storm water ponds, and the public street, is 23.27 acres, with a net density of 10 units per acre. There is also an existing stand of mature oak trees which the applicant has taken care to protect. The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 240 units including, rental and owner occupied units. The rental units will vary from 1 bedroom, plus a den, to up to 3 bedroom units. — The buildings will include six 8-unit buildings, six 12-unit buildings, and three 16-unit buildings. The rental units will be three stories in height, with walkout dwelling units and garages at grade level. The exterior will be maintenance free vinyl lapped siding. They are attractively designed and will have gabled roofs and asphalt shingles. The height of these rental units will be approximately 35 feet average grade. The development proposes 72 "for sale" units, including 36 two-bedroom and 36 three-bedroom units. These would be comprised of nine 8-unit buildings. These owner occupied buildings — would be located on the southern portion of the site. Each 8-unit building would be split, so that 4 units would be at one elevation and 4 units would be at a different elevation. This creates a nice look of staggered roof lines. The developer has tried to match each building with the — topography of the site, thereby, reducing the amount of grading that would be required. Staff feels that this design makes use of the existing topography in the area. The owner occupied units will also be a maintenance free material with shingled roof,vinyl lapped siding, and brick accent — walls at the front of the entries. These units will have double car garages for each unit, plus, staff is recommending that additional visitor parking be provided. The proposal calls for a playground, clubhouse and pool facility to be located on the site. Staff has some concern about the parking. The ordinance requires that for each unit there be one garage (enclosed) parking space, plus one additional (outdoor) parking space. In addition, one — parking space for every 4 units is required for visitor parking. Each rental unit will have one enclosed garage stall while each for sale unit has a two car garage. Staff has informed the applicant that there is insufficient visitor and surface parking and before the preliminary design — is submitted, that shall be corrected. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 5 _ Staff has received several concerns from area residents. One of the concerns that have been addressed from neighbors is the massing of the buildings, especially the view from the rental _ units as they face those existing homes in the Saddlebrook subdivision. Staff has worked with the applicant and he has suggested maybe putting a smaller unit where the 16 unit building is tucked into the oaks on the most northerly rental unit up against the trees. With this change, few, — if any, of the units will directly face the single family homes. The area is also separated by at least 300 feet across a wetland, a 40 foot change in elevation, existing mature trees that will be saved and new landscaping that will be required. — State code requires that for every 8 units there must be one handicapped unit. This would also require that one parking stall be identified as handicapped parking. Staff would recommend that — these stalls be marked belonging to a certain unit. Therefore, if a non-handicapped person rented the unit, they could use that parking stall. The parking stall size would have to meet the required size by code. — The PUD zoning allows a maximum of 50% impervious surface for high density development. The proposed site plan has an impervious surface of 38%. The structure setback in the PUD — district is 25 feet, all of the buildings meet this standard. The PUD district does not have a minimum setback for parking on interior public streets and private streets. Staff approves of the parking as proposed in the development. — Streets/Access This site is being accessed off of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to Kerber Boulevard on the east. Access onto Powers Boulevard would require a permit from Carver County Public Works. Staff would also recommend that the alignment onto Kerber Boulevard be "T" to meet — Santa Vera Drive or that a connection be made with the West Village Heights Apartments. It was the original understanding that when future development on this property was to occur, that _ this alignment would be tied with the West Village access. Staff would support that either the "T" occur at Santa Vera Drive or that the public street be extended through the West Villages Heights segment. The proposed public street is shown as a 50 foot cross section. Staff is recommending that this be changed to a 60 foot right-of-way with a 36 foot face to face urban street to meet the _ anticipated traffic demands. Staff is also recommending that based on the traffic patterns that there be a 6 foot sidewalk located on both sides of this public street. The remaining portion of this property will be served by private drives. These drives should be built and maintained as -- private roadways and appropriate no parking restrictions posted. The Carver County Traffic Engineer is recommending that Powers Boulevard be developed with a minimum of 100 feet of right-of-way but 120 feet is desired. Appropriate right-of-way will be taken when the site is — platted. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 6 Landscaping and Tree Preservation The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan. Staff would like to make some minor modifications to this plan. The applicant has proposed saving the majority of the existing oak stand. Only one tree is to be lost. Staff has a concern about the buildings adjacent to this oak stand and their view from the residence during the winter months. Staff would recommend that more conifers be placed between the oak stand and the proposed rental buildings to provide better buffering as the oaks will lose their leaves during the winter months. The northern portion of the site which includes the storm water ponds and the wetland should be left in its natural state. Staff feels that at the conceptual stage, the landscaping plan is adequate, but is concerned with some of the areas that have steeper slopes, most significantly along the southern portion of the site. This area will be hard to maintain as two of the steep slopes have currently proposed sumac which may turn out to be a good, low maintenance shrub. There are some other areas in the site that have steep slopes and a good ground, low maintenance cover would also be suggested in those areas. The recently amended landscaping ordinance calls for streetscape along major collectors. Staff would recommend that landscaping/streetscape be placed along Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard. Grading, Drainage and Utilities Staff feels that this site plan was well conceived, taking the existing topography into consideration, although there will have to be some grading done on the site. The majority of the grading will take place in order to develop the proposed roadway and building pads. The major issue is with the storm water management plan. It appears that the existing ponds, as part of the Saddlebrook development, may not be capable of handling all of the runoff. The runoff flows in two directions. About 40% would run towards the existing two ponds and the remaining 60% would run in the direction of the existing Class B wetland. Therefore, any additional runoff as proposed by this project will require increasing the size of the two ponds. It may be possible to increase the surface area of the ponds by excavating along the south edges but the pond elevation cannot be raised without impacting the adjacent single family homes. The other option of running it towards the Class B wetland would require a pretreatment pond or retention pond to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate before entering the wetland. Because this site is hilly, the only place for a sediment pond would be just at the southern end, adjacent to Powers Boulevard, in the existing wetland. If this turns out to be the location of the pretreatment pond, a wetland alteration permit would be required. Municipal sewer is available from Powers Boulevard on the west and from West Village Heights _ Apartments on the east. The existing sewer mains are adequately sized to handle the anticipated development. The preliminary sewer and water plans propose extending the existing sewer from Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 7 -- West Village Heights to service a small portion of the development and the remainder of the site being served from the existing sanitary sewer line in Powers Boulevard. The sanitary sewer and water service to the individual building units, which fall outside of the city's right-of-way, would be maintained privately by the developer or by a homeowners association. All sewer and water lines shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's specifications. Upon — submittal of the plans and specifications, the applicant will need to verify document sizing of the water main to provide adequate fire flow during peak demands. Since this development involves both public and private utilities in the street, the applicant shall enter into a development — contract and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee construction of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval of the development. Park and Recreation The Park and Recreation Commission met on July 28, 1992, to review this proposal. The — Commission's specific recommendations were that the trial on Powers Boulevard as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan be installed by the developer. The developer would be required to dedicate a 20 foot easement along Powers Boulevard and construct an 8-ft wide bituminous trail along the entire westerly border of the property limits. Trail dedication fees would be used to off-set the expenditure for the trail construction. Additionally the Commission recommended that the City Council accept full park dedication fees $440.00 per unit in lieu of — land dedication. The Commission noted that the inclusion of the private swimming pool and playground area do not diminish the need for community supplied recreational facilities, and therefor no park credit will be given for the provision of these items. The site plan called for a trail behind the between the wetland and the existing oaks. The residents of Saddlebrook requested that this trail segment be eliminated. The Developer and the Parks Commission concurred with this request and this trail will be eliminated. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 25.29 acres from R12, High Density — Residential to PUD-12, Planned Unit Development High Density Residential. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 8 a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. In this proposed development, the applicant intends to save the existing stand of mature oak trees along the northern portion of the site. Through careful site planning and some use of the flexibility provided by the PUD, only one oak tree will be lost due to construction. This represents a tremendous improvement over earlier proposals to develop the site. There is also a Class B wetland located in the northwestern portion of the site. The wetland and all property located north of it will not be altered. The project also offers enhanced architectural design. These elements are extremely important given _ the high visibility this site has over a large area. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Findin . The subject property will be developed working with the existing topography of the site. The rental units, which are three story walkouts, are located on the northern portion of the site where the land has a greater slope. The buildings have been set against the existing stand of mature oak trees preserving all but a few of them. The development of a single, comprehensive drainage system will maximize the effectiveness of nutrient removal efforts while reducing the city's long term maintenance costs. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The applicant is proposing to develop high quality, low maintenance buildings. _ The exterior of the rental buildings will be maintenance-free vinyl lapped siding and gabled, asphalt shingle roofs. The owner occupied units are also maintenance-free with shingled roofs, vinyl lapped siding and brick accent walls at the front entries. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 9 — 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. -- Finding. This site is bounded on the east by Kerber Boulevard (minor collector) and on the west by Powers Boulevard (a major collector). The apartment buildings located on the northern portion of the site are at least 200 feet from the nearest lot line of the single family homes to the north and the nearest home is 300 feet away. Concept plans call for establishing an acceptable landscape buffer in the appropriate areas. All but one of the — buildings have been oriented so that they do not directly face the homes to the north. Staff has held discussions with the applicant and we believe event his building has a potential to be reoriented. — 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies the subject area as the potential land use of High Density Residential. The property is currently zoned R12, High Density _ Residential. The proposal is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Higher quality housing in this location is also fully consistent with the underlying R12 zoning and with a desire to cluster density around the Chanhassen CBD. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and — overall trail plan. Findin . The site plan proposes an 8' bituminous trail across the northern portion of the _ site, just north of the stand of oak trees. The trail will connect Powers Boulevard with Kerber Boulevard. A trail is also being proposed along Powers Boulevard as a segment of the city's trail plan. The plan proposes a community common area including a — clubhouse, swimming pool and playground. A final review by the Park and Recreation Commission is required. At this time, city staff believes that there is no need for land dedication given the site's proximity to City Center Park and Lake Ann Park. The cash — park dedication could be put to good use elsewhere. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The project has a mix of owner occupied and rental units. As currently proposed, there will be 168 rental units including a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom — apartments. The applicant is proposing 72 owner occupied units including a mix of 2 and 3 bedrooms. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. _ Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 10 Findin . The dwellings are all being situated to make use of the existing topography, reducing the grading on the site. The rental units are tucked into slopes allowing for a walkout level. The owner occupied units will be split so that there is a break in the roof line. The units will be slab on grade and are taking advantage of the existing topography. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. Access to the site is off of Powers Boulevard which is designated as a major collector street by the City Comprehensive Plan. The site also has access to Kerber Boulevard. There will be one public street connecting the streets. The majority of the site will be served by private driveways. A traffic study to ensure safety on Powers Boulevard will be conducted prior to requesting preliminary approval. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The reduced standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for reducing the standards, the city is receiving: • Improved pretreatment of storm water • Increased landscaping • Protection of vegetation (oak trees) • Improved architectural standards • Sensitivity to maintaining existing topography PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On July 15, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the concept plan for "The Oaks" apartment multifamily project. There were many neighbors from the Saddlebrook subdivision in attendance who voiced concern with the proposed project. The major concerns of the residents were: • Several were under the misunderstanding that a portion of property was to be a park. Staff noted that the park was proposed under one of the Cenvesco proposals but this was never approved by the city. In addition, it was noted that the park was incorporated into a much poorer quality residential development. • Whether or not this project was needed in the city. The question of project need is not addressed by city codes;however,Brad Johnson indicated that vacancy rates in other developments in the city are very low. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 11 — • Possible elimination of wildlife found in the area. The main wildlife area around the wetlands as well as the wooded hillside will remain untouched and protected — under the proposal. However, it must also be realized that the site is essentially 1 or 2 blocks from the city's major commercial street. • Decrease in property values due to rental units. • Height of the structures, because of the hill they will look even larger. It was noted that the height of the building is not greater than the walkout homes in Saddlebrook. However, the applicant has indicated a willingness to adjust the roof lines and building alignments to respond to the concern. • Potential increase in traffic to the Chanhassen Elementary School through an existing neighborhood. Staff indicated that this concern would be looked into. — • Construction noise and hours of operation. Staff believes these concerns can largely be addressed by conditions imposed on the project to regulate hours of construction. • How will storm water issues be handled, preservation of the wetland and impact to the existing ponds. Staff has similar concerns and has told the applicant to bring in engineering assistance to address them. We are confident that all concerns can be addressed. • The proximity of the buildings to the oak trees, will they live. • Rentals should be switched and be located where the owner occupied units are closer to homes in Saddlebrook. _ The residents of the Saddlebrook subdivision felt this proposal was not much different from the proposal rejected by the city a few years ago. Staff believes this is incorrect We note that — comparing the proposals is difficult since the site acres and development assumptions are different. Generally, however, the Oaks utilizes a larger site in a much more sensitive manner as follows: — • Gross and net project density of the Oaks is lower than either Cenvesco proposals. • Proposed buildings are smaller; almost all the trees are protected as opposed to the clearcutting that would have resulted under the Cenvesco proposal. • Sensitive site planning will result in a project having considerably reduced visual impact. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill — July 15, 1992 Page 12 — • In place of a poorly located park with difficult terrain, the city gets approximately $150,000 to spend on park improvements and on-site recreational needs, accommodated by privately owned and maintained facilities. • The Oaks preserves a much larger proportion of the site's natural amenities. There is considerably less grading and the trees located on the west and north — facing the ridge line which would have been lost will remain untouched. • All of the owner occupied housing will have a two car attached garage. Rental — housing will have one enclosed and one exterior. Cenvesco only offered single car garages and significant questions were raised regarding the quality of construction. A comparison of these two projects is outlined below. Cenvesco I Cenvesco 11 "The Oaks" — Gross Acreage 18.93 acres 25.29 acres 25.29 acres Net Acreage 16.99 acres 16.99 acres 23.77 acres — Number of Dwelling 182 units 200 units 240 units Units _ Gross Density 9.6 u/ac 7.9 u/ac 9.5 u/ac Net Density (less 10.7 u/ac 11.7 u/ac 10 u/ac park, streets and '^ wetlands) Impervious Surface 26 percent 35 percent 38 percent — excluding 90/u apartment — Building Height 50' plus 50' plus average height 35 feet Number of 11 buildings 11 buildings 24 buildings this — Buildings number will be reduced the applicant to 23 # of units per maximum 70 maximum 90 maximum 16 units building units units Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 13 _ Park/Open Space none significant site 5 acres significant 2 acres of trees/slope grading trees lost site grading trees lost and 1,500 sq. ft. clubhouse/pool approx, $150,000 dedicated to park funds, virtually no impact to mature trees Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 14 The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council conceptual approval of the site plan with the conditions outlined in the staff report in addition to the concerns raised during the public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING On Monday, August 3, 1992, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting. Since the time of the last Planning Commission meeting, the design of the project has been modified. The roof line on the rental units have been modified so that they have a more residential look (see attached illustration). While the building will still be three stories they have the look of 2 story buildings. The public street running through the project has been aligned with Santa Vera Drive. This alignment has allowed the buildings located in the most northeasterly portion of the site to be moved to the south; or further from the adjacent homes. The 16 unit rental building adjacent to the oaks, which has direct view in the rear of the adjacent homes has been reduced to a smaller unit building. The residents at the neighborhood meeting raised the following concerns: • they want no trespassing signs posted on the homeowners side as well as "The Oaks" project limits • still concerned about the location of the building next to the oak trees, will the oaks live • the timing of the landscaping in relation to the phasing of the project, want the landscaping to act as a buffer • the location of the rental units proximity and views to the homes RECOMMENDATIONS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans dated June 15, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, Carver County Public Works. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 15 — 3. The developer shall dedicate and construct the utilities and streets within the public right- of-ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to _ the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities outside of the easements or right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained. 4. Detailed construction plans and specifications including sizing for the utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. — 5. Appropriate No Parking restrictions shall be placed on the private service drives accordingly. — 6. The final plat shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the proposed east/west connector street. A 36-foot wide urban street shall be constructed in accordance with the latest — edition of the City's standards. 7. It is recommended that concrete sidewalks be placed on both sides of the proposed main — east/west collector street. The sidewalks should be 6 feet in width. 8. A detailed erosion control plan shall be incorporated into the grading plan and submitted — for approval with the construction plans and specifications. 9. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all fees incurred with the previous and current review and development of this project. A cash escrow account of $7,000 should be provided by the applicant to insure payment. 10. Apply for a wetland alteration permit the location of the trails and possible location of sedimentation pond before preliminary plat approval. 11. Implement the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for parks and trail. 12. Construction plans for the storm sewers will be required with the construction plans and specifications submittal prior to preliminary approval. 13. Parking spaces must meet the parking standards as required by the zoning ordinance. 14. The landscaping plan shall be modified to include streetscape along Powers and Kerber — Boulevards. In addition, conifers shall be placed south of the Oak trees to provide additional buffering. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill _ July 15, 1992 Page 16 15. The 16 unit rental building, which is oriented to the most northerly portion of the site, — should be moved and an 8 unit building put in its place, to minimize the impact to the single family homes to the north. 16. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during construction." ATTACHMENTS — 1. Application. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 9, 1992. 3. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated July 30, 1992. 4. Letter from Roger Gustafson dated June 30, 1992. 5. Letter From Riley Purgatory Watershed dated July 6, 1992. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 8, 1992. — 7. Letter from Ismael Martinez dated July 8, 1992. 8. Staff report on the site dated 1989. 9. Planning Commission minutes dated July 15, 1992. —. 10. Site Plans dated June 15, 1992. THE OAKS DEVELOPMENT — Oak Ponds/Oak Hill Oak Ponds and Oak Hill are residential developments designed to provide affordable housing while maintaining the natural features of this unique site. To this end the development has been — designed using the existing hills and valleys as much as possible and preserving the stands of large oaks. In fact, only one surveyed oak tree has been lost to create this community of 240 homes. Oak Ponds is a rental community of 168 homes located in 8, 12 , and 16 unit buildings. Each of the 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings — has a single garage within each of the 2 and 3 story buildings. The units will range from 750 to 1100 square feet. The exteriors of the buildings will be maintenance-free with vinyl lap siding _ and gabled, asphalt shingle roofs. Oak Hill is a "For Sale" development of 72 homes located in 8- plex buildings. Each 1400+ square foot dwelling has a 2 car attached garage, 2 or 3 bedrooms, and private deck. These buildings are also maintenance-free with shingled roofs, vinyl lap siding and brick accent walls at the front entries. — The buildings step up the site following the natural terrain to a high point where the community "clubhouse" is located adjacent to the existing oak grove. A pool and playground are planned as part of this community commons. The development is planned around a central, city-dedicated — street, but with the majority of dwellings being located on smaller, private streets and drives. The shape of the streets and adjacent building sites all derive from preservation of hills and trees. Development Timetable. Oak Hill - Final City approval is anticipated by September 1, 1992 . The developer will grade the site in the — fall; install public improvements, including Oak Drive, and construct the first building starting in December 1992 . Sales efforts will start in _ January, 1993, with completion of the project scheduled for Summer, 1994 . Oaks Community Recreation Center/Offices - Construction start is — anticipated in the spring of 1993 , with completion in the summer of 1993 . -2- Oak Ponds - Final city approval is anticipated in the fall of 1992 ; public improvements to be constructed simultaneously with the Oak Hill development. Development will consist of 168 units built in 3 phases. The starting date of construction will depend upon financing approval and existing market conditions. Phase I Construction Start: Fall, 1992 ; completion: Spring, 1993 (60 units) Phase II Construction start: Spring, 1994; completion: summer, 1994 (48 units) Phase III Construction start: Fall, 1995; completion: Spring, 1996 (60 units) The Community Recreation Center will be available to the Oak Ponds residents. TIF Assistance - The developer plans to request TIF assistance in payment of public improvements, soil correction and land write down from the HRA for the Oak Pond Development. tI! CITYOF _ 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, Sr. Engineering Technician dlojc(---- DATE: July 9, 1992 SUBJ: Concept Review of PUD Development — Oak Hill and Oak Ponds File No. 92-13 Land Use Review Upon review of the concept plans prepared by Arvid Elness Architects, Inc. dated June 15, 1992, I offer the following comments: STREETS Street grades in the development range from 2% to 8% in grade which exceeds the City's ordinance of 7% maximum street grade. Due to the site characteristics, it may be difficult — to comply with the ordinance and a variance should be considered. The applicant has proposed a 50-foot right-of-way for the east/west street. The proposed street right-of-way extends from County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) to Kerber Boulevard on the east just — north of Santa Vera Drive. Access onto County Road 17 will require an access permit from Carver County Public Works. The Kerber Boulevard access should be realigned to offset across from Santa Vera Drive or connect to the existing private street within the West Village Townhouse complex. It was the understanding of the past City Council that with the future development of this parcel the alignment of the street would connect to the West Village Townhouse segment and that segment should be brought up to full urban standards. Staff is in support of either option although both options have some obstacles to overcome. The main east/west street shall be built and dedicated as a City street. The street section should be constructed within the public platted right-of-way with a 36-foot wide face-to-face — urban street to meet the anticipated traffic demands for this type of development. The plans propose the City's standard residential 31-foot wide street within a 50-foot right-of- way. is t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson — July 9, 1992 Page 2 PRIVATE DRIVES The applicant is proposing for a number of 20 to 24-foot wide private service drives to facilitate access to the individual units. These service drives should be built and maintained as private roadways and the appropriate No Parking restrictions posted accordingly to provide adequate fire lanes. — GRADING AND DRAINAGE The majority of the site will experience grading to create the roadway and building pads. The building pads have been situated to be "benched" to fit the existing terrain to minimize erosion and drainage problems. Detailed storm drainage calculations for individual storm sewer segments will be required as well as ponding calculations for sedimentation/retention ponds. The site is rather hilly terrain and limits the options for on-site ponding. The existing two ponds on the north side of the development adjacent to Saddlebrook are currently at or exceed the capacity limits of the Saddlebrook development. Therefore, any _ additional discharge of runoff from this proposed development will require increasing the size of the two ponds. The other alternative for storm water retention is to utilize a portion of the Class B wetland located in the northwest corner of the site. Retention ponds shall be designed to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100-year storm event in a 24-hour duration. Detailed construction plans for the storm sewers will be required with the construction plans and specifications submittal prior to final platting. As this is a concept plan, erosion control measures were apparently omitted. A detailed — erosion control plan should also be incorporated into the grading plan and submitted for review and approval. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from Powers Boulevard on the west _ and from the West Village Townhouse complex on the east side. The existing sewer mains are adequately sized to handle the anticipated development. The preliminary sewer and water plans proposed extension of the existing sewer from West Village Heights apartments to service the easterly portion of the development with the remainder of the site being serviced from the existing sanitary sewer line in Powers Boulevard. The individual sanitary sewer and water service to the building units which fall outside of the City's right-of-way would be maintained privately by the developer or homeowners association. All sewer and water lines shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's specifications. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing of the watermain to provide adequate fire flow during peak demands. Detailed calculations should be submitted Kate Aanenson July 9, 1992 Page 3 — to the City Engineer for review and approval. Since this development involves both public — utilities and street improvements, the applicant should enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee construction of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval of the development. — MISCELLANEOUS This site was previously reviewed by the City under a similar proposal. A review fee of $3,171.76 was generated and billed to the property owner (developer) for remittance; however, to date no payment ever has been received. It is strongly recommended by staff to require payment of the outstanding fees prior to reviewing this proposal any further. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS —' 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, Carver County Public Works. 3. The developer shall dedicate and construct the utilities and streets within the public right-of-ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities _ outside of the easements or right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained. 4. Detailed construction plans and specifications including sizing for the utility — improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 5. Appropriate No Parking restrictions shall be placed on the private service drives accordingly. 6. The final plat shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the proposed east/west connector street. A 36-foot wide urban street shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standards. — 7. It is recommended that concrete sidewalks be placed on both sides of the proposed main east/west collector street. The sidewalks should be 6 feet in width. — Kate Aanenson July 9, 1992 Page 4 8. A detailed erosion control plan shall be incorporated into the grading plan and submitted for approval with the construction plans and specifications. 9. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all fees incurred with the previous review and development of this project. A cash escrow account of $5,000 should be provided by the applicant to insure payment. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITYOF .t‘ CHANIIASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner — .7x/ FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: July 30, 1992 SUB]: Park and Recreation Commission Review of Oak Ponds/Oak Hill Land _ Development Proposal The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the above mentioned proposed development on July 28, 1992. The Commission's discussion centered on the impact this high density residential development will have on existing parks, as well as the need for the construction of an 8 ft. — bituminous trail section along Powers Boulevard. This trail is identified in the Recreation Section of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and represents a vital link in the city's expanding trail system. The conclusion that the residents of this proposal community will utilize existing parks in the area and, as such, the applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of park land dedication was reaffirmed. After hearing from the residents present in the audience that evening and upon concluding their discussion, Commissioner Andrews moved to recommend the City Council accept full park dedication fees in the amount of$105,600, $440 per unit, in lieu of land dedication. Secondly, that the developer of Oak Ponds/Oak Hill supply a 20 ft easement along Powers Boulevard and construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the entire westerly border of this property with trail —' dedication fees being reduced to off-set the expenditure for this trail construction. Lastly, that the inclusion of the private swimming pool and playground area do not diminish the need for community supplied recreational facilities, and therefore no park credit will be given for the provision of these items. Chairman Schroers seconded the motion and all commissioners voted in favor. As detailed in my staff report, the developer will be responsible for estimating the cost of this trail segment and for its construction. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill has a trail dedication requirement of _ $35,280 or $147.00 per unit. Upon submitting a cost estimate for trail construction, it will be verified and a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council to reduce this trail dedication fee accordingly. t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson Oak Ponds/Oak Hill Development July 30, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: 1. Accept full park dedication fees in the amount of$105,600 in lieu of land dedication at the rate of $440 per unit. 2. The developer of Oak Ponds/Oak Hill supply a 20 ft. easement along Powers Boulevard and construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the entire westerly border of this property with trail dedication fees being reduced to off-set the expenditure for this trail construction. 3. The inclusion of the private swimming pool and playground area do not diminish the need — for community supplied recreational facilities, and therefore no park credit will be given for the provision of these items. pc: Charles Folch, City Engineer • . • .. • •. . . ... . . . • . I ; . ., . . • . ... ,_:- • .r .t1)..: . ; i I ' . • • . . . . . . - I \ t • : k . . -;• • , . I I. — _PIIII iumhaumm . _ . ..,.. .. IMI MIN In (‘' • 77...1--- ; — ' fie it 1.t I t. 111111111 CTN , • . • • - . i --I --- - - _. 7, '} : 411,Pri. ' 1 • .i • i ,,. .H. --_, ,i t --11ilill , ' 24- -..- -1' ''t:••• :4-1`11 . . III HMI EMU III . _ :' lin lir _ •Ana mi ---mi , , 111111 1 III 111,, , I II _ _- ....1 1 ,' /'... r Ti , . .. ..: .• , [ c) .. . v 7 i i ! . _ is In ill . . • ...1 ,.. ,...111, 01111M 'I I I ' C_Q. III . - -.. . .. . - D 1 . :UN IL 1111 In III . - . . ..- . D i I. ... . •-: 1 • . ::. ::: .....-....: , 1113 0 _ . , mom mom Is . ,,..... ..,...._ : 1 mum Num s• • .., , . .1 ,, i .-,.... , 1 mi . . .•. ,......-,...„.3,-. ,,,,...-t:.."-7'rl-f....,:v.:t77 .... .. ., .. PI 11 :,, .•• •,.,.: _ IN i . _. . • .• . rno , 11 II -r--1 ' :.;.,. . .;.. . illig 7:Ini , II is! I,ma ow *pm 1 • _ • - : - RE IRO 1 lill . . - — ,-KT III Ira ! mks 1 pi ... r f! len . • i - -... mon s 1 .••• • TirtIffill'iP" " 1-.111, --- ': 1 ri' 1 a rim i • •. . _ ill _ , _111_P. __I I .... , A.....,f4.-,,...,:*....,..5651...70,,g,-;-,,..1%..., L • '..:i.'.1 .`,1-!1,:r L.E'-:'.."'':--7-: r 7- - ..,- _.: " 7 Pi. . ....4 • I.— . 1 ' :HMI HUI - 111 \ 1 • • is• ,,... .... . -44 W . 1111 li . M I . • im Ill ,.i ii ••• mom MI aN 111 i 1 lii .•1:• r, .• I_ • -!, .. I, 11).... =----r-mb- < i wit 11 r J_iiiii -- Hut I .,, , I . _i _,,• -. ,,,, 1 , % Tur .. :. • ___ ' Trn- E !7 , . '....,--.-?..,- _ .. :.: _ _ ...... _ ‘ . • - - I. 9: if c-'7 ! ri,,,., = MC1.� I I I L Ii. . ,,- *., ii, , .. ..„. .4,, • 1 . , ,,. . ., . • : . .:., . . I� . , ., , _ _ _..._ • ..„ ,,,-,:: . , .. .. ,, :s. „_:: 14._;_dial , II ..er; r _� II 'i .. , . . \ „ ,, , 1..tif 4.-• :.:*..:... 1 . • '....::.... hi\ . .. •. :Ii iP - : - 11111 di m� III I 11_ ; L I - ' 1 IIllh1JL - = on 1 Ti - j4r... 11111111 - - .- . I t' Mg ! ,• a) .: : ...:111. M 1 ,... ,.... Al 1 - / nIr i _ ;r lliiiii1,, sa_. . .F ...: li : . • .. . ... . .. _ _ , , • -.. 1 i .1.• In r . =Er MOM IOIpU11 _ • - .....1.•.. . 1:III .',i': :. ... Nil' Iiii !I' ll L•t_-•••• ‘ . — ► ' n ' 1 1.. . , �I I , � . ` . tt ► . I f�, 14 1 �ITIt .- . l l ' • 1101111 an hill c __ ;' I 1 . 1 ... -,:r, r 4 -;:ielr,1•J. .„. .. .. • ...: 1 11 1 ir ii '.. .. \\I • N •• II •. ;jT1t , . . .LI ' - - - '! r 111111 ill r 111 (}1{ - --- ra I' 1. 1 .`a),1 / 14 _ ' -.HI7:T---1_.,._7_.,..,,,_j..r.,.4.),1 5 I.,.i-, s. Ii 1 , 4 .11111111 , 111I ' I, C , T - 1 r L r R ( ()/ CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ t t CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (6121448-1213 NNESO COUNTY Of CAI VEQ June 30, 1992 To: Kathryn Aanenson, Chanhassen Senior Planner — From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer Subject: Concept Plan Oak Ponds and Oak Hill — Comments regarding the concept plan for the Oak Ponds and Oak Hill development dated June 15, 1992, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated June 23, 1992, are: 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: — Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway — Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended _ 100' 120' 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class _ II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Preservation of an adequate corridor for the future upgrading of CSAH 17 is an important consideration. The Year 2010 projected average daily traffic volume for CSAH 17 is approximately 17,000 vehicles adjacent to the proposed development site as documented in the Eastern Carver — County Transportation Study. This volume of traffic does not represent full development within the general service area of this county highway. Ultimate traffic volumes on CSAH 17 very probably will be in excess of the Year 2010 projections. Therefore, I recommend no less than the minimum width of 100 feet be preserved for CSAH 17 to accommodate the construction of either a 2-lane or 4-lane urban undivided highway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. — RECEIVED JUL 011992 Affrnnati:e Action/Equal Opportunit) Employer Printed on Rerlrled Paper CITY Of C;hrkivhASSEN — Page 2 Oak Ponds and Oak Hill Concept Plan June 30, 1992 2. Desirable access control along CSAH 17 is to have "Collector" intersection spacing of 1/4 to 1/2 mile with no "Local" intersections. Has the proposed "new dedicated street" been functionally classified by the city? Also, the spacing between the proposed "new dedicated street" and proposed "new 78th Street" intersections with CSAH 17 is less than 500 feet (1/10 mile). Discussion with the city and the developer about the proposed "new dedicated street" intersection is requested. 3. Construction of the proposed street intersection with CSAH 17 is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. The county highway department will not consider approving the location of the proposed intersection until a detailed traffic analysis of its impact on the CSAH 17 corridor south to TH 5 has been prepared by the developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the county for review. The city is advised that the county highway department is of the initial opinion that the city's project to reconstruct a portion of CSAH 17 north of TH 5 will have to be revised to accommodate the proposed intersection. Project revisions appear needed to safely and adequately accommodate traffic on CSAH 17 in the area of the intersection. These revisions may require the developer and/or the city to invest additional dollars in the CSAH 17 project. If the new street is proposed to be constructed prior to the reconstruction of CSAH 17 by the city, a detailed sight distance analyses will have to be prepared by the developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the county for review. The engineer is directed to Section 5.2 of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Design Manual. Interim improvements to CSAH 17 may be required. These improvements may include a right turn lane, reconstructing a portion of CSAH 17 to improve sight distances, and adding a south bound bypass lane. 4, It is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right-of-way. Any such installations are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 5. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 6. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will, in my opinion, result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the concept plan for the proposed development. ...•..,% Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. .... �='E:,,_..... 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 300 C, • Minneapolis,MN 55437 832-2600 Legal Advisor: Popham,Haik,Schnobrich&Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower — 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 July 6, 1992 Mrs. Joanne Olson _ Senior City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mrs. Olson: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted _ to the District for the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill development in Chanhassen. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: 1 . In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules and -' Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will be required from the District for this project. Accompanying the permit application, a grading plan showing both existing and proposed — contours must be submitted to the District for review. Because of the size of the development, the District encourages that _ the grading operations be staged to minimize the area disturbed at any given time. 2. A detailed erosion control plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 3. A storm water management plan must be submitted to the District for — review and approval. The management plan must include provisions for the treatment of stormwater runoff, from the development site, prior to reaching Protected Waters. The water quality facilities must be designed at a minimum to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. RECEIVED JUL 1992 Mrs. Joanne Olson July 6, 1992 Page 2 Structures to be constructed adjacent to the wetland/stormwater detention basins must have basement floor elevations constructed a minimum of two feet above the calculated 100 year frequency flood elevation of these facilities. 4. The wetland areas on the north side of the site may meet the criteria for regulations of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. Filling below the wetland elevation of each wetland area on the site must be replaced or mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the Wetland Act. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this project at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call us at 832-2600. Sincerely, -4)tur obert C. Obermeyer Barr Engineering Company Engineers for the District c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Fritz Rahr CITYOF 11111010r CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official4.1_Ciik DATE: 07/07/92 SUBJECT: 92-3 PUD (Oak Pond/Oak Hill) — • Ihave reviewed the plans dated June 15, 1992 and have the following comments. 1. State Building Code (SBC 1340.9100) requires one handicap equipped unit in each building in Oak Ponds. City Code (CCC 20-1124) requires 2 stalls per unit, one of which may be exterior. The plans should be — revised to show one 12' wide exterior parking stall as near as possible to each handicap equipped unit. These stalls should meet all handicap requirements except for signage; reserve each 12' stall _ for the individual apartments rather than signing for handicapped parking. 2 . An additional four handicapped spaces must be provided for visitors in Oak Ponds . These should be signed per SBC 1340. Revise plans — accordingly. 3 . Oak Hill must be provided with handicapped stalls at a ratio of one handicap stall per fifty parking spaces. Revise plans to show these — stalls. These spaces should be equally distributed throughout Oak Hill. 4 . The designer is responsible for meeting all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the buildings and on the — grounds. 5. Street names are subject to review by the Public Safety Department. Revise plans to include streets names. — 6. All buildings in Oak Ponds must be fire sprinklered. t 41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - MC a lO rearoa PE. Wei A.Opdat,P.F. Jar.kt R.Ward►E Rterc C /lwrwt A I A B o n e s t ro o Joseph C.Mtler'k P! Wet W Foote PE Fennel,P Argersor P.E. A ri M Rufq AIC P Maw+L.Sorva:a.►E /try A.ROuR30e,PE. Man:R RNy PE. Jerry D Pertne .PE — Rosene Faro E Tymer PE M+h A He,son PE Thomas E AM4vi PE Cerro Omer.►E. Carr R.Cook PE Davin 0lostata.P.E. Daniel J.Eogerten. PE. Gary W nt,Mo /E. Y�7 lderilk & t*la'nes E NOyt, PE Ruben C tuner-&IA, Mirk.A Sew PE. KMe^L WK-ne.PE. Robe-G scAmert PE. Navas A.StArOA.PF. MA,1 Catw.t.PE. retch R.n* PE Suw M EDmr.CIA Davy C.SFurgakt.PP. true'MarErsa,PE. Mthat P Rai,P.E. _. • W sociates 7!�K P#Ip.PE. Ma't 0.WW1/E Cars A Enctson MrNiP T bu:narr.PE. Thomas R Marva-, AI& Leo M PaweWry Rbort R.Pfeffer*PE Gary F Ryyr .r,PE Mariar,M odp, Engineers & Architects Tomas w fame".P.E. Mies R censer,PE Math*C.lynch,PE. L.PhVp Grave,lu.PE. MEMORANDUM TO: Kathryn Aanenson, City of Chanhassen FAX NO.: 937-5739 FROM: Ismael Martinez , DATE: July 8, 1992 RE: Oaks Community Concept Review FILE NO.: 393Gen Hi Kate! BACKGROUND We have performed a stormwater and water quality review of the proposed development, Oaks Community Development. Our review was based on the proposed development characteristics shown in the Concept Plan, dated June 15, 1992. The proposed development is located East of Powers Blvd. and North of Arboretum Blvd. in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, T 116 N, R 23 W, in the City of Chanhassen. The proposed development drains naturally to two existing man-made ponds and a natural B wetland. For the purpose of this review, the two ponds will be called East and West accordingly. The wetland is classified as a Palustrine, with Emergent Vegetation and Seasonally Flooded waterbody in the National Wetland Inventory. The drainage system shown in sheet 7 follows the natural topography and has been divided into 8 drainage areas, A to I. While drainage areas A and B are shown to drain directly to the wetland, areas C through I are shown draining to the existing ponds. OBSERVATIONS The two existing ponds were originally designed to control runoff from the development in the North, Saddlebrook. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612436-4600 T0'd 'OSSt 00a1S3NOG TUT 9£9 2T9 9S:TT 266T-60-LO July 8, 1992 Page 2 The development site has a very well defined natural topography and steep slopes near the drainage basins. Drainage areas to stormwater pond: The drainage area to the stormwater ponds consists of approximately 12.7 Ac (areas C through I). Area E consists of 4,9 Ac of land with steep slopes surrounding the ponds. Approximately 20% of it is impervious surface. Areas C,D,F,G,H and I make a total of 7.8 Ac, of which 52% is impervious. These areas discharge to the East pond. Drainage areas to wetland: Drainage area A consists of 7.2 Ac shown to remain mostly natural (1% impervious). Drainage area B consists of 7.6 Ac developed with 67% impervious surfaces, RESULTS We reviewed the capacities of the existing ponds without the proposed development and discovered that for a 24 hour storm event the two ponds will overtop their berms to discharge to the downstream waterbody. It appears that the ponds were designed to serve only the Saddlebrook development. The topographic characteristics of the proposed development make impractical the construction of ponding within the development. The utilization of the existing facilities to serve the Oaks Community is the most practical solution. We have identified the following alternatives: 1. Raise the berms of both ponds approximately two feet and replace the outlet structures for both ponds. Build a nutrient/sedimentation facility in the wetland. 2. Keep the existing ponds as they are and provide the required capacity with a broad crested weir in the berms. Build a sedimentation facility in the wetland. 3. Keep the existing ponds as they are and provide the required capacity with a broad crested weir in the berms. Do not build anything in the wetland, 20'c 'OSSb' 002i1S3N09 TUT 9£9 219 9S:1T 266I-60-L0 July 8, 1992 Page 3 As previously discussed over the phone it appears that alternative 1 would not be welcomed by the neighborhoods in the Saddlebrook development. Therefore it appears that alternatives 2 or 3 are the most feasible. Alternatives 2 and 3 are the same with the exception of the wetland impact. If alternative 2 is chosen the wetland will be impacted initially (construction of the facility) but the long term effects will be minimized or easier to control. Alternative 3 will impact the wetland in the long run from pollutants and nutrients associated with the type of development proposed. However, under the proposed conditions drainage area B consists of 7.6 Ac that would discharge directly into the wetland. This area would have a small impact when considering the modifications to the overall natural drainage patterns. If alternative 3 is chosen the following parameters will apply to the system: East Pond: Normal Water Level NWL 953,9 High Water Level HWL 956.0 Discharge 50.0 cfs Storage Volume 1,2 AF Outlet elevation 954.5 10' crest weir West Pond: Normal Water Level NWL 948.1 High Water Level HWL 951.3 Discharge 80.0 cfs Storage Volume 1.8 AF Outlet elevation 949.5 10' crest weir RE C O h IENDATI O N S/C O MMENTS The City might consider a cash contribution from the developer to enhance the wetland and other downstream wetlands. The wetland will require some outlet control structure that we assume will be set at elevation 940.0. This elevation would minimize the effect of alternative 3, but may be considered only after a decision is reached by the City as to the best alternative. £0'd 'OSS'd 2 OOLi1S3NO2 TT£T 929 2T9 LS:TT 266T-60-L0 July 8, 1992 Page 4 Most of the impact to the wetland can be expected during the construction phase due to soil erosion. We recommend to provide a temporary sedimentation pond for area B. When final decisions are made we can the determine the final parameters for the system as well as the impact and mitigation for the wetland. If you have any questions or comments, please let me laiow at ext. 253. Have a nice day! b0'd 'OSSd 2 OOLi1S2N09 TT£T 9£9 2T9 9S:TT 266T-60-L0 • Ncg C. DATE: Aet. 1a, 1989 C I T Y O F , y CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: Nov. 1989 CASE NO: 88-24 SUB, 88-14 WAP 88-15 Site Plan Review Prepared by: Olsen/Krauss/vc STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 27.1 acres into 11 R-12 lots and a 5 acre park (Outlot A) — 2— Site plan for 110 Condominium Units on property Z zoned R-12. — V Wetland alteration permit to Locate a Holding Pond into a Class B wetland. J i! LOCATION: Between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Approximately } Mile North of West 78th Street Q APPLICANT: Cenvesco Hedlund Engineering 3650 Annapolis Lane 9201 E. Bloomington Frwy. Plymouth, MN 55441 Bloomington, MN 55420 PRESENT ZONING: R-12 ACREAGE: 27.1 acres ( neorref O,cfea�� ����� UJ tevkkPir DENSITY: 9.6 units/acre (net) townhome lots - • ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; Saddlebrook j• - . t�� S- BG; vacant E- R-12; townhomes 1" 6 ///, Q , W- R-12; 'vacant WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available to site. w PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of the property. It contains a (n Class B Wetland and has heavily vegetated areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density -Residential T 7kW OP (_,_*Agri') `'mot I R 4 1-..iniw4 imi angew_ -kir'N Frollkw vdirz&... 0 " - ' 0' '41vP iNk IS' L A K E \70w-Pjwa RS - ;--;7, egg. , i'S ts*ala hi*. telleip �_, gib- , Fraial: -�I" =tee 4iIIP ?AiIib 'r!� �1 /� 164-4ViefhP 0 •r -11v _ :•�' ,tea 1■ i �`��.�.. fie■i"!: S �' �� \;\- R4 � ��� CMS •,/=/ 40 so et illmi . "� i _ ,mi le ni1311W --.4 Sti. , :er4IVI r .C4---)ifr 7-1,L0k ;J: _a-0a. iM'w•,N-Iw. \. iZ: -I_ am-„'u -ac r kMoall-li_71II"MF . 1•ie p,4 cL.0 tlf t _am wir.: ter- n �mi-�i ��• ir OI ► fir. fir. ��� ■ . .r�� h 3 ' l` _- 3 1 L I, . Nor_ a-. ra.. or_ 1*-in 1 ,_.7��S - Mr /►, I•Ir �. _ r °M - Nod .._ mull �"•A:�i::lll •'fill iii■1l�1'� ?Ille : '�=1111111w -- 1111 • SG A .11 .1111 : 1,401. - -is rr. CZ i :i Rai „ail ' lir - .. 11 . \:•,• ..711_„--ioni RIZ OIL - -1717. 1 -. .441. _coitifiao,..- ....—‘ -• ilielki7,1-AiLw le. le IISIPVI FL suiliiiiiiirr• ei;ww.",ii -; •ter at ..r, T)r44%-VE10-e 'Goo _ _zL .ofr E.0!a11)-1-'.1,(,•Ln;I iI ;,,.4•i0 �,(*% ;_ ter, ���:,.1"›,c,N firer1O' c s -` ""'�A. •.u.l i��!�s 'Ii.aff" -le,..r. ,.11* .1".146-711 mP a0N./mi i-1 l-e.-:i,4-1 l.!7-,.. Y ' %i _•7 'v r�- r. ...II ,V 6 r': ,tRSF MCA INNEEN , s " 1111 LAIC , s o E SUSAN J►� _ _- RD -\��� �i RicE P UD-R ri, - . 1 , - . , _ "P S6 TM ST. • .ty4 L-1at P 4 R 4 -11, • `k ' ' = RSF Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18, 1989 Page 2 BACKGROUND On August 16 , 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the Oak View Heights condominium proposal after it had gone through many revi- sions. The August, 1989, plan proposed 11 R-12 lots on 18. 9 acres with a total of 112 condominium units. A concept plan was submitted that illustrated an addition of 70 apartment units located in two buildings. No approvals for these buildings was being sought nor was staff giving any indication that the plan was acceptable. At the August 16, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested that the item be tabled so that he could continue negotiations with Saddlebrook properties , located directly north of the subject site, to purchase addi- tional property which could be used as park land (Attachment #1) . The most recent submittal (September 22, 1989) is similar to the August, 1989, plat with 6 high density condominium lots located on the south side of Jenny Lane and 4 condominium lots located on a cul-de-sac located north of Jenny Lane. The future apartment buildings are still proposed on the north side of Jenny Lane bet- ween the wetland and the cul-de-sac. The major change between the two plans is that a 5 acre park has been illustrated, located north of the condominium lots and adjacent to Kerber Boulevard. The park area is located on land that the applicant has recently acquired. The number of condominium units have been reduced by 2 ( 110) and the number of the proposed future apartments have been increased by 20 ( 90) . The following is a list of the major concerns of the Planning Commission and City Council with the proposed development. Density Impervious surface Parkland Access points onto Jenny Lane • Emergency access Visitor parking • Landscaping Concept plan for the apartment buildings PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 27.1 gross acres into 10 high density lots with condominium units and one lot for future apartments and an outlot for park dedication. All of the ten condominium lots meet the lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements of the R-12 District. SITE PLAN REVIEW Density and Impervious Surface Since the last review by the Planning Commission, the zoning ordinance has been officially amended to clarify that the density Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18, 1989 — Page 3 for the R-12 District is net density (Attachment 412) . Net den- sity is defined as "the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways, and other areas not suitable for building purposes". The site is proposed to be subdivided into 11 R-12 lots and one outlot. Ten of the R-12 lots will contain condominium units — (Lots 1-6, Block 2 and Lots 2-5, Block 1) . The remaining R-12 lot, Lot 1, Block 1, is proposed for future development as apart- ments. Outlot A contains 5. 01 acres and is proposed for park _ dedication. The following list contains the net densities for the ten condominium lots : Lot 2 , Block 1 9 . 8 units per acre — Lot 3 , Block 1 9 . 9 u/a Lot 4 , Block 1 9.4 u/a Lot 5 , Block 1 9. 9 u/a — Lot 1 , Block 2 9. 5 u/a Lot 2 , Block 2 9.5 u/a Lot 3 , Block 2 11.3 u/a Lot 4 , Block 2 8 .6 u/a Lot 5 , Block 2 9. 6 u/a Lot 6 , Block 2 9. 0 u/a A maximum density of 12 units per acre is allowed in this district. The ten condominium lots meet the net density cri- teria. Concept Plan for Apartment Buildings Lot 1 , Block 1 , ( future apartment buildings) contains 6.85 acres — and is proposed to contain two buildings containing 90 apart- ments. A large percentage of the 8.85 acres is wetland and steep forested slopes . Staff is recommending that a conservation ease- ment be granted over the majority of the steep slope and tree areas to preserve the site on Lot 1 , Block 1 (980 contour) . In addition, there is a Class B wetland with a 75 foot setback and _ wooded area cannot be used towards the net density calculation. The concept plan for the apartments is very poorly designed and staff finds it to be unacceptable. As illustrated a tremendous amount of grading is required and it is not clear how access and parking issues can be resolved. Therefore, we are recommending that a condition of approval of the current proposal should be that the apartment buildings are not included in the approval of the condominium units and that the 90 apartment units will not be accepted by the City unless all conditions of the Zoning Ordinance and site plan review are met (net density, preservation of wetland setbacks, and conservation easement) . We strongly suspect that the site will satisfactorily accommodate sign- ficantly fewer apartments then are illustrated. — Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 4 Impervious Surfaces The ordinance establishes a maximum impervious surface coverage of 35%. Each of the proposed condominium lots meet this standard as presently illustrated as follows: Block 1 Block 2 Lot 1 9. 2% Lot 1 35% Lot 2 34. 7% Lot 2 35% Lot 3 32 . 8% Lot 3 34. 9% Lot 4 34. 7% Lot 4 34. 7% Lot 5 33. 2% Lot 5 34 . 9% Lot 6 34 . 8% Data provided for Lot 1, Block 1 is misleading since it is based upon the unacceptable concept plan for the apartment buildings. In addition it does not appear to be based upon net density as currently defined. It is clear from the data provided above that the plan is pushing the maximum limits of density allowed by the ordinance. This is due both to the number of units being proposed and the design of the buildings and their resulting footprints. The plan also con- tains several inaccuracies that result in staff' s questioning the accuracy of hard surface coverage calculations illustrated on the plan. For example, the developer indicated that driveways were designed to be 24 feet wide while they are drawn as only 20 feet on the plan and many parking stalls are far too small to accom- - modate a car. Later in this report there are concerns raised regarding the lack of visitor parking, convoluted and under-width drive aisles and lack of turnaround areas required to meet standards established by Fire Code. Satisfying these standards will result in a com- mensurate increase in hard surface coverage that will, due to the project design, result in the need for variances for hard surface coverage. Staff does not support the variances noting that there is no hardship and that they are self-created by nature of the design of the plan. Since the project otherwise is in compliance with ordinance requirements, staff is recommending that it be approved conditioned on revising the plans to meet Fire Code standards and to accomplish this without requiring hard surface coverage variances. These revisions could result in a substan- dard redesign of the plan. Setbacks The setbacks of the R-12 district ( 25 feet front and rear, 10 feet side) are being maintained except for areas where the parking areas adjacent to the road right-of-way are not meeting the 25-foot setback (Lot 6 , Block 2 and Lot 5, Block 1) . Section Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18, 1989 — Page 5 20-119 of the Zoning Ordinance states that on-site parking and loading facilities shall not be permitted in required front, side — or rear yard areas . The plans should be revised to provide the 25 foot front yard setbacks. If the plans are not revised, the applicant will have to apply for a variance to the setback — requirement. Staff would not be in support of a variance since a hardship does not exist. Parkland — The current proposal dedicates 5.01 acres for park dedication but is also adding additional dwelling units to the proposal. The — Park and Rec Commission reviewed the proposal on October 10, 1989. The Park and Rec staff recommended that 5 to 7 acres of land would now be required to be dedicated due to the increased — number of units . The area dedicated for parkland contains wetlands protected by a 75 foot setback and steep slopes including a ravine. The total area usable for active parkland is approximately 3 acres. In order for the parkland to meet the -' requirements of the Park and Rec Commission, the ravine would have to be filled in and a massive amount of grading would have to be required. — The Park and Rec Commission visited the proposed park site to determine whether the area would be suitable for park purposes. Mark Koegler also attended the site visit and was directed to prepare alternative park designs (Attachment #3) . The Park and Rec Commission approved Concept Plan B which improved the level areas of the site and preserved the ravine and sloped areas as — open space. The Park and Rec Commission felt that the proposed dedicated area of 5 . 01 acres would be well suited for park area and that the ravine should not be filled. The Park and Rec _ Commission recommended the following: 1 . The developer shall dedicate the proposed 5. 01 acres of parkland to the City. • 2. The developer shall do the rough and fine grading on the park site in accordance with a grading plan prepared by the City. 3 . The developer shall seed the park site with park grade all purpose grass seed. 4 . The developer shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the sloped area above the wetlands from the park site to Powers Boulevard. — 5 . The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard, the entire length of — the proposed development and that such be constructed at the time the street improvements are made. Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 6 6 . The developer shall construct a 5 foot wide construct concrete sidewalk on the north side of Jenny Lane and that such be constructed at the time street improvements are made. Access Points Onto Jenny Lane, Streets and Sidewalk Staff has been concerned, as has been the Planning Commission and City Council with the number of access points onto Jenny Lane. The original plan would have resulted in 19 curb cuts on Jenny Lane. This was unacceptable to the City since it is hazardous from a traffic safety standpoint, makes it difficult to plow snow since it restricts storage area and is visually unappealing. Staff would use the authority provided by the site plan review procedure to recommend denial of such a poorly designed plan. With the current plan, the applicant has reduced the number of access points from the lots south of Jenny Lane to 10 and the number of access points on the north side of Jenny Lane to 3 (11 exist on Jenny Circle) . The number of access points onto Jenny Lane can be further reduced by combining individual driveways into one. The applicant is also proposing individual access drives onto Jenny Circle. Even though Jenny Circle is a cul-de- - sac, there will be access from Jenny Circle to the dedicated park and staff recommends that the individual driveways be com- bined into one on Lot 2 , Block 1 and Lot 4 , Block 1. The indivi- dual driveways on Lot 3, Block 1 can remain since combining them would result in the building being pushed back and further alteration to the slope and vegetative area. Thus the resulting number of curb cuts on Jenny Lane will be 6 and on Jenny Circle will be 7. The westerly driveway onto Jenny Lane from Lot 1, Block 2 needs _ to be relocated 150 feet or as far to the east as possible to allow for proper stacking of vehicles at the intersection of Jenny Lane and Powers Boulevard (Co. Rd. 17) . Staff has concerns with the landscaped island proposed in Jenny Circle. The maintenance of such cul-de-sacs with islands is dif- ficult and have not been supported by staff in the past. The applicant is also showing the island containing one of the oak trees to be preserved. Staff is doubtful that the oak tree will survive with the amount of alteration ( installation of street and _ utilities ) around the oak tree. Therefore staff is recommending that the island be removed from Jenny Circle cul-de-sac. If the Planning Commission and City Council approve the island cul-de- sac it should be conditioned that the homeowners association be responsible for maintenance of the island. A six foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Jenny Lane on the Street Plan (Sheet 3 ) and on the north side of Jenny Lane on the Landscape Plan (Sheet 5) . The sidewalk should be constructed on the north side of Jenny Lane to avoid Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 — Page 7 possible pedestrian/vehicle conflicts . In addition, the sidewalks should be reduced to 5 feet in width to allow for addi- tional boulevard green area. As indicated in previous staff reports, a feasibility study will — need to be initiated to extend the Jenny Lane road section from Oak View Heights easterly through the West Village Heights Townhouse site to Kerber Boulevard. Emergency Access , Visitor Parking and Internal Circulation The issues surrounding emergency access, visitor parking and internal circulation are inter-related. The current proposal utilizes a series of long dead-end, often curving private driveways to access many of the condominium units. The drives _ are 20 feet wide, have sharp turns and contain a series of addi- tional curb cuts. Parking is provided by a single car garage serving each condominium with an additional exterior stall located on a pad outside of the garage door. Staff has pre- viously raised concerns with the lack of visitor parking thus the current plan has been modified by the theoretical addition of 42 visitor stalls . Staff has a number of signficant concerns with the plan. These are discussed below. 1. The use of a 20 foot wide drive aisles is unacceptable and is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance. Section 20-1101 states that driveways should be a minimum of 24 feet and that the City can require up to 30 feet wide driveways to accom- modate two-way traffic. Fire Code allows the Fire Marshal to require additional width if it is needed to accommodate fire apparatus. In an attached memo the Fire Marshal has indi- cated a need for a minimum 24 foot wide drive aisle unencum- bered by parked vehicles is required to operate equipment they would normally want to use if a fire occurred in this project. The purpose of these codes is relatively straight _ forward. It is to provide for adequate levels of access for residents and emergency vehicles. As we noted above the drives contain a series of 90° turns. As designed these corners provide an insuffficent turn radius to accommodate City fire equipment. A turn radius of at least 20 feet is required. 2. Fire Code and reasonable design practices require that all private driveways over 150 feet in length be provided with an acceptable turn around area at the end. Details of accep- table designs are provided in an attached memo from the Fire Marshal . Current plans provide no means for turning vehicles. 3 . As we noted, current plans illustrate 42 visitor parking stalls . The ordinances does not provide a specific standard for visitor parking. It specifically requires that each Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 8 multi-family unit be provided with two stalls, one of which must be enclosed. Proposed plans comply with this section. However, the ordinance also states that on-site parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons , customers, suppliers, visitors and employees shall be provided. It further states that the parking standards provided in the ordinance are minimum. Thus it is our belief that the ordi- nance gives the City discretion to require additional parking if needed to satisfy projected demand. Section 18-56 of the Subdivision Ordinance also states that standards created in teh ordinance are minimums and that the City may impose more stringent standards as deemed appropriate. We also note that parking problems are further exacerbated by the fact that the Engineering Department is requesting that the City Council post Jenny Lane to prohibit on-street parking due to _ concerns with maintenance and access. Based upon our experience, we believe it is valid to require 0.4 stalls per dwelling unit to satisfy visitor parking. Based upon a total of 110 condominium units, a visitor parking requirement of 44 stalls results. If the developer has information indicating that a smaller visitor requirement is valid, staff would con- sider that data and possibly modify the requirement. Current plans show 42 visitor parking stalls. However, all but 15 of the spaces are inappropriately located at the end _ of dead-end driveways. This is unacceptable for 3 reasons. These areas are needed for Fire Department turnarounds and must be posted to prohibit parking, the areas are also needed so cars backing out of end driveways can use them to turn and we also note that the plan is so poorly designed that some of the illustrated stalls are only 6 feet deep, they cannot be used without blocking entry to the driveway of the nearest condominium unit. Plans should be revised as required to: 1 ) provide a 20 foot deep parking area in front of each garage door; 2) provide 44 visitor parking stalls 8} feet wide and 18 feet deep, all stalls must be located outside of the 24 foot wide driveway; and 3) post all drives and tur- naround areas to prohibit parking. Landscaping/Tree Protection _ As has been stated in previous reports, the applicant is removing a large number of mature oak trees. Sheet 3 of the plans shows that three of the oak trees are proposed to be preserved and remain as part of the site. Two of the trees are located in the Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 9 southeast corner of Lot 2 , Block 1 and the third is located in the proposed cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle. Staff does not feel that the tree located in the cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle will survive. Extra precautions will have to be taken for the two oak trees located on Lot 2 , Block 1 for trees to survive the proposed construction. The landscaping plan replaces the caliper inches of trees being removed but we believe that new landscaping does not replace the trees being lost. It is likely that with a different development concept and well designed plan that many of the trees could have been preserved. Additional opportunities for tree preservation are found on Lot 3 , Block 1 . The plan indicates the grading of a large area con- taining a mix of mature and scrub trees with a 3:1 slope. The use of a retaining wall in place of the 3 :1 slope will avoid the need to disturb such a large area and is being recommended by staff . This should be illustrated on final grading plans. Retaining walls over 5 feet in height require building permits . Prior to the start of work, the developer should be required to walk the site with staff to mark out areas for tree preservation. Trees lost in these areas during construction should be replaced by suitably sized materials approved by staff. Certain areas of the landscaping plan do not correspond to the proposed site plan, specifically Lot 4 , Block 1 where the rest of the plans show one individual driveway onto the cul-de-sac separated from the shared driveways. The landscaping plan should be revised to reflect the current site plan and the landscaping plan shall be revised to provide two-foot berming between any vehicular area and right-of-way with hedging and at least one tree per 40 feet on the berm between the vehicular area and road right-of-way. Wetland Alteration Permit As part of the site plan review and the development of the site, the applicant must provide retention for the stormwater runoff from the site. Initially, it was proposed to have the stormwater directed through a disapation chamber and then into the Class B wetland in the northwest section of the property. Staff pre- ferred to have a ponding area provided to allow for the sedimen- tation of the stormwater prior to it entering the Class B wetland . This option was preferred over the chamber in that it would better preserve the quality of the wetland. Therefore, the applicant must receive a wetland alteration permit to provide for the holding pond at the southerly edge of the Class B wetland. Staff has visited the site twice with the Fish and Wildlife Service and it has been determined that the Class B wetland would not be detrimentally impacted by the holding pond and by directing the stormwater into the Class B wetland. The proposed Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 10 holding pond would prevent erosion of the wetland and would allow the sediment of silt, etc. prior to it entering the wetland. The Engineering Department and the Watershed District has confirmed that the size of the holding pond is adequate to contain all of the runoff prior to it entering the wetland. The proposed holding pond will be altering the most southerly tip of the Class B wetland and the remaining portion of the wetland will remain in its natural state. Since the holding pond is not totally within the Class B wetland and needs to be designed to a certain contour to enable it to contain the stormwater prior to it entering the wetland, staff is not recommending that the holding pond be designed to the six Fish and Wildlife recommen- dations . Staff is recommending that the vegetation around the holding pond be returned to its natural state and not be sod or seeded with grass . The size of the holding pond depends upon the amount of water it must retain as a result of the development. The holding pond proposed within the Class B wetland may have to be larger to meet the requirements of the City Engineer and Watershed District. Since the alteration may be changed, staff is recommending tabling action until it is verified what size the pond must be. Summary The project has had a long and involved review record since it was first submitted. Throughout the process, the plans have been modified to respond to the various issues that have been raised. In the end staff continues to have reservations regarding the quality of the plan. It appears to have been designed to provide the maximum number of dwellings while attempting to meet the most minimum possible standards . The plan the applicant chose to use is relatively inflexible as to site design requirements . We also believe that the plan itself is not well executed and contains a number of flaws and oversights. Having said that, we believe that a property owner has the right to develop the property if it can be demonstrated to be in conformance with the City' s stan- dards . Staff has drafted conditions that will bring the plans into conformance with the zoning and subdivision ordinance. Therefore, we are recommending that it be approved subject to appropriate conditions. Those conditions include the requirement that driveways be widened to 24 feet, provided with turnarounds acceptable to the Fire Marshal and that a reasonable amount of visitor parking be provided. Satisfaction of these conditions and other relative conditions to maintaining proper setbacks will _ likely increase hard surface coverage beyond the permitted 35%. A variance would therefore be required to the impervious surface standards. Staff sees no reason to support the variance since a hardship does not exist and that the need for a variance is a result of the developer' s design of the project. Therefore, we feel that the number of condominium units will need to be reduced to comply with the conditions of approval. Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 11 RECOMMENDATION — Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #88-24 as shown on the plan dated September 22, 1989, for 11 R-12 lots and a 5 acre park with the following conditions : — 1 . Lot 1 , Block 1, shall be designated as an outlot. 2 . A drainage and conservation easement shall be provided over the 980 foot contour and vegetative area on Lot 1, Block 1 (Outlot B) . No alteration to the topography or vegetation below the 980 foot contour will be permitted. This includes any future development of Lot 1, Block 1. 3 . A conservation and drainage easement shall be provided over — Outlot A (park area) as determined by the Planning and Engineering staff to preserve slopes and vegetated areas not affected by the park development. 4 . Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City for park purposes. Grading of Outlot A for the park will be the responsibility of the developer. — 5. Cross access and utility easements be provided over each lot running in favor of adjacent lots as required. 6 . Conditions of Site Plan 488-15 and Wetland Alteration Permit #89-8 . The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #88-15 as shown on the plat dated September 22, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: — 1. The applicant shall remove individual driveways and provide shared driveways as outlined in the staff report to reduce the number of access drives onto Jenny Lane and Jenny Circle. — 2. The westerly driveway onto Jenny Lane from Lot 1, Block 2 shall be relocated 150 feet or as far to the east as possible to allow for proper stacking of vehicles at the intersection of Jenny Lane and Powers Boulevard (Co. Rd. 17) . 3 . The cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle shall be removed. If the Council allows the cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle, it shall be maintained by the homeowners association. 4 . Revise internal circulation and parking provisions as follows: - all driveways shall be widened to 24 feet and provided with 20 foot radius curves Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 12 - provide turnaround areas acceptable to the Fire Marshal on dead-end drive aisles - post all internal drives and fire lanes to prohibit parking - provide 44 visitor parking stalls on-site. They shall comply with setback requirements each stall shall be 8} feet wide and 18 feet deep. - verify that an 8i ' x 20 ' pad is provided in front of each garage door 5 . The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the north side of Jenny Lane. 6 . A feasibility study shall be initiated by the City Council to extend Jenny Lane from Oak View Heights easterly to the West Village Heights Townhouse site to Kerber Boulevard. 7. The landscaping plan shall be revised to be consistent with the site plan and to provide two foot berming between any vehicular area and right-of-way with hedging and at least one tree per 40 feet on the berm between the vehicular areas and road right-of-way. 8 . Prior to grading the site, the developer shall walk the site with staff to designate and mark trees to be preserved. Designated trees lost due to construction will be replaced by suitably sized materials acceptable to staff. 9 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the improve- ments . 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access/Watermain Crossing Permits issued by Carver County. 11. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 12. Provide final grading and draiange for approval by the City. Modify the grading plan to remove the 3:1 graded slope area located on Lot 3, Block 1 and replace it with a retaining wall designed to maximize tree preservation. 13 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19, 1989 Page 13 14. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construc- tion. 15. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all — public facilities. 16. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- main under County Road 17. — 17. The City Council will post signs to restrict parking on Jenny Lane. — 18. All conditions of Preliminary Plat #88-24 and Wetland Alteration Permit #88-14. 19. No approval or indication of support for the concept plan for the apartment buildings is being established. If an applica- tion for the buildings is made, they will be reviewed on — their own merits and subject to all applicable standards. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending tabling of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 until it is verified what size of pond will be required. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 16, 1989. — 2 . Net density zoning ordinance amendment. 3 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated October 20, 1989. 4 . Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 26, 1989. _ 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated October 11, 1989. i L i• I • •_ -- ntw•N MI at ——_ Iw111- Dow I-. 1sL :�� ;r 1---_ wl 1 r' • .3, 1..-1 L ?ill 1 josq,4 t\\ •,,....... ‘ I .44, \ :14: I S% / .••• \ "PillellanOPak\A :II", 7-"-• %, • - k . . \ / IF D ' I," I N " A,I!i1c_ ' - sill , •��� tI .F/ ,, i,:.••m ' 1 litc 7♦ 4.4( % , io, 1. .Ass„.., 1, .ivios_:-._=: -- ,1 1 .. ii 0 e .: — z ___Amnitiliellit \‘', ‘,/Alik? .\ // 1 11:0:0.1.c limos'.: i IPIIMicwitirS.1,4/., %,7-#. 1% \ / \\ , 1:to . 11_) = r \NI 111 I ;- �, _. nr l Til lil let . I'/ ,,a.. ' / / Pt / • , /• / 1 • Y_11..- I / I. I = ill ! w 7i t•r r r r j ' 0 r -R w _I - is S MI ^ r i ; i 'uu;E•Slmtk* R ?i-I i 1 il= c N ow irinti%gess els; 174 in — ptoo-: 5 iv t x r a re-r a�v rrry* ..s y � 66 teera,...ry Pups i -4 N iii,coy r i j i Rii,1 wlmw■ c :ill ;'- f=r? „PPP"111 'PPP; ii»» igi R ..whom ammo • R t • E r ilES 11P1:�:111i12 ! C•$ ill t • 11rrIxo$ Crgri 1 g . ' • 1As11# IiIi i 1• • \ 1 \• i` 11 Fi fg zm II its_ i 0o Z ==i, ii4r z c . 1. rn F :he tip my • =' n , Q n pi $ 11 i:i Piii�, i> iR Sig s.s = l I il=i NZ r' i O i 01 FA: sZ • I ". <c, - m -c — z 0 • a I i • COUNTY STATE AID HWY. NO. 17 B _ _ (POWERS BLVD. )� •\ — _-�--_.�_�-______ i!_�-,-�—�=`i__7 cam.__ '-- -:-:.)'1 '' .:=IIIMIM.:: 11121 !di '''r' it rise , �'f „\�\�... _ ,--,�� ' ,, �;I . A I N il l_ \ t 1 \ ill i1 :' I:"' ;' Ill '.- 1 041111 '' - •----'•Z-44:-.-------•-••• \ \‘‘ 1\\ • •• i � Ik lit:":. - • \ � r \ \ \ . — 1 t : -1Y,:!I ' ..-..*.'t - I ii i 1 -....,.,......-...„..--....---.:,... -••,,,,;,,,,,,\':,\RA‘‘‘,\`‘,..,\...,‘\'‘,„:-.1.1,.. s•,`„, ,. ; N.:.\-...-....-....,0, %,,k‘‘ , \:.:,.1,\‘‘,:‘,,SN\k‘s1:....\.s.:'"\‘‘‘•\'‘‘ \t...1 ..%•,.. ,...s....-...:;-_-_-_-_, — 1;': ..: V' 40.....7-7,„,'"Ii.t....1. i . , .., , ‘, s‘ ,,......, 0 \ \ 0, , ... ................:, .ter....„:„. -Nk / `IE. a 1 t 1 \ K. " i / >: � I . « i tea, � ' •,-,d'l -• �•��� �. • __ +_. :��. i 2! Ulf i I i •- niereMpu ° I st ' ' -.0041‘ '..„: Ill; gii • ' ;1::::::-,........,', 1, 1 \ �i _€ == a� F iIi iii fipti� •�Q �, `•.�� 3''„40 r 1 t i I I' III !I t� I ill IF a. 14 al 11 3. �` Mf '� 11 III' WI 4;4'. C*1)4,111 % .ie / ilil j ; : i 1 :". lb ;41IP ..- '-di di/ \ / AQ r11 ,„\t P li'\� I , a \, ,11:( . i'7Akk.444. ; .wAk, ill 'i - .::J11,1,,,',: i„ L_ • ♦Pis; , I�en a II"�a 1♦ ,�, + � ,Z! • .� —• (j /� _ - `� �� — IL f. F t4„, "s• „. %at\ ...d• I i A \''' 114 ', \•-- % is gill\,. \411,- f ."/ 4 . Ilk .%. '• k• ( gr...• -•,' •-- ••...-•••• --1. ' \ " ' ' N. ,.iih' lip\ 1 . ' . .-„....,... .......---\ V In f iv\•s:,...... iii, • 1 '• .-. / ...-..‘ V ���_�•n srt asw ye / / \ ,� T ! ` y !i,• 1 :ii{ e Z m fili_P Rt R ; r ` . < y r'- t €" Z o oIN ii. : ti: E.1.1. A; 15:-'1 i 1 .il iribibledi viii PI al. mt.) i p 4 IIPIPIAPThil I: LI -in pz f v Y c c\ Zen o 0 — • I b$ Q ( 0 0 1 ' COUNTY STATE AID NWY. NO. 17 (POWERS BLVD. ) 11 : 11 il 911 13 a 6 I! `3 �; ii I l] '• i•- _ A a .i � -- AW szan.1J11r • i 3i- it 1? leiPa/ FFINLi1 \r\ r Nr ..c. ..- el 5 p? li'i 1* lb 2V'' PI PIA 1 Ile . ,.. 1 / r%i l i� , — t .€ lii9 j11 Rl iiI ll, !! i y/ ggg ; , tA \ \*....._\.441' ' • ";.• ' % - ‘ i - ` vo \ \ t. � ar err: :_ ; v; ...V.;; .... .mac I 'I , ma , • 9• \ \ Q VIII r • \ \\ \ Jrinn nr.. .. nrr ■..• ::.. ` • 111 'F--. 411 1 ir ILI lg. . . 11) .;:*1.-r \> . ‘" . - • 4\Y likriereAli le , ,r,-- ropy • 0 — -, -'-ct i - vari...tork\ :> X ; uttoti .,, 1 Z It liTAZA,, "e Obstzliinfe4\. 8 i I i F., 'El .. .5 gm_... 1„...*,...javar. ... 1....._. . 0 .t„r/."o a Wppl ti. i-‘,.‘„:4 ItEt - € 1----IiM tip' E+�+' -, T arhiPdicAkViM rk\;,\ .1i‘0t. v441r-,01-1,t1 iI f r . V cFrl,sn _ I ( \ 11544.104,,,\ „Nit*. 4 f46`,k`a.., gm, "pi 0.,,,i , 1 :10 ig4,,,\ .",4)026 0,i,,, TON V-1 ,/,O fr 1 r p - \ fit* A , • ' ,-,* 40^ I A •ii4-40-- 4" itilt \ • • . M.11' , 'L I). k ' \\40" *s`\ . ettofit 14. \ lw, i •46,' Ito .ocws14 • — 2�� [ I • . , . . . 1 PY y r. — 1` �Sii'( he 2r*1 f Pr, t1 3 :- t i IT G)O i 2 'r` Z j rioe' 't( wBo'+ zC a ^z g � ,f. �•R '�+r V) ; P ' i Isit '.. IF- "11111 . > -' >v� z r 34 �' la , i Ipli .* in n ; j. a Al • > is C 1 ]4 5+ 1 Z F B earn ran M.t. .177 ��, -I- ram =.y4.f!.7:1l7•�77l7, ,, •-� .._ . _ •- ri. -j — — `^` I Ni i , — CC)_ k. J:� ter' ' •/ � `�— .`-`::_x::•\�.� .:�';'. 1 � i 1 11; , ` �;'! -- C I :' -.., / \ \ ,, 'ifs ++ �,/,,,, ,p; ,�..•:`"•_, a \ ,{ if l P ,3iii, /111 \ .,'f:i��rF�l'4c- :.ti•-� ; 1 -' \ \ :.v:' r r~7 �l — Ill' 113!•,1 .i ,,,11 '--... --**--"'NL-Lik %,... .,,,/.../ %,, .. , / ,.. - / /•f el 7t v /� 10 1 ; 0 1 '. .•�'-/ 1, Z lni - ... MINN t=1 • /67 O - • 1 , U F 3 -1 I . 1. ' I : I: 1 )(- — 1 �'. 1 T 1 Xor r I i-- \ Z 1 ,, > II i i'i i7 1g,,,-,',111 i; l•l Iw C is- i F 'F 1 r / s`:s== RE i I • Pip;:; . ; =i - ' eo ,.. / — !, `'`i 1 / $ I 1 ,• i e omm : * , 1 t! !i 1 ' 1 •� i' — j' 0 — i `ill! Xi- e_,v t, A-S z e / i > Z • :•i.l � _ zc a:1 fP Fo =i.�_ = wig a E in _ /�% p > c>> = 0 �tli e.- /Az I:i - T 3 s ii F1 rz r — ri 1 g. f Z > Z Q z O • — • a COUNTY STATE AID HWY. ND. 17 (POWERS BLVD. ) • —_-------------------i------_-----_-__ — I I .rrtrtmw e I ..\\.. I! •7111$iPL�lr . ; ',! - -.I 1 T r _ f, „ 1 , — r , , i 1s 't ••• .�- OS ! ; ii a'Ftii!;!' ! J ‘ ‘ — �s1 i`=_ I 1 I t le 1. gi :s:a 1 c S Cam_ E _ t Till 1 �� `% %) - - •M --- , r ; -I �. ` �` �' is- __ O ,' ( ( " ; AR --------� r ,f( 0< 1 T i I.r.:1 ; r . r 1 , ,... 1 ii Fis e ri , t 4.. 1 1 I. 3 = i� E=s ! I , I - , c•ol i' i i i- , E s _ �loss ; ,g .a. ,c� , , t w ft ,. .,` . . -. may' `;. i Rom - �` `� , . — ==8 y fit •` w. t _. ; 4 . I S . S w `•`••. f 01 ,rsws Inr • One T t- Rti m= . r. 5 II i . i =:i:i ;Ey =C O •i m I gimp �LI , .1 F :IF=: �g mz N Z liifSEii t!sESE = S E' i. !S I! !41 x'-o I EA; O $ i iiiiiip UM 1 1 Po z r Sewe ; _,� ii f [!i, • N z n I KM _ lea ' I ;1I r-i i SE I I i` < 0 -I - m N M C) r f 1r I , 4 1 _ COUNTYSTA f AID HNY N0� - ----- ..--17 '` (�ONEtiS - -- - --- T I r 6 tt7 It ' WIT ' i I► I. .ramit. Iry 1;3f:,pr' `` zi1 �'� alit !L.::: , 1 le 1 : : = ___t it ' - ... `.... • • 1., -..,,% • JI l •• ,\ . ` — go . 11111' II \' I F111 1 , O <r - ! ! Z HI - ghsseerril Lis‘‘ . is II I Ii ,-------- glilliiiiii, I \v'.. .--- rigAt.• i / t x uteit 1116 r' ...------ i�ia i N t\ ii NV/ 1°''' 1 :------- ---WilirlIFIC c\ 1 \qv/4.$ ir&-... 11441.1-I"— . r --1 1 I ' V „,,, .* I ; "dr • Vg. -, ` � I r op , Ir.* \ ,..\\ _. M IIII I ‘\ \ I; 0 I Ate \ li •ss, g ti II I------ . ___ ----------s. z�— ri. - • fr trill so z m m 5 I O I Ft i• 1$- mo a = J I•1l( $ISCIIgiii m i iv =itr Eir rn z MCI • r__ n w 1 2 : : (ten as tat o !11 _ — I I ii ; i . . • Feet ' CZ ' n ` • • ' VT N Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 11 Krauss: Sure . We ' ll acknowledge that . Emmings: If the neighbors don't have a problem with it on either side , if they would . If they don 't come in and complain , that 's great . Even better if they sign something that says they don't have any complaints . Ahrens: The City may want a contact number and call them . Emmings: That 's real persuasive to us . Lauren Huntington: Okay . So it 's okay to go ahead and put one in and then take it out if it . Emmings : Talk to him about that . Ahrens: Arrange that with Paul or Sharmin . Emmings : It 'd get something in writing too you know from him . _ Krauss: Well this being government , I 'm going on vacation tomorrow morning . I 'll have her take care of it . Lauren Huntington: Okay, so we can go or do I need to stay? Aanenson: Yeah , that 's fine . Lauren Huntington: Okay . My name 's on that paper . Aanenson: Yep , we 'll call you in the morning . Ahrens: Anybody else who's here for the Minnewashta Homeowners , is it the Homeowners Association? Aanenson: Heights . Ahrens : We 're not discussing it . Okay , staff report on the Oak Hills . PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT REVIEW OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 3 ( 16 UNITS EACH RENTAL) BUILDINGS. 9 (8 UNIT OWNER OCCUPIED) BUILDINGS AND A CLUBHOUSE/OFFICE ON 25.29 ACRES AND REZONING OF PROPERTY ZONED R-12. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD AND LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS pOULEVARD . OAK PONDS/OAK HILL . LOTUS REALTY/OAKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Arvid Ellness Arvid Ellness Architects Kirk Willette Arvid Ellness Architects Mike & Mary Henke 7560 Canyon Curve Randy Swatfager 7511 Canyon Curve Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 12 Name Address — Mark Schallock 7501 Canyon Curve Joe Perttu 790 Santa Vera Drive — Greg & Cindy Hromatka 7580 Canyon Curve Randy & Michelle Erickson 7491 Canyon Curve Gregg & Shelly Geske 7530 Canyon Curve _ Karen Bramow 7490 Canyon Curve Dave & Jane Callister 7540 Canyon Curve Jack Thien 7570 Canyon Curve Christy Kuckler 7550 Canyon Curve —' Tim & Mary Anderson 7550 Canyon Curve Bob & K . Dianne Bohara 7510 Canyon Curve Doug Kunin Temple of Eck — Michael Lindelien 7610 Canyon Curve James A . Russ 7521 Canyon Curve Terry Wooymeerten 7461 Canyon Curve Lynn Lord 7531 Canyon Curve John Linforth 7471 Canyon Curve Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Ahrens: Okay , thanks Kate . Before we get started , maybe you could explain_ to the folks here the stage we 're at in the review of this proposal . Tonight we are reviewing the , what we call the conceptual site plan . Maybe you could explain how that fits into the review of this whole development . The stage we 're at . — Krauss: If I could possibly respond to that . As a PUD , it goes through three steps . There 's the concept plan , a preliminary plat , a final — development stage . The concept plan basically says , this is as far as it 's been taken now . Give us the issues to work with and we raised a lot of issues . We expect the neighbors to raise some and you to raise some and _ the City Council . They 're then asked to go back and refine those . issues . Come through with a formal public hearing on that and then come through with the final development stage . This is more of a fact finding process I suppose at this point . As I say , we 've raised a number of questions in our— staff report . We think that these things are normal and can generally be addressed but we pointed the direction for things that need to be resolved. So this is an informal point in the process . — Ahrens: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the staff before we get going? No . Would the applicant like to address the Commission at this point? — Brad Johnson: Madam Chairman , members of the Planning Commission . My name is Brad Johnson . I live at 7425 Frontier Trail . I represent Lotus Realty — Services who is the managing partner of this particular project . I have with me two representatives of Arvid Ellness Architects who will be speaking as part of my presentation. One of the reasons I wanted to be involved in this project was that I , when we did Market Square I was the one after this one and so I was going home around 4:00 every morning if you Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 13 recall when this was going through the first time around . And I sat through and listened to all the things that I perceived just done wrong as part of the project . I do run through that area in the mornings and I 've gotten to know the land fairly well and so the issues that I perceive that we , as developers of this particular site had to address , first of all is the past . And then secondly was the things that are probably priority . One is , when this went through originally there was no neighborhood to look at it . We now have a neighborhood . The homes have been built up on the north side but previously they were not there . So we had to deal with that issue and try to conceal as much as we could the project itself . Thus we went to a smaller builder than originally planned. We were concerned about the TH 5 corridor because I sit through those meetings also and I think you guys just went through one and we know that this particular stand of oak trees is important to that particular corridor . As to what the project will ultimately look like from the TH 5 when the whole thing is built and that type of thing . We were concerned about the trees and trying to preserve as many trees as we could and by using the unit style that we have and the mix that we have , I think we 've done that and then in addition to that , we added a park like type of thing in the middle of the project to save the stand that happens to be in the middle . And so it worked out quite nice as far as the project is concerned . As far as grading is concerned , we had a number of proposals which would have just about leveled the whole site . We now have buildings that we can move up and down and use as walkouts and so basically we don 't perceive that we 'll have to do an extreme amount of grading on the site . There was a concern that we 're just going to have to carry it all the way and put it down Charlie James' and over to Mr . Burdick 's site but I don't think we have to do that . So those are the 4 things that we have been trying to be sensitive to and try to meet the particular needs of the neighborhood , the TH 5 corridor , preserving the trees and providing minimum amount of grading and we 've worked with the staff . To that we 've also introduced a couple of new types of rental units that are not currently being built here but built largely on the East Coast that take care of that type of site . I 'd like then to introduce Arvid Ellness from Arvid Ellness Associates . We've brought aboard a firm that 's done 15 ,000 housing units and we perceive they know and are sensitive to both neighborhood and community needs as well as planning and so Arvid will come up. Introduce part of the project from his point of view and then also Kirk Willette who is the project manager for this will address some of the concerns that we 've heard already from the neighbors . As we say , as we pick these concerns up , we 're trying to make the changes that are necessary to make it a good project for everybody . Thank you . Arvid . Arvid Ellness: Okay , we will introduce some new information. Some new sketches . Two new perspectives of the for sale unit and a conceptual sketch for the rental unit as well as a site plan that has been revised to reflect some of the comments of the staff . Brad , in asking me to speak tonight , hoped that I would mention some of my experiences with Chanhassen . We were the architects of the conceptual development of downtown. In the years past here we did the Park Square building and the Heritage Apartments there and also the professional building , but not the intersection in front of it . The other projects that we 've done throughout the city and other communities have been of all varieties and certainly we 're familiar with this building type . All Trammel Crow residential communities and the Gates Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 14 at Carlson Park and Chasewood and Devonshire as well as many other communities . We 're working in about a dozen , 15 communities today . Our — work is housing and so we 'd like to invite the input of not only the Planning Commission but the residents and for reasons that we 're at that conceptual stage . Now I 'm going to, if I understand the technology of this_ room , I 'll put these two sketches up here . If the camera can find those and focus in on them we 'll give you a little better indication if you watch the monitor . Otherwise I can sort of turn them around too . The idea on the for sale unit is that this is a model that 's basically been a very popular one through the whole metro area . It's sold real well . It 's patterned after developments that I 've seen in Roseville and many communities and something even somewhat similar down TH 5 here east of Chanhassen . It 's a for sale unit that seems to fit the best on flat site which gaves us a great deal of difficulty when we tried to consider the possibility of placing on the embankment side of the site . It seems to blend and fit very comfortably on the high end of the site where the topography is relatively even and offers an end view of the highway corridor to the south . They 're relatively attractive from the highway side or the end view and that particular rendering is much more developed and — more of a fix in the minds of the developer at this point as to what the product will be . The one that we 're working with as architects and in order to design to fit the topography and to fit this particular site is _ the rental units and that particular perspective is less developed at this point but it does reflect an idea that we 're trying to do a unit type in which the , where we can park and keep all the cars on the protected side or internal side of the site and to do what we can do is essentially a split — building where there 's a walkout on the downhill side and an approach from the uphill side . Then conceal all the parking within the internal areas of the site . And when we use that type of a unit , which is actually a smaller— mass than the for sale unit , we 're able to sort of snake it through the site taking into account that there 's ravines and existing trees and blend it and coordinate it into the site topography much easier and we think very_ successfully . With the standing trees that exist along the embankment there , we think that that will not only provide a certain amount of shielding to the existing neighborhood but also allow the community to sort of co-exist you might say with the surrounding area . The wetlands that — you 've shown up there are primarily on the property of the developer . Caution and care will be taken to preserve those and work with those as appropriate . The community center is central to the whole community and we_ hope it will be used not only by the rental community but by the for sale buyers as well . The materials that we 've talked about using on the building will be year round permanent materials . We 've talked about different types of siding from vinyl to metal siding and most of the units — in fact , probably all of the units have balconies overlooking the ravine for what is visible through the trees . The revisions to the plan which we 'll bring up next , most the work in accommodating the comments that we 've— heard so far have been coordinated on this plan that we 're now going to present and Kirk Willette from my office has been working in detail . And they include such things as the alignment of the road and the reduction of _ the mass of some of the buildings into smaller components as well as actually eliminating 8 of the units that we have shown previously to the staff in order to accommodate the required parking that was brought up in that report . So we 're in the process of evolving this development and this- - — Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 15 plan and we 're trying to take into account the sensitivity that we understand to date . So with that I 'll bring Kirk up . Ahrens: Which one did you eliminate? Arvid Ellness: We eliminated that upper building . If you could point to it on the overhead , and the new site plan will address it . Yes , that one . We didn 't eliminate it . We actually made it two small buildings . I 'll just let Kirk make that adjustment and explanation . Ahrens: This is your new site plan? Kirk Willette: This is the new site plan , yes . After having some discussion with the staff and then taking the report and understanding some of the comments that the neighbors have from the site , we started working with the site and with the individual buildings . The first comment that we had heard about , in speaking with staff was the concern about we have two large buildings . One here and one sitting here . Each 16 units and so we broke those down to 8 unit buildings here and curving around with the trees and topography and then a 12 unit building here . The other thing that that did , that changed the building that sat over here between how this pushed the parking and how the buildings were reconfigured and also the amount of parking that we , our original parking was 2 to 1 and after our staff meeting , we found that we needed additional guest parking . And so that added approximately 40 cars that we needed to provide . So on all , between the parking and reconfiguring this part of the site , we went from 168 units to 160 units of rental . Ahrens: So you just have , it looks like just one building left with 16 units in it? Kirk Willette: We have one 16 unit building and that 's back on this side . The other comments that we 've looked at , we did show a trail along Powers on this side . The recommendation was a 60 foot easement instead of 50 feet with the sidewalk on both sides and we can accommodate that along the dedicated street . We 're maintaining all of this area the plan is , the natural curve of the topography and the trees on the south side of the trees , is to maintain that tree line and not do anything north of that tree line other than this trail . So that's the whole idea of how the whole site design was originally laid out. Was to keep the tree line and to follow the natural grades on the site . I think that's it . Ahrens: Okay , do you want to turn that around so people can see it . Kirk Willette : Oh , I 'm sorry . We realigned this road from that original plan so that it . . . Resident: Did you say there was only one 16 unit building? . . .there 's still one way up in the corner like two 16 unit buildings . . . Right there . Kirk Willette: Those are 12 unit buildings . Ahrens: The only 16 unit building is the one, he 's pointing to it right now . The other ones are 12 units . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 16 Kirk Willette : There 's one comment , the 40 foot height that was mentioned. That is the very peak of the roof . The building on the back side would _ actually be the same as a 3 story house with a walkout . So the height on the back is no different than a two story building . Or two story house that has a walkout . Ahrens: Would anyone else like to address? Brad Johnson: Perhaps you might point out how far the buildings are from _ the houses to the north . Kirk Willette: From the lot line to any point , this is the nearest point . This is 200 feet from the property line to this point here . Resident: But how close are your buildings actually to the tree line itself? How tight are you bunching yourself into the trees? — Kirk Willette: We 're not going beyond the drip line of the trees . That 's what this represents is the drip line of the trees . So we 're staying outside of that drip line . Resident : By how far is what I 'm asking . Kirk Willette: In some cases in here , we would be up to the drip line . IT here we would be up to the drip line . These are pulled back slightly . Resident : And you can do your grading and everything like that without taking out any of those trees or damaging those trees? Kirk Willette: As long as we stay outside of that drip line . Resident : What 's the drip line? Kirk Willette: That 's how far the trees extend out . Resident : So you 're saying an oak tree of that age , it 's roots would not go out beyond where the drip line is? Kirk Willette: Generally yes . Resident: Generally or they will? Kirk Willette : That 's what landscape architects and landscape designers go— by is the drip line . They stay outside of the drip line. Resident : Because I would think trees of that age would have a root system rooting out , especially having. . . — Ahrens : Do you want to, we'll ask for questions . We 'll open this up for a public hearing and if the applicant doesn't have any more presentation. Dc— you have any further presentation to make? ( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . ) _ Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 17 Randy Swatfager : . . .an apartment that 's got a rental sign up already . Do we need it? That 's the whole thing . And before I get into more questions , we should address that . Ahrens: Okay . I can't answer that . I don't know what the rental market is right now in Chanhassen . Brad Johnson: Right now the rental market is zero vacancy. . . Right now a normal city has about 20% to 25% of their units rented . Randy Swatfager : The units right next to yours have a rental sign that 's been up there for months . Brad Johnson: We have a sign up there at all times . In general . . . Randy Swatfager : But is the other one full? The one you 're going to be building next to? Brad Johnson couldn't be heard from the back of the room . Randy Swatfager : So you 're going to draw a population , is not going to be drawn from the Chanhassen population . It 's going to be drawn from the outside to fill these units then? Brad Johnson: Yes . Ahrens: Okay , anybody else? Tim Anderson: Hi , my name is Tim Anderson . I also live in the Saddlebrook subdivision . The farthest west pond or the end to the north of this project . I have some concerns on the layout of the project . I still , as I understand in proper land use planning is that you go from the most dense development into gradually going into a more less dense development . Downtown , 78th Street 's going to be , is commercially zoned. I 've believe the next step would be apartments , then a townhouse type units then the R-4 or the single family residential of Saddlebrook . This development does not follow that . It seems like for the convenience of the developer , . they 're saying well , we 'll put these units , the townhouse type units are easier to put in on the south end . It makes more sense to me for them to possibly do some redesign on the owner occupied units and put them on the north end . I 'd feel more comfortable with non-rental property abutting by property . There 's some pride in ownership . I lived in an apartment for a long time . I 'm not against apartments in general but I don't like them abutting single family residences . As a definition of a PUD, one of the things that a PUD 's supposed to address is a sensitive transitional areas . I think this project does not address that very well . My second point is the trail on the north side of the development adjacent to the wetland areas . If you ask the developer or if you have ever walked along or looked at those oak trees , basically the slope of it , those two ponds are artificial ponds . They were developed by constructing berms across a previous wetland and the water rose and meets a slope that 's from 20% to 30% and if they 're going to put an 8 foot trail on there , it 's going to cause a cut into the slope and also construction of the retaining walls to stabilize the slopes . There are oak trees probably within 20 feet of the pond and if they're planning Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 1992 - Page 18 to put those paths between the oak trees and the pond , I think the oak trees are going to lose from what I 've seen of construction around oak _ trees and other places . So I 'll put it on the record that I 'm against the trail . And I don 't believe it provides any service to the community because there will be two east/west connections between Kerber and Powers Boulevard . One being Saddlebrook Curve which has a sidewalk and second is — the street that 's being constructed as part of this project which, as Kate was saying , will have two 6 foot sidewalks on each side of the road which will provide a transportation corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians between the two boulevards . The second item I 'd like to , or third item I 'c like to address is the storm water management of this area . I 'd request it as a condition that the developer and/or the city develop a comprehensive storm water plan for this drainage area . There really is , as I understand ` there has not been a plan done for this . There was a small plan included in your packet and in the staff report but it was non-conclusive . It really didn 't say anything . And since they 're going to drain 40% of this — project into those two ponds , I think that some reconstruction of , let me back up . First of all the two ponds , as I understand it were designed only for the Saddlebrook development . I 've lived in my house for 2 years and the farthest east pond has had the outlot wash out twice in 2 years . The pond I live on , which is part of the west pond , the outlet has plugged 2 or 3 times and has overtopped the berm . So I think this shows that those ponds need first of all some type of more high quality outlet structures tc— them and I 'd like to see that done before any more water is put in those ponds . And second of all , I do not wish for those ponds to be enlarged in any way , either by raising the berms or by excavation . There 's no room for_ excavation . If and when the person does plan to go out there so some careful studies are going to have to be required in this area . Also in storm water drainage . I would like to see any outfalls , storm water outfalls conveyed in storm sewer all the way to the ponds or wetlands . To the normal levels so that no erosion occurs along the slope . And also adequate energy disipation in these storm sewers are in place to mitigate any type of erosion that could occur in the ponds . Any. . .suspension of — sediment . Because that slope is very steep where those oak trees are . It 's at 20% , maybe 30% at some points and the slopes should be preserved by proper management and a lot of thought should be put into it before _ approval is made of this project on this storm water for this site . That 's all I have to say . Ahrens: Thanks . You brought up some good issues . Do you want to address — any of those storm water concerns he had? Krauss: They echo concerns that we 've raised with the applicant . We don 't— ask to have all the is dotted and is crossed at this point . We will ask when they ask for any formal approval to do that . Chanhassen we think has a pretty good reputation in the Twin Cities for first of all being one of the first communities to protect wetlands . We were doing it 8 years before the rest of the State was . And secondly , we've adopted water quality protection standards that nobody , well Eagan has but virtually nobody else has to date either which we make the development conform to . We 've got — similar concerns with the flood balance on those things . There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room . They have to engineer the system . We do not allow overland discharge on sites . . . We haven't done that in my memory_ andwe certainly wouldn 't do it on a hill like that . Plus , when we have Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 19 pipe discharges over a hill like that , we 'll make sure that the pipe is sized in such a way that they don 't take out a corridor of trees to do it which is the other part of . . . So while we have raised all these questions to the applicant , they 're aware of the concerns . We don 't have any questions yet . I mean we 're pretty confident they can be handled . The City . . .requires mandates that you deal with your water quality and water storage issues on the site . So they have that obligation . Tim Anderson: And . . .trail itself and an 8 foot trail can be wide . . . Krauss: That is true . I mean we don't want to sound like we punt on some issues but recreational aspects of the project are really sort of under their purview and they are going to discuss that . Ahrens: They haven 't looked at this proposal yet? Krauss: No . And a lot of trails that they 've been putting in are not necessarily asphalt trails . . . They 're valid concerns certainly and they 're certainly going to be considered by the Park Board and we 'd encourage you to . . . Ahrens: Anyone else like to come up to the podium? Joe Perttu : Hello . My name is Joe Perttu and I live across from the development here on Santa Vera and Kerber at 790 and I 'm concerned about the road that goes from Powers Blvd . over to Kerber and then straight back to , I believe it 's Laredo . I believe that this is a convenient way for people to cut across . Ahrens: Which road are you talking about? Joe Perttu : There's a road that goes . Aanenson: Santa Vera would be this street . Joe Perttu: Yeah , this would be Santa Vera . It goes to Santa Vera and then you can take Santa Vera back to Laredo . Krauss: The north end of the city . . . Joe Perttu: Right . Right . I 'm concerned about the ease of access. While the amount of transportation that can get , conveniently get through this development and then past my house . I 'd like that to be taken into consideration and rerouting that road so that it does not come up to Santa Vera because I 'm concerned about the traffic and ease of getting from Powers Blvd . over to Kerber and then back into the Chanhassen development via Santa Vera . Emmings: What would you propose? Joe Perttu : The initial plan talked about putting the road I think down by that 12 unit development . Yeah right there . Emmings: Okay . You 'd prefer that option? Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 20 Joe Perttu : I would prefer that option . If not , ,some serious speed bumps or something like that so that people can 't be racing through there . Farmakes: If they were going past your place , where would they be going to? Joe Perttu: There 's the , you can take Santa Vera back into Laredo and then from Laredo you can get back to anywhere in Chanhassen and back of Lotus Lake . _ Farmakes: So you 're saying that 's a shortcut to TH 101 or what? Joe Perttu: Well I 'm saying that there 's plenty of people that live back — there and I 'm saying that if they drive this way , they can conveniently pass through this area and back into the back of Chanhassen by and back of Lotus Lake . Farmakes: So are you saying that the people from the development would be driving towards Lotus Lake or people living around Lotus Lake would be _ driving away from Lotus Lake past your place? Joe Perttu : Both . Ahrens : Well this side is likely to develop some way or another and it 's highly likely that they 'll have increased traffic one way or another by your house . _ Joe Perttu : Well not if they place the road where they 're intending to right now . Ahrens : But that would impact those oak trees there right? If they put the road down there . Krauss: Yeah . There are some sort of signature oak trees there that , you know maybe there 's a way around it . One of the things that we 've been looking at on this project . Frankly , this is something that didn 't come to_ mind when we were . . .but we were going to ask the applicant to check in to have the city 's traffic consultant do some detailed design and traffic analysis on the Powers Blvd . curb cut . They 're familiar with the traffic flow in and around Chanhassen and I think they could probably tell us if _ they feel it 's a concern that 's valid or not . What they do is do an analysis of what 's the quickest way to get . . .would short circuit the neighborhood . _ Joe Perttu: Well , rather than going down CR 17 or Powers Blvd. and then , or going around it , I think going back into the downtown and then taking _ Kerber Blvd . back where the intended traffic flow is supposed to be , I think somebody could make a convenient short cut right across this development . Right up Santa Vera and into Laredo. And if I 'm not mistaken , there 's paths back on Santa Vera that go directly to the school . — It 's an intended walkway for kids back to the school and it 's going to increase traffic in that area and I think it should be taken into consideration . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 21 Ahrens: Okay , thank you . Anyone else like to address the Commission at this time? Dave Callister : My name is Dave Callister and I live at 7540 Canyon Curve . I 've got a number of comments and a few questions or clarifications on this particular proposal . The main issue , and a lot of these have been brought forward but I 'd like to emphasize these again . The concern with the height of the proposal and I guess I want to clarify . In the staff report it says — 30 . It says the top or the peak was 40 so what is the real height of that? Aanenson: From the average rate it 'd be 35 feet . That would be the high and the low end . Krauss: If I could clarify that . City ordinance defines building height different than the peak . It 's kind of the mid point on the roof but I — think the architect 's indication that from the back it 's no different than a two story walkout house . Dave Callister : But what we have to look at is 40 feet high? At the highest part . Krauss: Which you 'd look at with a single . Dave Callister : Which is what the neighborhood would look at? Okay . Obviously screening is going to be something that , as we go along in the '- process , that 's going to be a concern to many of us . Screening with regards to the buildings and screening with regards to lighting , car lights , parking lots , that sort of thing . I think those things will have to be addressed on this particular proposal . Ahrens : That 's in our packet . The city 's concerned about that also . Dave Callister : Also , I want to clear up some , maybe some misconception or something on the part of some of these drawings here . I don 't know if you can get a good picture . If you take a look at this drawing . There 's a substantial stand of oak trees that is located in green right here . I don 't think it 's accurately reflected on this map . I 've taken a snap shot right out my back yard and as you 'll see , there 's not a substantial stand of trees there . So that . . .concern and I guess I 'd like to see that updated . Farmakes: Where would that be on the map? Dave Callister : That would be , my back yard is right here . So it 'd be going this way . Ahrens: I guess I don't understand . You're saying that they 're showing too many trees? Dave Callister : Well they 're showing a solid block of trees and what I 'm saying is , they 're not solid black . Ahrens: So this goes back to your concern about screening? Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 22 Dave Callister : Screening . Adequate screening in that particular area anc that should be reflected in the plan . Ahrens: Okay . We can't see you anymore . Dave Callister : The other one , I just had a question and I know the topography is awful steep on the south side of the site . Has there been any investigation about accessing 78th Street? Krauss: Not specifically with this plan . From time to time that 's been -- looked at . There 's a pretty substantial grade change coming down there . We 're also looking at a commercial site . I mean 78th Street is essentially downtown out to Powers Blvd . and the similar concern that you have with , you know or that people have with multi-family traffic or high density traffic coming through a single family neighborhood . We also share the concern of having commercial traffic coming through this neighborhood and we 're concerned that if we did that , that would be the results . There 's also not a real good place to drop down on 78th Street . All that land is privately owned and there 's no way . Dave Callister : So as of now that does not look like that 's feasible? Krauss : No . We don 't even think so . We looked at it about a year ago . Dave Callister : Okay . Another concern would be the possibility, the project is phased over 4 years and I think a concern of myself as well as other residents in that area is 4 straight years of construction . I know r- hear from my house right now I hear the grocery story and shopping center . I hear the construction equipment from there and that 's quite a ways away . So I guess that would be a concern too and I don 't know what can be done to..._ mitigate the dust or the noise but I think that that has to be taken into consideration as well . Ahrens: Paul , did you want to address that? Krauss: Well yeah . It is a valid concern. I don 't think you can do a whole lot about the beeping of the trucks as they back up but we could do — things to respond to that in terms of establishing hours of operation that they can work . We could require that they install a little landscaping in the first phase so it is started growing before that phase is built . And _ as far as dust control goes , we can certainly put conditions in there . Require watering of the site and whatever else to keep that . . . Dave Callister : I guess I would be in favor of getting the landscaping in — immediately so that could be taken care of . The last concern I have here and it 's been touched on a little bit but I 'd like to touch on it a little bit more . It 's the walking path that leads nowhere . We 've got sidewalks , — two sidewalks on the new road . We 've got , as mentioned before, Saddlebrook Curve that goes across there . We're going to have a walking path on the east side of Powers Blvd. which I have no problem with. I do think trails are important but just like everything else, I think they need to be done in moderation . I think that you can 't cross every wetland or every wildlife area with a path because you 're placing an impervious surface there . You 're relocating wildlife because there 's definitely going to be a— Planning Commission Meeting — July 15 , 1992 - Page 23 lot of traffic , foot , bike , everything going through there and you 're going to displace a lot of wildlife and it 's just not , I don 't believe we should have paths put everywhere . I think as referring to , I think it 's page 6 of the staff memo , under landscaping and tree preservation. The second paragraph beginning with the northern portion . It says the northern portion of the site which includes the storm water ponds and the wetlands should be left in it 's natural state . I agree 100% with that comment . In addition , on page 8 , under planned unit developments are to encourage the following . Preservation of desireable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes , mature trees , creeks , wetlands , lakes , and scenic views. I would like to see that the development is looked at in those particular areas . Farmakes: Can I ask a question? Dave Callister : Sure . Farmakes: Do you own the property that 's adjacent to the pond area or the slope area? Dave Callister : Right . Farmakes: Were you aware when you purchased the home of what the opposing property was zoned? Dave Callister : Yes . Ahrens: Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Greg Hrometka : My name is Greg Hrometka . I live at 7580 Canyon Curve . It would be the lot at the very top of the proposal there . Not touching the pond but right adjacent with the area . We bump into Kerber as well as Saddlebrook . Or Canyon Curve . What I 'd like to understand is just the clarification, this natural . What's the definition of a park? Does that have to be developed with swings or just a natural area? Is that also a park consideration? Aanenson: I 'm not sure what you 're asking . Greg Hrometka: What is the definition of a parkland? Ahrens: I think what he 's asking is when we identify, and correct me if I 'm wrong . We identified the property as parkland, do we automatically see that as a developed , ballpark? Aanenson: No . We saw that on Stone Creek . We did a subdivision just recently where we left it natural . There's a bluff area and passive . Greg Hrometka : Okay . That brings me back then to something I heard in the issue before this . This gentleman over here talked about the truth . I know when we purchased , we had the understanding that there was land purchased directly to the south of us which involves the trees , the bluff , and that area there that was in the process• or was going to be designated as parkland . Land was purchased for the purpose of being park and park as Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 24 I see as a natural habitat . Can be now . So I just want to know that people all bought in this area with that truth being known . That I assume _ most people did you know that this land to our south was for that . The other thing would be then , and related to that too is the need then of this volume of space and buildings . I guess Mr . Johnson 's figures for the occupancy of rental space needed , I don 't see , I would like to see the — need, if it could be scaled down to still incorporate the truth of having this parkland that was here . There 's an area that 's on the board, the triangle space . . .that encompasses right here you know . That 's the main _ area of my concern solely all the way through . You know . I mean do they need to put more rental units in that area or they could scale it down . There 's all the factors with the congestion for schools , etc.. that you 've heard and are going to hear . That 's the issue thing. And on an — emotionally charged thing , we received last week notification from the Lotus Realty that stated the number of units and a map of the area involved . Without being too pointed , I think there 's, this form that you — all had . This area , this triangle is not addressed at all . Three 16 units . Nine 8 unit owner occupied . This just seems like total deception I think in a way of swaying or disswaying the public to showing up and _ expressing their concerns . That 's all . Do you understand? Resident : I think what he 's trying to say , the realty company did not . . . Aanenson : The staff put that notice out so he had nothing to do with that . The Planning Department secretary put that out and it was an error . Resident : It doesn 't matter who put it out right? I mean that 's just a message that . . . Greg Hrometka : I think if it were more clear , you 'd have more people here — voicing their disapproval . Resident : It only shows half the units . . . — Aanenson: It gives the total unit count doesn 't it? Greg Hrometka : No . Resident : Three 16 units . That 's 48 . 9 x 8 , that 's 72. 48 and 72 . Resident : Plus , it . . .third of the property too . Emmings: Well , there will be another public hearing . _ Aanenson : Yes , there will . Krauss: Certainly this is , again. This is not the official public hearing . There 's another notice that goes out when that happens . We also require posting of signs on the property . There 's also notices in the newspaper . We also mail notice to everybody within 500 feet . Obviously — it 's not a perfect system and it needs to be refined but we do our best to notify everybody of everything that 's going on . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 25 Ahrens: This isn 't the last time we 'll see it either . This is , this plan is going to change 100 times before it 's finalized I 'm sure . Those of you concerned with the trails and the parks , I suggest that you attend the Park and Rec Commission meetings when they review this proposal . They haven 't looked at any of this yet . Resident : Will there be a mailer on that? Ahrens: I don't know . Paul , will there be a mailing on the Park and Rec Commission? Aanenson: I can tell you the date right now . It 's July 28th. Ahrens : July 28th . Krauss: Actually , I think they . . .doing that about a year ago. When is that? Aanenson: July 28th . Resident : Can we request a mailing on that? Aanenson: Certainly . Ahrens : It 's also in the Villager . Resident : Yeah but the Villager . . . Krauss : Yeah , we ' ll get the notice out . Mike Henke: My name is Mike Henke . I live down on Canyon Curve also . The gentleman on the end , when he asked if were we aware what that was zoned on the other side of this? I believe yes , we all were but I believe we were all told the wetlands and the hillside would stay as they were with nothing ever happening to them . The only construction that would ever take place is on the other side of these trees . . . Farmakes: When you 're referring , we were told . Are you talking about the developer? The realty agent who was selling . Mike Henke: My realtor . . . Farmakes : The City? So you came in and talked to the City . ( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . ) Ahrens : As Steve 's pointing out, there 's no development except for the possibility of a trail on the other side of the oak trees. Farmakes : So you 're referring to the trail itself? Ahrens : Alright . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Otherwise we 'll close the public hearing . Planning Commission Meeting _ July 15 , 1992 - Page 26 Christy Kuckler : I 'd like to read my letter . Ahrens: I think we have your letter . Are you . — Christy Kuckler : Christy Kuckler . Dear Kate Aanenson . My name is Christy Kuckler . I 'm 9 years old and I am writing to you because I am worried — about where you 're going to put the apartments . I live right next to the Oak Hill Ponds . We see deer almost every night and we think they live in the prickley ash bush . There is a doe and a fawn . If you put the apartments there , they will die because you might cut down the food they eat and that might be the last of the food . I do not like where you are going to put them because I don 't like other kids on my property unless I know them and I am with them and I think I speak for my neighbors too . Do — you know that old farm? Why can 't you knock it down and put the apartmentE there because there is plenty of room for them to build there . If you were a fawn , I don 't think you would like it if some big giant came and picked — up your house and moved it 3 miles away from where you lived so that he could live there and put in a store . Sincerely , Christy Kuckler . Ahrens : Christy . This is a great letter and you did something very — important tonight by coming here and telling us all about your concerns . Thank you . Jack Thien: Hi . My name is Jack Thien and I live at 7570 Canyon Curve . One of the things I wanted to bring up was that prior to my wife and I purchasing the land that we now own , we asked around and I did not go to _ the City itself to ask what was going to be done behind there but I was told by a couple realtors , one of which is my friend , that it was designated as parkland area and that there would not be any building up there on that hill , particularly where that wedge is here . — Ahrens: Can I stop you just a second? Jack Thien: Yeah . Ahrens: I don 't think there is going to be any development on that hill . Jack Thien : There isn 't? Residents: Three buildings . — Ahrens: Okay . I thought you meant on the north of the oaks . Resident: No . There 's 5 buildings in this triangle section. Jack Thien : Yeah . And my land or my house faces directly in that direction and I 'll have , actually out of my deck I 'll be staring at two — large buildings that will be facing there and there will not be any large oak trees to screen those two large buildings . Another thing I could probably bring up right now too is that when I first got this notice , — perhaps not unlike some of the other people here , looking at this where it says Chanhassen Park , it is difficult to see that there 's a little arrow there that points to the park across Kerber . And when I read three 16 unit_ rental buildings and nine 8 unit owner occupied, I thought well you know Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 27 it 's not any real big deal . I already had plans for another meeting tonight somewhere else but when we got to talking to some of the other neighbors and some of the agenda that was to follow , I think it is a big deal . That 's why I 'm here tonight . I don't know if anybody here can address some of these questions I might have but on page 3 , second paragraph where it starts . The second major deviation comes in the area of park dedication . The original Cenvesco proposal did not incorporate public park dedication . However , during the course of the review , the Park and Recreation Commission ultimately determined that park dedication would be appropriate and additional land was acquired for that particular purpose . And it goes on to say that it covers approximately 3 acres located in the northern edge of the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill project area . A little further down it says , in lieu of this the City would be perhaps accepting a cash dedication as opposed to that parkland . I personally am opposed to that . I don 't know how other people feel about that in here but I think in the future , in the next meeting you ' ll probably hear more about that . Aanenson: Can we give some clarification on that issue? Ahrens : Yeah . Could I just also say that , this Commission , we don 't deal with the park dedication . That 's something the Park and Recreation Commission . We 're different unions . Jack Thien: No , I understand that but I 'm saying , that 's my concern is that originally it looked at though this was going to be purchased as park , or was purchased as parkland area and that 's where the assumption that when I , before I moved in here , when I talked to people , that was the assumption — that that was going to be left parkland area and there was not going to be any buildings there . Had I known that , I probably would not be here tonight talking about this or owning that particular piece of property which I paid a great deal of money for . Ahrens : Okay . I think Paul wants to address your concern here . Krauss : Yeah , I think we need to set the record straight . Three years ago there was a series of proposals by a different developer for what was frankly a pretty bad project . That project had apartment buildings with drive under garages . Your typical 3 story apartment building . They had buildings that were much larger than this . The ones being proposed here and it flatten most of the trees on the site . At that time , on that proposal , the City was going to take parkland dedication in the area that you outlined . In fact , we included that in the packet . This project was never approved and we don't typically buy the property . We get it for free on the platting process . We never got it because the project died . But it was a horrendous project that was , yes . It had park but it trashed the site at the same time . This is a different project . It 's at a lower density . It 's providing private recreational facilities in terms of a pool and a totlot and a community building that the other one never even thought of . It 's saving all the oak trees on the site which I think is everybody 's mutual goal . And you know , if the Park Board agrees to it , it 's going to _ pump $150 ,000 .00 into the park fund to develop parks that are used by the neighborhoods . This is , whether or not this park here is ultimately the Park Board 's call but they note that this area is in the service area of 5 city parks . Now the city can always take another park if it so chooses but Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 28 again , it was never approved . We never got the property and it was a horrendous project that it was associated with and I don 't think you would have been any too comfortable with it had that taken place . -" Jack Thien: Well and I also probably would not have purchased the land in that case either because that would have been prior to me . — Krauss: Right . But when your realtor friend told you about the park , he should have also told you that that was the project it was associated with because that was on the drawing board at that time . Jack Thien: Yeah . Well you know, it 's interesting because some of the things I 've had to work with the city about , talking to some of the staff — that I wish I would have gotten a few more things in writing. And there is one question that arises to me now . Perhaps I can ask Kate . I don 't know . I had talked to you yesterday . Called you on the phone about designating — or that particular two ponds being part of the wetlands . Can you address that at this time? Aanenson: It 's a really complicated issue . We do have a storm water management committee and we 're relooking at the way we 've classified wetlands in the past . In the past when we 've required that a retention be built , even though it was not historically a wetland , it may take on wetland characteristics . Therefore , we called it a wetland . I think it 's been brought up in the discussion today . Those ponds were created to hold water . Storm retention ponds . It 's my understanding that we 've treated _ those as wetlands and told people they have to maintain that 75 foot setback and I think I told you that we 're in the process of relooking at how we classify wetlands . We 're rewriting our whole wetland ordinance . And as far as what we call ponds , we may treat differently than what we classify as wetlands and that kind of plays into that . Jack Thien: Okay , so right now it is or isn 't a wetlands? Krauss : Right now they are . Ahrens: You mean tonight? Krauss: Actually , I mean this is the same situation as it is in Curry Farms . What you had there is you have an area that is legitimately a wetland and undoubtedly would be qualified as a wetland under the new City ordinance and under State law . Then you have these two ponds which were constructed in the low areas but they were constructed with a specific purpose of ponding storm water . The fact of the matter is , you pond storm water long enough , cattails grow up and you can interpret that as being a wetland and that's what the City Council did at that time . Our staff opinion , because that 's all it is right now and the opinion of the committee that 's working on the ordinance , is that puts a pretty severe hit on the property owners in terms of setback requirements and probably is not appropriate . But that is what we 're looking at putting through in the new — ordinance which has not been adopted yet . So right now, yes . It is still defined as a wetland . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 29 Aanenson: And the reason is , probably for the same reason you maybe have called the City is the people that build next to storm retention ponds have the problem with the 75 foot setback . When they go to put a deck on or those sort of issues . And some of you may have had that experience so that 's why we 're trying to separate ponds from wetlands . So people that do want to put decks on or swimming pool aren 't faced with that burden of maintaining the 75 foot setback . Jack Thien: Okay . Resident: So it all just depends . . .when you decide to buy land . . . Krauss : This is an ordinance that 's been in place for 8 years and it hasn 't changed during that time . Emmings: But he 's right . Definitions of things do change and have changed and they change pretty dynamically here because we 're a rapidly growing community . But you 're right . Things not only change from day to day but they go back and forth . I 've been here long enough to have seen things go , be called something this year . Something else next year and go back to this a year later . It 's very dynamic . It may not make sense but that 's the way it 's going . Resident : And you can justify that? Emmings: I don 't have to justify that . I 'm telling you that 's what it is . We do the best job we can at the time and we get more information . We get different problems and we could take a position that gee , we made this decision . Let 's stick with it forever . Or we can say , in light of new information , we 've got to change what we did . It was wrong so we change . Jack Thien: Okay , if I can continue . We had a short meeting last night and some of the concerns that were brought up , one thing was the increased traffic near the school . And if anybody can explain to me what this TIF is that 's in the proposal? Krauss: Well I can do that . TIF is an acronym for Tax Increment Financing . The city has several tax increment financing districts . It 's a tool that communities use to induce , either induce development to occur or get better quality development compared to what we would have gotten otherwise . It allows you to do things like build streets and utilities and absorb some of those costs . The applicant has indicated that he intends to apply to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority . That 's who administers the program for financing support . Underneath that , there have been no discussions or commitments or anything that 's taken place on that score and frankly the HRA hasn 't seen it yet so that 's something that the applicant 's going to have to make a pitch for in front of them. It was used on the other apartment project . It is being used on Market Square . It 's being used in the industrial parks . Jack Thien: Who does that particular , I 'll say help out or benefit? Krauss : Well it does a couple things . First of all it 's predicated, well I could digress a little bit about what it 's supposed to do . If you have a Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 30 site that 's generating $100 .00 in taxes a year and if you put a AMMO development , like development X and it 's going to generate $1 ,000 .00 in taxes a year , you 've got an increment of $900 .00 a year . So the City 's getting more tax revenue off the site . The TIF program , as allowed by the State , lets you take the revenue , sell bonds and do improvements . Now the — improvements are supposed to, well there 's a whole list of things that you can do with it but you can promote employment . You can promote housing diversity . You can take care of hazardous waste . You can build utilities ,_ Those kinds of things . The City has also been using tax increment financing to demand better quality development than we might otherwise be able to get . I mean our City ordinances establish a lot of minimum criteria and the TIF financing allows the city to demand going the extra — mile beyond the ordinance . Again , it 's not in any way a done deal . The HRA doesn 't even know about it yet and we , I mean staff has not talked to them about it . We haven 't had sets of conversation . Ahrens: Just a concept . Krauss: Right . — Jack Thien: Another issue that was brought up last night was , if anyone might want to make a comment on the decrease in the property values because-- of rental units being so close to the Saddlebrook subdivision . Ahrens : I certainly can 't address that tonight and I don 't think anyone can . The County Auditor would have to come in and he wouldn't have an — answer either . Krauss: No , it 's a very , obviously a very emotional subject . I mean I 've seen most of the data that I 've seen says , it doesn 't make any difference in the long run . But you know , it wouldn't be , if this project was built 3 years ago before the homes were built down below , it wouldn 't be an issue . — I 'm not sure how to address it . Resident : No . If this would have been done 3 years ago , that would all be parkland there . We 'd still be looking at natural habitat or parkland. We wouldn 't be looking at apartment buildings . . . Krauss: Well depending , I don't know how the site plan would have laid out` but you would have been looking at a higher density development . Resident: It wouldn 't be on top of the hill . Krauss : It is up on top of the hill . Resident: No. There are 5 buildings . . . Those are the 5 buildings that . . .^ Resident : Paul , I 'd like to invite you to my home to look out of that window so you can see exactly what we will be looking at because it 's — very . . . Krauss: Well we 'd sure take you up on that . I know that Kate and I are both in the neighborhood a lot and sort of walk back there . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 31 Emmings: They like cookies so you 've got to offer them that . Resident: Another thing I was going to mention is that these 40 feet tall structures are going to be put on a hill at a rist of at least 30 or 40 ' feet high so it 's not 30-40 feet . It 's going to be 60 to 80 feet above our property . That 's definitely going to be a wall . Resident : There 's a big difference between a two story walkout home and. . . Ahrens: If you 'd like to address the Commission , come up to the podium and give your name . So she can have it for the record . You have the floor , do you want to continue . Jack Thien : One thing I do want to mention about being so close to the two ponds . I think it was a week and a half or even 2 weeks ago that we had a rather large storm that came through and it rained quite a bit . I just want to kind of reiterate that when that water does come through , it does not only come through like off the street and into the pond . It also comes from the somewhat impervious surfaces . Whether it 's got grass or weeds or whatever might be on there and it filled up that pond in a hurry and it went up above the large outlet pipe . Okay . And in particular it has done that more recently since that one berm that was moved back towards Kerber a little bit closer . There was more water that rushes down through there and there 's a sizeable gully is starting in my backyard already from that . So I hope that you take that into further consideration also . Ahrens : I think Kate and Paul said earlier that that 's something they 're going to be studying . Jack Thien: I don 't know , I 'd like to invite anybody else that has a comment up here . I mean it 's scarey but come on up . Ahrens : We 're not so scarey . Does anyone have anything different or additional or that we haven 't discussed yet tonight? Cindy Hrometka : Hi . My name is Cindy Hrometka . I live at 7580 Canyon Curve . I just have one thing I want to point out . In 1989 there was a proposal on the table and we 've got copies of that too and I know there were a number , a list of major concerns with that proposal and I 'd like to go through a couple of them and kind of address them . The first one was density . In the old proposal there was , it was going to be 200 units at a density of 9 .6 units per acre . The new proposal is 240 units with a density of 11 .5 units per acre . So the density has increased . It has not decreased so that concern is still there . If it was a concern then , I wonder why it 's not now . I think it should be . The next one was impervious surface . The old proposal had an impervious surface , average or whatever , of 35% . The new proposal has an impervious surface of 38% and that 's before you increase the road. Before you add sidewalks . Before you increase the parking so the impervious surface is going to go up more than 38% . So I 'd like to know why , if that was a big concern then and this proposal didn 't go through , it should still be a concern now and I think we should continue to look at it . The other one , the next concern on their list was parkland . And the old proposal did dedicate that 5 acres for parkland . This proposal doesn 't dedicate any parkland . They do have a Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 32 totlot that 's going to be used by the residents but it doesn 't dedicate any other parkland so I 'm concerned about that . Access points off of their lane , that 's all different so I can 't address that . I don 't know if it 's better or worse . Emergency access , I don 't know if that 's better or worse . The landscaping does appear to be better in this proposal but it 's hard to tell because we don 't know what size those trees are they 're going to be putting in . And the oak stand that they 're talking about , I am concerned about how many of those oaks will survive the construction . You know you say the drip line is going to protect them . As long as you 're outside the — drip line but it is a concern that those oak trees will stay there . The old proposal also , if you 'll notice , did keep that whole oak stand . The dark green oak stand that they have been discussing . The old proposal got _ rid of most of the oak trees up on top of the hill . So it lost 11 of the trees that this one 's keeping . This is better obviously but the oak stand remained in that old proposal so it 's not like they were going to come in and get rid of everything and then start from scratch . And the concept plans . These look like nice buildings but I can 't compare the concept plaT to the old one or the new one . My concern is , I don 't think this proposal is that much better and in many cases it 's worse than the old one . The old- one got shot down and there was many comments throughout here that staff didn 't like it and that there 's no reason to give any kind of leeway to the developer because the plan was not good . If that plan wasn 't good , I don 't think this one is either . Ahrens: I think the biggest difference was that the old plan had large apartment buildings of 30 units apiece or something . -- Krauss: Well actually , I can 't read my , it was a 60 or 90 unit building so that was , where you see that big green swath over there , that apartment _ building sat at the bottom of that . Cindy Hrometka : According to the map , I think it showed that the apartment building was going to be up on top and that would come . . . Krauss: No . No . Cindy Hrometka : That 's the one I 'm looking at . The apartment building 's up here and that was . . . the rest of this was townhome . I don 't think the old one was a good plan either and I 'm not advocating that plan except that,_ that plan did stay up on top of the hill and I think for all the residents of Saddlebrook , as long as the development took place on top of the hill , behind the oak trees we would not have as big a concern . But since it 's coming down the hill right into our backyards , it 's a big concern for us and I 'd like to see some of those things addressed because they were problems then . I think they should be now. I would like to go on the record with the tax increment financing . I know it sounds like you guys — don 't address that but I don 't see why we should have to have our real estate taxes paying for land improvements for something that we probably , I don 't think Chanhassen , being the growing community we are , that we need to_ provide tax increment financing to attract people here . Obviously we 're growing and that 's going to happen . That 's something we can probably address with the HRA but I can 't see why we should be giving tax increment financing for this . It looks like , this will provide , bring in 500 more — people is kind of the guidelines that I 've been hearing and what we Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 33 figured . So I am concerned that there 's that many people in such a dense number of people in that small area . Which brings me to a third point here . The school is right across the street from this area and if you have 500 additional people in this small area , you 're going to have a big increase in traffic and I think some other people did address that but that 's going to be a big concern with our kids walking to and from school . There 's going to be a big , busy intersection and there 's going to be a lot more traffic and a lot of kids going to and from school . Everybody in this development I 'm sure will walk to school so we 're going to have a problem with getting across Kerber and across this new intersection that they 're talking about . So I 'm concerned about that and I 'd like to have that on record . That that is , I think will be a problem . I think that 's it . Ahrens: Okay , thank you . Anybody else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Diane Bohara : Hi . My name is Diane Bohara . I live at 7510 Canyon Curve and my husband and I have lived in the area , it will be 3 years this fall and our house was built and lived in prior to us living there . But it was touched on the times for building . The time restrictions . Eckankar is directly behind our house and while it 's a nice area . It 's a very nice building and everything . Nobody knocks on my door . Nobody bothers me now that it 's in . When it was going in , it was a real hassle for us . They would start with bulldozers , earthmovers at 5:00 in the morning and while I didn 't mind that so much during the week , it really bothered me on the weekend and being there was no restrictions , the police could not do anything the couple weekends I called , until I called and harrassed the city . And I don 't want to have to deal with that again . Ahrens : We do have an ordinance that says that the construction has to take place Monday thru Saturday between the hours of 7:00 and 5 :00? Aanenson: I 'm not sure if it 's 6:00 or 7:00 . Ahrens : I 'm living right now across the street from a large construction project and I monitor that very closely . As a matter of fact , this morning there were trucks out there at 6:00 a .m . but that 's something I ' ll take up _ with the city later . But I agree with you but there is an ordinance on our books that does regulate that . Cindy Hrometka: Okay . Well , thank you . Ahrens: Anyone else? Randy Swatfager : I was the first one up so , if you remember me . I think with all the experience of the Planning Director and the vast experience in the back of the room here , addressing this property values should have , I _ mean in your past experience , what has it done to the property values adjoining your developments? Brad Johnson: Property values? Randy Swatfager : Yes . The private homes . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 34 Brad Johnson: Historically it 's remained the same . Randy Swatfager : Historically? I mean just lately or? Brad Johnson : Again , I 'm also a realtor . . .significant decrease in any properties . Randy Swatfager : What 's significant? Brad Johnson: 5% . Randy Swatfager : 5% of $150 ,000 .00 home? Brad Johnson: I 'm just saying , I don 't think . . .I can 't say . You 're welcome to look . . .but I 'm just saying . . . Randy Swatfager : Well I 'm just looking for a general . Brad Johnson: . . .any realtor that in general , a well planned project . Your lot , . . .aware from the very beginning that there would be a high density project . . . Randy Swatfager : Would there be a reassessment if , taken into consideration at 5%? Ahrens: He doesn 't have any idea . Randy Swatfager : I 'm just asking on his past experience with his developments . Ahrens : He wouldn 't have any idea , yeah . You 'd have to call the County Auditor . What 's his name? Aanenson : Assessor? Krauss : Orlin Schafer . Ahrens: Orlin Schafer . Randy Swatfager : How about the planners? Do they have any past experience- with this situation? Krauss: Well again , I mean what Brad 's told you I 've heard throughout the years . That it doesn 't have any substantial effect . I know you 're not going to believe me and I don 't have any data to show you but that 's what I 've heard and that 's over the course of 15 years . Now if you happen to . share an alley with a lousy apartment project in South Minneapolis , yeah . You 've got a serious problem . Randy Swatfager : The only way we 're going to find that out is when we sel]— our home , is that right? Krauss: There 's an apartment development in downtown Chanhassen that backs._ up to single family homes . I don 't know that it 's had any impact . I 've Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 35 certainly never heard of any . Randy Swatfager : Will there be study done on that? Krauss: No . It 's impossible to do one . How can you do a study of something that hasn 't existed yet? I don 't know Brad , if the realtor 's association has ever done anything like that but I 'm not even aware how you 'd come by the data . Brad Johnson: You 're talking about value and assessed valuation . The assessed valuation is based upon the next sale in the neighborhood . Randy Swatfager : Exactly . So we won 't find out until after these sales . Brad Johnson: . . .that particular issue . . .when we did all of downtown . You guys probably don 't remember downtown used to look like . Home value have actually gone up . . .because we did a nice job . . . Randy Swatfager : According to your calcuations and according to you . Brad Johnson: No . . . Randy Swatfager : I guess that 's what we want to maintain here so we 're just looking for a little foresight from everybody . Brad Johnson: I live here . . . Randy Swatfager : . . . I 'd just like to invite the Planning Commission . . .and '- it looks like one up there . Like I said , it 's going to be very emotional and being part of it , it 's going to continue on so I 'd just invite you come down and actually take a look at it , if you haven 't . Anybody involved , I 'm sure they have . I don 't know if the Planning Commission has . Ahrens: I 've seen it . Farmakes: I 've driven by it for maybe 12-13 years . Randy Swatfager : Does it look like that? Farmakes: Does it look like that? Ahrens: Well that looks like a leech . Farmakes: No , I 'd say the density ground cover is probably a little bit less than what it 's showing there but that 's an artist 's interpretation . It 's probably made from an overhead aerial view which sometimes when they 're shooting the pictures , the shadows on the tree get a little hard to discern where the shadow is and where the tree starts . It 's a heavily forested area as far as what the City terms as heavily forested . And a lot of the underlying brush was all beat out at onetime . Eat out or whatever because a farmer used to run cows through there . The cows used to come in before they put all that berming in there and actually come underneath the road there in the culvert pipe and they pretty much , they were like lawnmowers . Pretty much eat out everything- underneath there but it 's kind Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 36 of grown back in the past a little bit and it 's a nice stand of trees . There 's no doubt about it . Randy Swatfager : Okay , thank you . Ahrens: Thanks . Okay , anybody else? Shelly Geske: My name is Shelly Geske and we 're currently building on 753C Canyon Curve . We 're not even in our new home yet . My question is , the area that you 're proposing to develop , who now owns that land? Is it — privately held? It is . What about on the north side? The big slope and down into the pond . Does the City of Chanhassen own that land or that is also privately held? Brad Johnson: Take a good look at the map . We own , or the partnership owns all of this . The wetlands , most of the water . . .property that we currently use . . .as they pointed out , because they classified it as wetlands , the developer who 's involved in the project agreed with the City that this would be a non-developable pond . . . I guess the trail . . .that 's my idea . Because I run through there and I always wanted to run along that — creek . I 'm not saying that 's a good idea . . . Shelly Geske : But certainly you can understand our feeling as far as that hill is concerned . I didn 't say that you did have a problem with it . I 'm just pointing this out . Brad Johnson: Right now . . .an issue I don 't think the developer . . . Shelly Geske : How long , since as of what date have you owned that particular property? Brad Johnson : That property there? Shelly Geske: Yeah . — Brad Johnson: The group has owned it for 4 years . Shelly Geske : Now I can say that when I bought that lot , we bought it fron an older couple that had purchased it several years . Well we actually bought the lot in 1990 from an older gentleman . Farmakes: The lot at your home? Shelly Geske : The lot that we are currently under construction with . And — I did call the City of Chanhassen . In fact I came into City Hall and I believe that I spoke with Kate . I walked into someone 's office and I said , well can you tell me who owns that particular grove of trees and down into — the wetland areas and it was my understanding that the City of Chanhassen owned that area . Now am I wrong? Ahrens: You 're wrong . — Shelly Geske : Okay . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 37 Ahrens: You may have been given that impression because there wouldn 't be any development in a wetland area . Shelly Geske: Yeah , I mean I was under the impression that the City of Chanhassen owned it . It was dedicated as parkland and okay . ( Brad Johnson was speaking from the back of the room and it was hard to pick up what he was saying on the tape . ) Brad Johnson: Yeah , I can speak to that . . .present it . I 'm not a realtor . Emmings: You are too . - Brad Johnson: . . .unbuildable is immediately classified as . . .city owns it . And it was presented I think way back when we started selling homes back there that that was an unbuildable area . Shelly Geske : Well certainly I can almost quote my realtor saying , yes . The City owns 5 acres of oak trees and it will never be built upon . Ahrens : You 're not alone in this . Resident : That 's what we were told when . . .realtors . Shelly Geske : And unfortunately it 's their misrepresentation that we 're paying for now . Brad Johnson: There is 5 acres that will not be built on . Shelly Geske : Right . Okay . Brad Johnson : . . .the path , like I said is my idea and it doesn 't have to go any farther than that as far as the developer is concerned . Ahrens: But like we said tonight , this is a conceptual plan. They 're just bringing the idea out for the first time and we 're just hasing over all these ideas and nothing is written in concrete . That 's for sure . Brad Johnson : . . .we 're just trying to do a good job . . . One thing we can 't do is not do anything . Ahrens: We have somebody else with the floor up here okay? Shelly Geske: I would just like to say that , you are Mr . Johnson? Brad Johnson: Yeah . Shelly Geske : That obviously you realize why we 're opposing this but you know that it 's not that we 're against you or we 're against this development . But I mean obviously there 's concerns . Brad Johnson: Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 38 Ahrens: Again , the issue of the trail should be brought up with the Park and Recs . Shelly Geske : With the Parks Department . Alright , thanks . Ahrens: Okay thank you . Anybody else? Bob Bohara : I 'm Bob Bohara . I live at 7510 Canyon Curve . They 're saying that that 's unbuildable land there . Ahrens: Where the wetlands are? Bob Bohara : Where the oak is . Where the wetlands are and you talked earlier that you 're talking about redefining what wetlands are . Does that mean that this company can come in later then and build on that land if you redefine what a wetland is? Krauss : No . If this project proceeds forward , any project proceeds forward , we treat the area the same way . What we 're going to do is we define a conservation area . Tree conservation area and you can never cut — through them so that privately held property , this project would own it but the City would have the authority to make sure that nobody ever goes in there and chops it down . It 's not a buildable area . We do the same thing with all the low wet areas . We take conservation easements over them . Wetland or not wetland . . .it doesn 't matter . So at that point , what you heard from your realtors would come to pass . That this area would be . . . Aanenson : It would be recorded as part of the development agreement and recorded at the County Recorder 's Office . Resident : Is there currently a conservation easement there? Krauss : If there is , it may be on the back of your properties because that 's the only area that was platted . — Bob Bohara : So what does that say? That he can then because there isn 't anything . Right? Aanenson: That area hasn 't been platted so I wouldn 't assume there was . Bob Bohara : So what we 're saying is that that 's not necessarily unbuildable . At this point tonight . Krauss : No . — Aanenson: We 're recommending that it not be built on . That 's part of our . Bob Bohara : I would also recommend that too . Krauss: There 's also a substantial amount of water there . Part of it is , the bigger part is a protected wetlands protected by City Ordinance and State law . The retention pond , theoretically maybe . While they 're still defined as wetlands , but maybe they could be moved but then the developer Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 39 has the obligation to move the water someplace else on the property and has no place else to put it . So practically it 's necessary . Emmings: Also , a bulldozer can build anything anywhere . And so yeah , we 're trying to save some features of this property because we know we can 't save the whole thing . Bob Bohara: As I understand the only outlet for those ponds are the wetlands . So if you do anything to the ponds , it will affect the wetlands because that 's the only outlet . Aanenson: But those ponds are supposed to be pretreating , holding sedimentation so when water goes into the water is treated . I mean into the wetland is treated . Bob Bohara : Okay . The other concern I have is in the construction of this . They 've talked repeatedly about the . Ahrens: Would you hold it down back there Brad . Bob Bohara : The difficulty of building on these and they phased it so that the most difficult part is built last , as I understand . Well , I 'm not saying that 's the reason . I 'm just saying that 's the way it turned out in your plan which means what they can do for putting the dirt . What they can do for the construction equipment and stuff , becomes more limited in that area . And then they 're building the largest , highest buildings on the steepest slope . And they 're coming right down to the drip line of the oak trees . Okay . You stop construction right there at the oak trees but that dirt on this high slope isn 't going to stop there . You 're going to lose some of those oak trees . Probably not then but later . And they haven 't talked about erosion control . A lot of construction . Not at the top of the hill but starting to come down because they 're coming down on that steep slope there . They don 't talk about what they 're going to do to that . That 's going to all run down into the wetlands and into the holding ponds too . So those are my additional concerns . Ahrens: Thank you . Terry Woogmeester : My name is Terry Woogmeester . I live at 7461 Canyon Curve . My biggest concern , and I understand from listening to you , is the oak trees . May I recommend that maybe we put an incentive or the City place an incentive on , you know you can 't replace it and it 's value is lost but maybe if you put an incentive there , there will be peace so that they will avoid them because I have watched large equipment , and I don 't believe avoiding from the drip line will stop it because you will crush the roots that move out and it will take a year or two but you 'll lose them . Ahrens: Yeah , I agree with you . Terry Woogmeester : So I think maybe if you put an incentive on the trees so that whoever is doing the development has to pay for the loss of any trees , you might incent them to avoid that and they might do a setback . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 40 Aanenson: That 's standard in the development contract . That they would have to put a surety up for that . — Emmings: They 're also required to fence , put up a fence and I don 't know where the fence goes but to avoid the problem of backing equipment up under_ that drip line during the construction , we have them fence these trees . Krauss: And typically it is the drip line . However , we often call on Alan Olson who 's the DNR Forester to come out and walk sites with us and establish where those no cut lines ought to be . Ahrens: Does he come out and check once the construction 's started too to — make sure that that 's being maintained? Krauss: At that point , unless there 's a question that 's arisen , it 's usually our engineering department that 's out there . +` Terry Woogmeester : But if there 's an economic value tied to it so that it maybe makes the development non-profitable should they take out that nice — section of oak trees , you might avoid a disaster before it happens . Ahrens : Okay , thank you . Anybody else? Mary Anderson: I 'd like to speak as a mother . Ahrens: Name . — Mary Anderson: My name is Mary Anderson , 7550 Canyon Curve . Aside from all of the technical things , I 'd like to speak as a mother with young — children and a lot of young children in the area watching the wildlife and the nature in that area . As you can see , there is a big concern with all the residents of that going away . Those trees go away . The brush goes _ away . The path near the wetland . Ponds . Wetlands . Whatever you want to call them . I think the core group of residents are very wildlife , nature lovers , if that 's what you want to say and most of the people bought houses in that area because of that . And the threat of that all leaving kind of crushes your dream of what you have in store for your children and yourself and I think that should be a really big consideration . Ahrens: Thank you . Anybody else? No? Going once . Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in — favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes : First of all I want to say that I 'm glad everybody showed up here tonight . That 's what it 's for . This is a preliminary meeting . The concept to help the persons who are developing the property to also understand what your concerns are . We 've certainly heard them here tonight . This is how that process works and in particular with the PUD . We 've been playing with this , the City has for quite some time and I think this is kind of a good example and it 's a good experience for me because I haven 't been on here that long to see how this works . I was not on the Commission when the previous development came in . It seems to me that this Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 41 is a good use for PUD. It allows some leeway with the developer to make accommodations for some of the property that you 're talking about . The trees . The wetlands and so on. Going back to a little bit of history into this property . I happened to be here the night in the early 80 's when former Mayor , Mr . Hamilton and the previous City Council dealt with the rezonement for the farms that your houses are presently on . And at that night there were people who came in and complained that those farms were going to be developed into houses and there 's sort of a natural process that you see on how these things go . Everybody has their own dream and the problem with the City , particularly when a lot of people come out in a short period of time , to try and deal with these different dreams . Sometimes it gets a little tough because you have to make a decision one way or the other . On the property that you have in Saddlebrook is on , on that night , originally it was proposed that that be medium density property . The entire piece because of how Chaparrel was developed . There was a big argument . The single family neighborhoods didn 't want that to be that way . So there was sort of a horse deal cut that it would be medium density , single family . Sort of like how Chaparral was but the area below the pond would remain to be high density . And that 's the way it stands today . This was several years before , from what I 'm hearing right , several years before many of you moved out to that particular area . As far as I know , it always has been since then . And they hit a peat bog in the area where Saddlebrook is and they brought in some buffer area of non-single family homes that border Chaparrel . It went down 20 some feet into the -- ground so they put in that little lake there . Anyway , originally there was supposed to be , similar to Chaparral , a buffer on that night is how they sort of described that . There 's supposed to be a buffer there . A buffer . There were some comments made about a buffer between the high density area and the single family homes . Well obviously the economics of the developer , they sort of figured out well , we can sell . It 's a nice area . It 's a nice trees . Nice ponds . We can get more money for this land . And consequently the buffer didn 't show up . Single family went all the way to area that abuts the high density property . And consequently you 've got a problem . And we 've got a problem here tonight so what happened years back — has now led us up to tonight . I think a lot of the concerns that you made about the issue of the trail , which I don 't think is a big issue here . I think that 's just a thrown in thing and I don 't think that that _ particularly benefits this particular development . I think it was thrown in maybe as a part of the trail system that the city has been dealing with because CR 17 and Kerber and considered conduit traffic type roads . On the elevation point , you 're right . The elevation shows that there 's about , maybe a 20 feet drop over the hill . Some of these buildings but . . . And as far as the traffic goes , I don't think there 's enough information here . I don 't think it 's been to that point where we can make a determination as to where that goes but I think it 's a legitimate concern and I think I 'm taking up too much time so I 'll pass on . Ahrens: Thanks Jeff . Steve . Emmings : I think there were a lot of important comments from the neighbors . I 've just got a few comments and questions of my own here . If the road goes out to Kerber , I think it should definitely line up with , what is it? Santa Vera . I think if the road drops down , I don 't know if they moved those buildings . It looks like they might have moved those Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 42 buildings down that are up there a little bit and I think that was a good change . The buildings most to the right in the upper part . I think that — changing that 16 unit building into two 8 's and then the next one into a 1: is an improvement . Overall , I was here . I think I was here when Saddlebrook was platted and I think I was here , I know I was here when the _ Cenvesco thing came in . I think it 's a big improvement over what we saw before in the style of the buildings and everything else . I don 't think it 's going to be nearly as objectionable as the other one was . I thought the comment about transition from commercial to single family then to rental . Or not single family but townhouses then to rental and then to single family was a very appropriate comment . We do try to do things the other way around . We do try to go from less intense to more intense and I 'm a little curious about that . On the other hand , it seems to kind of fit the site in a way . I don 't know , I thought that was a good comment . I 'm always troubled by these , I know this is only concept approval but now we have one plan in front of us and we 've got another plan in the back of the room and you 're shooting at a moving target and it 's very hard to get your comments down because things are changing while you 're talking and that 's always a little discomforting to me . I have a couple of questions . — Looking at the units that are for sale , they showed us a typical building and that was also up here on the small sheet . And that typical building has 4 garages across the front of it . But I take it that these buildings that are shown on here that would be for sale are smaller than that . Is that right? Kirk Willette : No . . .there are 4 garages . A double car garage here . Two — double cars in front . . . Emmings : Okay . Why , on these drawings , I don 't understand this drawing — because there seems to be a little street . Look at the area between the second unit , FS2 and the third unit FS3 . Just , let 's use that as an example . You pull in off of the new street and why does it show , what are_ those little dents in the side of the building there? Kirk Willette : Oh , right in here? These are the entrances . Emmings: So there are two entrances in each side? • Kirk Willette: Well actually . . .green space between the garages . The .— other 's not shown on this plan . There are , this is a private entrance to one unit . There are a pair of entrances . . .and then there 's another entrance . . . Emmings: So what 's drawn here is isn 't what it will look like? Kirk Willette : There should be another green space . This driveway . . . Emmings: No , he 's saying there 's 4 garages across there . Kirk Willette : If you look at the rendering , that 's correct . The rendering is correct . Emmings: Okay . And so if somebody in one of these . So there 's 4 garages facing 4 garages across the little street between FS2 and FS3 . Is that Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 43 — correct? Kirk Willette: Yes . Emmings: And if people have guests over or want to have a party at their house , where do people park? Kirk Willette: Right now there will be parking in front of the garages . There are some buildings that have . Emmings: No . I 'm talking about FS2 and FS3 . Kirk Willette: Okay . On those particular ones , there is nothing . There is 2 spaces in front of their garage . Emmings : So assuming I can get both my cars in the garage , I can have 2 carloads of people over and beyond that , where do folks park? Kirk Willette : It would have to be on the street . Emmings : What street? Kirk Willette : On the . . . Emmings: Alright . Are we going to allow that? Aanenson: No . We recommended , in our meeting with them that they provide more visitor parking . They had it all on the western edge and we recommended that that was inappropriate and they needed a space between the single families because of , that won 't work . Emmings No . There shouldn 't be parking on the newly dedicated street and I would say that if that probably 2 of those units in the row from FS1 to FS6 to me shouldn 't be there . I think 2 of those units ought to come out because they need a lot of extra parking . I think they need more space between them . I think they 're too jammed in there . Let 's see . These places don 't have basements any of them do they? This is all built on slab and that goes for the for sale units? Kirk Willette : The for sale . . .basements . Emmings : Okay , in our packet it says everything was on a slab . I think , what do we have in place that would prevent people from turning a garage into a living space? Anything? Aanenson: We have an ordinance that says they could do that only if they had another garage so I don 't think they could do it . Emmings: Alright . So we 've got that covered here . What do we have on the books that would prevent outside storage of any kind , including things like vehicles and boats and things like that? Aanenson : That 's already in the ordinance but if you want to put something specifically in the development contract , we could do that too . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 44 Emmings: You know , if they 're going to develop this site this densely , I _ think we 've got to have something like that in there because otherwise we 're going to wind up with stuff all over the place and there 's nothing that will make it look trashy faster than stuff stored all over the place . Aanenson: Or recommend they provide an area fenced in for that sort of thing . Emmings: I wouldn 't even do that . I think they ought to store their stuf- inside . I even think , we 've never done this before but I know we 've had problems in neighborhoods where people have inadequate storage space . They wind up using their garage for storage space and always leave their cars — outside . I 've got some of that in my neighborhood . I know this neighborhood over here behind McDonald 's , there 's been complaints over there about that and I think the potential for it here is enormous . — Brad Johnson : The thing is , they 're all the same . Emmings: Well it may be endemic to all development . I don 't know . But I think if , I almost think we ought to have an ordinance . I just thought about with connecting this project . That people be able to demonstrate at all times that they have the ability to park their cars in their garage . — If a garage isn 't a garage for the storage of vehicles , I don't know what it is anymore . And on a project like this , I think it 's particularly important . Let 's see . There are two pieces of property involved in here?_ Are they all under , are there two different pieces of property? Aanenson: Yes . Emmings : Do they need to replat to get it all into one or don 't we requir4 that if it 's a PUD? Krauss: Well a replat is going to be required to combine the properties tc plat the public right-of-way and then I assume they 're going to do condominization around the for sale units . Emmings : So that will come later? Krauss : Yes . Oh , and by the way in the plat too , that 's where the easements are conveyed over the . . . Emmings: Yeah . There was a note in here that all units are to be — sprinklered and I supposed that again is something that will come later in the . . .design because there wasn 't anything in the conditions here . Krauss: It really doesn 't need to be . It trips it in the Building Code . It 's automatic . Emmings : Okay . There was a note in here that Cenvesco , somebody was — billed for the reviewing fee on the Cenvesco development of $3 ,171 .76 and that , a bill has been sent on that and it 's never been paid . Now I take it that , was the owner of the property equally responsible for that bill as — Cenvesco , the proposed developer? Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 45 Krauss : They were one and the same on that project . Emmings: They were? Who owed that? Krauss: Dean Johnson . Emmings: Why hasn 't it been paid? Brad Johnson: I did ask him that the other day . He has had . . .work out an arrangement with your financial people that he wasn 't going to have to pay it . . . Nobody 's saying that he shouldn 't pay for it . That 's why it wasn 't paid . . .He has said he will pay for it but that 's just why it wasn 't paid . He 'll pay for it when the project , when we can get a project approved . ( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . ) Aanenson : . . .forward any further until it is paid . Brad Johnson: My problem with that is , he was told by somebody in the finance it was an erroneously billed . So at that point I said well , we 'll . . . Emmings: Alright . So I completely agree . This shouldn 't get any more consideration until that bill is paid to the City . I think that 's all I 've got . Except to say generally that as a concept plan , I don 't think this is a bad one . I agree with a lot of Jeff 's comments . I can 't tell you the number of times we have a group of people in here like you . I can 't tell you the number of times we 've heard that the developer or the real estate people said that the land across the street would never be developed . It was a park . It 's fraud folks you know and you 're getting an education and it 's just too damn bad and I don 't know what to tell you . If you knew , and I guess I learned it coming on here . I didn 't have , fortunately I didn 't have your bad experience but I would never buy a piece of property in the city without going in . Had you come into the city and looked at the maps , looked at the zoning maps , you would have seen this land zoned as just what it is . For a high density project . It is , I was here when we looked at this property . I 've always thought and I still think it 's a real good and appropriate place , just looking at the city in a general way without thinking of who 's looking at it . It 's a real good place for multi building development . The plan 's an improvement . I think they 've got really too many buildings on the south site is my biggest problem right now . The for sale units are just packed in too tight . Ahrens: Are you done Steve? Emmings: Yeah . — Ahrens: Kate or Paul , maybe you can answer this . As Jeff and Steve were talking , what are we approving tonight? We can 't approve this conceptual plan because this is not , this has changed a whole lot . And yet there isn 't one conceptual plan that 's been presented to us that incorporates all the changes that have been discussed tonight . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 46 Emmings: I think we 'd have to approve this one with conditions that will wind up being . — Aanenson: Modified even more than this . Emmings: And then beyond that . Ahrens: Okay . Are you going to make that motion? Emmings: Well I don 't know who 's going to make the motion but I think that 's the only , that 's the way to handle it is to do it based on what we 're . . . — Farmakes: Open ended recommendations? Emmings: See we get to see all this again when the preliminary plat comes in. Aanenson: It will go to Council for a conceptual there too . -' Ahrens: Okay , let 's keep going here . Matt . Ledvina : Well I just , I don 't want to be redundant . I think there 's been a lot of good issues that have been flushed out by the public and the staff and my fellow commissioners here . But I will say that I think that the _ trail along the north side of the property should be strongly reconsidered I know the root systems of those trees are very sensitive and we shouldn 't encroach on that at all if there 's a possibility of some problems there . Other than that I went out to the property today to take a look around up — there and it is a beautiful piece of property . I think the developer has been sensitive to many of the site conditions . I wasn't here when the original proposals came in but I can see that there 's been a strong effort ._ to work with the piece of property as much as possible . But I think that through this process we can hammer out a proposal or a PUD that will be acceptable to all of us . Ahrens: Okay . I agree with most everybody 's comments up here tonight . And I do want to thank all of you for coming in tonight . This is the way we get good proposals in the city . I think that there were a lot of real — valid issues brought up tonight . I would like the developer to rethink or to explain better why the lower density housing is on the south side and the higher density on the north side . And I know there was some reference to it fitting in better and there 'd be less grading required. I 'm not sure that we got a real good answer to that . And I don 't expect you to address it tonight but at some point I think that needs to be revisited. A concern that wasn 't talked about up here yet is, I noticed throughout the staff report the reference to the exteriors of the building and that they look real nice on the concept plan and they 're going to have vinyl siding and asphalt shingles and gable roofs . How do we assure that? You know a lot — of developers come in here and they say , we 've got a great plan . This is going to look terrific and then as soon as the development starts , they say . Whoops , we ran out of money and they 're going to be , they 're going to_ look a whole lot different from what we ever thought they were going to look like . And all of a sudden our backs are up against the wall because Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 47 we can 't require them to do anything . I mean it 's happened a couple of . times in the city . Krauss: It happened a number of years ago . I know when I came on board 3 years ago there was some questions and developers will try to do what they 'll try to do . There were some questions as I recall about the hotel where I was asked to approve construction plans that deviated from the plans that were approved . I refused to do that . I guess I also had the foresight to call the Mayor up before they did to let him know that this was going to happen and we made them come back through the City Council . The City Council and you . In fact the Planning Commission I think we brought it to . Most of the changes that had been requested were denied and they were required to build the building that way . I should also say too that , one of the unsung benefits of a PUD is a PUD 's a contract . Either the developer builds exactly what they committed to build or they're in violation of the contract . Right now we have a site up there that 's zoned R-12 . Any proposal that meets the R-12 criteria in the zoning ordinance would , I mean if we tried to deny a proposal that met the R-12 criteria , we 'd probably be sued and we 'd probably lose . Emmings: And what would be the maximum potential density in the R-12? Krauss: 12 units an acre . Emmings: So they could raise it to 12 units per acre . Krauss : You know these zoned properties are a little bit of a loose cannon . You 're never quite sure what 's going to land on it and I have a great deal of preference for the PUD . I mean strictly speaking , contract zoning as such is illegal but PUD zoning which is dependent on a contract is fully legal . I 'm not the attorney and I can 't explain it but it seems a little congruous but that 's the fact . Ahrens : Okay so these people don 't have to worry that once a plan is finalized and they say they 're going to build what they 're going to build design wise , that that 's what they 're going to see . • Aanenson: One of the conditions of the PUD is any major change and that would be a major change . It would have to come back through this process and public hearings . Ahrens: Alright . I don 't have anything else at this time . Why don't we deal with the rezoning first . Does somebody have a motion on that? Aanenson: What we 're really looking at , we don 't want to rezone it yet until we 've gone through , we really should come with a preliminary so let 's not consider the rezoning . Let 's just look at the conceptual at this point and we 'll put the rezoning on when we 're ready to approve a preliminary plat . I think that 's premature at this point . Krauss : So any motion should just be for a concept . A PUD concept review . Ahrens: Okay , does anybody have a motion? Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 48 Emmings: I want to ask something . If we recommend approval of the concept , we 're not tying ourselves down to location of buildings , size of — buildings or number of buildings as drawn on the plan? Krauss: Well , first of all you have to modify that with your conditions as you wish . Secondly , conceptual reviews are non-binding on either party . It 's not as though you 've approved a preliminary plat and you 're pretty well obligated to approving final plat . Ahrens : What are we obligated to? Krauss: Nothing . • Ahrens: Absolutely nothing? Emmings: I like that . Farmakes: So what are you subtracting there , 16? Two 8 units? Emmings : I didn 't hear any other support for that but . Ahrens: For what? I think the motion should include , I don't know how you feel about it . Aanenson: Can I just clarify the PUD? What it says under the concept is that it shall not obligate the city to approve any final plan or to rezone — any property within that district . So by approving the concept you 're not binding yourself . Emmings: And if this is done and then the City Council also approved the concept plan , the next time we get to see this is at what point? Krauss: It will come back in for the preliminary plat . Preliminary PUD , rezoning approvals . The official public hearings for those are held before you . Emmings : And at that point in time , then we do bind ourselves to -a plan? Krauss : Yes . Emmings: Okay . So now this is , okay . No , I think I 've got it . Ahrens : So can you be as vague in the motion? You 're not approving the — exact location or number of buildings? Emmings : I think we 're just not . — Krauss: Well if there 's an intent section that you would care to add in terms of guidance , the whole point of this is to give the developer and staff and whoever else is participating your guidance as to how this shoulc proceed . Emmings: Right . -- Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 1992 - Page 49 Farmakes: Did it list those? Emmings: I 'm going to move the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans dated June 15 , 1992 subject to all of the conditions contained in the staff report and also subject to consideration by the developer of all the comments made by the public that was here and Planning Commission members . I think that ought to cover it . If it 's going to be big and broad, let 's make it big and broad . Ahrens: Is there a second? Farmakes : Second . - Ahrens: Okay , discussion . You said subject to all the conditions in the staff report plus subject to all of the . Emmings : Subject to , what I 'm saying to the developer is you 'd better read the Minutes of this meeting . There are verbatim Minutes of this meeting typed up so , maybe you folks don 't know that . And so the developer can see _ what everybody had to say and I guess what I 'm saying is , when they come back , we 're going to read the old Minutes and they 'd better be prepared to address the issues that have been raised . - Ahrens : I 'm comfortable with that . Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans dated June 15 , 1992 subject to consideration by the developer of all the comments made by the public and Planning Commission members, and subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval . 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies , i .e . Watershed District , MPCA , Health Department , Carver County Public Works . 3 . The developer shall dedicate and construct the utilities and streets within the public right-of-ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership . The remaining building utilities outside of the easements or right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained . 4 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including sizing for the utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City . As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction . 5 . Appropriate No Parking restrictions shall be placed on the private service drives accordingly . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 50 6 . The final plat shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the proposec east/west connector street . A 36 foot wide urban street shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City 's — standards . 7 . It is recommended that concrete sidewalks be placed on both sides of — the proposed main east/west collector street . The sidewalks should be 6 feet in width . 8 . A detailed erosion control plan shall be incorporated into the grading— plan and submitted for approval with the construction plans and specifications . 9 . The applicant shall reimburse the City for all fees incurred with the previous and current review and development of this project . A cash escrow account of $7 ,000 . should be provided by the applicant to — insure payment . 10 . Apply for a wetland alteration permit for the location of the trails and possible location of sedimentation pond before preliminary plat — approval . 11 . Implement the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for parks_ and trails . 12 . Construction plans for the storm sewers will be required with the _ construction plans and specifications submittal prior to preliminary approval . 13 . Parking spaces must meet the parking standards as required by the zoning ordinance . 14 . The landscaping plan shall be modified to include streetscape along _ Powers and Kerber Boulevards . In addition , conifers shall be placed south of the oak trees to provide additional buffering . 15 . The 16 unit rental building , which is oriented to the most northerly — portion of the site , should be moved and an 8 unit building put in its place , to minimize the impact to the single family homes to the north . 16 . Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during_ construction . All voted in favor and the motion carried. — Ahrens : The timing on this , I have no idea . What are we looking at here as far as , well we already know the Park and Rec Commission 's going to look— at this July 28th . HRA? Krauss: HRA is not scheduled. -. Ahrens : Not scheduled , okay . Planning Commission Meeting July 15 , 1992 - Page 51 Krauss: This is slated to go to the Council on August 10th . However , given the range of comments that were raised . Given the fact that the design is in a little bit of a state of flux , given the fact that the developers had intended to meet with the neighbors and really hadn 't had a chance to , I 've just spoken to them and I think it would be appropriate for a meeting to be held with the residents and the developer . Try to iron the kinks out of this thing a little bit more before it goes to Council . Ahrens: Good idea . Krauss : Therefore , we will notify you all of the appropriate City Council meeting . I don 't believe it 's going to be on the 1Oth because by the time you arrange your meeting and then we get a revised plan back , it would probably be pretty tough to turn it around . In any case , we will send a mailed notice of the Council meeting . I guess you 'll get some mailed notice from the developer as to when they 'd like to schedule a meeting with - you . Resident : Could we ask that the mailings show the current . . .? — Ahrens : Okay , thank you everyone for coming . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairwoman Ahrens noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 1 , 1992 as presented . Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITYOF i ‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Adrtntst 1 Erd'Se' MEMORANDUM M.r,re Rejectet De'F g TO: Planning Commission Dole susm; et to Comr,ission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director � Date submitted to Go.r4cif DATE: June 23, 1992 SUBJ: Moon Valley Aggregate North Site - Interim Use Permit #92-5 SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to remove approximately 250,000 cubic yards of clay material from a 45 acre site of which approximately 22 acres will be disturbed. The site is located on the Chanhassen/Eden Prairie city line, south of Pioneer Trail, and immediately north of the existing Moon Valley Gravel Operation. The clay would be trucked via Pioneer Trail to the Flying Cloud Landfill where it will be used to permanently cap off the landfill which is now in the process of closing. Upon completion of the excavation, black dirt, which will be saved on-site, will be respread and reseeded. The proposal calls for the creation of two sedimentation/retention basins which are designed to resolve long-standing erosion control problems in this area. The proposed excavation is designed to avoid loss of mature trees and will occur only in an open field area, which until recently, was regularly farmed. The site is zoned A2 and such mining activity is allowed as an interim use in this district. Upon completion of the grading, the area will remain suitable for residential development at some point in the future, consistent with the applicant's long range plans. No residential development is being proposed at this time. There is an extensive history concerning this and the related Moon Valley Gravel Operation. The most recent staff report on the Moon Valley Gravel Operation is attached for in-depth review. The city is currently involved in an attempt to regulate this operation in an effort to protect the health and safety of Chanhassen residents. This action has already resulted in significant litigation between the applicant and the city, which is not yet resolved at the time of writing. It is significant to note that the Moon Valley Gravel Operation is significantly different than the current request. The original Moon Valley operation has non-conforming status since it to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER p — Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 2 was initiated well prior to the establishment of city zoning regulations. The city has maintained, and the Carver County Court has found, that this non-conforming status does not _ apply to excavation/mining operations on the north parcel, which is the subject of the current request. Therefore, all regulatory standards required by the city in Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling, and Grading, of Chapter 7 of the City Code, can and should be applied. The site is in reasonably good condition from an environmental standpoint. There is a significant forested area located along the prominent and important Minnesota River bluff line — at the south end of the property which has not been disturbed. The balance of the site where the excavation is to occur is an open field area. This area contains remnants of an earlier clay removal operation by this applicant in 1987. Upon finding that this removal was in — process, the city notified him that a permit was required and since none had been obtained, all activity must stop. The applicant has never restored this area and consequently there is evidence remains of this earlier activity. There are also two significant areas of erosion on — the east and west sides of the site. These do not appear to be attributable to any of the activities by this applicant but rather are a result of natural processes exacerbated by farming activities. In spite of its complex background and the city's difficulties in resolving our concerns with the applicant over the Moon Valley gravel operation, we find that we are generally in support of the current request. We find that it appears to be reasonable from an environmental protection standpoint since mature trees remain untouched and an on-going _ erosion control problem will be resolved. Secondly, we believe that the operation as proposed can be made to comply with the standards in the ordinance, as well as acceptable site management practices. Lastly, we note that the end-use plan for the site is consistent with staff's expectations of how this area is to be developed with single family lots. However, no housing development is being proposed at this time. We also note that the city has the latitude to require sufficient financial guarantees to ensure that the site is managed in a manner consistent with any approvals that are given and we will are proposing that this — latitude be reasonably exercised. Staff continues to have some reservations with this proposal, but for the most part, these are adequately resolved with proposed conditions contained in this report. One major concern is the applicant's proposal to grade a retention basin on the common property line between this — site and the original Moon Valley Gravel Operation. The applicant and his attorneys have often promoted the idea of linkage between these two sites from a functional and legal standpoint. We emphatically reject the notion that there is any legal basis for tying the two — actions together. Our position has been affirmed by Judge Kanning. However, the applicant believes there may be some reasonable basis for linkage based on operational characteristics in the area of this pond and staff does not totally disagree. Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 — Page 3 The purpose of this retention basin is to intercept a large volume of storm water that drains — down along side the former railroad right-of-way towards the Moon Valley area causing significant erosion and downstream water quality problems which ultimately impact the Minnesota River Valley. Much of this water is coming from upstream locations that are not — located on any of the parcels owned by this applicant.. Thus, it may be reasonable to consider constructing an impoundment that addresses this concern. However, the impact of the applicant's activities on the sensitive Minnesota River bluff line cannot be underestimated. Through his activities, he has destroyed significant parts of the bluff line to the extent that this activity is now visible from across the river in Shakopee. — Without active intervention on the part of the applicant, this is a scar that would never heal. The applicant's proposal to mine in this area may provide mutual benefit for both the Moon Valley operation and the community as a whole. Mr. Zwiers would be able to obtain — additional gravel which benefits him financially. In the process, he would remove a narrow peninsula of the former bluff line and in so doing expose a forested secondary bluff line located a slight distance to the north. This is difficult to describe but essentially he would be removing a nearly destroyed remnant of the original bluff line and exposing a secondary bluff line to view, in the area. In addition to resolving erosion control problems in this area, staff believes that opening up this back valley to view may be of benefit. We are very reluctant to — recommend approval of such large scale earthwork on the Minnesota River bluff line, but in this case, we believe there may be enough benefit that results. However, in exchange for approval of this additional mining and associated variance, staff is recommending that the — applicant be required to prepare and implement, a reforestation plan, for the balance of the exposed and deforested Minnesota River bluff line on the original Moon Valley Gravel site. This plan should be prepared in conjunction with the Minnesota DNR Forester for approval by the city. By so doing, we believe that a fair exchange would result. City Code requires a 300 foot setback for mining operations. The requested activity does not conform to the standard. However, we note that the code allows the city to waive this requirement. Section 7-47 allows the City Council to deviate from the standards set forth in _ the ordinance under three scenarios, as follows: 1. For operations that existed prior to the enactment of this article, when it is not feasible to comply because of pre-existing conditions. 2. When because of topographic or other conditions, it is not possible to comply. _ 3. When alternatives that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standards set forth in this article are agreed upon by the city and the operator. — It is staff's opinion that the requested Moon Valley operation meets conditions #2 and #3 for the granting of a waiver. Relative to condition #2, we note that the mining activity in the -- _ Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 4 southwest corner of the property is specifically related to the underlying topographic and drainage conditions found in this area. Very simply, there is no other reasonable location to place the retention basin. We also note that relative to the grading on the north part of the property, it is infeasible to comply since the requested operation is in the open field area. Shifting this operation to the south in the area that meets the setback requirements would result in the destruction of very significant stands of trees on the Minnesota River bluff line and is unacceptable to staff. Perhaps even more important to this discussion is the waiver conditions provided under the third standard. Staff is of the opinion that due to the remote location of this request, coupled with the relatively sensitive nature of the applicant's proposal, and conditions recommended for imposition by staff, assure that the purpose and intent of the standards developed in this ordinance are complied with. By this we mean that off-site impacts are mitigated or held to a minimum, existing erosion problems and other problems related to past mining practices would be resolved, and the site will be left in a reasonable condition suitable for future residential development, should this be proposed. Staff is recommending that the interim use permit for Tom Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate be approved with a waiver to allow mining up to the property line as illustrated on the proposed grading plan. BACKGROUND • Pre-1970 - The Moon Valley gravel pit existed as a small scale operation. The property also accommodated a rifle range and ski hill equipped with a tow. The rifle range continues to be utilized. Ownership of the mining operation changed hands. The scale of the operation was greatly expanded in the 1970s. • 1987 - The city became aware of the mining of clay on a new parcel located above the bluff line with access to Pioneer Trail. The city took action to halt this activity since it was undertaken without a permit. No further activity has occurred in this area. The site of the excavation has not been restored. • Late 1989-early 1990 - The city received several complaints regarding grading activities at the Moon Valley site from area residents. A review of city ordinances revealed that the city had little or no review authority over Moon Valley. A further review indicated that the ordinance inadequately dealt with not only mining but all aspects of grading activity. At the City Council's request, staff and the City Attorney developed a comprehensive ordinance dealing with all related activities. Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 5 The ordinance established that uses such as Moon Valley that predated the ordinance, had six months to obtain a permit. The Moon Valley operation and legal counsel were involved with discussions pertaining to the drafting of the ordinance and while they may or may not have agreed with the text, they were fully familiar with its provisions. • 5/14/90 - The new ordinance was adopted as Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling, and Grading in Chapter 7 of the City Code. • 1990-1991 - Moon Valley operator was notified on several occasions by registered mail of the need to obtain a permit. Rather than comply, the Moon Valley operator sought a Declaration Judgement Action on October 1, 1990, maintaining that Ordinance No. 128 was an illegal exercise of Chanhassen's police power. The city filed a counter claim that due to Moon Valley's failure to obtain a permit, it should be shut down. • 4/25/91 - Judge Kanning found that the city had the right to require that a permit be _ obtained and gave the applicant 30 days to submit an application. The city's request to close the operation was essentially continued to give the operator time to respond. • Spring/Summer/Fall, 1991 - The city granted the operator several delays to prepare the application. A number of meetings were held during which staff was led to believe that a good faith effort was being made. — • 10/1/91 - Staff reviewed the permit application and found it to be significantly lacking in content and substance. The Planning Director rejected the application. One -- fundamental flaw was that two completely different plans were submitted. One plan indicated a "dig to China" scenario which totally eliminated the bluff line and expanded the operation onto adjoining parcels and into Eden Prairie. Staff confirmed that the City of Eden Prairie was never approached by the Moon Valley operator. The other plan was marginally better. It was unclear as to which plan was being proposed, although it was implied that the city could "earn" the better plan by being "reasonable" -' with Moon Valley. • 10/14/91 - The city adopted a Minnesota River Bluff Line Preservation ordinance. — The purpose of the ordinance was to recognize the environmental sensitivity and importance of the Minnesota River bluff line. The protection area is defined by an official map and the ordinance prohibits most activities from the area. • November, 1991 - The case went back to Judge Kanning. His findings were released _ April 2, 1992. Essentially, he found that: Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 6 - The operator/applicant had non-conforming rights on the south parcel (original mine). The city never contested this point. - The judge found that the non-conformity did not include the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. The operator/applicant was allowed to continue mining the main pit.but was given 30 days to submit the application. - The judge felt that Plan "B", the better of the two plans, was the basis of the permit submittal. - The city may impose conditions on the permit but only to the extent that health and safety are to be protected. • May, 1991 - The operator/applicant submitted additional information. Only minor changes were made to comply with the most limited interpretation of Judge Kanning's order. In addition, information on ground water elevations, which trial evidence indicated had been withheld by the applicant, was submitted. Staff and the City Attorney met with the applicant. They indicated a continuing desire to mine the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. Staff indicated that a separate application would be required for the north parcel and that all submittal requirements outlined by city ordinances must be met. We further indicated that based upon the court order which differentiates between the status of the northern and southern parcels, we wanted to process the requests separately. This was later confirmed in a letter from the Planning Director. • May 20, 1992 - Rather than respond as outlined by staff, the Moon Valley operator asked Judge Kanning to meet to clarify the court order. It was their continued contention that the judge approved grading on the north parcel. • June 3, 1992 - At the June 3, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the Moon Valley proposal was reviewed. After staff gave their comments, the applicant's attorney spoke. He continued to question the city's ability to regulate Moon Valley as outlined by staff and objected to most, if not all, of the conditions. The Planning Commission discussed the matter briefly. Given the background of the use and the applicant's position as related by his attorney, the commission saw no need to explore the matter further. They unanimously recommended approval of the _ earth work permit subject to conditions in the staff report. Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 _ Page 7 • June 22, 1992 - The City Council reviewed the request. They approved the permit subject to conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Site Characteristics The 45 acre site is located south of Pioneer Trail on the Eden Prairie/Chanhassen city line. It is located immediately north of the original Moon Valley gravel pit. Surrounding land uses include: North - Pioneer Trail and large lot/ag residential located in Eden Prairie South - Moon Valley Gravel Operation East - Large lot/ag residential located in Eden Prairie — West - The site is immediately adjacent to the abandoned Chicago and Northwestern Railway right-of-way. The right-of-way is approximately 100 feet wide. Homes located in Chanhassen in the Deerbrook/large lot residential subdivision are located further to the west. Site topography is extraordinarily rough. The northern half of the site is occupied by a gently — rolling open field area that was farmed until recently. The southern two-thirds of the site contain steeply wooded ridges, ravines, and bluffs associated with the Minnesota River bluff line. The existing Moon Valley gravel pit, with its sheer mine face cut into in the bluff line, is located immediately south of this site. The site drops off steeply to the west down into a narrow valley containing the former railroad right-of-way which is currently owned by the Hennepin County Railroad Authority for use as a potential light rail corridor in the future. — The land further to the west rises up steeply again to a heavily wooded hillside which contains the homes located in the Deerbrook subdivision. There is significant evidence of erosion in the vicinity of this site including areas located along the railroad tracks. Other significant areas of erosion on this site occur in two ravines; one leading down to the railroad tracks, and the other down into the City of Eden Prairie. Erosion activity in this area is caused by significant amounts of storm water flowing overland to these localized points. Problems such as these are often caused by activities by man, but are common as a natural occurrence as well throughout the Minnesota River bluff line area. At the northern end of the site is the remnants of an excavation undertaken by this applicant in 1987. City staff found this operation to be illegal and it was shut down but the site has never been restored. There are two access roads leading into the site. The first is an extremely steep and — somewhat precarious road leading up the mine face from the south into the site. The second is a significantly better road exiting north through Eden Prairie up to Pioneer Trail. Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 8 Proposed Action The proposed action calls for the removal and sale of 250,000 cubic yards of clay material. The clay will be trucked on Pioneer Trail exiting Chanhassen and ultimately brought to the Eden Prairie landfill. The clay is necessary to cap off the landfill which is now in the process of being shut down. The proposal calls for utilizing 20-30 trucks with hours of operation requested from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. It is expected that if the work begins during July, 1992, it may be completed this construction season depending upon weather. If it is not completed during this duration due to weather conditions or other delays, it will be completed in early 1993. Black dirt found on the site will be stripped and stockpiled. After the clay is removed, the dirt will be respread and reseeded. The work proposed on the upper plateau of the north parcel requires no tree loss and will result in the construction of two storm water retention basins. These basins are somewhat unusual in that rather than being constructed with piped outlets, they are designed so that a sand layer located underneath the clay will be penetrated and that ground water entering the ponds will be allowed to seep back into the ground water table. These ponds are designed to intercept all drainage on the north parcel and should significant reduce or eliminate existing erosion problems on this property. This site will remain vacant with its ultimate use being for residential purposes. Since disturbed soils impose limitations on construction of on-site sanitary disposal facilities, it is likely that this parcel will not be developed until sewer and water is available at some, as of yet unspecified, point in the future. Impacts to off-site properties should be reasonably minimal. Staff has proposed conditions that will deal with these potential impacts directly. However, the nearest residences are located several hundred yards from the property and there is significant terrain between the operation and these home sites. Long term views will not be disturbed by this operation since no radical changes in elevation will result and no tree loss will occur. The request also includes a proposal to mine out an area that is located in an area that straddles the north and south parcels owned by this operator. This area is not visible from any nearby residences but does involve the Minnesota River bluff line which is highly visible from locations to the south. Unlike the clay removal operation proposed for the high plateau, which is essentially a regrading operation, the proposal on the southwestern corner of the site is a full scale mining operation. As such, a variance is needed from the 300 foot setback required by city code since mining activities will occur up to the former railroad right-of-way which forms the property line of this site. Staff believes that there may be some benefit, not only to the operator, but also to the community at large in allowing this operation to take Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 9 place. The proposed retention/seepage pond in this area would serve to improve water quality and erosion. Potentially, it could also expose a back or rear bluff line to view from the river which would replace the primary bluff line in this area which has largely been destroyed by this operator's excavation on the south parcel. However, as one condition of this proposal, and in light of the variance that is required to operate in this area, staff is recommending that a condition be imposed that would require the reforestation of the entire disturbed bluff line on the Moon Valley gravel pit site. Access Considerations This site has two potential accesses. The first is a steep dirt road that climbs the gravel pit face over the old bluff line reaching the southern end of this parcel. This is not proposed for utilization during clay removal activities. The route that is being proposed for use is a dirt road leading north out of the site over a parcel located in Eden Prairie exiting out onto Pioneer Trail. At Pioneer Trail, trucks would turn right and proceed through Eden Prairie to the landfill. The applicant has told staff that he has an easement over this driveway, thus, no _ further action is required. As a condition of approval, staff would like to have a copy of the easement on file so that we can ensure that substitute access provisions will not be required. The number of truck movements required for an operation of this magnitude is significant. The narrative states that 20-30 belly dump trucks would be utilized. If a belly dump can normally accommodate 10 cubic yards, we are looking at 2,500 truck movements during the course of the operation. We note that direct impacts on residences should be minimized through distances that are from the road to the homes that are involved. We also note that no city roads will be utilized. A condition of approval should mandate that the haul route using — Pioneer Trail to the east is the only one that is permitted. Signs indicating "Trucks Hauling" should be posted during operations. A construction — entrance at Pioneer Trail, acceptable to the City Engineer, should be provided to minimize the tracking of mud and debris out onto the county road. The applicant will be responsible for cleaning the county road on an as needed basis if dirt and debris find its way out into the — travel right-of-way. The applicant should also demonstrate that he has been in contact with the City of Eden Prairie officials and is operating on roads in their community in a manner consistent with their engineer's recommendations. Site Management Staff has received several calls from concerned residents who envision a large scale mining operation occurring on the north parcel. We have assured them that this is not the case but their fears often gravitate to the potential use of explosives on this site. This has not been — proposed by the applicant, nor do we expect that it would ever be warranted. However, as a Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 10 protective measure, it would probably be appropriate to have a specific prohibition against the use of explosives as a condition of approval. Requested hours of operation run from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Staff does not have any objections to this proposal initially. However, we would recommend that weekend operations on holiday weekends and weekdays on national holidays be prohibited since many of the residents will be spending time at home and should not be unduly disturbed. Additionally, if complaints are received from residents relative to Saturday operations, we would like to reserve the right to require that these be terminated. Appropriate conditions have been provided. Noise and dust considerations are of course a concern. Noise is an unavoidable impact of these types of operations. We believe that it is sufficiently addressed by the location of the activity and by the conditions being imposed relative to the hours of operation. Relative to dust concerns, staff has proposed a condition that the operator be responsible for dust control on site. Dust control measures may include site watering, and similar measures, or could ultimately result in temporary shut down of the operation if conditions require this based upon the determination of staff. We would envision this happening only if there is a protracted dry period and high winds. Appropriate conditions have been provided. Periodic inspections by staff will be required throughout the life of this operation. If activity is not to be completed and the site restored by freeze up in 1992, the applicant should work out an acceptable plan through the City Engineer's Office to allow the safe shut down of the site until thaw in 1993. A phased site restoration plan is proposed and will be required by the city. The applicant should provide staff with a written plan of how this phasing and site restoration is to occur. In addition to the Interim Use Permit fee required for this application, city ordinances provide for fees outlined in the Uniform Building Code to cover cost of site inspection by city staff. The fee structure specifies that for mining 100,001 cubic yards or more, fees of $562.50 for the 100,000 cubic yards, plus $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof, is required. Thus, a total permit fee of $900.00 is required and should be paid prior to the start of work. Secondly, our ordinances allow the city to require financial guarantees that the work will be completed and the site maintained in an appropriate manner. The City Engineer's Office has calculated that based upon the request to remove 250,000 cubic yards of material that a letter of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of $40,000 should be provided prior to the start of work. Drainage/Erosion Control The area around the Minnesota River bluff line is extremely susceptible to erosion. In many areas, the clay soil overlay of sandy soils underneath is quite thin. Natural erosion in this • Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 11 — area, with its steep bluffs, is an ongoing concern. Introduction of human activity has significantly accelerated this problem. The site contains two ongoing erosion problems. The first is located along the eastern property line at approximately the midpoint of the parcel. It is the entrance to one of the many steep ravines that is typical in this area. Water draining over the farm fields pouring down this ravine has created significant erosion in this area. There is also some debris that was dumped in this area at some point in the past. As the ravine erodes, it is extending west across the parcel. There is another but smaller similar type of erosion problem occurring on the west property line in the area that drains down to the former Chicago Northwestern Railroad right-of-way. The railroad right-of-way itself is one of the more significant erosion problems in the area. It serves as the conduit for a large volume of water draining south towards the Minnesota River. Embankments along the railway right- of-way itself are generally significantly eroded. One of the primary advantages of granting the requested interim use permit would be that we would have a means and place to address the erosion control problems on the site. In so doing, we would not only resolve these problems but would also serve to improve water quality of storm water that ultimately drains into the Minnesota River. The proposal calls for the construction of two storm water ponding areas. The larger one is located at approximately the middle of the property and the second is located at the northern tip of the triangular parcel. These ponding areas are somewhat different than what we find elsewhere. The proposal calls for excavating the ponding areas deep enough so that they penetrate into the sand layer which is located below the clay. Thus, instead of having water fill the ponds _ to a point where upon it would drain by pipe into another area, these ponds are constructed to let the storm water seep back into the ground water table. Given the circumstances of this property, we think this is probably the best approach; however, we would like to take an _ opportunity to have the city's engineering consultant, Bonestroo Engineering, review the plans to make any suggestions for improvements prior to City Council review. The applicant will be billed for the cost of these services. — As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to give staff an as-built grading plan of these ponds upon completion to ensure that they penetrate the sand layer, that they are constructed in accordance with approved plans, and they have not been allowed to sediment in through the operator's grading activity. Over time these ponds will also have to be maintained and occasionally sediment and material will have to be removed from the bottom to allow percolation to continue. Drainage easements should be provided over these areas and a notice should be placed in the chain of title of these lots requiring current and future property owners to maintain them to the satisfaction of the city.The northern most pond is located close to the railroad embankment. Staff is concerned that allowing water to seep into the ground in this area has some potential for undermining the slope extending down from the site down to the former railway tracks. We are proposing that Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 12 a clay liner be placed on the western side of this pond to ensure that storm water seepage is directed away from this area. A third storm water basin is being proposed that straddles the line between the north and south Moon Valley parcels near the railway right-of-way. This ponding area would serve a similar purpose and is able to intercept and slow storm water that runs down along the railway tracks. If grading in this area is to be approved, staff would like the applicant's engineer to ensure that interception of drainage in this area does not unduly impact stream flow on a water course that is located slightly to the west. We would also like the plans modified so that tree loss on the northern side of the pond is minimized. At the present time, grading plans indicate what appears to be more tree removal than is warranted in this area. No tree removal should be allowed in the area north of the flowage that enters the pond from the railway right-of-way. The applicant shall apply for and receive a watershed district permit and comply with all proposed conditions. A modest erosion control plan has been illustrated. The applicant's engineer should work with the City Engineer's Office to develop a more precise and acceptable erosion control plan for this site. Erosion control measures should be established before any material is removed and maintained throughout the construction period. Issues Pertaining to the Proposed Southern Ponding Area As mentioned periodically in this report, the applicant is proposing the construction of a third -- ponding area. This pond is to be located on a site that straddles the north and south property lines of the two parcels owned by the applicant. It is located immediately adjacent to the former railroad right-of-way. Grading in this area poses some practical and philosophical problems for staff. The applicant's activities on the southern parcel have resulted in the wholesale destruction of the Minnesota River bluff line. As a result of these activities, a small half mined finger of high ground extends west towards the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the proposed pond. The _ applicant is proposing to completely remove this finger of high ground and excavate out the area of the pond. Thus, he is benefiting by having authorization to remove and profit from the sale of material from this area. There is a drainage and erosion control problem in this area and the proposed pond's location appears to be the most likely one if measures are to be developed to address this concern. Therefore, it is essentially the topography of the area that is dictating the placement of the pond in this location. In reviewing a variance, we considered potential off-site impacts. We do not believe that this area will be visible from any of the surrounding homes due to its remote location and elevation. In terms of public benefit, we believe there are several things to be considered. First of all, an erosion control and water quality problem would be Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 13 addressed by placement of a pond in this area. Secondly, removal of the mined out finger of _ property, which is a remnant of the original primary bluff face, would expose a secondary bluff line located on the other side of the pond. This area is still densely forested and when viewed from a distance is probably going to be difficult to tell that you are looking at a secondary bluff face and not the original primary one in this area. However, staff has visited the site on several occasions and found trees to be located in around this portion of the property. These trees will be lost due to mining operations. City Code typically requires reforestation where tree loss occurs. This reforestation should more appropriately occur in the mined out southern Moon Valley site since this portion of the bluff is visible across a large area. Therefore, we are proposing that the applicant be required to develop a reforestation plan for the remaining areas of the primary bluff face located on the south parcel which the applicant is in the process of mining out under the previously approved earth work permit. This plan should be developed for approval by staff and financial guarantees be posted to ensure that it is complied with. Placement of trees in this area will address visual impacts of the applicant's operation and help to make significant progress in stabilizing a highly disturbed and steep slope that remains after the gravel has been removed. Environmental Considerations In reviewing this site, we have concluded that there are no wetlands or protected water bodies that are being impacted. We also reviewed state environmental regulations to ascertain if an environmental assessment work sheet is warranted. We found that the mandatory threshold for an EAW for this type of use is the excavation of 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of 10 feet or more during existence of the operation. The proposal as outlined by the applicant will disturb and area that is considerably smaller than the mandatory threshold. At this point, staff does not believe that requiring an EAW will add significantly to the understanding of this request nor of measures required to deal adequately with it. Fencing City ordinances allow the requirement of fencing when appropriate to protect public safety due to operations of this nature. In reviewing this proposal, we do not believe that resulting slopes will be steep enough to require the placement of safety fences. Therefore, no such requirement is being recommended by staff. Site Restoration and End-Use Plan City ordinances require operators to give the city a site restoration and end-use plan. The applicant has attempted to comply with both standards. The narrative document describes that no trees will be cut on the north parcel outside of the area of the proposed lower southern pond. Additionally, black dirt will be stockpiled and respread and reseeded immediately upon completion. This is acceptable to staff since this area is open field grass at Moon Valley North Site "- June 23, 1992 Page 14 the present time. Staff would also like to have the applicant's engineer develop a plan to respond to repairing the two areas of erosion that exist at the present time on the north parcel. We realize that in repairing this erosion, care must be taken to avoid further disturbance to the area, but we believe some restoration, cleaning, and revegetation of these areas are warranted. The end-use plan developed by the applicant for this site illustrates a long cul-de-sac extending south from Pioneer Trail along which large lot residential sites are clustered. These homes would be nestled along the top of the bluff line and would be highly attractive home sites. The end-use plan was prepared for the original Moon Valley request and is not consistent with the current grading plan proposal. However, it does illustrate the type of residential development that can be accommodated. Given the disturbance to this area, the Building Official questions the ability to satisfactorily provide on-site sewer in this area. If the use of on-site systems are proposed it is likely that mound systems would be required and _ these must be engineered to the satisfaction of the city. It is equally likely that development may not occur until sewer and water is available and at this time there are no specific plans for programs that would extend utilities into this area. The grades that will result from this proposed excavation are consistent with leaving the site in a condition that can support residential use. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission heard this item at their July 1, 1992, meeting. A large number of residents attended and questions regarding the proposal were raised in several areas. These included potential impact of the proposed infiltration basins on local water supplies, potential visual impacts, and concerns over potential traffic safety hazards at the Pioneer Trail entrance to this property. The Planning Commission reviewed the materials and ultimately recommended approval of the earth work permit and associated waiver. They did revise the conditions by adding five to the 14 already proposed by staff. These include the following: 1. The establishment of a time frame by which all activity on the property must cease and the site be restored. 2. Inclusion of standard procedures to ensure that tree preservation areas are adequately marked and protected during the course of grading operations. 3. The applicant have the potential impact on water supplies in the area evaluated. 4. The access point and site distance questions be resolved. 5. The property owner, in writing, relinquish all future rights to mine this site. Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 _ Page 15 6. Staff reassess the requested letter of credit requirement with an eye towards increasing them to be consistent with what the Planning Commission perceived to be the actual cost of site restoration. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has obtained additional information responding to these and several other requests. First we note that at the meeting it was disclosed that the property owner will not be undertaking the mining operation but this would rather be — undertaken by a second company. The City Attorney indicated that this would cause no unusual problems, however, both the Moon Valley owner and the operator of the excavation firm should be listed as co-applicants on this request and should jointly be responsible for — upholding its conditions. At the meeting, the applicant also indicated that he is in possession of the fee title of the access road to Pioneer Trail. A copy of the title was given to staff at the meeting. Therefore, condition #1, requiring provision of a copy of the access easement over the off-site haul road to the city, is no longer necessary. Staff met with Allen Gray, the Eden Prairie City Engineer, on this proposal and provided him with a copy of the mining plan for review. He indicated that he did not foresee having any significant concerns with the request, but would contact staff if any arose. He also indicated that access considerations on Pioneer Trail should be brought to the attention of Hennepin — County since this is a county road, not a city road. Staff contacted Dave Zetterstrom, who is the Entrance Coordinator for Hennepin County. Mr. Zetterstrom was quite familiar with this access since it was approved in 1988 by him. He has included a copy of permit with a letter — outlining the county's position. He indicated that visibility at this point is quite good. Hennepin County's concerns are not from a sight distance standpoint but rather operational _ characteristics. They are requesting the following: 1. A stop sign be permanently installed at the entrance to Pioneer Trail. _ 2. A bituminous apron at least 3 inches deep be placed 75 feet from the centerline of Pioneer Trail. 3. Truck hauling signs be installed on temporary stands and be utilized only when operations are in progress. — 4. The contractor maintain a clean roadway that must be swept a minimum of twice daily and more often during intense activity as required. — 5. The access apron must be shaped to preclude runoff across Pioneer Trail with all drainage directed towards the site. The contractor should also be responsible for — repairing any damage to bituminous roadway gravel shoulder. Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 16 Staff has taken these requests into consideration and has revised all proposed conditions accordingly. Staff has had an opportunity to briefly review the request with Ismael Martinez of Bonestroo Engineering. Bonestroo is the city's water quality consultant. Staff specifically asked questions regarding the use of infiltration basins rather than the more typically retention and water quality basins with structured outlets that we see in Chanhassen. Mr. Martinez indicated that the infiltration basins are reasonable under the proposed scenario. He would be concerned if there was a significant potential of high volumes of pollutants the site; however, this is not the case with this proposal. The site will be restored and reseeded with the grasses acting to filter much of the surface water. In any event, the surface water drainage would for the time being be rural and would ultimately be residential in nature. Staff fully expects to have to reconstruct the ponds to some extent when actual residential development is proposed. At that point, it is likely that structured outlets would be required and that these basins revert to a more normal function. However, in reviewing the drainage plans, we realize that it is necessary to excavate into the sand layer for these ponds to work and only sketchy information has been supplied as to where exactly the sand is located. We therefore believe it would be prudent to have the applicant demonstrate through borings or limited excavation that the sand is where it needs to be for the excavation to function. This should be demonstrated prior to starting large scale mining. If the sand is unexpectedly deeper, alternative drainage plans must be developed and approved prior to starting work. The applicant was required by the Planning Commission to respond to concerns raised over water quality. At the meeting, Rick Sathre, the applicant's engineer, indicated that he strongly doubted that such concerns had validity. He noted that there is a substantial distance between the ponding areas and any of the homes located on nearby lots. There is also substantial terrain difference in these areas. He pointed that the direction of ground water flow was south towards the Minnesota River and lastly, that if infiltration posed a water _ quality problem, then these home sites would be much more significantly impacted by their own septic systems which are located in very close proximity to their well sites. However, staff continued to press the applicant to respond to this concern in a positive manner. Larry Samsted, the Watershed District Engineer for the Lower Minnesota Valley Watershed, has reviewed this issue. In an attached letter, Mr. Samsted agrees with the applicant's engineer. He indicated that the flow of ground water is towards the south and that the water infiltrating through the ponds is no different than normal absorbtion of rain water. Watershed District approval of the mining request was given on July 16, 1992. The last concern requiring action by staff has to do with the letter of credit. Staff has asked the City Engineering department to recalculate the numbers, as well as checking with other sources to see if their assumptions regarding cost of restoration are correct. The engineering department has also been in contact with Alan Olson, the DNR Forester, regarding the Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 17 — potential costs of reforestation required as a condition of approval. They are proposing that a letter of credit in the amount of $121,290.00 be required as outlined in the attached memo. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Interim Use Permit #92-5 for earth work be approved with a waiver of setback standards subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant and grading contractor shall co-sign the permit request and shall be jointly held responsible for compliance with conditions of approval. 2. Prior to the start of hauling, a 75 foot long bituminous construction entrance, paved to a minimum depth of 3 inches, must be constructed. It shall be equipped with a stop sign. "Trucks Hauling" signs must be posted when operations are in progress and — removed at all other times. Pioneer Trail, in the vicinity of the site, is to be swept at least twice each day and more often as conditions dictate. The applicant is responsible fore repairing damage to pavement and shoulders upon completion of operations an inspection must be arranged by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. 3. Use of explosives to support this operation are prohibited. Hours of operation are — limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, excluding national holidays. If the city receives complaints regarding Saturday operations, the City Engineer may require that these be halted. 4. Dust control shall be the operator's responsibility. If conditions persist which make — dust control ineffective, the City Engineer may require temporary halting of operations. 5. The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. He will provide staff with a written phasing plan for approval prior to the start of operations. — 6. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900 and provide the city with an acceptable financial security (letter of credit or cash) in the amount of $121,290.00 to — cover the costs of site restoration, repairs to Pioneer Trail, and reforestation. Inspection costs in excess of the $900 fee shall be billed to the applicant at a rate of $30.00 per hour to be paid within 30 days of receipt. -' 7. Drainage plans to be reviewed by Bonestroo Engineering prior to City Council review. Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant. The applicant must demonstrate that the — underlying sand layer is located at the elevation described on submittal plans prior to Moon Valley North Site June 23, 1992 Page 18 the start of mining. If the sandy layer is deeper than expected, alternative drainage plans must be developed for city approval. 8. Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the retention basins. Drainage calculations are to be provided to demonstrate that the ponds are properly sized. Place notice in chain-of-title that current and future owners are responsible for keeping the basins functional. When development occurs, the city would normally accept responsibility for the ponds. The applicant must demonstrate that all ponds have bottoms located in the sand layer or structured outlets will be required. A clay liner is required on the west edge of the north pond to protect the adjacent side slope. The applicant shall provide the city with an as-built grading plan of the ponds to ensure that they comply with approved specifications upon completion of operations. 9. Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City Engineer. Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the City Engineer. 10. Project approval by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District is required. 11. Modify plans prior to the start of operations for the southern pond to minimize tree loss on the north side of the pond. The applicant's engineer shall demonstrate, to the — satisfaction of the City Engineer, that this ponding area does not disturb local drainage patterns. 12. Provide staff with an acceptable reforestation plan for the mined bluff face on the Moon Valley gravel mine site prior to the start of operations. Adequate financial guarantees to ensure that the plan is implemented upon the completion of mining shall be provided. 13. The applicant's engineer shall prepare a plan to repair erosion damage found at the two locations on the north site described in the report. The plan is to be submitted to city staff for approval prior to the start of operations. This plan is to be undertaken as a condition of approval. 14. All mining operations and site restoration shall be completed no later than July 15, 1993. 15. Tree preservation areas shall be clearly marked prior to the start of operations by snow fence. Trees and forested areas designated for protection that are damaged by mining must be replaced on a caliper inch basis. 16. The property owner shall file a notice in the chain-of-title permanently relinquishing all future rights to mine the property. Lower Minnesota River 'Watershed Distril 151 WEST 126TH STREf BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 553 ' July 15, 1992 Cyril B. Ess President Jim A. Kephart Vice President To: Board of Managers Merrill M. Madsen Treasurer Edward A. Schlampp Asst. Treasurer William 1. Jaeger, Jr. Secretary From: Lawrence E. Samstad, Engineer Lawrence E. Samstad Engineer Bruce D. Malkerson Attorney Re: Grading and Drainage Plan - SE 1/4 • Section 25 East of Railroad - Chanhassan. I have reviewed the grading and drainage plan dated 6/5/92 for the above area. The reason for this grading is to acquire clay soils which are found near the surface of this property. As a secondary benefit of this work, the regrading of the property will eliminate the drainage from the property and eliminate erosions that presently occurs on the east and west side of the field. The water will be ponded on the site and allowed to seep into the water table. There was some concern according to the Owner's Engineer that the quality of the water entering the groundwater zone would be contaminated. I do not believe that this is any more of a problem than the constant absorption of rainwater by normal soils. The groundwater flow is south toward the Minnesota River Bluffs and should not affect adjacent properties to the north, east and west. There is sufficient capacity in the ponding/sump areas to capture any rainfall and allow for its infiltrating into the ground water table and not be directed to gullies which are situated on the east and west of the properties. I would suggest that the gully on the west side of the project just southeast of the "R" in the word RAILWAY should be corrected and the contours which now go around the gully, continue straight through from northeast to southwest. this would mend a problem area and hopefully end the erosiveness of the gully. The plan should help keep surface waters from going past the borders of the property and eliminate erosion that is caused by runoff from the property. I therefore recommend approval of this permit by the Managers of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. Resp tfully� awrence E. Samstad, P.E. Engineer The plan for regrading the above property, with the correction of the above mentioned gully, is hereby approved by the Managers of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. Date G /6" /cf Z Signed 3/'., J Position A7.,‘„,/,,,/. C I TY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: August 5, 1992 SUBJ: Breakdown of Security Deposit for Moon Valley Aggregate - North Parcels Grading Permit No. 92-5 As requested, attached is a cost analysis to restore the site and guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval for the Moon Valley north parcel based on the grading plan dated 6/5/92, including the north slope of the southerly parcel. jms Attachment: Security Calculation Sheets c: Charles Folch, City Engineer n t*, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Breakdown of Security (Letter of Credit) for Moon Valley Aggregate (North Parcel) Grading Permit No. 92-6 Interim Use Permit No. 92-5 8/5/92 I. Site Restoration For North Parcel 1. Topsoil, Reseed and Mulch 1600 x 600 = 22 Ac. x $1,800/Ac. = $39,669 43,560 2. Erosion Control Fence (Type I) 2550 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $5,100 3. Miscellaneous Site Grading /L.S. - $10,000 -Pond Construction -Leveling 4. Erosion Control Blanket -South Pond 100 x 400 = 4,444 sq. yd. at $1.25 = $5,556 9 5. Slope Stabilization (2.5 to 1 slopes) Furnish & Install Erosion Control Blanket at $1.25/sq. yd. — A. West Slope - 1000' x 100' = 100,000 B. North Slope - 1000' x 250' = 250,000 --- Total 350,000 sq. ft = 38,888 sq. yd. 9 38,888 x $1.25 = $48,611 6. Reforestation on All Slopes (2.5 to 1) 350.000 sq. ft. = 8.03 Ac. x $400/Ac* = $3,214 43,560 *Per DNR: Includes site preparation, labor, 500 seedlings & chemical application II. Surveying/Engineering Fees For Monitoring Restoration Work/As-built Survey (Administration Fee) 3% of Total ($112,150) = $3,364 Summary I. Site Restoration $112,150 II. Administration Fees $ 3,364 Sub-Total $115,514 Plus 5% (Contingencies) $ 5,776 Grand Total For Security 121 For North Parcel 7)-- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 HENNEPIN PHONE: (612) 930-2500 FAX (612) 930-2513 TDD: (612) 930-2696 July 10, 1992 Paul Krauss, Planning Director — City of Chanhassen Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: PROPOSED HAUL OPERATION, CSAH 1, EDEN PRAIRIE Dear Paul : — Thanks for theinquiry regarding the above activity. Hennepin County does have some concerns about the use of the access constructed in 1988 via permit num- ber 3140 (copy enclosed). As noted on the permit, a "STOP" sign should be permanently installed and a bi- tuminous apron ,(3" minimum depth) placed to approximately 75 feet from the cen- terline of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 1. We also required "Truck Hauling" signs which apparently didn't happen since the ._ operation was not begun. These signs must be covered during no activity; if temporary on stands, they must be turned out of service except during operations. The contractors must also maintain a clean roadway. It should be swept a minimum "- of twice daily (noon and after working hours), and more often during intense ac- tivity as required. Finally, the apron must be shaped to preclude runoff across CSAH 1; all drainage should be toward the site. The contractor will also be responsible for repairing any damage to the bituminous mat and/or gravel shoulder. Again, thanks for the timely inquiry. Please feelfree to call with any further questions. Sin rely, David Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator Enc. cc: Al Grey, City of Eden Prairie RECEIVED Gene Illg, Hennepin County Joe Levernier, Hennepin County J U L 1 3 1992 rrint ri CWANHASS[ru HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer ` k. 1HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Permit No. 3140 320 Washington Avenue South Location Code Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 RIVEWAY OR STREET ENTRANCE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS— — - _�- ---- _ SPECIAL PROVISIONS ; -_ —_- :. ,. `Field inspected by 'Dave "ietterstram •_ - ' _ =�*� 7/7�38 •Date .<r.- Location I1 at West County Line : Speed ` .-`1 t ~ ? 3300 =; ; one AD.T. Sight distance: Actual- Left -• -- - 74Q+ r1 ' Right ''��0+ s ' Minimum-Left 740 al►.,.a..,. :8'' Right '10 1700 W 1 - Curb to be removed to: ❑_Construction Joint 0 Sawed Joint • - r .0 { — Recommended drainage:• � Surface 0Culvert Culvert length (;invert diameter :�., way, ;:. Type of sidewalk: 0 Concrete 0 Bituminous 0 Cutback required i _ _ •- .; - - - _ _ - -;ram - ._loci - 1, CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS(Within Ri f-W �''' - 4 varonsiblnio. woe sbta..w it Ali MOO"1 seWZ.. -R-A • +F. BASE SURFACE CURB SIDEWALK .-.---SHOULDER BLVD•DITCH -zs - Type 11 Type Ls Type _ t._- '_Type -Type Topsoil Depth ^rlwn Depth nrawn Design •__-_Depth - -- -' . _Dept Depth 1"- - 2. TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIREMENTS Plate !2 74•=AW :1cr%3+z _ft.._ .Sod Barricades(100 Series) Advance Warning(200-300 Series) Steady Burn (500) . .. { _- Cones (28"-Day lo) sf. - SPECIAL PROVISIONS • i. 4 a.F< • , One 40' wide commercial/street entrance approved as drawn. Shoulder paving to be — removed/repaired as required by Hennepin County. Applicant to reestablish guardrail • ,.- around west radius and provide/maintain STOP sign._ Access t to remain as future city street access ; no other access to site)wil _bill-peraltted. `-�tr ucks Haul in "_signs — be in service during haul operation; -'`" £1 - ' =i 14 1 a y ', ,i4.1% .'11'• • �!ti�"1.0 were `• o ,�.`-a`sue:. Y .•-•`1- :�.".� DO NOT PLACE CONCRETE ON COUNTY RIGHT.O• F•WAY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. ,.. - .....- IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CALL�"DRIVEWAY PERMITS"935.3381 EXT 310 ,1 r:;'-:•;.r; - . Diagram A • t;r , �,;; �- , Diagram IMPORTANT: TYPE"a"CONSTRUCT ROUNDED BERM TO IMPORTANT: CONSTRUCT SWALE TO DIVERT WATER FROM BMR/YY en PREVENT WATER FROM RUNNING DOWN day - _ '.SHOULDER. : B •1 ., DRIVE. 4"Bann i- f� '"`•j 1 Existing Roadway t - `.. - --- - Shoulder _ -, ., \Bhoulder/ �.- `. - _ Mace culvert in exiting ditch '' — - REVIEWED BY . DATE - Culvert furnished DESIGN Date of delivery MAINT. , - - - Final inspection date , r/0 Driveway was found to be O-S sfactory _ ; -.. :f.. , , _ - . ❑ satisfactory APPROVED- MENISCI: '-- :' .-+ • HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS TR FIC SECTION ^,Inspected by r ✓ • ByJ �e_.�-1.r �... s" ., 11 • "r Date s` /"4'.01 fl-1l} -:-' _ • :, HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Permit No. 7/ d{ 320 Washington Avenue South ' • Hopkins,Minnesota 55343 — APPLICATION FOR DRIVEWAY OR STREET ENTRANCE PERMIT - (Read "General Requirements" reverse side) — Name of applicant Alex Dorenkemper 1 Phone(612) 934-0913 Address 18925 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347 (city) g 3M3AtUfl3rl ., A3W3v (sip code) • Name of Property Owner Alex Dorenkemper • Address Same . zsn isp"c no?eri 4isq enizivisz a+cwsvisb Ip ritswevnb Isilrwelfro bna :siotsrrirboz tot znoitaa+ig4A .:..t 1. Contractor performing work - -- r ` -w• ••- r^..,....,�,.• 44.4.1 •>• «, -',-.c^, -- _ . , .,,.., -phone zno.ye:;tia'ag2 ( .2 C pnirizrl.)s723 znabish.csP tnsiytuR 9rti to trn9nt1uup9, ell :lam tztrm atuovst 2. Application is hereby made for permission to construct and thereafter maintain: ;. :privewayai ,e Public Stteetts) — . .V.£28 siot9nrli'vs ,an H .rltw2 auns,A norm+nasW OTC noiiiv� yswngiH y;rwo3 rugannuli 3. Building to be constructed: R Yes ❑ No IA Residence ❑ Commercial (Specify Tyne) 1>;uoirl� e r a rt# a d Eir. is4 to ol hsq to mn1Gt .s oebuy7 stsvilq � e � 17rt irsttns vat z qA V K 4. Driveway or street will be:r O4ernporary. Permanent'Date proposed entrance will be needed: - 7• ZO,- -1988- =- _ •211 '31.6,0 ,—,i ,90n6wte srh Ors o! ,!(f¢t9nsg ifertt tb7e 2 r1o12 .3sere ';'tt !c f`toTt sell no baby, 5. Is the property: ❑ Platted Ix Unplatted Number of present driveways or entrances to property: --.:-.-.....:e-One Driveway is for currently proposed platted property -- 6. Building Permit acquired: 0 Yes OCNo.- City - -- •-• ,,-,,•+ ' Pernsit.No." f . 7. Type of proposed entrance surface. ❑-Bituminous ❑ Concrete OC Rock 0 Other - 1, -n7•-° srrt >,' 18925 County Road Number One,d Eden m Prairie,olq Minnesotil a �8. Location �',-- (Address) (Co.Road) (City) r.,}ri:.rbiq b r 'toqu b.no.i tig.�}ym biw 1i run sq a Trtt .E 1 bee-w,, _rts .y,co_ sbtj !eratcxe zi If -.a - 9. Location,if rural: 0 n.a.. Miles West .--�l f, ounty...Roads No. 1. and ,. .Intersection — ^ s -.7 �'^ 52 c of t ' IN. S.,E.,or W.) (Road or street) _- 7lo et G c i0JZYl so reu 1u ste::r?, �•i..,. yf'!1 to ytlidfarlog2ei _ Dated July 9, 1988 Applicant's Signature Is,e -•4- f r, f - - $$w. A_ erni-.n,,.,, - Alex Dorenkemper _ • - •: - — w.: V i.,,..4 •40.4 .u•,..u,we:II r;i s:1.l N:.. {i,, 1.Oy •iJ J i4 ,O:I C. 4 Acj4 ,,UIld, 4t4sConsV7tc, IW,Js .9 To help the inspector, place a stake with a cloth attached in the center of the.proposed entrance;-higher ttiah any surrounding vegetation. - - ..00isiviO yswrigiH ytrIuo3 r»ge.ir_3N art;yetx 900trgeo APPLICANT'S DIAGRAM•(If plot or construction plan is notsubmitted)-::.-sli-.e ni t•►aits,9fls to awned.) oitt .0 • ' South East • Center Of ..;- Concrete,. c,erner,.. ' Proposed n' n3 yint.o set- yynel^ ton nob :.rntaq anti to grA ;-', , `��, _ . Of Br1.dg ua).ttindaO'.7sriT.I'.j.YWeWay.,L Q 10 lit aie(ey 3p itelirriSeittri{rtf afibagaa at ,aruw(a mob' trrts' "' ti_�_ '= ,- ;. 16 notis}ugel o fis ri tot qrarsoen art,nociikt. m.d•iiatseloaib$Iris'(1)3or•.e#tns bis2'crib os Ifth art 1 ,.f >n;l-.0-1•90 .Fie et--f,:-: 5 to fn9v9 srk nt.be,sut,os+q vltta:•:liennnemizi 4ounty••,Ra07d 'No. 1 • . yd beliupsl ad yarn dnoii iigye yawsvisb wartrysilixt gnitaixs pets to meiisq 3fttsnt sell ni_iparria _- t 60 t~ • A. _ ,re'mt:o3 arts ti _T t - - 1- - :-'•s '-'''-• - ... t- ' R 2x vim; .= - (Complete this form and send all copies to:Hennepin County - - . -.- -Highway Division, Maintenance Office, 320 Washington • s ' . _. - . _ -- •_ _ Avenue South,Hopkins,Minnesota 55343,Phone•.935-3381. 'r' After approval,one copy will be returned to applicant.) •.• �; - _ 0I 304? ,s, ZKir BOTH SIDES • I ±-r- \ I 2 45 (.1) I MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS _ \ C.? AT EDGE \ , BOTH OPTIONS SHALL HAVE A BITUMINOUS MAT FROM STATION 0+ 19 TO 0+75 \ I . \ `1 t i 1 \ • a t�D Ii~ I CIS C9 CO- • 900 . • 890 ��:0 9r� 880 18925 AoL & AI Pej/i f inch = too lee/ ,..i -1 1 itsf(( CO Ve r (Pt0� ,)a t, ell -1 ,4. V - ' a. X` ��� /f 4. - L as 4 rft.� ��// -- \, 1641/ / \ \ c. - ' 1 ' 1 im _A 0 Iti ledi 'SqP Ilii z , I(. k4; Vi1� , / 1 o f ,II . 13 ,R ,. ,'� /~~..117.3 ,If ifRii. . .. ... ....., ,„, / ,'",' .---,_ \`... , .. / . i ,)!'\ I,, 1, `. ..,•C lig q-,,, \ \\_,'‘ ‘,. ..„•••'..- ‘,/ i •'•.:.•••••-\ ss \ ss• ...-...//,/,', I ' I ' 1 i •-/ i i .s.. ‘ / e- Z:i �^ p I` iE.; ♦ ♦ . .',..,t:G" \"'.`v��---ice ��\.,, 1 I 1 1 1 4.,-ice..., 11s �i_ �' K r ./ r F . .\ \7 t111 --- .. .i: / . , 1 1 1 \1 ;!j' /71i r !. S F . \\ \ . `v 11 1 . , -*oti'•,c`. 1 1 \\ /" %C ,i // 1 ¢` . \♦ ` . \ { :t., ` 1 1 / : \ , - a. `. ♦ J 1 ( , / i ..\ /,r — k EBe ' ♦ \\ I , ,,: A „ •: ( 1 1 / 1 J / ` . ♦tom. `. \% `l '`i ,r r; n k Q liI Ia'f:-. _ ,I 1 f i i i l i id ' _.I i, i r 1 ( %1 41 1 1 1 r•'1 —\ ( • ` `t //r•' f?if / 'i /4.--,' \ : ? \:_,^1; 1, t % , t `s, . , •,., \,I k i % 4/4',//,' /7,-/----./ — y■ t' C �/� ,- -.- -nip y \ �, r /� z1 I a a t � t1 g I i ; t ,;i 1 dot /�/� // ,fir- r=: — ?d L ycZ ,..,: \ i , z R _ n /i i/ • F. N.. • a/\y,.�/ ` ` is / '' -- , //' '' — 1- v"' 'i ."'/1 ,/ ` ` _. s•li .--....- •fi-- _ ,,1 i 1, i i 1 ItiLVIl'f°I if 12-4 % i imm 1...-71 7 2 z, ,,,,..: .../ .. , , \ • ., -...„ ,, 5 - / 1 II I.I.I / ///4 I'.. "'it . - 49t 141RAC91144 ' M 0111A �0[I t11oo11 C01191 10.IiLlM 19 I I in!'''`,1I % •ATMRE•11E140CU1•T, inc. { Mil VALLEY AGRREUT� '""^"•�••�• • ,_.,. lt... . .,...» 1 v....l.,...MOM Of. 9 ... • /. ...\,..\ (..' 14,7 .,,,,. ., --7/.;-..—.=_—_-9. ./.' ".' 1 , .N.,d4",/,'; ., 'if 1-1'"...Z-_:.-.0\ \,. , ... •//-•-•\ • ( / . ..7 / -• —.—•••6* /, / .. (NI: - - - -.,- .. - ... ..., ,,,- -/.• ,' 67 ,•/ .P.,. -7 • \.--1 ---.4/ ,/,', .. , vp,( ./ ili--Ar'\ Lt,„ AIL t( / N. ../ I 4,4iff.,Y ll, /111 \•: W ‘‘,..•---'./ 6t, „ .. ,„. iyr i . . .'7 / ', s . ; •-...., 11/4 \., // C • 7- 1-11. , '..--, •,-.', i //,.1 tcLp.s. N. A \ //i. \:::\N- y i . _..r... ••••4•1 /,,.1.\„! , --,„‹.---.....,,,, ... \N.:\••••...:7.,,, ow% 1. i: . ....." 'd, i....':4 , • • \Z-d. --77..f.--:.. .-...... .. .,.. .`-,,,,%•-_-:;?„-/_, N k `. r . fr-, r.• ' • \ :' ' (----',......"`'".-----\\ ."" ' ' . --., -..-....-% .....:ae.,- .c. ,",• . % \ s, 1 1.7.'4:1 L % 1 \\.i •---, b.`,_,' .• .. - ly , ......., .,.:;/......, , , . ., .... .. .01 81 1. % -..4,\ • .. ...•::..........." . •. / ‘,... /f .. ,.. fri . I., NI ....... . •-h.c. 777' ..! ..... .. N. . . .k. I „,.. • ' _il.,; .... .---•=ii • ;`,x11: ‘ c_ .....,,,. .1: s % \ \\\\ .„.., ‘ ...,__ _1„,,,..--7-...„,\\,,,,.. . ..„, .• . 1•; S., 1 k % . . t • • I.% ....,,L...i. \,.......%. ...'*.,......../ ' I) '1. ...-7;1s' '. 1 N I 1 ......_.' ‘‘.1/' L•ft°6) \ \r•• .i. .• . ' 1 it ..tr r A 1 I % % \k _- ..0/Ve.o• \ 1....... ., : ••••I I .,0, ;. , i.1. \ i ,1/4 ..A ..... ....OS t ‘ 1 i r/i i • , ... . ,, , , , ,,e-......." • ..-:„.....;--- ....- /I / ,-.,/, r .--0 ‘ % ..,, k i GO' . 7.,,,,,....--5",, //:••••.., ; . ,‘ i ... ... ,... / ... "';','-0-C---..„..---:—_,..:;•• --r- .2-- 1 , I/.1 ii 114;1/fl/.1i'll ..**-.',X,.. .H.:.:.‘k:k."\.1..N:11:‘ri‘71%\i%•.‘ •••\.21:::...:7-.'Lf.:)2°1./-t-.-...;..''....'---fl'1-.._ \-; .."1."...1%, N. -..•..., S.., • - " - // i • '''/ /1 / 1 I A:, / ‘! *:\'.\‘‘•i \ s• i : ...-.... 1 ""--- / /1" • •...... 1 P.:". • p k • I. . % ..,,, . . 1, •. • •• -- - if if / / /47.'1. . j; i I 1 , 1 g ,, \-, . 1 t 1.--- /- Yri i " • ' 'tZ s ` 1 t< •••:-- . . 4' / ,., // / ,,./;.• • • I , I \k •,1 'k •••' / 1 j/ •", ‘1)! 1\ , 1 ( ( 1 is i „ / ,i / ,4/.,-__-__ i i i•Of iii. ... % 1 \ i k j ' . ... . / 7,,..• / ,„ ./..9.,...:•_--....;.-•:: -••- / • i i ', . • /r //•i i•-".G.':-*.---r----4.. *:•"-• ''' ....Iti - ' , : / ./,/ „r:,.. . . . . • ..,.- . '• .1 .•. • •_ c. .... ' / ./rit .4.--...:.• - ;10.1-..-7_ ---- '.. 4 '!I • ' /N/ '4• • •- tike:GTV g.e. . % ..4. - • ad* , i •/4". pi r.... ... .......a. ' . i• . .Pi I \0 i : • . . ' , 1 1., 11:43ar- 1 / ., , , „. „.., i_... , , / , ' . • 1 • _. **. .... -- // , ' i •.. I i.1.. • ••*.. .'• ,, if ., \L:047 .r. . • ..6.\•• /.f : i . '' / .• . ‘ •• . i : : ;',... . ! ... „,.. . _ -• . ., i , . lir • / ":.:...1'... -....•,1)\ .., -.-ci .41:„, / . - .• . ..... . - -... , . , i • 4-fyri,1 LIOE -- t \ Illf : ‘ ——/ , I sic. r = • - •- 4.: _. _• ' , I I;•1 i l'''.'' A' e 4.:// "'"f 4,*1 : : . I• M., f,••.,.. / ..,,,10.- , e 1.,"7 ." :-'77.. 1•" .. I VbiollOft 'l I.' ' -.0 -- . -'''........,1:"."'" ",„1 i " C A '• ' •'' Nrs& . " •-•'"'• .. • z , .. e •-....' . i. : ..:-.7'''''zlii=r ,. •• - . N• —' ,...k :• 1 .1.4.1• , .. -. • ... ... • \ / \ . 843' :Q i ',. •• \ / ' . i,.,i. s.\ N 1.,....,„r ,, ,., z , • • • r 4. ' ,' • . `... ... ,.. .....o.) '.i fQ) , ,'.„, _____\-- ` - •'""'"; /CP k`mo41•44 ' / ‘. ........ ' • r iekS4M • .. \ ‘ i,I,r,:-.-- , • ; t 0. „,..." . ... i ,,.• vt i i 1 i , e e '• \ • e r . ! , ,,, < i . ,,, f• ..........• , % %.,.. : e• ' tv-ciesa •leaLuey po'1.6gw;ctiixs • 117....xvikNEs cogen=P1- 6111,9%.- 0 547140a--teeiwcmS1— It4c.. I"10- 7.4::›C/' • • INEM. . ..1 ... / „.� ` ` •• - .1 \ grit+ _ -- • i_ �. • nilflife/ :r.,.,,,. 7 ..-, . . f (441p• I i r • i - it:ii ..,:.. . 1 ,..,1 . ._ i . _ I Q,. "44: O , • •w•• • 2 77/97.4.,. �., , ppII _I '• • F �' ..t y` :i� 1. . i ,? , �;f i ,T7 6 t f• _ .� t i. + _ •i _a..�oA1J ..i r,u� ~ L`Y JAI:4 \ A s.-fir.: 19 • -1[7.dri 7......--- . 11‘ .4 fAittt*1 . • I I/0%0104 1 0°I . truirEs /....tot:41.0 lit.:4.0.'1 • 711 • . ... s I.."/ Ill// • • i �� : : . :: ... ... �'^''M 401 a rT — I !lop. ,44:(1 ''./ .” • i14' r % ott ' ,-. „ _mot. .+ 1 .__ +•!�'' - . . ma's" I , I Not • \ =:a:r "T till! \�-v _ ��i �•-,,. , f8h - _ o a !O " ' aLakes ! H 9p0 900 ) ' / tlf-.,r(i) i -'(, ,______,j, ",:2../*, -419r-; • :,.• ''. ff-0 N...z- • '''. '..:,--:••-• -- -•:... - - ,.n1--)‘ \ '----------: -4q4' ' C°i 1 . ofts ....s..-0-4_ ::,,,,,,',. x ,,._,,. .. ... „s_ii,) \ .,•. .._________(„:_.,,, . . * i 4 . : ' A,(r-7' '''. tel "___,---:'-'il-, /641 CD qpirib131111* ., - r •••\,„•••-•0..-.,—viv fflelp.g. W L �'� /'f0h �� Q • 1 )ci, 7‘-2)4.-- G:' e.", ,.. y Y i ��j ��J`Iti 1 j' _ �Q 1I c r Q r r '.,:' 408, . .-,,. '.• -•V/ ', L t7'1/ ° ..' '.- - - k.,i .,,g--,_iw__t.,.._7. N-,-ir-2\.. ..t -4.' 'A.- -.-,7- Nag, 0..Z.,•-•,..7\------S-1, __C,1 c,Cp.....__A___I...Pt,--,%_ ,---_- _ - , ) � '�' .- ~~#l-.l, If- ----fi,- r �'J`'fc--..-...1-1x O o .°•, --_---,. Q- 4T- _cs\ .. _.., —.... 4-141 ,-;,,,,-.13.---iL: .,,,,i)) . - Illiik ill :-1 '.3-cil , I ....s. 41,- .\ 0 . ,./ -.61,..--"" 11111111011 jvli i 1 t ..* f.,:iii.:, - - • ' , .5L-..„ 4-11'(fl 67 0 ),/ 7 -Jr, 800 % .�'Ilki---/• _� J 4. 5 -`- '`1✓ , Qr Fi • Z ��..-�Fe�l _ L1��111i�' � 1-�..�.�� O 1 �rT.rit Chi f- �„ i h,= y O • pQ�r T � �\' ° '' - r4. mow•+. _ �•r- / • `' 11 -1 _-?.- .)`-`), r's, 1W- r _ _ ,..., _-_ J �. � (�'� i rf r �` _ -� �.. O" ( ( l • ),. p .,. ,,,__ ,, , ,... •••.._ ,..p •/ 0 • r ti ri 900 .c.i;� , ,e, , ..._:ii_ . - , t(r-N. e•-•----5j...-•••-/ "A rcp t,, . ../4 0 o ) \ '\- � %-- .`- 'ram-------� _ - -.---- � � O i CZt‘N ::-.--'--)'..:4"... .) .4,Lt.--;' c, 1-,/•:•\ /--,-. <-,,;-- --'.- - -.4 ---'-' C W.) - '-1 0 i \,,,,. . .... 19,5 - (k .: --s --, ,,. d- 1 . ,,. ..0..,.....„.....,_,..,,,.I.,,. k. 1*-'`\(;-----.-za, (-•-• \\*-' O e' ' O `` > i � - a d _ � ooi�Cour /„� 1... . 1 � © _ a; (!r7,1 .• .,._.,, .`�-, :1 r' y00/��i�� t . " r 0 ,lOt f: ^ �° /�1 Y - �,+ r r . �/ " q ` it p_(-.,I r d: I:"� I _ — - ��� \• y �r�'1 \=��JV•`�fSpty L �i :°!j; ,� _..,/��- , , 'hf 7- •-t• ,�.,F F ,'-',.. „.* -1, ,,„_._;__ ,_ .. _.- ...:,.[,„„.▪ 4./...,:.7...„. .,,.,.,,,,_ .„•,,.:::.,...,.. - __,.- _ .,,„„. ,.,,, , .„..,, ,,,„.______,.., . ........„_.,;.....,•1 ..,,,,..,._=....„,, . __ - .., , :..„,, ,,,,„.„,...„...„,...„......„.....„.....•..•,.....:, .... _ _ . , _:, , s„_,......„ ....._, -ft': ,_ -.-'?.. 11Y:�,l ' ..,i "`�`J`J���! -{ r�- %IA-`•-''Y-Z-r 's�.,t-w-�1r ..•. }y. ���I c _ z `x' _+ Rice al. �" rtr I,.i c �. z?`'1s r As>�umption-/ ./) 46.- • 0•• 1!, ` 1 x'/ - • 4 ' JJ -` l •', •--mot - +1► F '- a. • —+% G-{ ...,,,r —'W'-- •r 4 t •4s•. _,t3 r.,_,. i-4 /' •r ' —r ,.y►-, 4\ .r~ _4 .4-- — -,. - _._. _--- ! 11 a iu •�` 'n"<! - rf _-�-'- •�. �. -.,. pro / r�x ots !ARVER CO i�%j�_� V - .. - �. _ \ COTT COS.% 1 s a �' , \1d� 1 dib Trailer /•'� - - a 0 �� Park _f 10'�- •:�� / -.511 /,-.` \ -- r� ry. ;��D/ a oP' S Grave - e-� ®� ': jr'`1,, ,''= — %' i'1 ��, _ � (;'' IMa/!19._y—�� 6�. Grovel nts , T- Su, LF Z 011111, SATHRE - BERGQUIST , INC . - .:r' qv150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 �Q (612) 476-6000 FAX 476-0104 _ c�FRs ?LPG June 17, 1992 Mr. Paul Krauss CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55337 Subject: MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES Dear Paul: Our letter is in response to our phone conversation of yesterday concerning the application for the permit necessary for excavation of clay soils from the northerly 45 acres that Moon Valley Aggregates owns. We discussed several issues, one of which was the quantity of materials that are proposed to be excavated and exported from the site. Moon Valley Aggregates proposes to mine, load and truck away 250,000 cubic yards of clay soil material with the destination being the Eden Prairie Land Fill site. The second discussion item was our rationale behind the ponding system. In the 45 acre parcel we show the excavation of two seepage ponds. Our intent is to redirect the runoff of site surface waters as a part of this grading operation and direct the water to these two ponding sites. Presently water which runs off the field areas does so in a haphazard, uncontrolled manner and over time ravines have developed where the water concentrates and creates great forces on the soil and erodes it. Major — erosion scars at present are a large ravine system which leads easterly into Eden Prairie from the east central portion of this site and secondly a smaller ravine which is developing along the western border of the property at the interface with the old railroad corridor now owned by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority. ,RECE;V (i �l�n 0 1992 In our efforts to stabilize this erosive situation we have come up with a concept of excavating ponding sites which are deep enough to pierce through the tight clay soils at the surface into the underlying sands. Moon Valley Aggregates proposes to excavate into this sand layer a small amount to create an atmosphere or situation where the surface waters running off to the ponds will seep into these sand soils and not — overflow into the ravine systems any longer. The secret to stabilizing the ravines, in our opinion, is to redirect water away from them and over time allow them to stabilize again under conditions where the vegetation that's attempting to take hold isn't constantly overwhelmed by the force of the water that is coming from the upland. • We discussed the possibility of trying to stabilize the ravines which have been recently denuded. We suggested that over time nature would — very likely revegetate itself. You asked that we investigate other potential ways that vegetation could be established and we will continue on that request. At this point, I would like to reiterate one fear; which is that if we attempted to spread topsoil and revegetate the ravines by actually taking mechanical equipment into the ravines we would probably make matters worse not better. If work is to be done, it would likely be done by hand or from a distance by applying some sort of — a water born slurry adhesive material to the slopes. At this point, I am not sure how successful those attempts would be nor how logistically difficult getting to those areas might be. We will provide further recommendations as we develop them. The next item of discussion was over the issue of how we knew that we could break through into the sand layer under the clays in the bottom of the ponds. I indicated to you that Moon Valley Aggregates had investigated the depth of the clay soils by an exploratory excavation with a harkhoe. Their best information at this point is that the sand — interface in the major pond location occurs at about elevation 965. You will note that on our grading plan we have shown excavation to elevation 964 +/- with the goal of reaching into the clean sands with the pond bottom. In reality it is very likely that the sand interface elevation varies a bit and that field adjustments would likely be made in the pond bottom so that we could consistently reach to the sand layer. Lastly, we discussed the issue of the benefits of providing ponding downstream or downhill just above the area that is presently being mined. I had sent you a copy of a proposed ponding area which would be constructed to straddle the south end of the 45 acre parcel and the north edge of the area that is being mined. This excavation would. remove the lower bluff ridge and create a ponding basin. One result of this excavation would be a further generation of sands which Moon Valley Aggregates could sell to their customers. The second result of this work would be that the major or more northerly bluff line and slope which is heavily wooded would be fully exposed to view from the river valley. The rational for the public's allowing this excavation would seem to be two fold. 1. We believe that it would be in the .long term more attractive for the heavily wooded slope to be the bark drop for this area, fully exposed to view. The first reason to allow it would be to create a more aesthetically pleasing permanent condition. 2. The second reason to allow this work is that it would allow the construction of a storm water ponding basin which would intercept the water from the bluff and water which drains southwesterly through the old railroad corridor and provide a large enough seepage pond area that water will not overflow out of this basin and therefore will not migrate downstream causing erosion or flooding problems. We will prepare a calculation of the estimated runoff volume to this "boundary straddling pond" so that you can better understand the magnitude of drainage into this area. Please give me a call if you need any information immediately. We will continue to explore these opportunities and finalize our proposal. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, SATHRE- GQUIST, INC. OPP ,6174 Richard W. Sathre, P.E. RWS/dm cc: Mr. Thomas Zwiers Mr. Charles Folch _ J U N - 9 - 9 2 T U E 1 6 : 3 6 S A T H R E - E E R G Q U IST A INC - P . 0 2 _ SATHRE - BERGQUIST , INC . w �;;i - 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 �"� (612) 476-6000 FAX 476-0104 G'�'FRS P`p June 5, 1992 Mr. Paul Krauss CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive _ P.O. Box *147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES Dear Mr. Krauss: Accompanying this letter are a permit application for earth work _ operations and data including a proposed grading plan. The application materials include lists of property owners within 500 feet of the legally described premises both in Carver County and neighboring Hennepin County. The materials also include a list of ground water elevations in the area and a map depicting ground water contours. Ground water in the proposed excavation area is well below the proposed base of excavation although perched water within the clay overburden is undoubtably present and will seep out of the sidewall of the excavation as sand seams within the clay are encountered. The purpose of this grading operation as depicted on our grading plan is two fold. 1. The property owners have been approached by the owners of the Eden Prairie Land Fill looking for tight clay soils to be used to cap the landfill as part of its closure. This site is close by, the land is agricultural, in other words, -- open and not treed. The removal of the material would not be particularly damaging to long term use of the property. 2. The grading of the property presents an opportunity to solve present and continuing erosion problems of existing runoff flowing from the plateau into the ravine system that has developed over the years along the railroad corridor and also to the east. J U N - 9 - 9 2 T U E 1 6 : 3 8 S A T H R E - B E R G Q U I S T , INC - P . 0 3 The excavation of a permanent ponding system, within the site, with 2 ponds will change the current pattern of erosive ravine drainage and promote groundwater recharge. These ponds are located: 1. At the very northerly edge of the excavation area and; 2. Near the head of the major ravine at the eastern border. These ponds provide a pair of locations where site runoff may be directed and the water will seep into the underlying sand soils without running over the top edge of the ravines and continuing to erode the sensitive soils. The quantity and type of material to be excavated as part of this operation is well defined. The landfill operator needs a tight low permeability clay soil such as that found on the surface of this property. They have estimated the need for 250,000 cubic yards of this material. The grading plan as presented depicts the generation of this quantity of clay soil material. The land owners intent is that following the approval of a permit to do this work hauling operations would commence. This starting time is hoped to be during the month of July 1992. Soil material would be excavated by backhoe on the site and loaded into belly dump trucks and hauled via County Road #1 in Eden Prairie and U.S. Highway #169 to the landfill site. Access to County Road #1 would be via the road out of the north end of this property which exits immediately east of the railroad overpass bridge on County Road #1 just east of the Chanhassen/Eden Prairie boundary. Twenty to Thirty trucks would be utilized in the hauling operation with proposed hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru Saturday. Obviously weather conditions would control the operations to some degree so we would suggest that the hauling work begin in July 1992 and continue until all the material is hauled or until the end of reasonable weather this construction season. Any clay soil not transported before the weather shutdown would be hauled in 1993. Work would commence again in May of 1993 and continue until completion. Restoration of the site would be done on a staged basis. As each area is excavated, topsoil will be replaced to a depth of at least 4 inches and the exposed soils areas reseeded. All 3:1 slopes would be mulched. In addition to the seeding, erosion protection around the ponding areas would be installed as the excavation was completed. All earth work operations, topsoil restoration and reseeding would be completed by October 15, 1993 for the entire site. J U N - 9 - 9 2 T U E 1 6 : 3 9 S A T H R E - E E R G Q U 1ST .. I NC . P - 04 We hope this letter gives you the information necessary for the _ processing of this application, if additional information is required please contact us so we may provide it. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely. SATHRE- ST, INC. Richard W. Sathre, .E. RWS/dm cc: Mr. Thomas Zwiers enc. J U N — 9 — 9 1 T U E 1 6 : 4 0 S A T H R E — B E R G Q U I S T I NC - P _ 05 _ i'sii /I/ I,; /••••\,-: 7- -...**Ze :;,; — ' ---.7, `6"-I. S.G `...„.1;i7((// 111N / ay1/1 {j . .V `/ /r -1 G a ,Z K. t '.". ., 'q /n� 1 \ \��� _ tom,; :j;i N 1 i•-•rs, /,..,t ir,/,,, , I, \_ - .: .r---._,\,.„-0:,..\ .. ..1,...„.• . k , ., I „ .4.,,, .,- t \\c: ., -....,„ ...._;_.,..,..r-\- , , \N,,,,,, ,Nt / -- / !".” •/,' ' ,, \ 1 -'•,• \\,, .....L,„_,...--7.'"" . '.'i'•.1/4 \\*•-•;-::- ....- __-, /i / , ,/,,,'I r \ \ I, \ i 4%., ."7-..-_-- . 77::-_,_ .:-..: ///i f/, ,.. ` a \ tl \ \ may. -7 1 t /, /gym+°,I. , , \ ! t \\r.tq.•`.\',w„. r" _ i /r ! / / / ? . I 11 f \ 7i t ) t t \( , ' /." / , / / /f;• - -:.-• , r t i li 1\'• •' 1 .__ 1 ' - . • • , . „ i ,;b./..„? , , j„: : . t. 1142tir 1 ; 1 : ' i ..' i 4 n_-- ..... --,:-_-_, ) ',. i , : , ..e., • • — , . - ;I 'scam) U► r. ti 1fI. — 11 — '' ' 1 1. ) ' 'pew f'l I i _ `'i 7'•, / ,h • V Mcaoi4 v� x�y , — 170+ w col4cArPr 09(t3 5t5 43-- touts ' 0mac.. 40 CITYOF 100‘ IIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 July 7, 1992 Mr. Tim Wise 425 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Tim: I received your letter of July 2, 1992, concerning the Moon Valley mining operation. My _ purpose in writing is to update you on the status of the proposal as well as providing you with information to respond to your questions. As to the first point, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request at their July 1, 1992, meeting. This item is scheduled to go to the City Council on July 27, 1992, although it is possible there may be a delay to respond to the need to provide additional information in some areas. Several of the residents that spoke raised valid questions that will require further work on the part of the _ applicant. It is possible that this would cause a delay, thus, I will take the step of mailing new notices to the residents prior to the City Council hearing. Your letter will be included among the materials forwarded to the City Council. On the Moon Valley operation itself, you should be aware that there are two separate operations occurring under two separate reviews by the city. The first is the old mine pit — located off of Highway 212 that you appear to be referring to. The city has been in litigation with the operator for well over the past 12 months to resolve issues regarding this mine. It is a grandfathered use that predates city ordinances and therefore, has the right to exist. The — city never disputed this point but took the operator to court since we believed we had an obligation to protect health and safety of community residents. Thus far, Judge Kanning has found in the city's favor, and the City Council has recently approved a permit with conditions for this operation. You should be aware that the city is not in a position to close or to limit this operation unless it is related to public safety and welfare issues. Thus, while we may have preferred that this operation not be there at all or cease to exist, at this point, we can only address issues such as provision of safe and stable slopes, reduction in erosion problems from the site, and traffic safety. We fully agree with your assertion that Hwy. 212 is a _ dangerous, overcrowded road and this is likely to remain so until new Hwy. 212 is built over the next 2 to 5 years. Under conditions of approval, the applicant is required to work with the city and MNDOT to address highway safety issues. — tof PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - Mr. Tim Wise July 7, 1992 Page 2 However, the notice that you were sent was not for the Moon Valley gravel operation. Rather, the Moon Valley operator owns an additional parcel of land located between the old gravel pit and Pioneer Trail. One of the points that the city won in litigation relative to this site, is that the Moon Valley operator does not have the right to expand his non-conforming mining operation onto this property without approval by the city. This parcel was acquired by the operator after the date which the city ordinances requiring permits for mining operations became effective. We also must stress that the applicant's request for this property is completely different than the mine that you wrote about. In this area, the applicant is requesting approval to remove 250,000 yards of clay, which would be used for sealing the Eden Prairie landfill. The clay would be removed from an area that is an open field and was formerly farmed. No trees would be lost and the site would not be significantly different than it is today. Black dirt found on the site would be stored, respread, and reseeded as soon _ as the operation is completed, which should occur by late fall or early spring of 1993. It is the operator's intent that this land be made available at that point for residential development which would be nestled in the trees along the top of the bluff line. Existing erosion problems found on this site would be repaired through this grading activity. Staff has found this to be a reasonable proposal that is consistent with the need to protect the environment and allow reasonable use of the property. We also believe that sufficient conditions have been built into the request to protect surrounding property owners. Long term views will not be altered by this request. I have included a copy of the staff report for your review. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Si Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director PK:v Enclosure RECEIVED JUL 0 61992 CI1 t Lir Uhh NHASSEN - July 2, 1992 425 Lakota Lane — Chanhassen, MN Paul Krauss, Planning Director City of Chanhassen — 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Earth work/Gravel Pit Off Hwy 212 Dear Paul, I received notification from the city of Chanhassen for the above proposed — earth work but was not able to attend the meeting July 1, 1992. I am against the expansion of the current gravel pit for the following reason; 1. It would increase truck traffic onto Hwy 212 which is already conjested and dangerous now. 2. Their are many residential homes on the bluff area overlooking this — proposed area and it could drastically effect the market values of the property for the homeowner and thus lower the tax base for the city. 3. There has to be an environmental impact on the area. I've lived in the city of Chanhassen for over nine years and with heavy rain, there is constant washing of gravel out of the current pit onto Hwy 212 and over into the Rice lake area. — There can be other reasons listed for not expanding the current pit but the above highlight my major concerns. — Sincerely, Tim Wise rb&o„\i\ 1 19 g -2- - - - - - - - -_ - - -- __ _ __ C_r4 s_ _. y_ _ Cri - - - C(1,0 7L4 <D-ft-J E _0?) kt--I 5 oi - LAD 1&S 11 fP Finn Go t/S?/ -,' `S -- — - /- - - U aT e 1J HST 77) P 7- au Ems- _ ���=� Z- i, i/•✓ C --- 77�� I�o o Al O GL J )2477 D it/ •frki .Q 11 -- /111/ " 47Vp /WAvs a /- - v,✓ E� T /S _ /^/ lJ' dpi�Li t-7- -Z- /1,fy cto,tiere./c/ A1-5 4- /e- s-AfP -.2/7- *T 4 a 4- -PL- oAJ Pao i� sT i11/25s > 747/ 7 - (/, ,4 o��� - - �xi& A-1J 4z-C 7 2 ,14/1/5 T 3 A- Azzt/ !efA2 /,0- r/,rj v JP0._1- - K./. elf/Jr/ "/AP/ C—mac -- i/1/SJi fithS PG jt/ /I T 7/". Aa/ lz -- - —_ 5� oa 0 lam/__-_._ / JPe S ---- �r ArC 7i ‘ . _ - Z-/6-a - his -- - G6-0vtrz--/S' kf o c T ,44 i&I j M,44,<._ ----- -- --- - - - - - , /-S-�C - C QZ. S -lt/sT //ve t - r 10 'e% {T10l2-S PAS T 447,01 74 etIt/ NAY -- fi-VP/"(771/1 erf/_77e -=1771/7--L _ _ _ P74171,eti e _ /1/P r - � S T A/vt 7- /q-fri o^/c / 44/qy _ tv e 4/43 Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 16 if marker buoys will enhance the safety of the swimming raft. All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who didn 't vote and the motion carried . Batzli : And when will it go to the City Council? Krauss : The 27th . Batzli : July 27th this issue will go before the City Council and I encourage you to follow the issue up . As I indicated , we recommend . They make the final decision . Thank you all for coming in . PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTHWORK/MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, LOCATED NORTH OF HWY . 212 AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY . MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE . ( Tim Ehart arrived to the meeting during discussion of this item and Steve Emmings left the meeting during discussion of this item . ) Public Present: Name Address Dave Johnson 821 Creekwood ( Left written comment ) Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail Dennis & Catherine Bartholow 9841 Deerbrook Lane Emily Pischleder 185 Pioneer Trail Tom Dalyonrod 8280 West Lake Court Jeffrey Michell 9961 Deerbrook Drive Gerald Bertsch 8556 Irwin Road, Bloomington Rick Sathre Sathre-Berquist , Consultant Engineers Tom Zwiers Moon Valley Aggregate David Johnson had to leave the meeting early and left this written statement to be included into the record . TO: Chanhassen City Council FROM: David Johnson 821 Creekwood _ Re: Moon Valley Gravel Site . Ladies/Gentlemen: Due to time constraints I am unable to be present to present concerns over the further mining of the Moon Valley site . As an occupation I am a realtor . I am keenly interested in how one area of a development can affect other areas of development . Unless extreme caution is used in upfront agreements , the end result can be and most often is unacceptable . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 17 It is in this spirit that I express my concern as a resident but also as a person employed in the real estate industry , that an end use plan be proposed that is acceptable to the city , specifically the adjacent homeowners . Once an acceptable plan is accepted , there must be a financial instrument in place ( i .e . payment bond , letter of credit , etc . ) to insure - that the plan accepted is carried out . A cost of restoration of $50 ,000 . was proposed at a previous meeting . I believe this to be severely inadequate to accomplish even the most minimal restoration and believe that realistic costs must be addressed now- up front ! It is my concern that the operator 's past conduct to residents and city concerns may be indicative of how future agreements or concerns are handled by this operator . Frankly , I do not see that this operator has earned anyone 's trust and I am concerned that this may be a pattern . Please be careful . David 5 . Johnson Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Does anyone on the Commission have a question they want to ask Paul before I open it up to further public comment? Farmakes : I have a couple of questions . Is that bond listed in here? Krauss: The letter of credit? Farmakes : No . It says $40 ,000 . in here . Krauss : I believe there 's another condition that . Farmakes : Yeah but it doesn 't have a financial amount . Krauss: No . What we intend to do , and I was speaking for the City Attorney . By the way , we have Tom Scott from the City Attorney 's office here tonight . One of the things that we would like to do is we have a working relationship with the DNR forester . We 'd like to get his input as to what he thinks the cash value or what it would actually take to do that - job and we would insert that , if it gets through the Planning Commission tonight , we would insert that into the conditions for the City Council approval . Farmakes: I 'm curious where the $40 ,000 . or where that amount came from? Do you feel real comfortable with that? Krauss: Frankly , whether I feel comfortable with it or not isn 't the question . The City Engineer 's office does . They have a rule of thumb that they use for , an acre of disturbed area costs x number of dollars to finish grade , reseed and maintain erosion control and it 's a formula they 've used pretty standard for a number of years on development projects . And that 's Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 18 where that number was generated from . So they 're comfortable with it and I 'm . Farmakes: Is that formula the same on a piece of farmland as it is on a bluff area? Krauss: I honestly don 't know the answer to that . I suspect it probably is . There 's a little room for fudging in it I suppose to recognize difficulty but this area , the area that they 're mining up on top is in fact farmland . It is relatively flat . The grades that will result from this are relatively flat . That 's not the work on the bluff line . The only work that they would have to be doing on the bluff line is the reforestation on that lower ponding area . Batzli : Anything else Jeff? Farmakes: No . Batzli : I see the applicant 's here . Would you like to respond to the conditions and otherwise , address us . Rick Sathre : Mr . Chairman , I 'm Rick Sathre from Sathre-Berquist . I 'm the engineer for Mr . Zwiers on this portion of his operation . Tom Zwiers is here with me tonight . Well staff 's done a very thorough job as usual and you 've got a lot of information before you . I think what I 'd like to do is share a little bit of information and then I 'd make myself available for { questions . I made a few transparencies as well and I 'll try to help to educate a little bit you , and perhaps the neighbors . I think there 's some people here that are very interested and maybe I can help them too . This is a blown up map that 's on the grading plan drawing that shows the north 45 acre parcel that Mr . Zwiers owns with the relationships to the railroad corridor on the west side , the large lot single family neighborhood the opposite side of the railroad corridor and the large tracts to the right side of the site are in Eden Paririe and directly below the word site , the next parcel south of that is the Moon Valley gravel pit area . Down running along the bottom side of the drawing you can see 169 and then the lake . Rice Lake across the highway . So I guess the urbanized neighbors are to the northwest , across the railroad corridor . This might be clear as mud from this distance but this is what's called a USGS or United States _ Geological Survey map which shows 10 foot contours since 1958 . It was updated in 1972 . The site was , the contours shown on here weren 't altered in 1972 by USGS when they updated their mapping . South of this line on the bottom side here , this the pit area . What you see there is the bluff before it was mined . When it was a ski area . I remember driving by there many times as a kid with my parents in the 50 's and seeing those big grassy slopes when it was , when they had the ski rope or the rope tow going up the hill . The north triangle is what we 're talking about really tonight . The 45 acre area that 's not been mined . I moved that same map up a little bit . In that '58 mapping , this 10 foot contour mapping , the trees on the site at that time were , it 's real hard to read here . I brought the original of this map if anybody wants to look at it . There was a significant treed area to the west and on the very southwest corner of the 45 acres we 're talking about tonight . This is still forested . This is then. Then the easterly portion of the 45 acre tract was and is still forested as well . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 19 But even in 1958 the mined area down low was basically a hole in a ground . I think you can see the structure now . It 's a house or something down there at the base of the slope . This is the 45 acre piece . Again , down at the bottom . Down at the south end is the , beyond that horizontal line is the mined area . The area that 's still being mined . North of that line is this 45 acre tract . Again , the southwest part down here has mature trees . This is south facing , southwest facing bluff . The area , most of the area north of this red line is open land . As Mr . Krauss indicated , there 's been agriculturally used and so it 's only treed around the edges in the steeper sloped areas . The ravine system , there 's a deep erosion scar that leads up into Eden Prairie to the east and another scar that leads down into the railroad cut . When that railroad was built , ever so long ago , that was a major earth moving operation. There were deep cuts made to the north and big fills to the south . Well , that slope probably wasn 't handled very well so that has eroded . The blue arrows on this drawing show the direction of water flow now . So there 's a bluff line here , the water that falls on the south and west and south and east sides of that line actually go toward the river directly . Whereas the water that 's north of this line towards the top side of the drawing actually drain down through the ravine . It 's one or the other of the ravines . The big goal of this clay mining operation , as Mr . Krauss indicated , there are several . One is to generate the clay to _ cap the landfill . The second by product or goal that we have is to stabilize the erosion situation . This map shows the red lines on this map are the , would be the drainage boundaries after the grading is done . Here 's that ravine system on the east side . The way the contours are drawn here on this grading plan , there would be a ridge line created along here . The water that falls , the rainfall that falls westerly of that line would now drain into this upland pond . Again up in the north point of the land , - there 's another what we 're creating is a seepage pond or a sump. Where we would direct the water to the well . This is about 5 acres up here . This is about 15 . The water would all be directed inward . So I don 't know if this helps anything or not . Basically what we can do is we can capture much of the water that 's now , runs over the edge and down the ravine . Capture it and take it inward and allow the water to seep into the soil and work through the ground instead of work over the edge of the bluff . This - is a map that shows that southwest corner of the north 45 acres . The major stand of trees that exist there . The major bluff line that Mr . Krauss was talking about . The intent is to save all these trees on the major slopes . _ Save this major bluff line but to remove the secondary bluff that 's right along the property boundary . So the end result would be to create that pond basically down at the bottom of that big slope and expose that tree area to the full view . I 'll take a minute and go through some of the staff recommendation items . The first item on the recommended conditions was the staff would like a copy of the easement or the rights that Mr . Zwiers has over the property in Eden Prairie that he 'd used for access out to Pioneer Trail . He actually purchased the land in Eden Prairie that he needs for that access several years ago . We 've brought copies of the documents tonight and we 'd introduce them into the record for future review . So he not only has easement rights , but he actually owns the land that the road goes out over . I think that the conditions relative to protecting the roadways , cleaning up mud and such are logical and prudent and practical . I really don 't have any problem with any of the conditions except as we get - toward the end . In number 7 , the staff has recommended that $40 ,000 . letter of credit be posted to cover site restoration . What I 've talked to Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 20 Mr . Zwiers about is trying to work out some sort of a dual obligy bond . He 's providing the site and providing the material but he isn 't actually picking it up and moving it . It 's a contractor . It 's the contractor for the landfill that 's actually doing the work . Well what we would propose to try to work out is to have that contractor post a bond that names Mr . Zwiers and protects him . Makes them liable or responsible for restoration but also it protects the City of Chanhassen . So if we can work that out , it would be to his benefit and to the City 's to have both protected by one instrument . Batzli : I know that in our ordinance we talked about this situation . Where the applicant would normally be the person removing and we required that the owner be co-listed on the permit . I guess we never envisioned that the owner would be on there , not the person doing the work . Krauss: Well , I guess we 'd want to make them co-liable I guess . I don 't have that much difficulty with that but I have a question about the bonding arrangement that Rick is suggesting . First of all we 've always been counseled by the City Attorney 's office to deal with letters of credit . They 're much more effective instruments for the city to use if need be . But maybe I could refer this to Tom Scott and answer as to whether or not that bond would be acceptable . Tom Scott: My initial reaction would be that it wouldn 't work . That we 'd want a letter of credit from the applicant , Mr . Zwiers as the owner of the property . Whatever arrangements he might make with his contractor to protect himself would really be between him and his contractor . Would be my initial reaction . And that we would have a letter of credit from Mr . Zwiers and Mr . Zwiers is the applicant and the owner of the property would be securing the restoration of the property . Rick Sathre: I don 't think we want to reivent the wheel or try to invent something new . So I guess I throw it out as an opportunity to explore a potential more than anything . I feel an obligation to protect my client from that contractor just like I feel an obligation to provide , try to figure out how to protect the City too . We want this to be done right and the property is worth a lot of money now and it will be worth a lot of money in the future . The last thing that we want to do is end up with it being damaged somehow. So I guess we want to work to try to make that the simplest and most straight forward for everybody that we can . Down on condition number 13 on page 15 . Mr . Zwiers and I have talked about the reforestation plan for mine bluff phase . A lot of the land , faces of the slopes in there have been left alone for a long time . Maybe have never been mined . At this point I don 't think that we have any problem coming up with some sort of a plan that shows how those newly mined areas . The areas that aren 't vegetated now would get replanted . I think that 's appropriate . I think that 's a good trade off to . . .financial guarantee that the City wishes to obtain to guarantee the implementation of the plan is a bit of a hardship because of the time table . Normally when the City requires a bond or letter of credit or some sort of financial guarantee , it runs for a period of 1 to 2 to 3 years while an activity is started and finished and it goes through the guarantee period perhaps of a building of a street or something . Here where this is a mining operation , a lot of the pace of the mining is a function of building in the area . Road building in the area . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 21 Just general development of public facilities . Mr . Zwiers sells gravel to _ contractors or cities or entities that are building something somewhere . If things don 't happen fast , then he doesn 't sell much . If they do happen fast , then he sells more . What I 'm really saying is he really can 't even predict what the life of that mining operation is . Whether it 's 2 or 3 years or 22 or 23 years . So to post a financial guarantee , a letter of credit now for so much per tree or so much per acre for the revegetating that pit area , can be a real burden after whatever , 4 or 5 , 10 years . And so , well it 's a hardship and I 'm not sure how to deal with that . I don't think that the City has any interest in punishing him in any way . We understand the goal is to protect or to insure compliance . I would hope that there would be some other way to , like conditions withholding further approvals or building permits or some other way to limit his future use other than posting a $20 ,000 .00 letter of credit that would be still there after 10 years or something . We 'd like to explore that and I would hope that we could find some way to guarantee something that wouldn 't be too onerous . Lastly the condition 14 relating to the damage , the ravines and how to repair them . I think what I would propose is probably what the engineers and the planners have in mind anyway and that 's really to go out onto the site and the ravines and look and see which slopes are still barren and try to figure out what would be best to try to get something to grow on those faces . The grading operation that we 're proposing would direct water back away from the ravines so there wouldn 't be all this flood of water coming down there . So there wouldn't be as much erosive force anymore . Trying to get something to grow again on almost a vertical face is hard . Nature does it over the period of many years and man isn 't so good at , mankind isn 't so good at tampering in a productive way . What I wouldn 't want to see happen is for us to go into the ravines with a dozer or Caterpillar or something and make a bigger mess than we solve a problem . And I know the staff doesn 't want to create a problem either . So somehow we have to carefully deal with the issue and probably some sort of seeding operation of those barren clays and sands would be the most productive . We— would propose to work on that in the next couple weeks . Try to come up with a solution . We 'd like to answer questions that you have and would be available for the neighbors too if they have something that they 're worried_ about or wish answered . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . This is a public hearing so if you 'd like to address the Commission at this time , please step forward and give your name and address for the record . Dennis Bartholow: I 'm Dennis Bartholow , 9841 Deerbrook Drive . I 've got a - couple of concerns regarding this whole operation . First of all the , this operation here , they 're going to dig down to an elevation of 800 feet to get to the sand so that they can send the water down to the ground water level . The elevation of my property which is located, well over here in this direction . The elevation is 920 feet . When we put our well in , we went down 160 feet and found water . Put the well at 230 feet . If they go down to 800 feet here , that would mean they would have 40 feet before they hit the ground water which I don 't think is adequate for filtration . And then to get to my level would be another 100 feet about . So I 'm real concerned about polluting the ground water in that area . The idea of a seepage pond rather than a holding pond is that they 're going to flush that water right into the ground water . All of the homes in that area , Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 22 Deerbrook as well as Lake Riley Woods and any future , all use well water . We do not have city water out there . All of that water potentially could become contaminated . So I have a real strong concern about having these seepage ponds that close to the ground water elevation . Also , there was a traffic concern . If you drive down Pioneer Trail from CR 4 , you ' ll find that it 's a 50 mph road . There 's a dip that prior to the exit from this area of the 40 acres or so that they want to strip the top off of . Prior to that exit there 's a dip that drops down and comes back up over the hill and immediately on your left is the exit . Now I 've had the experience of having a car stop there and come up over that hill and have to hit the brakes real hard to avoid hitting it . If we have 20 to 30 trucks in this operation running 6 days a week , from 7:00 in the morning to 6:00 in the afternoon , I think there 's a serious potential for an accident there . Because those trucks have to come to a stop before they can turn to cross the road into that entrance . You might want to take a look at that because when you come up over that hill at 50 mph , you don 't have , you have very little time to stop prior to hitting those trucks . So it 's a safety issue as well . As far as the views are concerned , if we were to strip away this peninsula , all the homes are located up here . Up high . The reason that we bought the property was because of the view of the valley . If we strip away this peninsula located here as indicated , then we 're going to be looking at a mining operation and that 's a real scarey idea for us . Our property values are going to drop dramatically if when you look out your back window you see a mining operation , and that 's what 's going to happen there . Maybe it 's going to help the people over at Shakopee a little bit who are up on 5th Avenue or whatever so they don 't have to look at this stripped portion of land but for everybody along this area up here , we 're going to be looking at a mining operation and that 's not really the reason that we bought into that property in the first place . Also if we go back to this location here . My lot is located right there . Directly across from here . I do see that area most of the year , especially in winter . I 'm going to have to listen to all of that activity as well as my neighbors who are just starting to move in now . I 'll have to listen to all that activity and deal with the dust while the whole operation is going on . And again , that 's 6 days a week from 7 :00 to 6: 00 at night . That 's not a real pleasant idea . Also , around the turn of the century , this was a large hill right here . The railroad came through and dug their way straight through here . There are very sheer bluffs on both sides that are not vegetated and they haven 't been since the turn of the century . Erosion has not been a problem for 90 some odd years . I don 't know why there's a problem now . I would strongly suggest that you take a hike down this railroad tracks , which is supposedly going to become a bike trail . Walk down the railroad tracks and take a look at the views for yourself . It 's very beautiful and you 'll also see the sheer cliffs here that are not vegetated and the erosion is not a problem . This cliff over here is not nearly as sheer as the cliffs over in this area here . So it was basically just dug out . Nothing was done to handle the erosion problem and it hasn 't been a problem up until apparently now . Also , if you continue walking down this trail , you 'll look down in this valley and it 's a very beautiful valley . You 'll probably see a lot of deer and that type of thing . There is a creek that comes through here . There 's two creeks on the other side over here . If they come in here and start tearing all this out , now you get to view a mining operation rather than the natural beauty that is there and I would strongly suggest before you make a decision , that you do actually hike down Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 23 that trail from TH 101 up to CR 4 , and take a look at the entire operation that you 're discussing . You 'll see it 's really a very beautiful area and it would be I think a very poor . . .and I am again very concerned about the ground water . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jeff Michell : I 'm Jeff Michell from 9961 Deerbrook Drive . I have a question to the city staff first . Is there a timeframe or limit attached to your recommendation for this project? Krauss : For the activity to be completed? Jeff Michell : Yeah . Krauss: They 're request to us outlines this being completed either this summer or early next spring . We have not set a deadline . . .accepted what they 've told us . But it may be appropriate to put a condition in . It certainly could be added . Jeff Michell : Yeah , I 'd like to make that request . And I 'd also like to reiterate some of the concerns that staff and the city attorney have raised with regard to making sure that suitable performance guarantees or letters of credit or whatever they are , are in place to make sure that the development comes off as predicted . My neighbor has illustrated I think pretty nicely that there 's trade-offs in this . It 's not , it may be a , seem like a win situation in some aspects of this property but there 's some things that are being given up in a really beautiful and natural place . We don 't have any lakes down there but we 've got a really nice woods that 's going to be different when this is all over . And if it 's going to be different , it 'd better be nice and different . If it 's half completed and not very nice , I think that would be a tragedy . That 's all . Batzli : Thank you . Emily Pischleder : Emily Pischleder , 185 Pioneer Trail . I was just wondering if you 're going to be mining out in the area that was mined out in '87? Are you going to be taking any more dirt out of there that you did then and you will be trucking it out on the road that you used at that time? Would it run through Dornkempers? Is that the way you 're going to truck it out? Rick Sathre : Yes . Emily Pischleder : Then I 'm wondering if you 're going to be taking more out of the area that was mined out in '87 . Which is directly behind my house . Right by the radio tower . Rick Sathre : The proposal is to mine or remove clay from that area and just to the north of it but also the majority of the material would be removed from the area farther south from where it was mined before . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 24 Emily Pischleder : Okay , but you will be taking some more out of that area again? Rick Sathre : Yes . Emily Pischleder : Okay . Rick Sathre : The northerly seepage pond that we show is just northwest of that old mined area . As long as I 'm up here , could I speak to the ground water issue? Batzli : Sure . Emily Pischleder : Well that area hasn 't had anything done to it . . .radio tower that they approved at that time also . And we did the same thing when we bought our house . When we built our house it was because of the view so we don't have anything to look at now . Dennis Bartholow: Yeah that area has been stripped and nothing was done to take care of it . Batzli : The northern part? Dennis Bartholow: The norther part . The confidence level that after this project that it will be repaired is really quite minimal based on past history of what we 've seen happened there . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Do you want to address the ground water issue? Rick Sathre : Yes , thank you . Ground water movement is , as you might expect , toward the river . The ground water levels are higher as you move away from the valley or move into the bluffs . The river , the Minnesota River is at about 700 . Elevation 700 and I think the testimony you heard was that the ground water where their well is , the water that they 're drawing must be at about 750 or 740 . Something like that . You well 's 160 feet deep? Dennis Bartholow: No . We hit water at 160 and the well is around 200 feet . Rick Sathre: Okay . So they 're down , they 're probably down at about 700 . The same elevation that the river is . As was mentioned , the bottom of that seepage pond that 's on the board there now is at about elevation 800 which would be oh about 50 feet above the top of the ground water table and about 100 feet above where their drawing their water from . Now movement of the ground water that , movement of water that seeps into the ground at this location would , the water would follow that general gradient the same as all the rest of the water that 's moving through the soil there which is towards the river . Water that seeps into the ground here should not move toward those neighbors on the other side to the north . It actually should be moving towards the river . I don 't have anything with me tonight to prove that but . Dennis Bartholow: Why would the water move towards the river? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 25 Rick Sathre : Because it 's a downhill gradient . It just naturally flows downhill through the soil . - Dennis Bartholow : Right , so if it flows downhill in this direction . . .wants to flow into the river . The river isn 't . . .ground water . Rick Sathre: Partially it is . Dennis Bartholow: Partially but not a whole lot . That water can still flow in both directions . Furthermore we have a seepage pond to the northern portion as well as the southerly portion . Actually we 've got 3 seepage ponds . One of them is directly across the railroad tracks from my - property . It 's maybe at the most 400 , maybe 500 feet away from my well as the crow flies . Batzli : Do you have any evidence or understanding of what would be required for filtration of water to make it safe down to an existing well? Rick Sathre : I 'm not prepared to speak to it now . From my engineering background , I 've read studies of how far septic system , waste water had to move through soil to cleanse itself . When we 're designing sewage , septic tank systems . Drainfield systems . We 're always careful to site the well 75 or 100 feet away from the drainfields so there 's adequate horizontal separation . It would be certainly the water that you 're discharging out of your , into your drainfield would be more polluted or have more , well it 's waste water . It 's your household waste water . That water would be much - more polluted , if you want to call it that than the general surface runoff from the farmland . Certainly the agricultural land or any land , grass has pollutants in it . But they 're filtered out through movement through the soil . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jerry Bertsch: I 'm Jerry Bertsch , 8556 Irwin Road in Bloomington. I 'm the proud owner of Lot 8 , Block 1 , Deerbrook . I have the largest lot in Deerbrook . I just got in from out of town . I don 't know much about the project . I was quite impressed with your presentation and I 'm not here to strifle entrepreneurism . If you have clay , you should be entitled to take - it off the property . However , I do have concerns about my property which all of it borders the railroad track on the other side that you 're intending to do . I don't have a problem with this as long as this commission understands that this thing can't go on for a period of years . I agree with their concerns . If it 's a short term project , let it be done but I expect the commission , representing me and the rest of the property owners to make sure that there is a plan for restoration of the property . That the topsoil is replaced as they had discussed . That there 's no effect on my side of the railroad tracks , especially the creek and that was something I hadn 't thought about earlier because that seeping pond could effect that creek and that 's one of the reasons I bought that property is the creek down there . It 's absolutely gorgeous . And if that disappears , it 's really going to be a problem . There is , as long as there is guarantees . Bonds or letters or credit , I 'm sure you folks can work everything out in terms of making sure there is guaranteed restoration . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 26 The mature trees on that southeastern , or yes . Southwestern corner , as long as they will stay there , that 's important . And of course no effect on the ground water . So you have quite a job ahead of you to make sure that these things are going to be kept for the rest of us and I wish you the best of luck . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would someone else like to address the Commission at this time? Richard Vogel : I 'm Richard Vogel and I live at 105 Pioneer Trail . One concern that just came up tonight , when the new mining ordinance was put into effect a year ago or whenever it was , there as a lot of effort I was told made into that ordinance regarding setbacks from adjoining property owners . Now I 'm hearing tonight that , in this case , to my knowledge this is one of the first times that will be tested . All of a sudden that doesn 't apply . And I don 't think a 300 foot setback from an adjoining property owner is unreasonable . At that time that was what was arrived at . The other thing is , I guess for my own selfish reasons I have some property in Hennepin County that borders this project . For 4 years now there 's been nothing done to that hole that 's up there and from what I 've heard at other meetings on the south property , I don 't know if we 're getting any closer to getting any resolutions on that either . I think it 's in court right now. One of the things Mr . Sathre said about the bond , and I hope I 'm using - these terms right . One of his objections to it was , they didn 't know when the mining operation , whether it was going to be a 1 year , 2 year , a 10 year or 20 year operation and that 's what really worries me up here . The mining operations I 've seen , they all keep going . Maybe there will be termination next spring or whenever this is done and maybe a year later they 'll be in for another permit to do something else . Batzli : On that particular issue , I think that the applicant said that the tree reforestation on the north/south boundary is the one that they couldn 't , they wouldn't want to implement because of that timing problem . The restoration of the main area which would be mined , the problem wasn 't the timing . It was a question of they weren 't actually going to perform the work so they wanted the contractor on the hook . Richard Vogel : Okay . But all I 'm saying is what I heard was he didn 't know when the operation was going to be for 1 , 2 or 20 years or whatever . I guess I 'm disappointed in , you say the planner for promoting this I guess mostly because the setbacks from adjoining property owners on the new ordinance that was put into effect that was supposed to be okay , are going to be dropped . And I think the bond , letter of credit or whatever it is , - I 'm not sure . I did not get the report here what they 're asking for but I think if $40 ,000 .00 is the figure , you can't do very much for $40 ,000 .00 . And if this property is left set , who is going to reforest it or who is going to take care of it then if it's dropped? Also I 'm told on the south , the old Moon Valley , that they are saying that they can mine directly up to the property line of the north property because they own the property on both sides . I would hate to see that happen . Now I don 't know if this is - so or not but that 's what I have heard . Eventually those steep slopes are going to give way . Maybe not this year , next year but eventually they are . They don 't loosen all at once . You get heavy rains and a little bit slips . Some more heavy rains and eventually something does go . But basically I Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 27 would like , if anything is done here , there should be a timeframe . I think it could be more detailed what is really going to go on there and I think the setbacks for the new ordinance should be strictly adhered to . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Cathy Bartholow : I 'm Cathy Bartholow . My husband , Dennis already spoke . We 're at 9841 Deerbrook and I guess the only thing I would add is that personally I 'm not , I wish you well in business . This has , you know it 's kind of hard. We watched the one before this . We 're measuring back and forth what , personally we bought our property and built our dream home on - that land and you who are in business . I think it comes down to accountability and what I learned from reading your planning report , as to the history and the track record and not knowing you all , I have that report really to base my concerns on , is that somebody will be accountable for this and that everything that everybody has said so far , there are trade offs and somebody will make sure that it is a safe operation and that it is reforested with , not seedlings this big but reforested when you 're talking reforestation . What does all these things mean? When you 're saying reseeding it , well I know from seeding my own lawn , you can 't just throw grass on there and have it grow . It takes work and it takes making sure that that does happen and we want to make sure somebody 's accountable to making sure that does happen and we 're not seeing anything documented for us to protect us from that standpoint . And that 's all I guess I would ask . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Okay . Rick Sathre : I 'm a small businessman too , just like Mr . Zwiers and maybe many of you . I see , well mining operators are kind of lumped with used car_ salesmen and maybe attorneys and bad engineers . Batzli : Geez , that hurt . Rick Sathre : Wasn 't that terrible? Batzli : I 'm an engineer and an attorney . Rick Sathre : Dog gone it . Well , I put myself in there too . I know Tom Zwiers to be a hard working , honest man . He wants to do what 's right and he doesn 't like being bureaucratically nickeled and dimed to death just like everybody else doesn't want that . He wants to do what needs to be done and he 's approaching this new permit in a very straight forward manner and I know he 'll live up to the terms of the permit if it 's issued . The old mining operation is a second , you know it 's a different thing . It reminds me a little of a farm . The farmers came in ever so long ago and stripped the land of all it 's vegetation and every year they do the same thing and they put in a crop and take it in the fall and use it to survive . That 's a little like what he 's doing and I hope he , when he 's done with it puts it back so everybody can enjoy it . I guess that 's your goal . Mr . Vogel mentioned the fact that it would be prudent to have a 300 foot setback for the edge of the grading or the edge of the mined area . On that Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 28 north 45 acres , I guess technically we probably are proposing to mine it but it 's more like a grading operation for a subdivision . We 're grading slopes that are no steeper than 3: 1 and most of them are more like 7% and 10% which are fairly flat slopes . So imposing the 300 foot standard here where technically it is mining but it doesn 't look like mining . I don 't know if it passes the smell test or not . But we think we 're , by going within 300 feet of the property boundary , it allows us to better cut off the water that 's going over the edge of the ravines . We 're getting out near the property boundaries so we can slope the ground back into the _ center of the property and get the water to run to those seepage ponds . If we don 't go out , if we stay more than 300 feet away from the boundaries , that just means we can 't do that job the way we 're proposing to . And again Mr . Vogel was concerned about restoration and the when of it . Staff report - says restore the land in phases , and that 's what our proposal is . As each area is excavated , topsoil would be respread in the street areas as it 's done . The mining operation on this north 45 acres , the clay , the intent is to try to get it out , all of it out this year . If that doesn't happen , then it would be next spring . With some luck and if the approvals don 't drag on too long , if they are forthcoming , then we try to beat the weather . The contractor at the landfill definitely wants to get the clay over there this year and if it doesn 't come from this site , for whatever reason , there 's another site that already has a permit issued so he could get it from another place too . But the material on this site is very tight . It 's - a very tight clay . It 's better for the closure of the landfill than most clays that you find and so that 's why they 've sought to take it from this site . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Conrad moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in - favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Jeff , do you want to lead us off? Farmakes: I 'm not an expert in water issues . I 'm assuming the city has people there . I think it 's an understandable concern for property owners . I 'm looking back , we 've heard words like accountability and responsibility and so on . I 'm disturbed by the packets that I 've read in the past and my involvement here on the issue of good faith will we enter into these things . Particularly with this operation . I think that there 's some - accountability or the attitude in dealing with the city in the past and I would certainly recommend that the Council would , the city be very careful in how they bond, this performance bond goes through or letter of credit or however the city takes it . I question how they 're arriving at $40 ,000 .00 . If that 's a rule of thumb that they use or general thing they pull out of a hat or is that involved in litigation that's involved afterwards? And then the issue of the trees , there 's no dollar figure on that . And the issue of timing , as to when that would take place and when they would have to , is that also a performance type bonding situation? Or would they have to ask for another permit in stages and so on? The issue that was brought up on - the safety , I think that 's a legitimate issue as well . Those roads back in there are not very safe . In fact I couldn 't think of probably some more dangerous roads than you can find in the State than back in there along that bluff . I 'm really not a water engineer as I said before I started out Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 29 _ so I really can 't address the issue of the water quality but I certainly think you 're entitled to find out how that would effect your , and what cost if it did , effect it . That you 'd be looking at or the city would be looking at . What headaches that would provide . Batzli : I have a question before we move on here Paul . And that is , there isn 't much in the conditions as far as conditions to insure that the existing wooded areas are saved , if you will . There 's nothing about _ staying a certain distance away or erecting snow fences or illustrated on the plans that these are , do not disturb areas . How are we intending to look at those issues? Krauss: Chairman Batzli , I think you 're raising a real good point . We do have a canned set of conditions that we apply to subdivisions . It would be wholly appropriate to insert those here . Frankly , you know we 've put a lot_ of work into these reports and conditions but we simply are unable to conceive of all the situations that may occur which is one of the reasons for bringing it in front of people like you . I think that 's a good condition to add . We certainly have required that on another development . — Batzli : But are you comfortable that there 's a plan somewhere or something in the conditions that illustrates exactly where they 're going to remove — this clay and which areas are do not disturb areas on the site? Krauss: Yeah . The plan that we have is quite explicit on that account . _ It 's comparable to plans that we receive for residential subdivisions and I 'm comfortable in that regard. However , we normally do add conditions that would be appropriate here as to establishing snow fenced areas outside the drop line of trees and if they do damage trees that are not supposed to be taken , that there is compensation for that that makes it pretty onerous . That is again a condition that we placed on other subdivisions. Emmings: Just a couple of things . Basically I 'm going to go along with what the staff has proposed because I think there 's obviously been a tremendous amount of thought and care given to this , all the issues in _ here . I thought there should be , I thought whenever we had an interim use permit that we always had a termination . Either an event or a date . I assume that the event here is the mining of 250,000 cubic yards of clay but I think maybe what we should do is add a condition that says, the termination will be when 250,000 cubic yards of clay have been mined or by July 1 , 1993 , whichever comes first . Tom Zwiers: . . .has a time limit on that when he has to beat it and then he has a penalty clause . If he hasn't got it completed , and I can find out when that date is Steve but it isn't very long I know and then he gets penalized . Emmings: Is it this year? Tom Zwiers : I believe it 's in the spring of next year . Emmings: Okay , so if we made it July though, that wouldn 't . That 's a _ year . That 's a whole year from now . That shouldn't get . - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 30 Tom Zwiers : We 'd better have it hauled by then or we 'll be . . . Emmings : I just think there ought to be a date in addition to the event that we can look to . And I would imagine if they 're not done , they can come back and say we need more time . But I think that date needs to be in there . The only other condition . I guess , I think that the potential effect on ground water for people with wells is serious enough so that the city engineer ought to look at that before it gets to the City Council and we ought to be well satisfied that this is not going to have an effect on ground water . I agree with Jeff on the road thing as potentially a very serious traffic or safety problem . I don 't know what can be done there but again the city engineer should know. What can be done to make that as safe as possible for people who use that road . Otherwise I 'd go along with what 's in the staff report . Krauss : If I may , as to the road . We 've asked , technically where the road - exists out onto Pioneer is not in Chanhassen which is why we put a condition in here that the Eden Prairie City Engineer be brought into this . Because we want to make sure that whatever needs to be done to protect safety is done . Pioneer Trail is a road designed for very heavy use . It T was rebuilt in the not too distant past . It is fully able to handle that kind of traffic . Now , you may not want it to do it constantly and we could certainly understand that but it is designed for that kind of use . Emmings: I don 't know the road right at that spot but what I heard somebody here say is that you 've got a situation with a dip and you come - over a hill and there could be a truck stopped waiting to turn . You 're just asking for it . Krauss : And there is a condition regarding posting of trucks hauling signs but that is why we did ask that this be coordinated through the city of Eden Prairie . - Emmings : That 's it for me . Batzli : Okay , Matt . Ledvina : I think Paul did an excellent job of putting this together . There 's a lot of issues that are involved in this type of project . I think the waiver of the 300 foot setback is a very reasonable proposal . It allows the applicant to work within the open area and allows also the trees to be saved on the property and to fix the wrongs that have been created in the past . If we actually did use that 300 foot setback , then the area that - was disturbed previously in the northern corner wouldn 't be fixed . So I think that 's very important that we have the opportunity to regrade that and fix that . I have some concerns about the dollar value for the letter of credit . I can see that when you disturb 22 acres , you can burn up $40 ,000 .00 very quickly and I can envision that that number for restoration actually doubling so I would like to see some hard numbers discussed in terms of what it would take there . I think you can have a rule of thumb - but if you would have to go out and hire contractors to do the work , the dollars per acre that the city might be looking at may be something that they can do internally and don 't have overheads added to it or something - but I think that , given the scope of the project , the $40 ,000 .00 would be Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 31 - definitely on the low end of value of the restoration . So I 'd like that _ number be evaluated . Two of the residents talked about the potential or a stream bed or creek bed . I hadn 't heard anything or hadn 't seen anything in the staff report on that . Is that involved in the project at all or is that just? — Rick Sathre : Let 's use one of the overheads and we 'll work it out on that . Maybe the neighbors can help here too because I 'm not sure where , exactly — where it runs but I see a major ravine over here on the west side and it leads to this point . I know that it goes down through here and it drains out into the river valley there . It must cross under the , I .think I see the path right here . The ponding site that we're talking about for the — southwesterly seepage pond would actually be right over in here . I 'm not sure how that would effect the creek . I don't think it would effect it in any way . — Ledvina : So the grading would not effect the appearance or the topography of the creek? Rick Sathre : No , because the creek is several hundred feet away from these properties . Ledvina : Okay , thank you . I also support identifying a duration for the project and think July 1st would be a good time line . I think that 's all I have at this point . — Batzli : Okay , Ladd . Conrad: I think the applicant . . .concerned with point number 7 on the guarantee of $40 ,000 .00 and who should do it and I guess I would like , our attorney suggested that the applicant . . . I 'd like to make some connections between 6 and 7 . I don 't know where the $40,000 .00 came from and I 'd sure — like to make sure that we tie things together . A plan versus the money anc again I don 't know if $40 ,000 .00 is right . It may not be and I think the key to what we 're doing here is that we tie a plan that 's approved to cost that 's realistic . I think that 's essential and maybe the $40,000 .00 was right but I would not , I 'd really rather not see this go to Council until there 's a connection between a plan and the cost . It 's sort of make believe in my mind at this point in time and that 's okay as it passes through us but I think somebody's got to react to something that's real anc not guesswork . And if it 's less than that , the applicant benefits . But on the other hand , if it 's more , I think we 've got to guarantee that this site— is taken care of . I know we have to guarantee that the site 's taken care of and I think staff 's aimed in that direction and I know the applicant has full intention of performing . I think the other concern that the applicant_ had on 13 , I believe it was and again, I guess the guarantees that Rick was talking about . How we would restore something on the bluff and whatever and you 're talking about something we don't know anything about . So here we are . We 're talking about something the applicant doesn't know anything — about and we 're using general words and again I guess there's got to be a plan and I think staff is asking for that . There just has to be something in front of us . I don't know how much money the applicant stands to make — on this but I think there 's some downstream benefits obviously in terms of property available for development . There's certainly going to be some Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 32 money sometime to repay and to make this property subdividable for residential development . But I think on point number 13 , I think there needs to be some financial guarantees and I too agree , until somebody shows me how this works , I don 't have a clue but that 's for staff and the applicant to work out . The seepage versus the holding and the ground water , absolutely essentially . Somebody 's got to guarantee it . It doesn 't take place until there 's a guarantee . And I guess in the real world there are no guarantees but I just wouldn 't feel comfortable at all if we had any possible , any possibility of contaminating the ground water that people are using for their well . Not at all . And I don 't know the difference between seepage and holding . I think I have a clue about what it is but I just need some experts talking to us about this and informing the City Council . They should not do a thing until that expert advice is given. Shouldn 't . The time of excavation , absolutely . There has to be an end . Batzli : Do you like July 1? Conrad: July l 's okay . I think that 's generous but it 's there and it 's probably going to be done before that but there has to be a time . I 'd like to see our engineer review traffic safety . Maybe that 's not our road to be doing it but whoever is right , that they be looking at that for safety considerations . That has to happen. Paul , there 's an inspection fee of $900 .00 . How are inspection fees handled? That 's $900 .00 for a one time - shot or do we do this over? Krauss: No . It 's taken out of the Uniform Building Code and it applies in this case and it 's actually , I honestly don't know how they come up with it but it 's to cover our cost of going out and monitoring the site . Conrad : Throughout the one year of excavation? Krauss: Yeah , so we would have an engineering technician going out there periodically and making sure that the grades that are being set are those which are on the plan and that there 's erosion controls being maintained and generally that the site 's being operated in an acceptable manner . Conrad: And how often would you , what makes you think that would be done? Krauss : It really depends on , you know after the first few visits , if things are going well . You can probably go it on 5 or 6 visits over the - course of the operation and then responding to complaints , if we receive any , on an as needed basis . Additionally , one of the things that 's required in here is that the applicant has to give us an as built survey of finished grades . So we 're not trying to prove that he did what he was supposed to do . He 's got to prove it to us through a survey . Conrad: What would you charge a City Engineer out at on an hourly basis? - What do you charge the swamp committee for your time? No , I don't really mean that but , what 's an engineer charged out at? Krauss: We do not have a rate schedule that 's set up . I mean I can tell you what the City Engineer . Conrad: . . .how much might we charge an engineer 's time on it? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 33 Krauss: Actually Ladd , my time is not charged to any . I mean my salary 's drawn off of projects but we don 't charge the project . If you hire a consulting firm , if the consulting engineer makes $30 .00 an hour , they may charge you $90 .00 an hour to retain him . Batzli : Paul , you 've done a great job of avoiding the question . Where are you going with this? Conrad: I 'm just trying to figure out if we did inspections , I don 't know what it takes because this is a big project . Batzli : Yeah , it 's huge . So do you think it 's low? Do you think it 's high? Conrad: What we have are basically 10 hours packed into inspection over the . Krauss: You 're assuming that ( a ) , the city engineer 's going to go out there all the time which is probably not the case . It 's probably going to be one of the technicians , which is considerably less expensive . And that (b ) , the City is making a profit on inspections by paying the engineer 's or technician 's salary and then we have a billable that we charge as well . We don 't operate that way . We are still a public entity and we cover our expenses . Batzli : Do you think it 's low Ladd? Conrad : I guess the issue is not the money . The issue is making sure we have the inspections . I don 't have a standard to put forth but I 'm a little bit nervous about , you know when I see $900 .00 for inspecting , and I hear what Paul 's saying . We don 't relate hours to money for fees yet on the other hand I do . It 's like , I just think we should be there and I think that relates a little bit to the history we 've had with this project . I 'm just not convinced yet . We 've had too many things that have been in court . Too many problems . Just flat out . Until I 'm comfortable , I would ,- we 've just got to be real careful . Not holding things up . The safety , you talk about inspection . The 300 foot setback . We waived it . We waived it and I had a tough time . We waived it on all sides . Where did we waive the 300 foot setback? Krauss: Basically , this is very rough . You can 't scale off of this drawing but if you wanted to look at the 300 foot line , it 's someplace back like that . The lines overlap as you get up towards the north end . Maybe in fact , it 's probably even a little more significant than that . It probably comes to a point like in here .. Conrad : So we waive it on all sides because of the benefit we 're going to get through some future , through excavation or through grading? Krauss: For the reasons that I mentioned in that handout . Now the points of where this busts the 300 foot setback are along the railroad tracks here and along this part of the Eden Prairie line and down in this corner . This- Part of the operation is consistent with that . And you know honestly , I don 't like to go back to intent of the draftees of the ordinance but I Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 34 wrote the ordinance . I wrote it with the City Engineer and we were quite explicitedly trying to deal with , that provision dealt with major mining operations and we only have one of those in town . But the ordinance was designed to deal in other respects with all types of grading in the city . If you want to move , as a homeowner , if you want to move 50 yards of dirt , you need a permit under that ordinance and there is no setback requirement - or when you grade for a subdivision , there is no setback requirement . We 've also approved , I think at least 4 major excavation operations where that setback was frankly waived . One of them was on the McGlynn site . Now they 've been approved but they haven 't been operated on . They haven 't been conducted . One was on the McGlynn site , which would have frankly lowered the site and prepared it for development as well as getting material for TH 5 . We had one on , the fellow 's name escapes me but , Jeurissen . Bruce Jeurissen . Further down Pioneer Trail . And Halla had similar requests . Conrad: The purpose of the setback , primarily because you drafted it , the - 300 feet is to primarily protect neighbors right? Krauss : Well exactly . So when we think that , the important point is we think that largely that goal has been attained through the existing topography . Through the preservation of the trees . Through the limitations on the hours of operation . Through the ability to shut them down if dust becomes a problem . The ability to shut them down Saturdays if - that 's a problem . You also have very significant terrain that separates this site . I mean the homes located west of this property have some remarkable views of the Minnesota River Valley and they 're in a lot of different directions , depending on the way the houses are placed . This line appearing here though is a little bit misleading . The houses are quite a ways back from there . This railway corridor is 100-150 feet wide and the homes , I don 't have the exact information but the home is someplace back up in here . There 's a very deep valley there before it goes back up again . So there 's significant topographic buffering , I suppose inbetween there . And this , again this is a limited duration request . It is a use that 's a permitted use in this district under the interim use guidelines . We hope we take great care with the fact . We understand that this is an area that 's in transition and we certainly don 't want to , I mean there 's a _ balancing act here and we don 't want to step on the toes of our residents . At the same time we want to be reasonable if we can with the request as long as it 's consistent with our ordinances and goals . - Batzli : Let me just ask for one clarification . You said there 's a buffer there . What you really mean , it 's a linear distance buffer but it 's not a line of sight buffer , correct? Krauss: Well , I think it 's actually both but for me to , I can 't stand here Commissioner and tell you that from every bedroom window of every home , that you ' ll never see this because we haven 't made that attempt to figure that out . But I know that when you 're on this site and looking back towards those homes , the few homes that you can see are fairly obscure angles and the fact is , is those homes that can see this site , or at least - the upper portion of the site , are looking at a field with a remnant mining operation in it now . When this is all said and done , they 're going to be looking at a field . So it 's not really , you know it 's going to be 10 feet lower but when you 're 300 feet away , it 's not going to be perceptible . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 35 - Erhart : Well I think it looks like a good project . We 're solving a number _ of things here . We 've got a hole there now . This is going to finish it off . It 's going to help cap a landfill in Eden Prairie once and for all with some clay that 's not too far away . If we don 't allow this one , they 're probably going to be hauling it through the city like we had what , - a year ago? Krauss : There were hauling out of Chaska along Pioneer Trail . Erhart : And we had an accident up here and somebody got killed or whatever it was . What was it? Krauss: I don 't know . Erhart : Anyway , I drive TH 101 and those trucks came down TH 101 which is curved , I 'd just as soon leave them in Eden Prairie and get the job done . I agree , that 's one of the points I had , we should set a time limit on here . I was going to suggest one year from approval . July is certainly okay . In either case it solves a problem and if it 's acceptable to the applicant . I think we do need to check that ground water issue . Some expert who can give us a qualified answer on that . Paul , you 're going to have to justify to the Council this 40 grand , otherwise you 're going to spend another hour at the Council meeting discussing that and I know nobody , you or the Council doesn 't want to do that . One big thing here and that is , I think what I 'm being sold , Rick sold , is selling us on that we 're going in and what we 're doing is landscaping this piece of property and that 's why we need the variance . And that 's fine . I heard everybody say we want , not only set a time table but .we want to make this final . I understand , the way I 'm being sold on this variance , this is the final . This is final , final , final . Therefore it is simple in my mind that we ought to tie with this variance that the owner and future owner gives up the right to further mine this property and make it final . Tie the variance to that . Krauss: Tim , if I can clarify a point . You came in part way through the conversation . We reviewed this matter further , after the report went out with the City Attorney and realized that the approach with the variance was the wrong methodology here . That the ordinance does provide for a waiver of conditions . But your concern as to a prohibition against further mining - requests , I guess I don 't see any reason why that couldn't be part of a condition . Erhart : That 's what I would say . If it 's a waiver , then tie the waiver to relinquish any future mining rights to this property . And if we 're going to finish it off , let 's finish it off . This really is adjacent to a residential development at this time and it 's inappropriate to continue to mine . It 's probably not big enough . So we really restricted it to the 300 foot setback . So I 'm sensing that the developer , or the applicant is . . . impossible so , that 's the only thing I 've got . Ledvina : I 'd like to make a motion . Batzli : I 'd like to talk first . I need to say something . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 36 Ledvina : I 'm sorry . Erhart : I move we let Brian talk . Batzli : Okay . But I appreciate you jumping in there . We need to catch up . I like the timeframe . I think we need something in there , before you make the motion . I hope you have something in there about the trees . As far as setting something up . I think the applicant raised at least 3 concerns . One was the access easement . I assume that we ' ll look at that and amend that condition after we 've had a chance to look at that . The other one was this $40 ,000 .00 . I think we 've kind of beat that . I also thought $900 .00 was low but if staff is comfortable with that . I don 't think it matters what the money is . I would rather see , I just want to make sure that we 're going to be out there checking to make sure that everything 's going according to how we think it should go . And what that means is , we need some good plans from the applicant regarding erosion control . The staging . The restoration and things like that and then we follow up on those items because I think that if we don 't follow up , then who do we have to blame later on if it doesn 't go . And these people who actually oversee it , I 'd appreciate it if you 'd call our staff if you see something that doesn 't look quite right . The timing problem of the reforesting the mine bluff face , I 'd like to ask our attorney if this somehow provides an improper linkage between this property and the southern piece . That we shouldn 't be doing this . Tom Scott: No . Batzli : Okay . Tom Scott : We 've reviewed that and we didn 't think there was any problem . Batzli : Okay . If the applicant doesn 't have a problem with doing this , and it 's merely a question of timing regarding providing the financial guarantee , I guess I 'd like to see something worked out . Interestingly enough , if we get financial guarantees today for a certain dollar amount , by the time they 're done in 20 years , that 's not going to buy one tree unless you require it to be increased over time . So actually the applicant , he 's putting away money today and he 's not going to be able to do it for that amount of money in the future . So I don 't know exactly what you 're really looking for here . I don 't know what could be enforceable . I don 't think you really want a situation where he has to add to the guarantee over a period of years because the cost of trees keeps going up . So I don 't know what you really have in mind here and I don 't know that we can cover it . Krauss : Well , if I could for just a sec . Mr . Zwiers is a businessman and he understands contractual obligations and we try to operate in as - professional and businesslike manner as possible . I think you 're aware that for many years we 've required developers to enter into development contracts and post financial guarantees . Now it would still be my recommendation that we get some sort of a financial guarantee but how we can structure that is open to some discussion . If possible I suppose that something could be written to the chain of title to obligate all future property owners or something like that . But it may well be that if there 's Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 37 a dollar amount figure set for this , that there be an annual contribution - made to an account . An interest bearing account that would just be set aside to accrue for this operation so that at some point in the future , whenever Mr . Zwiers is ready to do it , he just withdraws the funds from _ that to do it . We need to talk about that but we 're willing , I guess to plant something . Batzli : See my point is , if he 's going to be done by July 1st of next year- on this piece of property , for him to default on this condition down the road , what are you going to do? Krauss : Well and that 's why we need to sit down . I need to sit down with Mr . Scott and Mr . Zwiers and figure out the appropriate way to approach that but I think if we 're creative enough . Tom Scott : The simplest way would be to require them to keep the letter of credit in effect . Batzli : But that basically ties up money for . Tom Scott : That ties up a certain amount of assets that have to be behind that letter of credit . There may be some other ways . Maybe there 's a bonding mechanism or some other way we can do that . I guess that 's what Paul 's saying . I mean we could just point blank say , letter of credit has to remain in effect . Maybe that 's what we ' ll have to do but there 's hopefully some other mechanism we could use too . Batzli : I think the waiver of the setback is appropriate here in that , given what they 're trying to do here . However , if we get into another situation where someone 's going to go fairly close to their lot line to do something similar , how are we going to distinguish that over this type of an operation? Is it the creation of some sort of a steep slope? Is it the fact that there wouldn 't necessarily be a buffer with a railroad track running through there? What is it that we point to and say , this is different? Krauss: First of all there 's a waiver . You 're not subject to the same findings that you might be with , precedent setting issues that may be — attended with a variance . I think that 's what your concerned about . Very clearly under the waiver provisions , it allows you and the City Council to evaluate conditions on a site specific basis and make your determinations as such and not be bound I guess , I would say by the precedent and the hardship and the other things that come with a variance . What makes this property or this request reasonable under the waiver I think is very site specific . There 's really no way to work this site in an effective manner and achieve what we want to achieve and achieve what the owner would like to achieve without that . To fix the problems that are out there , you 've got to work in that area . I think Commissioner Ledvina pointed out quite aptly that you can 't put the ponding in where you need to put it unless you work within that area . Undoubtedly you ' ll be confronted by these sorts of things in the future . We 've already processed 3 or 4 of them . We 'll probably get some more but I think you 've got to take them on a case by case basis . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 38 Batzli : I guess I 'd like maybe a more clear statement of your reasons for why we should waive them . I didn 't have much time to look at this and I know we actually spoke earlier on that issue but I just think you should at least set it out very clearly to the Council why you think this justifies a waiver and I don 't know in my own mind whether it 's because it 's how we want it to turn out is a good reason . That could justify anything . Krauss : Yeah . The addendum that I handed out tonight tries to get at the rationale behind the waiver . We can certainly write that into a set of _ findings much the same as we would for a variance and lay that out explicitedly . Batzli : Well I don 't know . It just kind of caught me as far as being set out clearly as to what makes this site at least unique enough to waive it and I get away from the discussion of the variance kind of language but , because we 'll see more of these and the question is , should we be recommending to waive it? Shouldn 't we? Is there something in the conditions that talks about the waiver? Adopting a finding of facts to go with it or rationale? Krauss : No there is not and what needs to be looked at is in the conditions where the recommendation takes place . You substitute the waiver language for where the variance language was . There are findings that are - contained in this addendum . Batzli : So you 'd like it with a 300 foot setback waived in accordance with your discussion in this addendum? Krauss : Yeah , and then we can certainly clarify those points . - Batzli : Okay . And I think the water 's critical . Safety 's critical . Trees , we had talked about . The creek . Make sure that that 's not being adversely effected or if it is being effected , we at least know how and why - and what the effect is . And last but perhaps least , these ponds that we 're creating . Just for the record here . Will these ponds eventually if they start growing kind of Class B wetlands kind of things around them or in them or if they even somehow hold water , when cattails start growing and purple loosestrife and everything else , do these become wetlands and will they then become untouchable and become part of our mapped wetlands in the city? Krauss: Let me give you a two part answer to that . Under local ordinances , we 're in the process of developing an updated wetlands protection program . Under the draft as it now exists , we 've got 4 categories of wetlands ranging from pristine to utilized . Utilizied are functionally not defined as wetlands any longer or won 't be I supposed if this ordinance gets adopted the way it's drafted . What utilized means is that it was specifically designed for a water quality protection or storm water protection function and not as a wetland or wetland remediation . The second part of that answer comes in because there 's not only , for the last - 8 years Chanhassen has been operating in a vaccum . You know we 've been protecting wetlands but the rest of the State hasn 't . There is a new State law that does protect wetlands and most of you are aware that I sit on the committee that 's drafting the rules for the new State law . And I had Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 39 explicit language written into that , to the rules so that ponding areas — that are created for non-wetland function purposes are not going to be defined as wetlands under the State law. Again that 's contingent on the rules being approved as they currently are drafted but I think that that 's — the case . So the answer to your question is no, they won't be wetlands . Batzli : So these grades that we 're talking about that Tim wants to say , this is it . No more mining at least , these ponds when this land is developed , will more than likely be wiped out and the water will be redirected once more . • Krauss: That 's not clear . Erhart: Excuse me . What was that? Batzli : Well eventually this property will be developed and they 'll look at this seepage pond in the middle that 's kind of mucky , kind of something and the issue is , they 're going to try and do something else to this — property in order to develop it . Now they don't have to save it as a wetland , Paul just told us . It doesn't hold water . It 's going to be kind of mucky parts of the year . Who 's going to want that in their backyard? — Krauss: Well a couple of points though. We are recommending that an easement be provided over these water bodies so that the City would be involved in any decisions to alter it . It may well be that when the land is developed , it may be more appropriate to put the water someplace else or to modify these and in that regard that 's no different than most of the development proposals we see that have some kind of an alteration . — Batzli : My point is this . We 're doing it now you know . Granted we don't have a site plan in front of us or that we know where the house pads are — going to go but it wouldn't take a whole lot to sit there and say , this is kind of where you 're going to put it . Does it make sense to be directing all the water to the center of this? Is there any access in to the road to access this piece? You have to go right through the middle of the muck you 're creating . I don 't know . I 'm looking at it kind of looking down the road saying why are we doing this if it doesn't make sense because you know that eventually this is going to be a very , you know once the mining on the— south stops , this will be a very attractive parcel to build homes on . Krauss : The honest answer is we don't know how the development's going to _ take place up there . There has been, well under the original Moon Valley request , the end use plan was developed before the ponding area was developed for that site and clearly the road 's not in the right place on this one for that pond area to be where it's going to be . There's plenty — of room to move it up there . This assumes that these are large lot residential , developed without sewer and water . If sewer and water is available at some point in the future , well it may be through Eden Prairie .— Eden Prairie has stuff not too far away . Then of course it will be substantially different . But the fact is , every development in Chanhassen has an obligation to manage storm water and maintain water quality . Whoever develops it , whenever they do it is going to have to meet those goals . If those ponds serve the purpose , great . If they don't , they 'll have to revise them so that they do . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 40 Batzli : I 'll leave it up to your professional judgment . My point is that if this makes sense that we have to do it this way , if there 's no development right there , let 's do it this way . But if there 's a way that fits into the grand scheme of things so that we don 't end up regrading everything 2 or 3 times to develop this in 5 years , I don't know why we 're doing this to create an area which will develop wildlife and do certain things and then suddenly we 're going to grade it up again in 5 years because the south part has either been mined or else the property generally becomes too valuable to mine so they sell it and develop it . Something - that I don 't think really was looked at , and if in fact they're submitting plans like this for the southern piece for the eventual completion or what have you , for purposes of a lawsuit or for whatever purpose , and it doesn't make any sense at all to what they 're doing on the north side , I don't get it . Krauss: I gave some thought and it you may think it 's reasonable to do it , - to asking them to modify this based upon the ponding plan so we had a plan of record and it may not hurt to do that . My reason for not asking them was , what happens on that site , how residential development occurs is open to so much conjecture at this point that , am I asking them to spin their wheels by generating another map? It never hurts to have on in the file but you know , a lot of things can happen up there to change it . I am confident though that the grades that will result from this petition are consistent with residential development . They 're not touching the homesites in the trees which is where the homes want to be . They 're not leaving grades that can 't support homes and roads and driveways out in the field area and I was comfortable that this can support that use . Batzli : You 're comfortable , I 'm comfortable . Okay . Matt , I 'd love a motion . Ledvina: Okay . I 'm going to try. I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that Interim Use Permit #92-5 for Earth Work be approved with the waiver of the 300 foot setback subject to the staff conditions and following modifications and additions . I would like that conditions number 6 , 7 and 13 be re-evaluated by staff with input from the - applicant . I would like to add several conditions starting with number 15 . That all soil removal according to the grading plan be completed by July 1 , 1993. Condition 16 . A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on _ the plan and to maintain erosion control during construction. Condition 17 . Ground water contamination issues be evaluated to insure protection of water wells in the vicinity of the site . Condition 18. Develop considerations for traffic safety on access points to the roadways - involved . And condition 19. That the applicant relinquishes future rights to future gravel mining activities or potential mining activities at the site . Is there anything else? Batzli : Do we have plans that you want to include into the motion? Krauss: The dated plans? Batzli : Yes . - Krauss: It 's 6/5/92 . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 41 Batzli : So , do you want to make your motion in accordance also with those plans 6/5/92? Ledvina: And also that the activities and conditions of the permit relate to the plans dated June 5 , 1992 . — Conrad: Point 7 , 13 and 14 be reviewed. Ledvina: 6 , 7 and 13 . Conrad: 6 , 7 and 13 be reviewed . Ledvina: Be re-evaluated . Batzli : Is there a second? Erhart: Yeah , I 'll second it . Batzli : Okay . Discussion Ladd . — Ledvina: We had some concerns about the . Conrad: I don 't . . .staff . That 's my biggest concern . To be re-evaluated . I don 't know what that means . Erhart: But I think when you go back in the Minutes , I think it 's clear what we 're asking for . Clarify some things . To look at some numbers . Justify the numbers . Be able to justify the numbers in our recommendation to Council . Additional recommendations . — Farmakes: Are we expecting to see this again? Batzli : No . We 're asking that Paul 's prepared when the Council asks him those questions I guess . Conrad: So 6 , 7 and 13 Paul , talking about being more accurate where they — tie in money to plans . Does that mean that the plans will be submitted? What 's the timeframe for these plans? Are they expected to be there for City Council review or are those things that happen after? — Krauss: Speaking for myself , I think clearly we 'd want to resolve all these issues prior to going to City Council . Those are of a magnitude that they 're not administrative . — Conrad: Your point Matt on ground water . In his motion Paul , who's responsibility will that be? — Krauss: Frankly we 're going to ask the applicant to clarify that . We 'll review the information . — Conrad: It is his responsibility? Krauss: Well , we 're not in the position of preparing submittal materials — for applicants . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 42 Conrad: And that 's your intent? Ledvina: Right . Just so the issue gets resolved and evaluated . Krauss: Of course we ' ll concurrently , I mean we 'v sent a copy of this to the Soil Conservation Service and Carver County Soil Survey and we will get information as we can get it but I think specifically the applicant 's probably going to have to contract with somebody with some expertise to prepare an evaluation of that . Conrad: So let 's go back to point number 9 Paul , in terms of the clay liner . Who 's job is it to presuade us , it 's the applicant I assume , to persuade us that the pond is designed properly . Krauss: Oh , that 's something . This came from my city engineering department . The applicant hasn't indicated that they have any problem with that condition . That 's a pretty simple design detail that we 'll take care of in-house . I mean they 'll give us the revised design and the engineering staff will say if it needs to be modified . Conrad: There was a comment from one of the agencies that was concerned with that particular aspect of the pond . Krauss: I think it came from our engineering office . Conrad: The District , Carver Soil and Water Conservation District . The clayed area . They were concerned of the clayed area . So who's job? Erhart: Who would review stuff like that Paul? Krauss: We do in-house . That 's normal . Conrad: So the applicant designs it . I don 't know . It just seems like a real big issue . The whole issue of what we 're doing to ground water and we got one concern from a recommending body or review body and we 've got an issue here that 's really big in my mind and I don't know . I guess I 'm a little uncomfortable with how it 's solved . Who's got the responsibility? Batzli : How would you like to see it resolved? Conrad: I don 't know . I just want to make sure somebody 's got responsibility and we 're making changes to the motion here , I want to make sure that we 're guiding staff to make sure somebody 's got the onous to - prove it . And ground water is such a key deal . We can't take any chances on this one . It's not just a passing deal . It 's really quite significant . Erhart : Rick , where 'd you come up with idea? Have you done something like this before? We 've never seen anything like this before . Rick Sathre : I think you haven't seen it much in Chanhassen because you - have so many clay soils . In the sandier communities of Minnesota , I 'm thinking about Anoka County, North. Andover , Anoka , Coon Rapids. Most of the pond sites are seepage ponds . You also- see them a lot in Eden Prairie - in the sand soils over in southeastern Eden Prairie mostly . There 's many , Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 43 many , many depressions that have no outlets and all the drainage has been just seeping into the ground . So the concern is always , is this going to — seal up over time? Is it going to fail to function just like a drainfield might? But that 's very common . Very common thing . We 're very concerned about protecting wetlands so that we can promote ground water recharge . Just a question of are we doing it appropriately here . The soil people , they raisee that issue too , like you noticed Ladd . Is the water going in too fast? Should we slow it down so that it 's better filtered? That 's a valid issue . — Conrad: So do you prepare Rick , the engineering reports to pacify? How does this happen? — Rick Sathre : Well , I think that we would seek another consultant as well who specializes in ground water issues . Batzli : Does this then require borings out there to get the right filtration? Rick Sathre: I would think it would be by checking the rate of seepage through that sand . I think . . .measuring the rate . It would be an engineering process . Probably involve a testing lab . — Conrad: And does this change over time? Does it get better? Or does it get worst? Seepage . As long as we prepare it and this thing is filtered better later on after the original? Rick Sathre : I think that over time seepage tends to slow down . The filtration would be better . We don 't want to allow the seepage pond to — stop seeping because then you don't solve your basic problem which is trying to discharge the water back to the ground water . It's a cycle . Batzli : Assuming then that you need a certain size outlet for this pond and the outlet constricts over time , the original calculations for the pond were done by yourself? Okay . Rick Sathre : In a 100 year storm event right now , that big central pond would , there 'd be about 6 feet of water in the bottom of it and that would seep out . We 're not sure of the seepage rate because we haven 't tried to — measure it . I would expect in those sands that water would drain away at at least 1 inch per hour . So there would be 6 feet of water depth in that pond , bang . Right after the storm . Batzli : Is it an expensive process to go to a hydrologist or whoever it is to take the boring and do that calculation and do it? What are we asking for to present that kind of evidence to our engineering department for — review? Do you know? Rick Sathre : All I can do is take a wild guess. I would think that it 'd be more than $1 ,000 .00 and less than $5 ,000.00 . It is significant . Very significant . Conrad: We need our engineering department to tell us or tell the applicant what is expected in this regard . I think the fundamental thing Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 44 is we have to protect it . Not even close to taking a chance . Paul and staff can figure that out . Batzli : Well , do you want to propose a friendly amendment to that condition? I don 't even remember what . Conrad: I don 't have a clue how I 'd word it to tell you the truth. Paul 's heard it . Batzli : But I think when we 've done things like this in the past where we basically said that , applicant shall provide information to city engineering for their approval regarding seepage . Whatever we 're going to say but we 've done this in the past . I mean it 's up to them to provide information for us . Satisfactory to us that this isn't going to be a problem . Conrad: Matt , do you want to change something? Ledvina : Not necessarily but . I 've suggested in , condition 17 I stated that the ground water contamination issue be evaluated to insure protection of the water wells in the vicinity of the site . If we can also add that this issue shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the staff prior to the City Council hearing this application . I don 't know , does that help? Conrad: Sure . Erhart : I seconded the motion . Batzli : Do you accept that amendment? Erhart : Fine . If you 're happy , I 'm happy Ladd . Batzli : You had another one Ladd . Ground water was one . What was your other one? Conrad: I think we 've taken care of it . . .went back a couple time.: I couldn 't find it . Batzli : The 6 , 7 and 13 issue . Re-evaluating . Conrad: Well Matt has , and I think staff has heard the issue. I don't think we need to belabor the point but it is really tying the plan to the cost and the applicant needs that but we need the plan first so we can see the cost and that 's in restoration. We 've got to be convinced we know what we 're going to get and the applicant's got to know before this gets to City Council what 's expected of them and not after . It can't wait. . .staff to work with the applicant . Batzli : Okay . Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92-5 for earth work, as shown on the plans dated June 5, 1992 , with the waiver of the -300 foot setback, that staff Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 45 be directed to re-evaluate conditions 6, 7 and 13 with input from the _ applicant prior to City Council , and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Provide staff with a copy of the access easement over the off-site haul road . 2. Prior to the start of operations , a truck entrance designed to minimize tracking of mud and debris into the right-of-way shall be _ constructed . Plans should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer . The operator is responsible for cleaning the public right-of-way as often as requested by the City Engineer .. `Trucks Hauling" signs shall be posted . — 3 . The City of Eden Prairie 's Engineer shall be contacted by the operator prior to start of operations to ensure that concerns they may raise — can be adequately dealt with . 4 . Use of explosives to support this operation are prohibited . Hours of _ operation are limited to 7 :00 a .m . to 6:00 p .m . , Monday thru Saturday excluding national holidays . If the city receives complaints regarding Saturday operations , the City Engineer may require that these be halted .5 . Dust control shall be the operator 's responsibility . If conditions persist which make dust control ineffective , the City Engineer may — require temporary halting of operations . 6 . The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer . He should provide staff with a written phasing plan for approval . 7 . The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900 .00 and provide the — city with an acceptable financial security ( letter of credit or cash ) in the amount of $40 ,000. to cover the costs of site restoration. 8 . Drainage plans to be reviewed by 8onestroo Engineering prior to City Council review. Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant . 9 . Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the — retention basins . Drainage calculations are to be provided to demonstrate that the ponds are properly sized. Place notice in chain-of-title that current and future owners are responsible for — keeping the basins functional . When development occurs , the city would normally accept responsibility for the ponds. The applicant must demonstrate that all ponds have bottoms located in the sand layer or structured outlets will be required. A clay liner is required on the west edge of the north pond to protect the adjacent side slope . The applicant shall provide the city with an as-built grading plan of the ponds to ensure that they comply with approved specifications . — 10 . Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City Engineer . Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the — City Engineer . _ Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 46 11 . Project approval by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District is required . 12 . Modify plans for the southern pond to minimize tree loss on the north side of the pond . The applicant 's engineer shall demonstrate , to the satisfaction of the City Engineer , that this ponding area does not disturb local drainage patterns . 13 . Provide staff with an acceptable reforestation plan for the mined bluff face on the Moon Valley gravel mine site . Adequate financial guarantees to ensure that the plan is implemented upon the completion of mining shall be provided . _ 14 . The applicant 's engineer shall prepare a plan to repair erosion damage found at the two locations on the north site described in the report . This plan is to be undertaken as a condition of approval . 15 . That all soil removal according to the grading plan be completed by July 1 , 1993. 16. A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on the plan and to maintain erosion control during construction . 17 . Ground water contamination issues be evaluated to insure protection of water wells in the vicinity of the site and that this issue be resolved to the satisfaction of city staff prior to going to City Council . 18 . Develop considerations for traffic safety on access points to the roadways involved . 19 . That the applicant relinquishes future rights to future gravel mining activities or potential mining activities at the site . - All voted in favor except Commissioner Farmakes who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1 . - Batzli : Your reasons . Farmakes : I just think it 's premature . There 's too many major unanswered questions here that if I voted for this , I guess I would be saying that it didn 't make any difference what the answers to those questions would be and I think that 's true . - Batzli : Okay . Fair enough . The motion carries . When will this be at the City Council? Do we know? Krauss : It 's scheduled for July 27th . That 's subject to all the ducks being in order before it goes there and I think what we ' ll do is we 'll assure everybody that got a notice that we ' ll re-notify them of the meeting date . So if it 's on the 27th , we ' ll notify you . If it 's at a later date . . . Batzli : Okay . Thank you all for coming in . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 47 Erhart : Can we stop for a second here Brian? I want to clarify something . For the purpose of shortening these meetings , I really question . This may be an opportune time to spend 5 minutes discussing what the function of the Planning Commission is regarding these kinds of things . Somehow I feel that maybe some of us think that we are actually writing the actual development contracts here . I don 't think that 's what we 're doing . I think we 're a recommending body . I think we 're a body that 's supposed to kind of kick these things around before they get to Council . Kind of help them get some of the issues out on the table . Paul , could you be involved with this? I 'm looking for , tell me if I 'm wrong or right . But kick these things around . Give staff kind of a trial balloon to get in here and throw these things at and see what sticks . What doesn 't . What the concerns are so that when it goes to Council , it 's something that 's . . .rough edges and filed off and so forth . I question whether we 're trying to get , trying to be too perfect by the time it leaves here because in fact we 're just simply making recommendations and raising issues . If I 'm wrong , then please correct me . I think we 're all asking these questions . My goodness , it 's quarter to 11 :00 and we 've only gone through 2 things . Well you started before I got here but we 're spending an enormous amount of time on this thing and so I don 't know . What is the purpose of us? Are we trying to get everything nailed down here when it leaves? Don 't our Minutes count for something? I always assumed they did . I throw the question out . Conrad: I would really debate whether the Council thoroughly digests the Minutes that we have . The motion , the stuff that Paul , the motion that we _ make and the revisions to it in my mind count far more than any dialogue that we 've had . We flush out the issues . Our control is to reject . We don 't have much in control but we can reject . We can delay . We can turn down . We can postpone . That 's our control . If we don 't think that people have done their job prior to getting here , then our job is to get more information . Erhart : Any bad plan we should reject it and put all kinds of hurdles . Farmakes : I think in that particular case with that particular applicant , _ all the more reason that those questions should be answered so we can do our job and make those recommendations . For the most part I agree with what you 're saying . Batzli : But see I didn 't think with this particular applicant , even if we had the answers to those questions , our decision , you know what the money costs . What the dollar figure was . What these other issues were . That wouldn 't have mattered . The only thing that truly would have mattered to us probably would have been the water quality issue but the City Council can look at those findings as easily as we can . I don 't know what more we could have added to that particular one you know. Conrad : The same dog gone things that we do . The same ones . Batzli : Oh yeah , and they 'll talk about them as if we didn 't cover them . Conrad : Absolutely and so , if we can get staff working on some of these issues , we might as well spare the applicant a little bit . Not that we needed to in this particular case . Yet on the other hand , if the City Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 48 - Council 's going to cover it , we don 't need to do it a second time . If we 're real uncomfortable that we 're giving the City Council unclear information , then we should table . We should keep it down here . If we - don 't think staff can get the information that they need . Batzli : But I don 't know . I sensed Tim was kind of asking a more global _ question than just this last one . I think in instances of the two things we 've had tonight , typically you know we don 't have a lot of people here . When we do end up having people here . I am very loathe to cut them off . So I let everybody ramble and talk tonight that wanted to talk . Erhart : Yeah , but up here or out there? - Batzli : Up here . Erhart : Oh . Batzli : And that 's really what made the meeting long . The beachlots have always been , we 've always gotten a lot of people and they all get up and say the same thing but I don 't want to be the one to shut them off because - they all came here . They think what they have to say is important and I don 't necessarily disagree . But if I came to this meeting and the Planning Commissioners sat up here and said , does anybody have anything new . Well no , you 're going to say the same thing . Go away . I don 't think we can cut that out . Erhart : I wasn 't getting at that . I was trying to understand , and maybe just to review , the balance between how specific this motion has to be versus what our comments are in the Minutes as it relates to what staff does when we leave this meeting and how Council reacts to what we do . That 's the point I , that was the question that I had . I want to clarify in my mind and maybe for all of us . Farmakes: Well that 's assuming too that the Council members don 't inquire and ask us about particular things even when we 're not here . If you 're going to have an informed answer when you respond to them , if you have questions about something , I think you should bring those up if they 're not there . On these types of situations . like the restoration plan on this particular one , it 's an open ended question. What it will be . There is no plan at the end . Erhart : Yeah , I agree . Farmakes: . . .based , at least I was on this particular applicant because it seems litigation follows this person like a fly on whatever . And what I 'm saying is , the attitude that I had . at least looking at this is one of mistrust . Erhart : No , I understand . What I guess I 'm trying to get at is , I think it 's great that we each get out what we consider the issues . It gets in the Minutes . The question is , how much time should we spend on trying to structure a motion that deals with every one of the issues that each one of us has . I 'm not too sure that that 's necessary to really struggle with this motion issue because I always believed that , Jeff if you 've got an Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 49 issue about one thing and it 's probably backed by one or two others , even if it doesn 't get in the motion , staff takes a look at it . Particularly if— they agree that it 's a reasonable concern whether it 's in the motion or not I guess . Also that the Council will . Batzli : I would disagree . I would say staff ignores it . No offense . Staff ignores it and maybe one Council member catches it and they raise it . They say , well what about this? And staff says , well only one person thought of it and they didn 't even put it in the motion. Then I 've been at— the meetings and they say , well Brian. What did they think and I 'll say , well 3 of us raised it but it didn 't get in the motion. They say, well fine then , forget it . If I get something into the motion, I have a 90% chance it 's going to be approved by the City Council . If you don't get it into the motion , you have a 10% chance that it 's going to be up to City Council . It 's that clear . You change that motion . Whatever you get into that motion is going to be acted on and they act on most of what we say. Sc if it 's not there , you don 't have any chance . Batzli : And even if it 's half crazed, at least then staff has to argue — against it . Conrad: You 've got to fix it because he 's not going to move something up _ that doesn 't make sense . He just won 't . Erhart: How much would you expect the Council to discuss this particular one? Krauss: Well it 's really going to be contingent upon how many of the neighbors show up at the Council meeting . — Erhart: Say nobody shows up . Krauss: If nobody shows up and we 're able to , I think we do a good job of responding to what 's raised , particularly in motions . Provide the answers should they be raised , I think it stands every chance of getting fairly rapidly approved . In speaking for staff I think , you know you really need — to ask the Council what they think and you may have the chance . I think we 're going to try to schedule them to come in here at your next meeting just to talk . They want to talk for 30 minutes or something. Batzli : They don 't want to admit that they don 't read the Minutes . Krauss: I don 't read the Minutes . — Batzli : Yeah I know . Krauss: Whenever we get sued we read the Minutes . Erhart: You don 't think they read the Minutes? _ Batzli : I can 't , I mean you see the stack . It 's this deep and they can't be reading it all for content and digesting it . - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 50 Krauss: But the issues that we deal with are pretty complex . I don 't know , sometimes I get accused of making things more complex than they need to be but I find that if I 'm not , it comes back to haunt us later on . When you do that , you risk not seeing the forest through the trees or however that analogy is supposed to go , and it 's useful for me to hear , you know you missed this . You 've got to beef this up . Citizens raise these - concerns . Some are legitimate . Some have to be responded to whether they 're legitimate or not . And these are the answers that you 've got to bring forward to tie up all the loose ends . Then we know exactly what we need to do _ Batzli : And here 's a test . City Council members , if you 're reading these Minutes , give me a phone call . Erhart : You 've got $100 .00 for every one that calls you . - Batzli : Okay , so we ' ll see . Now don 't you tip them off . Conrad: Plus , have you ever tried to read Minutes and get a consensus? Batzli : It 's very difficult to read through these verbatim Minutes . Conrad: You can 't get an idea what . You know you say some off the wall - things about Communism . They don 't . . . Batzli : I yearn for those days . Conrad : I know . Those were the good days . It 's just hard for them to get a feel . I 've always wanted to condense . Erhart : Maybe we shouldn 't have verbatim Minutes anymore . When I started we didn 't have them . If nobody reads them . If nobody reads them , why do we do verbatim Minutes? Batzli : Because we use them for the record later on . Erhart : If nobody reads them , who needs them? Batzli : Well we do read them later on . I mean later on , when this project blows up . We pull out the Minutes . We say , well what did this guy . Farmakes : 10 years from now they know who to blame for the problem . Batzli : Your 5 minutes are up . But I agree . To the extent that we can shorten and/or otherwise reduce our time before the mics , we 'll do that . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE . CHAPTER 20. CONCERNING ALLOWED USES IN THE BH . , HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT . - Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli wanted the record to show there was no one present for this public hearing . Carver Soil and Water Conservation District — 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN. 55387 442-5101 TO: Paul Krauss , Planning Director FROM: Chip Hentges , District Technician DATE: June 16th, 1992 RE: Review of Grading , Drainage , and Erosion Control for Interim Use Permit, Tom Zwiers , Moon Valley Aggregate. Staff from the Carver SWCD has reviewed the above referenced project. The following comment and recommendations to control erosion and water quality are offered for your considerations . 1 . Question the idea of excavating thru the clay barrier to the sandy underline areas for the holding ponds . This would allow for excessive rates to seep to — groundwater, which before excavation was not the case . Does the city have a provision for slowing down the rate of surface water to ground water? It would be highly recommended to slow the rate of seepage to groundwater. Also the elevation to show excavation depths on the plan map are incorrect. 2 . Fertilizer should be required at the recommended rate for the grass mix. _ 3 . Mulch should be added at the rate of 3 , 000 to 4, 000 pounds/acre - or 80 to 90% ground cover. I also recommend that clean straw be used, because cheap grassy hay will just cut in two with a mulching disk. When it is mulched and disked properly, it should look like a field of oats stubble. — If you have any questions , please give me a call at 442-5101 FIEGUVEc JUN i 1992 C I TY 0 F CHANHASSEN - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM:: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician dw_ DATE: June 23, 1992 SUBJ: Interim Use Permit for Earthwork Mining of Gravel Pit North of Moon Valley Grading Permit No. 92-6 Upon review of the grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by Sathre-Bergquist dated June 5, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations: 1. The parcel appears to be landlocked. It is assumed that a private driveway easement or similar form of access is be provided by the adjacent property owners. Removal of the excavated material may cause concerns for noise abatement as well as dust control. The applicant should address these specific concerns as well as traffic circulation onto Pioneer Trail (County Road 14). 2. The site is located outside the MUSA line and will be dependent upon well and septic systems until sanitary sewer and water service is available from Eden Prairie. There is a concern for acceptable septic sites on the parcel. According to the City's — Building Department, those areas disturbed by earthwork activities will be unacceptable for septic sites. 3. Both storm water ponding areas are proposed to act as detention basins to allow water to seep back into the ground versus overland flow through the ravines which have been severely eroded over the past years. Although staff appears comfortable with this idea, routine maintenance of the ponds will be necessary to insure proper seepage as sediments build up on the bottom. The side slopes around the pond appear to be acceptable. They range from 5:1 to 3.5:1 side slopes. 4. The plans propose no tree removal; however, staff recommends that construction limits be staked in the field to protect the trees. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Paul Krauss June 23, 1992 Page 2 — 5. Although it does not appear that hauling activities will affect the City of Chanhassen's streets, the applicant should supply a defined haul route and traffic control provisions. 6. Erosion control is proposed around the perimeter of the detention ponds. Staff recommends Type I erosion control fence with a detail provided on the grading plan. 7. It appears the site will be developed in phases over a period of time. The plans should incorporate a phasing approach along with the anticipated schedule of events. The applicant's engineer should determine estimated quantities to be excavated in order to compute a permit fee based on the UBC fee schedule. 8. The northerly storm water detention pond is fairly close to the abandoned rail line. The northerly pond slope should be constructed with clay liner to prevent seepage on the northerly slope which may weaken the structural capabilities of the berm between the pond and the abandoned railroad tracks. 9. The applicant shall apply for,receive and comply with the Watershed District permit. — 10. If earthwork continues past the freeze-up period of November 15, more stringent erosion control measures may be required. It is recommended that all disturbed — areas be seeded and mulched by September 15 each year and that excavation beyond that date be to a minimum. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer — JUN 24 '92 02:25PM SPINE CENTER P.1 _ John & Ann Lonstein, 9861 Deerbrook Drive, Chanhassen, MN. 55317 . Paul Krauss, Planning Director, Chanhassen. Dear Mr. Krauss , I am replying to your notice of the hearing to consider the application of Tom Zwiers for an interim use permit for earth work/mining of a gravel pit, located north of Hwy . 212 and east of the Chicano and Northwestern Railway . I am unable to attend the meeting as I will be out of the '— Country, and thus am writing to you with my input . I am currently completing building in Deerbrook, which overlooks the proposed mining site . During the construction, we, together with your inspectors have been concerned with the bluff in the area, and have done everything possible to maintain this natural topography . We are very concerned with soil erosion, and thus will plant on the land to prevent this . Your strict rules point to your concern in this area , It is thus with surprise that I see — that you are considering this application which will denude and deforest the land, and set the area up for a major erosion problem. My second and obvious objection is to the work which will be adjacent to my property . This will increase the noise, and clear the land of all the growth. In addition to the erosion as discussed above, the cleared land will spoil my view, which today is of a valley of growth. In addition the changed view, and the erosion will lead to a loss in the value of my property . I am sorry that I will not be at the meeting to _ bring up these points personally, so I ask you to read this this letter into the minutes and for discussion. You may reach me during the day at 332-3843 , and evenings at 546- 1047 if you would like to discuss this with me. Thank you, JUN 24 '92 02:23PM SPINE CENTER P.1 _ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED INTERIM USE PERMIT _ CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a — public hearing on Wednesday,July 1, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of Torn Zwiers for an interim use permit for earth work/mining of a gravel pit, located north of Hwy. 212 -- and east of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. A plan showing the proposed earthwork and location of the proposal is available for — public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Paul Krauss,Planning Director — Phone: 937-1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 18, 1992) () — ! /!� -37 rC7 _ Carver Soil and Water Conservation District 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN. 55387 442-5101 TO: Paul Krauss , Planning Director FROM: Chip Hentges , District Technician DATE: June 16th, 1992 RE: Review of Grading, Drainage , and Erosion Control for Interim Use Permit, Tom Zwiers , Moon Valley Aggregate . Staff from the Carver SWCD has reviewed the above referenced project. The following comment and recommendations to control erosion and water quality are offered for your considerations . 1 . Question the idea of excavating thru the clay barrier to the sandy underline areas for the holding ponds . This would allow for excessive rates to seep to groundwater, which before excavation was not the case . Does the city have a provision for slowing down the rate of surface water to ground water? It would be highly recommended to slow the rate of seepage to groundwater. Also the elevation to show excavation depths on the plan map are incorrect. 2 . Fertilizer should be required at the recommended rate. for the grass mix . 3 . Mulch should be added at the rate of 3 , 000 to 4 , 000 pounds/acre - or 80 to 90% ground cover. I also recommend that clean straw be used, because cheap grassy hay will just cut in two with a mulching disk. When it is mulched and disked properly, it should look like a field of oats stubble. If you have any questions , please give me a call at 442-5101 RECEtvE JUN 1 9 1992 C!TY OF CHMI'. ;AS SEn.. CITYOF -ite‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — llelabn iy Oft MinteRVIIInt MEMORANDUM Wood V 1 t, Pew TO: Planning Commission lyected G„ - FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Directorgc..-FROM: kite cil DATE: May 27, 1992 Sl timid cou SUBJ: Moon Valley Proposal PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an earth work permit to continue a pre-existing sand and gravel mining operation located along the Minnesota River bluff line between Hwy. 169/212 and the _ former Chicago, Northwestern Railway right-of-way. This request has an extensive history. While the grading operation has been in existence for some time, the city has become involved only recently. In 1987, the city responded to a related mining operation located off- site along Pioneer Trail. The city believed that mining in this area was illegal since no permit had been obtained. The City Attorney sent a letter asking that work be stopped and the site has been inactive since then. In 1990, responding to several complaints about the primary Moon Valley operation, but more importantly to the fact that city ordinances pertaining to grading and mining were extremely — inadequate and were presenting administrative problems for staff, a new grading and mining ordinance was developed and adopted for the city. The Moon Valley operator was represented in these hearings and has subsequently been extensively involved with city staff.The Moon Valley operator has litigated a series of aspects of the city ordinance which required the operator to obtain a permit. This matter was ultimately resolved by a judge's order, which indicated that the city has the right to require a permit and that the non- conformity applicable to the Moon Valley operation only applies to the original property and not other properties since acquired by the operator. The court order further stipulates that the applicant is entitled to continue mining on this site and the city may only impose such conditions as related to public health and safety. Extensive back up information on the history of this request and related litigation is attached to this report, as well as related materials such as Judge Kanning's order, information from the City Attorney, and other — materials. I'f t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _ Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 2 Staff has found this to be an unusually difficult and complex request to review. The litigation brought by the operator contributes to a portion of this difficulty. However, it is made even more complex by several factors. If this request were brought to us today as a new application, there is little doubt in my mind that staff would recommend its denial and that the Planning Commission and City Council would likely agree. Mining on this site is extremely destructive to a rare natural resource that exists in the Minnesota River bluff line. The city has already gone on record indicating our concern with this resource in the adoption of our Bluff Line Preservation District. This site also has potential to impact the U. S. Fish and Wildlife's River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which is located across the highway from the site. Additionally, a review of any such proposal would likely require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and would follow guidelines established by city ordinances. However, having said that, we acknowledge that the applicant does have the authority to continue operating on this site. We further note that in spite of the belligerent attitudes that have often been expressed by the operator and his legal counsel, I have had numerous opportunities to visit with the Moon Valley operator and found him to generally be a responsible businessman. Mr. Zwiers, who is the operator/applicant for Moon Valley, has attempted to responsibly manage aspects of his operation. For example, he has installed a sedimentation basin on the site to respond to erosion control problems that exist in the area. We are not certain that the pond is effective or appropriately designed, but the fact that he has taken steps to install one without being forced to do so by the city or other agencies is, I believe, significant. Processing this request is made even more difficult by the poorly developed and minimal plans and information that have been submitted for the city's review. The initial submittal was so poor that it took a court order to sort out which plan was actually being presented•for review. Last September, the city actually received two completely different plans for grading on this site, with no indication as to which one was actually being proposed. Additional information has been provided since then, however, it was only done to the most modest extent possible to meet the guidelines established by the judge's order. Therefore, in many instances we are obligated to recommend conditions outlining additional information that must be provided to adhere to the health and safety issue guidelines established by the judge. Our concerns generally fall to several areas. These include: 1. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to manage the site to result in the least possible impact downstream. 2. Access and traffic safety concerns due to the high traffic volumes on adjacent Hwy. 169/212. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 — Page 3 3. Mitigation of noise and dust impacts. _ 4. Maintenance of safe and manageable slopes and elimination of grading on off-site properties and potential for undermining grades on off-site properties. — 5. Protection of ground water resources. 6. Establishment of procedures for periodic review. 7. Establishment of an acceptable end-use plan to ensure that the site will be left in a — reasonable and environmentally safe condition. 8. Provision of sufficient financial guarantees to ensure compliance with conditions — should the operator fail to do so or be in a position where he is unable to do so. As we indicated above, had we had a clean sheet of paper to start with, we would have approached this request in a completely different manner. However, we are now in this position and we believe must make the best of the cards we are dealt. Therefore, we are recommending that the earth work permit be approved subject to the conditions outlined in this report. Staff has developed conditions which we believe will address the concerns outlined above. We also note that we expect to have a related mining application for the north parcel at an upcoming meeting, as negotiations are currently in process with the operator. Some elements of the two sites should be coordinated when this review occurs. Planning and engineering staff have toured the site with the operator and find we are in _ general agreement over how the parcel should best be managed. The operator is retaining the services of a new consultant to develop the plan for this area and, at this time, we hope that the review of the expected proposal will occur without the rancor that has been associated with this current request. BACKGROUND _ • Pre-1970 - The Moon Valley gravel pit existed as a small scale operation. The property also accommodated a rifle range and ski hill equipped with a tow. The rifle — range continues to be utilized. Ownership of the mining operation changed hands. The scale of the operation was greatly expanded in the 1970s. • 1987 - The city became aware of the mining of clay on a new parcel located above the bluff line with access to Pioneer Trail. The city took action to halt this activity Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 4 since it was undertaken without a permit. No further activity has occurred in this area. The site of the excavation has not been restored. . Late 1989-early 1990 - The city received several complaints regarding grading activities at the Moon Valley site from area residents. A review of city ordinances revealed that the city had little or no review authority over Moon Valley. A further review indicated that the ordinance inadequately dealt with not only mining but all aspects of grading activity. At the City Council's request, staff and the City Attorney developed a comprehensive ordinance dealing with all related activities. The ordinance established that uses such as Moon Valley that predated the ordinance, had six months to obtain a permit. The Moon Valley operation and legal counsel were involved with discussions pertaining to the drafting of the ordinance and while they may or may not have agreed with the text, they were fully familiar with its provisions. 5/14/90 - The new ordinance was adopted as Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling, and Grading in Chapter 7 of the City Code. • 1990-1991 - Moon Valley operator was notified on several occasions by registered mail of the need to obtain a permit. Rather than comply, the Moon Valley operator sought a Declaration Judgement Action on October 1, 1990, maintaining that Ordinance No. 128 was an illegal exercise of Chanhassen's police power. The city filed a counter claim that due to Moon Valley's failure to obtain a permit, it should be shut down. • 4/25/91 - Judge Kanning found that the city had the right to require that a permit be obtained and gave the applicant 30 days to submit an application. The city's request to close the operation was essentially continued to give the operator time to respond. • Spring/Summer/Fall, 1991 - The city granted the operator several delays to prepare the application. A number of meetings were held during which staff was led to believe that a good faith effort was being made. • 10/1/91 - Staff reviewed the permit application and found it to be significantly lacking in content and substance. The Planning Director rejected the application. One fundamental flaw was that two completely different plans were submitted. One plan indicated a "dig to China" scenario which totally eliminated the bluff line and expanded the operation onto adjoining parcels and into Eden Prairie. Staff confirmed that the City of Eden Prairie was never approached by the Moon Valley operator. The other plan was marginally better. It was unclear as to which plan was being proposed, Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 _ Page 5 although it was implied that the city could "earn" the better plan by being "reasonable"with Moon Valley. • 10/14/91 - The city adopted a Minnesota River Bluff Line Preservation ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance was to recognize the environmental sensitivity and importance of the Minnesota River bluff line. The protection area is defined by an official map and the ordinance prohibits most activities from the area. • November, 1991 - The case went back to Judge !Canning. His findings were released April 2, 1992. Essentially, he found that: The operator/applicant had non-conforming rights on the south parcel (original mine). The city never contested this point. — The judge found that the non-conformity did not include the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. — The operator/applicant was allowed to continue mining the main pit but was given 30 days to submit the application. The judge felt that Plan "B", the better of the two plans, was the basis of the permit submittal. The city may impose conditions on the permit but only to the extent that health and safety are to be protected. — • May, 1991 - The operator/applicant submitted additional information. Only minor changes were made to comply with the most limited interpretation of Judge Kanning's order. In addition, information on ground water elevations, which trial evidence indicated had been withheld by the applicant, was submitted. Staff and the City Attorney met with the applicant. They indicated a continuing desire to mine the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. Staff indicated that a separate application would be required for the north parcel and that all submittal requirements outlined by city ordinances must be met. We further indicated that based upon the court order which differentiates between the status of the northern and southern — parcels, we wanted to process the requests separately. This was later confirmed in a letter from the Planning Director. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 6 • Mav 20, 1992 - Rather than respond as outlined by staff, the Moon Valley operator asked Judge Kanning to meet to clarify the court order. It was their continued contention that the judge approved grading on the north parcel. Judge Kanning agreed with the city that this was not the case. Grading activity on the north parcel must comply with all city ordinances and permit requirements. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site is deviated into two distinct areas that have been commonly described as the southern and northern parcels. The southern 39 acre parcel is the site of the original mining activity and continues to be the primary focus of this activity. It also contains the Moon Valley Rifle Range which is located in the southeast corner of the site along with several out-buildings associated with the mining that are found in the same general area. The entire southern parcel is part of the Minnesota bluff line system. Elevations range from 915' at the top of the bluff to 718' near Hwy. 169/212. The terrain is very rugged as is common along the bluff line and there area a series of ridges and draws. Mining activity is significant and much of the site has been extensively altered. The area was heavily forested, however, the remaining large stands of trees are found only along the upper reaches of the bluff, where mining has yet to occur. The northern parcel, which is not the subject of the current request, covers 45 acres. It contains a large area, reasonably flat, that was formerly farmed. The heavily wooded bluff line starts on the southern ifs of this parcel. There are several ravines leading down from the former farm field that are experiencing significant erosion. Surrounding uses include: •North: Pioneer Trail and large lot residential development in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. •South: Hwy. 169/212. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is located south of the highway. •East: Eden Prairie, vacant bluff line and low density residential. •West: Vacant bluff line and low density residential along the bluff line. There is a second residential pocket located adjacent to the west line of Moon Valley with four homes Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 7 on a private drive with access to Hwy. 169/212. It is separated from the mining operation by a creek and a 100' high ridge line. GENERAL COMMENTS It has been our normal practice to review mining requests in accordance with the standards outlined by the ordinance. In this case, due to the non-conforming status and court order, we are restricting the review of items related solely to health and safety issues. We believe these issues include the following: 1. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to: - prevent erosion and unstable slopes - prevent pollution and sedimentation in the Minnesota River Valley and Wildlife Refuge - prevent tracking debris out onto area roads creating unsafe conditions _ 2. Access and traffic safety concerns. 3. Mitigation of noise and dust impacts. 4. Maintenance of safe and manageable slopes and/or use of protective signing and fencing where appropriate. In a related concern, Exhibit B 1 indicates mining activity occurring off-site on the adjacent parcel to the north. The plan should be revised to eliminate this inconsistency. If grading is proposed off-site, separate applications are required. As we indicated earlier, a follow up application is expected. 5. Establishment of procedures for periodic review, interim site stabilization and erosion control practices. Since the mining activity varies from year to year, and is contingent upon market demand, periodic review and management plan updating is mandatory. 6. Provision of sufficient financial guarantees and permit fees to ensure that the site is properly maintained and inspected, and can be restored if the applicant fails to acceptably comply with approved conditions. 7. Protection of ground water resources. S. Establishment of an acceptable end-use plan that will ensure the site is left in a reasonable, environmentally safe condition. _ DRALNAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 8 Submitted plans provide little information on how issues pertaining to drainage and erosion control will be managed. The City Engineer's report concludes that the soils found on this — property represent a severe erosion hazard. The only information on erosion control provided by the applicant is located on Page 15 of the original mining application from September, 1991. The booklet states that a certain amount of sand erosion is inevitable and attempts will be made to retain as much of this sediment on-site as possible. We note that it is difficult, if not impossible, to use traditional techniques of erosion control on an operation such as this. Slopes are steep and often unstable, and ground cover has not been established on any of the mined areas. Thus, it is imperative that all drainage from the mined area be directed into a sedimentation basin or basins which are properly designed and maintained so that water can be treated before being sent off-site. We note that the applicant has made some attempts to respond to this concern and there is a centrally located sedimentation basin on the site. Due to the mining and remaining natural grades, most water drains to a central location. Staff is unclear as to what design specifications this pond was built to, if it is regularly maintained, or if it is effective. We note that there is evidence of significant erosion impacting the Rice Lake area located in the National Wildlife Refuge. A culvert leading from Moon Valley under the highway towards the lake has apparently been plugged on occasion with sediment from this area and a visual inspection indicates that there is a sediment delta and erosion extending from that pipe down into the lake. There is a lot of excellent information available on managing sedimentation. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency manual entitled, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" and the Board of Water and Soil Resources manual entitled, "Minnesota Construction Site, Erosion, and Sediment Control Handbook" are excellent sources that the city has been using with good results on other sites over the past year. In addition, we note that the City of Chanhassen is obligated by the Metropolitan Council to utilize "Best Management Practices" for surface water runoff under our recently approved Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we are • recommending that the applicant submit plans designed to specifications outlined in these manuals within 30 days of approval to city staff for approval as a condition of granting this permit. The plans should be prepared by a registered engineer. On-site retention should be sufficient to retain a 100 year storm event and designed to maximize sedimentation efficiencies. Secondly, there must be a management plan accompanying this data since it may be necessary to incorporate the use of various techniques to ensure that storm water is directed into this pond, it will be necessary to periodically dredge the sediment and material from the bottom of the pond and properly dispose of it to ensure its continued operating efficiency. We also recognize that from time to time the applicant may wish to relocate the sedimentation basin to facilitate his on-site operations. Staff is willing to work with him in this regard so long as we have a revised drainage and erosion control plan that is kept current and complied with in the field. In all likelihood, the pond will require a structured outlet to ensure that sediment material remains in the pond and is not flushed through with storm • Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit _ May 27, 1992 Page 9 water. In addition, we note that overland outletting of the pond without a structured outlet — seems to result in additional erosion downstream which should be resolved. A second erosion control problem concerns trucks hauling from the site tracking out large amounts of debris onto the adjacent highway. When this situation occurs, it contributes to degrading traffic safety on the roadway, and in addition, is an erosion problem since all of this material eventually washes into Rice Lake. Staff has been contacted by MNDOT who have expressed concern over these conditions. Staff is therefore recommending that the driveway entrance be paved with a bituminous surface or be designed to incorporate a gravel construction access. Either measure is designed to ensure that material is removed from the trucks tires before it exits out onto the adjacent highway. In addition, the applicant should be required to remove any material that does make it out onto the highway by contacting — MNDOT and arranging to undertake cleaning or by reimbursing MNDOT for costs associated with cleaning. The proposed grading activity will expose extremely steep slopes to extensive erosion. The erosion will not only be caused by steep slopes, but also due to the fact that all vegetative cover has been removed. The information submitted by the applicant provides virtually no — information on how this site would be revegetated. On Page 17, it indicates that top soil will be stripped and stockpiled and re-spread with a MNDOT seed mixture. We believe that this plan needs to be expanded upon with specific information provided as to site stabilization — prior to the completion of mining activity, as well as site landscaping at ultimate completion. Due to our interpretation of Judge Kanning's order, we are not likely to be in a position to require wholesale reforestation to achieve bluff line preservation. However, it is unreasonable — to think that the city should accept 100 foot high, 2.5 to 1 slopes, with the only improvement being the spreading of a little top soil and grass seed. This simply will not hold. Staff is recommending that an erosion control plan, prepared by a registered engineer, be submitted to — the City Engineer for approval. This plan should include stepping of grades where necessary to retard overland storm water flows, utilization of fiber mats, mulches, or other techniques, to facilitate the growth of ground cover, as well as utilization of trees which perform a valuable function in establishing root systems to retain slopes on steep grades. ACCESS/TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS Highway 169/212 provides the sole access into the site. Traffic volumes are high and the — design standard of the roadway is relatively poor. Ultimately, some of this traffic will be displaced to new Hwy. 212 around the end of the decade, but until that time occurs, local traffic conditions will continue to be poor. — We have discussed this matter with MNDOT and are recommending that a deceleration/acceleration lane be provided on westbound Hwy. 169/212 to allow trucks — Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 10 entering and leaving the site to do so without causing undue disruptions to traffic flow. MNDOT has proposed that this be accomplished by shifting the access point to the northeast and constructing a new deceleration lane. Shifting the access improves upon an existing westbound acceleration lane. They have also requested that brush located around the access be cut back to improve sight distance. An appropriate design should be prepared by a registered engineer and submitted to MNDOT for approval. Staff would also prefer to be in a position of requiring the construction of a eastbound by-pass lane on the highway to service a single purpose as outlined above. However, construction of a by-pass lane would appear to impact lands located within the National Wildlife Refuge, therefore, this is not being recommended by staff at this time. NOISE AND DUST IMPACTS At the present time, staff is not aware of any ongoing issues pertaining to noise and dust impacts. This operation is one that obviously generates large amounts of noise and dust; however, this site is generally shielded from most off-site impacts by surrounding terrain. If noise complaints materialize, this city should reserve the right to bring this matter up during the annual review and renewal of the mining permit. Should this situation occur, we would expect the applicant to respond in a positive manner to help resolve apparent problems. Likewise, staff is not aware of serious problems with off-site problems due to lack of dust control. However, if during the course of operation blowing dust does become a problem off- site, a condition is being proposed that would allow the city to require the applicant to undertake measures such as watering to minimize impacts. MAINTENANCE OF SAFE AND MANAGEABLE SLOPES The applicant has essentially given the city an end-state grading plan but there are no interim plans being proposed. In submitted materials, the applicant indicates that he reserves the right to remove saleable material anytime and anywhere it is located on the property. They believe that they are simply obligated to return the site to acceptable grades once the activity is completed. While we understand the operator's desire to maximize utilization of the site, this does raise concerns that he should be obligated to respond to. We note that the applicant's ability to mine under this permit is limited to the site in question. There should be no instances where grading activity on this site undermines existing grades located on adjacent properties. Therefore,.we are recommending a condition that in no case should excavated slopes exceed 1.5 to 1 side slopes when grading occurs within 100 feet of a property line. Steep slopes on the site represent a potential safety hazard for unsuspecting people entering the area. The applicant has shown staff his attempts to post notice of hazards where steep slopes exist on the current operations. Staff is recommending that when excavation exceeds Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit — May 27, 1992 Page 11 2.5 to 1 slopes, a temporary snow fence should be installed at the top of the slope equipped with appropriate signage to promote safety. The plan request entitled, "Exhibit B 1", which has been submitted for this application, indicates substantial grading in the northeast corner of the site which is actually located on the adjoining parcel to the north. It is the city's contention, consistent with Judge Kanning's — ruling, that any grading activity on the north parcel will be treated as a separate request. We have informed the applicant on several occasions that this is in fact the case. Staff has held discussions with the Moon Valley operator related to potential modest mining activity on the adjacent parcel to the north. While we acknowledge that the grading activity that has been described verbally to staff, in conjunction with remedying existing erosion problems in this area seems to be reasonable, we are requiring that a separate permit application be filed for this area and be processed according to all of the standards and guidelines provided by the city ordinances. Judge Kanning was quite explicit to the effect that the non-conformity which exists for the Moon Valley operation does not apply to the northern parcel. Thus, a revised — "Bl" plan submittal showing maintenance of surrounding grades with mining activity occurring solely on the existing Moon Valley parcel should be provided as a condition of permit approval. — PROTECTION OF GROUND WATER RESOURCES One of staff's primary concerns with mining activity on this site is that unconstrained mining could actually daylight ground water supplies in the area. This could have potentially disastrous results for polluting ground water resources. For example, it is concern over ground water resources that has resulted in communities actively participating in programs to cap off old drinking wells since these can provide a direct route for pollutants into the water table. In fact, there is a related issue on this site since there are operating wells located on the site. Steps should be taken to protect these wells and permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. The applicant had some information on ground water supplies that was initially held from city staff. The judge ordered that this material be provided and staff has had an opportunity to review it. We believe that the proposed mining is acceptable relative to ground water resources so long as mining never daylights the water table. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC REVIEW, INTERIM SITE STABILIZATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES The Moon Valley operator has indicated that they reserve the right to mine all resources found on the property and would only guarantee that the end-use plan, as approved by the city, will be the result when mining activity is completed. This presents a number of — Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 12 significant problems for the city if it is to ensure that conditions appropriate to protecting health and safety are maintained. Therefore, we are proposing the following: 1. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fees. 2. As indicated earlier, the operator should be required to maintain erosion control facilities on-site. When it is necessary to relocate these facilities due to mining operations, the applicant shall present the city with an engineered plan demonstrating how sedimentation and erosion control practices are going to be dealt with and then comply with plans approved by the City Engineer. 3. Provide the city with a revised end-use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 4. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, should he fail to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staffs. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end-use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end-use plan has been satisfactorily completed. One of the primary goals of the city's management program for grading and mining is to ensure that the site is left in a condition that is consistent with project use under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this instance, the Comprehensive Plan does not provide a significant amount of guidance since this area is well beyond the MUSA boundary. The use being proposed by the applicant is large lot residential which is probably the most reasonable guess at this time. Over the years, as the area further develops, the city may find it reasonable to look at other proposals for this site. Exhibit B 1 is the proposed end-use plan for the Moon Valley site. The plan shows a total of _ 12 large lot residential sites. We should note that this density exceeds adopted Metropolitan Council guidelines, which dictate a maximum density of 1 unit per 10 acres, however, we Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 _ Page 13 also acknowledge that it is difficult to anticipate what may occur far into the future when this area actually does develop. This proposed subdivision would be located in a huge bowl. It would be surrounded on virtually all sides by steep 2 to 1 slopes which are impossible to mow or otherwise manage. These slopes would tower 100 feet above the home sites and _ would be completely devoid of any significant vegetation. In staffs opinion, this subdivision, should it ever occur, would be a dreadful place in which to live. However, under the limitations imposed on us by the non-conforming status of the Moon Valley operation, — constraining mining activity based upon future use is probably beyond what the city is in a position to uphold. At the same time, we acknowledge that while this end-use plan does not represent an acceptable residential environment, it is a significant improvement over the lunar landscape that has been left by mining operators for example, in the city of Maple Grove. Staff finds that we are in the uncomfortable position of not particularly caring for the end-use plan, but having relatively little that we feel we can do about it. We believe that the best we can manage at this point is to ensure that adequate financial guarantees are provided to ensure that the site is left in an acceptable manner in accordance with Exhibit Bl. The retention pond located on the property should be reviewed, sized, and designed by a registered engineer with plans submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The applicant will be required to indicate — how he is progressing towards achieving the end-use plan. Mining activity that significantly comprises the end-use plan, in the opinion of the City Engineer, would not be permitted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the earth work permit for the Moon Valley operation be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit drainage and erosion control plans to the City Engineer for review and approval. Plans should be developed by a professional engineer in accordance with MICA and BWSR manuals. Plans shall include: • Erosion control practices _ • Designs of temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They — shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. Planning Commission '- Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 14 • The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively operate drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the operator's responsibility to maintain these measures in an effective and operative condition. • Provide a phased plan for site restoration/establishment of ground cover and vegetation. All disturbed areas to be restored with topsoil, seed mulch and/or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent erosion. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to keep drainage and erosion control plans current. When mining operations require relocation of the pond(s) and/or alterations to erosion control measures, these shall not be undertaken without prior written approval by the City Engineer. 2. Within 30 days of approval, provide an engineered construction access designed to minimize tracking mud and debris out onto Hwy. 169/212. Work with MNDOT to relocate the access point to the northeast to improve the westbound acceleration lane _ on the highway and provide a deceleration lane for truck movements. During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto the highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate a potential traffic hazard. — Brush located around the access point shall be cut back to improve sight distance. 3. If noise or dust impacts materialize, the operator shall work with the city to positively respond to these issues. • 4. Modify the grading plan to eliminate off-site mining/grading that is presently illustrated on Plan B 1. To avoid under-cutting of off-site slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade within 100 feet of a properly line at any time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage • is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area. 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources. The operator will protect existing on-site wells and will permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 — Page 15 be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 _ paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fees. 7. Provide the city with a revised end-use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. — 8. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, — should he fail to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staffs. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with — approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end-use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial — guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end-use plan has been satisfactorily completed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At the June 3, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the Moon Valley proposal was reviewed. After staff gave their comments, the applicant's attorney spoke. He continued to question the city's ability to regulate Moon Valley as outlined by staff and objected to most, if not all, of the conditions. The Planning Commission discussed the matter briefly. Given the background of the use and the applicant's position as related by his attorney, the commission saw no need to explore the matter further. They unanimously recommended approval of the earth work permit subject to _ conditions in the staff report. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the earth work permit for the Moon Valley operation be approved subject to the following conditions: _ 1. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit drainage and erosion control plans to the City Engineer for review and approval. Plans should be developed by a — professional engineer in accordance with MICA and BWSR manuals. Plans shall include: • Erosion control practices Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 16 • Designs of temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. • The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively operate drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the operator's responsibility to maintain these measures in an effective and operative condition. • Provide a phased plan for site restoration/establishment of ground cover and _ vegetation. All disturbed areas to be restored with topsoil, seed mulch and/or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent erosion. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to keep drainage and erosion control plans current. When mining operations require relocation of the pond(s) and/or alterations to erosion control measures, these shall not be undertaken without prior written approval by the City Engineer. 2. Within 30 days of approval, provide an engineered construction access designed to minimize tracking mud and debris out onto Hwy. 169/212. Work with MNDOT to relocate the access point to the northeast to improve the westbound acceleration lane on the highway and provide a deceleration lane for truck movements. During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto the highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate a potential traffic hazard. Brush located around the access point shall be cut back to improve sight distance. 3. If noise or dust impacts materialize, the operator shall work with the city to positively respond to these issues. 4. Modify the grading plan to eliminate off-site mining/grading that is presently _ illustrated on Plan B 1. To avoid under-cutting of off-site slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade within 100 feet of a properly line at any time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 17 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources. The operator will protect existing on-site wells and will permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fees. — 7. Provide the city with a revised end-use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 8. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, should he fail.to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major — concern of staffs. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end-use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is — submitted to ensure that the approved end-use plan has been satisfactorily completed. ATTACHMENTS — 1. Letter from Roger Knutson dated May 7, 1992. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated May 26, 1992. — 3. Application submitted by applicant. 4. General location. 5. Original Plan A (transparency).6. Original Plan B (transparency) 7. Letter from Paul Krauss dated May 5, 1992. 8. Letter from Paul Krauss dated October 1, 1991. — 9. Findings of Fact. 10. Letter from Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie, dated May 18, 1992. 11. Excerpt from City Code. — 12. Grading fees. 13. Mailing list of surrounding property owners. — 14. Planning Commission minutes dated June 3, 1992. JUN-17-92 WED 16:23 SBG & D LAW FIRM - MPLSI FAX NO. 612+339+6591 P. 02 17 LAW OFFICCS SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A. FORMERLY GROSSMAN, KAR;_INS.S.RGEL L SRI-L RICHARD SIEGEL 1300 WASHINGTON SOUARE AN'`.ONY J. GLEEKEL JOS,AH E. 641LL,JR. SHERRI L. ROHLF JAMES R.GREVDNER 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH JOEL H,JCNSEN GERALD S. DUrrY DRIAN E.WEISBERG WOOD R FOSTER,JR, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 ROSEMARY TUGHY T..OMAS H.GOODMAN ANNE R.WEINHARDT. R. CRAIG WILOFANG TCLEDHONE ( IZ) 33D-7131 JORDAN M,LEWIS JOIaN IS,WATSON TELLCORIER (612) 33Q•SS91 WM.Cr.R,STOPHER PENWELL RETIRED SfVSAN M.VDIGT M. L.GROSSMAN SHELDON D. RARLINS June 17, 1992 -ALSO ADMITTED IN CALISORNiA 17, 236-D-001 VIA TELEFAX Chanhassen City Council 690 Coulter Drive P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, M.N 55317 Re: Moon Valley Aggregates Application for Earth Work Permit for Existing Sand and Gravel Mining Operation (South Parcel) I am the attorney for Moon Valley Aggregates , Inc. , whose above application was heard by the Planning Commission on June 3 , 1992 . At that time, the Planning Commission adopted certain Findings of Fact and Recommendation, which we understand will be on the City Council 's agenda at its meeting this coming Monday night, June 22nd. • Unfortunately, neither Tom Zweirs nor myself are avail- able Monday night to appear before you, because of other commitments . Mr. Zweirs left this morning for a long- - planned Canadian fishing trip and will not be back for six or seven days and I will be attending a previously-scheduled meeting in Oak Park Heights with its City Council and MnDOT -- that night. This letter will outline our position on the Earth Work Permit; however, we would very much like the opportunity to appear in person before you to explain the reasons for our position and to be able to answer any questions you may have. Our response to the Planning Commission Recommendations are as follows: JUN-17-92 WED 16:23 SBG & D LAW FIRM - MPLS, FAX Na 612+339+6591 P. 03 _ June 17 , 1992 Page 2 1 . With respect to erosion control , Moon Valley already has in place a sealed retention pond which captures most of the natural drainage on the property and allows for sediment to settle out . This pond has been deepened and berms have been built by the operator to direct drainage into it . The pond overflowed during a 10-inch rain , a highly unusual event, however, under normal conditions, it will accommodate drainage from the site. We feel that the Planning Commission recommendation is not only unnecessary but would be extremely costly for the operator and if the pond were designed as the recommendation requires, it would limit mining operations in a manner specifically prohibited by Judge Kanning's Order of April 2 , 1992 . 2 . See No. 1 above. 3 . We do not believe Moon Valley operates a "waste water disposal system" requiring NPDES permit. We have asked the MPCA to provide an application form and are currently reviewing this with Rick Sather, a planning consultant and professional engineer. 4 . The best solution to the mud on the wheels of the trucks is 50 ft. to 100 ft. of 1-1/2" crushed rock which will be installed. Blacktopping the entrance does not work. 5. This is agreeable. 6. This is agreeable. 7 . Mr. Zweirs is acutely interested in improving the safety of his access to and from the highway. In addition, - waiting time while his trucks are looking for an opportunity to exit his property is very costly to his business. Mr. Zweirs has worked with MnDOT in the past and has been told that they will not install turn lanes or acceleration/- deceleration lanes . Moving the driveway to the east would make it even more dangerous because it would then be more obscured by the bluff. Mr. Zweirs is very willing to meet with MnDOT and City representatives to try to improve this situation. Since 90% to 95% of the truck traffic leaving the property turns left and goes in an easterly direction,an acceleration lane for westbound traffic is of no great help. 8 . Temporary snow fencing and signage at the top of the grade is agreeable . Prohibiting mining within 100 ft. of the north line of the south parcel is a limitation of the JUN-17-92 WED 16:24 S83 & D LAW FIRM - MPLS, FAX NO. 612+339+6591 P. 04 June 17 , 1992 Page 3 mining operation specifically prohibited by Judge Kanning's Order of April 2 , 1992 , and is therefore not acceptable to Mr. Zweirs. 9 . This is agreeable. 10. The Earth Work Permit should be consistent with Judge Kanning ' s Order and should contain all of the conditions for regulating the operation. 11. Payment of substantial additional fees in addition to the $400 already paid is considered to be an improper restriction on the Moon Valley mining operation. If the City insists on imposing this additional fee , we would submit the matter to Judge Kanning and he has agreed to hear the parties on this issue. 12 . If the City does not permit the construction of the holding pond , which straddles the north and south parcels , at the time it approves a permit for the north parcel , Moon Valley will revise its End Use Plan accordingly. 13 . This is agreeable. 14 . Moon Valley believes that this requirement exceeds the City's authority to regulate the Moon Valley operations, as defined in Judge Kanning's Order of April 2 , 1992 . I will be out of town Thursday and Friday of this week and back in my office on Monday. If possible, I would appreciate hearing from you during the day on Monday concerning our continuance request. Sincerely yours, J. E Brill, Jr. JEB:cm cc: Paul Krauss Tom Scott Ton Zweirs Rick Sather JUN-17-92 WED 16:22 SBG & D LAW FIRM - MPLS, FAX NO, 612+339+6591 P. 01 — LAW OFFICES SIEGE. BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A. • FQRr(RLT GROai,•Aw. KARL,KS.sICGL: & iR,LL AKT_OKT J.CLCC.ItL R IOMA RO 31CGCL LICO W•SMI KGTOK sCUAR£ JOSIAM E. rMILL.JR• j,ntRRl L RQ.,LF .1A0..t3 R.dRtV• ( 1OQ WASMIKaTQN •VCMUC i0U7M ACC:r.J(RSLK •�IIAM C.Mt1$.CaG G[RALO S. Ou•� WQOO A. rosIcA, JR. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 ROit.ART TUo.oT •Kwt IL MC1KrIARQTr E. CR Aa OOQOr.►w .eCw( ti4TI 339 7 DI E. AlG W,4o FAw4 TCLCR joRoAw 1+.LtWIs wATSOw TCOICQ.'CR (at) 335.4$D1 W... GM R,*TCRr.tw RCNWCLL RtT,wCD suSAK r, VO,OT sr.W QRQ;irAK $).ELDON D.14.RLIKs • TELECOPIER COVER SHEET rALiG AOr,TTCe IR CA6I1,12ww,• • DATE: ,Le. /2 /99a . FAX NO. 937-S73 9 - TO: FROM: C RE: — FILE: /7. 3 t• -i)- c"o TLE SENT FOR YOUR: Inform:don Review ✓ • R‘sponse ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL: V Yes • No — Please find `7 copies, including this cover page. If you did not receive all copies, please contact a operator at(612)339-7131. Operator: Leal. — • The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible _ to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S.postal service. y J^ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED INTERIM USE PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, July 1, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of Tom Zwiers for an interim use permit for earth work/mining of a gravel pit, located north of Hwy. 212 and east of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. A plan showing the proposed earthwork and location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Paul Krauss,Planning Director Phone: 937-1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 18, 1992) LAKE _ I COMM✓N/TY - i' �'�` ; - — 9300 PARK RILEYt. SF It — • - - 44110 ` I-- Z - 94�D 1 500 u , ' I i // t� .46'M ;ST REE rt "�: — l9600 2 )dc" 9 ...I /............ ...„.„1 IL - , ; C R 14 RR f -- _ - 9tl0^ 11 , i ,(5.•,,_:...._- ce\,, E 4 , il4 ..::j . -4 ., o0„_r.„ T I Gil I " - ♦ op PQOP0 �' / • �, A : 1 _ 1.--7-1—Cr'L5 • -- 0 REEK*O0D •- :A- . c. _ { r __ J • r E LANE I - - C3✓0 i NI .; - cfce$.-G j r..� 5 �69 9"It i I. i *�at Ovp ;d� J/� — —- .a 00 1 i it // ....• \... 1,C-J,,. . ak , R I C E / J S 47 F LEVERNE M VASSAR ROBERT & E TISCHLEDER VERNON H TEICH C/O STATEWIDE AUTO 185 PIONEER TRAIL 220 FLYING CLOUD SALVAGE INC _ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 285 FLYING CLOUD DR SHAKOPEE MN 55379 HENN CO RR AUTHORITY - HENN CO GOVT CENTER PARAG & G DESAI STEVEN & C ZUMBUSCH SW STREET LEVEL 9691 PORTAL DRIVE 9794 CRESTWOOD TERR 300 6TH STREET SO EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 - MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487 MICAHEL & M WISTRAND MARK & S DANIELSON RICHARD P VOGEL - 9670 MEADOWLARK LANE 11150 SUMPTER CIR 105 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON MN 55438 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1ST AMERICAN BANK METRO PAUL TAUNTON GERALD & S BERTSCH _ 633 SO CONCORD STREET #310 8556 IRWIN ROAD SO ST PAUL MN 55075 10125 CROSSTOWN CIR BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 MICHAEL A BOYLAN PETER TAUNTON JOHN S PAULOS 17700 SOUTHRIDGE CT 316 19TH AVE SE #660 - MINNETONKA MN 55345 PO BOX 1351 6560 FRANCE AVE SO WILLMAR MN 56204 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55435 - JOHN & L REVIER JOHN & A LONSTEIN DENNIS & C BARTHOLOW PO BOX 358 1559 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N 9841 DEERBROOK DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55427 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL & L K KILKER WENDELL & J SCHOTT WILLIAM & L STOKKE - 788 LAKE POINT 7034 RED CEDAR COVE 241 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARLIS & M OLSON STEPHEN WHITEHILL DAVID 0 HANSEN - 9370 FOXFORD RD 7001 DAKOTA AVE 108 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL KILKER GREGORY LAWLER FIRST AM BANK METRO - LINDA KERFELD 9900 DEERBROOK DR 633 SO CONCORD ST 788 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SO ST PAUL MN 55075 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - KEVIN BUESGENS PAUL TAUNTON GERALD & S BERTSCH 9940 DEERBROOK DR #310 8556 IRWIN RD CHANHASSEN 10125 CROSSTOWN CIR BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 JEFFREY & BARB MICHALL MICHAEL BOYLAN PETER TAUNTON 11887 WATERFORD RD 17700 SOUTHRIDGE CT 316 19TH AVE SE _ EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 MINNETONKA MN 55345 PO BOX 1351 WILLMAR MN 56204 JOHN S PUOLOS JOHN & LINDA REVIER JOHN & ANN LONSTEIN #660 P 0 BOX 358 1559 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N 6560 FRANCE AVE S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MPLS MN 55427 MPLS MN 55435 DENNIS & C S BARTHOLOW JOHN PAUL LOWELL & C CAMPBEL - 9841 DEERBROOK DR 410 LAKOTA LANE 415 LAKOTA LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 RUSSEL BARTO TIM WISE LAVERNE WHEELER 400 LAKOTA LANE 425 LAKOTA LANE 445 LAKOTA LANE CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 M C HAPPE DEVAL MEDH N A MONROE 495 LAKOTA 535 LAKOTA LANE 565 LAKOTA LANE - CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 MAYNARD HAPPE VERNE SEVERSON DAVID TEICH 615 LAKOTA LANE 675 LAKOTA LANE 10151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 JEFFREY DYPWICK CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE - 10300 GREAT PLAINS BLVD A T T N C H R I S E N G E R CHASKA MN 55318 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. et+ CARVER COUNTY (6-Z1448- `'^ 201 Chestnut St.N. FAX(612)448-5155 ABSTRACT i TITLE P.O.Box 106 Dare i‘:u; Chaska.MN 55318 David E. Moonen M,:y 22, 1992 Moon Valley Agrigate 11111 Deuce Road Elko, MN 55022 According to the 1992 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the following persons are listed as owners of the property within Carver County, Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: —' PARCEL I: All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, which lies Northerly of Trunk Highway No. 212. PARCEL II: All that part of the Southeast Quarter (SE}) of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, lying Easterly of the easterly right of way of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway) , Carver County, Minnesota. Together with an easement for road purposes over and across the following described tract: That part of the South fifty (50) feet of the North one—half (Ni) of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying Easterly of Carver County Road No. 14. 1. Robert J. & E. Tischleder 5. Parag R. & Gopi P. Desai _ -- 185 Pioneer Trl. 9691 Portal Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Contract for Deed: 2. Vernon H. Teich . _ Richard P. & Gayle_M. Vogel 220 Flying Cloud Dr. - -` _ Chaska, .XN 55318 _ 6.- Steven J. Zumbusch & - Charlotte M. Zumbusch -' - 3. LeVerne M. Vassar 9794 Crestwood Ter. %Statewide Auto Salvage, Inc. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 285 Flying Cloud Dr. Contract for Deed: Shakopee, MN 55379 Richard P. & Gayle M. Vogel 4. Hennepin Co. Reg. RR Authority 7. Michael D. & Monica S. Wistrand Hennepin Co. Govt. Center 9670 Meadowlark Ln. 300 6th St. S. Chanhassen, MN 55317 SW Street Level Minneapolis, MN 55487 8. Mark J. & Starla J. Danielson 17. John E. & Ann Lonstein 11150 Sumpter Cir. 1559 Pennsylvania Ave. No. Bloomington, MN 55438 Minneapolis, MN 55427 Contract for Deed: _ Richard P. Vogel 18. Dennis J. Bartholow & Catherine S. Bartholow 9. Richard P. Vogel 9841 Deerbrook Dr. 105 Pioneer Trl. Chanhassen, MN 55317 - — Chanhassen, MN 55317 19. Paul Irvin Kilker & 10. First American Bank Metro Linda G. Kerfeld-Kilker — 633 So. Concord St. 788 Lake Pt. So. St. Paul, MN 55075 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Contract for Deed: 11. Paul Taunton First American Bank Metro 10125 Crosstown Cir. #1310 20. Wendell & Jacqueline Schott Eden Prairie, MN 55344 7034 Red Cedar Cv. Excelsior, MN 55331 12. Gerald W. & Stella F. Bertsch 8556 Irwin Rd. 21. William L. & Lynn H. Stokke Bloomington, MN 55437 241 Eastwood Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 13. Michael A. Boylan 17700 Southridge Ct. 22. Arlis L. & Margaret Olson Minnetonka, MN 55345 9370 Foxford Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 14. Peter Taunton — 316 19th Ave. SE 23. Stephen L. Whitehill _ PO-Box 1351 - 7001 Dakota Ave. Willmar, MN 56204 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ 15. John S. Paulos 24. David 0. Hansen 6560 France Ave. So. 108 Pioneer Trl. #660 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Contract for Deed: 25. NOTE: THE CARVER COUNTY TREASURERS First American Bank Metro OFFICE DOES NOT SHOW NAMES OR ADDRESSES FOR_TAX EXEMPT PARCELS. 16. John M. & Linda J. Revier PO Box 358 _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Carver County Abstract & Title Co. , Inc. This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. C I TY OF ClIAN' IlASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 119 City )brats t? Cprjoroei �� MEMORANDUM Reiected Date TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date submitted to commistiV FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Oats suomnt.d to cower — DATE: July 15, 1992 SUBJ: Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Establish Residential Planned Unit Development Districts — As the City Council is aware, staff has been working with the Planning Commission on this matter for well over a year. A number of the members of the City Council have also been involved in this discussion. While most agree that there generally are benefits for going — through a PUD, there has been a continuing concern about what the city achieves under this district, as well as the potential impacts of allowing smaller sized lots. These items are discussed at great length in the material provided as back up to this report. I believe, through a continual process of refinement, the Planning Commission has developed a draft of the ordinance that meets the goal of providing the best quality of development for the community. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the PUD ordinance at their July 1, 1992, meeting. — This PUD ordinance tries to address many things. There is no question that in the past the PUD ordinance for residential developments has been abused. Developers generally promised to produce lower cost housing but there were no guarantees, and in fact, this generally did not — occur. What happened was that the developer got smaller lots and we would assume higher profits, and the city got left with problems stemming from inadequate lot sizes and no considered subdivision design. There also were no benefits from improved quality and environmental protection. It must be emphasized that this is not the purpose of the PUD. The purpose of the PUD is to allow flexibility that achieves higher quality design, improved environmental protection, residential communities that meet market demand, and also offer the developer a chance to lower development costs and improve the bottom line. The use of the PUD zoning also gives the city extra measures of control over a project since it fundamentally boils down to a contract between the city and the developer. Staff has prepared a number of reports outlining issues concerning 15,000 square foot lots. We do not Is �0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth July 15, 1992 Page 2 think there is anything inherently wrong with 15,000 square lots and this will probably continue to be the typical development in Chanhassen. However, this sort of development may be inappropriate on environmentally sensitive parcels, and we also believe that it will be inadequate to handle the change in demographics that are inevitable as the baby boom ages. We have also pointed out that Chanhassen's development densities are extraordinarily low. — Not only do we have 15,000 square foot lots, but all wetland acreage, rural public roads, and park dedications are excluded for development density computations. Again, this provides for a reasonable lifestyle for many of us, but it also tends to push urban sprawl further out into the rural areas since a larger volume of land is required to house a similar number of people. Costs also rise since land is increasing in value and these costs are simply passed along to the buyer. The costs are also affected by the fact that a greater amount of roads, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, school bus miles, police patrols, fire and ambulance services, post office routes, and other factors are required to serve the same number of homes. The proposed PUD ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission adds the required flexibility without giving away the store. It does allow a decrease in lot area from 15,000 square feet down to 10,000 square feet but requires substantially improved development as a result. We believe that is significantly different from the current ordinance as follows: 1. Wetland areas are excluded from lot area calculations. In the past we have seen many lots, as large as 30,000 square feet, that may be marginally buildable because they are substantially covered by wetlands. Under this ordinance, every lot must contain at least 10,000 square feet of dry ground. 2. The developer is required to 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 or protected easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard of 30 feet which cannot be occupied by a wetland. In many cases, this will mandate that lots be larger than 10,000 square feet to meet these requirements. 3. Finally, and most importantly, there is an extensive intent section that serves as a preface to the PUD ordinance. This section clearly states that there must be a trade- off between meeting the developer's and city's goals for a given project. It states that the smaller the average lot size is below 15,000 square feet, the greater the city's expectations are going to be for a trade-off on improved quality and environmental protection. We have a number of developers looking to utilize this ordinance if it becomes available and staff believes the city would benefit if this is the case. The Planning Commission recommended one change to the ordinance. Line 6 of the intent section is to read: Don Ashworth July 15, 1992 Page 3 — "Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options." — RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Council approve first reading of the PUD ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed ordinance. 2. Staff reports and minutes. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows: Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Detached Residential Planned Unit Developments. Intent _ The use of Planned Unit Developments for residential purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains the potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements. Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of development, as evidenced by landscaping, construction quality, provision of public/private open and recreational space, should also be enhanced. As average lot sizes are decreased below 15,000 square feet, the city's expectations will be increased and it will be the developer's responsibility to demonstrate how the project meets the city's goals . a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD 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. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. 1 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. — 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. 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. — 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 2 -- 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. Section 20-507. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Attached or Cluster-Home PUD's. a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be — allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. c) Setback Standards/Structures and Parking: PUD Exterior - 50 feet Interior Public Right-of-way - 20 feet Other setbacks - Established by PUD Agreement d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms _ shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining 3 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 and Yard 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) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. — f) 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. Section 2. Amend Section 20-505,Required General Standards, by adding the following: (m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer _ yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard _ is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. 4 — The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to 50%. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 51 _ Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Is there any discussion on this issue? Erhart : The only discussion is , where 's the motion? Batzli : The red tie to Communism are lapping at our shore Tim . Is he still in jail? That was his line . Would someone like to make a motion? Erhart: I move that we amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the recommendation of the staff report dated June 25 , 1992 . — Batzli : I second . Is there any discussion on the motion? Erhart: Is the motion clear Paul? Okay . Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend _ approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code, Chapter 20, Section 20-712 eliminating auto service centers as a permitted use in the BH, Business Highway District . All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. _ Batzli : I don 't know that we need a staff report . Krauss : Yeah , we didn 't have a category for really old business . Batzli : Really , really old business . This isn 't a public hearing or anything right? — Krauss: Well actually , you 've always continued the public hearings . Batzli : Okay . Well , is there , there 's no one here to address us . The record should reflect that . Is there a motion to close the continued public hearing? Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the continued public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Discussion. Does anybody want to say anything other than me? Erhart: About this thing here? Batzli : Yeah . I just want to say one thing . That 's why I had it carried over . Okay , go ahead . Erhart : I don 't understand it . Never have . Batzli : Never will? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 52 Erhart: Maybe not . I don't understand why we have sections ( f ) , ( g ) . Essentially those issues in both the cluster home and the single family homes . I don 't understand why we want to deal with boulevard plantings . I mean the whole idea of PUD 's , it opens it up to flexibility and now all of a sudden we 're jumping in here in section ( f ) . ( e ), I 'm fine . That 's one of the goals . Broad goal is to preserve natural features . Tree stands , - wetlands , ponds , scenic views and all that stuff . And then all of a sudden ( f ) , we jump into specifics and by golly , by the time we get to ( f )( 3 ) , we 're down in the foundation plantings. Why do we want to sit here and define exactly what someone has to provide with the PUD? I don't understand this . Batzli : Okay , so you 're talking about ( f ) or didn't you like ( g )? Erhart : Both ( f ) and ( g ) . Batzli : Now why didn 't you like ( g )? Let 's talk about ( g ) . Erhart: What do we got to get in here and talk about free standing garages for? We don 't on any other ordinance . It has nothing to do with anything . We don 't regulate garages in the city . Batzli : Where 's that in ( g )? I 'm sorry . Krauss: Actually you do . - Erhart: Why does it have to be addressed in a PUD? The PUD says , I thought the introduction paragraph is excellent . I commend you on that . Batzli : The intent? Erhart : Pardon? Batzli : The intent section? Erhart: Yeah . I think it 's just great and I 'll tell you what , you could - cut this whole thing off at , you talk about minimum sizes and that 's been the issue we 've always discussed and every time in the past I say why do we include all this other stuff and . . .why do we get into that? Batzli : Let me defend ( g ) and then let 's talk about ( f ). ( g) , you want certain architectural treatment agreement with the City. I mean that 's part of the PUD development plan right? You 're not telling them what it is - but they have to at least tell you what they're going to do and follow it through. I mean these are tight , typically tighter clustered groups of houses and if you really cluster them , like you should be doing , although nobody ever does in this particular ordinance , I think you want an overall theme or what have you that you know what 's going in there . Maybe you want a tudor mansion against a you know , Mexican kind of villa sitting next to each other . I don 't know . But I think you want an idea of what 's going in - there . Garages , it says we may regulate it and guidelines relating to placement of air conditioners , dog kennels , etc . . When you 're on these smaller lots , and you 're right next door to -everybody else , I think that 's - reasonable . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 53 — Erhart : Let me give you an example . Paul came in here with this Stone — Ridge . Stone Creek . Stone Creek and said , we 'd really like to make this a PUD because what we really want to get in return is one thing and that is we want larger lots in the wooded areas so we can preserve trees . I never heard anything that they wanted architectural standards . I never heard anything that he wanted foundation plantings. Or guidelines recommending air conditioners . We wanted to preserve trees . And so now all of a sudden we 're jumping into regulations concerning air conditioners , dog kennels , — storage buildings , foundation plantings and why do we want to get that specific? • Batzli : This is nothing more than what you 'd find in a regulated development that had covenants . Except basically the PUD , the developer 's coming in here and doing some of these things in advance . Erhart : If we look at this parcel of land and we sit down with a developer , and our big concern is dog kennels , then we can make dog kennels the issue in exchange for giving him smaller lots . I don't understand why — it has to be in this ordinance . If the issue is tree preservation, then the issue is tree preservation . Why do we need to delineate it here? Because we 're requiring every guy that comes in here with a PUD now to talk about dog kennels . That 's what you 've got here . Am I wrong? If I 'm wrong I 'll shut up . Krauss: Tim , a couple things . Some of the conditions that you mentioned — are conditions that apply to all other single family development . If it comes in under a PUD and we don 't specifically mention it , it may not be applied to the PUD . Yeah , you do have the ability to tailor conditions in the PUD but will you remember to do it every time and will you be consistent? Secondly , the City 's gotten burned before on PUD's because developers have sold the City a bill of goods . Let me have reduced lot sizes . I 'll reduce home costs and make a nice environment . Erhart : Why do we even ask for this? Krauss: Well , what you can control is you can make sure that , first of all , you 've got to explore that the sole reason for doing a PUD . If you 're going to represent that it 's going to save environmental features , then demonstrate it . If you 're going to represent that it 's going to lower housing cost , and if that 's a valid thing for the city to consider , then demonstrate it and commit to it . The problem we had in the past was that none of those commitments were ever made . — Erhart : Then we didn't design the agreement good enough. Krauss: I think that 's real evident . Separate the two issues for a moment too . Clustered housing and single family housing . Clustered housing is a medium density type of housing concept . You would require a site plan review for it if it came in in the R-12 district . I don 't see why you — shouldn 't have the same kind of guidelines established if it comes in under a PUD. When we look at , the tree issue , I must admit having re-read ( f )( 4 ) . ( f )( 4 ) , you can tell this is a year old because this is the — language that was looked at , remember when we were looking at the tree Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 54 ordinances? That was the current language that was never adopted with everything else . Batzli : Yeah, but I kind of wanted to approve it and kind of sneak it through there and see what they did . Krauss: I don't have a personal problem with it . The PUD 's a two way street . I mean the developer may be getting much more attractive lots . He may be getting a lot more economic flexibility. He may be saving costs for — services . And the question is always , what does the City get? Erhart: But , don 't you see that on that development , Stone Creek . With this ordinance , this guy would be required to put 2 trees in every back yard and he would look at you and say , no way. What you want is a tree preservation up on that hill but your ordinance requires that you 've got to put 2 trees in every yard . Why do we want to encumber ourself with that? Krauss : No . In Stone Creek , all those lots up in the trees , the executive home lots that Hagen was referring to, wouldn 't require anything . Erhart: I 'm talking about , this ordinance would require all the other lots out in the alfalfa field for the developer to put 2 overstory trees in the _ back yard . He has to put foundation plantings in . He 'd have to put exterior landscaping , well that 's general anyway . But I don't understand it . Why we want to get ourselves fixed into this rigidity . — Batzli : Why don 't you want to make Chanhassen a nice place to live for the people who move in? Why are you trying to make it a good deal for the developer? Erhart : It 's not a good deal . We don't have to give him the PUD . Up until the last minute we just say no . If we have done something wrong in the past , it 's because we didn't negotiate correctly . Batzli : Well , we 're still not going to negotiate . You and I are going to see it after it 's been negotiated and do you want to give staff a tool to — use? I mean if one of these is , well let 's ask . Let me ask this question . If you go and start negotiating with the developer under this ordinance , can you say well , okay we 'll give up the two trees but you 've got to give me another couple acres for the park? Currently the way this is written . — Erhart: You 're talking a variance now. — Batzli : Well but let 's change the language so that you can do it . I want to give you something to negotiate with because right now you don 't have anything under this thing . Krauss: The negotiation process , I mean we're pretty good at doing it . We can get a lot out of it and I would prefer , I like having a certain amount _ of guidance frankly . I mean if I go into a room saying I can cut a deal on any part of this project because it 's a PUD and try to second guess how the Planning Commission or City Council might react to that deal once it 's cut , I 'm not terribly comfortable with that . I mean I like to think I can read — your goals into a project and anticipate the Council 's but that 's a pretty Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 55 — hit and miss thing to, and then I have to represent the fact to a developer_ that if you cut this deal with me , I will work with you on this project and we 'll try and get it approved . Erhart: . . .PUO 's have a preliminary meeting with the Planning Commission — to sit down and outline what our goals are . We each contribute and then you start working on a plan . Krauss: Well it takes a fair amount , even though at concept stage sounds innocuous and inexpensive , it turns out it's not . I mean there 's a fair amount of work required to get it to that point . Erhart : Particularly if you haven 't talked to the Planning Commission and you don 't know what they want , it gets real expensive . You can spend a lot of time in hoping to get what we want . — Krauss: Yeah , and I 'm not sure how you 'd , I mean I sort of scenario in what you 're saying . To come to the Planning Commission without a plan . _ Just say I 've got this parcel and I want to do it as a PUD. Erhart: Yeah , you 've gone out there and here 's some neat things and I 'm concerned . We 've got these trees and wetlands and park area . It 's park deficient or something . And we go out and look at it and we say yeah . These are our concerns . Then go to the developer and say look it . We 'd like you to do this PUD and here 's what , in exchange for some smaller lots ,— here 's the things we 'd like to get out of this . Then he goes away and comes up with this plan . Krauss: But then again , you would be substituting yourselves for my staff and you would be trying to cut a deal in anticipating that the Council would go along with it and that you were negotiating in good faith. Also if you 're concerned about the length of your meetings , wait until you try — to design a project . . . Erhart: Oh , we 're not going go design a project . Give broad, essentially.— You 're going to come to us and say , these are my concerns and we 're going to either agree or disagree . And then you 're going to go and submit a plan . We 're not going to do that . We 're going to support you or qualify it . I don 't want to be the guy dominating this discussion . Batzli : Does anyone else have Tim 's concerns that ( f ) and ( g ) are overly restrictive in a PUD? Ladd , do you? — Conrad: No . Yet I was the one that would have gone for PUD that was written in about 5 sentences. But the Commissioners elected not to go that_ route . Batzli : Well I think part of why we , keeping this in historical perspective , I think the reason we didn 't was because we were told by the — Council that we shouldn 't do that . Erhart: I can't remember anymore the whole sequence . — - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 56 -- Batzli : They didn 't want something that said , you can do anything you want . Here 's the density . Don 't go below that and we 'll take a look at — it , which would have been your ordinance . Which would have been , I think it would have been an interesting way to do it but you know , Council didn't want to see that . . — Erhart: Is that right Paul? . . .they didn't appreciate that point of view . Krauss: You know , I honestly don't remember either except the direction — that I , I mean the Council 's kind of gone different directions on this too but I heard them saying that they want guarantees that they're not going to be left holding the bag . That if they are to consider lot area adjustments , which some of them are reluctant to do , that it has to be in a — format that guarantees that these are going to be liveable , developable lots . — Batzli : So I thought we did an okay job with that as our guiding beacon . I mean I still don 't like it . I 've beat my concerns to a pulp and I got one or two people on the Council on a band wagon and then I think they dropped off somehow so I 've given up the ship . Do you have concerns? Ledvina: I can see Tim 's side of the issue . I can see Paul 's side of the issue and this pre-dates me by quite a bit so I really , I 'm not really — going to provide any more comment on it . Farmakes : I 'm going to go forward as it is . I don 't think there 's — anything wrong with even if a developer having some knowledge of what the expectations are , particularly when you 're talking medium density. I can understand what Tim 's saying but actually if I was to go and design _ something , I 'd like at least some understanding of what the expectations were . I think I 'm hearing you right , that you believe that this will give them what your expectations are . So I support it . — Batzli : I only have one question and that is , in your intent section , which I also think you did a very nice job on . I do have one question and that 's , this is whether this is intended to be something that we throw out to the Met Council . That yes , we do this and we 're wonderful and that is — the statement that lot sizes should be mixed to offer a range of housing pricing options . Within most development that I 've seen , PUD's go through , there 's not a real wide range . Just by way of example , something like Lundgren Bros . where they 're going to put you know , $250 ,000 .00 to $350 ,000.00 houses . Is that what you 're intending that , they 're not all one price or are you really seriously saying you should have small lots — here that are $90,000.00 and a $450,000.00 house over there? Krauss: And you 're right . That used to be a Metro Council approach . Your concern's a valid one . It wasn't my intention to be dogmatic and require — that . It applied in the situation again like Hans Hagen wanted to put the more modest priced homes in the field on smaller lots and maximize it but that was almost a secondary . If you'd care to eliminate that or put in an — and/or type of modifier . Something along those lines , that would be fine . Batzli : Well before Steve left he told me that he liked that language and that he 's a proponent of that . I mean is anybody else gung ho for this Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 57 — type of language in our ordinances? — Conrad: I want it out . Batzli : Tim? Erhart: I 'm opposed to the whole thing . Batzli : Matt? Ledvina : No comment . Batzli : Jeff , any comment? Farmakes: I 'm taking a different meaning from you , since you 're a lawyer . — Batzli : Well what 's your meaning? Just that there 's a narrow range? That there 's a narrow range and that 's good enough as long as they 're not all one price that there has been a range? But see it says lot sizes should be mixed to reflect that and to offer a range . And what I don't want to see is , I don 't want to see preservation of the tree stands with 50 ,000 foot lots that these guys are going to build T 'aj Mahals on and then the 6 ,000 — square foot lots or 10 ,000 minimum , down in the cornfield and I don't , I personally find that repulsive that they're , you know that somehow these people are getting the tree stands and it's not preserved . My idea of a — PUD is to have a cluster of homes , small lots , and commonly owned wooded areas and that 's not what the people are going to do . They're going to include it into private lots and the people down at the bottom get the _ shaft and the question is , are we looking at our ordinances from a , is it the common good of the people moving into this particular development? I 've beat it and I think that this almost encourages people to say , yes . You 've told me you want the range so I 'm going to put the $450,000 .00 house up on the hill . Take all the trees . Take all the nice views . Then I 'm going to put these shlocky little things down in the cornfield. These people have no , they don't get the benefit of the trees , other than I — supposed they can look at them but yet they 're moving into the smaller sized lots and my issue has always been , I 'll get off my soapbox in a minute . That if we have a minimum sized lot , somehow or another , why are we allowing these people to have a smaller sized lot? Then we should have the smaller sized lots throughout the city if there 's not a good reason to have the bigger sized lot . And these people haven't gotten anything for , you know we 're supposed to be looking out for general welfare , safety ,whatever but yet we 're saying , go ahead. Put these guys on a smaller lot . Let them look at the trees because we told them to offer a range of prices . So I found that kind of disturbing . But I guess it depends on how you _. interpret it . Farmakes: And that also reflects I think what the market is. Obviously you 're going to have a bigger house , more land , less density , higher price — tag . Most people aren 't going to be purchasing that . I guess it will depend on each individual developer who comes in here and shows what he 's . Batzli : But my only point was that it said, lot sizes should be mixed to reflect and to offer , and the issue was whether we wanted to state that it , Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 58 I think it should be mixed to reflect the size and environmental limitations but I think it may be mixed to offer a range of housing pricing options . I don 't know that I want to say the guy has to do that or to positively encourage that . Farmakes: Take the Lundgren development . They had the two corner , they had about 3 or 4 left over lots once they got done laying out everything else . They had a couple of little leftover pieces and they stuck those houses on it and those . . .swamp . There were reduced sized lots that happened to be next to houses that fit in better to the overall plan and I think I know what you 're saying but I don't know if it 's marketed that way though . The PUD would be marketed that way. If they 're put down in a gully and we 're up in nirvana up on the hill with the trees , I don 't think - it 'd be marketed that way . Batzli : Well I know it won 't be marketed that way . Krauss: There 's another aspect though that that gets to . On the less attractive land , I many times have developers come in and say , you mean you don 't have a 10 ,000 square foot lot . I can't. make , I 'll just go PUD and - make every lot 10 ,000 square feet because then they 're all cheap and I can sell every house for $116 ,000 .00 because that 's what I do in Chaska . Excuse me Chaska . And you know , you'd like to have some basis for saying , - not here you won't . I mean you 've got to rationalize your PUD. You may be entitled to some smaller lot sizes but you're going to have to earn it . You 're going to have to demonstrate why this density 's supportable based on environmental constraints and no , the City does not support a goal of your allowing uniformity of cheap housing . The goal is to get a mix in there . Batzli : So you 're looking at it from , well . You're telling me you 're - looking at it from the alternate end of , they come in, they ask for all cheap things and you can use this as a leverage to say , we need more expensive things too . Krauss : Right . That is a fact of what they do . Batzli : Okay . Well I would be happy then to at least say and/or . So you may have a plug but yet it 's softened . Anybody else go along with that? I know what Tim's not going to say . - Conrad: And/or what? Where are you? Batzli : And/or to offer a range of housing pricing options . It 's in the _ intent section . Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the site 's environmental limitations and opportunities and/or to offer a range of housing pricing options . - Conrad: I 'd like to take , I would rather , boy I just can 't agree . Farmakes: Typically Paul , I 'm not that familiar only seeing a few PUD's - around here but they seem like they 're marketed, there isn 't that large of a disparity of upper end pricing and the lower end pricing. I mean it 's not huge . We 're not talking 4 or 5 times difference . We 're talking a 50% maybe or somewhere in there? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 59 _ Krauss : Yeah . I mean this is ballpark numbers pulled out of a hat but the Lundgren development probably goes from $165 ,000 .00-$70 ,000 .00 to — $280 ,000 .00-3 . Farmakes: Yeah , I 've just never seen where the pricing shifts as far as some of what we 're discussing here or we 're worried about . Krauss: But in terms of a monthly mortgage , that 's a real substantial _ difference in income levels and ability to pay . I don't know. If you want to get rid of it , I can always argue the point . It 's not hard to do. I mean this is , there is a class of developers that always throws it out on the table . This is what I can do someplace else and you always tell them , — that 's not what you can do here . I mean if everybody's more comfortable eliminating it , I can live with it . Conrad: And you 're talking about the range of housing prices? Krauss: Yeah . See Brian 's concern is a valid one because the Metro Council used to mandate that you put in language that we will provide — housing for the full range of humanity . Conrad: We had that in the comprehensive plan . — Krauss: Right . Conrad: We were going to do that . Why bundle it into a PUD? Krauss: Well again , I took the more pragmatic approach. I was trying to ensure that we didn 't get the bottom end of it but I think you 've got - every , you know in the context of what else is in here , you 've got the rational basis for not allowing that kind of stuff to happen. If somebody comes in here and says my sole purpose to do this is to get lowered priced — lots and they look crummy and , tell them to go away . Conrad: I don 't mind the statement , lot sizes should reflect the sit 'e _ environmental limitations and opportunities . I don 't need the word mixed in there but I 'd like the lot sizes should reflect in there . If we took mixed out , then I 'm fine with that . I don't know why , I came in here tonight thinking I was going to not oppose this . Erhart: You know , just a point . I don 't want to take a lot of time but just listening to the discussion. It 's convincing that we should be — outlining some broad goals and potential desires for a specific site . But there is no way that you can forecast in a rigid document what we would like to get out of any specific site at any time in the economic situation . It 's ridiculous that we 're laying out specifics here . Batzli : Well , we haven't had an ordinance now for , how long? A year? Krauss: A year . Year and a half . Batzli : Has any PUD guys come in and said , well since you don't have an ordinance I can do whatever I want and let 's talk about it? - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 60 Krauss: No . Batzli : Have we had any PUD guys come in and ask except for that one that you laid out? Krauss: Yeah , lots . Batzli : And they were discouraged because we didn't have an ordinance? Krauss: Well you know , the lack of certainty is the developer 's worst nightmare . Batzli : So if we have an ordinance that says we want you to come in with a PUD proposal and we 'll take a look at it , are people going to go that way or not? - Krauss: I doubt it , and this is my gut reaction. We could always ask developers but the thing that they detest most is coming , they hate coming before public bodies where people come up with things saying, it 's a good project but it 'd be a whole lot better if you knocked off 10 lots . Why? Well that 10 lots was the profit and those kinds of things scare them to death . And to just throw it open to a public review where the die is cast before there 's been an opportunity to refine a plan that they 're comfortable with , I think most of them will be very relunctant to do it . Erhart: But they do have something in concrete . They have a subdivision ordinance . They can come in with a standard subdivision. That's lock solid. If they don't want to come before us and do a little batering , they don't have to . On the other hand, if there's a site and they're sensitive to some of the things and want to come in and talk about it we have . . . ordinnace allowing them to do that and encouraging them to do that and it maybe lay some broad things that we would think would be appropriate to discuss such like a mixture of housing and preservation of environment . - Increased park sizes . Batzli : I think the fundamental difference probably between us is you 're probably comfortable with our subdivision ordinance and I 'm not . Erhart: No. I think we need a PUD. I think we need flexibility. Let 's not write an ordinance that , it give us flexibility but what it really does - is it really actually is more restrictive than our subdivision ordinance . It gets into more detail about what the guy's going to provide than our subdivision ordinance . Conrad: You can look at it Tim from the standpoint there are guidelines . Erhart : No, they're not . They're absolutes . Conrad: Well yeah. - Batzli : But we can change two words and make them guidelines. Erhart : Then I 'm comfortable . These are things that we may want . These - are things that we ought to discuss . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 61 — Conrad: But the developer would like to know what those guidelines are . Erhart : Then he should do a subdivision . You can 't , by the whole character of what a PUD is . Batzli : We haven 't gotten any that are that creative . I don 't know why , I mean I want to see these creative ones but we don't see any . We see PUD 's that are disguised subdivisions and they 've gone that way in order to— relax cretain setbacks or to crowd certain homes . The only reason they 've used our PUD since I 've been here , now maybe we 're going to get a flood of them in here after we pass this thing but I wouldn't mortgage the farm on it. Or bet the farm . — Erhart: I think maybe our goals weren't clear enough at the time Brian . Maybe our staff wasn 't comfortable with negotiating . Maybe a whole bunch — of things . I don 't know. It seems to me if we want something and they can get something so that they can make a profit at it . Batzli : Well I never thought I 'd be arguing for this thing so you know . Conrad: Come on , where is everybody? I was sure you were opposed . Batzli : I am opposed . Conrad: Where are you on this? — Farmakes: I 've already said where I am on this . I 'm listening to what Paul 's saying . If negotiations have taken place on their end , at their level and he 's asking for these things , it seems to me these are good — negotiation tools to position where the city, where these expectations are and this whole thing is a variance so I mean if I 'm going to be a designer and I 'm going to go and try and come up with something that I have a — reasonable expectation that if I spend a lot of money doing these drawings and coming in here and trying to sell this to you , I have a pretty good expectation by the time I bring it before here , with Paul 's recommendation, _. that I 'm going to have a pretty good idea that it 's going to fly . Or otherwise I 'm not going to do it . Conrad: So you 're generally comfortable and Brian has swung over . Batzli : I haven 't swung over . I 've just been beaten down. I just want to move it so that we have an ordinance so that people actually might use it . — I mean unless we can agree to put something in effect , as Paul said , they 've had a lot of inquiries . Nobody's going to do it . We're only going to learn . I mean this is either going to be right or it's going to be wrong . But in the past it's been wrong so we're no worse off . The only issue is , can we actually get some PUD 's going that we get some architecturally neat things . Some clustering . I don't think we 'll get it but at least we 'll get some ideas flowing through here and we'll see what — we 're going to get . And if we haven't gotten it yet , we have another opportunity to come back and fix it . But until we get it in place , we don 't even know what we 've done wrong . — Conrad: And this may be your last shot. You know if you kill the sucker . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 62 Erhart: I can 't kill it by myself . Don't look at me like some kind of . . . Conrad: It is interesting though because the City Council didn't want what we wanted . You never jumped on the band wagon when I brought that up . You were off in the weeds somewhere. - Erhart: Well we were off on this 10,000 thing and this always was , at the end I 'd always throw in , I don't understand this stuff . If you look back in the Minutes , that 's what you 'll see . Batzli : You were confused? _ Erhart: No . We spend 90% of our discussion talking about 10 ,000 foot lots and densities and that stuff and then, I was always confused and I never understood why we have it this way. - Batzli : I was talking about the Communist hordes , not the 10 ,000 square feet but . Erhart : Let's vote . Batzli : Yeah , let 's have a motion. - Conrad: Well Matt you know the least , so why don't you make the motion . Batzli : He knows the most but he said the least . Farmakes : Time marches on . Conrad: Seriously , one quick thought . In minimum lot size , we 're excluding wetland . Do we also exclude steep slope? Krauss: No . Conrad: We don't? So steep slope , even though it 's unbuildable , just like a wetland is , counts? Krauss: Right . Batzli : But it would be subject to all sorts of setbacks from our steep slope ordinance . Krauss: If it 's on the bluff line, the bluff line applies . Batzli : In the designated bluff line areas. Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : Otherwise just level the sucker . - Krauss: We went through this kind of discussion, in fact you were involved with that . We originally thought of . - Batzli : Do you have a lot of steep slopes on his farm? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 63 Krauss: I don 't know . But you know, in fact we had Rick Sathre in here telling us that if we just used percentage of slopes you eliminate , you can do it but the way , the way we were thinking about doing it would have eliminated walkout lots . I mean it got a little bizarre . Batzli : Do we have a motion? Conrad: No . Batzli : Then is there a motion to table? Erhart : Table for what purpose? Someone 's got to make a motion . Conrad: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised PUD ordinance according to the staff report or staff , according - to the draft printed on May 26th with striking , under the intent section , in the sixth line down , striking the words , "be mixed to" . That 's my motion . Batzli : Okay so you 're , just before someone seconds it , just to clarify it . So you 're leaving in the words in the seventh line , and to offer a range of housing pricing options? Conrad: Yeah . Batzli : Okay . Is there a second? Farmakes : I ' ll second it . Batzli : Discussion . You seemingly changed your mind . You didn 't like that language at first . Is there any reasoning or rationale that you want to share with us? You just don 't want me to vote for it either? Erhart : Now that 's brilliant strategy . Batzli : It was excellent Ladd. Quick thinking . Conrad: Yeah , quick thinking . No , I thought it through and I 'm okay with those words . Batzli : I mean it doesn 't even make sense now. And to offer doesn 't go with , should reflect . Lot sizes to offer a range of housing . I don 't care . If you want to do it that way. Is there any more discussions? Conrad moved , Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 for Residential Planned Unit Developments with the following changes in the Intent Section . Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options. Conrad and Farmakes voted in favor . Batzli and Erhart voted in opposition. Ledvina abstained. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 2, 1 abstention. Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 64 Erhart : So it 's defeated . The reason for voting nay is that I think , the way it 's written , we have an intention to create an ordinance that gives us greater flexibility than our subdivision ordinance but in fact , the way it 's written , the fact is that it actually provides less flexibility and it is specifies certain things even beyond the subdivision ordinance . And what I recommend we do is to re-write the ordinance . Deal with the minimum lot sizes or deal with density . I think that 's fine . I think the intent statement is great but I think we should be outlining some general things that we want and perhaps to find a process for completing a PUD and concentrate more on the process than trying to make specific things . Batzli : I 'd vote for it then. The only reason I didn 't vote for it was because this thing doesn't , that sentence doesn 't make sense anymore and I don 't . Farmakes : Run it through. I don 't think it 's a big issue really . Conrad: That 's not a big issue Brian . To vote against it because . Batzli : I 'm voting against it for that reason right now . Erhart : Well why doesn't someone just make another motion? Batzli : I 'd like to see a motion that , if anyone else has another motion. We can pass it up to the Council . We recommend that they don 't approve it as written as far as I 'm concerned at this point . Conrad : The motion failed but another motion can , make another motion right now . We 're not going to pass it up . Something 's got to happen . Batzli : Yeah I know , so is there another motion? Farmakes : I ' ll make the motion to alter the line as you have it there . Batzli : So that it reads , lot sizes should reflect the site 's environmental limitations and opportunities . Is there a second? I second it . Is there discussion? If it 's still 2 to 2 I 'm really going to crack up . Conrad: What did you want? Lot sizes . Batzli : Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities period . So the words , and to offer a range of housing pricing options is struck . Is there any discussion? Farmakes moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 for Residential Planned Unit Developments with the following changes in the Intent Section. Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site 's environmental limitations and opportunities. All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and Ledvina abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1 with 1 abstention. Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 65 -' Ledvina: If I understood the criteria by which this proposal was being _. evaluated , I would try to make some determination but I 'm so confused as to what we 're looking at . Farmakes: We were too . — Conrad: But we voted . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 3 , 1992 as presented . OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FORM . Krauss: That one I think we ought to maybe lay over because there 's some questions . —' Erhart: Also I think , I haven 't talked to Steve about this but I know in the history . . .he has strong feelings about people 's rights to do things in — their own yards and if somebody wanted to hold this over , I think it 'd be just fine . Farmakes: I 'd be curious as to how this fit in with this thing on Monday where they talk about the city compensating landowner 's for trees on their property . Krauss: Oh , you mean the Lucas Decision? Farmakes: The Supreme Court . — Krauss: I don't think anybody really knows yet what the implications are but I had a conversation with Roger about that decision this morning and I used to get all worked up about these Supreme Court decisions thinking the — sky is falling and generally you find it 's because somebody screwed up or did something . . . I 'm not sure they 're nearly as pervasive as you might think at first blush . — Batzli : Where 's that thing about this article? One Planner 's Reflection of the Edge City . You write that? Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : And it 's going in which issue? — Krauss: It should be this coming on . Batzli : Congratulations . You downplayed your work . I liked it . Should we table this easement? Okay. If nobody 's opposed, we 'll table that over to the next meeting . Erhart: The next meeting is what , the 15th? Krauss: The 15th , yes . Erhart: Why does Council want to meet? Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1992 - Page 60 3 . If noise or dust impacts materialize , the operator shall work with the city to positively respond to these issues . 4 . Modify the grading plan to eliminate off-site mining/grading that is presently illustrated on plan 81 . To avoid under-cutting of off-site slopes , in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1 .5 to 1 grade within 100 feet of a property line at any time . When excavations exceed 2 .5 to 1 slopes , temporary snow fencing and signage is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area . 5 . No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources . The operator will protect existing on-site wells and will permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use . 6 . The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer , and _ inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety . When problems arise , the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code . The initial $400 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year 's fee . 7 . Provide the city with a revised end-use plan consistent with all conditions of approval . 6 . The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash _ escrow in the amount of $51 ,000 . to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration , should he fail to adhere to approved conditions for this permit . This is a major concern of staff 's . The applicant 's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interest to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end-use plan . Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator 's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practive to require this sort of financial guarantee . Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end-use plan has been satisfactorily completed . All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE _ CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Ahrens: This is what Brian asked us to table? Krauss: Yes . Ahrens: Does anyone have a problem with that? Conrad: No . None at all . I 'm just curious about what people think . Emmings: It 's time to move it on. That 's what I think . Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1992 - Page 61 — Ahrens : Yeah I do too . Emmings: What do you think? Conrad: I 'm curious what you thought . — Emmings: No , no . You don't give up that easy . What do you think? Ahrens: Do we need a motion to table this? No . Okay . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Acting Chair Ahrens noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated May 20 , 1992 as presented . ONGOING ITEMS. Krauss : Ongoing items . Apparently , Tim did ask me to get the tree conservation on the agenda . I did have it in your last packet . It was an oversight , we didn 't put it in this one . _ Erhart : I won 't be at the next meeting . Krauss: Well , let me talk about the next meeting for a moment . We don 't — have a lot of new items coming up for the June 17th meeting . We have one June 17th and we have July 1st . On behalf of the Planning staff , we would not be terribly put off by eliminating the June 17th meeting . _ Erhart : If it were me , I 'd beg you for 4 beachlots on the June 17th meeting because I 'm not going to be here . Ahrens : That 's fine . There will be a meeting on June 18th though for any of you interested in attending the meeting having to do with the golf course . Krauss: And the Bluff Creek corridor . Erhart : Why wouldn 't we do the PUD and the tree thing then? Krauss: Well you could but would you want to have a meeting solely for that and one beachlot? Emmings: Get something done . I don't know . Krauss: Well a lot of us , I mean I 'm going to be here but a lot of you are probably , I know Joan you 're going to be here the following night for the golf course , Bluff Creek thing . Emmings: So we cancel our meeting because she 's got two meetings that week? Ahrens: Yeah . Emmings: Okay . I don 't know . Some of this stuff , whatever everybody — wants to do . - C I TY O F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: May 26, 1992 SUBJ: Final Ordinance Draft of the Residential Planned Unit Development District PROPOSAL/SUMMARY — As you are aware, staff and the Planning Commission have been working on this item since last summer. The main issue of contention has continued to be minimum lot size requirements and whether the city should even offer lot sizes below the normal RSF — District requirement of 15,000 square feet. Throughout these discussions, staff has consistently maintained that residential PUDs, if properly handled, offer much to not only the developer, but also to the community and to future residents of the project. During the time this discussion had taken place, we have seen one or more instances where a normally platted residential development could have significantly benefited by the flexibility and improvements that would have been offered under the PUD guidelines. At the same time, staff continues to recognize that there have been significant abuses of the PUD in the past, and we would not recommend proceeding with this item if we did not think that these problems could be resolved. We believe these improvements have been incorporated into the ordinance. The final draft of the ordinance does allow minimum lot sizes to be decreased below 15,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. However, what is significantly different from past practices is the following: _ 1. Wetland areas are excluded from lot area calculations so we will never have an instance where a 10,000 square foot lot is in reality a 6,000 square foot lot after the wetland is subtracted. This not only benefits minimum sized lots but also lots of any size where wetland impacts occur. 2. The developer is being required to demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into Z0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission May 26, 1992 Page 2 any required setback or protective easement. Each home must also have a — minimum rear yard of 30 feet. 3. There is an intent section that is a preface to the PUD which clearly states that — there should be a trade-off between meeting the developer's and city's goals for a given project. The smaller the average lot size is below 15,000 square feet, the greater the city's expectations are going to be for a trade-off in improved quality and environmental protection. The City Council discussed this item at their May 18, 1992, meeting, and although they — did not reach a conclusion, a resolution as outlined above seemed to be consistent with what some of the individual council members were saying. The Planning Commission then discussed this item on the Wednesday, May 20, 1992, meeting, and I believe the final draft accurately reflects the direction that staff was given by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve amendments to Chapter 20, the Zoning Ordinance for Residential Planned Unit Developments. ATTACHMENTS — 1. Final draft ordinance. 2. City Council minutes dated May 18, 1992. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated May 20, 1992. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows: Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Detached Residential Planned Unit Developments. Intent The use of Planned Unit Developments for residential purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains the potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements. Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of development, as evidenced by landscaping, construction quality,provision of public/private open and recreational space, should also be enhanced. As average lot sizes are decreased below 15,000 square feet, the city's expectations will be increased and it will be the developer's responsibility to demonstrate how the project meets the city's goals . a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD 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. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. 1 c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. 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. — 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. 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. g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will — provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this 2 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. Section 20-507. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Attached or Cluster-Home PUD's. a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. c) Setback Standards/Structures and Parking: PUD Exterior - 50 feet Interior Public Right-of-way - 20 feet Other setbacks - Established by PUD Agreement d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands,wetlands,ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 3 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. _ Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation and Yard 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) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. — f) 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. 4 Section 2. Amend Section 20-505, Required General Standards, by adding the following: (m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. — The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to 50%. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. 5 Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 20 Farmakes : I would support 20 . And 3 trees . Batzli : Joan? And 3 trees . Did you hear that? Ahrens : I don 't really see the point between 15 and 20 . I 'll go with 15 . I don 't see the point . . . Emmings: Well there isn 't any . You 're not preserving rural character because until water and sewer come , the guy 's sitting on 10 acres . After it comes , they can put in a 15 ,000 square foot subdivision . Batzli : The only time it 's going to happen is if they cluster and use some sort of community system . Ahrens: I 'm not sure that 20 ,000 square foot lots preserve rural character . Batzli : No , but it avoids downtown city square gridlock potentially . Or helps . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Krauss : I don 't know if this qualifies as moving right along . Batzli : Okay , let 's move right along and screech to a halt . Krauss : As before , we 're really not entirely certain where you 'd like us — to go with this . Although I guess I 'm getting a better idea . We tried to give you the information that you requested . We did a survey of a number of third tier communities . It 's in your packet . To the extent they defined a PUD lot size , residential PUD lot size , we 've given you that information . It goes down to some ordinances which don 't establish a minimum lot size for PUD . In fact in Eagan they just said well , the smallest we ' ll ever accept is 8 ,700 . I think they pulled that out of a — hat . But in Eden Prairie it 's the same , 13 ,500 . They require on normal single family lots . On some cities like Bloomington it went from 11 ,000 to 15 ,000 if you 're on a corner lot . And on but you can see that none of those communities has the 15 ,000 square foot standard that we have . Now whether that has any bearing on the discussion or not I don 't know . But that 's the information . Also in your packet , we got a letter from Peter Olin via Ladd where Peter suggests a rather simple approach is a better one— for an ordinance . With a strong intent section . I don 't disagree with that . I mean we talked about a different approach of not being too specific and just establishing what kind of development you want to — achieve . On the other hand , if you 're real sensitive to the minimum lot size criteria , that might be one of the standards you want to put in there . I also tried to focus a little bit on what exactly is the issue about lot size . The issue seems to be that you can 't get a desireable or a normal home on the lot and I think you can approach that from two perspectives . You can establish a requirement , and I think it should be universal frankly because we have equal problems in normal subdivisions , that there be a — minimum buildable area . Well that you demonstrate that you can fit some sort of normative home , a reasonably sized deck and a back yard and if you can 't do it , and you may not be able to do it on a 3 acre lot if it 's got Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 21 bad topography or wetlands and it 's not a legitimate lot . That standard should apply universally . PUD 's , subdivisions , whatever . Emmings: Can I ask you a question right there? What stops a developer from coming in and saying , yeah I can put this house on this lot and I can put a deck on it and I 've got a back yard and then he goes out and he builds a house that 's a whole lot bigger than that and just kind of destros the ability to put a deck on there because of the size of the house . How - do you get around that? Krauss: Well I don 't know . Then you 're in the position of you took the - moral high ground . You demonstrated that it could have been done . If somebody somewhere made an independent decision to screw it up , that 's what they did . Emmings: Yeah , then that 's their problem . Krauss : The other aspect of it is the buildable area approach . I 've - worked with ordinances that say that not only do you have a minimum lot size of x but a certain percentage of it has to be buildable . Has to be useable . And to get that you eliminate all the easements that conflict , - all the wetlands , the setbacks and if you don't achieve that buildable area , again a 15 ,000 square foot lot may not be buildable . I mean we 've seen some that aren 't . Or we 've seen 30 ,000 square foot lots that aren 't buildable . I think that if you establish criteria to meet those two guidelines , I don 't care if you 've got 10 ,000 , 15 ,000 or 30 ,000 square foot lots , it 's going to be a reality check . It 's going to get you lots that are much more consistently utilizeable without reliance on variances . Batzli : Define utilizable . A deck , is that utilizable? Krauss : We actually did in an earlier draft of the ordinance , and I think it was a 60 x 40 house , a 10 x 12 deck and a 30 foot back yard area . Emmings : A 60 x 40 house and garage , is that what you 're talking about - there? Batzli : Now we 've got a lot of information from the other communities here - and clearly the other communities don 't seem to be as uptight with minimums as I am and I maybe convinced the Commission to be . The question is , of course as always , where are we going to go from here? My concern was initially from concerns I had , problems in the PUD 's that currently existed . My understanding of the intent of the PUD was to be creative and to cluster and to provide open space and I don 't know that we got that in the past . I 'm not sure that the new ordinance is going to get that . From — the sounds of it , there 's a new proposal in house that basically provides small clustered homes in a cornfield and then provides larger lots in the wooded area . Now it seems to me that the intent of the PUD would be to cluster even more tightly either in the cornfield and provide open space in the trees and preserve all of them or to provide some sort of ballfield or something else in the cornfield . But I 'm not sure why clustering homes in the cornfield , in essence putting them on smaller sized lots than we would require than the rest of the city and then allowing the developer to charge a premium into the trees , meets what we really want to get out of the PUD , Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 22 other than if we want to save some trees . That 's the only thing that I can see that 's beneficial to the city and once the developer sells those lots , the people can do whatever they want to the trees so I 'm not sure that we 've gained anything . What I 'd like to see , and my only point in getting — on my high horse on this whole thing has been , how can we be proactive so that people are encouraged to use the PUD where we get a creative development and the city wins , the developer wins and the people moving into the development win . That 's what I 'm asking . I 'm asking for creativity . I 'm asking what is it that turns developers on that we can give them so that we get an above average development . We save open spaces_ and trees and wetlands and everybody who moves in is happy as well . You know Ladd suggested last time , well let 's just put in a density and maybe that 's what we have to do . Maybe we just leave it wide open . Let them come in . We look at the density . See if we like it and as long as we warn— the people moving in that they 're in a PUD development . If you don 't understand what that means , then check with Paul Krauss . Maybe that 's what we do but I don 't know that we 're being proactive enough to say how are we — going to encourage these people . You know the developers , because it seems in the past all we 've done is we 've given the developer a greater opportunity to charge a premium for some lots and probably not reduce the price on the homes that are on undersized lots . And I use undersized lots — euphamistically because they 're undersized compared to the rest of our standards . I mean it 's not necessarily that they 're undersized . They may be useable . They may be utilizeable . They may be fine to put the house or— the pad , with the deck , 30 foot back yard but they are undersized compared with our other standards . I don 't know . I mean we 've heard a lot of people . I know you 're frustrated . Probably with me but I don 't know that — this is going to work . I don 't know that there is a way to make it work . Krauss: I guess from a staff standpoint , I mean we do from a professional standpoint feel that these things have utility . But we 're not here to twist your arm and keep coming back with something that 's not going to fly . I mean we 've been working on this one since last spring , and the trees are about to bud out again . I think that from a design standpoint it certainly— has validity . We 're not in the business of manipulating the market . I mean the only influence we have over a developer is we say , here 's our ordinance . You can either develop that way or you can use this more creative approach that may make you a little more money but you 're going tc give us what we 're looking for too . I mean that 's the only carrot and stick we have in this world . Now Brian talked about a plat , and I mentioned that I was going to bring a copy of it to you to look at . I 've — only got these two blue line prints . I can spread them out up there if you like and you can take a look . Batzli : You guys want to see it? Emmings : Yeah . Batzli : Okay . ( Paul Krauss presented and explained the subdivision and PUD plan to the — Planning Commission at this point . ) Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 23 Erhart : And what did we get? You say you think we can get open space - where? Krauss : Well we 've got a park , we are getting ultimately . You 've got park dedication here . Batzli : Do you get that anyway? - Krauss: What you get though is you draw boxes around these trees . Ahrens: Why couldn 't you get that . . . Krauss : Well ultimately we basically are getting it . Or getting something close . Batzli : In the straight subdivision? Krauss : Yeah . It looks more like this but I 'm convinced that we could - have done a better job had we still had some flexibility . I mean these are what , these are executive home lots? I don 't know what the current vernacular is but these are going to be more expensive homes up in the hill . They ' ll bump up to the homes in Timberwood . If we had some flexibility on lot area , we could encourage that trend a little bit more . Erhart : And those are what , 20 ,000 square feet? Krauss: Yeah . And this is completely without any influence . Ahrens : The developer makes more money off those treed lots too . I mean I can 't believe they would come in and develop in a straight subdivision like that , lots that they wouldn 't make much money off of . Krauss : Oh I think that 's certainly true but I don 't want to sound patronizing but after doing this for 15 years I 've stopped fighting the free market impulse . I mean if we can come up with a scenario where they - make more money but we get something that we would prefer to have out of it anyway , that 's fine with me . Ahrens: Right , but if we can get it anyway . Emmings: I think Joan is saying , wouldn 't he do that anyway . Just because he 's going to get more money off of it . Krauss: Well as I say , this story has a fairly happy ending . We 're in the process of reviewing these plans and we ' ll see how , they look fairly good - at first blush . Batzli : But in general? I mean this example aside , wouldn 't this normal average developer want to put larger houses in a treed area like that in the hills against a larger subdivision? Krauss : This developer happens to be a fairly quality , fairly reputable developer and the answer to your question in this case is yes . But developers run the garnet and we 've had our share of developers who come in Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 24 here and say the subdivision says this and I 'm not giving you once thing more . And from a legal standpoint that 's an appropriate response . Farmakes: What about from the legal standpoint if you don 't feel that the developer 's providing for the intent , can you refuse it on that basis alone? Krauss : Sure . You can be fairly arbitrary on a rezoning action . Farmakes : Let 's say that we put black and white figures in here . Let 's _ say we put specific figures about minimum square footage and some of the stuff that we 've been talking . We still don 't like the plan . Does that mean that legally the city can say then , we don 't think so? Krauss : I don 't know . Maybe we ought to have the City Attorney here to answer that specifically but Roger 's always told us that we have a great amount of latitude on a rezoning action , particularly when they have recourse to do a standard subdivision anyway . I mean we 're not taking away the use of their property . It clearly has a legitimate use . The developer is in a position of asking us for something above and beyond and you set out a district that says we have the expectation that we 'll get something better than normal . You have that latitude . Farmakes : Peter Olin 's letter in here talks about focusing on intent rather than the specifics . That being the case , that response from the attorney then would be important . He apparently says , he 's talking about taking issues in court here but if they don 't meet the intent of the statement , it seems to be kind of subjective . The intent isn 't going to spelled out like square footage on a lot . Krauss : No . That 's why I indicated that I agreed with Peter 's approach but I think you have to set some bare minimum criteria . And you have to be specific as to what you want to achieve . Now Peter had some very mom and apple pie language that sounds pretty . I 'm not certain that that alone is — enough . Farmakes: I think it 's reasonable to give a developer some specifics about_ what you feel the intent is going to be or what can sail through . It woulc seem to me that if you 're going to offer a developer at the same time a specific idea of what he 's going to gain from it so that he has the motivation , as we said before , if there 's no motivation for them they 're not going to do it . I would leave it up to them to come up with a creative way to solve that and I guess I 'm not that uncomfortable with the minimums . I 'm not sure about the 10 that we were originally proposing but if we could— still refuse it by claiming that it doesn 't the intent and we 've specific with the intent , I 'm not that uncomfortable with it . I 'd rather see the creativity and the burden on them of solving our problems . If they do it , fine . If they don 't . Krauss: We don 't want anything close to just opening the door to a blanket PUD without that intent . If we had a developer who 's still working with us— come in on another property off Audubon Road who builds lower end housing in Chaska . That kind of thing and there 's a market for that but he came to us and the first question is well , he threw a plan on the table that had an._ Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 25 average 10 ,000 square foot lot size and said well , I 'm going to do a PUD . - We said no you 're not . Well you just took away 40 lots . Our response was you never had them in the first place . So that kind of a dialogue happens all the time . But if you have something that says well if you want to do a _ PUD , here 's how you earn one and read the intent section and a couple of guidelines . Emmings: Maybe the best thing to do , it would be nice if we had some examples . Here are examples we 've approved in our town that we 're proud of . Batzli : Do we have any of those? • Emmings: Well , go take a look . Wouldn 't that be a way to show a developer what we 've got in mind? Krauss : Yeah , but I think Brian 's question is accurate . Emmings : I don 't know . It would be good if we could get one here that we like so we could say this is the kind of thing . Batzli : Well , we may be proud of the Ersbo one when that 's up . Krauss : Except it was different . I mean that one has a 30 ,000 square foot lot size . Batzli : But the effective lot size is much smaller given that most of it 's in the swamp . I would favor going with an intent statement and a density . A warning and basically a statement that indicates that lot sizes below 15 ,000 will be scrutinized carefully by the City and maybe rejected out of hand . Something like that . Basically kind of , it basically puts I think something further in there that if you go below our minimum , we 're going to look at it carefully and we have the ability to reject it . That way they can go below but they 're still going to be looking at a density and I 'm more concerned about the people moving into the city in the end result . - That they 're somehow put on notice so the developer should be required to during the sales process put them on notice that they 're buying a PUD so that they have the opportunity to talk to what they 're getting into . Conrad: The less we put down the more nervous the developer 's going to be . Is that a fair statement Paul? Krauss : Well , they might . . . Conrad: The more specific he sees stuff , the more he knows if we can match - it and helps him in the design stage so the less we put down , is he less likely to take a crack at it? Krauss : Until you get a track record of having said yes or no on some . Emmings: Well it may depend on the developer too . - Conrad: Developers put a lot of money into design . Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 26 Emmings: We just had one come in and we approved a PUD and he not only didn 't have any standards , we didn 't have anything in our ordinance about residential PUD 's . And he got approved . Ahrens : You know I don 't think we have to be so worried about scaring away developers . I really don 't . I think that they 're going to come in here . They want the land . They want to develop . I think that if a developer comes in for this specific piece of property and we said we have a minimum lot size of 15 ,000 square feet . He or she says I 'm not interested in developing as a PUD . Then I want to go with the straight subdivision and _ we say that 's fine but we have these stands of trees that you have to work around . Wouldn 't we end up with just as good a product in the end because we 'd have 15 ,000 square foot lot minimums? Krauss: I think it gets to Brian 's question from last meeting . Can 't you achieve the same thing without it? Ahrens : Yeah , I guess I 'm not convinced that you can 't . Krauss: I tend not to believe that we can . I mean the flexibility to _ alter standards gives you tremendous room to innovate . We don 't have and no community has a standard that says you just can 't cut down a significant stand of trees . Now we 're trying to develop an ordinance that would overlay the city that would get at that somehow . But the best way to avoic~ cutting a stand of trees is to allow the developer to build that house someplace else . I mean that 's the carrot and the stick . You can mandate you so much and beyond that you 've taken the person 's property or you 've damaged the land . If you allow that unit to be transferred to more appropriate site , everybody comes out better if it 's done right . Emmings : I kind of agree with what Brian said . I 'd go for an intent statement . A density and maybe I first thought it was a bad idea to put it the warning but I don 't mind that the more I think about it . This plan over here which you 're calling a PUD is . Batzli : This doesn 't look like a PUD to me . Emmings : No . This is almost no creativity whatsoever over here . And I think that 's proven by the fact that there 's the same number of lots on each one somehow but still this is a better plan than this one , which as you say is an overstatement . This is still a better plan . And could this plan be approved under our subdivision ordinance? Krauss : The better one? _ Emmings: The one he 's calling a PUD . It couldn 't because of the small lots . But still this is a better plan than a straight subdivision on that property I think . Krauss : Yes it is . Emmings : So this , even though it doesn 't show much creativity or as much as you 'd like to see , if we don 't have a PUD ordinance we 're going to wind up with things that are , we wouldn 't be able to approve something like this__ 5( I think it 's important that we its o be , I don 't think we should 1st talk about density . Maybe give ;t the harder we 're going to look I think that 's a good lv with your experience with - : `-, —. . —, � � � -j ^, • 4 Originally proposed? ) > > �' ) ) ) ) 1 _1 1 0 0 �h is significant . ) ) -) " ) - ) 111CO lgh of an incentive there . If you -j ) !) ) ) !) ) ' ) C O 4 of an incentive there that they feel -) r- ) J -) ) ) -) �) ) • © O -ma have a chance? 4 r. ' 3 ) J ) > 3 ) O © 4 ) . ) ,,) j ..� . a ® O mean it sounds reasonable . I guess ___ _____.__.__ mmmommm the same time aren 't they? I mean t o . r frankly , I mean he wanted , he b -fore you and exploring it on a la t brought this up in December I n T think he 's come up with a pretty stuff that was nice and kind of ut I mean he had boulevard ng-..of major streets and a couple of oposed right now . What we 're ME i and Galpin that our new ,n _equires and the buffering and ty to negotiate . There isn 't a ;tright subdivision . 'ore and I 've said it kind of half I mean I still think that the best )w 1e want to do it so that we have t!"se natural features , is to raise last time before I give up , a _ ___ r ) ahead . _JOD DOOODDDOp � � .� JJJJJJJJ _) ® Q size in the city? ) J J _j ) _: _) _) ) _ ) ) ) 0 ® ) ) > > ) ) ) ) 41, ID meeting and nobody talked about it ) ' ` ) ) ) ) ) ) ) D . I think the choices are one , i 1 .) ) ) ) ) ) , 0 ve_got . Or two , if we really believe ) ) ) , ) _-) j _D ID Q Dn that we 're going to see has some :. - e . .ould like , rather than us try to T allow the developer to be d Tend or some open area or whatever . and three . Is that I personally Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 28 believe that 10 ,000 square foot lots are too small . I think that a 12 ,500 r square foot lot for example , perhaps is what we ought to have as what we would consider a small lot . I 've always , on one hand I 've always said that we want to prevent urban sprawl . One of the ways to do it is to allow your— average lot size to be small . On the other hand , I 've always been a little concerned that 15 ,000 might be a little bit too small for a standard lot . When you tie all those together it tells me that the only way to do this PUD is to raise the average , our standard lot size here to , I 'm going to say 17 ,500 . I have no magic number but I 'm just going to say that number . You make the increment to motivate him 500 square feet , or 5 ,000 square feet allows him to go down to 12 ,500 . And so that gives him the incentive :— It solves the problem of the concern of some of the Council members and I think myself below 12 ,500 is a little bit , it 's a pretty small lot . The second thing is that limits the number of lots that can be that small to — some percent of the lots in that development . At least 10% . Maybe it 's 30% . I don 't know . I didn 't look at examples but I think we 've got those two choices . Either we can forget the PUD or the other side is , you 're going to make it work we 're going to have to raise our standard lot size sc we can offer incentive . Ahrens: I agree that if we go with smaller lot sizes we should be more • specific . I mean we seem to have a meeting of the minds here between the staff and the present Planning Commission what we mean when we say there shouldn 't be too many small lots and we ' ll look closely at them and we 're giving you a warning that you 'd better come in with a proper sized development . But nobody else is going to understand after we 've moved on to greater things what we meant by that . Emmings : But the density will prevent you from having too many small lots . If you have a density for the project of 1 .8 or whatever , you don 't have to worry about it do you? Conrad: But you could still have some theoretically . I 'm comfortable with that . I always have been . Ever since we started talking about this but _ everybody else is worried about minimum lot sizes and I 'm not . Emmings : No , I 'm not either . Erhart : But density is just another way of saying the same thing . I 'm comfortable with density . Conrad: No . Density will allow you to have a 5 ,000 square foot lot . Erhart : No , but you 've still got to have minimum lot sizes . Ahrens : Yeah if you have density , couldn 't you still end up with three huge lots and maybe two little tiny ones? Conrad: He 'd probably not want to do that . But in that situation , that 's so obvious we wouldn 't even consider that and I think Paul could reflect that pretty well . Ahrens : But what about? Planning Commission Meeting .� March 4 , 1992 - Page 29 Conrad: Future generations? Ahrens: 10 years from now . - Batzli : But see that may be , if they want that , then we should give them the flexibility . I mean this is a living , breathing statute . Why lock them in? Maybe that 's what they 're going to love in 10 years when we 've all moved on . I don 't know . Conrad: Absolutely . Emmings : I 'm not worried about 5 ,000 square foot lots. Conrad: I 'm not either . Batzli : Does anybody other than Tim and I , would anyone like to see staff taking a look at raising the lot size in our other districts? Ladd? Conrad: No . Batzli : Steve? Emmings: I don 't know . I haven 't really thought about it . Conrad : It 's a lousy way to back into a PUD ordinance . If we feel that we are crammed right now , then we should be looking . You know we don 't raise lot sizes so we can have a creative PUD . If we feel that we 're developing at a too dense a rate right now and people are , our decks are leaning over each other 's property lines , well then let 's take a look and let 's get the whole community back in here and start looking at what our zoning and our lot sizes should be for every category . I can 't imagine the city wants to - do that right now . I haven 't heard one person , not one person other than you Brian talk about lot sizes . Really in the last so many years , nobody 's talking . Emmings: And we spent so much time arriving at the subdivision ordinance and it seems to be working . It seems to be working okay . Conrad: I love large lots . That 's why I 'm out here . It 's the only reason I 'm in Chanhassen is because we have some big areas . But I just , at this point in time this is , if people want smaller lots . Things are changing to say the smaller . The costs are getting greater . For us philosophically to say to the developers we now want 17 ,000 square foot lots , that 's a different course for Chanhassen and I don 't think we should _ do it because of the PUD ordinance . We should do it because we feel as a community that we want to send a signal to people that this is sort of an open space community . Batzli : Well , that 's the issue brought up by Olin in his memo and that 's why I guess I 'm wondering why you 're not talking about it and that is , he says the suggestion of the PUD is to preserve the physical and social - character of Chanhassen . Well we aren 't going to preserve it by putting in 12 ,000 square foot lots . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 30 Conrad: Ah , but you can preserve . Emmings: Wait a minute . That 's not what we 're doing . _ Batzli : I know . But that 's the intent that he 's written and no one has said I disagree or that 's not what we 're here for . That 's just , I thought it was interesting . Emmings : But you can 't say that anybody 's proposing to put in 12 ,000 square foot lots . Erhart : Steve , what 's your reaction to the plan where you have how many 10 ,000 square foot lots in that one area? _ Krauss: 10? I don 't know . Erhart : Just take a guess . 30? Krauss : It 's probably more like 40 or 50 . Erhart : And what is your reaction to that? Emmings: I haven 't looked at this . My reaction with regard to what? Erhart : Just seeing forty 10 ,000 square foot lots all bunched together , what was your reaction or anybody 's reaction to that? Emmings : It 's 40 what on here? The density of this thing is 1 .9 . It 's a little bit above what a straight subdivision is . Erhart : But the concept that you could put in forty 10 ,000 square foot lots all together in one spot . How does that strike you? Emmings : Is that what 's on here? Erhart : Yeah . Emmings : I don 't know . It doesn 't scare me . I mean I wouldn 't reject it out of hand . Batzli : Jeff , do you want to look at raising the lot size in the rest of the districts or no? Farmakes : I wouldn 't be adverse to do it . I guess I fall back that if we 're going to proceed with the PUD , there has to be an incentive for the builder or we shouldn 't do it period . If we can 't come up with an incentive , I don 't think we should waste our time with it . I think that — there 's a reason to have a PUD . I think we should pursue that . If it 's a warning , that seems reasonable to me . But there has to be a difference between 10 ,000 and 15 ,000 if that 's what we 're going to have as our base . _ If it 's going to be 20 ,000 and a 15 ,000 minimum , that 's an incentive . I think we 're just , to quote a phrase that you 've had in here 3 times , we 're just beating a dead horse . We 're talking about some different issues that converge at times but I still feel that if you 've got it within the 5 ,000 Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 31 square feet somewhere in there that the builder 's going to come in with something there that he gets , the city gets , and leave it up to him to come in and show us what it is we 're getting . And that 's the incentive . Somewhere in what you 're talking about here is that 5 ,000 square feet . If it 's a difference between 15 and 20 or 10 and 15 . Leave it up to him to come in here and say that this is , I 'm meeting your requirements of a percentage for the amount of smaller lots with a cap and I 'm meeting your density requirements . Then we can argue about whether or not he 's met our intent . Batzli : Okay . So you 'd like to see , and correct me when I go astray here . You 'd like to see an intent section and a density and potentially a cap on the percentage or a floor? Farmakes: I 'm not as worried about a cap on there . As long as we can pull the rug out on the intent statement that he 's not meeting it . And I think that somewhat that warning in there gives them your intent . If it 's 15 or it 's 20 or if it 's 10 , I do agree that the overall size of our lot is something that 's probably a separate issue because that 's going to affect also considerably the difference in land cost to a potential home buyer . And I think that your , as we raise that up we should look at that very - carefully because the cost of housing in this area is pretty steep and it leaves out certain groups of , economic groups of people purchasing into a home here . And when we start adding on 20% to the land cost we should look at that . Batzli : Joan? - Ahrens: What was the question? Batzli : The question was , do you want the staff to look at raising the lot - size in Chanhassen? And the second question is , are you comfortable proceeding on this so we can give some direction to staff so we can finally move it on? Putting in the density and an intent section . Ahrens : What 's the warning in there? Batzli : Well the warning would be , if they get too small we 're going to look at it very closely . I mean it 's basically part of the intent . Emmings: The smaller they get , the harder we look . Batzli : Yeah . Ahrens: I also worry about pricing people out of the market here . I don 't like that idea either . Batzli : I don 't think we 're doing anything other than what . Ahrens : By raising the minimum lot size . Batzli : The density puts it at a regular subdivision . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 32 Ahrens: However , I 'm not opposed to looking at raising the minimum lot size . I guess I 'm not opposed to that but it seems like every time we take a look at this there 's , we throw a new curve into it . Batzli : I 'm not proposing to tie that into the PUD . I say we move the PUD along and if we decide to look at the minimum lot size in the other districts , we do that but that 's not part of what we 're doing tonight . — Ahrens : So you 're saying as a separate issue , let us examine raising the minimum lot sizes in Chanhassen which I 'm not opposed to looking at something . At that . On the other hand , the other issue that you brought up of the PUD , I guess I 'm still not comfortable with the whole density idea . I mean I like the intent statement . I think the warning statement is okay but I don 't know . — Batzli : Just kind of a showing of hands here for direction to staff , who would like to see staff proceed with intent , density and warning? Okay . Go for it guys . Conrad: There you go . It 's back to you Paul . What more can we do? Batzli : What else do you want to know? We 're out of time . Krauss : As far as that goes , that 's fine . But you 've raised the issue of — raising lot areas . I guess if I could , I 'd like to throw my two cents into it . Our minimum lot size is already substantially greater than most every community in the Twin Cities with a few exceptions . Those few exceptions tend to be Minnetonka and Orono and communities of that , or if you 're going to go out further to Lake Elmo or places that have an intent of staying hobby farmish or quasi-rural . There is a direct translation between lot area and cost and it 's a significant one . The process is escalating . The land cost is escalating rapidly . Thirdly , our lot areas are not only one of the largest lot areas in the Twin Cities but our density is even lower than it would imply because we 've been a no net loss wetlands community and— we 've preserved other features . You have a very substantial park dedication . We 're on the outer fringes of both of those . So when we tell a developer yeah , we have a 15 ,000 square foot lot size , it actually takes _ them a lot more land to get to that 15 ,000 square foot than it does in most other communities . Now the new State wetlands law will tend to equalize that a little bit but our density , our average density of 1 .7-1 .8 units per acre , 1 .9 , in that range , is one of the lowest the Metro Council 's ever — seen . They had to develop a new standard for us because their usual rules of thumb didn 't apply in Chanhassen . The last aspect of it is , is we 've got 10-12 years of utility projects , assessed utility projects that are — based on a density of 15 ,000 square feet . All these projects were assessed on the presumption that there was x number of units on a piece of ground . If we changed the rules , I think we might owe a lot of people a lot of money . So I just throw that out for some thought . — Batzli : My personal feeling is by asking staff to look into this and I think that , I thought I heard the other night at the City Council that at — least the Mayor and Councilman Wing expressed that 15 ,000 might be too small . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 33 Emmings : I didn 't hear that . Batzli : I thought I heard that . Councilman Wing : Pretty loud and clear . One said 20 and one said 18 . Batzli : Yeah , so I thought that we had some people at the Council also interested in taking a look at it . Now the number on this group that wants - to look at it appears to be maybe 3 or 4 and some people are comfortable with it . Ladd 's probably fought through the subdivision ordinance once . He doesn 't want to touch it again and that 's fine and he 's , I mean he 's got a large lot . He doesn 't need to look at it again . Me on the other hand , I 'm still looking for that large lot . Emmings: Couldn 't you buy the lot next door? Batzli : I think I 'm going to . Okay . What I 'd like to do is at least with , I don 't want a 3 week study on it . What I 'd like to know though is if you do have some information on you know , and I 'm sure you 've given this to us before , what are the neighboring community lot sizes and what are the issues . I don 't even want them discussed in depth other than so we can throw it around and see if we want to look at it more . Because I think we 've got at least 2 people on the Council who expressed that they 've felt that it may be a little low and I 'd like to know what goes into the decision to make it low or high and if we do change it , are we going to owe - thousands of people so much money we can 't even take a look at it at this point . So that 's what I 'd like to see . If other people disagree with me , speak up . Emmings : If you decide to go back into the subdivision ordinance to look at lot size , Ladd and I have a mutual suicide pact . Conrad: I kill Steve first . Emmings : We won 't be here . I tell you , you think this is hard to do . - This PUD . Batzli : Are you adverse to at least the staff bringing up the issues of what are the factors that go into deciding this? I mean obviously you two don 't want to get into it? Emmings : Go into deciding what? Batzli : What the minimum lot size is and if you raised it , what would the issues be that we 'd have to look at . What would be the process . I mean it 's clear that you two have no interest in raising it . Conrad: I have no interest so you do what you like . If there 's votes from , I think Tim would go along with you . Erhart : Well let me say , I guess after Paul 's comments , I guess I wasn 't , it was kind of surprising to me that our 's would already be larger . If you consider average around the western suburbs or any suburbs I guess of the metropolitan area . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 34 Krauss: Well again , you will find some that are as big , if not bigger and — you try to figure out what 's a comparable community and it 's always tough and we can give you , I think you 've got some statistics in here . Erhart : What 's Eden Prairie? Krauss: 13 ,500 . Erhart : For minimum lot size? Krauss: We can give you the Victoria 's and Chaska . Well I think Chaska is— less but I 'm not sure of that . We can certainly give that to you . It 's not so hard . Emmings: Now excuse me but in the materials you gave us tonight , under PUD lot size survey , it says Eden Prairie 13 ,500 . Krauss: Yeah , it 's the same thing as their . Emmings : Same in the subdivision? Oh , okay . Ahrens: So what the incentive? Krauss : I don 't think there is one in Eden Prairie . Erhart : Well , if that 's the case and our two elder commissioners here don 't want to touch it . Conrad: No , no . Don 't use us because . . .maybe we 're out of touch . Batzli : But I would just like a 15-20 minute discussion and just some of — the basic issues that we 'd have to look at and . . . Conrad: I think Council is interested so I think from your standpoint — Brian it 's probably not a bad thing and maybe that 's information that they 're going to ask Paul anyway . So your asking staff to generate it is probably a wise idea . Whether Steve and I are interested in it or not . I think Dick , Richard cares about it and other Council members do . — Emmings: And we 'll participate in the discussion . Batzli : Let 's do that at an upcoming meeting at some time . Put it on our list of things to do . Do you have enough direction on the PUD as to what the heck we 're trying to do now? Conrad: Let 's have Paul replay back what we might be asking him for . One thing just sort of intrigued me . Aren 't there , and I 'm a believer in PUD 's and I 'm not sure that we 're ever going to find a perfect one but Paul you never brought us an ordinance that may have come , been generated in an ivy tower environment out of American Planning Association or whatever . Aren 't there model PUD ordinances? - — Batzli : We got one . Didn 't that consultant guy give us one? Last summer . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 35 Krauss : Shardlow? Yeah he did and I don 't recall what it had for a lot size . Conrad : That would he interesting but I liked what Peter Olin talked about in terms of a little bit more vague ordinance but if you did what we just asked you to do , a very strong intent statement and I think you 've already got that from what I recall . We have an intent statement . We have , are we talking net density or are we talking gross density? Batzli : Net . Krauss: . . .pretty consistent throughout as net . Conrad : So we 're talking net density , okay . Batzli : That takes out the . Conrad : That just takes out streets . - Krauss : And wetlands . Conrad : Does it take out wetlands? Okay . That 's good . Will our - comprehensive plan drive the net density? Won 't the comprehensive plan place in the net density that we should be using here? Krauss: It does but the comprehensive plan may actually give more latitude than you want to . Conrad: As a range out there . Krauss: It goes 0 to 4 I believe and 4 is probably higher than you would prefer in these areas . Ahrens : Do you exclude easements? Krauss : No . For what? If it 's an easement over a wetland or a roadway , yeah but otherwise not . If it 's a park dedication , I think parks are actually excluded . That 's a question that we had and it 's a matter of interpretation . I mean it 's not for this time and place but are parks - excluded from the net buildable? I would argue that they can 't be because we haven 't taken possession of the park . I mean that 's part of the dedication process . You have 10 acres of land , you owe us so many acres of park . Ahrens: It 's the chicken and the egg . . . - Krauss : Well but it 's a double hit to say give us your park and then we ' ll figure out your density of what you have entitled to on what 's left . Emmings : The park that 's up there on this plan , is that part of the 81 acres that 's here? Krauss : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 36 Batzli : That 's fair . That 's okay that you do that . Emmings: The only thing I don 't like there is it 's shoved off on the edge . Why the hell isn 't it in the middle somewhere? — Krauss: Well there 's a reason for that . There 's a slope with a heavily forested ravine that 's really quite attractive in a natural area going back— in there . They had talked about trying to shoehorn a few lots in there anc in talking to our parks folks , we figured that it was better to do it this way . Batzli : I guess they do have a path back there . Conrad : So Brian , I 'm just trying to make sure staff or Paul 's going in — the right direction here . At least one that we 're all consistent with . Your comments on the warnings . So we 're talking about net density , intent and then some warning statements . Is that what you said? _. Batzli : Yeah . Conrad: Saying if you go , now our past PUD ordinance did allow a minimum of 12 ,500 as a minimum lot size isn 't that right Paul and did we restrict the number of those units? Krauss : I think there was an average as well . An average minimum . Conrad : There was an average in there . _ Krauss : And it was like 13 ,500 so , I believe . Conrad : Yeah . Krauss: So you were sort of forcing that number up . It got at the issue a different way . So your warning is if you go under 15 we 're going to look — real hard at what you 're doing? Batzli : Yeah . I think that just puts it on the table because that 's what _ we 're going to do anyway . Conrad: But you 're not interested in going down to 10 . Batzli : I ' ll be candid . If Lundgren came in and said they were going to develop some houses like they did up in Near Mountain and do a good job and the people knew what they were getting into , I might not have a problem _ with it . Those people appear to be happy . The houses don 't turn over every 10 months or anything like that but it 's going to be a case by case basis and I don 't even know that the City Council has comfort that we even want to give developers an opportunity but I say let 's float it up there and let them shoot it down and tell us what they want at this point . Let 's get it up there so they can consider it and I think that it potentially could be done right . I haven 't seen necessarily a small lot development in— this city done right yet but it could be done and I think it 's a case of the developer coming in and Paul dealing with the developer and basically we 've got to put our trust in the people in the planning department . _ Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 37 Conrad: How do you get to small lots Paul? How do you get to higher density? How do you get to density transfer? How do you get more density on part of this property and less in another Paul? Krauss : That 's what your intent statement does . And you 're basically - clarifying the issue . You 're saying there are things on properties that we find of value and we can list what those are . I mean the list is , mature stands of trees . Interesting terrain and to the extent that you can demonstrate that by the use of the PUD that you 've accomplished extra ordinary preservation of these things , then the City will consider or may consider flexibility in other areas such as lot area . Conrad: Do you recommend that we have a minimum set out there for developer purposes given the nature you feel? Krauss: I would say that you probably , just as a matter of comfort level I would think you would . I mean I don 't want , I continue to go back to , I need a bare minimum to tell the developer whether or not that lot that they proposed is a utilizeable lot . Now if we get at that by saying , I 'd - rather , instead of maybe saying not saying 10 ,000 feet . I like the approach of saying you 'll have a useable lot area that can accommodate a home . Same thing as you just did with the on site sewer and those lots . Demonstrate this . Batzli : So in addition to what we just told you to do , you would like something in there that talks about , you have enough , you can demonstrate that a house and the backyard and a deck can fit on there? Krauss : Right . Batzli : That 'd be fine with me . That 'd be fine with me to include that . Now the Council may look at it and say , I still hate it . You 've got to put a 13 ,000 square foot limit in there . That 's fine but let 's send it up there and let them do it . Conrad: But then we really haven 't done diddily with our PUD ordinance . The previous ordinance is probably better . Krauss : Well the previous ordinance allowed all the transgressions that occurred . Conrad: So are we going to net out anything? Are we going to net out someplace better with this ordinance? Krauss: I think if an ordinance comes together and it 's ultimately approved along the lines that we 're just mentioned , I think that 's yeah . - That gives the creativity with the control . If we 're going to go back into the straight jacket that we had originally which doesn 't , seems to give a developer some latitude but doesn 't give the City anything , I 'd advised you to just drop it . Batzli : Any other discussion on this? Go for it Paul . Planning Commission Meeting -- March 4 , 1992 - Page 38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 19 , 1992 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: — Krauss: I ' ll skip through that . The only thing of interest I think there was Commissioner Batzli was at it and Dick was at it , Councilman Wing . We had a Council goals setting meeting last Saturday? Last Saturday or the Saturday before . Last Saturday and we discussed a variety of things . They told me that I couldn 't have any more than 30 minutes because last year I _ hogged the floor I guess but we did talk a lot about TH 5 corridor in particular and there is a lot of support for doing it . It 's still a matte' of doing what exactly and how much is it going to cost . One .of the things we laid on the table is a relatively recent occurrence and it has to do with the Federal Highway Act . The Federal Transportation Bill stands all previous highway funding bills on it 's head . Don Ashworth is amazed that the original highway bills go back to 1956 under the Eisenhower — Administration and really have changed in any significant way since then . The new bill basically sets out not only funding for highways but for transit and pedestrian access and for building bridges and for projects that seek to tie a community together rather than having a highway split it— apart . That have specifically allocated funds for design amenities . There 's a specific provision in there to build wooden bridges . I mean there 's all kinds of things in there and the highway folks are amazed that — it came down the way it did . Bill Morrish has been talking to me about it because he apparently had some input with Moyanhan 's committee in Washington where the bill was drafted . The long and the short of it is , we 'd like to think that we have some potential for making TH 5 a demonstration project and tapping into those sources of funds . So we 're going to try and figure out exactly what that entails . MnDot really doesn 't know yet . And put together a package to get going on the work . Batzli : Do you want to let the other commissioners know what happened on the TH 5 corridor study as far as the consulting and things like that? Do -. you want to touch on that as far as the presentation at the Council meetinc last Monday . A week ago Monday . Whenever it was . Krauss : Oh , oh , oh . Yeah , well basically I forwarded your recommendation and the work that 's been done to date and again the Council was very supportive of doing it but balked or really had some trouble understanding where we 'd come up with the money to finance it . We were directed to clarify that a little bit . The Mayor asked that I get some more specific cost estimates . We also were asked to , you know Don Ashworth was asked to see if there 's anyplace in the budget to do that . Don is , for those of you . who haven 't worked with him , he 's really a financial wizard . I mean it 's kind of amazing of his ability to pull stuff out of hats . Unfortunately he 's running out of hats and every time the State government looks to give somebody a knock on the head to make the budget balance , they look to local. ' government and we 're expecting another pretty good hit shortly . So the well may be running somewhat dry but again if we use it , if we structure it that we 're tapping into another , working towards tapping into another — source of funds , there may be some way of shaking something loose . One of the things I stressed to the Council is everybody on my staff is anxious to work on a TH 5 project . It 's one of those trend setting projects that are Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 39 a heck of a lot of fun and really a professional challenge but I 'm going to be real short handed this summer . Jo Ann , as you can see is only going to last another 5 , 6 , 7 weeks if we 're lucky and the amount of new development coming in the door is getting staggering . It 's getting frightening . Emmings: What kind of development? Krauss : Well I ran through a litany of some of it . Some of it you know of . You know Ryan 's obviously going to final plat their 's and get going . Hans Hagen Homes , this one that we talked about here has submitted and is on , not your next agenda . We don 't have anything on your next agenda for right now but your following agenda . That 's for 150 units . The Donovan property up on Teton where the barricade is . Donovan 's the fellow who told you he 'd never subdivide so you didn 't have to improve Teton . Well he lost his property in a Sheriff 's sale I believe and that 's being proposed for 17 - units . That 's on your agenda . We are coming , the fellow we 've been telling you about for 2 years was trying to put together a proposal for the Assumption Seminary actually has submitted a PUD concept plan and it 's - really kind of interesting . I think he 's probably going to try to touch base with all of you just to talk over some of the guidelines they 're working with you and I think they 're working towards setting up a bus trip _ to their , they have a convention hotel facility they built in Stillwater and they 'd like to show us how that place looks . It 's a historic rennovation and restaurant so if that comes together , if you 're willing to do that , that 's something that 's on the horizon . In addition Lundgren is - cranking very hard on bringing in their subdivision north of TH 5 . The one that you saw a year ago in the Comp Plan . Emmings : By TH 41? Krauss: Yes . So we expect to have that shortly . On Rod Gram 's property , they 're supposed to be submitting in the next week another plat for about 150 homes . I got a call this afternoon that Rottlund has purchased or has a purchase option on the Dolejsi property . A 55 acre piece off of Lyman and TH 101 . We also hear that SoftSoap is going to make a decision on a - site in Chanhassen within the next 90 days for 350 ,000 square foot facility and the rumors are ripe as to which site Target 's actually going to go on . Batzli : When do we start seeing all the beachlots also? Emmings : What was that last one? Erhart : Yeah , slow down . Emmings: What was that last one on Target? Krauss : Target is looking at a number of sites in the city . We 've know this for a while but we don 't , I mean Target doesn 't talk to us . The brokers talk to us and they have looked at , sites that they 've looked at are , they looked at the Ward property and apparently that 's not going forward . They looked at the Eckankar site and haven 't been successful with that . They are currently looking at the Burdick piece . Emmings : They 've looked at that before . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 40 Krauss: Well they looked at that before 2 years ago when it looked like they could do that in lieu of Market Square . Oh , Market Square closed . Virtually . No , no , actually the ground breaking is supposed to be on St . Patrick 's Day . Emmings : We can go and buy some virtual groceries at the virtual grocery store . Krauss : No , it 's as good as a done deal . I mean it is a done deal for all intensive purposes so that 's happening . _ Erhart : Where is SoftSoap going? Krauss: SoftSoap is looking at the Redmond expansion piece that they never— built on on that unbuilt section of Lake Drive . By the railway tracks . They 're looking at two , well the Ryan plat that you 're aware of and a potential site on a Ryan plat that really hasn 't come together yet by TH 5 :- They 're looking at the land that McGlynn 's owns on the corner . And they 're looking at that project that Paul Steiner and the Opus Corporation are looking to do on that 190 acres out by TH 5 and TH 41 . Erhart : What 's the Dolejsi? Krauss: Dolejsi is a 55 acre chunk , well in fact when you go home to your — house , when you make that last turn . Erhart : The one that we were talking about? _ Krauss : Which one? Well just as you make that final 90 degree turn , it 's off to your left . North of Kevin Finger . Erhart : The one we were talking about the other day . Yeah . So there is something going on there? Krauss: Yeah , but the original developers for that are not , I mean this now , I just forgot their name . Rottlund Homes . It wasn 't the original group . You go into your office and you get a stack of messages and you get._ another 150 unit plat . It 's kind of mind boggling . There 's going to probably be some difficulty in getting it all done frankly . The difficulty is the city only has so much bonding capacity to finance projects and the Upper Bluff Creek project alone I think is a 4 or 5 million dollar project . Erhart : Oh the sewer and water? Krauss: So even if we have enough people on tap to pay for these things , we still have to go into a debt situation to get them going and we already have one of the highest per capita debts in the Twin Cities . I mean it 's fully financed . I mean it 's backed by development that 's on the ground but it doesn 't look great at the moment . Batzli : When do we start looking at beachlots? Aanenson : We 're shooting for April 15th . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 41 Batzli : So we 're going to have all those on our agendas also . Aanenson : We 're going to try and take 2 or 3 a meeting . Batzli : We 're going to be busy . Okay , we don 't have anything on our agenda for next week at all yet? Do we want to have a little vacation , mini vacation here? - Erhart : We have nothing on the agenda? Aanenson: Unless you want to follow up with that comp plan land use amendment . The one we just tabled tonight . Erhart : Oh the rural thing . - Krauss: Can we play this by ear for a couple of days? We 've got a lot happening at the same time . If we can give you some structure , I mean get back to you on some of these things , then I 'll talk to Brian and we 'll go - ahead . Otherwise we ' ll let you know . Batzli : If your time would be better spent working on corridor study issues , I 'm just concerned that we 're going to make work for you to get something on our agenda for next week that 's taking away from something that needs to get more of your attention . - Krauss : Well it gets mind boggling all the stuff that 's happening right now . Some of it doesn 't involve you directly . It involves me . We 're going into construction hopefully in the next few weeks on the senior center behind that wall . I 've been involved with that intimately . As far as the TH 5 corridor study goes , one of the things we need to do is we need to , we 're getting into some more meetings with MnDot trying to define the study . We 've been working with the school district quite a bit . I was at the School District meeting on Monday night to try and figure out what their needs are . They just came back with demographic projections that projected a 50% increase in school population in a relatively short period - of time and the weird thing is I think they significantly under estimated what 's going to happen . And they 're shocked about dealing with what they think is going to happen . So there 's a lot of things swirling around . Emmings : Is this the Chaska School District you 're talking about? Farmakes: Has there been any discussion for the Middle School? Krauss : Yeah . That 's in fact the case in point . When Ryan was moving ahead , in fact Ryan did submit plans to us for that area north of Timberwood . Remember the concept is that it had to be office or walk like it or look like it and basically of very high quality . One of the conditions was that the school site had to be locked up . Well that 's kind of our role in the public/private partnership . Well the school originally told us that that 40 acre site at the corner was plenty big . And now they 're telling us that it doesn 't meet their needs and their needs are truly astonishing . They wanted 4 baseball fields , 2 softball fields , 2 - football fields , 4 tennis courts . Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 42 Ahrens: They 're right across the street from a park . Krauss: Well to an extent we want to piggyback city recreational facilities onto this but we frankly don 't understand why a Middle School — needs that much . Now we 've been told that the State is now mandating exactly what a school has to be outfitted with . In fact we called the State and we 're getting conflicting information . But they are looking at a_ bigger site . The School District really doesn 't have a handle on what 's happening to it . Farmakes: I had heard terms used as a high school . Then I heard middle — school then I heard high school again . I was just wondering in the interplay between the make-up of that committee . I know it 's oriented towards Chaska . There are more people on that committee that live in — Chaska and I was wondering what that , how that played with the numbers that they 're talking about . Krauss : The numbers weren 't influenced by that . I mean the numbers were prepared by Barbara Lukerman who 's an old Metro Council and University of Minnesota . Farmakes : No , I didn 't mean it for that . What I was talking about where obviously the numbers projected are different for a high school than they are for a middle school . I just heard that flip flopping information about— high school and then I heard middle school . Krauss : There is no definitive position . When we did the comp plan , we worked with a fellow who was then the , not the superintendent but the administrator for the school district and he had told us that their most likely need is for a middle school . And in fact 2 years later we 're finding from the architectural force that the middle school is severely — undersized and inadequate to meet their goals . The high school is equally undersized . What we 've been told is there 's a possibility it could be a high school . It could be a middle school . The politics of the situation , — if I could speculate on that is that there is a very high potential that there 'd be an extreme amount of relunctance on the part of Chaska to lose Chaska High School . So even if it makes sense to do it from an operational physical plan standpoint , and I 'm not sure it does at this point , I don 't — know that there 's a great likelihood that that would happen. But this group that we 're working with is not only doing physical plans . They 're trying to figure out what their program needs are . How they want to break — down classes . They 're in the process of changing athletic conferences to the Lake Conference and I think they need expanded facilities for that . So there 's a lot going on . Farmakes: That 's obviously something where the two communities are going to meet , run into each other in that area . I 'm just wondering if we 're anticipating that it eventually , if they look that far down the road that — we have a high school , we have a middle school because right now we 're sort of dealing with that from a rural standpoint where all that education is centered in one area and we bus everybody from all the communities in . As — we overtake them in population , which it seems to me . Krauss: We did . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 43 Farmakes: I mean even more so . 5 ,000 say . 10 ,000 . What that will incur and where we center our educational system within this city . OPEN DISCUSSION: GROUP HOMES. Krauss : I don 't know what all I can say about it in the interest of being brief . I think we have , we need to clarify some stuff in our ordinance and I tried to tell you what our philosphical position is on these things . That we believe we have an obligation to serve the needs of all our residents in a fair way but right now you 've got a problem waiting to occur . When one of the primary standards for siting a large group home in our community is that it has to have a good septic tank , we 're missing the point . Minnetonka , to give credit where it 's due . It wasn 't me but it was the woman who 's the Planning Director still over there , took some real innovative steps with these things . Ann Perry worked on a Hennepin County committee to help move these facilities around and came up with standards that were really tested under fire in Minnetonka in several situations . One was a group home for troubled teenagers going into an old school . Another _ was a shelter for battered women . What I ask you to do is take a look at the standards in the Minnetonka ordinance . We can adopt something like that . We can work on something else but I threw that on the table because I think it does a fairly good job . Batzli : I liked the standards . It looked to me like it buffered it . It took into account size and impact on the neighboring properties so I thought it was a real good , you know use that as a model . I guess that 's what I 'd like to see . What does everybody else say? Ahrens : I think it 's well written . Batzli : Yeah . So do we want staff to draw something like that up? Is that how we want to use up more of that time with? Krauss : I 'd also tell you too , I want to contact Chuck Gabrielson and get his input on it . Chuck is the program director of the only real group home we have in the city right now . I think he 's a pretty decent fella who would give us his comments . Batzli : Straight scoop . Okay . Farmakes: Can I ask a question , since as I 'm not as experienced as some of the people on here . One of the definitions they had in here was mentally ill . Is there a definition for that? It 's kind of a broad range . Krauss : I don 't know . Emmings: I 'm sure there must be . I 'm sure there is . The State has to have one because they have MI programs and they 've got to have a definition . I don 't know what it is though . Farmakes : And there isn 't a definition in here for criminal group home or people who are coming out of prison . Emmings : Halfway house? CITY OFCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director _ DATE: February 27, 1992 SUBJ: Continued Discussion - PUD Residential District At the January 15, 1992, meeting, the Commission continued its ongoing discussions of residential PUDs. Essentially, it was agreed that a clean slate needs to be used and staff was asked to bring in information on other communities' residential PUD standards. In — attached materials, you will find copies of residential PUDs for the cities of Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Eagan, Burnsville, Maple Grove, Plymouth, Maplewood, and Brooklyn Park. In these communities, acceptable lot sizes range from a minimum of 8,700 square feet in — Eagan up to 13,500 square feet in Eden Prairie. The only exception to this is a requirement that corner lots in single family areas in Bloomington be 15,000 square feet (interior lots can be as small as 11,000 square feet). — You will also find a letter from Peter Olin of the Landscape Arboretum in your packet. In _ it Peter suggests that a PUD ordinance might better focus on the intent of the district rather than including specifics concerning lot sizes. I find that I generally agree with him in principle. _ The intent section can clarify a lot of goals aimed at the improved quality of development that is intended to result. As far as an intent section goes, it may not be a bad first attempt. However, to suggest that this represents a legally defensible ordinance that provides sufficient guidance for reviewing future development proposals, is probably somewhat naive. At last Monday's City Council meeting, the idea of minimum lot sizes was discussed briefly _ by the Council. The Mayor and Councilman Wing specifically indicated their concerns about decreasing lot sizes. Planning Commission Chair Batzli and Commissioner Emmings were present during this discussion. Frankly, I think when the question of lot sizes is taken out of context, it is very understandable that City Council members would raise opposition. However, I believe that for this question to be considered adequately, the intent of the PUD ordinance or its goals must clearly be understood, and I do not believe that this was — %I, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission February 27, 1992 Page 2 the case Monday night. Fundamentally, I believe that the matter of intent for the PUD district has not been adequately explored, at least recently, and deserves some attention. Additionally, I think we need to focus some discussion on lot size in general. The problems related to lot size stem from two distinct causes, both of which can be addressed. The first cause is that when the lots were created, there was no real analysis or assurance that a reasonably sized home, deck, and rear yard could be accommodated without a variance. Often due to setbacks, peculiar lot configurations, and other features, we found that after the fact it could not. This problem can easily be responded to by making the developer demonstrate that a reasonably sized home, deck, and rear yard can be accommodated on every lot as a condition of the approval process. The second set of problems stem from our ordinances focus on gross lot area rather than developable lot area. You can have a 30,000 square foot lot that is highly inadequate for normal single family use if much of it is covered by drainage easements, wetlands, or is significantly impacted by surrounding roadways. I really believe that we should be looking at revising not only our PUD standards, but our subdivision standards to establish minimum developable lot areas for each parcel that is created in our city. The last item which will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting are two alternative development scenarios prepared by Hans Hagen Homes for a parcel of land located east of Galpin Boulevard, south of Timberwood, and north of the railroad tracks. The first sketch plan illustrates a PUD concept that would have an average lot size of 15,000 square feet but a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. In this instance, this flexibility provided for by the PUD ordinance would be used to locate smaller lots in what is now a soy bean field and larger lots in a more desirable wooded hilly area with the plat design to protect as much of the forest as possible. Through the use of larger lots in this more sensitive area, the streets are further apart and grading requirements and tree loss are minimized. The alternative plan as prepared by the applicant, shows a straight 15,000 _ square foot lot subdivision with its intended impacts. Under these plans, the straight subdivision option would result in 165 lots, whereas, the PUD concept resulted in 156 lots and is a much more creative and less intensive proposal. I believe the juxtaposition of these two plans will be found to be interesting by the Planning Commission. As is often the case with this sort of scenario, I believe the developer overstated the impact of the straight subdivision to some extent, however, the design issues remain valid. I was ultimately able to convince the developer to completely revise his concept and produce a standard plat that I believe meets our design goals, while maintaining or exceeding the 15,000 square foot lot area. This plan is expected to be submitted shortly for your review. Planning Commission February 27, 1992 _ Page 3 SUMMARY As I have indicated on recent memorandums on this subject, staff does not want to be in _ a position of beating a dead horse. From a professional standpoint, the Planning Staff honestly believes that the city would be better off with an intelligently crafted residential PUD section. We believe that the variety of housing opportunities can be expanded, that _ environmental protection design can be improved, and that there is a potential of providing cost reductions for the home buyer. We further believe that these benefits can be achieved without the problems that have been attributed to this type of development in the past. — However, if there is simply no support for this concept, I would hope that you would be so directive. PUD LOT SIZE SURVEY CITY LOT SIZE Eden Prairie 13, 500 Bloomington Corner Lot 15, 000 S. F. Interior Lot 11, 000 S.F. Eagan Up to staff/ Smallest existing lot 8 ,700 S.F. Burnsville 30% deficient of 15, 000 S.F. which is the standard/ Corner lot 12 , 000 S. F. Interior lot 10, 000 S.F. Maple Grove 10, 000 S. F. _ Plymouth Recommend denial of less than 10, 000 S.F./ No minimum Maplewood 10, 000 S.F. for all lots/ Corner lots have frontage of 100 feet/ Interior lots have frontage of 75 feet Brooklyn Park 10, 800 S.F. CITY OF 4 0,.. ..' ' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 N MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: December 31, 1991 SUBJ: Draft Ordinance Changes/Residential Components of the PUD Ordinance UPDATE At the January 15, 1992 , meeting, the question of drafting the section of the PUD ordinance relating to single family developments was again reviewed. As has been the case in meetings since last summer, the most important question being asked is, "Will Chanhassen allow lots containing less than 15, 000 square feet under any circumstances, and if so, how small should they be allowed to be, and what standards should be applied?" In the materials outlined below, staff indicates a belief that this can be done effectively and further believes that the proposal has merit, even has some merit if a minimum 15, 000 square foot average lot size must be maintained. However, we do not want to beat a dead horse and while we think this proposal has merit, if it does not have support by the Planning Commission and City Council, we prefer to find that out once and for all and be able to put this question to rest. At the last meeting, there continued to be a feeling that small lots have caused us problems in the past and there was some indication that there was not sufficient support by the Planning Commission to push this idea further. I related to you conversations I have had with the Mayor and Councilman Wing indicating that they were concerned with the proposal to lower lot area standards and probably would not be able to support it if this came to the City Council . Due to the absence of two Planning Commission members who have been some of the primary people involved in previous discussions of this ordinance, action on this item was delayed to February 5th. The premise under which this was done was that each Planning Commissioner would be allowed no more than five minutes each to lay out their position and a vote will be taken. I would encourage you to keep to this self imposed guideline for two reasons. Other items on the agenda are important and will take a substantial n t«' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Draft Residential PUD Ordinance December 31, 1991 Page 2 amount of time and I am not at all certain that further discussions would prove to be fruitful . In the attached memorandum, I have repeated materials that were presented to the Planning Commission at the last meeting, as well as minutes from the two previous meetings for your review. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY At a series of meetings over the past year, staff has brought proposed changes to the PUD ordinance before the Planning Commission. As you will probably recall, the bulk of the PUD ordinance which pertains to non-residential development in the community was adopted last fall and is now in use. The ordinance is in use as evidenced by Ryan's Chanhassen Business Center PUD. In fact, we even used the ordinance in a residential context for Lundgren's Lake Lucy Road project. However, this did not involve any lots smaller than the 15, 000 square foot RSF standard. At that time, however, because a consensus could not be reached on standards pertaining to residential PUDs, this section of the ordinance was not adopted. Staff has been attempting to resolve outstanding issues for the Planning Commission since that time. The Planning Commission ' s primary concerns stem from the use of the PUD ordinance to allow lots smaller than 15, 000 square feet. We have attempted to present evidence that we believe allows one to conclude that lots smaller than 15, 000 square feet are: 1. Highly buildable. 2 . Represent the potential for high quality residential neighborhoods. Local evidence is Lundgren 's Near Mountain project. 3 . Are cost effective. Economic result from lower land cost and reduced costs for roads and utilities. 4 . Can be used to require higher quality, more sensitive development. In exchange for PUD flexibility and cost savings, the city can expect more from the developer. 5. Can be handled in such a manner as to avoid the problems that have occurred in the past with some small lot developments in the city. Past problems include lots poorly designed to accommodate homes, expansions and decks within setback areas. Staff believes this can be addressed by establishing comprehensive development standards. Last summer, we believed that we had reached agreement on allowing lots down to 9, 000 square feet under certain circumstances, as long as there was a mix of lot sizes in the balance of the development. When this last came before you in September, it was clear that our belief that a consensus had been reached for 9, 000 square foot lots was in error. This memo and the materials attached herein represent our most recent attempts to clarify this matter so that Draft Residential PUD Ordinance December 31, 1991 Page 3 we may move on to other issues. We firmly believe that the PUD ordinance offers significant advantages to the city as well as the developer and should be used more often in the future. We are presenting two variations of the ordinance for your review and comment. The first is the ordinance that you reviewed at the September meeting. It is unchanged except that the minimum lot size has been increased from 9, 000 square feet to 10, 000 square feet. We made this change for two reasons. It seemed more consistent with the Planning Commission' s intent. Secondly, we recently reviewed a preliminary development concept that used the same sized lot quite effectively. Staff supported this ordinance in the past and we continue to do so believing that this sort of development can be handled in an effective and sensitive manner. The second alternative is to allow lots down to the same 10, 000 square foot minimum but require that average lot size meet or exceed the 15, 000 square foot minimum provided in the RSF District. We believe that this approach adds some flexibility, although not as much as the first option. However, it does result in average project densities that are consistent with development elsewhere in the community. Staff has recently spoken to a potential developer on land located near the intersection of Galpin and Lyman Boulevard. On this project, the potential developer, Hans Hagen Homes, would like to utilize reduced sized lots in the open field area closest to the public boulevards. They would like to balance this by using larger sized lots in a forested area located to the north and west. In these areas, the larger sized lots could receive a better price on the market and allow for a lot more sensitivity in tree preservation and to minimize grading. We think this concept has a tremendous amount of merit even though the average lot size is still being maintained at better than 15, 000 square feet. Staff is at a loss as to how to pursue this matter further if a consensus is not reached on one or the other alternatives at the next meeting. If further analysis is desired, your direction is requested so that we may further clarify the issue. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission select one of the alternatives for adoption by the City Council. * Denotes second alternative * CITY OF CHANHASSEN — CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of — the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows: Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family _ Detached Residential PUD's. a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet. 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. * Average lot sizes for the project must meet or exceed 15,000 square feet.* 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 of 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. 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. 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 1 areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. 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. 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 2 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. Section 20-507. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family -' Attached or Cluster-Home PUD's. a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar — dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5, 000 square feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen — Comprehensive Plan. c) Setback Standards/Structures and Parking: _ PUD Exterior - 50 feet Interior Public Right-of-way - 20 feet _ Other setbacks - Established by PUD Agreement d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private _ tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other — plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from — major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted 3 lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation and Yard 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) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. f) 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. Section 2. Amend Section 20-505, Required General Standards, by adding the following: (m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. 4 The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on — the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new — plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running favor of the city. — In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning — is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to 50%. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. 5 — 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 25 supposed to be 6 slips , now because they had 14 that 's okay . Is that what you 're saying? Because these are your neighbors . If you go back to 6 boats to what they 're supposed to have , wouldn 't that create a problem? Emmings: You mean they ' ll burn my house down? David Tester : You live right next to them . Emmings: No , I know . Yeah I 'm putting all that out of my mind . I 'm not - going to sit here , I 'm sure my neighbors would hate me if I said I 'm not in that neighborhood technically but I live right next door to a lot of them , I know a lot of them and they 're going to hate me for saying well back to _ 1982 level . I have no doubt about that but that 's not going to influence me . But maybe they hate me already for other reasons . Now they have another one . Is there any other public comment here on this? Okay . . .and I seconded it and just so we 're all on the same page because I forgot , we 're doing the version of the ordinance that uses an 1982 baseline . Is there any discussion on this in light of the public comment? Then I 'll call a question . Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission approval adopting the ordinance using the baseline document of the size and extent _ of the recreational beachlot in the summer of 1982. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Emmings : When will this go to the City Council? Aanenson : The 10th . Emmings: So if you 're interested in this , follow it on up . Conrad : I think just as a footnote . When these start coming in and if they come before us , we should know , and I think there 's some common sense that has to guide what we do but we should have a feeling for how the current ordinance would deal with a particular situation and I don 't know , which means if under the current ordinance if they have x number of boats - or picnic tables or whatever . I 'd like to know that . And probably the other thing is we should be looking at the site when it comes in . The idea of the beachlot ordinance is for a lot of things . It 's called safety and _ protecting the neighbors and some real common sense type stuff . And sometimes you can have real unsafe situations on big lots and safe situations on small lots . I think we have to take a look at them and again apply some common sense stuff and I think we all hear what you 're concerned - with . The people that are part of the association or the beachlot . I would be fighting for my rights too just like you but I think on our side we can apply some common sense guidelines that make it work . In some cases - it 's not going to turn out totally the way you want but I think we should be able to reach some pretty good decisions . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS . Emmings : I 'm very disinclined to do this with the absence of Tim and Brian because they both had a lot of good things to say about this but I don 't Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 26 know if they 'd have additional things to say . Maybe we 're all kind of — talked out on this issue . I don 't know . Ahrens : The PUD , I think so . Emmings : But Brian and Tim have been particularly interested in this item and I don 't know what to do . What do you want to do? Conrad: I wouldn 't mind talking a little bit about it and then tabling it . Emmings : Okay . — Ahrens: I 'd rather talk about it now or table it and talk about it later . I mean we 've talked about this a lot . Emmings: And have we gotten anywhere? I go round and round . Ahrens : I mean I can talk about this forever tonight and then talk about — it again another night because there are a lot of issues involved . . . Conrad : I just have a real quick question basically and it will last longer . Jeff , you go ahead . I 've talked more. Farmakes : What basis are we using from the 9 ,000 to the 10 ,000? What is the basis that you picked that figure? Krauss : It 's highly scientific . Farmakes : This isn 't like 3 trees is it? Because it 's more than 2? Emmings : Because he feels resistence at 9 ,000 . Farmakes : Is there a financial or glass ceiling or whatever with the developer? I need a 60 x 40 base pad and I need this much square footage . Krauss : To be perfectly honest , Kate and I saw a concept that had been prepared by somebody who 's thinking of proposing what is it a 160 lot subdivision over off of Galpin near Lyman and the premise behind that was , . it 's in the Volk . Yeah , the Volk Farm where the Cellular telephone tower is . And in the open areas he wanted to build a parkway with a number of cul-de-sacs and in those areas where it 's just open field he figured that he would put in the lowered priced home on the smaller lots and those he proposed at 10 ,000 square feet and when he got up into the forested hills near Timberwood he came up with 15 ,000 to 25 ,000 . Well 25 ,000 to 30 ,000 square foot lots which fit in quite well with the terrain and the desire tc-^ protect those trees . Because if you plowed in your normal 15 ,000 square foot lots on a suburban type pattern , you 're going to plow down most of those trees . I thought the trade off made some sense . It seemed to be from a topological tree preservation standpoint it seemed to be an ideal candidate to do and that one used 10 ,000 square foot minimum lots . And the average lot size was in excess of 15 ,000 . It seemed to be a reasonable plan and I said well , I 've tried this 3 times before the Planning Commission . I ' ll try another time . Now your comments about Commissioner Batzli and Erhart are accurate . They have been somewhat the leading Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 27 proponents or opponents of this . I 've had some conversations since with the Mayor and Councilman Wing . I think that they 're somewhat , well they can speak for themselves but they 've indicated to me that they 're not in favor of the decreasing lot sizes . We 're getting to the point where some guidance would be nice . We 're getting asked the questions a whole lot . If it 's 15 ,000 , it 's 15 ,000 . If you have flexibility , we do . Farmakes : I still have just one question with the basis of understanding this . If you don 't give up some lot size , what is the advantage to the developer doing this? Krauss : Well there isn 't much . If you don 't give up lot sizes you have what I think is a highly unusual situation which was the Lake Lucy Road/ Lundgren proposal where it made sense to do it as a PUD because conventionally configured lots didn 't fit because of all the wetlands . _ That conventionally configured streets didn 't fit because of the wetlands and the PUD gave us the flexibility to do that . But that average lot size , granted between useable and non-useable , I think it was 30 ,000 square feet was the lot size and 18 ,000 to 20 ,000 square feet was the useable site . Those are pretty unusual cases . Is that ever likely to happen again , I don 't know . Maybe . Farmakes: Well I , in that particular development , I guess I thought it was a nice development except for a couple of lots and those were the smaller ones . I still , if you were looking at 10 ,000 or 12 ,000 square feet , I mean again it seems an arbitrary number . I haven 't seen the development that you 're talking about and I 'm having trouble understanding if you had an attached garage with a pad that size , you 'd be looking at about a 40 x 40 house and attached garage wouldn 't you? Krauss : We tried to define that a little bit more here . Farmakes: A 60 x 40 building pad is , if you put an attached garage to it , that doesn 't leave you much left for the house . Krauss: Well yeah , if you have a 60 x 40 pad . Each house in Chanhassen is required , well most houses in Chanhassen are required to have a 2 car garage . Farmakes : 20 feet for that and subtract that from . Aanenson : What we 'd suggest is that you come in with some specific models but a lot of homes have the punch out garage with the floor space behind . Krauss: What we tried to come up with was a reasonably sized home pad plus a reasonably sized deck plus a reasonably sized unencumbered back yard . You can 't play baseball in it but . Ahrens: I think we know that they can do it . I mean they did in Near Mountain and then we know that they can have decks on houses and we know that they can have the right sized garage . I don 't think that 's really an issue . I think the issue is just what we want . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 28 Farmakes: What I was getting to after that would have been what percentage— difference do you see with a house like that next to a house on a 35 ,000 square foot lot? Percentage wise and pricing . Krauss : See I don 't think pricing is , well I wouldn 't sell this to you , it the past the City 's gotten burned and you got burned in the Pheasant Hills and Foxpath and a couple of others where these things were sold on the premise . The builder came to you and he said , let me put these things on — 9 ,000 or 10 ,000 square foot lots and I 'll give you cheaper homes . I don 't know if they intentially lied but they weren 't cheaper homes . The homes got bigger as the market allowed it to get bigger and the City had no protections in there to make sure that the homes could fit and that decks could fit and that people had reasonable back yards . It 's a pretty tough situation . I think some of you have gotten calls from Willard on the Board of Adjustments and it 's because he 's seen almost monthly he sees the results of those PUD 's . I think you can do it without it . Now what are the reasons people buy a somewhat smaller sized lot . There 's lots of them . Yeah , maybe they are a little less expensive . Maybe the lot price is — $25 ,000 .00 or $30 ,000 .00 instead of $40 ,000 .00 or $50 ,000 .00 . I can 't guarantee it but it 's reasonable to think it might be . I know in the case of the developer we talked to , he clearly intends to make his big ticket purchases on the nicer lots up on the hill , which makes sense . It lays out well . You also have people that don 't want lots that are that big . Most people move out to this area because they have an imagine of what they want but not everybody wants to mow a third or a half an acre or whatever every — Saturday . They want something a little smaller . Not everybody has 3 kids . I mean there 's a lot of reasons people do a lot of things and we 've heard some people coming to us at Board meetings like you should have protected — me from myself . You should never have let me buy this lot . Well , I have a little bit of a tough time with that . You buy what you buy because that 's what you think you want . But having said all that , I mean I think the flexibility from the design standpoint , the ability to save trees . The ability to work around water features . The ability to lay in streets nicely . The ability to have some variety is a real big benefit . Can we develop without that? Sure . You have in the past . You will in the future . And we 're not here to you know , I think there 's a valid case to be made for using PUD 's but if there 's not a comfort level with it , then let 's move on and work with it the way we have it . Emmings : And that 's the problem . The way I feel like , I 'd like to look at everything as a PUD and none of them as a straight subdivision really because you feel like you have some flexibility . I don 't know if you really do wind up with any but you feel like you might and at least the potential is there . That 's why in a way I 'd just like to say we 've got net density , or densities we want to see depending on the zoning of the — property . Design whatever you want . Just give them a density and say here , you design whatever you want . Conrad : That was my question . Why didn 't we go with a gross density versus? Emmings : If you want to maximize creativity and give them incentive to do things , the trouble is Ladd I think , and maybe I 'm wrong . You can probably answer this better than I but I 'm afraid if that developer does get Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 29 creative and has some 9 ,000 foot lots , he 's going to wind up bringing that in and it 's not going to get approved because there are some people who just plain don 't like small lots . Even though it preserves a lot of open space . I don 't know that but I think I 've had some people call me this week who said just that . I think Brian has argued that , whether he meant it or not . Whether he was being a Devil 's advocate or really meant it . Conrad: Well Brian is the advocate of protect me from myself . Emmings: Well a little bit but he doesn 't want a little lot , and I think there are a lot of people who feel that way . And I wouldn't want to dangle that out in front of a developer . But if we want PUD 's , we 've got to offer them something . We 've got to make it attractive to them and I think the way we do that is by saying you 've got a density figure to work against . We 're going to be watching you to see that you preserve things we like and that you don 't destroy the natural topography and everything else . Do your best and bring it back and take a look . Krauss : You could work it that way . I 'd still stick in the provisions though where we mandate that the developer has to demonstrate to your satisfaction or the Council 's satisfaction that every lot that 's created , bar none , can accommodate a reasonably sized home , deck and a back yard . When you 're talking about some creative developers , I don 't know that that 's the right adjective for . . . Emmings : Well wait . What if a guy wants to do zero lot line stuff? Krauss : Oh well , I think that 's a different . This is an animal of a different color . We cover that in here . Zero lot line homes are certainly a valid housing concept . They 're in demand in a lot of areas . Emmings : Or what if you want to do a retirement thing where you have maybe 3 or 4 units that are hooked together on a cul-de-sac with a whole bunch of open space around it . How do we encourage people to do some things like that? Krauss : Well , you can encourage that and the ordinance does provide for those to go in areas guided for medium density housing . Most communities have trouble chewing on that kind of a concept . Being allowed to go anywhere in a single family neighborhood . Even though I fully agree with you that the density cap is the same , that number of units isn 't going to increase over the normal style . It looks like a different style of development and a lot of people object to having that next to their single family home . So most of the time you find that those zero lot line developments are segregated somehow . Oftentimes they 're in a higher density area . That 's the way it 's done in most the communities I know . Ahrens: I think we should look at creative development . I like PUD 's and I think there 's all sorts of advantages for cities to look at that but the only , you know I look at the Lundgren development over in Near Mountain and if you drive behind it in Pleasant, View , it looks okay . The houses that sit on the little lots . But if you drive inside of it to the front of those houses , it 's crowded in there . You just get a feeling of being crowded in there because the houses aren 't small . The houses are nice Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 30 sized and you get on this little curved street and all of a sudden it 's - crowded . And there 's barely room for cars to park between . If you have , I mean in suburbia everybody 's has lots of cars- right? Especially when you have teenagers . There 's no room to park even between the houses let alone on the street . It 's really small . It 's really tight in there and I think we have to think about not only will a house fit on a lot . Well sure . You can get a house to fit on a lot and some people don 't want to have to mow the lawns and stuff but ' how does it look and how is it going to look 20 -- years from now when we have a lot of big houses on little lots? I don 't know . I don 't know if aesthetically that 's going to be too great and if it 's going to be useable for people who have more than two cars and they can fit them nicely into their driveway . I mean it is crowded in there . I^ don 't know if you 've ever driven in there but it is . And the houses look nice now because they 're brand new houses . I mean it looks okay now . I don 't know . I don 't know how it 's going to be . I think I 've changed my position on the small lot size . I didn 't think it was a bad idea at first but the more I look at those lots in Lundgren , I 'm not sure that it 's the best kind of setup for Chanhassen . I don 't think it 's so great if you have— a bunch of houses developed in just a little area and then you have a nice park 3 blocks away . Is that a better development than having all 15 ,000 square foot lots? Emmings : What are you saying? That you think there should be a minimum lot size then? Ahrens : I do . Emmings : And what is your figure? Ahrens : I think it should be 15 ,000 . Errimings : Okay . Now if we did that , if we said we want a minimum 15 ,000 square foot lot size , would there be any incentive except for the odd piece of property like Lundgren ran into over here . Would there be any incentive for a developer to us a PUD? Basically he 's working in the subdivision ordinance . Krauss : A PUD is a rezoning . Cities have a lot of leeway as to what kind — of conditions they apply on a rezoning action . Developers are business people . They 're not going to plat . If the developer brings you a plat without any variances , you 're obligated to approve it . No if 's , and 's or but 's . You can add some reasonable conditions but you can 't be arbitrary — or be creative or whatever words you want to use . The PUD opens the door to the city saying I want more parkland and I want you not to build where these hills are . I 'd like you not to build where these trees are . Whatever . Ahrens: You can 't say that if a developer comes in and you say , you 're _ required at 15 ,000 square foot lots we can 't say you can 't build on that crest of that hill and you can 't , you have to have so much parkland . We do that now . Krauss: Yeah , but the suburban development pattern is an improvement over the grid system that you see in Minneapolis. Not much . I mean it 's 192O 's Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 31 technology versus 1940 's technology . You know curvalinear streets help and . you like to think that when you have a 15 ,000 square foot lot or better you 're able to save a few trees that you don 't have to tear down when the house gets built but basically it 's a very land intensive and often abusive way to develop . Emmings : This underlines , Brian said facetiously I think . Maybe not . Raise your minimum lot size in the subdivision ordinance to a half acre and then we 'll have all PUD 's that we can do what we want to . That 's not a bad idea maybe . This is like quitting smoking . You do like 100 times . Conrad : There 's a good article in the planning , whatever the planning magazine is that we get on this same thing . I don 't know if anybody read it . I guess the forecast is going to , people wanting big lots in the past and the forecast going to smaller lots and how creative PUD 's can be handled . Emmings : How small is small? Conrad : I don 't know if they really said a number . Yeah , I don 't know . But it was really appropriate in light of this thing . I 've vacilated because I 've always been a large lot proponent but on the other hand , over the years I 've seen less and less advantages to the large lots . If you can preserve some of the other stuff you get around but we 've never been able to figure out how to preserve this other stuff . You open up some land , what are you going to do with it? Farmakes : Demographics are changing and the market . We 're all getting older . Emmings : Not all of us . Farmakes : Well I 'm not but you guys are . Ahrens : But is 15 ,000 square feet really that big of a lot? I mean we 're not talking about . Krauss: It 's a highly personal choice . I mean you know what you bought and you know why you moved here and it was a personal decision for you and your family to decide . I can tell you that from the metro area standpoint , we 've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area . Now Minnetonka , one of our neighbors , has the largest one but there 's not a home built in Minnetonka today for under $350 ,000 .00 . Emmings: But the reason 15 ,000 is significant only because that 's in the subdivision ordinance . I mean that 's why you can move the numbers around but they are arbitrary and 15 ,000 has significance only because that 's the number in the subdivision ordinance . • Ahrens : Right but everyone talks about 15 ,000 as a large lot . Emmings : No , it 's only significant because it 's in the subdivision _ ordinance . I think that 's the only significance of it . Big and small , that 's all relative . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 32 Farmakes: What about 12? I mean I 'm still getting back to my original _ question when you picked 10 because you saw a development you 'd like . Would 15? 12? Is there a commercial level where it no longer makes sense for a developer? Krauss: I don 't know . Maybe in fact there is . If they do their proformas and they find out . Any decrease in lot size theoretically allows them to save on linear street frontage . To save on linear utilities and to theoretically , if you allow them to and we didn 't plan on it but if you wanted to get more lots in , then they make more money . That 's the way the developers all see it and we 've had people come in the door saying you 're not going to let me cram 10 ,000 square foot lots on this cornfield with no amenities . Chaska would let me do it . We 've told them to leave because we weren 't interested in that kind of development . The only context we saw was getting the higher quality . I don 't know what the break point is though . The presumption that we 've had is that the developer may in fact get some additional lots out of it , especially when you 're at the lower end but everytime we 've considered the lower lot sizes it 's been with added conditions like more open space and we 're going to protect more of the trees and we 're going to do this and that . So it 's always been a . trade off . Developers also don 't like to have all their eggs in one basket . You don 't like to have only 15 ,000 square foot lots to sell . You like to have a variety of home sites . Emmings : The market may change during . That makes sense . I don 't see hov— we can , it seems to me we 've got to offer them something and if it isn 't lot size , I don 't know what it is . Otherwise I think we 're wasting our time . On the other hand , I don 't like 10 ,000 square foot lots . Farmakes : You don 't have to accept it in the development proposal though right? If you don 't like the way it works out in the percentage , then this is a guide correct? — Krauss : Well , under the PUD you have a great deal of latitude . It just occurred to me too when you 're talking 12 ,000 square foot , the ordinance up— until the time we start tinkering with it allowed PUD 's on 12 ,000 average lot size? Emmings : No , wasn 't it minimum? Olsen : 13 ,500 . Emmings: Wasn 't that a minimum and they still had to maintain over 15 or over average? Olsen: I think it was like 13 ,500. Krauss : And did anybody , did we determine that nobody used that? Or does that predate Lake Susan Hills? The PUD 's that you had in town predated the imposition of that 13 ,500 average . I think they did in the later phases but they predated . . . Emmings: Lake Susan Hills was never a PUD . You 'll never convince anybody who was up here at the time that that was a PUD . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 33 Olsen: And you didn 't pass it . - Emmings : Planning Commission didn 't . City Council did . Conrad: Well it 's sure sounding that there 's lots of folks that say we don 't like the small lots . We 've got two people missing that we know that 's their posture . Joan for sure . Jeff you 're sort of bordering . Farmakes : I think it 's a dilemma for me because I think it 's a very smart - idea to do this . However , the problem is that if you don 't offer them something to do it , why would they do it? It makes no sense . Conrad: That was the point of looking at the PUD ordinance . Nobody was doing it under the past ordinance . It was motivating nobody . Farmakes : It could be very mutually beneficial though with certain types of properties . And if you don 't give them that smaller lot size , again they 're not going to do it . - Conrad : See I persuaded myself to go along with the 15 ,000 foot on average and the 10 ,000 minimum because the 15 protected what we 've been running with and we 've been going a pretty good job no matter what . Sometimes there hasn 't been a terrific amount of creativity but overall I think it 's really not bad what 's been going up . So the 15 in my mind was to maintain what we had . And the 10 , I think you can still do things in the future at 10 ,000 . It 's cramped . It doesn 't meet my style . I wouldn 't like it but I think some people would and if that 's what they would like and if I preserve what I 'm trying to and that is the openness of Chanhassen , then I 'm not going to get in their way of a small lot . What I was concerned with before , the way the ordinance is written , is we simply downsized the lots and I felt that sooner or later becomes a standard . But now that we have a 15 ,000 square foot average , that still may not be motivational enough to the developer . I don 't know but it may appease me . That was when my question came in , why don 't we play with overall density versus a specific because the overall density has been quite nice? And I don 't care how somebody bundles it together . Farmakes : Have you gotten a response from any of these developers talking about the 10 ,000 square feet? Krauss : We haven 't really waved it around . _ Ahrens: Having an average lot size , that means that you could have like 6 huge lots and a whole bunch of little tiny ones right and still meet the? Krauss : If by little tiny you mean 10 ,000 , yes . Conrad : But you could solve that problem Joan in the intent statement . The intent statement could say that Chanhassen is looking to maintain such and such a character but would compromise to smaller lots . So what you 're doing is telling a developer you 're not looking to have 3/4 of the development and 10 ,000 square foot lot sizes balanced by 380 ,000 square foot lots . You could communicate what you 're looking for upfront in an Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 34 attempt but signal the fact that we could go down in lot sizes to — accommodate . Farmakes : Aren 't you telling them that though with the average lot size . — You 've got to be able to figure out how many units to put on that thing . Doesn 't that determine a percentage like this? Conrad : I 'm not sure . It probably does , yeah . — ( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . ) Emmings: . . .all these 10 ,000 square foot lots in one area leaving . Conrad: But you wouldn 't have a problem dealing with that if it came to you because if the intent statement is there , we know what we 're looking for and we all have this grandiose , cluster this over here . Open up this space over here . We just don 't know how to get there so what I want to make sure is that we 're communicating to the developer so he or she has a — concept of where we 're going and we 're not leading them in the wrong direction . They come in and say oh , that 's not what we 're looking for at all . Ahrens: But then we have some people saying , well I kind of like that and I kind of like this but that 's not really my idea of what it should look like . I mean you know it 's so subjective that way because a developer 's — standing there saying well , we still have a 15 ,000 square foot average lot size . Emmings : But I think Joan , if you 'd want to take the subjective element - out , you put it on a grid and you squash the creativity . If you want to maximize creativity but you want to encourage some clustering and leaving larger tracts of open space , I think you 're always going to have the subjective element to deal with . And I think good developers are going to do it right and you 're going to know it when you see it . Ahrens: True but we 're not always going to get good developers . We 're going to get anybody who has the money to come in and develop the land . Emmings : But on a PUD . Krauss : You have a lot of latitude to object . Also two other things .First of all the intent statement , the way it 's worded right now and this — is language I think we got from you Ladd last time it came up . The intent statement says that 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 concurrently be approved with the PUD . Jo Ann also points out that you can put a ceiling on what will be counted . The size of the lot that will be counted towards the average . You can say nothing over 20 ,000 or 25 ,000 square feet will be counted towards your average lot size . There 's no basis in making a one acre lot . Farmakes : Is that buildable square footage? Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 35 Krauss : Well we 've got stuff in here about that . Now maybe the way , you know . Farmakes: But we got into a little bit of the argument with Lundgren on - the issues of the one up on Lake Lucy Road . He had the plot marks going out to the middle of the wetland . Krauss : Yeah . Your buildable square footage concern 's a valid one but it 's not just valid in PUD 's . I think we should address that for every lot in the city . Subdivisions , PUD 's or otherwise . - Farmakes: I agree . I agree because it 's really deceptive . I mean it may or may not be the intent but when they 're coming up and when they did those graphs and so on , as I said you were looking at lot lines that go down to the middle of something that no matter if they build it on a PUD or normal development , that they could not build on . And it seemed to me like they were trying to sell that in figuring out what the lot sizes really were . Which they weren 't . Emmings : Well they were using that two ways . On the one hand they 're saying we 're preserving all this open space and on the other hand they 're - saying this lot has this many square feet and they 're counting some of that open space and it just seems real contradictory to me . Krauss: We made Lundgren though break out , the table got quite exacting . I mean it said this is a 30 ,000 square foot lot . 20 ,000 of it 's outside the wetland . We figured the average both ways in fact . - Emmings : Yeah . I know you did on that one . And maybe it 's okay as long as that puts everything right up front so there 's no deception there . Farmakes : On the one table I figured out , besides the wetland there 's the setback back from the wetland plus . Krauss: But that 's useable back yard area . Farmakes: Right . That 's what I 'm saying . But it 's useable , how much useable square footage that lot was really. going to be and I figured , just - guesstimating that the one was under 10 ,000 feet . Krauss: But that 's for the building footprint . But for your kids running around playing frisbee or whatever . Bar-be-que pit or whatever you want to do , that 's all high dry ground . Farmakes : Still , anything outside of that you 're going to need a variance for it right? Krauss : To build a structure . Farmakes : Yeah , air conditioning unit , whatever . Conrad: That 's too bad Brian and Tim weren 't here because we ' ll probably repeat this same conversation . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 36 Emmings : We 've done it 12 or 15 times haven 't we? Conrad: I know . Ahrens: Are we finished on this? Conrad: This is going to be close . We do have to wait for them to come back . Farmakes: This is still , the latitude that you 're saying to reject this or reject these plans , do you feel from a practicality standpoint that we can basically reject just about anything? Krauss : Unfortunately Roger was going to be here tonight . He 's stuck in his driveway . He could answer that question more directly than I , but yes . You 've got a great deal of latitude . - Emmings : We 're supposed to listen to a guy who gets stuck in his driveway? Krauss : With a Volvo . Farmakes: If you do get a developer with a lot of integrity and really does meet the intent of what that 's going to be , he can do something really— 'nice with that and it could be very beneficial to the community . But the thing that makes everybody nervous is how small these lots come in . If small lots and a developer with little or no integrity is , like you said , — you 're going to build one 35 ,000 square foot lot and the rest are all going to be 10 ,000 . Krauss : You 've got a great deal of latitude on rezoning actions that you don 't have on a subdivision approval . Emmings : Okay . That 's important insurance . That makes me comfortable . — Does anybody else want to beat this dead horse? Conrad: We should do it . Emmings : We should do what? Conrad: Table it . Emmings: I like that . What a decisive person . Alright . Do we need a motion to table it? — Krauss : No . I 'm used to it . Ahrens : Should we save these so you don 't have to reprint all of these again? Krauss : No , I 'll have to reprint anyway . — Mayor Chmiel : . . .Robert 's Rules of Order . Emmings: We don 't follow Robert 's Rules of Order here . Planning Commission Meeting January 15 , 1992 - Page 37 Conrad: It 's Emmings ' Rules of Order . Emmings: We permanently suspended our rules when I became Chairman . • Krauss: It 's probably going to be a month before we bring it back on . That 's because our next meeting we have one action item . 90% of the meeting 's going to be devoted to the TH 5 corridor . I 've got Bill Moresch who Steve knows from the University coming over with his folks to give you a presentation on what that task force . . .that we 're looking at in terms of broad concepts for TH 5 . I think this is going to become basically the Planning Commission 's baby from here on out . We need to make some - decisions on how to structure the program . Set some goals for it and get going on it so that will be our next meeting . The meeting after that looks like a very heavy agenda . We 've got Rosemount is coming in for a large - expansion . We have potentially a PUD , an industrial one . The one in front of Timberwood . The office park . It 's looking like that 's coming in . That 's going to be a very complex proposal . Well , that will be next week so we 've got a few things cooking so we 'll get this back on as soon as we can . Farmakes : I was just wondering if you had heard how Grand Met was being - met by McGlynn is basically the operation in Chanhassen here . How that was going to affect their operation . Krauss : I 'm not sure . We really need to contact them because they 're most curious about it . They 're not going to vacate the facilities . I understood the article is they bought the facility because it 's the most efficient baking operation in the country . But McGlynn 's also has 35 acres that 's been on the market and I 'm not sure if that stayed within the McGlynn family or if Grand Met owns it and if they 're going to be more disposed to sell it now . It 's a very important corner visually from TH 5 - standpoint . Emmings: As far as this goes , we could maybe approach it this way . That folks should just come in . Next time this is on the agenda , just let people state what their positions are on it in 2 minutes or less and then have a motion and pass or don 't pass something . But we 've talked about it enough . So put it on and then we 'll just make sure , we ' ll sit here with an - alarm clock . Farmakes: Egg timer . Emmings: An egg timer . That 's in Robert 's Rules of Order isn 't it , an egg timer? Alright . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4 , 1991 were noted by the Chairman as presented . - CITY COUNCIL UPDATE . Emmings: We 've got a report from the director that says there 's nothing to _ report . Except he wants to talk about goals . Then there 's this , what 's the map Paul? I mean I recognize it as Chanhassen but what are you showing us? Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 20 Emmings : Ladd . Conrad : No . Emmings : Annette . Ellson: No way . Emmings : Brian . Batzli : It should go somewhere way down the list . Emmings : Okay , Jeff . Farmakes : Somewhere down the list . — Emmings : Okay , and I 'd say no . Why don 't you run that straw vote by the City Council and see if they want us to spend time or if they want you to — spend time on it . Then we ' ll go from there . Willard Johnson: Some gentleman mentioned 2 1/2 acres . Erhart : That was no gentleman . That was me . Willard Johnson: . . .when we were granting variances to the southern part of the city there for building . . .we pushed them to one side of the lot . Erhart : Not anymore . It used to be that way . _ Willard Johnson : We encouraged them to push to one side of the lot because some day you 're going to develop and can 't afford to keep the property . Well this guy can decide to put another place behind him and then he sell< off the other and it could perpetuate a number of homes . Just a small development on 2 1/2 acres . . .so I just thought I 'd throw that at you people . I 've seen so much . Thank you . ._ Emmings : Yeah , thank you . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Ellson : I have a question . What 's an over story tree? Krauss : It 's a deciduous tree with a crown on it . Ellson: Oh! I thought it was big enough to reach the top story of the house or something . Krauss : Hopefully it will be . Erhart : Just throw these terms in once in a while to keep us jumping . MMI Emmings: Yeah . What did we call those trees in our landscape ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 21 Krauss ' Trees . Batzli : Trees from Catagory A? Erhart : Canopy trees . It used to be canopy trees . Emmings: I wondered about that . Krauss: You can call them deciduous . I think we did call them deciduous . Although there are deciduous trees that are , I mean a birch tree is a deciduous tree . Ellson: Those little poplars that are narrow and tall and skinny and stuff wouldn 't be considered an over story one . Emmings : Alright . I 'd like to ask you , in your Section 1 in A and also again in another place . On page 3 at the bottom there and then in paragraph D . It says in no instance shall project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines . I know the answer to this but I just want to see if you do . What does that incorporate here? It incorporates obviously the comprehensive plan guidelines for density but what are we saying when we say that here? Krauss : For example the comprehensive plan designates the low density designation as 0 to 4 units per acre . Maximum 4 units an acre . If you used 9 ,000 square foot lots , and let me see if my math is 18 , you can theoretically get more homes on a site than , you could have more than 4 units per acre . Emmings- : Right , but you 're not going to let them do that is what it 's saying here . Krauss : Right . Ellson: Is that the answer you wanted to hear? Emmings : Yeah . Ellson : You passed . Conrad: I don 't know . So the plan says 0 to 4 units . Emmings: Is low density . Conrad: I guess my problem with A , as soon as you say 9 ,000 square feet , that 's your standard . Emmings: No . Down to a minimum of . Conrad : I know . Ellson: You say we 're just going to get a bunch of 9 ,000 's . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 22 Conrad: Well and they can 't do it but it says to a developer that 's the — potential . That 's our standard . Whereas there 's a difference . Really o. - standard is bigger than that . So my problem , our standard is typically lot sizes in a subdivision or whatever are coming in at 17 ,000-18 ,000 square feet . That 's really what we 're comfortable with in Chanhassen based on history . Batzli : You mean in a regular subdivision? Conrad: Yeah . Emmings : In our subdivision ordinance . Conrad : Yeah . But even a PUD . You 're coming in at , and I don 't know that for sure but most of them are above the 15 ,000 on an average . My problem is the way this is worded . It says our standard is 9 ,000 . It says a minimum and I understand that but I see no reason , you know I feel real comfortable allowing . I feel not real comfortable . I feel comfortable — allowing us to go down to 9 ,000 . square foot lot sizes but that is not our standard . Batzli : Whereas I would agree with everything you said except I 'm not comfortable with 9 ,000 . Conrad: Yeah , you don 't like the 9 because that seems pretty small . See and again it becomes a mix and I want to give developers the opportunity -I , build down to that 9 ,000 and have some open space but still the way , you know you leave in with PUD and maybe you say minimum lot size 9 ,000 and — that becomes what they 'll come in at 10 or 11 , although Paul is saying comprehensive plan guidelines says 0 to 4 . I guess I 'm still a little uncomfortable with that one . Ellson: I think that thing is what 's going to make sure we don 't get too many of those . Conrad: But 0 to 4 , we 're getting what , 1 .8 units per acre? Krauss : 1 .7 gross . Emmings : That 's gross? Conrad: That 's kind of what we like and I don 't see changing that . — Ellson : Unless you know you could leave that huge area of wooded and push a little more over here . Conrad: Right . So that 's where I 'm still comfortable with in that mix and if somebody wants to free up open space with that gross density , then I 'm comfortable going down to that 9 ,000 . Emmings : Well is that part of what 's being incorporated by the saying comprehensive plan guidelines? Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 23 Krauss : Well it is but I don 't think it 's achieving what Ladd wants it to achieve . The comprehensive plan theoretically allows up to 4 units an acre . What Ladd is saying is right . Our average single family project is 1 .7 . We 're giving them additional latitude here to increase density . That 's true . It could . On the other hand , the penalty or what you need to do to achieve it increases with the increase in density in terms of the amount of open space you have to reserve and our expectations of what kind of a project we 're going to get out of it . PUD 's also incorporate slightly greater setbacks around the perimeter of the PUD to help buffer it from adjoining properties . Conrad: Well I don 't understand that Paul . I guess I don 't mind where we 're going but I don 't know how we 're going to get there with this . So the penalty for being in a PUD , and you come in with the 15 ,000 square foot lot size , you 've got to dedicate 1 ,500 feet to open space . So in other words , if this is the same as having a 16 ,500 square foot lot , which we already have bigger lot sizes in our PUD 's and subdivisions already . So there 's not much of a , what we 're doing , instead of having a 16 ,500 square foot lot coming in , we 're going to say no . 15 ,000 over here and then let 's start a little kitty over here of 1 ,500 . Emmings : Where 'd you get the 1 ,500? Conrad : 10% of 15 ,000 square feet . Emmings : That 's 15 ,000 though . That 's not the 9 ,000 . Erhart : Right . But that 's my question too . Conrad : 1 ,500 . 10% of 15 ,000 is 1 ,500 . Erhart : But ask the same question of the bottom one . Why isn 't it , if it 's 9 ,000 square feet average , why isn 't for every lot , why isn 't there , 6 ,000 feet set aside for open space? Conrad : Yeah , that 's where . Erhart : I mean that 's the big discrepancy . Why isn 't it 40% which would _ be 6 ,000? Actually it 's not the 15 ,000 . It 's the bottom one . 25% . Why isn 't it 40%? So if you take , you 've got a 15 ,000 square foot . Krauss : You want to carry the same ratio throughout . Erhart : No , no , no . I 'm just saying what are we trying to accomplish? If it 's 9 ,000 square foot average . Isn 't there a goal if we have 15 ,000 square foot lots . The guy wants to make a 9 ,000 square foot lot . Then doesn 't 6 ,000 go to some kind of open space? Conrad: See that rationale works for me . Emmings: Everybody here kind of likes the idea of clustering but every time something comes in that will allow to do it , everybody gets scared . Conrad : Because we 're trying to make sure' we know . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 24 Emmings : Because it 's scarey . Conrad: Well yeah but you 've got to know how this looks . Ellson: But don 't forget , we always get to approve these things . You 're thinking once it 's written . Conrad: Well you can change it but boy . But you kind of have a sense foi what this is going to feel like or look like once it comes in . And on th€ other hand , do you want to encourage developers to do this? That 's what our last PUD ordinance didn 't do . It was not encouraging . You 've got to give them something to get something that we want , yet most people here ii town really aren 't crazy about smaller lot sizes . If you went out and polled , you 're going to find very few that want to go down smaller . Very — few . You 're talking . Batzli : Then raise our minimum lot size to a half acre . Keep the PUD 15 ,000 and you 're set . You want them to use PUD , everybody will use PUD . Erhart : Average net lot size , is that net of the open space? Krauss : Excluding designated wetland . Erhart : And open space? _ Krauss : No . Erhart : It includes the open space? Krauss : Yes . Keep in mind what qualifies as open space here is listed in E I think . The idea with the PUD , I mean I went through what was it , — the Saddlebrook subdivision today . We had people from Moody 's Investors Service here today . Erhart : The guy 's got to have 25% open space . How can he possibly get tc 9 ,000 square feet? Krauss: It 's not the lot that has it . It 's the project . rhart : I know but if you 've got 100% and 25% of it 's open space , you 've got 75% less . If your minimum lot size is 9 ,000 and you 've got to add another 25% , you can 't possibly get to an average net lot size of 9 ,000 . Krauss: Yeah you could . You 're assuming that everything 's going to be split up as it is in Saddlebrook in individual lots and there is no public or private open space in outlot designations or some other non-residential lot . Erhart : No , I 'm saying you can 't get down to 9 ,000 . Krauss : Sure you could . If you have 100 acres , you can have 49 ,000 squar. foot lots and the rest of it open space . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 25 Erhart : But I thought you said that open space was included in the acreage , included in the net . That 's net of the open space? Krauss: No . The open space percentage , maybe we could clarify that . The average net lot size is , after we exclude wetlands , what is the average lot size they 're giving us . Erhart : Oh okay . That 's average lot size . Okay . Alright . I was thinking that was the density figure . Okay . Krauss : And the open space percentage applies on the entire project area . Erhart : So then you have 9 ,000 . Why aren 't we just taking 6 ,000 and putting that in open space which would be 40%? Krauss : Well , I approached it differently I guess . Erhart : You 're saying to go to a PUD there 's going to be an inefficiency . That inefficiency is that 15% . So in fact what we 're getting is 9 ,000 times 1 . 3 so we 're really getting 12 ,000 . If you took then all 9 ,000 square foot lots , you add the 33% which yeilds 25% open space , then your average lot size , including the open space , is 12 ,000 square feet . That 's what you 've got . Krauss : That 's if you , so you 're going back and you 're aggregating the entire area? Erhart : Yeah , I 'm just trying to see what our average lot size is . Krauss : I think another way to get at this same issue and I think the one that maybe Ladd was leading to , was when you go back into A where we say the cap on this thing is the comp plan . What I 'm hearing you say is that the comp plan cap which , you know the comp plan just talks about density . I mean if you have a 100 acre tract , you can build Cedar Riverside on there and still have the same density . Density that 's consistent with that . Maybe you want to look at lowering the allowable densities in single family residential PUD 's . Erhart : No , but do you understand what I came up with? Brian? Batzli : No . Erhart : I 'm just trying to rationalize the 25% . If you take 9 ,000 square feet and have a whole development and your average lot size was 9 ,000 square feet , you 'd be required to set aside 25% of the good space . Now that 's 25% of the whole development though isn 't it? Conrad: No . Erhart : It 's 25% of the net . Conrad: Of the average lot size . Emmings : No . 25% of the whole development . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 26 Erhart : Of the whole or net? Net of wetlands? '— Krauss: Of the whole . Erhart : That 25% can mean a lot from one parcel to the next because one parcel might be 50% wetland yet he has to provide , he gets a few lots and still has to provide 25% of the whole parcel where the next guy may have 100% developable land and he has to provide 25% . Emmings : Well wait . It says wetlands and other water bodies protected by city ordinance and permanent easement . It can also be used to satisfy up to 25% of the standard . 25% of the 25% if we 're looking at the 9 ,000 linE Erhart : It gets very complicated . Krauss : The idea is to crank out additional open space out of this thing . Emmings : So we should be winding up with more than the 25% . "- Krauss: Well I think you did in the Lundgren/Lake Lucy when you went with 41% . Erhart : Yeah but some of that , anyway . Conrad : But how do you administer that Paul? You know the PUD comes in and it 's got some 9 ,000 . Some 11 ,000 . Some 12 ,000 . Some 15 ,000 and how do you end up with an overall project open space amount? You 've got to apply a percentage times each parcel . '— Ellson : No , the average . Krauss: You come in with 100 acres . You 've got 33 lots . The average loi size is 10 ,000 square feet . You owe us 22 .5 acres of open space . Eatzli : So if he doesn 't have that built into his lot already when he comes in . He may have to reduce lots and then that number changes again . Erhart : I think maybe I can explain what I was trying to get to . Take th-, ideal situation where 100% of the land is developable . Emmings: No wetlands . Erhart : No wetlands . The guy just comes in with a bunch of 9 ,000 square foot lots . Emmings: Only 9 ,000 square foot lots? Erhart : Only 9 ,000 . _ Krauss : The ordinance says you can 't . Erhart : We can 't . Then how can you get to the average? How can you get the average net lot size to 9 ,000? Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 27 Krauss : I supposed it could be thereotically . Ellson: It could be one . You never know . Emmings : It can 't because on an acre we can only have , what is the comp plan going to limit it to? Krauss : Well the comp plan limits you to 4 so on an acre , that 's 36 . Emmings : Thousand out of 45 ,000 square feet . Erhart : You could be a medium density area which allows what , 6 per acre? Emmings : Let 's talk about . Erhart : Now you bring up a good point . Can 't you get to the average of 9 ,000? Krauss : I don 't know . I don 't know that you theoretically can . Erhart : Then why even have this in the table? _ Ellson: We had that thing with the church over here and they wanted to put something in there and it was just one . It 's a possibility . Erhart : Where does it say you can 't get to 9 ,000 . What 's the role I 'm missing, here? Krauss : A requires that you give us a mix of lot sizes so even if you come in with 9 ,000 , they 're going to have to come in with something else . Emmings : They can 't just come in with 9 ,000 . Ellson : It says right there . There are a mix of lot sizes . Erhart : Which line? Ellson : A . The third line down . Erhart : Okay , but we don 't really define mix so if they came in with one 9 ,500 then . Krauss: But you can throw it out . You can do whatever you want to in a PUD . Erhart : Okay , let 's assume they are all 9 ,000 100% developable . Then what you get is on an average over that 100% developable -area a 12 ,000 square foot average lot size when you add back 'in the 25% open space . Then the question is , does that seem right? That goes back to our old ordinance . I _ guess maybe the number where we got that number was the old ordinance allowed us to go to 12 ,000 square foot minimum lot size right? Krauss : I could lie and say that . . . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 28 Erhart : That you figured that all out right? Krauss : That 's a lucky one there . Erhart : Well that 's a . . .does that seem right to us? I don 't know . Emmings : That doesn 't talk about roads or anything else . That doesn 't seem like you 're accomplishing any one thing to me . But I don 't think that 's what 's going on here either . - Erhart : Well what 's going on here is you 're not going to have 9 ,000 and maybe you 're going to have 11 ,000 average but then you 're only going to yeild 20% . So when you take 11 ,000 times 1 .25 and your average lot size now is 13 ,750 when you add that back in . Krauss : But I think one point we keep overlooking is the one that you touched on about the advantages of clustering . In a straight subdivision that 's all roped off and fenced off into people 's backyards . There 's no public good . There was no ability to preserve stands of trees . There 's r� ability to preserve promontory . . This gives you flexibilty to rope off 22' of the site or whatever ratio it is and do good things with it . And still keep the densities relatively low . Conrad : But higher overall than what we 've been used to . Elison : And that 's the carrot that you get them to use . We talked about it before . Conrad: So you don 't mind Annette , instead of coming in at .2 units per — acre , which has been our standard . You don 't mind coming in at 2 1/2 unit or 3 units per acre? Elison: Well number one I ' ll be able to see it . Although probably not me but the idea behind a PUD is they don 't tell you I 've met everything . You have to take it no matter what we choose which is the problem with . Conrad : They 're going to come in and say I met your standards . Elison : But at the PUD , we 're the ones who decide if we like it or not . We don 't have that choice in some other things . Batzli : But then they 'll say fine . We 'll do it under your regular ordinance and tough luck . Emmings : Then we say fine . Ellson: Then we 'll say fine . Then we 'll get what we wanted possibly instead but we have a chance to deny it if we think they 're trying to rape the system or use it in a way we don 't like it . We get that shot . Conrad : I tell you Annette . I ' ll play the record . They ' ll look at the ordinance and say the ordinance allows it and you 're within the guidelines of the ordinance and we ' ll say go ahead . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 29 Ellson : But Paul will be looking at it and he 'll say , this isn 't what we want out PUD 's . We wanted that nice wetland and that nice view . Why don 't you clear up that space and do whatever . He 'll see it first and make that recommendation . Batzli : Let me make a general point here as a person who lives in a PUD . We 're talking about very lofty , fine goals here . Conrad: It doesn 't give you any more credibility . Batzli : It doesn 't but just let me express : Conrad: You 're an outcast in that group anyway . I 've talked to your neighbors . Emmings : I don 't even want to sit next to him . Batzli : Lct me just express , we have very lofty goals here and we think we 're doing public good but I think if you wandered into a PUD and asked the people in the PUD what do you want . They 'd look at you and say , I want bigger lots so I can do the regular stuff that everybody else in the whole , pardon my french , damn city can do on their lot . Erhart : What don 't you buy a different lot then? Batzli : Well but they don 't know . Ell �cn : W'hrt about the people who say I want a 5 minute front lawn? Batzli. : They don 't know . People moving in to these lots are typically , and I ' ll gross over generalization and simplification . These lots are typically cheaper . Maybe Lundgren Bros . builds high priced lots but the other people can come in here and they build starter homes on some of these things . In a lot of cases . They don 't know any better . Even somebody such EE myself who probably should have known better didn 't know any better . I didn 't realize what the difference between a PUD and a regular lot size kac . They don 't recognize the fact . You know you 're looking at a 9 ,000 square foot lot and if that 's a corner lot , you 've got about 2 ,000 square feet to do something on and that includes putting your house and driveway and everything else on there which leaves barely any room on it at all . And before you start talking about global good and wonderful open spaces and everything else , consider that the people that move in don 't give a rip if there 's a park there because they expect a park there whether they 've got a regular lot size or a small lot size . They don 't care . They don 't want to hear that well we 've got a park for you . They 're going to say yeah , and you gave me this dinky lot that I can 't do anything on and you should have given me a park anyway . If we keep on saying Chanhassen is supposed to be good and wonderful , make them put in normal sized lots and get the park in addition . That 's my final and only comment on this . I can 't believe we 're thinking of going down to any 9 ,000 square foot lots . Erhart : Do you have 9 ,000 square foot lots in your PUD Brian? Batzli : I don 't know how big they are . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 30 Emmings : Just his . Batzli : Just mine . I got the corner lot . I got the corner lot and I 'm stuck with it . No but seriously . I do think that if we do this , and you know something 's going to happen and I can see it coming down the tracks _ like a train just about to run me over here . But I would like to propose that at least we require the developers that are putting these in to tell people what they 're getting . They have to tell them what the square footage of the lot is and what the setbacks are on the sides of the homes Give them a sheet . I don 't care . Informed consent . I think we should do that much for some of these people . Erhart : Let me ask you . Let me clarify what you said . Are you saying w' should never allow 9 ,000 square foot lots or an average of 9 ,000 square foot lots? Batzli : I wouldn 't allow any . Erhart : Any at all . Conrad : What 's your minimum? What lot size would you go down to? Ellson : He just said the half acre . Batzli : Whatever the smallest lot size is in the city now , there 's a reason for that . Emmings : Yeah , there 's a reason . Batzli : Whatever the reason is that we 've chosen that . Erhart : Throw a dart at a board . Eatzli : Okay , then we should throw the same dart at the board for the PUC . My recommendation is , if you want control over developments , you increase the minimum lot size and you put the minimum on that you would otherwise have expected as the minimum in the PUD . Don 't be compromising your standards to get a little bit of clustering and a park that you should have gotten anyway . That irritates me . Emmings : If we did what Brian is proposing and raised this to our subdivision standards of 15 ,000 square feet , would we ever see a PUD? Krauss : You just did . Emmings: Right . That 's right . Lundgren Bros . Well maybe Brian 's . I wa-s kind of liking this until Brian . Erhart : We were sold on the 9 ,000 square foot lots because we got a few cJ them up there in Near Mountain and I .don 't know . I guess I haven 't personally gone and looked at them. You 've got a few slides and you can 't tell much from that but staff seemed to think they were okay . Ellson: And I really believe that the market is going to . . . Planning Commission Meeting • October 2 , 1991 - Page 31 Erhart : There 's a big difference between having a few 9 ,000 square foot lots and having a development where the average lot size is 11 ,000 square foot in my mind . • Emmings : But if you say I 've got 100 acres and I 'm going to put 10 lots , ten 9 ,000 square foot lots and leave the rest empty , I take if you have no objection to that . Erhart : No , but that 's not what you 're saying . Emmings : No , I know it 's not but it isn 't the lot size . It 's the ratio to open space per lot size . I can see , we all like clustering. At least we all talk about it . We don 't really know what it is but . Erhart : I 'm not sure if you get 100 9 ,000 square foot lots all together and then you 've got another 25 acres sitting or 50 acres sitting someplace cff to the side . Emmings: We 'd never approve that though . Now you 're painting a picture . Ellson : A worst case scenario . Emmings: No , not even a worst case scenario . It can 't happen because it would run afoul of our comprehensive plan and it would run afoul of the intent that we have in having a PUD ordinance . Batzli : Okay , so make them all 11 ,000 square feet . Erhart : I just wonder if we shouldn 't delete some of those lines down there like 9 and 10 and maybe even 11 and give us another , raise our basement i i ne a little .bit here . In other words , yeah you can have some 9 ,000 square foot lots but don 't even think about coming in here with a 9 ,000 ave:raage . Maybe we set a 12 ,000 average . See what I 'm saying? We 're kind of inviting a lot of 9 ,000 square foot lots the way we have this table here . Conrad : I 'd sure try to do . Emmings : You 'd never have an average 9 ,000 though . We keep coming back around to that . It can 't happen . Only if they came in with only 9 ,000 • square foot lots could you ever have that . Conrad : So let 's take that worst case scenario because we will see it . Emmings: It isn 't possible . Conrad : Why not? Okay , let 's take it . Let 's take the 10 ,000 . Emmings : Do you agree? — Krauss : I agree that it 's not possible . Conrad: Then we shouldn 't have it there . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 32 Krauss : But you know I keep going back to the fact that we had an ordinance on the books for years that said there 's an average lot size of — 12 ,500 square feet . Nobody used it because . Conrad : That was a minimum . That was a minimum lot size . Krauss: No it was an average wasn 't it? Conrad: No , minimum . '-' Emmings: That was a minimum . Conrad: We 're talking here now . I get real concerned when we talk averac_ versus minimum . I am real comfortable allowing some smaller lot sizes but boy that 's not the average . That 's the average , I really don 't want to _ compromise the average . Emmings : But again , maybe we 're getting too specific here . Shouldn 't we be saying to people look . Here 's our subdivision ordinance . Here 's what — you can do . An option you 've got is the PUD ordinance . Under the PUD ordinance you 've can do a whole bunch of things . One of the things you can do is have lots that are smaller than what is required under the subdivision ordinance but if you come in under that , expect to have open space requirements that are going to go up as fast as your lot sizes go down and don 't really expect to have a smaller or a greater gross density . Batzli : Well you wouldn 't be able to have a larger gross density because of the comp plan right? Emmings : Right . Well tell them right up front . Don 't expect to get a larger gross density . And if you 're going to come in below what our subdivision ordinance allows for lot sizes , then as that goes down , the _ open space requirement 's going to go up . And don 't put the numbers in there . Then let them figure out how they 're going to cluster and bring (IL a plan to look at . Krauss : So now put in new criteria? Emmings : Yeah . Then if they want to go with zero lot line or if they want to go with a small lots with detached houses or whatever they want to do , let them figure that out . Batzli : We 're going to be arbitrary and capricious . Emmings : Yeah but within the PUD I think you can . Erhart : It sure helps the process to have some guidelines . Ellson : Yeah , I like Paul 's thing . Plus people come and go reading this ,_ Emmings : You don 't really like it because you want to erase a lot of things . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 33 Erhart : I just don 't think we should think about less than 12 . I don 't know why I 'm picking 12 . I guess because it 's the old number . I would never think about having average lot size of less than 12 ,000 . Emmings : But this really stiffles . These charts to me kind of stiffle the creativity that you might allow somebody to have . Why not let them figure it out? Conrad : Let 's just remember . I 'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth but that 12 ,500 minimum didn 't encourage anything in our old PUD ordinance . It did not motivate anybody so I think Paul 's putting out a carrot here to say hey , let 's motivate them to do this . I 'm just wanting to make sure that we motivate them but we 're not giving away the integrity of the _ community . And I can 't understand what we are getting . I guess what I 'd like to see is some sketches of what this does . I 'd like to see somebody lay out how this would be applied and that doesn 't mean we hire a designer but I need to see what this might look like if somebody came in . And we haven 't , you know Tim 's point is still on the table . It 's still valid . He 's saying to go down to 9 ,000 square feet , we 're giving up 6 ,000 square feet below a standard that we 've set for a subdivision but we 're only getting 2 ,250 feet out of it in open space . Is that the lure? Is that 3 ,500 foot , the developer has a net gain on that one of 3 ,500 square feet . Is that what it takes to get a PUD? And then the question is have we gained anything with that PUD? What have we really gotten . I 'm throwing those things out but I guess I still have a tough time visualizing what this formula does for us . I don 't want to kick it out yet . I 'd rather have it in there because it might be a good guideline but on the other hand I want to know what it does before I approve it . I want to know how it , I 've got to see it and feel it and I can 't right here . Krauss : Well we can sure take a crack at doing that . I guess a couple things have happened too . I think we 're talking about a couple different goals for the use of the PUD . I think in the Lundgren proposal we saw that there was a rationale and a benefit to coming to using the PUD ordinance for a subdivision whose lots averaged 31 ,000 square feet . Erhart : Hold it there . 31 ,000 square feet included a lot of water . Krauss : Yeah . Well and that 's why I threw in the language here excluding designated wetlands because there was an issue with that in the average lot size . Erhart : Average real lot size is dinky . Krauss : But that 's normal . You look at subdivisions around Chanhassen , they 're all like that . Batili : Yeah , I know . That 's what I was saying earlier . I don 't like it . Krauss : I think one of the things I 've been tossing over is maybe we need a minimum net buildable standard for all lots in the city . I mean you could have a 100 ,000 square foot lot if you can 't accommodate a 5 ,000 foot square foot building area , it 's no good . We might want to consider that as an ordinance amendment in the bigger picture . I think it 's certainly Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 34 warranted . That 's why we started giving you tables and we can 't do anything about it except give it to you but giving you tables now where we. say here , it 's a 18 ,000 square foot lot . 5 ,000 square foot of it is wetlands . In fact it was one of the things you requested in Lundgren but we 're starting to do that in everything . Farmakes: If you did that though , wouldn 't you eliminate about 3 of thosE lots that they were proposing there? Krauss : Well again , against what standards Jeff because the lots that arE in there are bigger than we normally get and everywhere you go in Chanhassen we have wetlands . That 's a very common situation . Farmakes : But what Tim said though , a majority of those lots , at least some of those lots were wetland . Standing water and he made a point when he was here arguing that you had to look at the lot all the way out to the- lot point in the middle of the skunk pond which I didn 't understand . Why" Krauss : Because you 've done it in every other subdivision in the city . — Batzli : So Paul says develop a new one that says you need at least a certain minimum area where you can put some building on it or something . Krauss : And not come back , doesn 't say it needs variances because you can 't put a house on it . Now we 've tried to do that . We 've gone through in the last couple years and we 've tried to figure out what we think a - buildable size is and tell the builder that that 's not legitimate but we have no guidelines to do it . If it doesn 't look right , we try to make them fix it . But I think it 's appropriate to , I mean we can do some research i. you like and come back to you but I think an ordinance amendment and it would apply to any lots created in the RSF , RR or A-2 and PUD have to contain a minimum buildable area regardless of how big they are . Farmakes: I think you would avoid what a person is designing that out . There would always be 2 or 3 lots and that many homes that you 're going to have to force just as a matter of economics that you 're going to try to ge in there on whatever 's left over . When I look at that Lundgren , you can almost pick them out with looking at it for 10 minutes as to which ones were , what they had left over and what they were going to try to make a lob, out of . Krauss : Yeah I know what you 're speaking to but every lot in there has a legitimate building site to the extent that we know what legitimate building sites are and we don 't have a criteria . I know that the buildinc sites that are on those lots , even though some of them have quite extensive wetlands , are bigger than we find on a lot of other lots in regular RSF — subdivisions . Farmakes : Most of them did . There were a few that seemed to me as far as_ useable space were on the bottom end of this list here . Krauss : They were tighter and will probably require designed home to fit . So as far as this , I mean I have now become a believer that there 's some Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 35 use for PUD 's , residential PUD 's that don 't lower our average lot size at all . Erhart : That was the question I had . Why , if a guy has a 15 ,000 square foot average , why are we making him set aside any open space? The only reason would be if , yeah I mean why? Conrad : That 's true . A subdivision we 're penalizing so anything 15 ,000 and under however I think we should be getting something in return . That 's where we 're bending our standards . Erhart : Yeah , I always thought that we were taking 15 ,000 square foot let 's say , this idealized lot and if a guy wanted to make it 9 , the city gets 6 for open space and there 's no inefficiency . Right now we 've got a lot of inefficiency . Batzli : What 's the developer 's advantage to doing that rather than they might have shorter stubs? Conrad : Clustering utilities . • Erhart : Clustering . Make them more creative . You might want to get rid of , like up here we let them use less than the standard setbacks . That was a major thing for that . I remember that presentation . That was a big deal that he wanted those houses 20 feet from the street . And so he got that . Emmings : Another flexibility . Krauss : Well and we 're working with Lundgren now on that Johnson-Delache piece between TH 41 and Galpin . There you 're talking 90 or 100 acres . I don 't know what it is and if we look to that . Emmings : Would you do it as a PUD? Kraus: Yeah . Now maybe as a PUD in there , it 's big enough that Lundgren will probably try to market to different prices of homes . Maybe they will have a bunch of 11 ,000 square foot lots . Further on where the land gets a little nicer and more rolling , they may have a bunch of 30 ,000 square foot lots . And your average lot size will probably still come out to be better than 15 ,000 . At that point you don 't look at varying your standard at all . You maintain your average lot size . Emmings : So then you don 't get any . Erhart : So that 's why you 're saying at 15 we should still take 10 because there 's going to be bigger lots that 's going to offset smaller . Okay , now I understand that . Batzli : Would all the open space may be on the larger sized lot end of the development too and then you 've clustered , for the sake of clustering the smaller homes . Emmings : Yeah , do we want to do that? Should they have to have open . If they 're going to have 11 ,000 square foot lots , even though they 've got a Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 36 _ bunch of 30 ,000 to offset it , bring the average to 16 or 17 . If they 're going to have those 11 's , do you want to have to create open space that isn 't owned by another lot . Krauss : Well we said they were willing to accept . Keep in mind when we 're saying open space , the way this ordinance is structured , that 's not soccer fields . I mean if the city wants a park , a percentage of that area can be used to qualify . Emmings: What are we talking about when we say open space? Krauss : You may be talking about . -' Emmings : Places where there aren 't houses . Krauss : Yeah but it could be portions of somebody 's lot . On the Lundgrer deal that 's going to Council in 2 weeks , the tree preservation areas where we 've said there 's no cutting and we 're going to take a conservation easement , that 's all on what will be private property but it 's protected tr a permanent easement . We said that qualifies . Emmings : Yeah , and you 're going to have that same opportunity on the new — one because that all butts up against a wetland too on the south side . Batzli : I just think it 's small comfort for a person on an 11 ,000 square foot lot to know that a quarter of a mile away they preserved a stand of trees on somebody elses private property . Now that person may walk into that knowing full well what they 're purchasing . Maybe they do , maybe they don 't . Maybe as a city we don 't care . I 'd like to take a little bit more— paternalistic attitude . Krauss : I don 't know where you want to draw the line . I mean somebody — walks into a Chevy dealer , they don 't expect to walk out with an Oldsmobil you know . Someplace people have to understand what the limitations are . Clearly in the past . Batzli : We 're looking at the ordinance and we don 't understand it . Do yc _. expect somebody to come into the city buying a lot and say well , I 'm purchasing a PUD . Explain to me all the rules and regs . Would you have — the time and effort to explain it . Emmings : No , but I think Paul is saying if you 're buying a lot you ought — to know the size of it . Batzli : I understand that but . Krauss : Also in the past I think there 's been almost total , I mean these things haven 't been done . Nobody 's done a residential PUD here in 5 years . We still have one building built out but you have a very comprehensive — PUD ordinance now where a lot of things have to be demonstrated and filed with property and made clear and we 're going the extra step like in the Lundgren thing where we 're requiring monumentation of the wetland setback _ areas and things like that . We can do a lot that puts the owner on notice Now if the owner chooses not to read anything or not to call , then we have Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 37 a concern . Now I know the issue Brian that you gave us the letter on the deck . Under the ordinance now as this is written , that wouldn 't have happened . Batzli : Yeah , I understand that . I still have a problem with corner lots , their ability to be 9 ,000 square feet and then you 're looking at , like I said , you 're looking at 2 ,000 square feet potentially of space on the lot other than the setback . I guess I understand buyer beware but after having lived in the community now of 100 homes in my little PUD and talking to most of them and it 's their fault . They don 't read the local paper . They don 't care . They don 't know . They don 't want to know but the minute they want to do something with their property , then suddenly they get into it and the question is , do you want to protect these people or not . Is the City getting something and is what the City 's getting worth raising the eyre of a lot of people moving into the community . Maybe they should have known better but I guarantee you less than 1% will find out that they 're _ living on a substandard lot that the City things they got a tree preserved a quarter of a mile away in exchange for their substandard lot . That 's my point . Conrad: Those people are happy to move into a 10 ,000 square foot lot . Ellson : Who are we to tell them? Erhart : I think if they don 't like it they can always sell it and move to a bigger lot . Ellson: They 've got the choice going in . Erhart : It 's not like they don 't have options and I realize it 's inefficient . Ellson: If something has to be marked off for them or some sort of notification that a lot of people don 't realize they 're within the setback of the wetland and all these other kinds of things and too many come forth and say oh , I didn 't know . That 's why I filled it all in . That kind of thing . They 'll ignore that anyway even though they 'll still say they never heard about it . If they want to do it , they 're going to do it . And you having easements on those protected things is mightly strong now versus a convenant in the past which were worthless in protecting . Krauss : That happens on 2 acre lots too . I think you 're going to have to answer the fundamental question , because I 'm not sure . Do you want , I mean I think we 've demonstrated that the PUD has some validity beyond allowing undersized lots . Now you may well want to allow some freedome for undersized lots instead of minimum but require that the average is consistent with other city neighborhoods . Is there a desire to grant flexibility below the 15 ,000 square foot average or should we structure this so that doesn 't happen? Conrad : When you say average , the 15 ,000 square foot average . That 's the minimum so I 'm not sure what you 're saying Paul . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 38 Krauss : What I 'm saying is you could 'change this around so that you migh;- have a 9 ,000 or a 10 ,000 or 11 ,000 . Whatever you want to set as the minimum lot area that you allow in a PUD . That will give a developer flexibility to put in some smaller lots where those are appropriate . But_ require that the average lot size meet or exceed 15 ,000 square feet . Erhart : That 's our old ordinance . Krauss : Yeah and before we had the Lundgren thing come down , I wasn 't to, sure that anybody , nobody had used the old ordinance . Now the old ordinance was a bad deal for everybody . It was a bad deal for the buyers— It was a bad deal for the city and the city never got what the developers promised which was more affordable housing . There were no guidelines and no standards . But in an area like this Johnson-Delache piece the flexibility that the PUD may give a developer to take like the open cornfield area and do the smaller lots and preserve the larger wooded hilltops for the larger lots and average it out , maybe that 's a worthwhile exchange . I don 't know . — Conrad: Let me interrupt you . I know you 've got a thought maybe . Batzli : Which is new . Conrad: But it 's real easy to agree with Tim 's comment . I can understand what Tim is saying because it makes real good mathematical sense . If we — have a 15 ,000 square foot subdivision minimum , now we 're going to break that rule for a PUD . You can go underneath that down to a minimum lot size of what we ever agree . Whatever Brian feels comfortable with but then yor take the difference between the 15 ,000 minimum and what they just went dot 1 to and you plop that into open space . Emmings : Not on somebody else 's lot . Conrad: No . See all of a sudden , now I 've solved my density . My concern about increased density for the overall deal because I 've allocated that same 15 ,000 . It 's either going to be there in a subdivision or a PUD but I 've allowed the developer to go down and cluster some utilities and save some money but the difference is I 've taken what he 's saved landwise and — I 've put it in our little bank over to the side called open space . Now that one I can visualize and feel comfortable with . But I can 't , I still have a tough time with our formula that we 've got because I can 't tell _ what 's going to happen . I don 't know if it 's , I just don 't know . Now Paul 's comment could be , hey that 's not going to motivate the developer tc do it and that 's a valid . That would be a real valid . Erhart : Yeah , because I think the incentive is still there because he gel ; to put some 9 ,000 square foot lots . Conrad : See I would too but I don 't know that . Erhart : I think it 's very hard to get the average down below 14 ,000 or 13 ,000 . I think it 's more likely you 're going to see the averages above 15 ,000 , even despite the fact that you may have some 9 's and 12 's in therE • Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 39 Conrad: See the word average bothers me . Again I 'm talking about minimum and going below a minimum . We 're not talking about , well . Emmings : That is a problem because if your average gets over 15 ,000 , now there 's no requirement to set aside any open space . Erhart : Well that 's the question I 've got . Now hang on . That 's not the way I read this . I read this as any time you go in a PUD you 've got to put 10% open space period . Is that what I 'm reading? • Krauss: Well , we just changed that to 15 ,000 square feet or above . Erhart : So then anytime you have a PUD you have to put aside 10% open space . Is that what you 're saying? Is that what we want? Ellson: No . I want a lot more than that . Erhart : I mean if a guy comes in at 16 ,000 or 17 ,000 square foot , should we require them to set aside 10%? -- Krauss : What are you requiring of the individual who does a straight subdivision? Ellson : You 're getting at least . Krauss: No , unless the city wants a park there which is the 10% , they give nothing . Erhart : You don 't have to have park fees or parks with the PUD? - Krauss : Yes you do . Erhart : Maybe I misunderstand your question . If a guy comes in with a PUD because he wants to have some setbacks , special setbacks for something . Who knows what but yet his average lot size is 20 ,000 square feet , we 're still going to make him provide 10% open space? Is that what we want? Krauss: I think that 's the theory that we 're getting to here but you 've got to ask yourselves , what if Orrin Thompson wants to do a 1950 subdivision here and the city doesn 't want a park on the property? He 's not giving you a square inch . Batzli : Giving you pretty good fees but you 're right , no square inch of open space . Erhart : Do a 1950 's what? Ellson: Cracker box , cracker box . Krauss : Yeah , your usual suburban subdivision . Straight subdivision . Straight platting . Unless the park board says they need park space there , you don 't have a single foot of open space . Erhart : No , but they 've got to pay a fee . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 40 Kraus : Right . Well so these people are paying fees too . They 're paying identical fees . Batzli : You know how these problems are solved? We just move the minimum lot size in RSF to 20 ,000 square feet . Done deal . Everybody just smirks — when I say that . I don 't understand why it 's such a sacred cow . Emmings : Well , it isn 't . _ Conrad: It costs a lot of money . Batzli : People will come in and do PUD 's then . If you want PUD 's , that 'E ' the way to get them to do PUD 's . But we can 't even decide what we want tF PUD to bc . Conrad: This is not easy . Ellson : Where do we go from here? Erhart : I 'm still trying to understand why , if a guy comes in with an 18 ,000 foot average . The big question is , why might he want a PUD? Krauss : For the reason we found on the Lundgren proposal is that if you throw 30 foot front yards and 75 foot rear yards and 50 foot or 60 foot rights-of-way at them , you have a very difficult time making a legitimate — development out of that thing . He got the flexibility . Erhart : The price you pay then for that is a 10% of it goes to open space . Krauss : And in his case it 's 40% of open space . Batzli : Not under the new formula . — Krauss : No , I haven 't applied the formula . Of the 12 . something acres of open space , 8 of it 's wetland . So you would give them 2 acres of that . Batzli : Get 2 acres , yeah . Emmings : I tell you , well . You guys are always arguing for specifics in — ordinances and I 'm always arguing to keep them vague but all the problems are created by trying to come up with a formula and I don 't know why we can 't just avoid it . I don 't know why you would want to . — Ellson: You 're saying spell the intent out clear enough. Batzli : But if we can 't decide on what 's fair now , how are we ever going to decide the minute a developer walks in unless you have at least an "acceptable range " . You will be expected to provide within this range for open space . 10% to 20% . — Emmings : I could go along with that . Batzli : Yeah , I could go along with that . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 41 Emmings : A statement in a range I could live with very easily . Batzli : The developer will be expected to provide between 10% and 20% open space . End of it . • Emmings : Another statement . If you go below 15 ,000 feet , expect to have a greater requirement . To the extent you have lots below 15 ,000 square feet , expect to have greater requirements for open space . Krauss : For individual lots or average density below that? Emmings : See I tend to go to the individual lots . Conrad: Individual lots . Emmings: Because otherwise I don 't want to see , you know he 's got prime land over here and he 's got 1 acre lots and he 's got a whole bunch of Little houses down here where Brian lives . Those are 10 ,000 square feet . Those ,people are getting screwed . To me . I agree with Brian . It 's no comfort . There may be a certain market for people who want to live in those houses . Krauss : Well but face it . These people probably paid $30 ,000 .00 for the lot when the guy up on the hill paid $80 ,000 .00 . I mean you 're getting something different for a difference in price . Emmings : Yeah , I don 't know . I guess I don 't find comfort in that but I guess I could be persuaded if there 's a market . Maybe there are empty nesters who want a small place and don 't want to spend their time taking care of a yard . We have people starting out who want to get into a house like that . Batzli : See but most people , and I 'll say this and you don 't have to give me sympathy but this is the reason . Most people move in and they expect the community to have minimum standards . Most people don 't understand what PUD is . They don 't understand that what they 're getting is below the minimum community standards in other parts of the city . They don 't understand that . Conrad : But they know what they 're getting . Emmings : They know what they 're getting . Batzli : No they don 't . Okay they know they 're getting a 12 ,000 square foot lot . They don 't know that the minimum throughout the rest of the entire city is 15 ,000 . Emmings : Why do they care? Batzli : Well the question is , why should the city relax the standard? Emmings : To provide that person with something that he wants and can afford . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 42 Batzli : I don 't buy that that house is any cheaper than the 15 ,000 square foot lot . I don 't buy that the PUD is necessarily providing that but that 's just me . Emmings : I think that 's the reason the person bought it . I mean they 're dissatisfied with their house because they moved into a 12 ,000 square foot lot and find out most other people in regular subdivisions have 15 ,000 square foot lots? Batzli : No , they are . Well , I don 't know how to say this but they move — in . It 's a substandard size lot . It 's not necessarily , and under this nE 1 subdivision things are changed a little bit but they still have setbacks and things applied against them and they don 't understand the nuances of — the PUD . That 's my only point that they 're getting a smaller sized lot at they 're not necessarily gaining any benefits from it and I 'm not convinces, necessarily that the city got anything so I 'm looking at it from a lose lose perspective . The people that are moving in . They don 't understand that they 're going to have a strike against them the minute they try to do something on the lot . The City 's really not gaining anything . My question is , who 's getting something other than the developer who had relaxed the — standardc to do the development . Now if you can convince me that we 're providing a different housing market and people are getting cheaper houses and that 's why we 're doing that , then that 's a good enough rationale but L don 't know that that 's why we 're doing it here tonight . Emmings : Now presumably a builder won 't build a house unless he can sell it . There 's got to be a market or he 's not going to sell the house . Batzli : Right , but the question is , who 's winning with this ordinance? Is the City winning? Are the people moving into the city winning , which is , — you know when we 're looking at it I think we have to look at it from two paints of view . Is the City getting something like open space or a park or helping to preserve additional wetlands other than what our ordinance already does . It does comfort me at all that Lundgren preserved wetlands that were already preserved . I mean that just really irritated me . That yeah , we get to count the whole wetlands here as open space . Well you had tc do that anyway . I don 't give a rip . You know , so the City doesn 't really win under that scenario . The people if it 's a , and again don 't feE sympathy but people moving in I don 't think feel they win . So you 've got the people moving in . They 're unhappy usually with the city because they — go to the city . The city says you can 't do anything with your lot so they 're unhappy . The city didn 't get anything . Who won? The developer . My question is , let 's build an ordinance . Make sure we have an ordinance where the people moving in win. The City wins and the developer gets a fair shake and I don 't think that 's happening under this one . Emmings : You know one way maybe to avoid this problem of a developer putting up , having a bunch of big lots in one area and a bunch of little ones in another area which scares me about this . Would be to put something in here that they 're going to have to mix their lots to some extent . And what are you going to do , set up a formula for that? I don 't even know he i you do i t . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 43 Conrad: I go back to the overall . Just real simply , I don 't have a problem . Let 's take a 100 acre parcel . Based on today 's development pattern , on a 100 acres . Somebody could probably put in 200 units on 100 acres . I don 't have any problem taking those 200 units and putting on half of the property and leaving the other half open . Taking the minimum lot size down to 4 units , you know putting it up to 4 units per acre . That 's fine because what I 've done there is we 've got open space and we 've kept the standard that we 've been kind of floating along with . 2 units per acre , even though comprehensive plan says 0 to 4 , practicality has dictated we 're coming in around 2 . Emmings : Or 1 .7 . Conrad : Or 1 .7 so that 's why I want to be able to get . Emmings : I think everybody here would agree with that . Conrad : Cut I 'm not sure I know how to get there . Emmings : Paul won 't . He flexed his eyebrows . Krauss : No , I see . . .45 minutes ago . Conrad : Well we 're missing things . Emmings : But what 's the difference between what Ladd 's saying and what we 're doing here? Krauss : Because what we 're doing here would allow densities in excess of what wo normally experience . Emmings : Does anybody want that? Ellson : I think I could be won over if I looked at it . Erhart : In excess of what? Emmings : In excess of the 1 .7 . What we 've historically done with subdivisions . That 's why I asked right off the bat , it says in no instance shall the project density exceed comprehensive plan guidelines . I wonder if we were incorporating that 1 .7 right there . Krauss : No . Emmings : Well I wonder if we want to . Krauss : Well you might . Conrad: That would make me feel comfortable . That one , and Paul mentioned it before , average consistent with other subdivisions . That one statement gives me the leverage to talk to a developer and then I can throw everything else out . But that one statement gives me something to say , hey I don 't like it because it 's not meeting what we 've seen in 'the past in the overall design of the subdivision . Planning Commission Meeting • October 2 , 1991 - Page 44 Emmings: And then could you throw out this open space table? Couldn 't yc i get rid of all that? Krauss: You could , well . Conrad: I 'd like to give them a way to . Emmings: To what? Conrad: I 'd like to force the open space . — Emmings: But if you 've got your gross density set . If he wants to cluster , you 're going to wind up with open space . You 've set the gross — density for the whole project . Conrad: Yeah . It could still end up looking like a PUD . Or like a subdivision . End up looking like a subdivision though . Emmings : But then if it is a subdivision , he goes under the subdivision ordinance . We don 't care if he_ does because we think we have one that 's okay . Erhart : You can cluster . You can still cluster and use the 9 ,000 square foot lots . Overall density is . Emmings: Is 1 .7 . Erhart : For the low density is one number . Medium density is another number and high density is another number . EmmincE-. : Right . Here 's the framework . You 're stuck with . Erhart : That would really serve the same purpose as this . Ernr„ings: Do what you want . Bring it in and we 'll take a look at it . Batzli : But they wouldn 't have to necessarily provide open space . They could just make bigger lots . Emmings : But if they want that approach Brian , why wouldn 't they do a subdivision? Batzli : No , if they could put a couple 9 ,000 square foot lots in there and just put 37 ,000 and end up with the right density . They wouldn 't have provided any open space that isn 't privately owned. Emmings : Okay , would that bother anybody? — Erhart : That 's what you 've got here too. I mean this open space is bases, on average . Batzli : That 's right . Erhart : So you can do the same thing with this . — Planning Commission Meeting OctoLer 2 , 1991 - Page 45 Batzli : Right . I understand that . Well I don 't like that aspect of this either . I mean that 's why I 'm viewing this as the developer wins . The city loses . The people that move in lose except for the people on the 37 ,000 square foot lots and they didn 't have to move into a PUD anyway if they didn 't want to . Conrad : I don 't perceive it that way . Ellson: I don 't either . Batzli : I know but I 'm just , somebody 's got to argue against it because otherwise this whole commission . . . Ellson: Were you here the night they gave that presentation of all the different ones? There were a lot of win situations there . Batzli : I gave you Tootsie Pops to soften you up but it didn 't work . Emmings : Order in the court . Jeff , you haven 't said anything . Farrnakes : I think it should be 1 .7 and I think that that point was made quite a while ago . Conrad: The rest of us missed it . Farmakos : It 's still going to become quite cloudy whether or not it 's in , it seem;`; to nee that the advantage of a PUD is financial anyway . One way or the other for the developer . Why would a developer develop a piece of property if it wasn 't in their financial interest? Emmings : They wouldn 't unless they 're stupid . FarmakeE. : Going on that basis , I think if 1 .7 is the average size , if that 's what it works out to , I think that still gives them the leverage . That still gives them the leverage to utilize pieces of property . Because of the terrain , will develop otherwise . Emmings: What would be the gross density on the Lundgren one that we just went through here? Krauss : 1 .4 units an acre . Erhart : Why don 't we just ask them to go back and look at that . We 've spent a lot of time discussing this . We 're obviously not going to pass anything tonight . Look at that approach versus this approach . Krauss : Would you like me to get , you only heard from one developer . There 's a lot of them out there who have worked in this community . Should we get a panel of them together? I mean we can get real assenteric and dig this thing real deep and come up with an ordinance that makes absolutely no sense to somebody working out in the field . If they 're not going to do it , we ought to know about it and just drop it . Planning Commissi'on Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 46 Emmings : But wouldn 't they want , you know if I 'm a developer and I come to you and I say , how can I develop and you show me a subdivision ordinance . I say okay , I don 't like it . What alternatives do I have? You say okay — well you can develop it the same density but we can give you lots of flexibility in your road construction and your setbacks and your ability to cluster , you can develop your property any way you want to as long as you — don 't exceed this number and as long as we like your plan . It makes sense for the property and we can protect some trees and things like that . Wouldn 't a developer be interested in that? _ Ellson : How 's that different than our own? Emmings : If it was that vague? Krauss : A developer like Lundgren that 's fairly perceptive and understands that and is design oriented , yeah they will . But you 've got to realize when you 're going through a PUD you 're asking a guy to go through a rezoning which they really wouldn 't have to do . It exposes them to any 3/Sths . They need a super majority to approve the rezoning . They only need a simple majority to approve a plat . It 's a lot more work for them come up with all this stuff . I don 't know if it 's worth it for them . I honestly don 't . Emmings : Why don 't you ask? Rather than getting a panel of them togetheI , why don 't you just run the ideas past them some and tell us what they say . I think . I don 't know , what do you think? You 're talking about another _ presentation here otherwise? Krauss : No . You 've had the presentation . I think come up with a version of this ordinance or leave it the way it is and tell them what other thins"'; you 're thinking about and say the Planning Commission would like to hear from you . Your reaction to this . I mean clearly if the idea is just to motivate , is the motivation that we had with the earlier PUD 's which was — crank out more lots . People get less building space . The City gets absolutely nothing out of it and with a vague promise that it 's going to lower the price of housing when obviously it didn 't , who cares . We don 't _ need to do anything . But I found going through that one with the Lake Luc ' Road one , a rather unique experience because it really proved where the Pl.� was completely valid when it didn 't in any way encourage undersized lots . Emmings : Okay . We 're going to table this . Erhart : There 's some other things here though . I 've got a question here -- moving right along here . Your computer printed out some double sentences Did you notice that? Bottom of the page . ( e ) , bottom of page 1 . You 've got some repeats of sentences and lines . Okay , then on ( f ) . We go to 1 , boulevard plantings . Is this on top of our new ordinance for landscaping - I mean all of a sudden I 'm reading this and all of a sudden we 're require: Krauss: No , it 's not on top of it . Your new ordinance for landscaping — applies in subdivisions . It doesn 't apply in PUD 's . Erhart : It doesn 't apply in PUD 's . So we 're requiring . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 47 Krauss : Well I guess maybe it is redundant because you have to come through with a plat with the PUD . Emmings : Well shouldn 't it apply? Krauss : Well definitely it should . I put it in here to make sure , I wasn 't double hitting . It was to make sure it applied . Erhart : You 've got a lot of requirements here . Your rear yard shall contain at least 2 over story trees . That 's not even in our landscaping . Emmings : Foundation plantings . I don 't remember there being requirements for foundation plantings . Erhart : Where 's this landscaping? Krau__ • That 's new . Batzli : We talkod about this . Ellson: We talked about this though . I remember . Batzli : Us PUD dwellers talked about it at , well it was meetings and meetings ago now but it seems like yesterday . _ Ellen : I remember too a budget or something was going to come out but yeah , we wanted it to apply to that sort of thing . Batzli : These were some of the things that we were going to get from having a PUD in there . It wasn 't going to be a one to one transference of open spa=aa to 15 ,000 square feet . The kind of a deal like you were saying . We were talking about amenities in the PUD . Emrnins : Maybe this section Paul , the overall landscaping plan . Maybe you ought to incorporate our other landscaping plan and then add anything we 're going to add like foundation plantings . Krauss: Yeah , keep in mind too that this was originally drafted in the spring and we 've since gone on and the landscaping stuff has jumped ahead of this and we 've finally got that figured out so there 's a lack of consistency for that . Erhart : I guess the whole thing hits me here is that the whole idea of the PUD was to allow creativity and now all of a sudden , bam . We 're going to ` have 2 over story trees in the rear yard and we 're going to have boom . We 're going to have foundation plantings . We 're going to have boulevard plantings . All of a sudden we 're getting real specific . Batzli : But we didn 't get any creativity . We haven 't got any . Erhart : Well we haven 't done any . I don 't know . Batzli : Yeah but nobody wants to do them . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 48 Erhart : I 'm just surprised . I was surprised when I read this . Batzli : I agree . I think it should be creative . I mean I think this should be win for people who move in . Win for the city . The developer . I should be attractive to them and I don 't see that we 're doing that yet . Erhart : And then beyond that . Batzli : The only people that ever do them are Lundgren . I mean you know and they do it for a different reason . Erhart : Maybe I missed the meeting on this . I was just really surprised . Gee we get the architectural standards . I don 't remember talking about . must have missed that meeting . Is that what we said at a meeting we want architectural standards , and again we don 't even , we 're talking about lots here . We 're not talking about site plans . Ellson : These are the things that . . .remernber this exactly . For this re.ocn they could have the street signs could be a tad different and all _ these . . .They were going to get bushes when they moved in . Just a bare minimum . Erhart : Let me go on here for a minute . Again , if this goes as a PUD we 're going to put guidelines on placement of air conditioners? Do you se the contrast of how it jumps from what concept of creativity to all of a sudden man we 're dictating specifics . The whole thing just hit me like what are we doing? Krauss. : Yeah , but are we talking about 9 ,000 square foot lots or are we talking, about 30 ,000 square foot lots? Emmings : Right . And we 're also talking about maybe some zero lot lines or some , or even some 5 ,000 square foot lots . — Erhart : But that 's in another section which that also confused me . Now all of a sudden we go to Section 20-507 . Now we 're back to the minimum 25 gross area . Am I reading this right? Plus those two pages don't , page 3 doesn 't go to page , let 's see . Bottom of page 2 does not fit with the top • of page 3 . There 's something . There's at least 6 inches at 4 feet in' height can of the PUD , the plan should be developed . There 's something wrong here . A typo . Am I the only guy who saw this? Conrad: Yeah , you 're the only one . I read it and it sounded right . Erhart : Well anyway , it 's confusing to me . Ellson : Brian 's usually the one that finds those . Batzli : I didn 't get past A . • Erhart : In Section 20-507 relates to these zero lot line things? Is that it? Krause : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 49 Erhart : Okay . And those you 're suggesting that we maintain just this 25% gross area of the PUD to be set aside in these protected areas . Am I reading that? Krauss : Yes . We 're talking about fairly intensive . . . Erhart : Oh , I understand . Well because the pages didn 't meet , maybe I thought there was an extra page in there . I 'm just checking . Okay , I 'll stop . Emmings : Are we kind of worn out on this for tonight? Conrad : Yeah . Emmings: What can we do? Ellson : I like his idea . Ask some of the developers . Emmings : Do you think you can make anything out of the pages and pages of comments you 're going to have in the Minutes? Krauss : I can make a lot out of it . The question is , will that bring it to resolution the next time . I still don 't understand if there 's a desire to allow individually or collectively lots below 15 ,000 square feet . Emmings : Yeah . Conrad: Yes . Emmin?._ : I have no problem with that . Krauss : Erian you still do? Batzli : I don 't if that 's average . Erh:.;rt : If 15 's average? Batzli : Yeah . Emmings: Alright , if I have 100 acres and I 'm putting on four 9 ,000 square _ foot lots , you 're against that? Batzli : That 's it? That 's all you 're doing on 100 acres? What else , the rest an outlot? Emming : My average lot size is 9 ,000 square feet so I don 't think you mean what you say is what I 'm saying . Batzli : Well that 'd be wonderful I suppose if they did that . Emmings : It 's silly obviously but I don 't think you mean that you 're against an average of 9 ,000 . Under certain circumstances it could be alright . It 's not what we want . It 's not what 's going to happen but it 's Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 50 not , we shouldn 't just throw it out I •don 't think . I think we should 1eav,E it up to the developer . I really do . Ellson: Yep , I do too . Let us see it . We know what we like when we see it . Batzli : But under this current one . Conrad : But that 's unfair to the developer . Emmings : No it 's not . Conrad : Yeah it is . If we say we like an average 9 ,000 square foot lot size . EE.tzli : He 'll bring it in . Conrad: Nobody here would really like to see that . _ Emmings : Don 't say it . Batzli : If for example they did a single road in . They had a little cul -de-sac in the middle , which would probably be against our rules becaus it 'd be over 1 ,500 feet or something , but they have a little cul-de-sac . They 've got four 9 ,000 square foot lots and the rest of it is an outlot als- the way around it , would any of us really be that against it? Emmings : No . ".ice secluded little thing . Emmings : That 's clustering . — Batzli : That 'd be great . But who in the world is going to do that? Well Lundgren could because each one of those 9 ,000 square foot lots would be — worth about T100K and they 'd just say , well it 's all fair . Ellson: The deer farm that 's behind here . Farmakes : Centex did that in Eden Prairie . They call them Village Homes . Emmings : How did it work out? Farmakes: Just what you described . They offered a variation in price of about 25% from the smaller lot single family homes . Basically they 're a retirement house . You wouldn 't have to mow more than about 5 feet around the house . Ellson : Yeah , and I think that 's a viable option . . .Brian that there are — people that don 't want the bigger lot . Emmings: Sounds great to me . Alright , now you asked a question . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 51 Krauss : I think you 're saying that you are willing to consider lots below 15 ,000 . Emmings : We 'll consider anything . We ' ll consider zero lot lines . We ' ll consider 5 ,000 . 9 ,000 . Krauss : But do you still want to put a ceiling in what you could see? Emmings : Yeah . Erhart : In terms of density? Krauss : Yeah . Emmings: That 's what I want to do . Conrad: Yeah . Eatzli : I would say , if you put density limitations on there , I would also like to see open space that isn 't privately owned . I would like to see that which I don 't think is part of your density scenario . • Emmings : Who owns it? If it 's not privately owned , who owns it? Batzli : Outlot . Krause : But who 's going to take care of . . .? Emminc : Who 's going to take care of it? Who 's responsible for it? Batzli : Well that 's never bothered us before . Why are you going to start now? Do you really think these people in the Lundgren lots are going to be out there fixing their monuments? Get real . Grow up . Come on . Emmings: Brian , I want you to put both feet back on the floor . You jumped from outlot to monuments somehow and that was quite a leap . Batzli : That 's what they used to do . I mean basically my development has an outlot with a monument on it that 's owned by some guy that lives in Cuba or something . It 's not going to be taken care of . So Lundgren comes in and says we ' ll fix that . We 'll make it part of this guy 's lot and he 's got a covenant to fix the monument . Come on . We 've done it in the past . Why are we worried about it all of a sudden right now? Emmings: Let 's please not talk about monuments . That 's a different problem . Batzli : It 's part of their open space . . Krauss : But if there 's a need for public open space , shouldn 't that have been . . . Emmings : That 's park . That 's got nothing to do with what we 're talking about here . That 's separate . Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 52 Batzli : Okay , then make all the open space park . Then I 'd be happy with that . - Emmings : And now it 's the citizens responsibility to take care of it . Then we 're not going to like that . — Batzli : Why? Ellson: What about that same . . .that was behind the people? Batzli : Well all they do is , then don 't grow any grass . Put some trees on it and let it grow . — Krauss : That 's not the way it works . Batzli : Why? Krauss : You get demands for totlots . You get demands to cut the weeds . You get demands to pick up the garbage . — Emmings : Right . No , I don 't think we want . If it 's not parkland and it 's not privately owned in part of the lots , what then? _ Conrad : I think it 's the Emmings Foundation . Batzli : Then make it a requirement that there 's a neighborhood associatic and it 's owned to all the units in the lots . Commonly owned . Let them take care of it . But give them a vehicle to take care of it by requiring the association _ — Erhart : I think the problem is when you 've got this privately owned wooded area that you 're preserving , if it 's privately owned the guy can post things and nobody can walk in it . Batzli : That 's right . I mean what 's the good of , well open space is good visually . Preserve it but it would be better I think if it was useable — because they 're basically and again you guys don 't like this but they 're giving up lot size to get it . Emmings : They 're not . Batzli : Well I view it differently because I live in one . You view it as a detached commissioner not living in one of them . I 'm saying this is whe the people in them view it as , and you can accept it or reject it . You guys all clearly reject it but that 's how they view it . Emmings: It sounds like a detached retina . Conrad : I like the detached chairman . Elison: I think another night with the Planning . Batzli : I 'd simmer down by then . — Planning Commission Meeting October 2 , 1991 - Page 53 Emmings: Yeah , can we talk about this another night when Brian 's not here? Ellson : Yeah , special meeting . Don 't let him know . Emmings: Well . I don 't know . Conrad: They 're really good comments . Emmings : No , I think we 're talking about a lot of important stuff but I think we 've worn ourselves out for tonight . Batzli : Thanks for making me feel good . Emmings : Brian , you 're responsible for bringing up all of the most important things that we talked about . Not let 's see . Minutes . Oh , we 're going to table this and you 're going to figure out . Krauss : Exactly what you said . Emmings : Do it . Just do it . Erhart : This is your commission . Krauss : Well Steve , isn 't this one of the places where you jump in and volunteer? Emmings : I 'll rewrite the ordinance tomorrow afternoon . Conrad: You could make it pretty vague I have a feeling . But I think this would be a case where the Planning Director and the Chairman of the Planning Commission might just get together . Emmings: You never did . Conrad : I know . APPROVAL OF MINUTES_ The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 4 , 1991 were so noted as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Emmings : Let 's see now . Lundgren they put off deciding it . Surface Water Management . Is there any of these anybody wants to talk about? I 'm glad they 're going on the grandfathered recreational beachlots . And you see , ` Comrade Farmakes has been appointed to the sign ordinance task force . That actually exists at this point in time? Krauss: It will , yes . It does . Emmings: They will be starting to meet . That 's going to be tough . Farmakes: New signs are going up I noticed . Krauss: Oh , on the building? Yeah , they are . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 9 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Emmings: This is old business . I don 't know if anybody has come because they 're interested in this item tonight . Is there anybody here that is interested in addressing themselves to this issue? Alright . Why don't you go ahead . — Conrad: What 'd you say? Emmings: Tim . Erhart : Okay . Page 2 here . Boy , I read your Minutes . I was really glad I_ wasn 't here last time . I 'm still wondering how it was that Brian and I were so important in this particular thing . Batzli : I actually came at the start of the meeting and asked them to — postpone it . Erhart : Oh , you did? Okay . Page 2 . Is this Paul or Jo Ann? Paul . Page, 2 there on item number 4 . It says the rear yard shall contain at least twc over story trees . Is that consistent with our new landscape ordinance? Krauss: No , it 's not . This has been going on for a good long time and — things have changed in the interim but I think initially there was a decision that even though we retrenched from that position in the standard subdivisions , that it would be left this way in a PUD because the — expectation was a PUD gave you higher standards of development anyway . Erhart: But to me it 's , in the first place in the landscaping includes 2 _ front yard trees and 1 rear yard . Is that what we ended up with? Krauss: We left it at . Olsen : 3 trees . Erhart : 3 trees . Well you know when the object here is to provide — flexibility and then we come in here and detail what they 've got to do , it seems to be contradictory to what we 're trying to do . I just wouldn 't go along with that . I also think some of the other , well . There 's a few things like that where we get into a lot of detail where we 're trying to spell out exactly what 's to be done and I 'm not sure we 're in line with what our overall goal is . Do we have a definition statement that defines what a single family detached and a clustered home is someplace in our — ordinance book? Krauss: I don 't recall off hand . Erhart: You don 't have to look it up now but it 's just a question . If we 're going to put that in there , that ought to perhaps be defined . Again when we get down on page 3 , I know we 've talked about this one before but , — that 's right I 've got 5 minutes . There 's a few things going on here bothering me about it . Okay , let me give you what I feel about the whole thing . I still think the residential PUD is a good idea but after reading — all the Minutes and talking to some of the Council people and everything , I Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 10 - think we ought to step back for a minute and decide what our standard city lot size here in Chanhassen . And I see in your Minutes , your discussion of the Minutes Paul you make a statement that you feel that you state , that I can tell you from the metro area standpoint we 've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area . Did you mean our current ordinance of 15 ,000 square feet? - Krauss: Correct , yes . Erhart : Do you really , you 'll stand by what you said there? And — Minnetonka is what , 20? Krauss: Minnetonka is 22 . Erhart : Okay , what 's Eden Prairie? Krauss: I 'd have to go in and look . We gave you a table on this about a - year ago . I don 't recall what it was . . . Erhart : Okay , given that you 've got two things . One , it doesn 't appear to _ me that you 're going to get this .through Council this way . And secondly is with the 5 years I 've been on here I 've heard us talk about is 15 ,000 the right size and I 've heard a lot of people come in and- say it 's too small and quite frankly I 've always kind of gone along with 15 ,000 because from a socioeconomic standpoint small seems good . But you know maybe we ought to , instead of trying to pounding on this thing , maybe we ought to go back and look at what our city lot size ought to be because I think it 's time to have that discussion . Secondly , if you 're going to have a PUD that anybody 's going to apply for , they 're going to have to be incentivised and you 're not going to get , I don 't think you 'r•e going to get 10 ,000 square feet through the City Council . So I think if you 're going to have a PUD , you 're going to have to increase the average size of your lots to something like 18 ,000 or 20 ,000 square feet and then incentivise them with something like 12 ,000 to 15 ,000 square feet minimum . Otherwise it 's not going to - work . . . Emmings: I guess what you 're doing now is sort of , this is the problem we 've had all along . Both with the subdivision ordinance and with the PUD ordinance is almost every time we sit down , someone comes up with a new idea and almost everybody changes their idea almost every time we sit down . Just like it 's a thing that keeps slipping around on the table and we can 't put a nail in it . And I don 't disagree with you , it 's just hard to know where to go . - Erhart : Except political reality is , it appears that the City doesn 't want 10 ,000 square foot lots and the Planning Commission wants a PUD ordinance . The compromise is you increase the city lot size so you can still incentivise the developers . Emmings: We always get back to Brian 's point . He made it kind of facetiously . In the subdivision ordinance make minimum lot size half an - acre and then everybody will do a PUD . Planninc Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 11 Erhart: Now half acre is 22 ,000 so maybe it 's 20 ,000 or 18 ,000 or something but . Emmings: Maybe you said an acre , I don 't know . Batzli : I said 20 ,000 . Erhart : Oh , because this isn 't going to fly I don 't think . And yet I think it 's a good idea . To make it work we 're going to have to increase _ the subdivision . Pardon? Ahrens : What did you think was a good idea? Erhart : A PUD . A residential PUD . I don 't think we should be this specific but I think the concept 's good and worthwhile . Krauss : Okay . So as far as what you think we should do as far as taking action on this so we don 't just keep beating a dead horse here , what do you think needs to be done? Erhart : I think we should go back and review our subdivision ordinance and decide what the city wants . Only in terms of what our subdivision ordinance says our minimum lot size is . Without that you 're open . Emmings : It 's not unreasonable , just scarey . Ladd . You don 't want to go back to the subdivision ordinance do you? _ Conrad: Well I 've been through this and maybe that 's not fair to say I should even reflect an opinion . Yeah , I don 't want to do that and I 've been to so many public hearings and maybe that 's the problem but I 've been — to so many . We 've hit lot sizes which I was always a proponent of larger lot sizes but it never flew . And at this point in time I 'm real comfortable with how Chanhassen is developing . I don 't mind the 15 ,000 . Industry says lot sizes are getting smaller . I just couldn 't conceive of us going out and increasing lot sizes right now when I 'm real comfortable with the 15 ,000 . I 'm real comfortable with most of the land that 's being _ developed and I see an industry that says geez , and the public that says hey I don 't know that I want larger lot sizes . And again I say that , you should know that I started on the Planning Commission one , because I wanted to maintain some of the character that Chanhassen had and that was larger — lot sizes . I like that . But I am convinced that lot sizes don 't matter that much . It 's zoning for the other things that you like . It 's zoning for the trees and it 's zoning for the wetlands and it 's zoning for other things and it 's not lot size . So I don 't want to talk lot size at all in terms of going up . I think it is a dead horse and I don 't want to be there . In terms of this ordinance , we 're looking for flexibility in terms of a carrot . We 're looking for a carrot to persuade some developer to put in a PUD and obviously the past carrots haven 't worked . Therefore the best thing we can do is reduce our lot sizes . I 'm not real comfortable with the way the current ordinance or the proposed ordinance is worded because it still could appear to a developer that they could come in and , well I 'm still not sure I 'm comfortable with the wording . I don 't mind the 15 ,000 square foot standard . I don 't mind going down to 10 ,000 feet for a certain_ portion of the units but I don 't know what that portion is . What I don 't Planning Commissi -n Meeting - February 5 , 1992 - Page 12 - want to do is give a developer the idea that really our standard could be 10 when it 's really 15 . I 'm still looking for a larger lot but I don 't mind shifting in a subdivision . I don 't mind shifting density to preserve something and so far I haven 't seen the words yet to make me feel comfortable with that . I don 't mind 10 ,000 but I don 't want to see a development that has one large lot that has 500 ,000 square feet of space and then the other 99% of 10 ,000 square foot , that 's not the character that - we 're building in Chanhassen . But I don 't mind having 10 ,000 square foot lots in a development . I 'll go back to Lundgren and I 've heard some negative things said about that . It still was a classy way that they put onto some small lots in a big development . It 's a good , they did a good job . There were some reasons it looked good . It 's still small . There 's some people who will buy that and you can make lots look good and houses look good on small lots . End of sentence . End of thought I guess . I still like the concept . I don 't like the wording . I 'm still real concerned about the overall appearance of this PUD and I think what Paul could say is , hey . You still have control over it when it comes in and my - only comment to that was yeah , but I want to paint a picture to the developer before they come in of what is acceptable to me . I don 't want to send a picture off that acceptable is a whole bunch of 10 ,000 and just a few of the large lots . Erhart : I have a quick question for Paul . Did we ever have , or anybody , did we ever have a minimum lot size for a subdivision of anything other - than 15 ,000 in the city 's history? Krauss : I couldn 't verify it but I 've heard that , in fact I think I 've heard from the Mayor that at one time it used to be something on the order of 20 . I 'm not sure when that was . Emmings: I don 't remember that . Conrad : We tried a 40 ,000 square foot lot size . A zoning district and it just didn 't fly . Emmings: Matt , I don 't know if you 're familiar . Ledvina : I ' ll pass . Emmings: This has been raging through here for literally years . Okay . - Batzli : My response to Ladd is that it 's not our job to incentivise our ordinance so developers give us smaller lots to protect natural features that our ordinance should protect anyway . You can 't fill in the wetlands - anyway and if they can use the PUD to give us really inky dinky lots , then it 's not being used correctly . If what we 're going to do is have an ordinance to preserve natural features like trees and wetlands , then we _ should draft it that way and make sure we understand what we 're getting into . That we 're going to get small lots and they 're going to be able to count the wetlands in the footage of their lots . And if we want 5 ,000 square foot lots with 6 ,000 feet of wetlands , that 's fine but then we - should change our ordinance to show that that 's what we expect and that 's what we 're going to get and when you develop around a wetland , this is the ordinance you use . I 'm not convinced , you know my original thought on PUD , Planning Commission Meetir - February 5 , 1992 - Page 13 when I first came here and it still is that we 're trying to get people to be creative and we don 't get people who are creative . We 're getting things— that they should have had to give us anyway . So we 're allowing a reduced footage and I don 't believe that the people moving into the community are benefitting at all and I don 't believe the people who are in the community are benefitting at all because they have to preserve the wetlands and they — should have to preserve the trees anyway . So I don 't get it . I just don 't get it . And like I said , if that 's what we 're going to get , then I think we should go back and revisit what the objectives are for this ordinance — because what we heard from Lundgren and the other people were , this is how we 're going to cluster homes and do this and keep open space . Well we 're not getting any of that . We 're getting wetlands . Well we 've got a wetlands ordinance that already protects it . What have we gotten? So I don 't buy it . You know I live in a PUD . The lot sizes are small and I think that the kinds of development that we 're getting in the PUD 's are not , you know Lundgren 's come in and they 've done some very nice ones . We 've got some other PUD 's in the community that aren 't as nice as the Lundgren 's ones . And the people who are purchasing those on the smaller square foot lots are first time homeowners . They 're not necessarily the — people that are going to check with the City to see what they 're getting into and I don 't want to be too paternalistic but they 're going in . They 're buying a lot that the city has said can be undersized but we 're _ going to keep the same setbacks and everything else and the question is , I can use my lot less than everybody else in the city and what have I gotten? What has the city done for me? Well they protected a wetland that they had to protect anyway . Well that 's great . It 's caused problems for the city . — The people moving in are unhappy in a lot of instances . I don 't think it 's promoted either developments which are unique or clustered or anything . They 're just smaller lots and if that 's what we 're going to do , then let 's _ open our eyes and do it but let 's not put in here an incentive for people , for the developers to come in and put stuff on smaller lots and we get nothing in return . And that 's kind of how I feel about this , and you already knew that . Really I 'd like to see us look again and I know we 've — already done it but we at least need to decide as a group why we 're doing this . If we 're going to do it to protect natural features and allow the developers to do it that way , that 's fine but let 's all acknowledge that — that 's why we 're doing it . We 're not going to get a cluster of 10 homes in the middle and open fields around . That 's not going to happen apparently . I don 't know why but we 're not putting the right incentives in it to do _ that . If that 's what we want , then we have to revisit why the Statute won 't accomplish what our goal is . And so I see us as not having a focused goal of what we want . We 've got real good language of intent at the start but maybe it 's too broad . Maybe we want this ordinance to do everything and it can do one or two things . And then let 's concentrate on those things that we really want it to do . Emmings : It will be kind of interesting when it comes to making a motion isn 't it . Jeff . Farmakes : What more is there to say? I guess I 'm a little surprised by this . As I read this and as it was explained to me because it is complicated . I didn 't see this as a major development tool . I saw this as a development tool for a unique piece of property . A piece of property that would be difficult to develop otherwise . There seems to be some Planning Commission Meeting - February 5 , 1992 - Page 14 _ confusion , and maybe it 's from past history that I 'm not familiar with . That if you do have a developer that treats this unethically , I can see where you would deal with some of the problems that you have or some of the problems that you had in the past with undersized lots . It would seem to - me however that if we are going to do this , that there has to be a reason for the developer to do it and we 're just wasting our time here . If you 're going to make it 15 ,000 square feet and it 's already 15 ,000 square foot minimum , what 's the reason for the developer to do it? There isn 't any . If we don 't want smaller lots and we don 't want to compromise on the 10 , make it 12 or 13 , again the comments I made before is where are these _ figures coming from? It 's how much less than the minimum is now will they bite and if we can 't live with 120 x 100 foot lot , well that 's , we shouldn 't be wasting our time with this . I feel it 's unfortunate because I have seen in other parts of the country and I have seen publications and - so on what I feel are interesting developments that take advantage of PUD . But as you said , there 's no sense in doing it unless we 're getting something for it and the same holds true for the developer . And so what we have to figure out as you said , what are our goals here and I can 't help but feel that there are going to be certain lots out there that we 're going to lose out on . In particular the odd lot that 's up there that we were talking about . But the undersized lots proportionately there were , I think were 3 or 4 out of the total so I don 't really feel in that instance that the developer was being , trying to put something by uS . I think that those were leftover lots that in developing they basically couldn 't do anything - else with and they had to try and put them in there to make their bottom line . But I still am uncomfortable with us wasting our time with this thing until we have a consensus of what it is we 're going to do with it . It _ seems the more time goes on it seems the more we are in disagreement on this thing . And getting the feedback from the Council and so on , there 's going to have to be some discussion on this minimum lot size or otherwise I don 't see any reason to continue with it . Ahrens : I don 't have a lot more to say . I talked myself out at our last meeting on this but after listening now to my fellow commissioners , I think - the water is muddier now than it ever has been . I still don 't understand really what everybody wants , and I 'm sure you don 't at this point . It 's getting worst than getting better . I have a problem , and I think my position is getting muddier too . . .but I have a problem developing a PUD ordinance with a smaller lot size than our subdivision ordinance requires just to get people to , just to get developers to develop a PUD if what we get is not what we wanted . Not what we really wanted anyway and I agree - with Brian when we developed the land in the northern part of Chanhassen , we got some nice big ponds but that 's not to the benefit of the development . That 's to the benefit of the landowners who are lucky enough to own the larger lots around the pond . It wasn 't for the benefit of the smaller lots and people who live on smaller lots . I 'm not sure what that gave the city and what that gave the whole development except for the people who happen to live around the pond . I don 't particularly want to go - back and change the minimum lot size on your subdivision ordinance . I agree that there is a problem having a 15 ,000 square foot minimum in a PUD ordinance when that is the minimum lot size of our subdivision ordinance . - And I realize that the trend is toward smaller lots also and I think in some instances that 's good planning also . But unless I can see that we really are going to get value in a PUD by having smaller lot sizes , I can 't Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 15 go along with reducing . I 'd have to go along with the alternative . You have stated here that the minimum lot size in PUD should be 15 ,000 square _ feet which I don 't think is a large lot to begin with . I don 't think we 're talking about huge lots here . Batzli : I think he just said the average has to be 15 ,000 . I don 't think your alternative was that it was 15 ,000 . Krauss : Yeah . We gave you two alternatives but the third one is a 10 ,000 _ minimum . The other is a 10 ,000 with a 15 ,000 average . The third alternative , which is not spoken here is just don 't do it . Don 't have any residential PUD 's . Except to the extent that we had one like Lundgren _ where the average lot size in that was 25 ,000 square feet and it was a rather unique circumstance . Ahrens: The Lake Lucy Road project? Emmings : Do you have any more? I think Joan 's right . It 's getting muddier the longer we work on it . I agree with Ladd , I 've become more and more convinced too that lot size is not , that 's not so terribly sacred to me as it once was the longer I 'm here because if the project is done right , it isn 't the size of the lot . It 's how the whole thing is conceived and executed and that 's why I don 't like this ordinance . ' I don't like writing — down . If you 're trying to maximize the potential for a developer to come in and be creative in the sense that he looks at a piece of property and says , the best way to do this piece of property is to preserve the natural — topography . It 's to preserve the trees . It 's to preserve the wetlands anc all that stuff , which they have to do anyway it 's true and then the houses should fit in this way . I mean that 's sort of , we 've sort of got , at least_ I do, sort of got an idea that we 'd like developers to do that . Sort of _ take the land as a given and figure out how it could be developed instead of just coming in and making it flat and starting over . And I don 't know if that will ever happen but Brian might have a point there that he made tonight that if . Batzli : Might . _ Emmings: Well yeah . It 's unlikely but it 's possible . That if our other ordinances were strong enough , and maybe some ordinances we don 't even have yet were put into place to regulate all the things we care about , maybe we — don 't need a PUD ordinance . Maybe that makes every subdivision a PUD . I don 't know . That might be a whole other way of attacking the problem that I don 't think we 've ever talked about . Erhart : Excuse me but I heard you and Brian both say that there 's an ordinance that protects trees and I don 't think that 's quite exactly accurate . Emmings: Yeah we 've been talking about it . I don't know what 's in place . Erhart : We have an ordinance that disallows clear cutting . We don 't have an ordinance that says you have a stand of mature trees and I can save a whole lot more by having large lots in those mature trees as compared to — Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 16 - just having a bunch of 15 ,000 square foot lots in those mature trees . In fact I think Brian that 's not entirely true that . _ Batzli : Our mature tree overlay map which will probably be out in the near future would help . Erhart: It would help but you can 't project , you will never arbitrarily - write an ordinance that says you can 't cut down a tree where you 're going to put a house and a street . Batzli : True . Erhart: You 're not going to see that so when you have 15 ,000 square foot lots and streets to service them , you 're going to lose x amount of trees where if you could raise the lot size in that area , you could save a significant amount of those trees . I still don 't understand why if we are properly incentivized , why you can 't take and maintain gross density and - allow , incentivize the developer to give the public or the people in that subdivision , that public essentially a public ground and take the ground that he is going to use and make the average lot size smaller . I just don 't understand why that won 't work and essentially Brian you keep saying it won 't work and I don 't understand that . • Emmings: Alright . We 're going to get into a discussion that 's going to go on for 7 hours again here tonight and that 's not going to happen because this is my last act as Chairman . I 'm not going to let it happen . But I think , I don 't care if the lots are small but I care if there 's a whole - bunch of small lots or if they don 't fit . Somehow it doesn 't fit , whatever. that means but I think the way you do that , instead of talking about lot size is you talk about what you 're looking for and you tell them they 're _ not going to be able to go under our traditional gross density . Whatever area you 're in , so you set the density and then tell them , this is the upper limit you 've got . Show us what you want to do and I think that we 've got enough power , because they have to replat the property , or because they - have to rezone the property to PUD , I 'm convinced in my own mind that we 've , you know we 're not in a situation where if they come in and meet our plan , we have to approve it . Because we have to rezone , we can say no and feel like we 're in pretty solid ground and that way I think we get to help the developer in a way . Tailor the property and if you set the maximum density at what we 've traditionally done at 1 .8 or whatever number we pick , or whatever number 's in our comprehensive plan , if they want to bring in small lots , big lots , clustered lots , whatever , but make sure that maybe we spend more time in the ordinance talking about the kinds of things we 're interested in seeing them do in a general sense and not talk about lot - sizes at all . Lot sizes has gotten to be kind of a sacred cow and I don 't know why it is . That 's my view , and we 're not going to get any motion of here tonight . There 's no way . We 're all over the map . Batzli : I 'd support you if you put a guideline minimum lot size in there . Ahrens : I think the reason it 's become a sacred cow is people feel that 's the way to preserve the things they want to see in a development . That 's why lot sizes , trees and open space . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 17 Emmings: But if you don 't exceed the density that we 've traditionally had , how can you? If the project doesn 't exceed that maximum density , how can you get in trouble? I think that 's protects us . Erhart : Really you could take this whole PUD thing and make it one paragraph by saying , the City is open to consider anything you 've got . — We ' ll look at it but keep in mind we don 't have to give you a thing . Emmings: Huh? Erhart : The whole PUD could be put in one simple sentence . We 'll look at anything and we don 't have to approve it . We encourage you to bring in and let us look at it really . — Emmings: No . I think you can say a lot more than that Tim . I think you could say we 're interested in preserving the topography . We 're interested _ in roads that don 't go straight and that follow the natural contour of the land . We 're interested in wetlands and ponds and trees . There 's a whole lot of things that I think you could say that would give them some direction . Erhart : But we certainly don 't have to get into all these details that we 've now got in there . — Emmings: I think the fewer details you 've got the better chance you have of somebody actually using it . Because this thing sounds just like our subdivision ordinance . Just another version of the subdivision ordinance to me . Well , I don 't even know . I think this should be turned over to the new Chairman . I have no idea where we should go with this but we clearly are all over . Krauss : You know , I 'm not opposed . It gets a little frustrating trying to come up with ideas when you 're not sure which way to go . I think there 's — enough merit in this that we can do something with it that I 'm willing to keep working at it . One thing , in the interest of saving time tonight so we can get onto the other item , you may want to do . You may find it _ interesting . We 've got one developer right now who 's already prepared a couple different site plans for a piece of land that you 're familiar with . One is based on his ability to put some 10 ,000 square foot lots in an open soybean field but go with 20,000 and 25 ,000 square foot lots on a wooded — hillside and I think it pretty clearly demonstrates some of the merits of being able to cluster . He 's offered to come down here and show you the stuff or I can show you the stuff if that will help put it into a context . — Alternatively , or concurrently , if there 's a couple three that want to sit down one afternoon or whatever . One morning and knock something out , we 'd be happy to do that too . Emmings: The trouble with , a small group isn 't a bad idea . The trouble with a small group is , there 's a lot of people up here with , everybody seems to have kind of a strong opinion about where they want to see this gr— and I don 't see where the compromise is . Usually you can kind of see a path through the middle of the mess but I don 't know if I can see it here . Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 18 — Batzli : Have we been given guidance by the City Council that they want a minimum square footage in there and we can use that? Krauss: Well and maybe you do want to send this up and get their opinion . I know that the Mayor and Councilman Wing have clearly spoken to me in my office indicating that they 're both opposed to lowering lot sizes . Emmings: Well I wonder if the Minutes , with the statements that we all made tonight , at least everybody 's kind of said what their position is , if maybe the City Council should take a look at that and give us some direction . Conrad: We don 't have any good rationale to send it up to them . Erhart : But they can give us some direction . Whether we should even pursue it . Maybe there 's no interest in it . - Ahrens : . . . I think they should give us direction . Emmings: See one approach is minimum lot size it seems like . One approach is average lot size and one approach would be overall density . Farmakes: Doesn 't it come down to whether the merits' of the PUD are valid . Whether or not they believe that they 're valid . If they don 't , where — they 're going to shift off the minimum square footage . Emmings: Well yeah . If you don 't believe in PUD 's , then you just stick - with your subdivision ordinance . Farmakes : That seems to be the difference between the 15 ,000 and the 10 ,000 . Somewhere within there lies the argument . Batzli : But as Tim said, if we can in fact save more trees and do some things that aren 't in our subdivision , is it worth going to the smaller square footage to incentivize the developers to do it that way? That 's the issue . At what point . I mean it seems like we started this whole thing with lowering lot size to give a further incentive to the developer to do it this way . Apparently we crossed the threshhold of too much incentive and too small lots . Somewhere I suppose there 's a compromise of somebody would actually look at it and want to do it but we don 't think the lot size is too small . Conrad: Well our current ordinance allows the developer to go down to what , 12? Krauss: Well , you eliminated that ordinance last summer . Conrad: Is that gone? Emmings : Yeah , the 12 is gone . — Conrad: Did we ever look at other , you here we are looking at a PUD ordinance as if we 're the first community that 's thought of it . Did we look at others Paul? Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 19 Krauss: I can 't recall if we brought it to you . We have a bunch . I could certainly do that . Batzli : We looked at somebody 's . We looked at at least one . Conrad: I guess I keep going back . We 're struggling to find some standard , some direction and we don 't have any . What Steve has said about gross density , I brought up several times but we 've never gone down that road . For some reason we haven 't gone down that road and I don 't know why _ it is because that seems logical to me . We haven 't explored it . We 're sticking with hard numbers on lot sizes but maybe there 's a couple things that we can do and I ' ll just suggest them . I still am interested in good PUD ordinances if somebody says they 're good . The other thing is I think , we probably should sit down and say , like somebody brought up and maybe it 's Brian , of what are our standards? What are we looking for . What are we trying to get out of this? Going back to Tim , we 're trying to preserve . -- open spaces but when we get the open spaces , who 's taking care of the open spaces? Yeah . Who gets them and so philosophically we have some good ideas but we 're not taking it anyplace . Maybe that 's the case where we sit_ down . I 'm still uncomfortable sending it up to the City Council because we don 't have any direction . Emmings: The only thing there Ladd is , at least 2 people here mentioned — that they 've been talking to City Council members and Paul did too and they obviously have some feelings about it already and maybe we ought to know what they are . I don 't know if , you know it may or may not affect what we — send up to them but maybe if there is a consensus of opinion there already , maybe we ought to at least take it into account . Ahrens: But maybe . . . Conrad: See , that 's my biggest fear . If you don 't know what a good PUD looks like , you sure can kill it real easily . Ahrens: I don 't think we can write an ordinance until we know what we 're expecting . . . _ Conrad: Paul just wants the flexibility to negotiate . Emmings: No , I think that 's what we owe him isn 't it? Isn 't it really . Conrad: Then you can take in particular situations . You can give the long vistas . You know , how do you quantify long vistas and things like that . Batzli : If that is our goal , and I would subscribe to that goal , then your idea of net density is perfect . To do it that way . If all you want is flexibility . Ahrens: The project . . . Batzli : That 's right . And then it 's all up to these guys . Ahrens: Right . _ Planning Commission Meeting February 5 , 1992 - Page 20 - Conrad: Chairman , what do you want to do? Emmings: I don 't know where it should go . I really don 't . Maybe the thing to do is at our next meeting just take it back down to ground zero and talk about whether we want a PUD ordinance and what the goals of it ought to be . And then talk about , once we get a list , if we can at least agree on that much , maybe between now and then think about the alternatives . Whether we want to go with that minimum lot size , average lot size or just density . And also talk a lot about the idea of just having sort of Brian 's notion of having all of our other ordinances , be - happy enough with all of our other ordinances so we don't really care . However they develop the property , they 're going to have to preserve those things which we 're trying to encourage them to protect in this PUD ordinance because that seems to me to be the other approach and then just forget about a PUD . Or have it there as an alternative . Conrad : Then you get into standards . You get into stuff that , 2 trees , 3 - trees , 80 feet tall . Emmings: No . I think we 've got to ask if we want to do that at all . I - sure don 't . I never like writing ordinances that way but I don 't mind in the subdivision but I don 't like it here . So why don 't we throw this one away and start over . Krauss: Fine with me . Batzli : Paul , in the meantime if somebody comes in with a RSF kind of a — PUD , what do we do with it? Emmings: We approved one without having an ordinance already . Krauss : But that didn 't involve minimum lot sizes which that is the issue . I 've been telling developers that they 're welcome to come bring a concept before you but I didn 't see a lot of hope in it . Emmings: Let them read the Minutes of this meeting and they 'll just go away . Erhart : Have you would discarded the concept of forming a small subcommittee to work with staff on the new basis or do you just want to have them work on it? Emmings: Well what do people want? I think we ought to try and develop a list of what we want here . Conrad: I 'd like to see that and I 'd also like to see Paul or Jo Ann talk to the American Planning Association or whatever and get what they perceive to be model PUD ordinances . Krauss : We 've got this in-house . — Emmings: Or the University of Minnesota might have something to offer , now that they 've heard the discussion .