The URL can be used to link to this page

Untitled 22FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request for Site Plan Amendment for a 43,000 square foot office/warehouse building to allow entrances into the building to utilize painted rock face block, located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Mallory Court and Lake Drive West, Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition, Andreas Development. 2. Request for a height variance to install material silos on property zoned IOP and located at 950 Lake Drive, Emplast, Inc. 3. Request for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for a communication tower and 75' monopole and equipment platform located at the northwest corner of 77th Street West and Quattro Drive, 7700 Quattro, Loucks Associates and Sprint PCS. 4. Rezoning request from Single Family Residential (RSF) to Office and Institutional (OI) for property located at 6400 Minnewashta Parkway, Fire Station No. 2, City of Chanhassen. 5. Request for a rezoning request from A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, a land use plan amendment from low density to medium density residential and commercial office to medium density and office industrial to commercial, and preliminary plat subdivision of 120.93 acres and wetland alteration permit for a mixed housing development (383 units) consisting of club homes, manor homes, coach homes, village homes and rental townhomes on 89.5 acres and 2.9 acres of commercial uses and on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located on the northeast corner of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41, Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 6. Receive Input Regarding Lease Revenue Bonds for Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ON -GOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. M 0 CITY OF CgANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Web www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: November 6, 2000 SUBJ: Amendment to Site Plan Approval for Andreas Development — Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen, Lakes Business Park 81h Addition On February 14, 2000, the City Council approved site plan 2000-1 for a 43,000 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 81h Addition, as shown on the plans dated received December 17, 1999, subject to conditions. Both plans approved by the City Council and those submitted for building permit, reflected recessed entrances into the building, mainly glass, and capped by 5 tiers of metal flashing. During a site visit, staff discovered that the applicant changed the exterior entrance finish from pre -finished metal flashing to painted block. This might appear as a minor change and not worth the Planning Commission and City Council's time. However, staff has two concerns. First, from a maintenance standpoint, painted block tends to peel and become an eyesore. During site plan review, we always recommend against painted block. The second concern is the type of message such actions send. "Change the plans from what was approved and the City will still approve it." The applicant stated that they were not aware that such a change needed to be approved by the City. The applicant submitted bids to recover the painted block with metal and feel that the cost is high. Staff sympathizes with the applicant, however, a commitment was made and it should be implemented. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends denial of the applicant's request to use painted block at the entrances of the building located at Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 81h Addition, and directs the applicant to recover the entrances with prefinished metal, as shown on plans dated December 17, 1999. Attachments 1. Application. 2. Bids for recovering the entrances with prefinished metal. 3. Elevations dated received December 17, 1999. 4. Existing elevations. gAplan\sa\chanhassen lakes business park\00- I spr.2.doc I a The City of Clbauhassen. A gowin f community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful narks. A oreat Place to live, work. and Plan ynn Dr L 1 Essex Rd 2 Suffox Dr 3 Burlwood Dr A Pr)4ZP%Alr)r)ri nr I / CD co 2i'll CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: C)o_v OWNER: 4nd.-rAs t��tePr•1cn�Ce � ADDRESS: 75as M;+-cke►1 I o C6 ADDRESS: _7So15 M; +cl,etl 0 0.oC Sdt l o� EclewL V"Oo ." e. Mj TELEPHONE (Daytime) %) g 3%A - -t 4do Cole n Pt-Q; " e M 1J TELEPHONE: C g S:Q Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit ,)C Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review` X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ CV -' A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ' Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NDTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. M PROJECT NAME C l-►anh a s s LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTIONC- JOAv,"a ,n L6+ I - V'"- AddL4--tor TOTAL ACREAGE IJ / A V&-n ANDS PRESENT YES _�_ NO PRESENTZONING /y / A REQUESTED ZONING JV 1A PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION /N f ,� REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION N / A REASON FOR THIS REQUEST-PlarL-kA 61 o c r, n eL.-� This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title; Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 vaill keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further Understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of myknowledge. ,The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature of Applicant Signature of Fee Owner AppTica2ion Received on Fee Paid /p—/z -Op Date Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. • Development Company Telephone Facsimile TO: 7525 Mitchell Road Suite 110 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 [6121 934 - 7800 [ 612 ] 934 -1686 MPANY: FACSIMILE TRANSMITALL SHEET FROM: DATE: FAX: No, of Pages/Inclusive: (!?3 7 RE: a URGENT R REVIEW EIPLEASE COMMENT ❑PLEASE REPLY T ,d LUND MARTIN CONSTRUCTION, INC_ DATE: Tuesday, October 3, 2000 NO. OF PAGES: TO: Tom Korsman Andreas Development 7525 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 FAX NO.: 934.1686 PHONE NO.: 934.7800 PROJECT: Chanhassen Corporate Centre SUBJECT: facia Tom, Please review and call me to discuss. Thanks, Chris Loberg PC: FROM: Chris Loberg Lund Martin Construction, Inc. 3023 Randolph Street, NE Minneapolis, MN 55418 FAX NO.: 612-782-2267 PHONE NO.: 612-782-2250 IF YOU 00 NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE INDICATED PAGES PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE IMMEDIATELY. -'4 DCT-02-0ta IHlea FROM-IBc - -- ---- - R' ID=6050570 PAGBl/6 Innovative Building ine, 849 West $a Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 (612) 885.0262 (612) 885-0570 fax Date: October 2, 2000 Proposal submitted to: Lund Martin Construction Attn: Chris Job Name: Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Job Location: Lot 1- SO Addition _X_Proposal Change Order Addendum's Noted (Budget Pricing) Scope of work: Prefinished wall panel systems (Three options) We propose to furnish and install the following materials and labor as to complete as follows. Option A: Light gauge purlins and 24 gauge prefinished panels installed as to maintain horizontal lines of building. See page #1 - Total $34,372.00 Deduct $8,580.00 to eliminate radiused entry. Option B: Light gauge purlins and 24 gauge prefirlished panels imtal)ed with vertical lines_ See page #2 - Total $30,800,00 Deduct $7,002.00 to eliminate radiused entry. Option C: Light gauge purlins with 4 m.m. Alucobond panels in a standard color and finish. (This design will compliment transom panels within glazing system). See page #3 & #4 - Total $50, 747.00 Deduct $11,190.00 to eliminate, radiused entry, Chris. Once we can core up with an acceptable design, we can fir-n up pricing. W materiel is guaranteed to i* as sP®ciriod, All work to ba, 01ceptance of Proposal., The eb, .0 prices, oor►►Akted in a workmanlike Rglnna► aeeording t0 standard practices. Any alteration or deviitian froth above sp aboecitxatjp�s spccitications, and conditions are satisiaGt o►Y and here 3y ac4ept6d- You are In olving extra coats will be executed ant Ir and w1U baoolne and extra charge ow and upon the estimate. Ali *u?hAdA*d by this signatwm to do the w ,ru as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Agreements contingent upon Strikes, accidenh Of delays beyond our control, owner to Carry tire, tcmado and ether nea yry Date of Acceptance insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workman't Corrmnsation insurance- signature Authorized Signature: RuaySCA0Z k Note., We may withdraw this propos. it if not accepted within 30 days. FrAb7i' - - 2,G. 12 WWW.Unadvid.tom 0 1 .800-U ,&, Roofing Systems UC-700 Arthitedurfil Series NermUdd ROOHMS SYStOM UC-700 Bermuda roofing Is one of the oldest, most Irociffional metal Tam%q profiles cvalubk Copper Wes, Inc., mw9adures UC-700 roofing from 26 and 24 couie sleet 20 oz. topw, and .04r Olurairm vA the Hylor 5000lu/ Kywr 500* w flucrapoIr . pow finish. Theseftfi*%; am wMited for I period of 20 yew& Bermuda roofing condisfs of a 6rhontod derwril W May6used in my residentialor wnpodel opplirollon IMF �hm a Wounal &*fL The poffek are avalichk in continuous leng16, with 9 Va* YOWW exposure to dw wmArz Because of shippiq and Wing cowderations, the rtcommanded tan 1mum length in 24 gauge steel is 20'. This system features a conreaffid &P faft", 11 Is (Scommemed Owl a solid backs be iffiffixed in ot*in instalolMs. COM011 manufadurar for spOk Infaimalian. "UM uOt"GAWOr umma- Lnew0wiwAindwas Uw"c"?&ww AJANWhIffm mnwft X& tA4Aet6 k& Rao= 0940 24 Ow 51"L LK-780 bn-b 11-0" Vllb% No" GftM HY10 salo'/Kyw 5404 "W&M nw"Mr a" by vdvw PANEL DIK ........................... HOM 09 miming is not a souse W - pp� a0li r ' AM6 0 4,11 oGT-e2-mw 3H:04 Y'RQM• xeC _ ...------ --••------- ` � ID.BB50570 PAGE r J i Jt ! ! .r Roofing Systems VC-7 Arthiletterol Series R00%ial systegn The UC 7 Snap•On Standing Scam Fund Want offers 16 designer the 066Y ro dealgn or sPO* vo&4 radius roof pro%. This panel system an bs roD b med is various metak ledadieg 22, 74, and 26 pa galvanized U11AdU1D paiakdgook .132 nrd MO Aatnkd"=abed aluminum, and 16 az. and 20 es. Ar Iftiuml We Sheet CopK It is nwtnntended thm the UC 7yyaad rystem be imided over a solid substrate such os lywoed A on undedoyment of 3V feh. Pouts for momW or can irntelktijons may uhlire open k=j spsteom All UC 7 Po(el S terns are 101"' armed and promsed v�i1h stall•ofthl-W tethnelagY to ensure unpnn&td quaNy and service from rod io fianh4J p►adad, Contact marofaftar far debits regording radius to*j#fiex The UG7 Snap•On Standing SUM Parcel System can be mdiasod to a minimum of 5'�0'. t OMM fopppr frsr the latest tecbnlcal lnformat(on reVAM Ihis panel "AM NOM Od caring K not a to= far tEicrtian 353 NOMrNAL w O in o N o i2' iJ7 2� • O.C. �W-m Wirt i mid, J wsu�a+a'aw 6MM C 1.6w i A+�bel p, Mc cgtnaGroc Jowl Rn% ww�a YN * D ON am ROOFft lyaw kagma►..a,I4 p�414l6utc SOO�h4rum 3/5 0) l'1 C • oI OCT�02-00 16,05•FROl�!=ISC ---• --••- -----•--.. -_. ID=99505?0 FACE'��S�S i 1 1 'Ifewr there ims a #Me ro snowo= e a unique diway, and ft MW4 ofA4,wbond Hare* ft "Wit., -M'to A.Mrk t One-xddnalruallycgwdthe beadquanMofAlucnbMdAOalatto6eQabin example Of The adMInftMive aMces kkmtedat Aktndcse Co►npoaitcs' manor factwitg � c� 8e+dat;, xody,�ae�ttre� deLl�ax A dtrkirg � paean krdr rxNmar wnu sewed Dy viiti>iriq a�adparxy� 1'X 16� eam6ovadwith aZ MWOI MWMthratatnarrpatvl=btadwtldM thedlst►fburo�IYabrfmtart rL aunigae atfadtmeattruthodthotwasrrodtAM7ioataryAirn udllrtQ.irmoec�ittty/tt �ppe. Alusntsoc CompndoM Inc Ina akr. AhundoA cwL A dligme Yr-"GRrat Mom fic. 4 4 -d a �_} Oo � t �dl N� ii d�NN d� N co , # W< tli�' f <m $ma a t ►W— W O V o 'ills J 6 9 A� 4 b a C w = � 2 Ii t .: am ao CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: PC DATE: 11/14/00 CCDATE: REVIEW DEADLINE: 12/03/00 CASE #: 2000-12 VAR Request for a six (6) foot variance from the 50-foot height limitation for the construction of storage silos. LOCATION: 950 Lake Drive APPLICANT: Emplast, Inc. 950 Lake Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Par ACREAGE: 12.6 acres 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a six foot variance from the 50 foot height limitation in the IOP district to permit 56 foot tall storage silos. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. )y Essex Rd Suffox Dr Budwood Dr Rosewood Dr Emplast Variance November 14, 2000 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Division 2. Variances, sections 20-56 through 20-60 Section 20-815 (6), Maximum height is 50 feet; accessory structures one story. BACKGROUND On August 28, 2000, the Chanhassen City Council approved Site Plan # 2000-10 for a 96,925 square foot expansion to a 95,260 square foot building for Emplast. On April 24, 1989, the Chanhassen City Council approved the plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Empak Addition, replatting Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2" d Addition. On April 10, 1989, the Chanhassen City Council approved site plan # 89-1 fora 77,690 square foot office and production facility. ANALYSIS The building height is 27 feet to the top of the parapet on the south elevation and 31 feet on the north elevation. The building material consists of tilt -up concrete panels. The silo material is steel. The property to the east is Roberts Automatic, another industrial user. Lake Susan Park is located south and across Lake Drive. To the west is a vacant office/industrial site across Powers Boulevard. To the north are the railroad tracks at the top of a steep slope, elevation 946, that are 35 feet above the finished floor elevation of the building (elevation 911). The proposed silo will project approximately 25 feet above the parapet of the structure. Due to site topography and structure placement, the silos are not visible from Lake Drive. The silo will be approximately 20 feet higher than the railroad elevation to the north. The existing silos and the proposed silos will be visible from just south of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard, but since it's only a small portion they are not significantly noticeable. The existing silos on the site are 60 feet in height. The proposed silos are four feet shorter than the existing silos. Approving the variance will not increase the nonconformity of the accessory structure height, since the existing structures are taller, nor depart downward from pre-existing standards. Permitting the applicant to use existing equipment in the consolidation of the operation appears to be reasonable. Staff recommends approval of the six-foot variance request. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: Emplast Variance November 14, 2000 Page 3 a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does create a hardship. Approving the variance will not increase the nonconformity of the accessory structure height, since the existing structures are taller, nor depart downward from pre-existing standards. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other properties in the IOP zoning district. The use of the site for an injection molding operation requires specific equipment. The height of the silo is directly proportional to the volume of material provided by railcar. The applicant wishes to utilize existing equipment from their other manufacturing site which is being consolidated on this site. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The construction of silos will increase the efficiency of the operation and allow the applicant to utilize existing equipment. Staff does not believe that the desire to increase the value or income potential is the sole reason for the request. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The applicant is proposing the consolidation of their operations in Chanhassen. They desire to utilize existing equipment from their other plant that is being closed. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed silos are smaller than the existing silos on site. The silo location limits their visibility from off site locations. £ The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Emplast Variance November 14, 2000 Page 4 Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves the request for Variance #2000-13 for a six (6) foot variance from the 50 foot height limitation for the construction of up to four 56 foot storage silos subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the city prior to the installation of the storage silos. 2. The applicant must provide the city with a $50.00 recording fee prior to the issuance of a building permit." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Memo from John Hosford to City of Chanhassen dated 10/11/00 3. Site Plan 4. Public hearing notice and property owners list 5. Silo Elevation gAplan\bg\Var. 2000-13 Emplast.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT- i�� s ! (Pi L ADDRESS- "( 5 O LA 14-' IJ R- 0,44a PfASSC.- i TELEPHONE (Day time OWNER: sp w c ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision` TOTAL FEE $r%,`�''= A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. `Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. '* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. v [ PROJECT NAME QQ C V e t S 1 A 0 0 i (1 D _^J 10CATION "l 5 LAKE IDA- . LEGAL DESCRIPTION ��'� 1 13t.00I-r- 'Z 6(4*Al14*S S PA&Ie- TOTAL ACREAGE ' WETLANDS PRESENT • YESyNO PRESENTZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make Phis application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further Understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge_ The cdy hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day ,extension for developFnent review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approyd by the applicant. of Applicant Date of Fee Owner Date Tication Received on `� �, :!:�? APP Fee Paid Receipt No The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. EMPLAST° 950 Lake Drive/Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 612/975-3500 • Fax 612/975-3556 Date: October 11, 2000 To: City of Chanhassen From: Emplast, Inc. John Hosford Project Manager Subject: Variance required for Storage Silo's To whom it may concern: Emplast is renovating existing facilities to accommodate the addition of 26 injection molding machines into the existing structure at 950 Lake Drive East from our factory in Shakopee along with the warehouse expansion already under way. As part of the consolidation of these two factories, the use of storage silos to hold bulk plastic resin pellets is required due to the sheer volume of materials moved from the silos into the factory and fed to the individual injection molding machines via the use of a vacuum material delivery system drawn directly from these silos. We are aware that the code required these structures not to exceed 50' in height. There are three silos to be relocated from our Shakopee Plant and placed on a pad adjacent to silos already in place at the Chanhassen Plant. These silos are 56' in height, which is in excess of your city codes. We are in need of this variance to maintain the 56' height to support the delivery of bulk material supplied by railcar which must be unloaded, pumped into these silos and then the railcar must be put back into service by our vendor. The silo height is directly proportionate to the volume of material provided by railcar. In addition, there are four existing silos, three of which are 60' in height, making the added three silos requested in this variance 4' shorter. We look forward to your response and cooperation in this matter. ' 1088VHNVHD ■■ | �| | �7■ �±S�dW� §�'' , k Q � QL NOUX30V CEMOdOUd �� [ ' ■ .■ � } ( | � \\� � � & . 1 cm ) � � � d .� �� ■ | ' tn�|�§■�■ | || | | | ■| | | ��` �■� � � �■� � | / ■ | | | | |\p (� � !(!� /§i §§�!� §g� | . |® �|§� . (�■�.')& ..■ � ■ \|'K)|1 \�|q � �§ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL• Variance for Material Silos APPLICANT: Emplast, Inc. LOCATION: 950 Lake Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Emplast Inc., is requesting a height variance to install material silos on property zoned IOP and located at 950 Lake Drive. 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 Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview 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. Questions and 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 Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the 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 November 2, 2000. 1. 0091S aasel slagel ssaippd @AU3AVa RbSEMOUNT INC ATTN:CONTROLLER 12001 TECHNOLOGY DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CEN PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD A PAULS 8227 TOP OF THE WORLD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 Y OF CHANHASSEN SCOTT BOTCHER y .-- CITY CENTER R-' - PO BOX 147 1NHASS MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR .-.,PO4BOX 147 CHANHASSE �N 55317 ROBERTS AUTOMATIC PRODUCTS I 880 EAST LAKE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 (COUNTY 17 CHANHASSEN 200 HWY 13 W BURNSVILLE MN 55337 BEDDOR ENTERPRISES/E J CARLSON C/O UNITED MAILING INC 1001 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BEDDOR ENTERPRISES E J CARLSON 7951 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RIP6 F 1 VlOS3NNIW 'N3SSVHNVH0 4444444444 • ! 16� �01 NOWOOV O380dOlid W - ❑ - 44 NO ig pgp � F p'. G>x� �� ❑ a a t7 N o PC DATE: Nov. 14, 2000 z Q iL a. CITY OF CH NHASSE STAFF REPORT CC DATE: Dec. 11, 2000 REVIEW DEADLINE: 01/23/01 (This represents 120 day deadline) CASE #: 2000-6 CUP By: RG, ST, MS PROPOSAL: Request for a conditional use permit to install a communication tower and site plan approval for a 75' monopole and equipment platform, Sprint PCS. LOCATION: 7700 Quattro Dr., NW corner of 77`" Street West and Quattro Drive, Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Add. APPLICANT: Loucks Associates Beddor Enterprises. 7200 Hemlock Ln., Suite 300 7951 Powers Blvd., Suite 201 Maple Grove, MN 55369-5592 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (763)424-5505 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial ACREAGE: 0.023 acres, 1,000 square feet DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for a conditional use permit and site plan approval to locate a telecommunication tower and communication antennas behind a building located within the office industrial park area in eastern Chanhassen. The tower is approximately 75 feet tall. The six foot antennas in three groups of four antennas are centered at a height of 72 feet. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Sprint Tower — Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 1 APPLICABLE REGULATION Section 20-221 through 20-237 Conditional Uses Section 20-287 Communication transmission towers Section 20-907 Height Regulations Section 20-915 Antennas, satellite dishes and amateur radio towers Section 20-794 of the zoning ordinance permits commercial towers as regulated by article XXX as a conditional use in the IOP zoning district. Section 20-1500 through 20-1522 (Article XXX) regulates towers and antennas. BACKGROUND In November 1996, the City of Chanhassen adopted Ordinance 259 pertaining to towers and antennas. This ordinance provided criteria for the design and location of wireless telecommunication facilities in the city. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a telecommunication facility and site plan for a 75-foot monopole with antennas, two 35 square sq. ft. by six foot tall (120" W x 42" D x 72" H) base transceiver stations (BTS) on a 15 foot by 15 foot equipment platform, and a fence enclosure. The zoning ordinance permits towers and antennas as a conditional use in the IOP, Industrial Office Park District. The tower is proposed to have three arms mounted near the top of the pole that can support up to 12 antennas. The monopole has the capacity to hold additional antennas at a lower elevation for a co -locators. The monopole and building are to be located on the west side of an existing storage building down a hill from the rear of the Lyman Lumber yard. Staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in this report. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to install a 75-foot monopole with 3 arms near the top containing up to 12 antennas that are approximately 6 feet in length, 1 foot in width and 6 inches in depth. The monopole is designed to hold additional antennas at a lower height. As a general rule, a 20-foot separation is required between antennas. The monopole and a 225 square foot equipment support platform for the BTS units are located within a 580 square foot area enclosed within a six-foot tall chain link fence. As shown on the following table, the tower complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. That is, it meets all height and setback requirements. Sprint Tower — Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 2 TABLE 1 Proposed monopole compared to ordinance requirements Ordinance Proposal Tower Height 150 feet/maximum 75 feet including antennas Tower Setback 77th Street West 40 feet 185 feet Quattro Dr. 40 feet 280 feet North Property Line 10 feet 125 feet West property line 10 feet 24 feet In locating a telecommunication antenna, the city has requested that the applicant demonstrate that the antenna cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one -mile search radius even though towers less than 80 feet in height are exempt from this requirement. The applicant did inquire about locating at the City of Eden Prairie Water Tower, two NSP electric transmission towers on Highway 5, and at the Gary Brown site on Highway 5. The City of Eden Prairie only permits antennas on the top of their tower, which does not meet the radio frequency needs for Sprint. Additionally, there is no room at the top for more antennas. The NSP towers and the Gary Brown site are outside the Sprint search area and would also not meet the radio frequency needs for Sprint. PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION The existing parking will be used. No additional parking spaces are required for this use. Access to the site will be provided via a sidewalk that runs to the north side of the buildings on the property. LANDSCAPING Existing landscaping includes trees around the perimeter of the site as well as scattered behind the building. The applicant is proposing the planting of two conifers on the south side of the enclosure. The existing vegetation as well as the location behind the building and at the base of the hill should adequately screen the site from off -site views. LIGHTING Lighting is not proposed on the site plan. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights unless the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority for a particular tower specifically requires such lighting. SIGNAGE The applicant is not proposing a sign. No signage, advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State, or local authorities. Sprint Tower — Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 3 GRADING No proposed site grading has been shown on the plan; therefore, staff is recommending that a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan be prepared and submitted for staff review and approval. Issues that will have to be addressed with the submittal include the finished elevation of the equipment platform and monopole foundation and the need for any retaining walls along the proposed sidewalk in the north half of the site. UTILITIES It appears no municipal services are required. Two proposed private utility easements will have to be recorded with the site plan. DRAINAGE Staff feels it may be somewhat premature to comment on the proposed site's drainage impacts without a grading plan. Staff is also concerned with how the proposed sidewalk will affect the existing drainage patterns on the north half of the site. Currently, the west half of the parking lot on the north side of the existing building drains through a curb cut in the northwest corner of the lot. This area will have to be addressed on the grading plan. - STREETS No streets or driveways have been proposed for this site. The only proposed access is from a concrete sidewalk on the north half of the site. However, a 12-foot wide gate opening is shown on the south side of the site. If this gate opening will be used as an access, it must be shown on the grading plan. FINDINGS When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use, Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: l . Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The proposed communication tower will not be detrimental to general welfare of the neighborhood. The proposed tower and accompanying equipment building would be compatible with the uses in the industrial park. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, ordinance requirements for Highway 5 Corridor District, the IOP district regulations, and the tower ordinance. Sprint Tower — Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 4 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The proposed tower and accompanying equipment building would be compatible with the uses in the industrial park. The location minimizes adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards which attempt to screen and or camouflage towers from adjacent public and private property. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed tower will not be hazardous to existing or planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The proposed development is provided with adequate public services. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The proposed development will not require excessive public services. The proposed tower will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The proposed tower should not create conditions that are detrimental to persons, property or the general welfare of the community. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed development will not interfere with traffic circulation. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The proposed development will not destroy or damage natural, scenic, or historic features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Sprint Tower — Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 5 Finding: The proposed tower will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The proposed development should not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The proposed development meets standards established for communication towers. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2000-6 to permit the installation of a communication tower and site plan approval for a 75' monopole and equipment platform, Sprint PCS, plans prepared by AEC Engineering, dated 8/30/00, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit is required to construct the platform and tower; the tower must be designed for an 80 MPH wind load and include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice. 2. The plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan for staff review and approval. 5. The proposed use for the 12-foot wide gate opening must be shown on the grading plan. 6. The tower shall be of a color that blends in with the sky. 7. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an addition user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development review Application 2. Statement of Compliance with Standards and Criteria for Conditional Use Permits for Towers 3. Letter from Ayman Ibrihim to Dave Hagen dated 9/14/00 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List Sprint Tower — Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Louck's Associates for a Conditional Use Permit #2000-6 and Site Plan approval for a 75 foot tall telecommunication tower and communication antennas. On November 14, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Louck's Associates for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for the property located at 7700 Quattro Drive. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use and site plan that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Industrial Office Park, IOP, District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition. 4. Section 20-232: a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Sprint Tower — Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 7 C. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Sprint Tower — Quattro Drive November 14, 2000 Page 8 5. The planning report #2000-6 CUPdated November 14, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous, Matt Saam, and Steve Torell is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional use permit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 14th day of November, 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IN ATTEST: Secretary Its Chairman ;ent By: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES , INC.; 612 424 5822; Sep-13-00 12:57; Page 2/3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT" Loucks Associates on behalf of OWNER: Reddor Enterprises Sprintpec rum C.P. ADDRESS: 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 ADDRESS: 7951 Powers Boulevard, Suite 201 Maple Grove, MN 55369-5592 TELEPHONE (Daytime) 763/424-5505 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE: 952 /474-0231 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit X Conditional Use Permit $400 Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit _ Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits X Sign Plan Review $2 0 R Notification Sign $150 Site Plan Review' Subdivision' X Escro ling Fees/Attorney Cost" UP PRNACNAR/WAP/Metes a nds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ 850.00 ' A fist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 81/2" X 17" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. - Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Sent By: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES , INC.; 612 424 5822; Sep-13-00 12:58; Page 3/3 PROJECTNAME Sprint PCS Antenna Site LOCATION 7700 Quattro, Chanhassen, MN LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition TOTALACREAGE 1,000 square feet WETLANDS PRESENT X YES NO PRESENTZONING IOP - Industrial Office Park REQUESTED ZONING no change PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Office Industrial REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION no change REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Cnmme-rcial towers are conditional use in the TOP Industrial Office Park District per Section 20-814 of the Chanhassen City Code This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or 1 am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city Is no*ing the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Application Received on Date Date Fee Paid i Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. 0 not contacted, 2 copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. September 2000 Statement of Compliance with Standards and Criteria For Conditional Use Permits for Towers Section 20-814 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance indicates that commercial towers are permitted by conditional use in the IOP Industrial Office Park District. According to the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, certain general and specific standards and criteria must be met in the issuance of a conditional use permit for a commercial tower. On behalf of Sprint Spectrum L.P., Loucks Associates is requesting a conditional use permit for a commercial tower of a parcel of land located at 7700 Quattro Drive in Chanhassen. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify standards and criteria that must be met in issuance of a conditional use permit for a commercial tower and to explain how the proposed monopole conforms to those requirements. 1. General Conditional Use Permit Standards Section 20-232 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance sets forth general standards that must be met before the City can issue a conditional use permit. Following are a listing of those standards and a statement as to how the standard is met: a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed antenna site will erihance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare by improving wireless telephone service to the area while not having a detrimental impact on the community. The antenna site will be screened from view from the Quattro Drive to the east by the industrial building located on the front of the lot and from 77t" Street to the south and the industrial use to the north by an existing stand of trees and brush. The parcel of land west of the parcel on which the antenna site is proposed is occupied by a lumber yard and its high elevation as compared to the antenna site effectively screens the antenna site from view from most of that parcel. A monopole, the least obtrusive type of tower, is proposed and the antennas will be arm -mounted to minimize the mass at the top of the monopole. b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. The proposed antenna site will be consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan because it is located on a parcel of land designated for industrial and office on the comprehensive plan and is surrounded by parcels of land that are designated the same and industrially used. C. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. As indicated previously a monopole, the least obtrusive type of tower, is proposed and the antennas will be arm -mounted to minimize the mass at the top of the monopole. Existing vegetation, buildings and grade differential will effectively screen the antenna site from view from adjacent rights -of -way and parcels of land. The closest abutting use is a wholesale lumberyard to the west with a significant amount of outdoor storage of lumber products visible from 77"' Street and from adjacent parcels. d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The abutting parcels of land in all directions are developed with and zoned for industrial uses. A wholesale lumberyard occupies the adjacent parcel closest to the proposed antenna site. No smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents or trash will emanate from the antenna site and noise coming from it will be imperceptible at property line. e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Electric and telephone services are the only utilities required on a continual basis and both are adequate in the area for the antenna site. The public street will be used to access the antenna site and one or two vehicle trips per month to the site will occur. The antenna site will be finished with aggregate placed over weed barrier fabric and this finish will retain the rate of storm water runoff from the site. The antenna site will require levels of police and fire protection similar to other similar utility installations. The site will generate no waste and will require no refuse disposal, sanitary sewer or water service. f Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. As indicated above the site will generate no waste and will. require no refuse disposal, sanitary sewer or water service. After construction is complete, one or two vehicle trips to the site per month will be required. Police and fire protection will be similar to that required for other similar utility installations. g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents or trash. Levels of traffic, noise, smoke, fames, glare, odors, rodents or trash from the antenna site will not be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare. h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 2 Existing vehicle approaches will be utilized and as indicated previously the antenna site will generate one or two vehicle trips per month after construction is completed. This increase in traffic will not create congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. There are no natural, scenic or historic features of major significance in the area and solar access on adjacent parcels of land will not be impacted due to the relatively small shadow that will be caste on adjacent properties from the monopole and arm -mounted antennas at the top. j. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. As cited previously the parcel of land on which the antenna site is surrounded by industrial uses and the adjacent parcel closest to the antenna site is occupied by a wholesale lumberyard with a significant amount of outdoor storage. k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Again the uses surrounding the parcel on which the request is being made are industrial and these uses are consistent with the zoning. Studies have indicated that communication towers have no impact on the value of adjacent properties. In this case, the base of the antenna site is well screened from adjacent roadways and uses by vegetation, grade differential and building. The antennas at the top of the monopole will be attached to t-arms. mounted to the monopole and therefore the aesthetic impact on surrounding properties will be minimal resulting -in no impact on property values. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. As indicated in the next section of this statement, this proposed tower will comply with specific conditional use permit standards for towers. 2. Specific Standards for Towers Article XXX of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance sets forth specific standards that must be met in the issuance of a conditional use permit for a tower. This section of this narrative lists those standards and describes how the proposed tower meets those standards. a. Setbacks Section 20.1505 requires that a tower meet certain setback requirements including the setback requirements in the underlying zoning district, except that: 1. in industrial and business districts the rear setback need not be complied with if the abutting property is zoned industrial or business; 2. the tower may not be located on an easement; 3. the tower shall maintain a minimum setback of ten feet from all property lines; 4. towers shall be setback the height of the tower from adjacent parcels developed guided or zoned residential; 5. towers shall be setback one-half the height of the tower from planned public rights -of -way; 6. towers may not be located between a principal structure and a public street; and 7. a tower may not be located in a wetland or a wetland setback. In this case the proposed tower is setback 24 feet from the rear property line, 125 feet and 185 feet from the side property lines and 280 feet from the front property line. The subject parcel is zoned IOP Industrial Office Park and the setback requirements in that zone are 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines and 30 feet from the front. The parcels of land abutting the subject parcel on all sides are zoned IOP Industrial Office Park and thus the rear setback need not be complied with, even though it is. The tower is not located in the 20 foot easement that abuts the rear property line and will maintain a setback of at least ten feet from all property lines. Abutting parcels are used, guided and zoned industrial so the one-half tower height setback does not apply. The tower is located to the rear of the principal structure and a "utilized" wetland crosses the north edge of the property. The tower is not in the wetland and since the lot was of record before December 14, 1992 no setback from the wetland is required. b. DesiLn Section 20-1509 requires that towers, antennas and supporting cables and structures be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through use of color, camouflaging and architectural treatments and shall have a galvanized finish or be painted a non -contrasting color. That section also requires that a monopole design be used unless the City Council determines otherwise. The proposed tower will have a galvanized finish, will employ arms rather than a platform to reduce the mass at the top of the tower, will be screened at the base with existing and proposed landscaping and will be of a monopole design. C. Co -location Section 20-1510 requires that the City Council, before approving a tower, find that the antenna site either cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower within one-half mile of the proposed tower or that an agreement cannot be reached to locate on an existing or approved tower within one-half mile of the proposed tower, if the proposed tower is less than 120 feet in height. Towers of less than 80 feet are exempt from this requirement. New towers are required to be designed for the applicant's antennas and the antennas of at least one other user at varying heights. The tower proposed is less than 80 feet in height, nevertheless Sprint has determined that its antenna site cannot be accommodated on existing structures near the proposed tower. Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Ayman Ibrahim, Sprint's Radio Frequency Engineer for the site, indicating that three existing and one approved structure were considered and rejected for the antenna site. The City of Eden Prairie indicated that the top of the water tower is the only place the antennas may be attached and that there is no room at the top. Mr. Ibrahim indicates that this location was analyzed anyway and explains in his letter why it will not work. Mr. Ibraham's letter also explains that NSP towers and an approved AT&T tower along Highway 5 were considered and 4 rejected because of their distance from the search ring. The proposed tower will be designed to accommodate a second carrier. d. Lighting Ming Section 20-1511 requires that towers not be illuminated unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other state or federal authority. The tower is not proposed to be light. e. Signs and Advertising Section 20-1512 specifies that no signage or advertising is permitted on a tower, except warning or equipment information signage required by federal, state or local regulation. No signage or advertising is proposed on the tower. f. Accessory Utility Buildings Section 20-1513 indicates that utility buildings and structures for antenna sites may not exceed one story in height and four hundred square feet in size, must be architecturally designed to blend with surrounding environment and must use compatible materials such as wood, brick or stucco for associated support buildings. No utility buildings are proposed. A 15-foot by 15-foot platform to which the base station equipment will be attached is proposed and this platform is less than four hundred square feet in size. The platform will be well screened from surrounding parcels of land and roadways and therefore will blend with the surrounding environment. g. Landscaping Section 20-1514 requires that ground mounted equipment be screened from view by suitable vegetation unless non -vegetative screening is more compatible. Removal of existing vegetation is to be minimized through site selection and layout and landscaping is to comply with standards set forth in Article XXV of the Zoning Ordinance. The location on the subject parcel for the antenna site was carefully selected to minimize the removal of existing vegetation and to take advantage of the screening effect of that existing vegetation. Some small trees and brush and one 4" Box Elder tree will be removed for the antenna site. Colorado Blue Spruce trees are proposed on either side of the south -facing gate. The table in Section 20-1176 of Article XXV of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance specifies buffer yards required between adjacent uses. "Bufferyard A" is required between similar adjacent uses but no bufferyard is specified between industrial uses. The bufferyard between the proposed tower and the adjacent industrial properties to the rear and side exceeds "Bufferyard A". Section 18-61(d) of the Chanhassen Subdivision Ordinance sets forth standards for evaluating site plans for tree preservation. The ordinance indicates that for sites with a base line 9 canopy of 20 to 39% which is what this site has, a canopy of 14% must be maintained. The tree canopy after completion of the project will exceed 14%. 3. Conclusion The plan for the proposed antenna site complies with the general standards for the issuance of a conditional use permit as well as the specific standards for antennas and tower. S 0 t PCSO 511 PthAve. S., Suite 120 Minneapolis, MN 55415 September 14, 2000 Dave Hagen Loucks and Associates 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Dear Mr. Hagen, This purpose of this letter is to illustrate the reasons behind our RF (Radio Frequency) Department's rejection of four sites as being candidates for MS03XC872 search ring in Eden Prairie. 'rile four candidates in question are: Candidate A, Eden Prairie Water Tower Candidate B, Eden Prairie NSP tower 29 Candidate C, Eden Prairie NSP tower 27 Candidate H, AT&T Brown Candidate A was rejected due to the high height of the antennas. The required height for adequate coverage and capacity relief need is from 75' to 80'. We were asked by the city to utilize the position on top of the tower, which is located at approximately 150'. The primary objective of the site is to provide capacity relief to the surrounding sites. If the antennas are located at the higher position, the coverage will overlap with that of the surrounding sites as plot (A) illustrates. The —80 to—90dBnr signal strength range need be located approximately half way between the site in question and the surrounding sites in order to realize the capacity relief needed. The coverage of this candidate at the 150' position will dictate that the mobiles will always be in soft handoff. Soft handoff is the state when a mobile handset maintains two or more connections at the same time during a conversation yielding more utilization (inefficient use) of network resources. Candidates B, C, and H were rejected due to the fact that they are outside the search ring radius. As You know the search ring center location is the optimal position of a site that the RF department specifies during the radio design phase. It is understood that in many cases a site at that position may not be feasible. Therefore we have to allow for a bigger search area in order to provide flexibility to find a site. This is why a search ring radius is specified. Our search ring is a quarter of a mile in length. As illustrated in plot (B) candidates B and C are located about 0.4 mi. from the center of the ring whereas candidate H is located about 0.8 mi. from the center. The further a candidate is from the center, the higher the probability of coverage overlap. As explained above overlapped coverage reduces the capacity relief needed. Please call me at 612-204-3326 if you have any questions. �S' .3 del , _ �3' ra'hii� C f3: -rtian Ibrahu Minneapolis RF Engineering i I n m 7 -m r- W rt f 23 0 Z cnn m 7 n m rn m m 3'�+m 7 0 m a) [D 7 of 7 o (0 N fU rtv� �-. 7 n A � 10 o 0) 0 m N ' C 14 J O LO 7 J(O rtN tDrt IS] O Ln W Co. a A N 0 o cn a ' co � v a m n o a m o rtG7 Nh � 7 7 f U 2, N rt O U 2 -3 O '7 r N CD 7 o a n a rt 7 rt .. n D 7 t s n o W N N a)7 rt N fl m H N 07 7 n z NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit and APPLICANT: Loucks Associates/Sprint PCS Site Plan Approval for a Communication Tower and 7W LOCATION: 7700 Quattro Drive monopole and equipment platform. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Loucks Aosicates/Sprint PCS, is requesting a conditional use permit to install a communication tower and site plan approval for a 75' monopole and equipment platform on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located at the northwest comer of 77th Street West and Quattro Drive. 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 Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview 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. Questions and Comments: if you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hail 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 Bob Generous at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the 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 November 2, 2000. Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 Current Owner Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 18401 77TH ST W Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 7700 DELL ROAD Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 7640 QUATTRO RD Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner Current Owner Chanhassen, MN 55317 18780 W 77TH ST Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner Current Owner 18400 77TH ST. W. 18800 W 78TH ST. Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner Current Owner 7700 QUATTRO DRIVE 7660 QUATTRO ROAD Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Current Owner 7600 QUATTRO RD Chanhassen, MN 55317 WAYTEK INC P 0 .BOX 690 CHANHASSEN +ESN 55 317 LYMAN LUMBER CU P 0 BOX 40 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 14 07-116-22 34 0019 BANTA DIRECT MARKETING 18780 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 14 07-116-22 34 0020 CROUP BANTA DIRECT MARKETING GROUP 18780 78TIA ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 61 07-116-22 31 0045 61 07-116-22 31 0046 RONALD BERMEL C SUSAN BERMEL C K SUMNER C S K SUMNER 13769 TWILIGHT TR 18743 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 61 07-116-22 32 0099 61 07-116-22 32 0100 WOODRO'W C KATHLEEN FRANKLIN JOHN E BEN.IK 18925 TWILIGHT TR 18899 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5.5346 61 07-116-22 32 0103 14 07-116-22 31 0070 RONALD CATZLSON/TRACY JOHNSON MAGELLAN ACQUISITION CORP 18821 TWILIGHT TR 1.3900 SCIENCE PARK DR N N EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 PORTLANO OR 97229�-� 14 07-116-22 34 0017 V YTIS DEVELOPMENT LLC 18400 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 61 07-116-22 31 0002 TWIN CITIES E WESTERN RR 723 11TH ST E GLENCOE MN 55336 61 07-116-22 31 0047 R R KIRSCH E S M KIRSCH 18711 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55.346 61 07-116-22 32 JAMES E BURROUGHS 18873 TWIL.IGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 14 07-116-22 34 0018 BEDOOR ENTERPR ISES 7951 POWERS BLVO CHANHASSEN MN 5.5317 61 07-116-22 31 0044 CO GALEN V C L.ISA J MILLER 18795 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 61 07-116-22 31 0048 GALE E C PATRICIA L MOUG 18679 TWILIGHT TR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 0101 61 07-116-22 32 0102 JED E E OARA J PERSSCN 18847 TWILIGHT TR 55346 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 Rezoning Fire Station #2 November, 2000 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY As required by the 1995 amendment to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the city is required to bring land use and zoning into compliance. The proposal to rezone the City's Fire Station to Office & Institutional from Residential Single Family is one of the few rezonings that can be undertaken without a great need to hold an informational public hearing, since the city is only legitimizing the use of the property for a public facility. BACKGROUND Fire Station #2 was constructed in 1981. REZONING Rezoning of the property from RSF to OI is consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public. Fire stations are only permitted in the OI district. DISCUSSION Approval of the rezoning of the property from Single Family Residential to Office & Institutional is consistent with the past approval of the development of the property as a fire station and designation of the property for public/semi-public use. This amendment will bring the zoning and use into compliance with the land use designation of the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the Chanhassen Fire Station located at 6400 Minnewashta Parkway, from Single Family Residential, RSF, to Office & Institutional, OI." ATTACHMENT 1. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List Rezoning Fire Station #2 November, 2000 Page 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of City of Chanhassen Rezoning On November 14, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of the City of Chanhassen for rezoning property from Single Family Residential, RSF, to Office & Institutional, OI. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on.the proposed rezoning preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: - FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential, RSF. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Public/Semi-Public. 3. The legal description of the property is: Part of Lot 2, Schmid's Acre Tracts described as follows: Commencing at the most southerly corner of Lot 2, thence northeasterly on the southeasterly line of Lot 2 413.94 feet to the point of beginning, thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 71 degrees 260.53 feet, thence northeasterly deflecting to the right 111 degrees 287.73 feet, thence southeasterly deflecting to the right 70 degrees 66.75 feet to the southeasterly line of lot 2, thence southwesterly along the southwesterly line 279.04 feet to the point of beginning. Rezoning Fire Station 42 November, 2000 Page 4 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. . f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report REZ #2000-02 dated November 14, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning. Rezoning Fire Station #2 November, 2000 Page 5 ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 141h day of November, 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary gAplan\bg\comp rezoning 2000-02.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL". Rezoning Request APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen LOCATION: Minnewashta Fire Station - 6400 Minnewashta Parkway NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, City of Chanhassen, is requesting rezoning from Single Family Residential (RSF) to Office and Institutional (OI) for property located at 6400 Minnewashta Parkway, Fire Station No. 2. 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 Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview 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. Questions and 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 Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the 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 November 2, 2000. W. 62nd St. Minnewashta Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 CHAEL L & CARRIE L MILLER 11 CHURCH RD 'CELSIOR MN 55331 ARK F MACPHERSON 01 CARTWAY LN trT:T SUOR MN 55331 [tEY S & JOYCE C WASSENAAR MEADOW LN =T QTC)R MN 55331 VALD J & WENDIE A SEAMANS 1 CHURCH RD ELSIOR MN 55331 AVID J & LIANA M KIFF 71 MEADOW LN �CCELSIOR MN 55331 ATRICK L & BONNIE C MONAHAN 801 MEADOW LN XC F.T.SIOR MN 55331 GREGORY M & DEBORAH D BAIRD 3870 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL SCHULER & KARYN OTTO 6330 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICIA B CHARNEY 3861 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVONE & LAUREANA BOUALOUA 3884 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PETER KREBSBACH & PATRICIA BEYER 3891 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH C DURR 4830 WESTGATE RD HOPKINS MN 55345 KENNETH C DURR 4830 WESTGATE RD HOPKINS 55345 KENNETH C DURR 4830 WESTGATE RD HOPKINS 55345 KENNETH C DURR 4830 WESTGATE RD HOPKINS ---MN-55345 KENNETH C DURR 4830 WESTGATE RD HOPKINS MN-55345 KENNETH C DURR 4830 WESTGATE RD HOPKINS MN 55345 CRAIG C MILLER 6450 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH C DURR KENNETH C DURR �FFREY R BERGE & 4830 WESTGATE RD 4830 WESTGATE RD �ENISE E ZOELLMER HOPKINS - MN 55345 856 MEADOW LN HOPKINS MN 55 ,XCELSIOR MN 55331 LEE R ANDERSON S JOHN & LISA A JORDAN ,EITH R & JODI L KORINKE TRUSTEE OF TRUST 6541 KIRKWOOD CIR 310 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ;XCELSIOR MN 55331 6651 MINNEWASHTA PKY EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH C DURR KEN ILLIAM DAVID MCELHANEY & KENNETH C DURR KEN 4830 WESTGATE IRISTIN CAROL MCELHANEY HOPKINS4830 TGATE RD 345 HOPKINS MN 55345 31 CHURCH RD CCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH C DURR UANDALL A & LISA M MAYER CITY OF CHANHASSEN KENKEN WESTGATE RD i831 MEADOW LN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER---.-- 3XCELSIOR MN 55331 690 CITY CENTER -DR PO BOX 1 HOPKINS----.,----- MN 55345 CH`A�I I4YSS`EN MN 55317 � T.__-'V - - . Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use template for 51600 JAMES L & CONNIE A VOLLING 3700 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE D & KARLA J WICKSTROM 3716 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL V & ALYSSA S NESS 3732 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES C & LUANN R STEWART 5551 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TIMOTHY M & MARY K O'CONNOR 3748 LANDINGS DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 �ARL T & JEANIE ANN SEEHOF 5561 KIRKWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 FHOMAS R & KAREN C LONDO 1764 LANDINGS DR ;XCELSIOR MN 55331 SLAKE L BOGEMA 841 LINDEN CIR ?XCELSIOR MN 55331 ;ENNETH C DURR 830 WESTGATE RD IOPKINS �3345 'ANCY S TAYLOR 571 KIRKWOOD CIR XCELSIOR MN 55331 VIC Q & DIANE T MORAVEC 3821 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN A & SANTINA CASTER 3861 LINDEN CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 P.C. DATE: 11-14-00 I— Z CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT C.C. DATE: 12-11-00 CASE: 99-2 PUD BY: Aanenson:v 31TO-SA� • A mixed nousing uuVG1VV1111+111 homes,village homes and rental townhomes on 89.5 acres and 2.94 acres of commercial u: on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and RR Rural Residential located on the northe corner of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41, Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes. 1. Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and Preliminary Planned Unit Development = from 11 density residential to medium density residential and medium density residential to commercial 2. Subdivision of 120.93 acres into 2 additions; lst addition 28 Blocks including 233 units and 4 outl and the 2nd addition 24 blocks including 50 units and 5 outlots 3. Site Plan Review — of 36 club homes, 73 manor homes, 82 coach homes, 160 Village homes and rental townhouses 4. Wetland Alteration Permit — to fill .54 acres of wetlands in 2 separate basins 5. Environmental Assessment Worksheet — will be reviewed addressing potential environmel impacts of the proposed development making the approving finding and decisions in the need for Environmental Impact System. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41 APPLICANT: Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corp. J. P. Savaryn Estate Mills Properties, 1355 Mendota Heights Rd., Suite 300 9950 North Shore Road 512 Laurel St. Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112 Waconia, MN 55387 P. O. Box 50555 (651)452-5200 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DJACENT ZONING ND LAND USE: TER AND SEWER: A2, Agricultural Estate and RR Rural Residential 120.93 Acres N - PUD-R, Meadows at Longacres S - PUD-I, Arboretum Business Park E - A2, Agricultural Estates W — RR- Rural Residential Water will be available with frontage road construction. Sewer has been petitioned and the city council has ordered a feasibility study. Arboretum Village Nov --'- Village this site an Arborete 14, 2p00 recently gave Property I-1ovem s a large lot. The city On Te of the Mep ilister Page 4 to remain a Future subd as a home and is proposed e a petting farm erty• Lundgren kill parcel h for 10 years Own this site interim use the old Dolelsc pT °ently sh° flows o f LoiigacreS' the middle home of is possible. lat for this site. As Located in The group hom Of the N1ea nacres• outlot K of preparing p s of tongacres. f ten acres. were to To the east is the process with the eado c comprised roue home west on started d lot size) e which is new site. if the g lat. Brothers has density an Group hom the surrounding p Baptist to relocate to in m and the old Kordonowy be consistent (erican their intention this prop Church and putlot o s the city that It is orate Arboreta b Westwood desirable to Incorp aired y has petitioned the has It ould be o f Minnesota Landscape been acquired Church be relocated it `'`' onowy site has Westwood 41 is the Universityyhe Kord future. Highway 60 acres' the near which is lan review in These policies property, through site p policies oing import p Comprs aesummary will be g d water. b several impt the city for sewer an being uencedf Creels . D1Act. vollo n1f1 overlay tric Wing ees nt of this site is the Bluf velopm StudY, Com111uO f the subject Site - The de 5 Corridor d the Llvabhe design Th the Highway ordinance, an includee , S Zoning and its influence on plan, the documents road of each of these northerly frontage nt for the uidelines• The P Pu not Fan side In the condit club h( relocat; are of tl Changes 5 Corridor stud a referred aligilme rovide design g Ni hwa and p with greater to. e TH 5 study was to select p corridor be designeo e of the district is of the alternatives along the ce is to " The purpose and zoning the Ordinan The p land use istrict as stated i rally higher quality." ur to review overlay D gene, trees. purpose of the ent and of g t stands of matures to the environm nifican $ensitivity we and slg design for the IT 5 corridor corridors, site environment creek Orr architectural and u 11ity visual especially a «protect 'high duality us and high Q otes g munity image b Prom ified, harmd positive com ,� nation of C. Create a un ctive and p , entrance a land use deslg al or d Foster a distinct City s main d be given er functions as the e rod tial, institution which of the frontag family residen side of the frontal area north either medium on the south exCeed propose, that the area south density h our not with' The study prop tial and the eying the medium overall density it residential e road. The Similar to w Single at family °SeS low sing uest prop o f the frontag osal is ' office use. This the density northlan. This prop road and raising comprehensive p osed in the ment* what is prop evelop Walnut Grove D Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 5 The plan also recommended the city establish the western gateway at TH 5/TH 41 by reinforcing the "orchard grid" of plantings. The plan does propose preservation of the two significant wooded areas on the site as well as provide perimeter landscaping. Bluff Creek Overlay District The Bluff Creek Corridor Study is a vision and planning document that has the following goals: 1. Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of Natural Resources 2. Acquire land to create a continuous greenway along the creek from the Minnesota river to Lake Minnewashta 3. Create development standards that manage upstream such as mixed or cluster development easements and alternative zoning 4. Develop educational watershed awareness program 5. Develop a Natural Resources Plan An overlay district was created for Bluff Creek with a primary and secondary corridor. The primary corridor boundary delineates a conservancy zone where undistributed conditions are desired. This is the area where any type of development and/or human activity directly impacts the morphological and biological characteristics of Bluff Creek. The secondary corridor boundary delineates a management zone. This is the area where development and/or urban activities directly affect the stream's upland ecosystem. The preservation and enhancement of this area will result in a better habitat and less strain on the stream. Management practices for this area focus on the preservation and enhancement of upland vegetation and the reduction of peak flows. A portion of this site falls within the primary and secondary zone. The primary zone on the east side of TH 41 is largely in the area of the large wetland bordering the northern portion of the site and the trees around the south edge of this wetland. The other portion of the primary zone is on the west side of TH 41, which includes most of the Savaryn property. The City's Bluff Creek Overlay District states that no development shall occur within the primary zone. For this reason, staff believes that this area needs to be included within the PUD and a density transfer would be permitted to the east side to TH 41 out of the primary zone. The Bluff Creek Plan makes a couple of recommendations for this area including restoring the shallow marsh and restoring the bird woods. An alternative was discussed for providing an additional underpass just for animals under TH 5 but this was not included in the design plans. Highway 5 Frontage Boulevard Much of the topography and the shape of the parcels is being driven by the location, necessary grading and pond location for the Frontage Road. The road is being constructed as a part of the Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 6 upgrade from two to four lanes on TH 5. This road is being built and will be used as the by-pass during the construction of TH 5. The road also provides an east/west access alternative for local traffic so you would not have to get on Hwy. 5. The design of the road was also approved as a part of the Hwy. 5 corridor. The road is intended to be a boulevard with streetscape, lighting and a trail on the north. The cross intersection currently exists between Powers Blvd. and Lake Ann Park. The construction of the road is necessary for this site to development. The frontage road construction will alter the topography by the amount of grading necessary, elimination of the exempted wetlands at the corner of TH 5/41 and tree loss. Livable Communities Act The city signed on with the Livable Communities Act since 1995. The principles of the act state that the city support: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people of all income ranges. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life -cycle. 4. A community of well maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. 6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access and linkage between housing and employment. This plan proposes predominately owner occupied housing. There are 32 rental townhouses proposed which would meet the affordability standards for rental housing.* The applicant is proposing to finance the rental units using Minnesota Tax Credits. The owner occupied units will be 4 different types of products. The price range on the for sale units range from $100,000 on the Village home to $220,000 on the Club Home. Any home sale under $134,250** would be considered affordable under the Metropolitan Council standards. This project would be meeting some of the city affordable and housing diversity goals-mdthout city financial assistance. Carver County HRA may be pursuing the purchase of few of the village units to provide financial assistance. 1999 Units renting for no more than 30 percent of household income for families with 50 percent or less of median income ($31,800 max.) = household size and number of bedrooms sets the max for example: Efficiency -$556 1 Bdrm-$596 2 Bdrm-$715 3 Bdrm-$826 4 Bdrm-$922 Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 7 ** 1999 Ownership housing costing no more than 30 percent of household income for families with less than 80 percent of metro area income ($50,880 max.) = $134,250 or less home value. There is no city assistant being considered on the owner occupied units. Carver County HRA may be acquiring a few of the village homes. Although some of the homes will be sold at a price that meets the housing goals there is no mechanism in place to qualify buyers. Someone making more than the median income limits will be able to purchase a home. They are being sold at market rate. Planned Unit Development The applicant is seeking a PUD in order to develop the entire site as one project. Because there are two underlying property owners, it has always been staffs opinion that this area is best developed as one parcel. The Savaryn parcel is very narrow and is encumbered by two wetlands and bisected by the frontage road and TH 41. The plan incorporates good planning principles by combining both parcels. The issue for the City to resolve is if this plan makes good use of the PUD principles. Having earlier noted that the primary zone is on the west side of TH 41 that density should be transferred to the east side unless the city wants to give a variance to this area and allow it to be developed separately. A subdivision was developed for the old Kordonowy site. This proposal, which included 57 acres, had 110 homes. This plan was never formally submitted and this property has now been sold to Westwood Church. Therefore, with the density transfer there will be no additional homes on the west side of TH 41. The best zoning application for this property is the PUD. The property is two separate parcels the PUD allows for efficient development of the site and application of the Bluff Creek District. ANALYSIS Pulte Homes is requesting Preliminary PUD and Subdivision approval as well as Site Plan Review. The proposal also requires a Wetland Alteration Permit and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Preliminary PUD The following review constitutes an evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria are taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent "Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 8 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. " The mix of 5 different housing products as well as the commercial zoning makes the PUD excellent zoning applicant. Unique design standards will be applied to the different housing types. Site Plan Review The plan has 5 different types of units including: 1. 36 Club homes (one level town homes for active adults, 1220-2200 sq. ft., $145,000- $220,000), 2. 73 Manor homes (split level town homes with basement, 1200-1,600 sq. ft., $145,000-$165,000), 3. 82 Coach homes (two story town homes 1,100-1,350 sq. ft., $112,000-$130,000) 4. 160 Village homes (two story town homes with tuck under garage, 900 -1,150 sq. ft., $100,000-$110,000), and 5. 32 Rental units 16 (2 —bedroom units) and 16(3-bedroom units) targeted for 50% of median income ($63,600). Ten percent of the development marketed to those with very low incomes or 30% of the median. The income limits takes into consideration household size. Staff supports the rezoning request. The proposal is more sensitive than a standard single-family subdivision, since the structures are shifted from the environmentally sensitive area and grouped closer together to reduce grading and provide greater efficiency for utility installation. PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The applicant has proposed development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density - housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. A specific lighting and Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 9 sign plan shall be submitted prior to final plat. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant (no drive-thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Required Minimum Proposed From Collector Street 50 feet 50 feet From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet Interior Public Right -of -Way 30 feet 60 feet Hard Surface Commercial 70% Not available at this time Hard Surface Coverage (Total site) 1 30 % 29 % d. Building Materials and Design COMMERCIAL 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Brick shall be used as the principal material and must be approved to assure uniformity with the residential uses. 2. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. 3. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 4. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 5. All buildings on the commercial site shall have a pitched roof line. 6. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 10 RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS The plans propose five products. Each product must conform to the following standards. 1.Club Homes (Rambler attached two unit town homes) • One level town homes (with or without basement). • Building exterior material shall be a combination of 6" vinyl siding and brick. • Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc.). • Each town house shall consist of two units. One unit will have a side -loaded garage and the other will have a front loaded garage. • Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. • All units shall utilize asphalt shingles. • Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard. • All units shall have access onto an interior street. • All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 2.Manor Homes (three to four unit town homes) • Split level town homes with basement. • Building exterior material shall be a combination of 6" vinyl siding, vinyl shakes, brick and stone. • Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc. • Each town house shall consist of three or four units. No more than two garage doors may be adjacent to each other. • Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as round louvers, dormers, etc. • All units shall utilize asphalt shingles. • Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard. • All units shall have access onto an interior street. • All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 3.Coach Homes • Two Story town homes (four to six unit town homes). • Building exterior material shall be a combination of 6" vinyl siding and brick. • Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc. • Each town house shall consist of four or six units. Garage doors must be separated from each other by entryways. • Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as dormers, etc. • All units shall utilize asphalt shingles. e r Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 11 • Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 over story tree within its front yard. • All units shall have access onto an interior street. • All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 4.Village Homes • Two story town homes with tuck under garage (four to eight unit town homes). • Building exterior material shall be a combination of 6" vinyl siding and brick. • Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc. • Each town house shall consist of four to eight. Garage doors must be staggered. • Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as dormers, bay windows, arched windows, shutters, etc. • All units shall utilize asphalt shingles. • Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard. • All units shall have access onto an interior street. • All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. S.Rental Homes • Two story town homes (four unit town homes). • Building exterior material shall be a combination of 6" vinyl siding and brick. • Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc. • Each town house shall consist of four units. No more than two garage doors may be located next to each other. • Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as dormers, louvers, window shutters, decorative columns, etc. • All units shall utilize asphalt shingles. • Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard. • All units shall have access onto an interior street. • All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible_ to the building. Preliminary Plat - Subdivision The entire property is 120.9332 acres. The proposed subdivision of the property will be in two phases. The 1st addition includes 201 dwelling units. Lot 8, Block 1 is the common space, Lots 10 and 14, Block 2 are common space, Outlots A, B and C include the common space in the Club, Manor and Rental Homes. Outlot D is the 2.9398 acres of commercial property. Outlot E is 3.03 acres for open space. The 2nd addition includes 182 dwelling units which is located north of the large wetland and Outlot F 11.0481 acres (located west on Hwy 41). Staff is recommending a conservation easement over Outlot F. Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 12 The proposed subdivision of the property is consistent with the guidelines established in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat be approved with conditions outlined in the report. Landscqping and Tree Preservation Approximate tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Pulte Homes Arboretum Village development are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 94.64 acres Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) 18.0 acres Baseline canopy coverage 191% Minimum canopy coverage allowed 20% or 19 acres Proposed tree preservation 14% or 13 acres The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage 261,360 SF or 6 acres Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement area 313,632 SF Total number of trees to be planted 288 trees Additional landscaping required for the development includes buffer yard plantings along West 78th Street and Highways 5 and 41. The following table summarizes the minimum requirements: Required Proposed Canopy Coverage 288 overstory 317 overstory Hwy. 41 — buffer yard B 15 overstory 0 overstory 30 understory 105 understory 45 shrubs (72 evergreens) (33 ornamentals) 24 shrubs Hwy. 5 — buffer yard B 10 overstory 3 overstory 20 understory 59 understory 29 shrubs (46 evergreens) (13 ornamentals) 29 shrubs East property line W. 78t' St. —buffer yard 42 overstory 57 overstory Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 13 B 84 understory 174 understory 126 shrubs (114 evergreens) (60 ornamentals) 41 shrubs W. 78" St.- Blvd. Trees 93 overstory 57 overstory (1 per 30') Buffer yards are not required along the north or east property lines. In these areas large wetland complexes serve as natural buffers and provide several hundred feet of distance between differing housing densities. Staff recommends that the minima n required number of overstory trees be added to the buffer yard areas along Highways 5 and 41. Since the applicant greatly exceeds the minimum requirements for understory trees in all buffer yard areas, staff recommends that the proposed number of shrubs be accepted in these areas. By ordinance, evergreens are required to average seven feet in. height with a six-foot minimum. The proposed landscaping plan calls for six-foot evergreens. Staff recommends this be changed to an average height of seven feet. The applicant has located boulevard trees along West 781" Street at approximately 60-foot intervals. This is twice the required distance between trees. Further east along W. 78t" Street, the city's boulevard tree plantings between Powers Boulevard and the Lake Ann entrance are spaced 55 feet apart. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the boulevard plantings to be located 55 feet apart and add any trees necessary in order to meet minimum boulevard tree requirements. No landscaping was specified for the tot lots in the development. Staff recommends that a minimum of three overstory trees be planted near the tot lots to provide shade and beauty to the area. Plant materials specified by the applicant are acceptable with the exception of the Colorado spruce selected for the buffer yard areas. Staff recommends a hardier, more disease resistant selection of evergreen be chosen and all Colorado spruce be replaced with a new material. Wetlands Nine ag/urban wetlands and one utilized wetland exist on -site. Wetlands comprise approximately 26.29 acres of the 120.93-acre proposed development. Basin 1 Basin 1 is an ag/urban wetland located just north of Highway 5 and west of Basin 6. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass. It receives water from the Highway 5 roadside ditch and from a pipe that discharges into the basin from the west. Surface water flows from this basin through a ravine to Basin 6. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin. Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 14 Basin 2 Basin 2 is a utilized wetland located just north of Highway 5 near the middle of the property. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass and common cattail. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin; however, storm water will be discharged into the basin. The applicant has proposed a 10-foot buffer with a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge for this basin. Since this basin is a utilized wetland, neither a buffer nor a setback is required; however, the applicant may choose to include them. Basin 3 Basin 3 is part of a wetland complex that spans the northern edge of the site. This complex is a portion of the headwaters for Bluff Creek and is therefore within the Primary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and contains nettles, willow and jewelweed. Because the adjacent upland has been farmed for many years, very little wetland buffer currently exists adjacent to the basin. A 20-foot buffer is proposed. Because the basin is an ag/urban wetland, only a buffer with a I0-foot minimum average width is required. The applicant may choose to include a wider buffer. Principal structures must maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. Several proposed structures encroach into the 40-foot setback (Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Phase 1, Outlot B; '/z court basketball in Phase 2, Outlot B; Lots 18 and 19 of Phase 2, Outlot Q. If the applicant decreases the buffer in these areas and still maintains a 10-foot minimum average buffer around the basin, the structures could meet the 40-foot setback requirement. Drainageway 1 Drainageway I is an area dominated by reed canary grass that flows north into Basin 3. The applicant proposes 0.08 acres of wetland impact for a road crossing. To reduce potential impacts to the drainageway from the proposed fill, the applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing. This will act to drain excess storm water away from the area, thus preventing the drainageway from becoming wetter. (The applicant should be advised that, while some drainage may be necessary, excessive drainage of the drainageway might cause additional wetland impact, which would require mitigation of wetlands at a 2:1 ratio.) Basin 4 Basin 4 is located in the extreme southwest corner of the site and is adjacent to the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. This wetland receives storm water from the intersection and also the southwest portion of the property. This wetland is an emergent marsh dominated by reed canary grass and cattails. No wetland fill or drainage is proposed in this basin; however, some storm water from the southwest portion of the site will be diverted into the basin through the use of overland drainage. Pretreatment will be provided through the use of vegetated swales. Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 15 Basin A To the north and east of Basin 4 is an area that was originally classified as non -wetland by Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. The area was classified as wetland in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and as an ag/urban wetland in Chanhassen's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Upon inspection of the area by City, Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and Carver Soil and Water Conservation District (CSWCD) staff, the basin was found to exhibit the three parameters required for an area to be classified as wetland (wetland hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation). The basin was then delineated by Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Wetland hydrology exists despite the presence of draintile through the basin. The basin is dominated by a species of sedge (Cyperus strigosus). Examination of aerial photographs showed that at least a portion of the basin had been farmed annually for years, making it a low quality ag/urban basin. This project proposes filling Basin A completely (0.46 acres). Basin 5 Basin 5 is located along the eastern edge of the site. Some City documents classify the basin as ag/urban while other documents classify it as natural wetland. Upon inspection by staff, it appears that agricultural practices in the last 20 years have degraded the quality of the wetland. Therefore, staff recommendations reflect City standards for ag/urban wetlands. This basin (below the OHW) is DNR Protected Water 209W. It is also located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and contains nettles, willow and cattails. The applicant is not proposing impact to this wetland. The applicant has not shown a 0- 20 foot wide buffer area for the northern portion of the wetland; however, a 20-foot buffer is proposed around the southern portion of the wetland so a minimum average width of 10 feet would be achieved. Principal structures adjacent to the wetland must be set back 40 feet from the edge of the buffer. Lot 19, Outlot B, Phase 1 does not meet this requirement. In addition, the cul-de-sac at the north end of Century Boulevard does not meet the 40-foot setback requirement. Section 20-508 (c) states: 1. Setbacks (other than PUD exterior and interior public right-of-way) are established by PUD agreement; and 2. "The thirty-foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained." In order to make the most efficient and effective use of land, staff recommends the front yard setback on Lots 17 and 18, Outlot B, Phase 1 be reduced to 20 feet. This would allow the cul-de-sac to be moved 10 feet to the west and a 20-foot buffer to be established between the edge of curb and the edge of Basin 5. Basin 6 Basin 6 is an ag/urban wetland located just north of Highway 5 and west of the eastern property line. The basin was delineated by both Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. (in conjunction with this Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 16 project) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (in conjunction with their Highway 5 project). Wetland impacts associated with this basin were included in the Wetland Alteration Permit for Highway 5 reconstruction (WAP 99-1). Basin B Basin B is an ag/urban wetland located on the eastern side of Outlot F. (The designation of the outlot in the northwesternmost portion of the property is not consistent between the preliminary plat ("Outlot F") and other plan sheets ("Outlot E").) The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and stinging nettle. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin. Wetland replacement is proposed to the north and west of this basin. Basin C Basin C is an ag/urban wetland located on the west and south sides of Outlot F. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and stinging nettle. No Nvetland impact is proposed in this basin. Wetland replacement is proposed to the north and east of this basin. Sequencing The applicant has provided wetland impact avoidance alternatives and sequencing. The applicant proposes 0.08 acres of wetland impact for a road crossing Drainageway 1. The applicant has stated that this wetland fill is related to "an unavoidable road crossing (for safety purposes)." Since avoidance of this wetland impact world most likely result in two eul-de-sacs, each at least 250 feet in length, staff believes this argument is acceptable. The applicant has proposed filling Basin A completely (0.46 acres). Application materials state "Basin A is a marginal wetland that has been highly degraded by agricultural practices of tillage and an active drain tile system. This basin lacks vegetative diversity, and is tilled through almost yearly. With the current plan, [this low quality drained wetland is] replaced with a higher quality wetland that is part of a natural ecosystem." Application materials also state "If the parcel were not built, then there would be additional pressure on the developing fringe to push urban sprawl farther outward at a faster rate than it is currently moving. The current plan unit densities will slow urban sprawl." Staff believes these avoidance alternatives and sequencing arguments are acceptable. In addition, the fill of Basin A and replacement at a 2:1 ratio will allow the applicant to increase density adjacent to Highways 5 and 41 while providing a higher quality wetland with greater function and_ value on the northwest portion of the parcel. Mitigation and Banking Summary Recent changes in the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) have eliminated the "deductible" approach to the de minimis exemption. Therefore, projects with ivetland impacts over the de minimis must incorporate 2:1 wetland replacement for each square foot of impact. For this project, proposed wetland impacts exceed the 2,000 square foot de minimis. Therefore, 2:1 Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 17 mitigation is required for all wetland impacts. According to WCA, wetland mitigation areas must be constructed prior to wetland impacts occurring. The applicant has presented a site plan that proposes to fill 0.54 acres of wetlands in 2 separate basins. Wetland A, which is a degraded ag/urban wetland located in the southwest corner of the proposed development, would be filled completely (0.46 acres). The applicant has also proposed 0.08 acres of fill in Drainageway 1. These wetland impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the WCA. Under WCA rules, the applicant must replace wetland impacts at a 2:1 ratio. New wetlands must be created to replace the impacted area at a 1:1 ratio, but remaining replacement can be accomplished through the use of public value credits, including upland buffers and storm water treatment ponds. The applicant presented a wetland replacement proposal that would create 1.31 acres of new wetlands on site (Pools 1 and 2). create an upland buffer of 0.98 acres adjacent to the new wetlands and provide additional replacement with 0.55 acres of storm water treatment pond credit (creation of Pond 1 and expansion of Pond 2). Construction of new wetlands and upland buffers would occur on Outlot F in upland areas that are currently used for agricultural purposes. Staff believes that this proposal .will provide highly aesthetic, highly diverse plant and wildlife habitat that will function as a link in the "greenway" between Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and the wetland basin on the north side of the proposed development. (The applicant should provide proof of property ownership for Outlot F.) This mitigation proposal exceeds the 2:1 requirements of WCA. Therefore if, at the end of the five-year monitoring period. all proposed wetlands and buffers are adequately established, the applicant will be entitled to 0.77 acres of new wetland credit (NWC) and 0.99 acres of public value credit (PVC). Per WCA requirements, the proposed wetland replacement plan was mailed to the following agencies for comment on October 19, 2000: Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. As of Monday, November 6, 2000, no comments were received. Other Wetland Issues Silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The applicant will be required to re -seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetland soil conditions. Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. Wetland buffer areas should be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide vegetative barriers to define buffer Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 18 edges. The applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond in the northeast portion of the site and the expansion of a second NURP pond in the southeast portion of the site. These ponds should be constructed/expanded in conjunction with the construction of Phase 1. Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on medium density residential development rates of $1,530/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 64.66 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $98,929.80. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water pondina areas for runoff storage. Medium density developments have a comlection charge of $2,975 per developable acre. This results in a $192,363.50 water quantity fee for the proposed development. SWMP Credits The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Current information indicates that the project proposes water quality ponding for 44 acres. This results in water quality credits equaling $67,320.00. The project also proposes providing 1 outlet structure, which results in a credit of $2,500.00. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $221,473.30. Inspections and Fire Marshal Comments The Fire Marshal is recommending a possible grid system to determine better street addressing. Also, location of fire hydrants and fire code issues need to be addressed (see letter dated Aug 23, 1999 from Mark Littfin). The Building Official has addressed accessibility requirements on a Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 19 percentage of the units and the type of occupancy (see letter dated Aug 19, 1999 from Steve Torell). Park and Trails The Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the Conceptual PUD for Arboretum Village on August 22, 2000. Mr. Mark Guenther represented Pulte Homes at the meeting. Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director, presented the staff report. Commissioner comments focused on the preservation of the wooded lots, provision of expanded "tot lot" or play areas and the importance of the trail connections. Please note that the inclusion of trail/sidewalk connectors from the Village Homes west to Highway 41 and south to Highway 5 were discussed. The applicant agreed that these pedestrian routes are important and will add them to the plan. Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, Commissioner Karlovieh moved that the following conditions of approval be met. 1. Preservation of the wood lots on the property. 2. Construction of the interior trails as association connectors at the applicant's expense. 3. Construction of the wetland trail as a comprehensive trail segment with appropriate public easements being granted and trail dedication dol'ars used for construction. 4. Plans be submitted for the manor home and rental townhouse tot lot prior to approval. 5. The tot lot/play area in tt e court homes be expanded to ? to 2'/2 acres in size be centrally located and be connected to appropriate pedestrian routes. The plans have been revised to incorporate three tot/lot play areas in the project. The revised plan will be going to the Park and Recreation Commission on November 28t". GRADING The site mainly consists of rolling terrain that was employed in agricultural practices in the past. There are a couple of wooded areas and isolated wetlands. Existing wetlands on site are proposed to be impacted by development. A wetland alteration permit will be required. Most of the wooded areas are being retained. Tree conservation/preservation easements should be required to preserve these woodland areas indefinitely. The site will be impacted by the upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 and the future construction of West 78°i Street. MnDOT is currently constructing Trunk Highway 5 and anticipates completion in the summer of 2002. The construction of West 78"' Street through the subject property is scheduled for the spring of 2001. The phasing plan includes redirecting traffic from Trunk Highway 5 onto the new West 78"' Street frontage road in fall 2001. With all the proposed Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 20 construction activity and rerouting of traffic, access to the site may be difficult. The applicant should work closely with MnDOT in coordinating street grades and access to the site. Berming has been provided along West 78t" Street, Century Boulevard, Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5. This is important because there is no noise abatement proposed with the Trunk Highway 5 project. MnDOT will also have to review and approve the grading plan to ensure compatibility. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Also, any off -site grading will require temporary easements. UTILITIES Currently, there is no municipal sewer or water service available to the site. In conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 5, D✓InDOT and the City are coordinating to extend water service along West 78"' Street from Galpin Boulevard. The timing of MnDOT's project is not controlled by the City. Staffs conservative estimate is that the earliest watcr would be available is early spring of 2001. Sanitary sewer is located east of Galpin Bo�flcva-d just north of Trunk Highway 5. Sanitary sewer will be extended across Galpin Boulevard with the Trunk Highway 5 project. The City has received a petition froin the applicant and a property west of Trunk Highway 41 to extend sanitary sewer further to the west. The City is currently in the process of conducting a feasibility study on extension of the sanitary sewer. If the sev.,er project is ordered by the City Council, it would not be availabl-- for connection until summer of 2001 at the earliest. In conjunction with utility extensions, the project will be subject to assessments accordingly. Utility improvements throughout the site will have to be constructed by the applicant in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at each phase of development at the time of final plat. The applicant will also be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The utility system, upon completion, will be owned and maintained by the City. Appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat for any utilities which fall outside the dedicated right-of-way. DRAINAGE A storm water management plan will need to be developed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant should work closely with MnDOT to consolidate/minimize piping and ponding systems. Storm water ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards. Pre- and post -storm water calculations including drainage area maps for a 10-year and 100-year.. 24-hour storm event, need to be prepared and submitted to the Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 21 City for review and approval prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat. Development of the storm water management plan may result in loss or relocating of units due to storm water pond locations. The large storm water retention pond located at the southwest corner of Century Boulevard and West 78th Street will be constructed and owned by MnDOT in conjunction with the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade. The plans propose enlarging this pond to accommodate runoff from the southern half of the site. This will require MnDOT review and approval. Another storm water pond is proposed in the northeast corner of the site. This pond will drain most of the site north of West 78tih Street. Soils throughout Chanhassen have a very high moisture contei;t. Groundwater has been observed in other projects in the area. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater should be anticipated. Staff recommends the construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to intercept and convey household sump pump discharge. The City has, in the past, experienced hazardous conditions for the public through the discharge of sump pumps in the streets, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as algae buildup in the summer. STREETS Overall, the street system is fairly well designed. West 78"' Street which is the major east/west collector street through the site appears to conform with MnDOT/City plans. Timing of West th 78`' Street is of major concern. The phasing plan for Trunk Hig.'away 5 is to construct West 78 Street from Trunk Highway 41 to at least Galpin Boulevard and use it for a detour route while Trunk Highway 5 is being reconstructed. West 78"' Street is classified as a collector street in the City's Comprehensive Plan and designated as an MSA route. The street will be constructed 36' wide face to face with multiple auxiliary turn lanes and traffic delineation/medians at the int_ rsections of Century Boulevard and TH 41. The turn lane medians will limit access points to the site. Access to the commercial parcel located in the southeast corer of Century Boulevard and West 78"' Street is also a concern. There is additional land just to the cast of the commercial site that will mostly likely develop in a similar land use. Due to medians on both Century Boulevard and West 78`' Street, access to the site will be very limited. Staff believes it may be feasible to provide a right-in/right-out on Century Boulevard and a full access towards the easterly side of the commercial parcel. This frill access will eventually have to be shared with the future development of the parcel to the east. Cross-access/maintenance agreements would need to be recorded against the parcel to provide future access needs for the adjacent parcel. Staff assumes that the wider street systems shown on the plans will be public streets and that the other streets will be considered private. Access to the private streets should be addressed with cross access maintenance agreements or covenants. The nublic. streets shall be constructed in accordance with City requirements for urban street sections which is 3 V back-to-back with Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 22 concrete curb and gutter. In areas where turn lanes are proposed, the right-of-way and streets will need to be wider. Also, the minimum grade on public streets is 0.75%. The cul-de-sac in the northeast corner of the site will have to be revised to meet this criteria. Detailed construction plans and specifications for both the private and public streets will be required prior to final plat consideration. The applicant is proposing private streets to serve the villas and cottage homes. The proposed private streets are similar to the Walnut Grove development adjacent to Galpin Boulevard north of Trunk Highway 5. City code requires a 24-foot wide mini num private street with no parking unless the street serves less then four dwellings at which time the street may be 20-feet wide. The private streets will need to be constructed to meet a 7-ton per axle design weight criteria. Cross access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the benefited parcels. Deadends must provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based upon applicable Fire Codes. If on street parking is desired, a wider street section, minimum 28' wide, should be designed. The private street system_ will need to be located within a strip of property at least 40' wide. This width should be adequate to satisfy the required drainage and utility easements over the proposed utilities. In conjunction with the Truk Ilighway 5 project, a trail syst%in will be constructed along Trunk Highway 5 between Trunk Highway 41 and Century Boulevard as well as along the south side of West 781h Street. The applicant has incorporated these trail systems into the plans. A number of additional interior trails have also been proposed. The applicant should be advised that these trails will be considered private and, therefore, not maintained by the City. A sidewalk system has been incorporated along the public streets and will connect to the trail system on West 78tn Street. In addition, a 5-foot wide sidewalk should be added along the south side of the public street in the northwest corner of the site. Staff has reviewed the street extensions to the adjacent na.rcels in conjunction with this development. Staff believes that the north -south street on the eastern half of the site will not need to be extended in the future. Staff recommends that the cul-de-sac, at the north end of this street, be moved to the west and possibly shortened in length to minimize grading, tree loss, and the impact to adjacent wetlands. The other parcel, shown as an exception in the northwest corner, is proposed to be served by a public street, which terminates at the property line. The alignment of the street appears to allow the parcel to develop in a fashion conducive to the site features. EAW The Project did require a Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Attached is the finding of Fact for a negative declaration for Deed for an Environme>tal Impact statement. Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 23 EROSION CONTROL Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the preliminary and final grading plans and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. The erosion control plan should include, but not be limited to, Type III silt fence adjacent to all wetlands and an erosion control blanket on the steep slope adjacent to the eastern wetland. Staff also recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Rock construction entrances shall be provided and maintained at all construction access points. FINDINGS LAND USE PLAN The applicant is seeking an amendment to the land use plan nzap to permit the development of the site for detached single-family dwellings and attached to;vnhomes. The property is designated as residential -low density. Thus, the site could be developed as single-family homes or twin -homes. The PUD ordinance states that there shall be no minimum lot size for properties developed as attached single-family dwellings on land designated as medium and high density residential as long as it does not exceed maximum density. In this proposal, the lots range in area from 2,964 to 3,780 sq. ft. Although the proposed development does not exc: ed the low density standards (3 units per acres as opposed to the maximum 4 units per acre)., th.,- ordinance requires the applicant request an amendment to the land use plan to permit zero lot line and clustered housing because the lot areas do not meet those required in the PUD ordinance. Staff supports this amendment because it will result in a more environmentally friendly proposal. That is, if the lots were an average of 15,000 sq. ft., as required by ordinance, it is possible that encroachments would take place into the required 150-foot setback from Rice Marsh Lake. With the proposed plan, the lots are located outside of the required 150-foot setback from the lake (structures cannot be constructed over a property line) and a. tree preservation easement will extend over the 150-foot Lakeshore setback and the 50-foot wetland setback, so no encroachments can take place. Also, with a traditional single family dwelling subdivision it is likely less trees will be saved. REZONING FINDINGS Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 24 It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The majority of the site's natural and sensitive features are being preserved because it is a compact development. 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 project utilizes land more efficiently through clustering the residential units and the provision of open space areas. High quality of design and design compatible 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 development will incorporate high quality design and design compatible with surrounding land uses. There are five different styles of homes. Within the Manor home there 3 and 4 unit buildings and 4 and 6 units building for the Coach and Village homes there is a variety of homes styles and materials. Staff has prepared design standards to ensure a higher quality design and overall development than is found elsewhere in the community. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged-. Finding. The proposed development provides a sensitiv-, transition between the existing Long Acres single-family development north of the wetland (approximately 700 to 1000 feet from the existing homes) and the future subdivisior to the property to the east also bordered by a large wetland. This property is bisected the planned West 78t" Street. Two State Highways also border the site. Access the site is limited to the State Highway or West 78"' Street. 5. Development, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Findin . The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the city and the Metropolitan Cuncil approve a land use amendment. The area north of West 78t" Street Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 25 meets the current comprehensive plan limit of 4 units an acre. A land use amendment is required because the zoning ordinance prohibits attached housing except for duplex. The area south of West 78°i Street is 9.84 units an acre. This area would have to be required to high density because 8 units an acre in the limit for medium density. The code does allow for a density bonus for affordable. The staff is recommending rezoning to PUD with a land use amendment. The overall density is 6.03 units an acre. This is consistent with the medium density land use. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The plan proposed leaving the 11 acres west of Hwy 41. The plan proposes avoiding two large areas of trees. There are three tot lots proposed they are located in the Village homes, Manor homes area and near the rental units. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Findin . Affordabl-- housing is being provided based on market rate and any unit sold under the $134,500 for the owner occupied units. Some owners may seek first time home buyer assistance or similar type assistance. Carver County may pursue purchasing a few of the units. Except for t:he units being purchased by the county there are no income restrictions being placed on the units. The rental units are being proposed specifically for low-income families or those making 50% of regional median income or about $31,000. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficierit building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. All of the units are attached limiting the nin ibex of exterior exposed walls. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. The extension of West 78"' Street will provide access to the site. Interior access is limited to West 78t" via two interior local streets. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 26 Finding: The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the staff report. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans, subject to the conditions of the staff report. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other i niprovements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions in this report. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of records. Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. Additional easements will be required as part of the subdivision. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lake of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of dedicated and improved public streets. C. Lake of adequate sanitary sewer systems and not ISTS (individual sewer treatment system). d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 27 Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. Staff is confident the proposal preserves the natural features of the site and recommends approval land use plan, rezoning and preliminary plat subject to the conditions of this report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the resolution for a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment from low density residential to medium density residential and medium density residential to commercial; and approve the ordinance for a Planned Unit Development rezoning property from Agricultural Estate, A2, and Rural Residential, RR, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R, subject to the following conditions: 1. Contingent upon review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Compliance with the Development Standards and site plan date October 23, 2000." "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the Subdivision of 120.93 acres into 2 additions; 15t addition has 28 Blocks including 233 units and 4 outlots and the 2" d addition has 24 blocks including 50 units and 5 outlots subject to the following conditions: 1. Final platting for the commercial area located in Outlot C shall include a site plan review and approval. 2. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to final plat approval. 4. Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorpo�,ated on the preliminary and final grading plans and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. The erosion control plan should include, but not be limited to, Type III silt fence adjacent to all wetlands and an erosion control blanket on the steep slope adjacent to the eastern wetland. Staff also recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 28 5. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The utility systems, upon completion, will be owned and maintained by the City. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles." The private streets shall be located in a strip of property or easement 40 feet wide. 6. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer edge signs for the applicant to install after the utilities have been completed. The applicant shall pay the city $20 per sign. 7. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storrnwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for review and approval prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant shall provide detailed pre -developed and post -developed stori-pWater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shallbe based on Walker's Pondnet model. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District. Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 11. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind tLt� curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponj.s or wetlands. 12. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 29 minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access and/or maintenance of the ponding areas. 13. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. 14. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level of adjacent ponds, wetlands or creeks. 15. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans for review and approval. Also, any off -site grading wil' require temporary easements. 16. The cul-de-sac in the northeast corner of the site shall be revised to meet the minimum street grade requirement of 0.75%. Staff also recomr mcls that the cul-de-sac be moved to the west and possibly shortened in length to minin-_ize grading, tree loss, and the impact to adjacent wetlands. 17. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any draintiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain -tile as directed by the City Engineer. 18. Access to the commercial parcel may be limited to a .-ightin/right out along Century Boulevard and a full -shared access off West 78"' Street with the parcel to the east. A cross access agreement w*11 be required at the time of final platting. 19. Site grades adjacent to 'West 78"' Street, Century Boulevard, Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 shall be compatible with the future « i.d.ening of Trunk Highway 5. 20. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted within the public streets contingent upon the developer entering into air encroachment agreement w;th the city and the medians do not pose a traffic safety issue. 21. Add a 5-foot wide sidewalk along the south side of the public street in the northwest corner of the site. 22. Conservation Easement over Outlot F. 23. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 30 determine these requirements. 24. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one -hour fire - resistive construction. 25. Any building classified as an R-1 occupancy ( a building containing three or more dwelling units on the same property ) and with over 8500 gross square feet of floor area is required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. 26. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the hnspections Division before permits can be issued. 27. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 28. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the !nspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 29. Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to final plat approval. LI Landscaping recommendations 30. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all arias designated for preservation. 31. The number of overstory trees in all bufferyard areas shal l be increased to meet minimum requirements. 32. Boulevard trees along West 78"' Street shall be spaced 55 feet apart. 33. All Colorado spruce specified in landscape plans steal I be replaced by a new selection of evergreen. 34. Revise plant schedule to show seven -foot evergreens. 35. A minimum of three overstory trees shall be added to each of the tot lot areas. 36. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval." Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 31 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #99-21 — for 36 club homes, 73 manor homes, 82 coach homes, 160 Village homes and 32 rental townhouses subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the Arboretum Village Development Design Standards." The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-4 — to fill .54 acres of wetlands in 2 separate basins subject to the following conditions: The applicant has proposed a 10-foot buffer with a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge for Basin 2. Since this basin is a utilized wetland, neither a buffer nor a setback is required; however, the applicant may choose to include them. 2. A 20-foot buffer is proposed for Basin 3. Because the basin is an ag/urban wetland, only a buffer with a 10-foot minimum average width is required. he applicant may choose to include a buffer wider than the required 10-foot mirimur.: average. 3. Principal structures must maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. Several proposed structures encroach into the 40-foot setback (Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Phase 1, Outlot B; `/2 court basketball in Phase 2, Outlot B, Lots 18 and 19 of Phase 2, Outlot C). If the applicant decreases the buffer in these areas and still maintains a 10-foot minimum average buffer around the basin, the structures could meet the 40-foot setback requirement. 4. To reduce potential impacts to Drainageway 1 from the proposed fill, the applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing. This will act to drain excess storm water away from the area, thus preventing the drainageway from becoming wetter. The applicant should be advised that. while some drainage may be necessary, excessive drainage of the drainageway might cause additional_ wetland impact, which would require mitigation of wetlands at a 2:1 ratio. 5. Principal structures adjacent to Basin 5 must be set back 40 feet from the edge of the buffer. Lot 19, Outlot B, Phase 1 does not meet this requirement. 6. In order to make the most efficient and effective use of land, staff recommends the front yard setback on Lots 17 and 18, Outlot B, Phase I be reduced to 2.0 feet. This would allow the cul-de-sac to be moved 10 feet to the west and a 20-foot puffer to be established between the edge of curb and the edge of Basin 5. 7. The designation of the otitl.ot in the northwestern most portion of the property is not consistent between the preliminary plat ("Outlot F") and other plan sheets ("Outlot E") Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 32 8. Wetland mitigation areas must be constructed prior to wetland impacts occurring. 9. Wetland mitigation must occur in a manner that is consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). 10. The applicant should provide proof of property ownership for Outlot F. 11. Silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 12. The applicant will be required to re -seed any, disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetland soil conditions. 13. Drainage and utility easements should be provided over al l existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. 14. Wetland buffer areas should be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide vegetative barriers to define buffer edges. The applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. 15. NURP ponds should be constructed/expanded in con unction with the construction of Phase 1. 16. Based on the proposed developed area of 64.66 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $98,929.80 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are $192,363.50. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be deter -pined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet stmctures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Current information indicates that the project proposes water quality ponding for 44 acres. This results in water quality credits equaling $67, 320.00. The project also proposes providing l outlet structure, which results in a credit of $2.,500.00. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recordinj, is $221,473.30. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and approval of the Finding of Fact and Negative Declaration Oran Environmental Impact Statement." ARBORETUM VILLAGE Findings of Fact Regarding Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pulte homes is proposing a mixed PUD development (383 townhouse units) consisting of club homes, manor homes, coach homes, village homes and rental town homes on 89.5 acres and 2.94 acres of commercial uses on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and RR Rural Residential located on the northeast corner of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41, Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes. Pulte Homes "envisions this site as a high -quality Life -Cycle residential community harmoniously integrated with the natural and man-made features, constraints and amenities of the property. The proposal includes five housing types that are designed specifically for five different homebuyers. The design standards will coordinate different building styles, landscaping, and the commercial The project site is 120.9 acres and is a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed plan includes: • 31 acres of impervious surface (29 %). • 383 dwelling units. • 26.3 acres of wetland to remain on site. • 13 acres of existing tree cover to remain on site. Site Preparation — The site is being impacted by the upgrading of Trunk Highway 5, the future construction of West 78"' Street and installation of trunk water and sewer mains. Berming is proposed along the major collectors for noise abatement. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be constructed prior to initiation of site grading and will remain in place through the construction process. Storm Water Runoff - Storm water runoff from the area south of West 78tn Street will be routed to the southwest corner of the site and then be directed to the east through a swale in the right-of-way for Highway 5 to a NURP pond (Pond 2) that will be constructed by Mn/DOT in conjunction with the construction of West EAW Findings for Arboretum Village Page 2 78tn Street. Storm water runoff from the area north of West 78"' Street will be routed to a NURP pond (Pond 1) that will be constructed in conjunction with Phase 1 of the proposed development. Pond 1 will discharge into a large wetland on the north side of the project. Wetlands - The proposed site plan will impact 0.54 acres of the 29.3 acres of wetland on site. II. REASONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Arboretum Village project meets and exceeds the state Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) threshold for residential development (Minnesota Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 19 A.(4)). (250 unattached units or 375 attached units). Arboretum Village EAW addresses the cumulative impacts of the project. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The Arboretum Village EAW was submitted to the Environmental Quality Board on August 11, 2000. The EAW Notice of Availability was published in the September 4, 2000 issue of the Minnesota EQB Monitor. Copies of the EAW were mailed to all of the agencies and organizations on the EQB official EAW distribution list. The 30-day comment period ended on October 4, 2000. IV. COMMENTS ON THE EAW During the comment period, letters of comment were received from the following agencies, organizations and individuals: Carver County Public Works Department Minnesota Historical Society Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metropolitan Council Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Department of Transportation The comment letters on the Arboretum Village EAW are included as attachments to the staff report for the Arboretum Village. Following is a summary of the comments received and responses to the comments. A. Carver County Public Works No comment EAW Findings for Arboretum Village Page 3 B. Minnesota Historical Society The Minnesota Historical Society commented that the area has no known or suspected archeological properties. RESPONSE: No response C. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) All the structures within the development should be constructed well above the 1% (100 year) flood elevations of these ponds in accordance with the regulations of the City of Chanhassen and the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. RESPONSE: City requirements will require the project to be constructed at least 2 feet above the 1% (100-year) flood elevations of the ponds. 2. Construction should be minimized where erodible soils and steep slopes are present, and if possible the existing vegetation should be retained and preserved. Erosion control measures should be regularly monitored and maintained as required. RESPONSE: The City will inspect the site on a regular basis and will require the maintenance of erosion control measures. 3. Treated storm water runoff will be routed to a natural wetland area. This action can result in damage to the wetland because of the large volumes of water directed to it. Construction -related grading of the property should be minimized to avoid compacting soils on -site. RESPONSE: The City will make the applicant aware of the potential for damage to the wetland and will encourage the applicant to incorporate volume -reducing measures. Only 29% of the site is proposed for impervious surface coverage. 4. Landscaping and revegetation efforts for disturbed areas should use native plantings as deemed feasible. RESPONSE: Because the proposed project is adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor, the City will recommend native plantings be used whenever possible. D. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 1. A Clean Water Act (CWA.) Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and a CWA Section 401 water quality certification from the MPCA regarding the proposed alteration of wetlands are required. EAW Findings for Arboretum Village Page 4 RESPONSE: The City will require the applicant to obtain both a Section 404 permit and a Section 401 certification. 2. The location and boundaries of the existing wetlands and the location and extent of the proposed impacts to the wetlands must be indicated on the plans in order to assess the potential impact of this proposed wetland fill or impact from other structures. RESPONSE: The City has received this information and will assess the potential impacts of the proposed wetland fill. 3. There is no indication of where or how compensatory wetland mitigation will be provided. RESPONSE: The applicant has submitted a wetland replacement plan with the above information. 4. The permanent detention basins on -site should meet the criteria for both the National Urban Runoff Program and the MPCA's general permit. RESPONSE: The City will require the basins to meet the requirements of the MPCA's general permit. 5. The MPCA encourages the use of low -impact development principles like added detention in order to match existing (pre -development) and post -development discharge rates and volumes from the site. The MPCA also encourages minimization of the amount of impervious surfaces. RESPONSE: The Cite will make the applicant aware of these recommendations. 6. The MPCA encourages the designers and proposers to strive for human scale, pedestrian oriented developments, including plans for safe pedestrian movement between the residential and commercial areas. RESPONSE: The Chanhassen Park and Recreation will address these issues in its recommendations to the proposer and the Chanhassen City Council. 7. The MPCA encourages the applicant to actively evaluate and pursue waste prevention opportunities during the construction phase of the project. RESPONSE: The City will make the applicant aware of this recommendation. 8. The MPCA recommends the applicant preserve existing significant trees and incorporate native plantings in the landscaping to the maximum extent possible. EAW Findings for Arboretum Village Page 5 RESPONSE: The current proposal calls for the removal of few, if any, existing significant trees. Because the proposed project is adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor, the City will recommend native plantings be used whenever possible. Metropolitan Council 1. While the proposed storm water NURP ponds will adequately treat the runoff and keep the rate of runoff to predevelopment conditions, the volume of runoff will increase because of the increase in impervious areas. The developer should give consideration to reducing the amount of impervious connected areas. RESPONSE: The City will make the applicant aware of the potential for damage to downstream resources and will encourage the applicant to reduce the amount of impervious surface associated with the project. Minnesota Department of Transportation 1. Hwy 5 and West 78th Street are scheduled for construction spring of 2001. RESPONSE: Developer is working with that time frame. 2. The EAW incorrectly states that Mn/DOT is creating a. pond on sooth side of Hwy 41 and that Mn/DOT will be mitigating ponds impacted by the Developer. RESPONSE: The plan reflects the correct location of the pond and the appropriate mitigation. V. FINDINGS OF FACUDECISION ON NEED FOR EIS Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. Subp. 7, specifies the following criteria to be used in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposers of an EIS previously prepared on similar projects. Based on the information contained in the EAW. comments received on the EAW, and the criteria listed above, the City of Chanhassen, as the RGU makes the following determinations: A. The project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. EAW Findings for Arboretum Village Page 6 B. The preparation of a State Environmental Impact Statement on the project is not needed or recommended. C. The City of Chanhassen may issue permits to allow construction in compliance with the rules of the EAW and in conformance with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. g:\plan\ka\Arboretnnl Village EAW findings.doc Arboretum Village November 14, 2000 Page 33 ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Public hearing notice and property owner list 3. Letter from Mark Littfin, dated August 23, 1999 4. Letter from Steve Torell dated August 19, 1999 5. Letter from Lundgren Brothers dated September 21, 1999 6. Planning Commission minutes dated September 1, 1999 7. Letter from Chanhassen Chamber dated June 21, 2000 8. Wetland Conservation Act Application dated October 19, 2000 9. Letters from Mn/DOT dated September 15, 2000, August 28, 2000 and September 20, 2000. 10. EAW mailing list 11. Letter from Carver County Public Works dated August 22, 2000 12. Letter from MN DNR dated October 2, 2000 13. Letter from Minnesota PCA October 4, 2000 14. Letter from Minnesota Historical Society dated October 17, 2000 15. Metropolitan Council date October 19, 2000 16. Letter to Barbara Conti dated October 20, 2000 17. Letter to Thomas W. Balcom dated October 20, 2000 18. Letter to Helen Boyer Met Council dated October 20, 2000 19. Traffic Analysis 20. Tax Capacity Student Projections NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Arboretum Village APPLICANT: Pulte Homes LOCATION: NE Corner of Hwy. 5 & 41 NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Pulte Homes for a rezoning request from A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, a land use plan amendment from low density to medium density residential and commercial office to medium density and office industrial to commercial, and preliminary plat subdivision of 120.93 acres and wetland alteration permit and site plan review for a mixed housing development (383 units) consisting of dub homes, manor homes, coach homes, village homes and rental townhomes on 89.5 acres and 2.9 acres of commercial uses and on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located on the northeast comer of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41, Arboretum Village. 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 Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is dosed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900 ext. 118. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the 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 November 2, 2000. Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 MPLS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 640 GRANT ST E MINNEAPOLIS MN 55404 WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH 7801 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS B WARTMAN 28120 BOULDER BRIDGE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 THOMAS B WARTMAN -- 28120 BOULD GE SHORE MN 55331 MERALD A & ELAINE A KROGSTAD 7460 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JACOB O CROOKS & MICHAEL A & RENATE E CROOKS 7450 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN P SAVARYN ESTATE C/O PAUL SAVARYN 9950 NORTH SHORE RD WACONIA MN 55387 CHARLES W MARKERT 7461 HAZELTINE BLVIBO BOX 311 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BYRON A & MARY M OLSON 7331 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE 319 15TH AVE SE 424 DON HOWE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455 JOHN P SAVARYN ESTATE C/O PAUL SAVARYN 9950 NORTH SHORE RD WACONIA MN 55387 BRUCE A & YVONNE M GESKE 7325 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MPLS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 400 VERNON AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416 ROBERT D & LINDA J BERGAN 3241 TANADOONA DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS B. WARTMAN 28120 BOULDE SHOREW MN 55331 MILLS PROPERTIES INC ATTN: TOM GREEN PO BOX 971 BRAINERD MN 56401 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA C/O REAL ES�MN 319 15TH AVHOWE MINNEAP CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/OSCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER BOX 147 CHANHASS MN 55317 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CO RD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 361000RD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 GETSCH CORP C/O DAVID GETSCH 10202 BIRKSHIRE RD BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 GETSCH CORP C/O DAVID GETSCH __� 10202 BIRKSH17 BLOO ON MN 55437 GETSCH CORP C/O DAVID GETSCH. 10202RD BL MINGTO MN 55437 CHARLES & JENNIFER NEWELL 7550 DOGWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES & JENNIFER NEWELL 7550 DOGWOOD RD _ EXCELSIOR MIT' 55331 ERIC R & BETHANN L CAMPBELL 2717 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JONATHAN F & THERESA M WEHSE 2719 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DARRYL L WILLS & LIZANN M BRISSE-WILLS 2721 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 YO YEOL PARK 2715 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SANG CAM & NHI T KY 2711 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 PETER A & KIM MARIE PROSEN 2701 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT C & COURTNEY E RILE 2665 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RIAZ & SHIREEN HUSEIN 2655 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JONATHAN D ANDERSON SR & CATHERINE L ANDERSON 2645 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANTHONY J & KATHY A LARSON 2631 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALAN R & SANDRA M PHELPS 2613 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL T & MARY T K MAESER 2584 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALLAN H & ELISABETH VARGAS 2596 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL E & ANNE M RYAN 2595 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN G & NORMA J EVANS 2585 SOUTHERN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NICHOLAS H STILLINGS & DENISE C STILLINGS 2670 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT T & JACKLYN JAGODZINSKI 7320 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN I C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 JOHN & JOYCE FOLEY C/O RICHARD J FOLEY 4804 DUNBERRY LN MINNEAPOLIS MN 55435 BARBARA O FREEMAN 7431 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH F DANIELS 7537 DOGWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN I PETER T & DEANNA O BRANDT C/O LUNDGREN BROS CO�.-INC' 7570 DOGWOOD RD 935 WAYZATA BLV�-EE'' EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WAYZATA MN 55391 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 ROGER W OAS 7301 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT A VERGIN 7311 DOGWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 L MARTIN & DONNA R JONES 7321 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JANET M QUIST ETAL 7331 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD C LUNDELL 7341 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Your Neighborhood Builder August 31, 2000 Kate Aanenson Community Development Director 690 City Center Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Arboretum Village by Pulte Homes Dear Kate, As you know, the Western property line of the Dolejsi property we hope to begin developing in the spring of 2001 abuts the eastern property line of Arboretum Village, being proposed by Pulte Homes. A wetlands will physically divide our two properties. Phone 952.473.1231 Fax 952.473.7401 We are aware that Pulte plans to build rental units, possibly four plex slab on 935 East Wayzata Boulevard grade at this Eastern portion of their property. We at Lundgren have been Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 planning to build upper end single family directly across the wetlands from Pulte's rental units. Builder License No. 0001413 We are hoping that Pulte will provide significant screening, in order to shield the view of the rentals from our future homesites, so that the value of our homesites will be maintained. Please telephone me if you have any further questions or if I can be of further service. Thank you. Sincerely, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION Michael E. Burton Land Development Manager C: Marc Anderson, Vice President, Land Development CHAMBER of COMMERCE June 21, 2000 TO: Mayor and Members of the Chanhassen City Council FROM: Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors RE: Affordable Housing The Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors at its regular meeting on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, passed the following resolution which we are forwarding to you. The Chanhassen Chamber Board of Directors (the "Chamber") wishes to express its appreciation to Pulte Homes personnel who recently met with our Governmental Affairs Committee to present and explain their proposal for the improvement of property located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41 in Chanhassen. WHEREAS, the Chamber, does not wish to take a position on any specific Site Plan proposed or to be proposed by Pulte Homes, WHEREAS, the Chamber recognizes the continuing expressed need on the part of a variety of types and sizes of Chanhassen employers for housing which is affordable to current and prospective employees, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chamber wishes to reiterate its commitment to supporting life -cycle housing in our community so that employees --professional, skilled or unskilled, entry level or retirement stage --can afford to live in Chanhassen and we applaud Pulte Homes for the mix of types and prices of homes their proposal would bring to the Chanhassen employee market. 600 West 78th Street . P.O. Box 976 . Chanhassen . MN 55317 . (612) 934-3903 . fax (612) 934-3561 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 NOTICE OF WETLAND CONSERVATION.ACT APPLICATION FOR IMPACTS >10,000 SQUARE FEET Name of Applicant: Mr. Dennis Griswold Application Name: Arboretum Village Type of Application: (check one) ❑ Exemption 0 Replacement Plan ❑ No Loss El Banking Plan Date of Application: October 17, 2000 Location of Project: E %Z of the SW t/4 and W %Z of the SE I/4 of Section 9, Township 116N, Range 23 W Summary of Project: This project proposes the construction of 385 residential units consisting of 77 multi -unit structures on approximately 107 acres of agricultural property in the northeast corner of Trunk Highways 5 and 41. There are a total of 9 wetland basins and 1 drainageway classified as wetland on the property. (Two of the wetland basins are located on Outlot E, which consists of about 11 acres just northwest of the main portion of the property.) Wetland impacts (23,452 square feet) are proposed in 2 locations: 1. 3,500 square feet for a road to cross the drainageway; and 2. 19,952 square feet of impact to a farmed wetland in the extreme southwest corner of the property. The applicant proposes the construction of 2 wetlands to mitigate wetland impacts. The project will provide 57,142 square feet of new wetland credit (NWC) through wetland creation and 66,856 square feet of public value credit (PVC) through the creation of upland buffer areas (42,856 square feet) and storm water ponds (75% of 32,000 square feet or 24,000 square feet). Wetland impacts will be mitigated through the use of 23,452 square feet of NWC and 23,452 square feet of PVC. All remaining wetland credits (33,690 square feet of NWC and 43,404 square feet of PVC) are proposed to be deposited into the wetland bank for use by the applicant at a later date. List of Addressees: Mr. Dennis Griswold Mr. Chip Hentges Pulte Homes of Minnesota Carver SWCD 1355 Mendota Heights Road 219 East Frontage Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Waconia, MN 55387 Mr. Doug Snyder BWSR 1 West Water Street St. Paul, MN 55107 Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek WD c/o Mr. Bob Obermeyer Barr Engineering 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Minnehaha Creek WD . Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 149 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mr. Doug Norris DNR Ecological Services Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155 Mr. Gary Elftmann Department of the Army, COE St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 5th St E St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 You are hereby notified that the above -referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Application is attached. Comments will be accepted on this application until November 6, 2000. Date of Mailing of This Notice: October 19, 2000 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Date: October 19, 2000 �= 4 ZMAL - 0 1 _L_ Title: WATt4L &S NN 44> $ (f0V&1 NA'?oti GAENG\LORI\ADMIN\PLANNTNG\Arb Village WRP Notice.doc �NNESpT, ap g Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division �rp`T`�~g� Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 CEI Roseville, MN 55113 L September 15, 2000 SEP 2 0 2000 CITY OF C8,ANI�ASSLt�- Kate Aanenson Phone: (952) 937-1900 ext. 118 City of Chanhassen Community Development Director 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Aboretum Village Pursuant to a meeting with Dennis Griswald of Pulte Homes, I am writing this letter to express the impacts on this property with regard to the trunk highway project scheduled for construction in 2001. Dennis Griswald is currently pursuing the acquisition of the property located in the northeast quadrant of TH 5 and TH 41. For S.P. 1002-71 an extension of the West 781h Street frontage road will be constructed through this property requiring a need for Mn/DOT to acquire right-of-way. After our meeting with Dennis Griswald on September 1 Ith, it is our understanding that if the plat and development plan for Aboretum Village are approved in a timely manner, Pulte Homes will donate the required right-of-way as well as any temporary easements that will be needed for the construction of the frontage road from Century Boulevard to TH 41. The following, items are the benefits of the right-of-way donation by Pulte Homes: • This donation will be a benefit to the general public in that tax dollars will not be required to purchase right-of-way. • Expediting the approval of the plat benefits both Mn/DOT and Pulte Homes in that the State does not have to go through the lengthy acquisition process so that construction will not be delayed. Pulte Homes will be able to initiate their development plan. • The development plan will reduce the amount of right-of-way need to construct the frontage road because the proposed elevations are closer to the finished roadway design than the existing ground elevations. If someone besides Pulte Homes purchases and develops this property, the benefits to Mn/DOT will most likely be reduced. Please take this in consideration when reviewing the paperwork for Pulte Homes. Thank you for considering the thoughts of the Mn/DOT Right -of -Way office. Sincerely, h4vrkl- John Isackson, P.E. Mn/DOT Area Right -of -Way Manager An equal opporlunity employer Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Waters - Metro, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 August 28, 2000 Kathryn R. Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVE AUG 3 0 2000 RE: Arboretum Village - Pulte Homes, DNR Wetland 10-0209, City of Chanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. Aanenson: This is the letter that you requested in our telephone conversation of August 25, 2000. DNR Waters has received (August 14, 2000) the information submitted by the City of Chanhassen concerning the Arboretum Village Development by Pulte Homes. Arboretum Village is located in the southwest quarter of Section 9, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, in Carver County. After a brief review of the preliminary plans for Arboretum Village we have the following comments to offer: 1. DNR Wetland 10-209W is located on the Arboretum Village site. The plans should note the ordinary high water level of 910.30' (NGVD, 1929) for Wetland 10-209W. It is good to see that there is no work proposed to be done within DNR Wetland 10-209W. However, there are other wetlands on the Arboretum Village site in which work is proposed to be done. The work in these wetlands will be under the jurisdiction of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, City of Chanhassen and the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff CreekWatershed District. Other employees of the DNR may comment on the permits submitted for these regulatory programs. 2. It is good to see that the Arboretum Village site is not within a FEMA floodplain. However, the many wetlands and sediment ponds on the property are potential causes of flood damages. All the structures within the development should be constructed well above the 1% (100-year) flood elevations of these ponds in accordance with the regulations of the City of Chanhassen and the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. 3. It is good to see that the stormwater from Arboretum Village will be treated to remove some of the sediments before the stormwater is routed to natural wetlands and drainage ways. However, damage can be caused by large volumes of stormwater. The actual volume of stormwater from the development should be reduced by minimizing impervious surfaces, infiltrating stormwater and eliminating the use of storm sewer, curb and gutter whenever possible. The grading of the property should be minimized to avoid compacting the soils on site. 4. It is good to see that large portions of the wooded area in Arboretum Village are being preserved. If possible, the landscaping of the property should use the same species of trees and shrubs that are found within the woods. These areas should be preserved by using the association documents, deed restrictions, easements, and covenants. 5. There are steep slopes on the Arboretum Village Property. To avoid erosion and sedimentation problems, construction should be minimized in these areas and, if possible, the existing vegetation preserved. In general, the erosion controls for the Arboretum Village site need to be very careful and grading of the site should be minimized. The City of Chanhassen should consider requiring bonds for erosion control purposes. DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity Minimum of 10% Post -Consumer Waste Kathryn R. Aanenson August 28, 2000 Page 2 6. The comments in this letter address DNR Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for giving DNR Waters the opportunity to comment on Arboretum Village. Please feel free to contact me at (651) 772-7910 should you have any questions. WSincerely, Joseph Richter Hydrologist c: Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District 4%NNESoT 9 � t� r OF;pp Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 September 20, 2000 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Arboretum Village -- Mn/DOT Platt Review File #P00-072 Northeast Quadrant of Trunk Highway (TH) 5 and TH 41 Chanhassen, Carver County C.S. 1002 Dear Ms. Aanenson: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following issues: ■ Mn/DOT has a project (SP 1002-71) that is scheduled for construction in the spring of 2001. The city and developer will need to address the following issues with respect to this project: 1. The site plan shows a street/entrance to the west of the TH 41 and West 78th Street intersection - this does not exist and will not be constructed as part of the Mn/DOT project. 2. The construction plan is 60 percent complete and the project will construct the West 78th Street extension from Century Boulevard to TH 41. The developer (Pulte Homes) will need to coordinate the grading of this site with MnDOT. The plan does not reflect the current drainage design for S.P. 1002-71. Any grading by the developer for Arboretum Village will require Mn/DOT review so that proper adjustments can be made to the contours in S.P. 1002-71. Additional comments concerning grading are addressed below in the next bullet item. Please direct questions concerning the above issues to Jane Krebsbach (651-582-1767) of Mn/DOT's Consultant Design section. The plans are missing some major features from the proposed West 78t" Street project (SP1002-71). The developer needs to work directly with Mn/DOT on their drainage design. A Mn/DOT drainage permit is required to construct the project. Page 9 on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) incorrectly states that Mn/DOT is creating a pond on the south side of TH 41. Mn/DOT is not building a pond at this location, only `Pond 1" on the northwest corner of TH 5 and Century Boulevard. The EAW incorrectly mentions wetland impacts as being mitigated by Mn/DOT on page 6 for basin 6. Mn/DOT is unable to determine where the boundaries for basin 6 are located because the submitted wetland plan only has a hand -drawn diagram with no coordinates. Mn/DOT will not mitigate any wetland impacts by Pulte Homes. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Patrick McLamon (763-797-3151) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. Jt�t�t! An equal opportunity employer ■ There are significant problems with the submitted plat including the following: 1. The 100-foot wide corridor shown on the plat is insufficient. The-100 foot wide right of way corridor on West 78"' Street is substandard because it is too narrow to cover all of the ditch bottoms. The plans need to show the right of way line that is being developed in the plan for SP 1002-71. 2. The plans need to show the latest right of way `B" corners on the plat. The `B" corners have recently been revised so it is important that the developer get the most recent information from Mn/DOT. 3. The new centerlines for TH 5 should be shown on the plat. 4. Access control exists along TH 5 and TH 41, which should be shown on the plat. Please direct questions concerning these issues to John Isackson (651-582-1273) of Mn/DOT's Right of Way section. ■ Any impact to Mn/DOT right of way will require a permit. A Mn/DOT drainage permit is required. Questions regarding permit applications may be directed to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443) of our Permits Section. ■ The final plat will need to identify Mn/DOT right of way any monuments found on the final plat. Please send a copy of the final plat for Mn/DOT review at the following address: Jeff Hoffstrom Mn/DOT — Metro West Surveys 2055 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Phone: (763) 797-3108 ■ Century Boulevard to the south is Minnesota State Aid (MSA) route 118 and West 78"' Street is MSA route 113. These routes need to meet State Aid rules and policies. Furthermore, the City should clarify whether it is their plan to make Century Boulevard an MSA route all the way to West 78`" Street. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Thomas Leibli (651-582-1372) of Mn/DOT's State Aid section. Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often results in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The project developer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impacts of any highway noise. Please direct questions concerning Mn/DOT's noise policy to Jim Hansen (651-582- 1392) of Mn/DOT's Transportation Planning section. Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to: Sherry Narusiewicz Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Please note that Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. Feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1771 if should have any questions. S.iUcerel Paul Czech Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison Copy: John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corporation Hedlund Mn/DOT Division File C.S. 1002 Mn/DOT LGL — Chanhassen (invironmental Quality Board (1) .Environmental Review Program 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 ,�Pf� Ilution Control Agency (3) [ayle Skowronek Environmental Analysis Office 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Agriculture (1) vBecky Bulk 90 West Plato Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55107 legislative Reference Library (2) arol Blackburn 645 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 j�nvironmental Protection Agency (1) William D. Franz Chief of Environmental Review 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3590 Department of Public Service (1) Myra White 200 Metro Square Building 121 East 7t" Place St. Paul, MN 55101 ransportation (3) Gerald Larson MnDOT Environmental Services 3485 Hadley Ave. No. Oakdale, MN 55128 P3,0ard of Water and Soil Resources (1) Doug Thomas One West Water Street, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55107 /vironmental Conservation Library (2) 300 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 ,jVS. Fish and Wildlife Service (1) Twin Cities Field Office E.S. 4101 East 801" Street Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 (_Nhatural Resources (3) Tom Balcom Office of Planning 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 H�Ith (1) LEnvironmental Health Policy Planning And Analysis Unit 121 East 7t" Place, Suite 220 St. Paul, MN 55101 U historical Society (1) " State Historic Preservation Office 345 Kellogg Boulevard West St. Paul, MN 55102 �!S. Army Corps of Engineers (1) Char Hanger Regulatory Functions Branch 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 metropolitan Council (1) Linda Milashins, Referrals Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 �Pnrad Fiskness Reference Library LZarver County Engineering Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek ` Carver County Library -Chanhassen Roger Gustafson 8033 Cheyenne Avenue 690 City Center Drive 600 East 4t" Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Carver County Government Center Administration •�� Administration Building parks 600 East Fourth Street Engineering CARVER Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192 Highway Maintenance V COT NT�7 Surveyin; & Mapping COUNTY Phone (952) 361-1010 Fax (952) 361-1025 August 22, 2000 To: Kadhryn R. Aarienson, Con i imunity Deve;upnient �'iractor, City Lit Chanhassen From: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer ! Subject: Rezoning request — Northeast Quadrant of TH/ TH 41 intersection J g Planning Case: 99-2 PUD We have reviewed the information regarding the proposed rezoning request on property located at the northeast corner of TH 5 and TH 41 as transmitted to Carver County by yous- memorandum dated August 11, 2000. Development on this property does not directly impact a Carver County roadway. No further comments will be sent from the Carver County Public Works Department regarding this development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rezoning request. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at 952-361-1010. 23 2000 Affirmative Actio&Equal Opportunity Employer - Printed on 10% Post -Consumer Recycled Paper Oct 3 2000 16:24 P.01 Minnesota Department of - Natural Resources $()() Lafayette Road 10 St, Phut, Mirt,teggi .55151-40— Post-it° Fax Note 7671 [From7:;; ted 3 pa°ges� T y M��idh October 2, 2000 co./Dept. at` h�ch Co.- �.vv, Kathryn R. Aanenson Phone # Phone Crl _ 1. Community Development Director Fax # Fax 0 o 690 City Center Drive SZ — 3 -S 9 ti�IG' � p.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, NIN 55317-0147 RE: Arboretum Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Ms. Aanenson: The -Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has reviewed the EAW for the Arboretum Village project. We, offer the following comments for your consideration. Item 14, Water -related Land Use Management District, is correctly answered "no" because no part of the project site occurs within the pEMA floodpiain. however, the final project will occur on a site containing several wetlands and sediment ponds, all of which are potential sources of flood -related damages. All the structures within the development should be constructed well above the 1% (100-year) flood elevations of these ponds in accordance with the regulations of the City of Chanhassen and the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. The site contains erodible soils and some steep slopes according to Item 17, Erosion and Sedimentation. Construction should be minimized where these conditions are present, and if possible the existing vegetation should be retained and preserved. Regarding the erosion control measures employed for the project, they should be regularly monitored and maintained as required. Item 17b indicates that treated storm watt r runoff will be routed to "a natural wetland area." Although permissible, this action can result in damage to the wetland because of the large volumes of water directed to it. These volumes could be further reduced by: 1) minimizing impervious surface creation; 2) utilizing infiltration -based storm waternConst treatmentoff on-rel ted grading of cite P operty tshould be sewer, curb and gutter wherever possible e use of storm minimized to avoid compacting the soils on site. In general, we recommend that landscaping and revegetation efforts for disturbed areas use native species of trees and shrubs as deemed feasible. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We do not recommend preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) based upon natural resource considerations. We look forward to DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6167 - TTY-,651-296-5484 ' 1-S 657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity Printed on Recycled Papa( containing a Iftip Minimum of la / Past -Consumer Waste Oct 3 2000 16 : 24 P. 02 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director October 2, 2000 receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion of the environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action_ PIease contact Bill Johnson of my staff at (651) 296-9229 if you Dave questions about this letter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcozn, Supervisor Etavironmental Planning & Review Section Office of Management and Budget Services c: Kathleen Wallace Con Christianson Joe Oschwald Russ Peterson, USFWS Jon Larsen, EQB Tom Standke, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, Inc. 420000631-0002 ARBORETUM.WPD 2 10/03/00 TUE 09:30 FAX 612 296 7782 METRO MANAGERS OFFICE a 001 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency October 4, 2000 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson City of Chanhassan 690 City .Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 Post -it" Fax Date /p = 3 NNote , t7671 To �f U a�pag°es/��, rom g4 06 �%/ //� CoJDept.C4"/4#SSE, I I`+ Co. M pcq Phone # . Phon s,)a 6?v3 Fa SoZ 3 — 5-7 3 q Fax # RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) — Arboretum Village Dear Ms. Aanenson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW for the Arboretum Village Development project. The proposal is the construction of townhouses and a commercial area on 107 acres, near the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 5 and TH 41. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the EAW for this project. We have the following comments for. your consideration and response in determining the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wetlands Item 8 should indicate that a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and a CWA Section 401 water quality certification from the MPCA regarding the proposed alteration of wetlands is required. Item 10 indicates there will be 1.2 acres less of wetland on the site after construction. The location and boundaries of the existing wetlands and the location and extent of the proposed impacts to the wetlands must be indicated on the layout in order to assess the potential impact of this proposed wetland fill or impact from other structures. Item 12 indicates that wetland compensatory mitigation will be provided for the wetlands impacted, but there is no indication where or how this mitigation will be provided. The location and description of the wetland compensatory mitigation must be described and included on the layout, particularly if it is to consist of onsite creation. This information is necessary in order to assure that the mitigation would be adequate to compensate for the impact and that there will be no additional environmental impacts caused by the mitigation construction. Questions regarding wetlands requirements may be addressed to Larry Zdon, at (651) 297-8219. Storm Water Runoff The EAW notes that permanent detention basins will be designed to National Urban Runoff Program guidelines for total suspended solids and nutrients. The permanent basins must also fulfill the requirements of the MPCA's general permit. 520 Lafayette Rd. N., St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TTY) St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar; www.pca.state,mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. 10/03/00 TUE 09:31 FAX 612 296 7782 METRO MANAGERS OFFICE U002 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson Page Two We encourage the use of low -impact development principles like added detention through ponding, depressional storage, and infiltration. We recommend that the city of Chanhassen and developers develop a plan to match existing (pre -development) and post -development discharge rates and volumes from the site. Additionally, we encourage the project proposer to minimize the amount of impervious surfaces in the project area, which will help minimize the potential impacts from storm water runoff. Questions about the MPCA's construction storm water program requirements may be directed to Gene Soderbeck at (651) 296-8280. General We would encourage the designers and proposers to strive for human scale, pedestrian oriented developments, including plans for safe pedestrian movement between the residential and commercial areas. We would also encourage the proposer to actively evaluate and pursue waste prevention opportunities during the construction phase of the project. We recommend that the proposer preserve existing significant trees and incorporate native plantings in the landscaping to the maximum extent possible. We look forward to receiving your written responses to these comments as well as documentation of your decision on the need for an EIS. If you have any other questions about this letter, please contact me at (651) 296-6703. Sincerely, &kba . Barbara Conti Planner Principal Operations and Planning Section Metro District BC:sjs cc: Gregg Downing, Environmental Quality Board Tom Standke, Pulte Homes Larry Zdon, MPCA, MD/CAP Gene Soderbeck, MPCA, MD/CAP •,,; p fi.,-.-�.rr+x`��'T'-,.'7'a'„ _ �"ms"r+�'.s y„c°`e. '�q'r'�si P`. >< �,. w. P �w'tU.s i :l'r, f -j, M'c"t?rT �d.A nr �_.;nr x+t�: C. ,,, �-'u'. -�r5: -.,�;- ! r`3> .ice-�`46 �. ��z }.� z��..,.t. �''�"�i s� � xs D�rt '.q �,;g;: ;.. srl+# t h y* - b ?�„ t-`c x+ ash_rz` .'..- ,,�# ,>a S5 r "f�L _4' _ v.;}, ,'�,. #: 3' � -" �f ,_� r .. _.... v� ,a � rr � �, Sze: .A.� - r_,. S-� �" STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE RECEIVED MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY OCT 19 2000 October 17, 2000 Teresa Halloran Loucks Associates 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55369 RE: Hedlund Arboretum Village Subdivision Chanhassen, Carver County SHPO Number: 2000-1434 Dear Ms. Halloran: CITY OF GHANHASSLN Thank you for submitting the copy of the cultural resources survey of the above referenced project. At this time, we have the above following comments: 1. Based on the findings of the archaeological survey, we conclude that there are no significant archaeological properties in the project area. 2. The survey report includes, on page 8, a statement that the proposed project is not a federally licensed or federally funded undertaking. However, it does appear that the project will require a NPDES permit (an EPA/MPCA permit process), which means that a Section 106 review will need to be addressed. As part of this review, the following items will need to be considered: A. The eligibility of the farmstead on the east side of Highway 41 (see page 10 of the survey report) will need to be determined. As an initial step in this determination, we would suggest that photographs and a sketch map of the farmstead be submitted to our office for further assessment. B. The effects of the development on the Minnesota Fruit Breeding Farm need to be further considered. We do not necessarily agree with the determination that the proposed development will have no adverse effect on this National Register eligible property. In order to better assess these effects, we need more information on the scale and layout of the proposed development, particularly on the western edge that abuts on Highway 41. We look forward to working with the permitting agency, the developer, and other interested parties in completing this review. Contact us at 651-296-5462 with questions or concerns. Sincerely, nni` s A. Gi�mme a ( Government Programs and ComI4ce Officer Cc: Randall Hedlund, Hedlund Engineering Kathryn Aanenson, City of Chanhassen Keith Cherryholmes, MPCA Peter Olin, Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future October 18, 2000 Kathryn R. Aanenson Community Development Director RECEIVED E City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive 0 u 19 2000 Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 CITY OF CHANFiASSEN Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Chanhassen Arboretum Village Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18363-1 Metropolitan Council District 4 Dear Ms. Aanenson: Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the EAW to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The project proposes to construct 385 units of residential housing on approximately 107 acres. Included in the 107 acres is an undeveloped three -acre parcel proposed to be used as commercial property. Staff submits the following advisory comments: Storniwater(Jack Frost, 651-620-1078) The project proposes to create two storm water NURP ponds to treat the runoff from the site. While these ponds will adequately treat the runoff and keep the rate of runoff to predevelopment conditions, the volume of runoff will increase because of the increase in impervious areas. The increased volume can cause deleterious effects on downstream resources. The developer should give consideration to reducing the amount of impervious connected areas. Examples of techniques to reduce imperviousness can be found in Low Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach by Prince George's County, Maryland. The staff review concludes that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. If you have questions, please contact Linda O'Connor, technical reviewer, at 651-602-1098. Sincerely, Helen Boyer Director, Environmental Services Cc: Julius C. Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4 Keith Buttleman, MCES, Director Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department Tom Caswell, Sector Representative Linda Milashius, Referrals Coordinator Linda O'Connor, Principal Reviewer 230 Gast Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (651) 602-1000 Fax 602-1550 TDD/TrY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888 CITY OF CHMNSEN October 20, 2000 00 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Ms. Barbara Conti Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Phone 612.937.1900 520 Lafayette Road North General Fax 612.937.5739 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safeo, Fax 612.934.2524 RE: Comments on Arboretum Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet IM wwlo.ciAmil5assen.mn.its (EAW) Dear Ms. Conti: Thank you for your comments on the EAW for the Arboretum Village development project. Following are responses to your comments from your letter dated October 4, 2000. WETLANDS Comment 1: Item 8 should indicate that a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and a CWA Section 401 water quality certification from the MPCA regarding the proposed alteration of wetlands is required. Response 1: The City will require the proposer to obtain both a Section 404 permit and a Section 401 certification. Comment 2: Item 10 indicates there will be 1.2 acres less of wetland on the site after construction. The location and boundaries of the existing wetlands and the location and extent of the proposed impacts to the wetlands must be indicated on the layout in order to assess the potential impact of this proposed wetland fall or impact from other structures. Response 2: The City has received this information and will assess the potential impacts of the proposed wetland fill. Continent 3: Item 12 indicates that wetland compensatory mitigation will be provided for the wetlands impacted, but there is no indication where or how this mitigation will be provided. The location and description of the wetland compensatory mitigation must be described and included on the layout, TL_!':.....f/'L...l.._.,... A-..,,.,,:.,,.,,,....„,,..:......:.1,,.1_...I..L_. ,....,1:...._1-1. -. I.-_..:.._J_.,...._..... .1........... _1.... :..----- _..JI.....:T.J. .1.. A....._...L._-I:-.......1. .,..,1I/- during construction so the City may help to educate developers, designers and construction firms about waste prevention. Comment 8: We recommend that the proposer preserve existing significant trees and incorporate native plantings in the landscaping to the maximum extent possible. Response 8: The current proposal calls for the removal of few, if any, existing significant trees. Because the proposed project is adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor, the City will recommend native plantings be used whenever possible. The City will provide the MPCA with documentation of its decision on the need for an EIS once such a decision is made. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact me at 952/937-1900, extension 105. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator cc: Scott Botcher, City Manager Dennis Griswold, Pulte Homes Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director File 4 CITY OF CHANHASS$N 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Meb wunv.ci.chanhassen.nm.us October 20, 2000 Mr. Thomas W. Balcom Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Pau1,.MN 55155-4010 RE: Comments on Arboretum Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Balcom: Thank you for your comments on the EAW for the Arboretum Village development project. Following are responses to your comments from your letter dated October 2, 2000. Continent 1: Item 14, Water -related Land Use Management District, is correctly answered "no " because no part of the project site occurs within the FEMA floodplain. However, the final project will occur on a site containing several wetlands and sediment ponds, all of which are potential sources of flood -related damages. All the structures within the development should be constructed well above the I % (100 yeaf) flood elevations of these ponds in accordance with the regulations of the City of Chanhassen and the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. Response 1: The City will require the project to meet these requirements. Comment 2: The site contains erodible soils and some steep slopes according to Item 17, Erosion and Sedimentation. Construction should be minimized where these conditions are present, and if possible the existing vegetation should be retained and preserved. Regarding the erosion control measures employed for the project, they should be regularly monitored and maintained as required. Response 2: The City will inspect the site on a regular basis and will require the maintenance of erosion control measures when necessary. Comment 3: Item 17b indicates that treated storm water runoff will be routed to "a natural wetland area. " Although permissible, this action can result in damage The Go, of Cbanbassen. A growing connnunity with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 4 CITY OF CgAN9ASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.9371900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Meb ivu)u.ci.clianhassen,rrtn.ns October 20, 2000 Ms. Helen Boyer Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1626 RE: Comments on Arboretum Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Ms. Boyer: Thank you for your comments on the EAW for the Arboretum Village development project. Following are responses to your comments from your letter dated October 18, 2000. Comment]: The project proposes to create two storm water NURP ponds to treat the runoff fr onz the site. While these ponds will adequately treat the runoff and keep the rate of runoff to predeveloprnent conditions, the volume of runoff will increase because of the increase in impervious areas. The increased volume can cause deleterious effects on downstream resources. The developer should give consideration to reducing the amount of impervious connected areas. Response 1: The City will make the applicant aware of the potential for damage to downstream resources and will encourage the applicant to reduce the amount of impervious surface associated with the project. The City will provide the Metropolitan Council with documentation of its decision on the need for an EIS once such a decision is made. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact me at 952/937-1900, extension 105. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator cc: Scott Botcher, City Manager Dennis Griswold, Pulte Homes Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director File I: T, N D a a- O CD 3 CD -4 v 0 co O c 0 m in c lD O_ v in -a O o' m CD m Cn m 7 CD 1 iV O d7 3 m n o' to O v 0000000000 3333333333 m m m m m m m m m m ci L i Q. ci Q. Q. ci w' v' v' v' su v' w' v' Q. N N m m m m m m L2 D Q Q 7� C) 0 CD CD m m Cp CD 3 3 3 3 v v: 5 000000C CI v m m m m :3D Z) � chi' F)' -N'". O O v+ m cn Cn, m cD chi I<— Iz m m oo 0 0 i i c c c 2. r: f CD m 0 0 3 m m m m v m m v in cn :3 7 ao,m m m m-`<`� - C' c S `/ 3 3- - --AN1�N 0 0 0 o o o 7 7 c c L L 0000�En N Cn N ,C• ,. m m m m n n 0 0 C 0 0o Ln Cn cn rn m m m m `< `< '< v v IS X ? N P N z z c c c c w a) 2 - N N N n n 0 n O 0 00 CD m `G `G cn a) w 0 0 CT CD i 00 V �1 O CA Cn O O 00 �I O Ut N -• W v -> O Cn .A 4 W i N O V N W W-C� -• N W J 4 Cn 0 �I W CD Cn Cn W N W IV M -1 Cn -A- co O W Cn i N .P Cn cn w O W �I O - W W W W O i i N N i i COD -4 W -OP W O N O v CCnn i i O .P W �1 i Cn w N - Cn 000x<OET r'r 990000;u*r u) oocm ovcr ��CLC, �n m 33s�wc�. CD 3 3 -► �' m 0" O O Z 3 3 C m m o =_ °° ° m m 3 3 v Ey m m m 1 a v, > m v v m cn 0 0 0 cn v D o y � N cD 3 cmn m < - n .- O v Iv i v CD N CD n m O ( CD m D v .mm.. D co i N cn cn i i m i o co 0 0 0 0 —j .p i O O O O O CD i- O m W W •A N 0o W w w w w 2. C, ) i W W co CO W i =. c,.n W N N Cn W N O i i �P CD 00 N y _, O O N O N O O -n W 1 N W .WA OWo ONO P O O NiCnOcncnCn co ai Oo cn Oo Oo Cb N N m -I W W 0 i W 0 0 0 O O O O A -P l� •A W rn.Pul cnl�?A -P A .A Cn 1� •A -N W i N N w 00 rn A. W ? -4COO � � COO 0) Cn W CD N -• W W -1 cn A 00 N CD Cb i 00 O Cn v i O O Cn cn i CA N i �' v-4 M M O N N m z i Dm O O O Co i 0 -• Cb (D O �I P Cn O O O T z J -4 A ? CA N W CA CD CD cn i i o o i o w 4 v OO<nin-P Wvi 77 N N ? Jh O W .A .? D N -� -� -� •P N _i N � -�Ot�-ow�cni T. 4 Cb O Cn " N i -� W CD O Cn W CD ? -4 D —I i � V CD N 0) Cn �I000-I-Nw Cn OD 0) O N " CA O N i i Cn w i N m W i Cl) CO Cb w w 0) N O O -1 .1? -I N Co D O X C r D O m m m 0 cn C 0 m z ;U O C— m n O z cn N O O O 0000000000 o o o;a < O K T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c (Da �O�� 3333333333 336.,.�o( 3333333333 33-iRm �D mmommmmmmm mmO-I=o=� 0 �, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 -, 0. 0. 0. 0. O o 3 0 0 v' v FD v w m m v m FD v � 3 cD 3 cu _ = O. 0Sm0um)c I N CD CD ((DD CD CD N O O D N m 3 0 3 G) G) 9 _O Q Q CDMCCCCCD CD 0 0 r_ n m C > > 3 3 3 3 2L 21 - m m 000000� CL um, v m m m m�� cn m 0, 0. N 0 0 0m SOD C) (D 0 �1& 0 0 O Or SD m aD�rn K5 3 7 7 7 N N v'-i v'"i v� n m m C nmom CD m N N W N to (n 7 Q. A n 0 0 0 z z NT. O O C. C (D @DD (D (D 3 A N N W W 3 r r r r c c o o o o S 5 � = (n w D CCCoNW Cn 1 0 m m m m 0 0 0 0 " W 0 > > = M - - 0 0 iv o cn Ln Ln LA m m - @CC) -� 00 00 .z Iz Iz �G (`D m A co i N�? W A N A N 6s 4A 4.9 fA -69 4A fA 4A v N 7 7 0 0 - - - — " 0 0 M M cn N m (D v w v m rnrnNO rnvO 0 0 0 0 co N Cfl O O) CD --1 W O O (D (D CD (D 00.PrnNNjrn P CO J CD U1 N CD -4 --4v CD P (D A IN O m 0 -4.A OOOOO (n (n 4fl 4fl 4A -Co 44 fA 4A 4A 1� N cD N 7 7 O O W W W. ' 4 (� (� C4 N w -4 n w W W M O-4 W W� lD (D N CCn COD .P � .NP O m 69 69 69 4.9 49 69 49 69 {fl 69 4A 69 69 fA 44 fA fA 69 Ol m A O W W �I N CTi N N N U1 UICOCD W 1I�-�CnO P�1N W cn PO�rn m .P .P w CD w --j m m -4 w w " C) m n P. N CD W O Cn N Cn N N O -4 1 C.+W 0 CD .P 4�- Un -4 O .P Cn CD m N N m v O .P Cn A W 3' CD w � O 00 O WCn OD M w rn O Cn m .P N m .P DooCD mOD.Pw fA 49 69 69 69 4A fA fA 69 69 69 4A 69 49 69 fA 49 69 .P w� N D. N A W W N - _ _ � c n CD v O cn co m cO to W� W .P CNn A cO -� m mwOCOCnwCDwwN W �lcoOcnjCn-P� O -4 Cn N 3 W Cn N (D rl v N N W O CD -P A N Cn:PW:PcoON0--4rnvO.PCn.P -4 rn- O CD OD CO N '� O -4 s co w Cn A M N Cn A V m cn w A N coo rn rn W W Cn A N rn .P rr-��G�000m*r D � � QQ� 3 3 0m Q W ooC'='R 3 3 �v 0 0 0 3 3 RET5 mQ-N m 0 rn ppoc (n m �.�. C T. 0o�^^ `� z CD N < N n O D O m CD Cn cnN co m po Co CD O O O -4 ? C CD 0 0 0 D D 0 .0 A N OD rn CO W W W o D C C7 c w w cnD cDCDw N N Cn W Z CD O iv o r,J A�oorn D mr N -� A OD O CD.P co co � O CD m <fl9 094.q fl 0.1.0to fi cn 65 cn -i x o Cn 1� w cD cn N) cn� - - co CO Y m (U M -4, N)) w cn-,l-4OMrn.Prn �P O n UCnt (Cnn OO A 'm -I co .P O O N A CO C W O O O O -4 .0-- m 1049f969<A694Af9 zT � V Cn -N W W 0') 0') co 0) -4 N .P x 0 wCDw'JOmOw -� O co CO O N A NCD mO w N A --4 .P s� N CD -P O O O ;P W w - O O O CCOO N Cn O Z f969469 6969.94969 Cn n N M .COP W -4 N 00 tJ " W A A co N S Nrn;Pao WrnaD� (D M W W s Cn 49 69 49 ffl 4.9 ffl tfi -69 N to (D Nrn�ACnao W A N -n IV -� rnO-JO _F M N M , W -4(mn N IV �00rn6o"CD w-�aorncncDww N O O O nnnnnnnnnn OOOX<OKT rr-KKOOOOX:�,:r D 0000000000 oocm owc oommm�ooOmw Z W 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 (ymv c m m �_ _q� �'3n 3333333333 33-�°'mao o0cc��33�a) O m m m m m m m m m m - m m o m -� -�=o =- m m 2 :3 :3 � m m � � m � " a, " 0.0.0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. � �, o 0 3 0 0 m 0 0 0 52. Q. v'n�'w'n�vv'mvmv' su'vo�m�m� :3M (D v m o `� 3 m m CO < N N m m m m m m �. �. Q ❑ _Q _Q n' n 2- m c c c c m m �= on m G __ _- no r r COD 3 3 3 3 v < �' < D O Q° CD m o o o o o o •z Iz 0 0 o o �� A��00 SD SD^o c c c c N N _ :3 0 m m v m v W Q C S (D (D (S ��. AN�N 3 3- r r r r c c O D o o o o c c CD m D. M 0 0 0 0 v c n m m m m 0 0 w w n M cn <n u, cn m cD — -, (D (D m CO N N C C C C 01 N 0 0 -- -_ D v- m 0 0 0 0 ro -oS mm C CD m 0 =3 m m �' z IzZ 7 0 N m 0 0 m c� 0 Z r Cn Cn D m VI (n N (D (0 0000�-� Pam C r-1• O O 0 0 0 0 0 m -� C CA)cwo CA) w � Cl) � w N N CSI W N N A.OpOND0 ONo� _' 0o j N A CD I� OD CD .A O O O O A 00 Cl) c c Q CD ' 1 1 I I 7 .01m0)(ov,00wrnwa� 0) O E cn .A co N 0') N 0) cn 1 i O E N O N 0) Co IV N CD O O O W 4 CITY OF CAANgASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Web www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bruce M. DeJong, Finance Director DATE: November 8, 2000 SUBJECT: EDA Redevelopment Area for Lake Ann Maintenance Building The attached documents describe show the redevelopment area that the Economic Development Authority (EDA) is required to establish in order to issue bonds to pay for construction of the Lake Ann park maintenance building. The City will enter into a lease agreement with the EDA to use and pay for the building.. I am asking you to find the plan in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan zoning and the Guide Plan. The site plan was approved by the Planning Commission on July 18 and the Council gave it final approval on July 24. Please adopt the enclosed resolution prepared by our bond counsel at Briggs & Morgan. attachments Redevelopment Area Map Resolution The City o f Chanhassen. A QrowinQ community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thrivinv businesses, and beautiful narks. A great blare to live. work. and blaw EDA Redevelopment Area Map 1 BANEBERRY WAY W 2 CLOVER 3 CONEFLOWER CRV N 4 PRIMROSE PLACE Ut 'an 1 Lake Ann - McGlynn Dr Court Coulter Blvd \ a- . CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTIES OF CARVER ) AND HENNEPIN ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN ) RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA CONCERNING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA'S REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PROPOSAL WHEREAS, the proposal by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, to establish a Redevelopment Project Area in connection with constructing and equipping a municipal building for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (the "City"), and adopt the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project Area (the "Plan"), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and 469.090 through 469.1081, have been submitted to the Planning Commission of the City (the "Commission"); and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plan to determine the consistency of the Plan with the Comprehensive Plan of the City: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plan is consistent with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and the Commission recommends approval of the Plan to the City Council Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen, Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota, this 14th day of November, 2000. Its ATTEST: Its 1225075.1 f CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 3, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Craig Peterson, Matt Burton, and Uli Sacchet MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Cindy Kirchoff, Planner II PUBLIC HEARING: REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1, POINTE LAKE LUCY, 6715 LAKE LUCY, ROBERT H. MASON HOMES, INC. Public Present: Name Address Debbie Lloyd Linda Landsman Janet & Gerald Paulsen Thomas Keegan Douglas Houser Frank Gustafson Tom Mason 7302 Laredo Drive 7329 Frontier Drive 7305 Laredo Drive 1340 Heather Court 6714 Mulberry Circle 6250 Chaska Road 14201 Excelsior Blvd, Minnetonka Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Okay, and thank you. Questions of staff. Okay, would the applicant like to make a presentation? Tom Mason: Yeah, that is correct. All those things. Peterson: Name and address please if you would. Tom Mason: Oh, name Tom Mason. Mason Homes. Address, you mean the property or? Peterson: Your or the corporation's address. Tom Mason: The corporation address is 14201 Excelsior Boulevard in Minnetonka. That is correct. We were aware of the situation. However the developer itself was a former employee of Mason Homes, had disregarded what had happened in the situation of the lot. It happens to be the second biggest lot in the development. And also has an encroachment with the wetland setback that is well beyond the other lots that are lake lots. However, it's further away from the lake and that causes a push back. It also has a Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 drainage easement on the easterly side of the property that is denoted as 15 feet. However on site review, when we went and staked the property, it turns out that it is well more than about 22-24 feet swallowing up the property. Also on site review we've discovered that to take the home, what we've done is taken and turned the garage at a 90 degree angle and to take the home and to keep it consistent with the actual proposed site. It does encroach on the wetland further and also eats up a bunch of tree space out there. The other home on Lot 12 is actually over 140 feet away. Consequently that 30 yard setback, or 30 foot setback really has no bearing on that lot. It has no bearing on the street. Our feeling is that what happened was there was a mistake actually when the development was put together. 30 foot setback is made for certain reasons. Get off the street for safety. Snow removal. It also, if it is a flag lot, can keep it away from encroaching on the neighbors. However the neighbors are well divided by a pond and the actual road comes in straight into this lot. So trying to orchestrate it best with the environment and the neighbors, that's how we set it up. The one thing is definitely it does not cause any hardship to the neighbors. It doesn't affect them putting that 30 foot encroaching on that 30 foot setback. And also yes, indeed we could create a smaller home and fit it in that 60 x 80 but it's not in reality a 60 x 80. And even if it was 60 x 70, we could create a home that would fit that. However it would be dissimilar to the size of the homes that are on the lake and even off the lake that are ranging from 6,000 square feet to about 5,200. Peterson: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a question for the applicant. In the letter that was in our package from you, you list a number of reasons why you think this application should be granted. And you touch on this a little bit. There's one point that kind of peaked my interest. That's letter D. You claim this is not self created. That it was overlooked when the development agreement was drafted. That you believe this was an oversight, human error. And then you say the agreement infers a variance will more than likely be used on Lot 11 anyway. What do you mean that it would have to have a variance anyway? I mean it seems like there is an acceptable building pad of considerable size. Can you elaborate on that a little bit please? Tom Mason: Sure. First of all the agreement as it was drafted initially was drafted actually by the past president of Mason Homes who actually happens to be my brother in law. And as I have discussed with him the situation, he has declared that yes, he had no idea that that drainage was out there, and also the wetland injunctured up towards the north considerably compared to the other two lots. And the reason why he declared that he didn't notice that, for one is the drainage was at 15 feet. That's where it was set without actually going out there staking the site. You would notice that it was more like 24 feet. And. also the actual lot, the lake curves out to the south. But the actual wetland barrier turns up to the north and he, you know logically would think that it would go with the water. Where it doesn't. There was a section that I questioned which was. Sacchet: So you couldn't really slide current construct further south? Tom Mason: No. We're already right on the line. Sacchet: You're on the line? Tom Mason: Yeah, we are right on the line. That's correct. And if we do push it more south, all we really do is create the take down of more trees. The 2 trees we are taking now of considerable size that are marked on the survey, are actually both dying right at this point. That's why we did put it on those. There was an old fence that was wrapped around both of them and consequently all the bark is falling off 2 Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 and they're both sick and dying so we didn't want to take those either but they're going to die anyway so we'll replant. Peterson: Thank you. Other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Uli asked about where the house is right now on the wetland setback and you said it's right on the line. Does that mean including the deck? Tom Mason: That does mean including the deck, yes. Kind: So the deck is what's right on the line. Tom Mason: The deck is what, yes touching the line. Right. Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Tom Mason: Thank you. Peterson: Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I was interested in this lot because originally given to us as an example of a private street. And so when it came up for review I was, my interest was peaked further. This developer has already received variances. He received a variance for the public street from 60 feet to 50 feet right-of-way. However there's 31 feet of pavement. That's still the same drainage coming off the street. They have a 20 foot front setback for 5 lots. They didn't meet a wetland setback for 2 lots. I think if you recall earlier in the spring they had a wetland problem with a deck. And also the shoreland rules weren't followed. The applicable regulations aren't mentioned. The one for the 90 foot width, which I am sure they have the 75 foot setback but also the 20 foot setback from the right-of-way of a private street. Also Lot 11 is not a flag lot. Technically Lot 10 is a flat lot. Lot 11 is approached by a private street. It isn't a flag lot because it's property doesn't go all the way to the public street. So I think our attention should also be focused on Lot 10. Since it's a flag lot, the front lot line should be the westerly line. And if that's a front lot line, they need a 30 foot setback and then a 30 foot back yard and where is there room for a home? They also need a 20 foot setback from the private street. You know it doesn't make me happy to bring these things up. It makes me kind of sad, but it's also applicable to our situation with the Lucas Igel property. I think that we should be following our shoreland code. I think if you notice the private street, the whole area of 30 feet of a private street is shown even though it's approaching 2 homes. Just as in the Lucas Igel property. And that setback has to be 20 feet the whole way along the property line of Lot 10. That's all I had to say. Peterson: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Jerry Paulsen: My name is Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. Jan and I were out at the lot this past weekend and trudging through the wetland area there. We came across a snapping turtle about 10 inches. Scared 2 pheasants. A hen and a rooster. It's a nice wild area. A nice lot. If I may quote from your last item that's on the agenda tonight, it's a memorandum from Kate Aanenson in regards to code amendments. Lots comes in different sizes. The most frequent problem faced is homes that are too large for the lot. That's the statement in the report that you probably read. This is a monster house by any definition I believe and I think the developer should sell somebody less than a monster house. Excuse me, put a mini monster house on this lot if he'd like to. He might not be too close to the lot to the north but the one to the west is going to be very tight also and they will be very close neighbors I think so I think you should take those things into consideration. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Doug Houser: I just am curious as to. Peterson: Name and address please. Doug Houser: Doug Houser, 6714 Mulberry Circle. I live across the pond from this house. What is going to be the impact on the trees and so forth around that pond? Are you going to be taking down any of those trees? Tom Mason: No we won't. We're going to buffer with the same trees around there... and that's why we took that... There won't be one tree taken from the actual current garage which a variance is needed for. Doug Houser: And I'm not an expert on this but are there, what was the previous plans and also the existing plans here, I see with your plan, proposed house, what's the other option? Do you have that? Tom Mason: There is no other option. There's just one proposal... after a site review it's totally different from... Doug Houser: And you mentioned you're taking down 2 trees. Which were the 2 trees? It's not that large cottonwood that's out there. Tom Mason: These 2. Which are both very sick and dying. Doug Houser: Can you help me out for a second here? I'm sorry. Where about's, the pond comes how far, as you know I live over here in this area. There's that pond. How far is it. Tom Mason: The pond is here. Doug Houser: No, okay. The second pond. I'm back, there's another pond in here. I know there's a drainage pond that is right over here and this area there's another pond area and my house is right in here. And my concern is am I going to be all of a sudden be, you know where I have a nice view, we're all of a sudden going to be looking in somebody's back yard. Tom Mason: No, actually if we didn't get a variance then all of a sudden we'd have to turn this thing and put the garage over here and then we'd be pushing it further over into these trees. Then you're going to have more of a view. That's what we're staying away from. 10 Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Doug Houser: Oh, so you're trying to go this way? Tom Mason: Right. Trying to push it this way. And because there is a drainage area in there, which is larger than actually the 15 feet. So consequently moving the house this way, even more of a buffer here and allowing the water to drain. Peterson: Anyone else? Debbie Lloyd: Hi. I'm Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. And I, like Jan, have reviewed this because of the situation we're facing in our neighborhood and I'd like to point out that the prior plans which were approved by the City also did not adhere to the standards, 18-61, Section D which is going to be discussed tonight, point 4 in single family detached residential development, the applicant must demonstrate that suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a 60 foot by 60 foot building pad, which includes deck area without intruding into a required setbacks and easements. And that was not done. If you look in the review file, through all the documentation. If you look at your plat tonight, it describes a 60 x 40 and I'm just pointing that out as another deficiency. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Linda Landsman: My name is Linda Landsman and I'm at 7329 Frontier Trail. I've stood before you before and talked about what constitutes a variance. And I still don't see in a case like this where we have a hardship and that's the whole basis of that particular chapter, and a very, you've got to have a hardship. I see perhaps a bad business action or somebody who didn't quite do their job right, but are we as residents of Chanhassen going to be held accountable for that? And I don't believe that our codes or our people should be. Peterson: For the record could you state your address? Linda Landsman: 7329 Frontier Trail. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Tom Keegan: I'm sort of new at this whole game. I live on 1340 Heather Court which backs up to this and my name is Tom Keegan. And I'm new to all these wetlands in Minnesota. Just a resident of this home since January, but one thing I've noticed, were there 2 additional ponds put in as a part of the Mason development? And see one of the things when we bought our home, we bought it in the winter time, and this wetlands in the back of our homes is completely dried up and it was kind of a joke when we moved in. They said oh, the kids can skate back there and it's a wonderful deal. And really it's been bone dry and like I say, I mean maybe that's a part of the deal but I can't help but, you know I hear these people making these statements and that modifications to land and to lots do make a different on the natural habitat and I think that's what's happened with this pond. And I don't know if there's anything you can do about it or if we just let it grow but I just, all these people have statements about their concerns about the easements and land and this clearly seems to be an indication of something that's happened based on the development in the past of that area. So, for what's it worth. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Tom Keegan: My children won't be skating in that pond this year. Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners, your thoughts on this one please. Kind: Sure Mr. Chair, I'll go. Just to clarify to people in the audience who might not have the staff report in their hand. Staff is recommending denial of the variance and I agree with the staff report. I think there is no hardship and this is definitely a precedent I don't want to set by allowing homes to encroach further on private drive lots. So I'm in support of the staff report. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Burton: Yeah Mr. Chairman, I agree with Deb. I agree with the staff report. I don't think this qualifies for a variance and don't think we should allow it. Peterson: Okay, good. Thank you. Any others? Sacchet: Just a simple comment. There certainly would be enough space to put a slightly smaller house on there. I think whoever made that comment, it's very often you're onto an issue because the house is too big. I understand that this is a prime location and you want to put a real decent house there, but I'm hard pressed to consider that a hardship in our context. Peterson: Good, thank you. Any final comments? Conrad: Mr. Chair, I think I could have been sold. I wasn't. Peterson: For the reasons of? Conrad: I just don't think it was persuasive and I think that if you look at the reasons for some of the setbacks, and if you can over come those reasons and give the rationale, and maybe show some hardships if you do follow the rules, then I could see it but that was not done. So tonight I think the staff report recommendation is appropriate. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Alison, any final comments? Blackowiak: No. I agree with the staff report. Peterson: Okay. As do I. I think that if this is appealed, I think there is a potential for offering a more compelling reason to do it. So with that I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission denies the request for a 22 foot variance, #2000-12 from the required 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a single family home on Lot 11, Block 1, Pointe Lake Lucy based on the following points, number 1 and 2. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a 22 foot variance (#2000-12) from the required 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a single family home on Lot 11, Block 1, Pointe Lake Lucy based upon the following: 1. The applicant can construct a single family home without the required setbacks without a variance. 2. A hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant the granting of a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: A City Council member or the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal this decision to the City by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within 4 days after the date of the Board's decision. The appeal will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL — MEDIUM DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL, 7 & 41 CROSSING CENTER, 2485 HIGHWAY 5 AND SUPERAMERICA, 2391 HIGHWAY 7, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff? Conrad: Bob, we're going to zone it, you're going from medium density to commercial. But it is business neighborhood? Generous: Yes. Neighborhood business. Conrad: Okay. Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Bob, is the parcel fully developed right now? Generous: Yes. Kind: So there is a neighborhood business there right now? Generous: There's a strip center, a SuperAmerica and Video Update. Kind: Yeah, I know the parcel. It just wasn't clear to me if that was everything that was going to be there is there now or is there more potential? Generous: No. They would have to expand the commercial area. Separate item from anything we're proposing here. Kind: There's no opportunity for medium density housing on that parcel? Generous: No. They'd have to tear all the commercial down. Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Kind: Okay. I'm with you. Thank you. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. Along the same line of question. It'd be nice to have a map with the staff report so, because the report doesn't have a map. It would help to actually put that in context with. I was trying to figure out where he identifies that Lot 2 is the one with the little strip mall and Lot 3 is the one with Super America. So I assume that Lot 1 is the one with the video store. That building. That same question, is there room for more and I would want to ask that, do you have a map? To at least see the extent of it so you answered there is no room really for anything further there. That was the main question I had. Thanks. Generous: It does show up on the notice. There is a little map that we probably should have blown up in the staff report. Sacchet: Yeah, that's really small. Thank you for pointing that out. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward. Burton moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, any thoughts before we vote on this one? Kind: Makes sense to me. Peterson: We'll go with that. I'll entertain a motion. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Map Amendment of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing from Residential —Medium Density to Commercial. Kind: Second. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Map Amendment of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing from Residential — Medium Density to Commercial. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CHAPTER 20, ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS; ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS, STORAGE BUILDABLE AREAS, SHORELAND REGULATIONS (ADDITIONAL SETBACKS), WETLAND REGULATIONS (ACCESSORY), PUD LOT SIZES, LOT FRONTAGES IN A2 AND RR DISTRICTS, SIGN ORDINANCE (WALL SIGNS), PERMITTED USES IN IOP DISTRICT AND HOME OCCUPATIONS (SUBORDINATE USE). Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Public Present: Name Address Debbie Lloyd Linda Landsman Janet & Gerald Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7329 Frontier Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Bob? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I have a few questions. Peterson: Please. Kind: Under buildable area, the square footage is changed to 2,800. On our last report it was 2,400. Why is that different? Generous: That, I'm unaware of. Kind: So I would think, it probably makes sense to not include that in our motion. And then we've got the new thing on the storage definition. Our motion does not include the wetland buffer strip and setback section that we need to change so we need to add that to the motion. That's Section 20-406. It needs to be added to the motion. And there's some language that's in the motion that shouldn't be in the motion and that has to do with staff s explanation. This is on page 18 of the motion. If anybody's trying to track what I'm talking about here. And then I do have questions about why we are back to having accessory structure setbacks that are different than the principle structure setback as our last discussion was that we were going to have them be the same. Generous: I wasn't around any discussion on that specific. Kind: So how we remove that from the motion as well. And then shoreland regulations. Language that we talked about deleting and adding what was to change it to be the following structure setbacks apply regardless of classification. I'm getting rid of the word additional structures. And I'm satisfied from the staff report, I think it was Ceil, is that right? Generous: Ceil Strauss. Kind: Was contacted to ask the specific question whether it was supposed to be additional or inclusive, and I'm satisfied that it is inclusive. I'm assuming that's a woman. From her point of view. And then, Section 20-978 relating to subordinate use is missing on the motion so would need to be added to the motion at the end. And then on the last page, Section 20-1118. Needs to be deleted and, at least the first part of that needs to be deleted because that's just the explanation and then the italics below that is the only part that should stay in the motion. Peterson: Say that one again. Kind: Section 20-1118. That first part is staff report stuff. W Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Peterson: Yeah. Kind: And that's all I saw. So I think we need to take apart this motion a little bit and add some stuff back into it. Peterson: Other questions of Bob before we get to that point. Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I also noted the 2,800. 1 agree that that's an issue. The part about the wetland buffer strip Bob. I'd just like to clarify the language that's being proposed is that accessory structures are allowed within the first half of the principle structure setback. And then we have this table with the setbacks like 100 feet for pristine. 50 feet for the setback. 40 and then there is 20. So we are actually allowing a bigger proportion with a pristine wetland with the justification that the overall setback is bigger, correct? Generous: Yes. it was done strictly based on the initial number. So if you took half of 150, which is larger. Sacchet: Because it is, this code stuff is still a little scary to me since I'm the most junior member here of this group. Looking at this, this doesn't really make sense to me that with a pristine wetland you would have, be allowed to encroach 50 feet into the buffer when with another one you're allowed to encroach 20 feet. It seems like the pristine, yes you have another 50 feet on the other side but, I mean coming from an environmental interest, I kind of wonder whether that's a good way to go. That's one concern I have there. Kind: Mr. Chair, may I interrupt for one second here? Maybe to help Uli out. This was our first presentation from staff three times ago. Whenever this was brought and we decided that we weren't going to do this, and that's why I want to take it out of the motion. Because we, I think settled on that we were going to have principle and accessory structure setbacks be the same. Sacchet: So that's being already addressed? Kind: I believe this should not be in the motion at all and we want to do what we last discussed which was not to have different setbacks for accessory structures. Sacchet: Well I appreciate you bring that up because I wasn't aware of that. The setbacks being looked at. The other thing that I'm kind of, I don't know where it was jumping too much ahead into the comment thing but if there's something you can add from a staff viewpoint, I'd like to hear that. This thing about the buildable area. It went really well as I read through it and then you really poked me. You took the example from my new neighborhood and the examples you took, one of them is an absolute sore spot for a lot of the neighbors because the prime example you took here, where the house is off of the originally proposed pad. I've had several complaints from the neighborhood because I'm on the Board of the neighborhood association. So basically what we're saying, with what you're proposing is that anywhere within the setbacks they can put the house. So my question to you is, if we could just briefly look at that example that you gave us. Kind: What page are you on UP 10 Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Sacchet: Well the trouble is it doesn't have numbers. If you look at, if you can find page 8. Which is a green page. Opposite of page 8 is the example on the bottom of the page. Where there's a significant amount of house off the pad. It's a corner lot so it has front setback to the south and to the east, correct? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Now what's the setback requirement on the north and west side of that? Generous: The front setbacks for the corner lot are 30 feet on the street sides and 10 on the other two. Sacchet: And 10 on the other. So in other words it could even have come further north, this house. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Because the way it is really jammed into those trees to the north, which was not very pleasant thing okay. But they could even have gotten further based on the setbacks situation? Generous: Correct. The only thing they'd run into was the tree preservation calculation. Sacchet: So they have to keep coverage, canopy coverage? Generous: Well yes. They have to maintain the trees or replace them. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that answers that question. I think that's my questions. Thank you. Peterson: Any other questions of Bob? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I just have one quick question. We're trying to define a story and we've talked a little bit about being below grade in basement. Do we anywhere define a story above grade? Should we be? Example we have you know 12 feet or 3 stories or you know we'll have certain requirements. I'm just wondering do we need to define that further or is it not an issue above ground? Kind: Are you, I'm sorry. Alison, are you talking about for a home or for an office? Blackowiak: Non-residential. Kind: Non-residential, the first sentence attempts to define it as the space between any floor and any surface or floor next above it. Blackowiak: So if there is a, if it's 24 feet, that's a single story building? Kind: With one heck of a story. Blackowiak: Right. Well that's what I'm looking at. I don't know. I'm just wondering if you wanted to limit in any way but that's I guess my question. Generous: As long as you have an overall cap, I don't know that it's. Blackowiak: That it's necessary. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Generous: Because we have like 30 foot or in the highway... Blackowiak: 40 foot or 3 stories. Okay. Alrighty. And then, just a comment. I've had a really difficult time following the pages of the amendments and. Kind: It's a nightmare. Blackowiak: I don't know if we could have all had the code amendment changes all in one section and just referenced the back or something. There just has to be abetter way because I'm really struggling jumping back and forth so. Conrad: Mr. Chair, I'm terribly confused. Seriously. I wouldn't know how to make a motion. I think the comments made are appropriate that I've heard tonight but I would feel real uncomfortable. I don't have a clue what we're doing. Peterson: Well that's where I'm at. You know I read it and unfortunately I didn't allocate enough time to get through it. I needed 3 or 4 more hours yesterday than I had. Conrad: I think the intent is, even though it takes staff time to make it clear and some of these are real simple. It's just that I don't get it. I can't pass it along, any of them. I thought the one that I could was the buildable area, and I can't do that tonight. It's things that are not in sync yet and I don't have a problem with some of the intent. In fact most of the intent here. I just don't get it. I need it really simple and maybe we're doing too many at one time but I really think we should table the whole thing again. It just has to be real simple for me. Kind: I'd be comfortable with breaking down the motion and -maybe pass them one at a time or whatever so we can get some of these out of the hopper. Peterson: I don't know if there's a compelling reason to do that. I'm open for that certainly but is that more arduous than we need to take on? I would agree. I think we need to streamline this a little bit and have some more discussion on the open ended ones that we were confused on. I'd also certainly be open to, although this is not a public hearing, to hear any comments over and above what we've already chatted about tonight so, if you do have comments, please come forward and share them appropriately tonight. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to make a suggestion. We are going to behaving our work session in two weeks. Maybe we could somehow try to hammer out a format that would make sense so that when we get our next staff report it would be easy to read and easy to connect the rationale with the ordinance. I think that would be very helpful for me. Peterson: That's a good point. I think we're going to have these on an ongoing basis and we'd just as well put some kind of system together that will make it flow a lot easier. For both the people who haven't had the opportunity to read the plan, and for those of us who have and are still confused. So again please, if you do have comments, come forward. Linda Landsman: Linda Landsman, 7329 Frontier Trail and I guess I have to apologize. I'd like some reasoning behind the change in the buildable area from 60 by 60 to 60 by 40. I don't understand why that's being adjusted or what the reasoning or logic behind it is. And I guess I would like to hear some of 12 Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 that discussion before that recommended change goes through. The original buildable lot in Chanhassen, as I understand, was 50 by 50 and they expanded it because of the size of houses that were coming out here. I don't see those houses getting any smaller. So why are we shortening or making the buildable lots smaller when we've got bigger houses coming out here? It doesn't make any sense. So I guess if you can tell me what that logic is I would greatly, greatly appreciate it. Conrad: Why don't you stay up there, let's talk about that. Linda Landsman: Okay. Conrad: But what is your point? You don't, seriously. Why do you care? If somebody can put a 2,000 square foot house in, they should be able to do that. And so they don't need 3,600 buildable feet. We don't need to encourage big houses here would be my point. Who cares? The point of the rule is just to make sure there is buildable space. Period. Unless you want to dictate the housing styles and types in Chanhassen, then you can start doing that. Then you can say that you've got to have a big pad because we only want big houses. I don't know that we want to do that. Linda Landsman: And I guess I have to go back to, I know Uli made a statement earlier that he's got kind of a nightmare situation in his neighborhood, as do we in the Sunrise Hills neighborhood. The lot that the Igel's are trying to build on will not support a 60 by 60 pad. And personally I don't believe that it should be adjusted so that they are allowed to build what will be the same size house that they would have built on a smaller area on a lot that won't support it and I think right now that's my issue. Conrad: It's a one lot issue though and we're trying to make a community issue. I've been around for a while and I can't possibly think why I would care. We just want to make sure, and typically this is for subdivisions. It's typically to make sure when you bring in, and you may not have been around but sometimes we have 50, 100, 200 lot subdivisions. We want to make sure there's a spot for these houses and that's what we're trying to do and that they can be set back the appropriate distance from the neighbors. But why do we care? Why are we regulating that? It seems a little bit micro management, so you do have a single lot issue. I don't think this is going to impact that. It shouldn't. Because this is going to take a while to go through the system and I think, so I think you've got to cast that out. I'd like to take your input but I can't imagine why I would care. I do care that the setbacks can be met. I do care that all the other regulations or the things that we care about are met but in terms of me telling somebody how big a house they should build. Linda Landsman: I'm not necessarily as concerned about the size of house as I am about the size of lot. Conrad: But the pad has nothing to do with the lot. What you're going to do, the smaller the pad gives you more open space. Because we are 15,000 square foot minimums. So the smaller the pad, the smaller the house, the more green space, the more trees. I can't, if you can share some logic, if you can tell me why we should do something different, boy I'd sure be open to it but I can't think of it. Linda Landsman: Well I guess at this point in time I'm very concerned about adjusting pad size because if we, how we change the wording of that code can have a tremendous impact on what style of houses, you're right that are built. And if we open that up to 2,800 square feet, I mean is that 60 by 40 or is that 20 by 70 or whatever? I mean are they going to have the latitude to take a 30 foot lot and build on it as opposed to a 60 foot lot, but if they'd just make a much longer house, they're going to be just fine. You know tell me what the wording is going to do on that. 13 Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Conrad: The lot size drives everything. I don't know how the pad is going to influence the lot size. The lot size impacts the neighbors I don't see, the pad impacts the person buying the land. The house. Linda Landsman: Bingo. You got it. Conrad: I tell you, I'm trying to figure this, and anybody else who has some input, I sure am curious but. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, if I might just add a comment to clarify. It's my understanding, and that's why I brought up, asked these questions about the example that's in the report. Is that the people are not going to be bound by that pad anyhow. They're going to be free to put their building anywhere on the lot that is meeting the setbacks. So the pad is really insignificant in the context of where the house is going to end up on the lot. Linda Landsman: It isn't insignificant if you have a lot that won't support the pad. Sacchet: Well, yes. I mean that's why we're trying to, it's my understanding that's why we're trying to rephrase it and say buildable area. Because it would include whatever is available. Not with the idea of that everything is being used. Linda Landsman: I agree. The code doesn't state that now. The code doesn't state you have to fill a 60 by 60 foot pad. It says you have to have that much space with your setbacks to really accommodate the code. So it does have a bearing on where those setbacks are and what they have to have to build. Sacchet: Well it's a good idea. Where the house would be but the trouble, like in the example I looked at, is that the house ends up maybe halfway on the pad. So yeah, it's neither fish nor fowl when we're trying to kind of make it clear. Linda Landsman: Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to let Linda know. The language we're looking at has a minimum square footage, which we haven't agreed on what it's going to be, and it also has a minimum dimension and right now we're talking about 40 feet. So that you don't end up with some funky triangle that is not going to be buildable. Right now that's kind of the direction we're going. And if I'm understanding you right, and I just want to re -word it so I can make sure I'm tracking you. The reason you feel so strongly about the 60 by 60 foot pad is because it makes it more difficult to subdivide because it's just one more thing that they need to adhere to. Linda Landsman: No. What I'm saying is that when you've got a lot that will not support the building, a building that sits in our code right now that I assume was agreed upon for some reason. Why are we changing it? And I don't know the logic behind that because I don't see the logic in changing it. If there's logic in changing it, let's change it. Otherwise I have to assume that when that code was changed from 50 by 50 to 60 by 60 there was some logic behind it. What's the logic on changing it and where's that change coming from? Kind: I'll speak for myself. One of the things, reasons why I would like to see it changed is because of Uli's problem. When people see their neighborhoods with these little 60 by 60 foot pads on them, they think that's where the house is going to go and then they get upset when the house is totally off the pad but still within the setbacks. And I would like to get to a point where we're not seeing those little squares 14 Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 on there anymore because I think it's misleading to future neighbors or current neighbors on what their future neighbors are going to be. So that's my rationale for wanting to get rid of it. Linda Landsman: Isn't that more of an education process as opposed to a code change? Kind: I think it's an intuitive process that any new person coming into this neighborhood sees the plat for their neighborhood and thinks that's where all the houses are going to be. And if we take those off it's going to be clearer to them that their neighbors could put their house anywhere within those setback lines. Linda Landsman: Well I guess at this point in time their neighbors can put those houses anywhere within the setback lines now. Kind: Exactly but they're irritated. There's problems because they're off of those building pads. Linda Landsman: So at this point the change in the code is going to change how neighbors perceive where the stakes are? I guess I don't follow. Kind: Yeah, we're working through it too and that's why I really agree with Alison's suggestion that we add it to our work session for next time and Craig would probably like to wrap this meeting up. Peterson: I see your point though. As we discuss, we haven't encapsulated the rationale yet. That's why we're not ready to vote on it. Conrad: Craig, can I interrupt? Peterson: Please. Conrad: I have to go back to the logic in the past, and Bob you should speak up on this stuff. You're the planner and we're not, but again when we'd get a 50 lot subdivision in here we have to know that a house could go on a lot. If you create a lot, and then a house can't go on, the developer can say, well you've let me create the lot so I'm going to put one there anyway. So from a city standpoint we have to know that you could build a reasonable house on that lot. That was our intent. Our intent was, that was it, I think. Bob, anything. Generous: A suitable house on the site. Conrad: You just want to know. Otherwise you'll create a lot of record and maybe there's noway to put a house on there from setback standpoint. From whatever but the developer could come to us and say, you let me create that lot of record. I have my rights. Is that right Bob? Kind: And you have to grant a variance. Conrad: So you've got to grant me. We see this all the time. You're not here all the time ... but that was the point. That's the intent. That was the intent. So we're saying, I'm saying, I'm not sure I care what the size is as long as I know they can build. Now if that was for a 50 lot subdivision, 100 lot subdivision. Your point could be well we're not going to see that many coming in, those big ones. Now we're looking at twosies and threesies so I'd like you to persuade me that we're wrong in changing it because again, now you know the intent. Now you've got to tell me why we should maintain that because on a I to 2, on 15 Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 a 2 lot subdivision you know and that's the challenge. Because right now I can't see why I'd want to maintain the old rule. It doesn't help me. Linda Landsman: And I guess I don't see where the new rule would help you. Conrad: The new rule will let me put a smaller house on there and I can get more open space. The new rule will let me put a, I don't have to build. I'm not here to create half million dollar lots in Chanhassen. I kind of am here to say, I think we should have a variety of housing styles. Linda Landsman: I agree. Conrad: So therefore if I force people to build on a 3,600 square foot house, that probably means a $200 per square foot house which probably creates a 70, you know. Again... Linda Landsman: Again you're surmising that that's what it's going to be. Conrad: Again, there's my logic and I'm not trying to be offensive. I just, you know if you can come back and we're going to look at this again. If you can give us some logic beyond that. Linda Landsman: I guess I still don't see where changing that pad size is going to assist the city in avoiding variances if the homework is done up front where it should be. And if the developer's are up front where they should be. If one or the other is falling down on the job... Peterson: Thank you. Generous: Mr. Chairman, if I may. The specific for this change was the conflicts in the ordinance. We have 60 by 60 pads and 60 by 40 pads and that's one of the things that we wanted, as part of the drafting of the tree preservation ordinance and part of the subdivision, I know at least my intent at the time was to provide an area for calculating tree removal. Most developers come in, they don't know what house is going in there and so we said well let's provide a standard to let us know what the calculation was. Saccliet: If I might just clarify. Generous: But if you go with the entire building area, that would be even more tree removal so they either have to go with a smaller lots, or we get more tree replacement. Reforestation. Sacchet: So you're actually planning to keep using that 60 by 60 for the tree removal calculation? Generous: We would have them estimate what the removal is. The language change, no. We'd have to come up with another alternative. Usually we base it on the preliminary grading plan. That they go within, because we not only are definitions of what's a loss tree if so much of it's root zone is impacted. We can say that that's being taken out. If there's so much fill that's being taken out so we can calculate that pretty well. And we're starting, it's easiest to do the determination when the developer's actually the builder too such as Lundgren Bros or Centex because they know the home styles that they are. They may not need a 60 pad. They know that all their houses are 40 by 75. Or like on the White Oak Addition. They know that it's a 73 foot wide house and so they need to have 93 foot wide lots. In an infill development it's usually a little bit easier because you have someone who knows what the building pad is. Can they show a suitable building pad? Yes. If they know that the building is there. What building pad they want. 1L Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Peterson: Good point. Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: I think the main thing that we're forgetting is where this 60 by 60 pad lies and it does lie in subdivision. It does lie in tree preservation and I think that's critical. If you read this chapter, it's extremely interesting what the intent was. And it's for the preservation of trees and this goes back to 60 by 40. We know that trees are impacted 10 to 20 feet, so if you take a 60 by 40 and you add 10 to 20 feet around it, 60 by 60 is a reasonable area. It's a reasonable area. It's not difficult to plat it on a map and I have to say, a map. A plat. I guess mark it on a plat. It's not a difficult thing for a builder to do and what I've seen, and I pointed out tonight earlier, is that it hasn't been adhered to and that's number one thing that bugs me. Some have been beautiful plats. You see 60 by 60. Others you see a variance on that. I don't know where they got the okay to vary from that. Now I feel the change may be because we have non -conforming lots. I have to be honest with you. I have to ask, is that the reason for the change. Now if we're talking prairie land, or there's no trees, obviously this section doesn't matter. Tree preservation is not an issue. But it is an issue here. Today I went to the library and I thought I need to know more about the comprehensive plan and this is what we talk about. My eyes are going bad. Land use. Development be consistent with preservation and enhancement of significant natural features and aesthetic amenities. They talk about the Highway 5 corridor with greater sensitivity to the environment and higher quality than might have occurred in the absence of specific guidelines created through the planning effort. And the purpose of the Highway 5 corridor is to protect corridors, wetlands, significant stands of mature trees. To promote high quality architectural and site designs. Create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. This goes beyond our lot Ladd. There's a lot of preservation that we have to be concerned about in this city. We talk about in the comprehensive plan we talk about slopes. Protecting of slopes because of the runoff into the lakes and streams. Again, typically a treed lot in Chanhassen has a slope on it. There is a concern we should have an adequate site for development on those sloped, treed lots. The city will maintain a comprehensive and up to date set of ordinances to ensure that development is consistent with the plan while resulting in high quality, sensitively designed projects. Ordinances should be reviewed and modified as necessary to improve performance standards for new development. To ensure they incorporate high quality design, landscape, etc. It's in the landscape section to promote high quality to protect and preserve the trees. Again, sloped land can also have an impact. Preventing erosion in areas with steep grades and most susceptible to erosion. And I thought this under housing was particularly interesting. Development, whether commercial, industrial or residential is long term both economically and physically. Since development is permanent and usually irreversible, the effects of substandard or poorly located facilities will be evident for a long time. Therefore, both the developer and the city must be aware of natural, physical and social constraints and the potential long term effects of a project. Be it one home. Be it a PUD. Whatever it is. We must be aware of the long term effects of what the code says and changes that are made which will affect developments in the future. I could go on and on here. New residential development shall be discouraged from encroaching upon vital natural resources or physical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural sites. Trees have a profound performance effect and it says in here for livable air, for the aesthetics of the community, stands of trees wherever they are, however they are affected by development, affect our quality of life. Under natural resources. The City of Chanhassen recognizes the importance of it's natural environment to the quality of life for it's citizens and they need to protect and enhance these resources. This one. The City has already established, already established a series of protective measures for lakes. The current zoning ordinance establishes a shoreland overlay district that was consistent with guidelines established by the Minnesota DNR and some of those shoreland regulations you're talking about tonight were established by the DNR. Yet we find that we can improve that language. And this one particularly is a sensitive to me. The statement, the most recent proposals for development along lakes have come in the form of attempts to split existing 17 Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 lakeshore lots. Anyway, in summation the 60 by 60 bothers me because if we had not brought it to the forefront I question if this change would have been recommended to be made. And that I guess in one sense appalls me that wherever this change recommendation is coming from. If it's coming from us finding it, it appalls me that there'd be consideration to change it in light of the situation we're in number one. But that a change would be made that would affect everyone in the community. Not just us because it does effect everyone. And I guess I had a higher regard for the way things were done than that. And I think most likely it's because we have non -conforming lots because this hasn't been used on lots that have trees. It's been overlooked and I don't know why it's been overlooked. Probably I would say the work load. I read through that report like you said Alison. All you can do is read that and think their work load must be absolutely tremendous. They're short staffed or whatever. Because the quality is missing. It's hard to decipher everything. I got an unusual headache from reading it and that would have been one of my recommendations just to break it up. But I don't think there's a general intent overall to not adhere to code but somehow we've been missing it here into code in some cases and I'm alarmed and I'm going to become more involved. Not in a political basis I can assure you that because that is not my direction. I do think, after attending these meetings that apathy is prevalent in the community and I do want to say Craig, I know you stood, in the newspaper it said that you were, you and others were instrumental in developing some of these regulations and I really hope that those that were instrumental in developing regulations help to uphold the regulations that you worked so hard to develop. I thank you for your time. Peterson: Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chair I have one question for Debbie or maybe for Bob. Some of the subdivisions she was talking about that have the smaller lot sizes, are those PUD's and therefore they have shorter setbacks or some agreements were made because they're PUD's? Debbie Lloyd: I'm not referring at all in my lack of adherence to code citing PUD's. The subdivision we looked at tonight was RSF. It's not an PUD. Kind: That was unclear from the staff report whether it was because we were just looking at a variance and a setback so I wasn't sure if it was a PUD or not. Debbie Lloyd: No, it's not a PUD. It's RSF. And I've looked at mega ton piles and in some cases the 60 by 60 is used. A greater standard if you would call it is 75 by 55 is used. In many the 60 by 40 was used. So I mean it... Kind: Just a point of clarification. Debbie Lloyd: ...overlooked. And I think it's overlooked just like the 90 foot of lakeshore was overlooked. I mean I can't explain how that's overlooked except work load or whatever. But I can tell you, I purchased this book and it's not difficult to go into the code and find what you're looking for and I wrote a little. Kind: Oh I disagree. I think it's very difficult. Debbie Lloyd: Oh, I don't think it's difficult... Peterson: Would you consider doing a training session? 18 Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Debbie Lloyd: Jan and I would be happy to offer our services. Kind: Mine looks like your's though. I've got a little post it notes in mine. Peterson: I think a partial response Debbie. I think at least speaking on behalf of myself, certainly and I think for the rest of my commissioners, part of. Not part of it but the driving force behind this is making these ordinances better. Now at the end of the day we may not agree because it is to some degree interpretation but you know a driving force motivates us is to make it easier for staff and make it easier for residents to understand and make the right decisions. And again, that is our driving force and our desire and hopefully we can accomplish that and we'll do a better job because of you guys in offering feedback and support. Whether it's apathy. Whether it's just not knowing, not taking the interest, this kind of stuff is what we need and we need more of it. I mean you find ways to find more of it so, I think we all applaud the passion that you guys have brought for the last few months so. Other comments? Conrad: On the same issue, as this comes back, I think the valid point Bob on the lot size is the impact on environment and trees and in steep slope areas so I'd really like your input on that. I think those are the issues that could keep us from changing it down. Peterson: Okay. Other comments? Anybody? Sacchet: My comments are very simple. I'm not really comfortable with this stuff yet and I'm not quite sure to what extent it is that this is the first time I'm dealing with this labyrinth of language but hearing from you that you're not all that comfortable with this is somewhat reassuring. Peterson: If you're happy, we're happy. Motion please. Kind: Mr. Chair I move that we table the code amendments. Conrad: I'd second that. Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table consideration of the amendments to Chapter 20 of the Zoning Ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Bob, do you have enough information to? Generous: I believe so. You want it easier to read. Simpler. Easier to follow. Conrad: Mr. Chair, one at a time and just one issue. It's just, let's just approach the lot size and support documentation and then I'd like a separate motion on each one versus clustering them together. Peterson: I agree with that. Conrad: That way we really. Blackowiak: Well if we want to pull something aside and discuss it further we can do that and those that we have very little discussion on, we pass and be done with. HE Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Peterson: And I think if we can advertise it as such that we are discussing 1, 2, 3, 4, somehow and I think that may generate more public feedback too. So we'll increase your advertising budget for the paper. NEW BUSINESS: Generous: I don't know if Kate e-mailed you. We do have our next meeting is the work session. The one after that is election so there's no meeting and so we'll have our next hearings on November 21s` And we have a cell tower on that and. Peterson: Where's it going to go? Generous: On Quattro Drive. They're talking about moving the tower on the Brown site. Blackowiak: But didn't council approve that? Generous: It's been approved but now they're looking at changing it and there's some discussion about making it with two antennas on it so we're working on it. Blackowiak: No co -locating. No, we wouldn't want to do that would we. Conrad: Who was the person that wrote the article in the paper that was about a Eve column article. It was just, it was a techie that cared? Generous: Someone who has a cell phone. Blackowiak: Well and the whole point of that, and I read it too. The whole point of it was, he's like of you must be anti -technology and I just wanted to say, no. We want to try to get. Conrad: It's where you want to call him up and say. Blackowiak: Fewer towers and say, let's try to make this place look nice. I mean we don't want towers every block. Encourage co -location and I think he missed that whole point. Conrad: Wouldn't you have thought Craig would have written back in response. Generous: That's almost part of the alternative though. You'd want them to locate on our light standards instead of putting up new towers. Blackowiak: Well exactly. Peterson: I made a bigger statement. I threw away my cell phone. I bought three more. Conrad: And most of the bad area is in Eden Prairie. See that never came out so, let's put a big tower in downtown Chan so we can Ell in Eden Prairie's service. But that's what gets you irritated about stuff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 19, 2000 as presented. Peterson: Any other discussion? all Planning Commission Meeting — October 3, 2000 Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 21 Administrative Section Letter from Roger Knutson dated October 10, 2000 regarding Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Public Law Alert notice from Kennedy and Graven. CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law Thomas J. Campbell (651) 452-5000 Andrea McDowell Poehler Roger N. Knutson Fax (651) 452-5550 Matthew K. Brokl* Thomas M. Scott John F. Kelly Elliott B. Knetsch *** Matthew). Foli Joel J. Jamnik Direct Dial: (651) 234-6215 Marguerite M. McCarron E-mail Address: rknutson@ck-lameom Gina M. Brandt *Also lic ed in Wiw.wn October 10, 2000 RECEIVE OCT 13 2000 Ms. Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen CITY ®F CMpNNA55EN 690 City Center Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000 Dear Kate: Enclosed is a copy of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 recently signed into law. The law replaces the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.0 § 2000bb et s_q., which the United_ States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. Boerne v. P.F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). The new law attempts to overcome the constitution problems contained in the old law. We won't know for several years whether the attempt is successful. The law provides in part that no land use regulations: ➢ may totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction. ➢ may unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction. ➢ may treat a religious institution on less than equal terms with a non -religious institution. ➢ may discriminate against a religious institution. Although these requirements may appear benign, the full meaning will take many years to determine. Historic presentations and church expansions are the most likely areas that will be affected by the new law. Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve 0 Eagan, MN 55121 Ms. Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen October 10, 2000 Page 2 Please call if you have any questions or concerns. RNK:srn Enclosure cc: Scott Botcher Sharmin AI-Jaff Bob Generous II Calendar No. 684 I06Tx CONGRESS S*2869 2D SESSION To protect religious liberty, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JULY 13, 2000 Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. DAsCHLE, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. LIEBERIIIAN, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. SMITH of Or- egon) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time JULY 14, 2000 Read the second time and placed on the calendar A BILL To protect religious liberty, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the "Religious Land Use 5 and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000". 6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXER- % CISE. 8 (a) SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS.— P& 1 (1) GENERAL RULE. —No government shall im- 2 pose or implement a land use regulation in a manner 3 that imposes a substantial burden on the religious 4 exercise of a person, including a religious assembly 5 or institution, unless the government demonstrates 6 that imposition of the burden on that person, assem- 7 bly, or institution- 8 (A) is in furtherance of a compelling gov- 9 ernmental interest; and 10 (B) is the least restrictive means of fur- 11 thering that compelling governmental interest. 12 (2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION. —This subsection - 13 applies in any case in which- 14 (A) the substantial burden is imposed in a 15 program or activity that receives Federal finan- 16 cial assistance, even if the burden results from 17 a rule of general applicability; 18 (B) the substantial burden affects, or re- 19 moval of that substantial burden would affect, 20 commerce with foreign nations, among the sev- 21 eral States, or with Indian tribes, even if the 22 burden results from a rule of general applica- 23 bility; or 24 (C) the substantial burden is imposed in 25 the implementation of a land use regulation or •S 2869 PCS 3 1 system of land use regulations, under which a 2 government makes, or has in place formal or in- 3 formal procedures or practices that permit the 4 government to make, individualized assessments 5 of the proposed uses for the property involved. 6 (b) DISCRIMINATION AND EXCLUSION.- 7 (1) EQUAL TERMS. —No government shall im- 8 pose or implement a land use regulation in a manner 9 that treats a religious assembly or institution on less 10 than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or in- 11 stitution. 12 (2) NONDISCRIMINATION. —No government 13 shall impose or implement a land use regulation that 14 discriminates against any assembly or institution on 15 the basis of religion or religious denomination. 16 (3) EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITS. —No government 17 shall impose or implement a land use regulation 18 that- 19 (A) totally excludes religious assemblies 20 from a jurisdiction; or 21 (B) unreasonably limits religious assem- 22 blies, institutions, or structures within a juris- 23 diction. •5 2869 PCS 4 1 SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE OF INSTITU- 2 TIONALIZED PERSONS. 3 (a) GENERAL RULE. —No government shall impose a 4 substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person 5 residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in sec- 6 tion 2 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act 7 (42 U.S.C. 1997), even if the burden results from a rule 8 of general applicability, unless the government dem- 9 onstrates that imposition of the burden on that person- 10 (1) is in furtherance of a compelling govern- 11 mental interest; and 12 (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering 13 that compelling governmental interest. 14 (b) SCOPE OF APPLICATION. —This section applies in 15 any case in which- 16 (1) the substantial burden is imposed in a pro- 17 gram or activity that receives Federal financial as- 18 sistance; or 19 (2) the substantial burden affects, or removal of 20 that substantial burden would affect, commerce with 21 foreign nations, among the several States, or with 22 Indian tribes. 23 SEC. 4. JUDICIAL RELIEF. 24 (a) CAUSE OF ACTION. —A person may assert a viola- 25 tion of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial pro- 26 ceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a govern- •S 2869 PCS 5 1 ment. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this 2 section shall be governed by the general rules of standing 3 under article III of the Constitution. 4 (b) BURDEN OF PERSUASION. —If a plaintiff pro- 5 duces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a 6 violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of sec- 7 tion 2, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion 8 on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall 9 bear the burden of persuasion on whether the law (includ- 10 ing a regulation) or government practice that is challenged 11 by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff's exercise 12 of religion. 13 (c) FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. Adjudication of a 14 claim of a violation of section 2 in a non -Federal forum 15 shall not be entitled to full faith and credit in a Federal 16 court unless the claimant had a full and fair adjudication 17 of that claim in the non -Federal forum. 18 (d) ATTORNEYS' FEES. —Section 722(b) of the Re- 19 vised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended- 20 (1) by inserting "the Religious Land Use and 21 Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000," after "Reli- 22 gious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993,"; and 23 (2) by striking the comma that follows a 24 comma. •.S 2869 PCs n F 1 (e) PRISONERS. Nothing in this Act shall be con- 2 strued to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform 3 Act of 1995 (including provisions of law amended by that 4 Act). 5 (f) AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE 6 THIS ACT. —The United States may bring an action for 7 injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce compliance with 8 this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 9 deny, impair, or otherwise affect any right or authority 10 of the Attorney General, the United States, or any agency, 11 officer, or employee of the United States, acting under any 12 law other than this subsection, to institute or intervene 13 in any proceeding. 14 (g) LIMITATION. —If the only jurisdictional basis for 15 applying a provision of this Act is a claim that a substan- 16 tial burden by a government on religious exercise affects, 17 or that removal of that substantial burden would affect, 18 commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, 19 or with Indian tribes, the provision shall not apply if the 20 government demonstrates that all substantial burdens on, 21 or the removal of all substantial burdens from, similar reli- 22 gious exercise throughout the Nation would not lead in 23 the aggregate to a substantial effect on commerce with 24 foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian 25 tribes. •S 2669 PCs 7 1 SEC. 5. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. 2 (a) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED. —Nothing in 3 - this Act shall be construed to authorize any government 4 to burden any religious belief. 5 (b) RELIGIOUS EXERCISE NOT REGULATED.—Noth- 6 ing in this Act shall create any basis for restricting or 7 burdening religious exercise or for claims against a reli- 8 gious organization including any religiously affiliated 9 school or university, not acting under color of law. 10 (c) CLAIMS TO FUNDING UNAFFECTED. —Nothing in 11 this Act shall create or preclude a right of any religious 12 organization to receive funding or other assistance from 13 a government, or of any person to receive government 14 funding for a religious activity, but this Act may require 15 a government to incur expenses in its own operations to 16 avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise. 17 (d) OTHER AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON 18 FUNDING UNAFFECTED. —Nothing in this Act shall- 19 (1) authorize a government to regulate or af- 20 fect, directly or indirectly, the activities or policies of 21 a person other than a government as a condition of 22 receiving funding or other assistance; or 23 (2) restrict any authority that may exist under 24 other law to so regulate or affect, except as provided 25 in this Act. •S 2869 PCS m 1 (e) GOVERNMENTAL DISCRETION IN ALLEVIATING 2 BURDENS ON RELIGIOUS EXERCISE. —A government may 3 avoid the preemptive force of any provision of this Act by 4 changing the policy or practice that results in a substan- 5 tial burden on religious exercise, by retaining the policy 6 or practice and exempting the substantially burdened reli- 7 gious exercise, by providing exemptions from the policy or 8 practice for applications that substantially burden reli- 9 gious exercise, or by any other means that eliminates the 10 substantial burden. 11 (f) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW. With respect to a 12 claim brought under this Act, proof that a substantial bur- 13 den on a person's religious exercise affects, or removal of 14 that burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, 15 among the several States, or with Indian tribes, shall not 16 establish any inference or presumption that Congress in- 17 tends that any religious exercise is, or is not, subject to 18 any law other than this Act. 19 (g) BROAD CONSTRUCTION. —This Act shall be con- 20 strued in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, 21 to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act 22 and the Constitution. 23 (h) NO PREEMPTION OR REPEAL. —Nothing in this 24 Act shall be construed to preempt State law, or repeal 25 Federal law, that is equally as protective of religious exer- •S 2869 PCs r WE 1 cise as, or more protective of religious exercise than, this 2 Act. 3 (i) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this Act or 4 of an amendment made by this Act, or any application 5 of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held 6 to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the 7 amendments made by this Act, and the application of the 8 provision to any other person or circumstance shall not 9 be affected. 10 SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED. 11 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, inter- 12 pret, or in any way address that portion of, the first 13 amendment to the Constitution prohibiting laws respect- 14 ing an establishment of religion (referred to in this section 15 as the "Establishment Clause"). Granting government 16 funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible 17 under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a vio- 18 lation of this Act. In this section, the term "granting", 19 used with respect to government funding, benefits, or ex- 20 emptions, does not include the denial of government fund- 21 ing, benefits, or exemptions. •S 2869 PCS 10 1 SEC. 7. AMENDMENTS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORA- 2 TION ACT. 3 (a) DEFINITIONS. —Section 5 of the Religious Free- 4 dom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb-2) is 5 amended- 6 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking "a State, or 7 a subdivision of a State" and inserting "or of a cov- 8 ered entity"; 9 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking "term" and all 10 that follows through "includes" and inserting "term 11 `covered entity' means"; and 12 (3) in paragraph (4), by striking all after 13 "means" and inserting "religious exercise, as defined 14 in section 8 of the Religious Land Use and Institu- 15 tionalized Persons Act of 2000.". 16 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT. —Section 6(a) of the 17 Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 18 2000bb-3(a)) is amended by striking "and State". 19 SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. 20 In this Act: 21 (1) CLAIMANT. —The term "claimant" means a 22 person raising a claim or defense under this Act. 23 (2) DEMONSTRATES. —The term "dem- 24 onstrates" means meets the burdens of going for- 25 ~yard with the evidence and of persuasion. •S 2869 PCs 11 1 (3) FREE E-XERCISE CLAUSE. —The term "Free 2 Exercise Clause" means that portion of the first 3 amendment to the Constitution that proscribes laws 4 prohibiting the free exercise of religion. 5 (4) GOVERNMENT. —The term "government"- 6 (A) means- 7 (i) a State, county, municipality, or 8 other governmental entity created under 9 the authority of a State; 10 (ii) any branch, department, agency, 11 instrumentality, or official of an entity list- 12 ed in clause (i); and 13 (iii) any other person acting under 14 color of State law; and 15 (B) for the purposes of sections 4(b) and 16 5, includes the United States, a branch, depart- 17 ment, agency, instrumentality, or official of the 18 United States, and any other person acting 19 under color of Federal law. 20 (5) LAND USE REGULATION. —The term "land 21 use regulation" means a zoning or landmarking law, 22 or the application of such a law, that limits or re- 23 stricts a claimant's use or development of land (in- 24 eluding a structure affixed to land), if the claimant 25 has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or •S 2869 PCS q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 12 other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest. (6) PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY. —The term "pro- gram or activity" means all of the operations of any entity as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a). (7) RELIGIOUS EXERCISE. — (A) IN GENERAL. —The term "religious ex- ercise" includes any exercise of religion, wheth- er or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. (B) RULE. —The use, building, or conver- sion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exer- cise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose. tS 2869 PCs a a hM�l Wl E-+ 11 CHARTERED NEW CASE ON 60-DAY RULE: Court takes strict view The Demolition Landfill case Recently the Court of Appeals handed down a decision interpreting the 60-day statute. The Court held that a conditional use permit application for a landfill in Duluth was deemed approved because the City did not properly act within the deadline. The Court's decision focused on a part of the 60-day statute: the provision that requires that written reasons for the City's denial be given by the City in writing "at the time that it denies the request." The Court indicated that this provision will be interpreted literally. If the City decides to deny an application, the reasons for the decision must be given at the same meeting at which the City denies the application. A two-step approval process which many cities were using will apparently not be acceptable. Under that approach, cities gave a conceptual approval or denial at one meeting, and then adopted findings supporting the decision at a later meeting. Two alternatives How can cities comply with the 60-day rule in light of the latest guidance from the Court? There are two alternatives. First, the City Council or Planning Commission may have the staff prepare alternative sets of findings, with one set supporting approval of the application and one set supporting denial. At the meeting, the body may want to take a brief recess if necessary to give the city staff or attorney an opportunity to integrate into the appropriate findings any additional grounds for the decision based on evidence presented at the meeting. Under a second approach, the City Council would adopt a resolution directing the staff or city attorney to prepare findings denying the application. The Council would avoid making any motion actually denying the application at that time. At a later meeting, the City Council would deny the application and adopt the findings. In this way, the City would not actually deny the application until the findings were prepared. More information on the Demolition Landfill case and on the 60- day rule is available on the Kennedy & Graven website (www.keniiedy-g-raven.com). If you have questions, contact your city attorney, or contact Karen Cole at 612/337-9212 or kcole@kennedy-graven.com. AAP- 187162v I PA280-2