Loading...
08-2-89 Agenda and Packet T2-1:14. AGENDA _ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1989, 6 : 00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Discussion, Oakview Heights Townhomes, Cenvesco. PUBLIC HEARINGS ( 7 :30 P.M. ) 2 . Cenvesco, Oakview Heights, property zoned R-12 , Residential High Density and located between Powers and Kerber Boulevard north of West 78th Street: a. Preliminary Plat to subdivide 18. 93 acres into 11 high density lots for 182 condominium units b. Site Plan Review for 182 condominium units. c. Wetland Alteration Permit to permit grading within a Class B wetland. 3. Planned Unit Development Amendment to replace 114 multi- family attached units with 45 single family lots, on property zoned PUD-R and located at the northeast corner of Pleasant View Road and TH 101, Lundgren Bros. Construction. 4 . Preliminary Plat to subdivide 9 . 5 acres into 18 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located south of Pleasant View Road and east of Powers Boulevard, Van Eeckhout Building Corporation (Vineland Forest) . NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE OPEN DISCUSSION _ 5 . Planned Unit Development - Commercial - Concept Plan for a commercial center on 1 . 2 acres of property zoned BG, General Business and located at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard, Market Square Partnership. ADJOURNMENT CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM Action tri CttY Adrtttstrator TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner a�"t =, ,/ei— DATE: July 27, 1989 Catr Si bmi tedta Car�m;ssiott SUBJ: Cenvesco Lntw a;�� , 10 BACKGROUND The applicant originally proposed a planned unit development for individually owned townhomes. The PUD was denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council because they did not feel that the applicant was meeting the intent of the PUD ordinance. -- The applicant then submitted a preliminary plat and site plan review for condominium units. The Planning Commission has reviewed the preliminary plat and has tabled action until addi- - tional changes to the site plan could be made. In the meantime, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the plans and recom- mended that four acres of land be dedicated for parkland. The Park Department requested that this parkland be on the level area that could be used for active park areas. Since the Park and Recreation Commission stated that ownership of the parkland would be transferred from the applicant to the city, staff would not be able to allow that acreage to be used in calculating the density and impervious surface for the site. Therefore the density of the site would be greatly reduced and the applicant has stated that the project would no longer be feasible. The applicant has asked for a joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission to receive direction on where the city sees this project going. Both the Planning Commission and City Council have had several concerns with the project and the applicant wishes to get these out in the open so that they can be addressed. The applicant is bringing back a concept plan for a PUD to allow transfer of density and impervious surface since the city is now requesting that 4 acres of his property will be removed for city parkland. The applicant is also moving ahead with the preliminary plat if the PUD is not acceptable. The first part of the meeting starting at 6 :00 p.m. will be used for general discussion of the project and for review of the con- cept plan for Oakview Estate PUD. Following discussion of the Planning Commission July 27, 1989 Page 2 PUD, the Planning Commission will review the preliminary plat as part of the Planning Commission meeting. — The following report will provide general information for the Planning Commission and City Council to use as guidelines when reviewing the two projects. If it is determined that the preli- minary plat is preferred and the that the PUD would not be accepted, then the applicant will be submitting detailed plans such as grading, utilities, drainage, etc. to support the preli- minary plat proposal. Once those detailed plans have been sub- mitted, staff will review and present the Planning Commission with a more detailed staff report. Again, the purpose of the joint meeting is to provide the applicant with direction for which to pursue the project. PUD PROPOSAL The PUD proposal is providing three lots , Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 and Lot 1 , Block 2 . The remaining portion of the site, approxi- mately 5 . 6 acres, will be dedicated to the city as parkland. This is shown as the open area on the northwest portion of the site. The applicant is reducing the number of townhome units to 86 and replacing the 70 unit apartment building with two 50 unit future apartment buildings. The townhome units are divided between Lot 2 , Block 1 and Lot 1 , Block 2 and are contained in 8 unit, 12 unit, and 14 unit buildings. The total number of units — for the site will be 186 with the development of the apartments. The proposed PUD development has four additional units over the current plans. The PUD plan still provides Jenny Lane which accesses Powers Boulevard to Kerber Boulevard. Instead of having a circle street north of Jenny Lane, the applicant is now pro- viding a cul-de-sac to the north which reduces the number of access points onto Jenny Lane. The lot coverage for Lot 1, Block 1 ( the future apartments) , would be 17 . 2% . This calculation is including the 5 . 6 acres of dedicated parkland. The impervious surface of Lot 2 , Block 1 will be 34.6% and Lot 1, Block 2 will be 35%. The density for the future apartments is 12 units per acre, Lot 2 , Block 1 is 10 units per acre and Lot 1, Block 2 is 9 . 88 units per acre. — Typically when parkland is required, it is dedicated as a separate outlot and is not used in the calculation of the density and impervious surface. The applicant is requesting that in — replacement of dedicating the 5 . 6 acres of parkland, they receive a transfer of density and impervious surface onto the apartment unit block. The PUD designation could allow the applicant to — dedicate the parkland to the city and still receive the density that would have been permitted had the parkland not been required. It should be noted that the area being shown for dedi- _ cation as parkland contains a Class B wetland and very steep slope and only the most easterly portion of the site would actually be able to be used for recreation activities . — Planning Commission July 27, 1989 Page 3 CONDOMINIUM - PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN The applicant has changed the present proposal to reduce the number of access points onto Jenny Lane by providing a cul-de-sac — from Jenny Lane rather than the loop road. This plans also remo- ves the double frontage lot which was not accepted by the sub- division ordinance. The preliminary plat maintains the same number of units as presently proposed with the majority of the site being townhome units . The future apartment building is being proposed in the same location adjacant to the steep slope and the wetland in the northwest corner of the site. The pro- posed condominium plat provides an area for a volleyball and basketball court and a totlot. The plan does not provide for the dedication of 4 acres of parkland as requested by the Park and Rec Commission. The applicant is using this opportunity of the joint meeting with the Council and Commission to determine whether or not the parkland requested by the Park and Rec Commission would be a requirement of approval or whether or not the proposed areas for totlot, volleyball and basketball courts would be satisfactory. Staff prefers the cul-de-sac plan over the existing plat since it does remove the double frontage lot and reduces the number of access points onto Jenny Lane by 3 . Staff still feels that the number of access points is too many and should be reduced. Again, a more detailed review of the plan will have to take place once they have been provided to staff. SUMMARY The proposed PUD provides for 186 units and the proposed con- dominium plan provides 182 units . The PUD provides 5. 6 acres of parkland and the condominium plan provides areas within lots for recreational activities. The PUD provides 18 access points onto Jenny Lane and 21 visitor parking spaces. The condominium plan provides 19 access points onto Jenny Lane and 36 visitor parking spaces. The Planning Commission and City Council should be prepared to discuss their preference for development of the site and their — concerns. The major issues are whether the PUD would be accep- table and should be pursued, does the city want dedicated parkland and finally, does the city want this prooerty developed as high density. Planning Commission Meeting — June 21, 1989 - Page 30 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18 . 93 ACRES INTO 11 HIGH DENSITY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED R-12, RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS (BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BLVD. , NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET) , CENVESCO (OAKVIEW HEIGHTS) . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Mary Cully: My name is Mary Cully. I'm with Hedlund Engineering and represent Cenvesco. As has been stated, we have been before you on this particular parcel with the same product essentially but we were asking for a PUD which was not designated zoning for this parcel . We are now coming — back with a similar product . We feel that we conform with the R-12 intent of the zoning as Jo Ann mentioned. We met all the impervious and the density. The densities are much lower than the 12. Generally they are 9 to 10 range with an average of 10 units per acre. The tree issue, this development has the removal of 9 large oak trees . The landscape plan shows the replacement of 120 trees of different types , varieties and granted smaller size caliper inches that will be removed are a little over 200 and we are replacing them with nearly 300 caliper inches. In the project prior to this , the Durand Corporation , the DNR forester did come onto the site with staff and it was their viewpoint that, and I ' ll read it. Staff is on — isite with the DNR forester Alan Olsen and determined that there was no way to preserve any of these trees with a proposed. . . Staff and Alan Olsen reviewed the proposed landscape plan , this was the old landscape plan and asked for an increase and variety of plant materials. So just for the record I wanted to show that this site has been visited by the DNR forester and it was his judgment that unfortunately these trees cannot be saved. They' re trying to save whatever we can and there may be a possibility of 1 or 2 more trees being saved. We feel that they can with a lot of precautions . It' s not a guaranteed thing but from my interpretation of the DNR's feeling is that is what he' s saying that they just can' t guarantee. . . — Since we all know the project well , it' s probably appropriate that I answer questions considering the hour and time limit. Conrad : Okay, when we get back here for our comments , I 'm sure we will have some questions of you. It' s a public hearing . Any comments? Additional comments? Batzli moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. — Emmings : My overall comment is that again I think parking is a serious _ deficit in this plan as it was in the other plan. Again, the only parking that ' s being provided is the garage space and the space immediately in front of the garage for guests and events and things and I 'm probably going to vote against it just on that ground alone. Otherwise , I don ' t mind the plan. I think it certainly fits better than anything we've seen before. With respect to the preliminary plat , subdivision , I think we should add a condition that the approval would be conditioned upon compliance with all Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 31 C the conditions of the site plan and the wetland alteration permit. I think the number of curb cuts should be reduced out to Jenny Lane. Particularly when you consider that the sidewalk is going to be going along that south edge too. Not only is there an awful lot of curb cuts but the sidewalk is planned for that south side of the road . Mary Cully: The north side. Emmings : That' s not what I just heard . Olsen: When Gary was discussing it, he was saying the south though. I can double check that. Emmings : I know the difference between north and south, I just don' t know — where this thing is going. She said south. Mary Cully: Oh, I apologize. Olsen: Yes, it says the south side. The Park and Rec. Emmings : And that ' s where a lot of these curb cuts , that ' s where the over abundance of curb cuts seems to occur although there are some on the north too but anyway the number of curb cuts onto Jenny Lane I think ought to be r reduced. That would be an important thing to do. They' re quite a bit --� under the impervious surface limit and I think probably something couldbe worked out, at least try to. I don' t have any way to judge whether the landscaping is adequate or inadequate and it ' s something I 'm very concerned about when I see that the site plan asks for an amended landscape plan to address that. I assume that will then just be, the staff will determine whether or not it' s adequate and I 'm willing to let staff do that. Number one I think the staff has the right idea about requiring more and number two, judging from what the City Council has to say about those oak trees , they' re going to be taking a greater look at that as well . I would again modify the conditions on the site plan to add a condition, site plan — approval is conditioned upon compliance with all the conditions of the subdivision approval and the wetland alteration permit. Again, just to tie that back and forth. Under the wetland alteration permit, I think we' ve got the wrong number. Under the wetland alteration permit it should be 89-14 instead of 88-15. 88-15 is the site plan so that first number under the recommendation should be 89-14 and then condition 3, it says approval of PUD concept and development plan . All that ' s gone by the board so that — shouldn' t be in there. Number 4 says approval of site plan 88-14 and I think we should just strike that out because it should be 88-15 but let ' s just strike it out and just put in a third condition that says that _ approval would be conditioned upon compliance with all the conditions of subdivision and site plan approval . That will again, tie them all together . Other than that I don ' t have anything else right now. Ellson: I 'm just as concerned about what I was the first time and that ' s the trees . I don ' t even recall now how many total there are. They' re removing 9. How many trees are not being removed or are trying to be — saved? Planning Commission Meeting — June 21, 1989 - Page 32 Olsen : Two are trying to be saved. Elison: And their chances are, we don' t know but basically 9 out of 11 are — being taken out and are most of them in this double frontage lot area or a good portion of them? If I recall it was kind of stretched up. Olsen: Yes, they are up in this area. In the double frontage. Batzli : I don' t mean to interrupt but if you go with the Alternative A and — turn the townhome there, are you then wrecking all of the trees? Olsen : I haven' t seen it but I would assume you are. It' s real doubtful that these are going to survive with any type of grading around it. This doesn' t actually show the tree line but , the drip line is what they call it and it leaves about half as much would not even touch it. . . Because they' re oaks , they' re real susceptible to disease. — Ellson: I guess I 'm still concerned about that and I don' t know that we have a whole lot of power but . Not only do I recall reading about how the — DNR said that we'd probably have to remove them but that' s what the plan as it is or as it was then, but we' ve also stated and it' s also been discussed by the new Council that we want to start designating protected tree groves around the city and I think this should be the first one . I don' t like — that many being gone which is probably 100% and whether it' s 300 trees or 3, 000 that are 1 inch round or 2 inches compared to 1, 100 year old oaks , I think we really lose out on that. I think that we come out on the short — end of the stick. I had a question on the double frontage lot . That' s basically something that we don' t recommend or this is something we don' t allow? — Olsen : The subdivision ordinance does not allow it unless it ' s on a collector or arterial . Elison: So if they took that building out there wouldn' t be a problem? Olsen: Well it' s still a lot . — Elison : I know but it' s like 10 units or whatever . I was thinking well maybe some of those trees are in there. Take the building out and you' ll save 5 of them or something . I guess I 'm not convinced that we'd have a solution to this problem that we don' t allow them yet we' re going to allow this one . I don' t see that we have a good reason for allowing this one but you know she' s trying to find a solution but it still kind of designates it as a double frontage lot and I don ' t know that we have a good reason to say okay, this one we' ll let go. Those are some of the concerns I have. Mary Cully: Can I just say something about the trees? Also it is the — grade of the trees to develop any kind of road, it would be hard to save them because there' s a change in the grade of 10 feet so you have to consider grade in addition to location. — L Ellson : But we had one option last time where we saved more. Not as many as I would like but a few more. I don't know. — Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 33 Batzli : Just getting back to Steve' s comments . The Park and Rec ' s proposal did say the trail should be on the south side of Jenny Lane so that is going over all of the curb cuts and I agree that that 's probably not the best place to put that. One of m question bthe Y questions, and this is a real y whenr we're the way, where is the appropriate place to say, or not say, looking potential expansion of the site. For instance, everywhere on every page we see plastered a future apartment building which in theory is not being considered tonight, isn't that correct? Olsen: Right. Batzli : Should that not be one of the conditions that we are not considering that and not approving it at this time? Olsen : Yes, we could say that. Emmings : Why do we have them on there? ve we're not considering on the plat that we'ure hy lookingo waat?something that Olsen : It ' s always up to the option of the applicant to show that . It — seems like when they don' t show it. Emmings : Then we want to know what it' soin to g g be. Yes , that ' s right. Olsen: So I had said, yes show it. Emmings : I think you' re right actually. I think I 'd probably like it on there. I think I ' ve said that in the past . Batzli : I like to see it on there. It ' s just I think I 'd like to state — and make it clear to the applicant that we ' re not approving that at this time. Olsen : We can have that said as a condition because we ' ve had that before where it 's in the report and we know it but somebody else in the future might not. — Batzli : My next question was regarding the 300 inches which replaces the trees that are being removed. Is that in addition to the landscaping requirement required under the landscaping ordinance or is that just the trees that are required under the landscape ordinance? Is this in addition to or just a part of? Olsen: Additional landscaping we' re requesting? Batzli : Yes . Olsen : Right . In the landscape ordinance they uire screening between vehicular areas and units inthe gdevelopmentganddthe - landscaping plan does not provide all of that . — an amended landsca in tThey have, I just saw today it' s not necessarily additionallandscathey renProviding those requirements so landscaping just to replace the trees that Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 34 - are being removed . There are other sections in the ordinance that are being met. Batzli : There was some things in the public safety questionaire stating that they needed more information. Water supply calculations. All this kind of thing . Has that been submitted? — Olsen: I don't know. I don't believe that has yet. Batzli : So we really don ' t know what the outcome of this middle building is. We don 't know where the improvements for park are going to be. We don ' t really have a good idea about the curb cuts . I think if it was up to me tonight, I 'd move to table this . - Wildermuth: I agree with Brian. I think we' ve got to table it tonight because of the curb cuts. Because of the double frontage on Jenny Lane. I guess I have to be very honest and confess that I wished we hadn ' t zoned — this the way it was zoned because I don' t like to see a project like this this close to the City Hall . Conrad : Well let me respond . We' re trying to put high density. I ' ve never been against this project because of density and obviously you ' re not talking to me in your comments right now but you' ve never listened to me -{ before but the point was to put a high density close to city so you could walk. If we were going to have high density, this was not a bad location to do it. Wildermuth : I understand that . I 'm just looking at the other high density areas around the community and it isn' t a pleasant prospect. I hope this one is better . In terms of construction materials . In terms of basic design but at this point I would agree with Brian. I would table it or be in favor of tabling it because of the curb cuts and double frontage on Jenny Lane. That' s basically it. Headla : If we didn' t do anything with this property, ly of the most knowledgeable on this, how long do you think uthose roak btreese would last? Ellson : What ' s his question? Conrad: How long do oak trees live? Headla : Based on this area , do you think they'd live 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Koegler : You' ve asked a very difficult question to answer . The answer is if they' re in their undisturbed state as they've been for basically a 100 years with the exception of some farming operations in that vicinity, presumably they could stay healthy for another 50 years or 100 years. -- Olsen : That ' s what the forester said too. Headla: They could survive? Planning Commission Meeting — June 21, 1989 - Page 35 C Koegler : Pending natural disasters like tornadoes like that went through in 1965, sure. Headla : Okay, the reason I ask this is , even if they did take them down, in 10 years if they've got over 100 trees planted, 100 trees would in 10 — years and I think they made a pretty good choice in trees they tried , would we be further ahead . Today we wouldn' t be but in 10 years, do you think we'd be ahead in the aesthetic value of trees? —. Ellson: That's a personal opinion. Conrad : Mark' s mouth is quivering . Koegler : Talk about objective questions , that' s really one. 10 years , I think the largest tree I saw on there was 2 1/2 caliper inches. In 10 -- years that ' s going to grow to 4 inches , maybe 6 inches if it' s an Ash if it 's something that grows faster . You judge it with your own aesthetics . Is a mature crown oak the same as 100 4 inch trees , 6 inch trees? To some — people it probably is equivalent, to other ' s, perhaps not. I can' t answer the subjective aspect of your question. Headla: I guess I didn' t expect you come back that they could live another — r 50 years. Okay, thanks . One thing in going through here, I didn' t see the inspector had different comments in here. I didn't see any of the inspector ' s comments put in the recommendations . Olsen: The building inspector ' s comments? Headla : Yes . Olsen : They were more relating to just to let the applicant know that they might have to be sprinklered and things like that. It' s really when they — come through with the building permit , they have to meet those requirements so that's why I didn't put it in at the time. The one that should have been put in was the Public Safety and I don' t think I got that . I did miss — that one. It should refer to his memo. The building ones , those will be taken care of later . It' s just to let them know. Headla: That will happen when they get the permit? — Olsen : Oh yes. They' re quoting the UBC Code. Headla: On that Jenny Lane, will there be no parking signs there? Olsen : I don' t know that that ' s been determined that they won' t. Earnings: With all the curb cuts there won' t be any place to park anyway. Headla : Would that be, I 'm guessing but I would suspect it' s going to be a lot of problems in the days when people come out here. People want to be on the streets . They' ll have to park on the streets . Will that solve the problem or would that create more of a problem by having no parking? — Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 36 - Street parking? Olsen : The design of the street, i don' t know that it ' s going to allow parking on either side. It gets into engineering again but if it' s designed that it can handle the parking on one side or the other , then it shouldn ' t be that much of a traffic problem but if it' s not designed in this, it will be a problem and it should be signed no parking . I think — what they usually do is leave it no parking and if it becomes a problem, then they sign it if that' s what they felt was appropriate in this case . We've been through this so many times, at one point we were going to have - it no parking . Headla : I think this is a big improvement over what they put in before. It' s like when you' re designing something and things go together good, you feel real comfortable and I don ' t think the design is quite here yet. I really would like to see him go back and look at it again with all the curb cuts and the way that road goes through there. It seems to create a lot of — problems. From my point of view, I guess I 'd like to see you go back and solve that loop problem with the road and curb cuts and add more parking . That's it. Conrad : Okay, thanks Dave. Quick comments I guess . Did you ever consider, the road that loops off of Jenny Lane, did you ever consider making two cul-de-sacs off of that? Is it important to keep that a continuous road back there? Does that make sense? Mary Cully: We got feedback from the Fire Department that that ' s the way - they wanted to see it. Dean Johnson: They did not want cul-de-sacs. — Conrad: I 'm sure you' ll get different feedback even up here. Yes, I know. Was that ever of interest to you to do some cul-de-sacs going back in there? In other words, and I 'm not trying to redesign your plat right now — but would that have benefitted let' s say trees? Lessen the amount of road? Mary Cully: It probably. . .probably be worse. Conrad : I 'm not a planner , not a professional planner but if you just kept the same configuration of road there and just basically didn' t connect it , you' re going to end up with maybe 40 additional feet or something between — the two cul-de-sac spots going in. Still accessing the same buildings . Mary Cully: The length of cul-de-sac. . . Conrad: Does it exceed that 500 feet? Would that do that? Olsen : I don' t know that we saw plans of cul-de-sacs so I don' t know. f Conrad: Would you advise them not to do that? The cul-de-sacs? Ellson: They already said the fire people did . Planning Commission Meeting — June 21, 1989 - Page 37 Olsen : I don' t know, no. It never was shown so I don' t know that it' s a preference or that it wouldn' t have been permitted. — Conrad : If there were two cul-de-sacs there we wouldn' t have double frontage lots would we? Olsen : No . It would remove, well you could possibly have. I don' t know how it would work if you had a cul-de-sac going like this. Conrad : So what would that mean? It would still have double frontage? What would we have? That's another option is one cul-de-sac. Olsen : It' s something we could look at. Conrad: You' re comfortable Jo Ann then in solving the double frontage issue simply by splitting that lot? — Olsen: It' s the way. . . Conrad : Meet the intent of the ordinance is what you' re saying? What are the negatives of having , if we allow a double frontage here and we set a precedent and a rationale for that precedent is what? Is there rationale? The applicant wanted to do it that way? How do we allow that? Basically r we can ' t unless we divide it the way you ' re saying . Olsen: Right and even then in looking at it, you could still define that — as a double frontage. The ordinance. . . it' s a front yard if you' re facing . The front yard is where you have street frontage so that lot has street frontage and then if you split it in half, it has two lots with 3 front — yards so you could still , the way it' s defined now, I guess it' s confusing but you could still look at it as a double frontage no matter what you do because you' ve got streets on all sides . The way that you orient the building really doesn' t. . . — Conrad : One of the double frontage restrictions is what? Olsen: Just so that they do. . .you accommodate that. I think the reason was so that you didn' t have a street or existing lot and then another inbetween that. The back was facing the front yard kind of like an alley situation. The way that it' s written is so if you do have double frontage -" lots, that you always have the front of the homes facing . . . Conrad : So it' s really out of respect to the neighbors? Olsen: How it' s going to work overall . I think double frontage was mostly used for single family. For large lots with individual units on it so — that's where you get into, there' s nowhere in the subdivision ordinance where it doesn ' t apply to this but really that' s where it was for was for single family. • - Conrad : Does it apply to this? Yes it does . Olsen: Yes , it does . — Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 38 C Conrad : Philosophically, do you think it applies to this? Olsen: I think you could get by with that being with berming and landscaping . Conrad : So really the precedent that we set is not a negative precedent — because maybe we should , maybe double frontages is not negative in this particular high density zoning district? Olsen: We prefer, you always prefer not to have it. We just don't know, I guess the best alternative is like a cul-de-sac but the way, if you want that looped, then there's really no way to get around it unless you just delete that whole lot or have it an outlot that can ' t be developed . Conrad: What do you think about my thoughts for the cul-de-sac scenario? Do you like them or don' t like that idea? Olsen: Well I 'd like to see it. It' s hard to comment when you can' t picture it. Conrad : But we haven' t advised the staff other than the fire department advising the applicant that they didn' t like cul-de-sacs. We haven ' t t really directed them to a different design? Olsen: I don' t know that they were told that they couldn ' t do cul-de-sacs . In my conversations and with the public safety it was always that this would be designed to accommodate wide enough, this is back when it was going to be a private drive and it was going to be narrow, that it be at least 20 feet or 24 feet wide to accommodate the fire trucks so cul-de-sacs did not get discussed . Mary Cully: On the double frontage lots , it does also say that if it can ' t be achieved, getting away from the double frontage, that you could add the — 10 foot and require that that extra 10 foot be bermed and landscaped . I guess that's the interpretation I took. The one road that parallels Jenny Lane is almost like a frontage road and we use that . . . Double frontage. . .single family is to have somebody's backyard against a road but with this product you really don' t have a backyard so we provided 25 feet setback all around the perimeter of that lot where normally you'd have a 10 foot setback on the side but to compensate we put it at 25 around the — entire perimeter. It could be appropriate that one of those setbacks should be 35. Conrad : Would it upset you from a sales standpoint to have one long cul-de-sac? Cutting off the eastern access, bringing up the road to service the three units north and to the west , is that something you just wouldn ' t want to do? Again, I 'm thinking maybe there are trees, there ' s some concern with trees and I thought our cul-de-sac length was 500. We t just looked, I 'm not sure where we are on cul-de-sacs anymore but what' s the negative of having one long cul-de-sac there Jo Ann? Might it save some trees? I 'm talking about not having the eastern connection. Planning Commission Meeting — June 21, 1989 - Page 39 Mary Cully: I think the diameter of cul-de-sac would be 100 feet and the pavement would be 80 so you' re talking pavement where the trees are so you — have to maintain the western entrance for the eventual apartment . Conrad: I 'm not worried about the west. Mary Cully: I'm saying with the possibility of the cul-de-sac there, it would mean a wider expansion of pavement. Olsen : I don' t know if the trees would be saved. Also , when you talk about that high amount of people living in that area, they could possibly, public safety might come back and still want a secondary access even out of that cul-de-sac. Conrad : Why? Olsen : It' s just a lot of times whenever you have a cul-de-sac there, it' s a lot of . . . Conrad : You get 2 1/2 units exiting , half of the center deal are exiting right on Jenny Lane right so we don' t have that many individuals that we' re servicing up there Jo Ann. _ eOlsen : I picture if you' re going to have a cul-de-sac coming in there, trying to get everyone to get off of Jenny Lane. It' s hard to talk about it when you really can' t even picture it . — Conrad: Right. And obviously I don't know if we' re saving anything. A lot of people like cul-de-sac living and it keeps it away from the — thoroughfare. I don' t know that there' s a benefit to having two access sites in there other than I 'm sure the fire department will say yes there is but we've been ignoring, we' ve got a lot of new development going in out here and for some reason we' re pretty comfortable that long cul-de-sacs are — not real negative. We' re allowing them but again I would make that trade. It' d be a trade-off and I think the developer would want to, it' s obviously in their interest, they'd be interested whether their property is more — marketable or whether there' s some negatives to that but that just looked like a solution to me that maybe we have ignored. Generally I find this better than the PUD concept and maybe it' s sort of a shell game but there sure, it' s just better looking in general . Don' t know how to solve the — double frontage issue and Jo Ann , without your guidance, I think it' s tough for us . This is a planner ' s deal and I guess without your specific saying no it can' t be done , my guess right now is I would go along with allowing it because we'd set a precedent in this district and I don' t mind setting a precedent in this district. I simply don' t mind it so basically ignoring our guidelines. In terms of the preliminary plat, I think it' s better . In _ terms of the site plan , curb cuts are too many. Flat out . There are just plain too many. It' s not good planning. There' s a trade-off. Impervious surface for curb cuts and I don' t know what the trade-off is right now so I guess I could back on my word and say I 'd like 17 curb cuts if we have to put in a whole lot more parking area or road area but at this point in time, it's probably worth using up some of the impervious surface that we haven' t used to get your curb cuts there. It also makes sense to have — Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 40 C fewer simply because we've got a trail there unless we moved the trail to the other side which seems logical to me but I guess as long as we' ve got it on the south, we ' ll keep it there. The parking, geez, we continue to talk about parking for guests and we don ' t have any standards to enforce so the planning staff basically, Jo Ann you haven ' t given us any guidelines on this in the report. You' re just saying it's no different than before and therefore it' s up to our whim basically whether we like it or not . Mark, — do you have any standards for parking for visitors for a development like this? You work other areas . The City has no guidelines . Koegler: You 're not alone. A lot of cities have a 2 1/2 car requirement for multi-family, one of which has to be covered . That 1 1/2 is commonly taken up in driveway area and it's only when you have a PUD or you have some conditional use or something that you have a little more leverage to — require guest parking or suggest strongly that it be added to the plan that that necessarily occurs . It ' s certainly plats of this nature that , I 've been involved in reviewing for other cities, we have tried to obtain guest parking . Conrad : The City has no leverage right now, right? — Olsen: Technically, no. We'd have to amend the ordinance. r Emmings : Why not? Conrad: No standards . Emmings : We don ' t have standards but this is a site plan review and you' re saying that we can' t . . . Conrad : We don ' t have an ordinance that speaks to the problem. Einmings : Well it' s simply not addressed but if we see it as a deficiency in the plan , what do we do , just ignore it? Conrad: You can kind of negotiate with the developer and see if they can solve it. - Headla : We don ' t have a limit on curb cuts either but we' re sure pressing that one. — Conrad : I think there is a safety issue in curb cuts and I could feel real comfortable talking safety. No doubt about it especially when you 've got a trail going through there. You' ve got 17 curb cuts and every 35 feet - you' ve got a curb cut and you ' ve got more traffic than a single family unit going out of there. I don' t have a problem with that one Dave. Not at all but parking, I don' t know. - Batzli : It may be a safety issue as well . -- Headla : I think you'd have a problem because not everybody would agree on the appropriate number . So in your own mind you wouldn' t have a problem but overall there would be. Planning Commission Meeting — June 21, 1989 - Page 41 Conrad : The development to the east of this , they don' t have any parking — do they for guests? Olsen : I can ' t remember off hand if they do. It' s not a significant amount, no. That was a big discussion when they went through too. — Conrad : They do have some but it would be where Jenny Lane goes in so their guest parking is going to vanish. — Olsen : And it is being used all the time too. Every time I ' ve gone out there that parking in Jenny Lane right-of-way is used. _ Conrad : What' s the negative to the City in not having enough parking? Anything? They' ll just park out on Jenny Lane and then we' ll get complaints so we' ll put up no parking signs . Then what? — Olsen: Bus service out there. Conrad : We' ll shuttle them in from a parking lot. I don' t have an answer . Okay, but somebody who makes a motion will . My only other thought, Park and Rec said put in a volleyball court, half basketball court and several — other things. They made their recommendation and we really don' t know where it is on the plan. Where it might go. Well , we have to adopt that Lright? If they make that recommendation, that' s nothing that we have to put our name to , right? — Olsen: You can say you' re not in support of it but it still goes right onto the City Council . The Park and Rec also, they get final determination — approval of where that is located . Conrad : Is there leverage on that? Just out of curiousity, is that an exchange for park dedication fees or they' re just saying we'd kind of like — to have this? Olsen : No , they' re saying you have to do it . — Conrad: Under what right do they have to put in a volleyball court unless they donate a park? Olsen : They can require a certain amount of acreage in their ordinance, the park ordinance. I think it came out to like 6 acres because of the density or the number of units , they could have required 6 acres of — parkland. Because it wasn' t park deficient but it still was the surrounding park areas are almost to their capacity that they said okay, you don' t have to provide the 6 acres but we want like around 1 acre, 1 1/2 — acre with volleyball , basketball so they' re kind of coming to a compromise . Plus they still have to pay some of the park fees and trail fees so they do have the authority. They could have flat out said give us 6 acres or else they could have said just give us money. — Conrad : But we don' t see it here right now right? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 42 - Olsen : No . They could have possibly changed their plan because it does have to go back to Park and Rec. They still have control where it' s located so they can ' t put it in the wetland or in that slope. - Conrad : Any comments? I see twitches out there. Mary Cully: The park, that area of volleyball is not shown on this plan — because we got different information from Lori . When this plan was done she said it was not a park deficient area and all this sort of thing and since that time she has . . .about the volleyball area. Dean Johnson : Well their meeting was just last week. So until you have the meeting you don't have any permission, know where to put it anyhow. Since they work with you to put it in, it' s nothing that you can have on these plans obviously before it comes to you people so I 'm sure that 's why they also put in their stipulations that it be worked out at final plat time. Emmings : If you cul-de-saced this one road they get a whole bunch of land . Dean Johnson: Quite honestly I think your idea is not too bad. I would take it a step farther myself and actually make it two shorter cul-de-sacs. Conrad : That may be better and staff may not, by the way staff may not agree with me. They have some technical reasons for they don ' t really like cul-de-sacs and I find some good reasons for them and they add to the charm and some neighborhood type of deals but there are some emergency service — type things so again, when I say c 1-de-sac, I 'm saying that' s not a bad trade-off but they' re probably going to have some other thoughts on that subject. Dean Johnson : Again , when you get back into first of all the issue with the double frontage lots, you have something to go by. We sat there and looked at it and say well if we turn the streets and now the streets are on — the side lots which is where turning the building came from. Now do you have double frontage lots? You know, you have a real gray area there in which you to do a cul-de-sac, then you somewhat take that gray area out of there and I have no problem doing that . I guess what I would like because obviously I don't want to be tabled again, I like you people. Conrad : We enjoy your coming here every 2 weeks to talk to you. It ' s a — good time. Dean Johnson : So I guess what I 'd like is a recommendation to work with — that. Either cul-de-sac it. Go back to fire and see what they would want in this thing and then come back with the best recommendation up to Council with that too. As for the cuts on the curb, to be quite honest with you, if I could get a little bit more impervious surface on a couple of those lots, I would rather go with the drive in going there also. I personally don ' t like to see all those curb cuts on it either so I 'd like more of a - recommendation to say allow me to put a little more impervious surface on — which (a) would give me some more visitor parking and (b) be able to get all the curb cuts off so that' s the type of recommendation 1 prefer to see Planning Commission Meeting — June 21, 1989 - Page 43 if I could . Emmings: They' re at 28% now and the limit is 35% or isn' t that right? Olsen: I think you have to look at each individual lot. Some of them are really right up there , 35% like now but that ' s again where it came more into play in the PUD on how you looked at that. Dean Johnson : Can I make one more comment here? Obviously I 'd like to be more a part of the. . .other stuff too. The impervious surface just got tight. But the other thing that comes in, I'd still like to make one last pitch for the zero lot line on this site. I would rather get the. . .of the homeowner it' s County for processing plats and also to a surveyor for surveying the inside of the buildings. The better way out of it would be able to give the guys and the homeowners a better unit is to , so to speak lessen the soft cost which is what something like that is. I don't know — how at this point we can allow it. I guess I 'm looking for suggestions but I would still urge, still think the zero lot line is . . . Even if it' s through a variance or I don' t know how. It does mean about $1, 500. 00 I am — going to be able to put into the units which I had planned to put into the units . Conrad : We weren ' t against the zero lot lines but to get to that ordinance — and what have you, it forced you into PUD and you are not a very good PUD the way it looks. It just doesn' t classify. Dean Johnson : So now we' re in a catch-22. So what do you do? You have an ordinance that really doesn' t relate to this type of a unit you know and we went the PUD route to. . . Conrad : If you brought in a really creative PUD and you save some trees and you bundle some units together, I think you could probably get that through. I think when we zoned this a while back to R-12, we really — thought it was going to be apartment buildings . That' s where we were at. Obviously market structure and you being there , you can do anything you want and you know what the market demand is but again we' re thinking — apartments . Close to downtown. Nice brick apartments . Terrific . Okay, well now you' re bringing in something that especially when you give us a PUD, it really didn' t, it wasn ' t one and you got caught by that but I think you can come back and save a few trees. You see the other thing we' re — doing is trying to keep open space and the first thing you brought in just looked, you can have density and still have open space. They' re not contradictory but typically that moves you up. — Dean Johnson: So you' re looking at an apartment. Conrad : Yes . You' re ending up with the problem. It' s not ours but those are basically some philosophies that we' ve carried forth around Chanhassen and the residents like it. That' s why they moved out here. They like the open space so if you had somehow been able to bundle things together , give — ""-- us some greenery around , keeping the impervious surface down, I think we would have gone along with you but it didn' t look that way. This looks good as a subdivision and I think we made some changes to it . You've got — Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 44 r some problems here. There is somebody who doesn ' t like parking and somebody who doesn' t like trees and maybe a majority that want to table it so you may not be happy with where we' re going tonight but I think you got some time. If you came back with a zero lot line deal that looked creative in a POD, I think we 'd look at it. Dean Johnson: We'd have to lose too much density to do that. _ Conrad : You might . Dean Johnson : The economics of the thing right now also hedges on the HRA so you' re sitting there saying you know, you gain one place you lose another . It 's something that you always struggle with in land planning and those types of things. i realize that but the numbers got too low in order — to do it and it kicked the project out . The project wouldn ' t go at that little of density so now I guess what I 'm trying to do is sit here and say well this is something that the same darn building you know but let ' s give — the customer something. Let' s try to find a way to do it so I guess you know I 'm looking for a recommendation from you guys even if it ' s a recommendation onto the Council to look at this same project only allowing zero lot lines or something on that line because it is going to go to the customer because just to stay within the concept of the idea we have trying to compete with rent , it ' s going to need to go onto the customer . . . i Conrad: I don' t know what we can tellou right now. y g If anybody has any advice. You see the my it's going to reduce your density and oImdon ' tare thinklng youto survvi�Veobyk reedd ucing density but it saves some of the things we ' d be very interested in doing . Giving us open space. Finding a volleyball park, totlot, whatever so I could see saving some trees but I don ' t know that you can live with what my recommendations would be. Dean Johnson: It becomes financially infeasible. — Conrad: Right. It probably is. Anyway, I heard some comments here for tabling . I guess my comment would probably be, we could pass this along to City Council with a lot of restrictions. It appears to me there are 4 or 5 things that really should be analyzed pretty good and I wouldn ' t pass it to them and I think if they were doing their job they'd bump it back to us so therefore my feeling would be to table this unti.i we can see the curb cut review, the impervious surface analysis and maybe taking a look at a long — cul-de-sac and a couple of the other. things. Don ' t know that we can save trees but maybe we can bundle some parking in to this by bumping up some impervious surface but I think I would prefer and normally I wouldn' t mind just passing along to the Council but I think it ' s to your benefit. I think it ' s to the City' s benefit to bring it back and solve a few of these problems. Other than that I think it's a better looking proposal than before. Those are my short comments . Anybody want to make a motion? Wildermuth: I move the Planning Commission recommend tabling of Site Plan #88-15 for 182 condominium units as shown on plans dated June 2, 1989 . Conrad: Is there a second? Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1989 - Page 45 Emmings : Are we going to table just the site plan or the wetland alteration permit and the subdivision request as well? There are three things going on here. Wildermuth: I think we probably ought to table them all . — Conrad: I 'd table them all, yes . Emmings : Is that your motion to table the whole package? Wildermuth: Table all three. _ Conrad : Is there a second? Batzli : Second. Conrad : Discussion . You men and women have a choice to get this out of here. Just make your recommendations to the City Council . _ Emmings: There are enough things, I was for moving it on but I guess I ' ve kind of been persuaded by other people' s comments that there are enough things up in the air so it really wouldn' t be, it probably would be useful to look at it again. Wildermuth moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend tabling action on Subdivision Request 488-24, Site Plan 488-15 and Wetland Alteration Permit #89-14. All voted in favor and the motion carried . _ Conrad: We' re going to see you one more time. Dean Johnson: What am I going to change? I have nothing . Conrad: The curb cuts. You' ve got to show us where the park is. You've , got to show us the impervious surface . Those things we need to take a look at. It's not here and we'd just like to see it before City Council . Dean Johnson : The impervious surface is there . . . 35% . I can ' t change the curb cuts because if I do I change the impervious surface so consequently I would come back with the same thing . Conrad: Is that right? Olsen : I haven' t seen that to prove that the impervious surface will be. _ If it is and they do have to go over , they' ll have to go before the Board of Adjustments to receive a variance to that zoning requirement . Mary Cully: But you' re requiring that . . . Dean Johnson : You' re going beyond your own ordinances . I can' t. . .your ordinances because we wanted to get the thing passed so we met your I Planning Commission Meeting June 21 , 1989 - Page 46 ordinances except for possibly the . . . Everything else is going to have to come back. Emmings : That ' s another issue that has to be looked at before it comes — back too because our ordinance says you can' t have it. From what I saw at the City Council last time, there were a lot of folks up there who were very liberal minded in application of our ordinances . Conrad : Basically what you' re asking is, you'd like us to turn it down. Do you want us to turn it down? Dean Johnson: What I want, I can' t change. I 'd like you to recommend going over impervious or I 'd like you to sit there and say deal with the double frontage and this way or that way. I can take and cul-de-sac the — thing and bring it back to you again but if that ' s the only option. Conrad : On a parcel this big , it' s really not tough to meet our standards. — Seriously. If you had a 12 acre or 4 acre piece of property, I could see, and crimped between some different things, yes . It might be hard to meet our standards. This is a big parcel. I don' t know why you can' t meet the standards that we ' re trying to set . I really don ' t. Everybody else does . Impervious surface, everybody, I can' t think of a case that hasn' t come before us where they haven ' t met it. Dean Johnson: This does meet it . Conrad : Then you won' t have a problem. Dean Johnson: It still meets it. It meets it now and you' ve turned it down because it meets it. — Conrad : We' ve turned it down for other reasons . We haven' t turned it down, we've tabled it. — Dean Johnson : Or you ' ve tabled it for something that I can ' t bring back to you a change. I can' t change the impervious surface. Conrad : Yes you can . Dean Johnson : It will be coming back the same way. — Conrad: Then we could reconsider our motion and turn this down. Therefore you could get to City Council in two weeks if that ' s what you 'd like to do . You' re saying I have no other alternatives. One, we are interested and so are they as to where the recreation facility is going . There' s some things, and you do have the right to go in and say we want 17 curb cuts . You do have that right . Planning staff is saying no . We' re saying it doesn' t make sense. We haven' t seen that too often and City Council could along with them so I think we could sit here and say, we wanted to see it back because we thought there were enough things that might be changed that -- we could just send it through and therefore they would follow our lead and — it would go through at their level pretty quickly but your alternative, if somebody made the motion to reconsider what we just did , to forget about Planning Commission Meeting — June 21, 1989 - Page 47 tabling it , which I 'm not sure that somebody would make the motion but they could make the motion to turn it down because of and you could fly up there and see what they say. — Wildermuth : As far as the parking is concerned , not every lot probably has to have additional parking space. You've got a couple lots. You've got some leeway to work with impervious surface to provide some additional parking . Dean Johnson: Not without dropping density. Emmings: I guess if what he is saying is that he' s going to bring back the same plan next time, then it' s senseless to table it . Then we' re just wasting his time and ours. If you' re going to sit there and tell us you' re not going to work with the staff on the concerns that we' ve raised tonight, and I would like to know whether you are or not because if you don' t plan to bring back any different plan, then I would certainly make a motion to reconsider what we' ve just done. But if in the meantime you can constructively work with the staff to try and iron out some of the things — that have bothered us tonight, then I think it should be tabled and we should look at it again. So you should tell us , if you' re just going to bring it back the same plan, then I think we should vote on it one way or the other . See you can sit out there and say what you want us to do and — recommend this and that but we' re not going to do that. That' s not the way swe perceive our function. You' re asking us to do something that we haven' t done for anybody else and it' s not the way we operate and I guess what we — need to know from you is if, basically the choices that I ' ve just outlined I think. Mary Cully: We have worked with staff . Emmings: I know you have and I 'm sure it' s frustrating because the fire department wants one thing and they want another thing and we want — something else. But there' s 7 people up here and you ' ve seen nothing but unanimous votes tonight. Usually we' re kind of , we wind up not having this much trouble with projects as we' ve had with yours and maybe that' s a — message that you' re trying to stuff too much in here. I don' t know but that's my personal feeling that you' re stressing things. You' re pushing everything to the limit for density and while I understand that from a financial point of view, that' s not my concern. I don' t care see so from a — planning point of view, if you' re over stressed on those items, maybe you ought to consider cutting density, I don' t know. But if you' re saying you' ll only come back with the same plan , we need to know that. If that ' s -- your intent, then I think we should reconsider what we just did. Dean Johnson : I think we will probably be working with staff on the double — frontage lot. I don' t really expect to be able to work with the impervious surface . Emmings: Why is that? — Dean Johnson: Because we can' t afford to drop really the total units we have. To get more impervious surface or to get a driveway in there as Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 48 r impervious surface, I have to drop units . Emmings: Well you' re right. You' re at 35 on some lots right now. Apparently you' re at 33, 34. You' re 9% on one lot. Dean Johnson: That' s the apartment building. Emmings: Okay, but you' re real high on all of them and I don ' t see how it's going to work either but maybe there is a way to make it work or a way to make it work on a few units . Or maybe, I think you heard some talk up here tonight that maybe we' re willing to trade a little higher impervious surface to get more safety. Because there' s a safety concern we' re worried about the number of curb cuts, maybe we' re willing to go a little higher on impervious surface. I don' t know but that ' s the kind of things that were — said up here and I 'm sure they heard all that and will try and work with you to get a couple of lots at least down to one curb cut instead of 3 or 4 . Dean Johnson : I stated the same thing . If you people are willing to allow a little more on a couple three lots that have big driveways on them, I would just as soon do that. I would also just as soon add some parking spaces but what I can ' t do is drop density. Emmings : I understand that but what we' re asking you to do is work with staff and see if you can ' t find a way to reduce the number of curb cuts. even if it might mean , first by trying not to go over 35o but if you nave to here or there, maybe we ' ll trade it off for the safety we perceive that we ' ll be gaining . Dean Johnson : I would just as soon work that way but there ' s one other problem that I do see and that is, when you people do say, say we add more — to the parking and we get over the impervious surface there and let ' s say we have 36% or 37% on a particular lot, that type of thing. We work out the double frontage lot . Now I 'm over when I take this plat in front of — Council , I 'm asking for something that varies from your ordinance. I have the possibility that I could be just thrown out because now I 'm over R-12. That's the other problem that I face in doing it. It ' s that if we do pass here, then the Council goes and says gosh darn , we don ' t want to see over 35%. We' re not doing it and then we' re all back. . . Emmings: That ' s right. Conrad: There aren' t any guarantees . Emmings : We can ' t control their decisions . Dean Johnson: I realize that so that 's why I 'm saying it' s Hard for me to go over the 35%. The curb cuts are an allowable thing so that ' s why we chose to go that way. • - Conrad : It might be best , I 'm not sure that I 'd change my impervious — surface. I don' t know that I 'd go over my standard. Planning Commission Meeting — June 21, 1989 - Page 49 r- Emmings : No one has even really looked at it to see if that' s going to happen. What we' re doing is instead of driveways we' re putting in one long thing and has anybody drawn it out and measured it to see if it' s possible to do it at least on a couple of lots? Dean Johnson : That ' s what we have done is originally all of them were — going to have the collective driveways. That went over the impervious surface so consequently that' s why the plan changed to what you see now. It worked in reverse. — Emmings : If it' s impossible, it' s impossible. I don' t know but I don' t know if it' s been tested. Have you looked at it to see, of course we can' t be designing his plan anyway. Conrad : There ' s some benefit for turning this down and sending it to City Council so they get some immediate input. Whether the City Council would be interested in allowing some variances , I guess that' s the Board of Adjustments isn' t it that would consider variances. Is there a benefit to moving this through to City Council Jo Ann? Olsen: Just so they will get their decisions but a major point is that park. That ' s almost an acre or so that they' re going to have to provide and it would probably be interesting to see that before it went farther . — That does impact the plat . Conrad : Do you think it' s good to hear what the City Council says? Olsen: I think that we could, we have the ability to say to them that that ' s too many curb cuts . We definitely have the legal ability to say that's too much. Conrad : Yes , I 'm comfortable with that. From the developer ' s standpoint, I don' t know if it' s going to save him any time. If we bounce this up with — a negative vote they can at least test the waters up there and see if somebody's willing to go over . Ellson : You' re saying by that time it gets to there it will have a parking place. Conrad : They' ll know more and they' ll see where the park goes and maybe I don' t care where the park goes and I don' t care if it' s 17 or 18 curb cuts . Emmings: It might not be all negative either . I don' t have any problem with the wetland alteration permit and I don' t really have a problem with the subdivision except for the double frontage lot . It ' s more the site plan review where my objections are. — Conrad : We' ve already gone through and made a motion to table this item. Does anybody want to reconsider it? Okay. Motion stands as voted upon and our request , you may be coming back with the same thing in 2 weeks or — whatever and Jo Ann, can we get them on in 2 weeks? I guess I would like you to do that if we could bump something else to bring them back so we can do something. Do you think we can do it? Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 50 f Olsen : Do you know when the Park meets? Koegler : Next Tuesday. Olsen : It 'd be good if it' s tabling , to get Park and Rec to review the plan so if we can get that on. Koegler : They' re meeting next Tuesday and presumably that could be added to their agenda. Conrad : I think that makes sense to do. — PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9. 5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION (VINELAND FOREST) . Public Present : Name Address r - Scott Edwards 915 Pleasant View Road Mr . and Mrs . Greg Elliott Jeff Beck Carver Beach Estates Developer Chuck Van Eeckhout Applicant Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public — hearing to order. Conrad : More than likely if we follow the staff report the public hearing will be continued to another evening but I think it's worthy of getting comments right now on what the issues are so we can consider them and staff can in the interim. Are there comments? Scott Edwards : I 'm Scott Edwards. I own the key section of the lot in question where the road would come from Pleasant View. . . I guess my — concern would be having a right-of-way coming approximately about 4 feet from my house. . . I 'm also concerned with a temporary road when there is already a 60 foot easement on the east section of my property. What would be the need of another temporary road? Conrad : Jo Ann , can you sketch on one of those diagrams where? — Olsen: I 'm not sure where the temporary. . .there' s an existing one there right now. When we originally met with the applicant, we were looking at - access through here, a cul-de-sac and then using the easement that ' s there — now that serves the houses down there as an emergency access . What he is talking about is that existing one and what the applicant I think is doing Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 38 and then to prioritize what you want done this year with the $3 , 000. 00. — Lash: Do we have any Boy Scouts that are just itching for a project? Sietsema: No , I ' ve mentioned it to four of them and they've all turned up their noses . Mike Wegler : Most of that will be knocked out of there. Lash: When you do the grading? Schroers : Is there any conflict between Mike' s plan and Mark' s plan? Boyt: The dock. Schroers : I mean as far as entering it in a motion. Do you just want to call it master plan with the dock? — Sietsema: Yes . Schroers : Alright if there isn' t any other comments, I ' ll try to put together a motion for this. Mike Wegler : Excuse me, if you motion that in, that master plan and — something happens later to say that retaining wall wasn' t the way it was on t. .he master plan , is there going to be a conflict? Sietsema: Well they' re talking about adopting your plan. The plan with -- the dock. Schroers moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission — recommended approval of the master plan that includes the fishing dock, rock retaining wall and to merge the two plans that are shown. Also , to prioritize 1989 expenditures for a dock, the retaining wall , sod, clearing the trail and swingsets . All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS, CENVESCO SITE, OAK VIEW HEIGHTS. — Sietsema : At our last meeting we had reviewed the Oak View Heights proposal and asked the developer to come back with a revised plan that _ would show how the recreation facilities that are being required could fit onto this site. I believe Mr. Johnson has a plan that he can present to you showing those recreational facilities . I ' ll just have you go through it if you want to outline where they are and then talk about one and then the other . Dean Johnson : Let' s look at the plan first with two smaller cul-de-sacs. A little bit of background to why we have two plans instead of one. When we went in front of the Planning Commission , the Planning Commission and ( :he planning staff came up with an issue of the fact that these two cul-de-sacs are a loop road at one time. The road went all the way around and the East Jenny Circle and West Jenny Circle were connected. It became — Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 39 a double frontage lot which they didn ' t want to deal with. It wasi k nd of a technical problem because the double frontage lot is really in theory for — single family homes . Since the townhome doesn ' t really have, or this type of townhome doesn' t have a front or back, it was kind of a technical whether it did or it didn' t but they asked us to work with it . Ladd Conrad — suggested working with this and that's why you see this one plan here with the two cul-de-sacs. This is one method of getting rid of the double frontage lots so that didn't present an ordinance problem and the Planning Commission wouldn ' t have a problem. So what we' ve done is we' ve taken and split the areas through the project. We didn't want to pack them all in one area so that you would have balls flying from one area into the other and people possibly running into each other depending upon the activity — they were doing . The first one we were putting the half court basketball court in the center island off of one circle and the volleyball court and the recreational facilities , the swingsets and slides and what not, up in the northeast corner. The next one was an idea that my engineer came up with to redesign it to try to get rid of some of the double frontage lots again. We feel that this is a little better concept for getting rid of the double frontage lot and it' s something we' re going to propose to the — Planning Commission when we come back. This one we were able to rearrange the units a little bit . We could get say the adult activities or say more of the adult activities together with the volleyball and basketball court — in one spot and then we took and put the swingset, playground thing to the northeast corner . That's why you see two of them here. We are going to be —kpushing for the single cul-de-sac or our recommendation. Obviously it' s whether they will take it or not is up to them. We are going to go over this and we think we have a more interesting plan by doing it and we figure by having two small cul-de-sacs is kind of an unnecessary type of a thing so one would serve better and be less maintenance and be less for emergency vehicles to have to deal with. Robinson : What ' s adjacent to that totlot outside of your property there in — the upper right hand corner? Dean Johnson : On the eastern border is the West Village townhouse , I believe is the name. Sietsema: West Village Heights Apartments . — Dean Johnson: They' re townhouse apartments and to the north you' re going to be hitting land that is owned by Builder ' s Development . Financed is actually the people who own the land but that actually is the part along the ravine there so what you have is this little slope going down. Schroers: Do we have our conservation easement back in that ravine so it won ' t be built? Sietsema: I 'm not sure if there ' s a conservation easement through there or not but there was a trail , like a natural type trail planned to go through there. can Johnson : I believe the trail is on the north side of that ravine. At least that 's what I was told. I ' ve not seen a map of it but I was told . . . Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 40 17Schroers : But anyway, what you' re getting at is there a busy street or a — road or something right next to the totlot there? Dean Johnson: No . Not at all . The people of Builder ' s Development — Finance contacted me because I . . . They've contacted me because they' ve tried to sell me their land and in looking at the grades on their land , they have very little useable, so to speak land to build on and it' s all — along the northern border of the rental townhouses . According to the topo' s I 've seen on it, it' s not along my land at all and the reasons that I was not interested is because I no ability to tie. I would be right out in the slope by the time I let my northeast corner . . . Lash: Would it be possible to exchange these two locations and put the totlot where you have the other things? — Dean Johnson: Yes . Lash : I guess I would maybe lean towards that because the playground stuff would be more centrally located for kids and it would also be right off Jenny Lane which is having a sidewalk. Dean Johnson: Sidewalk, I guess there was some confusion. We thought the sidewalk was going to go on the north side. It actually came through on the south side and came up in Planning. Until that time we didn' t even — realize that the sidewalk was on the other . Something that we would like, .s we'd rather see the sidewalk on the north side of the street. It really makes no difference for grading but we figure it' s going to give better access to the playground equipment . — Sietsema: I think that we had originally said south side because there were fewer streets to cross but now if you take out the two cul-de-sacs , — then that doesn ' t make a big deal . Dean Johnson : I was also in the townhomes , I believe the townhome rental _ units they were talking about. If I 'm not mistaken, I believe the sidewalk is on the north side there. Now I realize it only comes into their driveways and the street that' s going to go from where they turn to go into their driveways is going to be extended through their property to the — border between us and then through my property is Jenny Lane here so I think it can be an easy connection. Sietsema : If it' s on the north side , on the rest of the street , we want to continue it on the north side. That makes sense. Dean Johnson : I guess that ' s right but I believe it is on the north side. Schroers: Lori , does staff have any concerns about the amenities that are in here or is that something that we don' t even have a choice on? The — volleyball court and the half court basketball . ( 'ietsema: Those facilities are what was required of the Park and Recreation Commission at the last meeting and so part of the recommendation was that he was to bring back a plan showing how those facilities would fit Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 41 with the buildings and thearkin and P g future development and to see that things weren' t too crowded and the balls wouldn' t be bouncing on totlot — people' s heads and basketballs going through windows and that kind of thing. Either plan looks like a reasonable plan to me. I don' t think that all 3 recreational facilities have to be in the same spot and if you put the totlot up in the corner , it' s further away from the street so kids don ' t have the chance of running in the street as much but if you put it in the middle it's more accessible to all of them so I think it's a horse apiece. i think it looks reasonable. Mady: My preference would be to have a totlot along Jenny Lane with the sidewalk rotating . That' s just my preference. You'd keep it away from the — traffic. Sietsema: And as long as that doesn' t matter to you, I don' t see that that' s a problem. Dean Johnson : It ' s something that can be worked in. There ' s enough room in both areas. Sietsema: Given that , if either plan looks okay to the Park and Recreation Commission, since he' s going to be presenting both to the Planning — Commission, what he would like would be a recommendation from the Commission to accept either of the configurations, whichever is accepted by the Planning Commission. Schroers : Okay, how do you want us to refer to the plans , as Plan A or Plan B? — Sietsema : He' s got one marked Alternate A. Dean Johnson: Yes , the Alternate A should be the twin cul-de-sacs . - Alternate B is the single cul-de-sac. Schroers: Okay, would anyone care to make a motion to that affect? - Sietsema: Staff ' s recommendation would be to recommend that the site plans be approved as shown on Alternate A or B with the configurations of the recreational facilities as shown . Schroers : Okay, I will make that recommendation . That we vote to approve either Site Plan A or Site Plan B and we would also like to see the totlot area be in the more centrally located position. Mady: Also the question, before we second it, we already addressed the trail issue so that doesn ' t have to be readdressed? Sietsema: Right. All the rest of it's been done. We just want to approve where the facilities go. lady: I ' ll second Larry' s motion. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 42 47 Boyt : I will again vote against it because this number of people requires — 5 acres of land and we' re not near that and are we going to get them coming in here in 2 years saying our kids don' t have room to play out here and why didn' t you look to our future. We' re allowing them to provide less than — what we require so I will vote no on this one. Mady: I don't know if we' re asking for less direction or getting more — because we' re not asking for now a decrease in park dedication fees correct? Sietsema: Right . — Boyt : We know. We' ve seen developments in other parts of Chanhassen where there. . .they' re not allowed to put in swing sets. Their kids play in the — roads . If you drive through there you know where the kids are and you know where you have to be and now is our chance to ask for something different than that . But you all vote the way you want to vote and the Council looks at how we vote and they' re the people making the decision. Sietsema: I guess what I would say then is if this motion, since there is a second, should fail and whoever made the motion last time, reconsider — their motion, then we could readdress that if you so choose. Boyt: We discussed it last time but it was 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 so the — majority feels that this is right . Sietsema: But the option is still there to reconsider . Schroers : Is there any other discussion. Lash: They are within the service area of the City Center Park correct? — Boyt : They' re in the service area . That park is used fully right now. They' re used fully right now and this is not what' s in 2 years . — Schroers : Yes , I understand what you ' re saying . Lash: I understand what you' re saying too. I really do but I have a real — hard time trying to require 5 acres from him when he' s only got 13 acres to start with. That' s going to cut it almost in half . Mady: I guess the question Sue' s been asking is where are you going to get 5 acres that we' re going to be needing . Boyt : 5 years from now. Where will we have for these children to go? Our — chance is now. Sietsema: Eckankar . Boyt : We can ask and they can say no way. You' re asking too much. If we (jon' t ask, then we' ve lost our chance. — — Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 43 Lash : How much space is up in this area whereo y u have the future apartment building? Dean Johnson : The future apartment building site is approximately 6 acres including all the Class B wetland. City staff and the Planning Commission — so far want the 980 contour to be unuseable so the trees above the hill , we save those. It' s on the side of the hill and we want the trees also . . . Sietsema : What he' s saying is that portion is pretty much unbuildable because they' re making that easement. Dean Johnson: You could bring the apartment building down a little farther — in but if we can get the apartment down, which is how we tried to design the site in the first place was to keep the apartment building out of the trees so we have trees for aesthetics for the project, we were able to do it and there' s no reason not to. Lash : How many units are going to be in this apartment building? Boyt: 112. Lash : In the apartment? Dean Johnson : In the apartment building there ' s going to be, depending �lpon which plan here because what happens is the impervious surface _ "-upon irdinance does not come into play because apartment buildings are so low in impervious surface that you ' re going to just strictly to the density which is going to be somewhere around 70 to 73 units . — Schroers: Is there any way that you can see that we could get a 5 acre parcel to fit into your plan in any way? — Dean Johnson: It probably comes in in the ordinance of Chanhassen that as much as parks still or the acreage that you take still can work into the density calculations . You take 5 acres of land and you pull that out of the project and you still have the 35% impervious surface which in a sense what you' ve done is you ' ve dropped the density of the project. And in a case like this , there is well would you want to take the Class B wetlands? That probably wouldn ' t be something that you people would want to consider . — You want to buildable acreage so what you ' re effectively doing is taking the 19 acres , taking the road easements out so you get done with that acreage and it's now 17. 3 acres and then you take another 5 acres of that so you ' ve got 12. 3 acres and then with the impervious surface calculation, you' re probably cutting another one-third of my density out of the project which would blow the project right out of the water . You would not be R-12. You would not be even R-8 at that point. You'd probably be R-6 because right now with the present ordinance I can ' t get R-12 with the present ordinances. I can' t get even to R-10. My density, if I remember right at this point is 9. 8. ;chroers : I think looking at this , we are getting park dedication fees? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 44 — 17 Mady: Looking at this and thinking it through now, I 'm inclined to look for a large space. I don' t know if 5 acres is necessarily magic although we usually like to have 5 acres for a neighborhood park. We have been a little bit under that. I understand the density is going to suffer from it — but I believe a calculation can be done where there can a balance struck between allowing for some open space because we are maxed out in the City Center Park. There will be a lot of kids coming out of these units and those units, the existing ones just to the east of you does have a number of children currently as well as young adults so we do need to make sure that as we. . .that we' ve done something for those people. The option will always be the future. If the calculation was wrong , for whatever reason, . . .but once the apartments are up and townhouses are up, the chances are nil to tear them down to put in additional parkland where it' s needed so I don't know if 5 acres is necessarily the magic number here but I think we need something . Lash : How large is this area right in the middle where you have the 14 unit? Boyt : If we want to recommend that he look for more property, we'd let them do it. We'd say we think we need more property and then that' s up to he and his designers to work out . We don' t work on that. We just make recommendations on what we want . Schroers : Okay, what we have to do right now is vote on the motion . I made tet. Jim seconded it so what we have to do is vote on it. If you have reservations or whatever , you' ll have to vote accordingly and if it comes back, then we' ll have to relook at it and make another motion. — Dean Johnson : Can I make one statement here? The history of this project has been in front of you, this will be the fourth time you ' ve voted on this — issue. Three times you' ve voted only to take park dedication fees . The project density has gone down each time it' s been in front of you. To sit there now and try to take land would be an unfair thing being the fact that at all times and everything considered to come up with this project and whether you want us to go ahead with this project has look at what you' ve done in the past and look to what you did at the time and again now the third time. . . It seems to me that now to sit there after spent an awful — lot of money in purchasing the land and also in designing this project and with all the consequences involved , all the times that I ' ve been in front of staff with this thing and meetings I 've had with them as well as all the times I ' ve been in front of Planning and the time I have been in front of the Council with this thing , it seems quite unfair to now at this point decide that you want land because what happens is if you decide you want land and you decide for anything more than cutting out the corner say where the totlot is so you take that portion and maybe somebody' s portion, say the people like I say, Builder ' s Development Finance, you' re going to throw, the project will be. . . — Sietsema : Why don' t we call for the question and then we' ll know if we Lave to deal with that or not . — .4...6111461 — Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 45 (Schroers moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to approve either Alternate A or Alternate B with the facilities placed as shown with the totlot equipment in the center . Dawne Erhart, Curt Robinson and Larry Schroers voted in faovr. Jan Lash, Jim Mady and Sue Boyt voted in opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3. Sietsema: The motion is defeated in a tie. Robinson : Did you seciond the motion and then vote against it? Mady: Against. Sietsema: Can you do that? Mady: Larry' s the one who had to vote for it . Schroers : Can we just discuss this a little further . I don' t think that we can gain enough property from his development there to make an adequate park. I think all we' re doing is creating a hardship for his development and I think that we' re going to have to look to like the additions that we' re doing to Lake Ann Park which is reasonably close and hope that. . . Boyt: I think the developer, I think it's up to him. If we want more 1 land , he can look for it. We don' t need to do that and we' re not creating i hardship for him. We' re creating a hardship for the people with families that move in here who let it pass as is. Schroers: How much acreage is in these 2 park parcels now? Dean Johnson : I don ' t know. Schroers: Is it roughly like 2 acres? Dean Johnson : My guess is you' re going to be somewhere around an acre and 3/4 to 2 acres just judging by the size of this . Schroers : Lori , how does this plan compare with out statistics as far as the number of people in an area? Sietsema: Well it' s a lot more dense than what a typical , we don ' t see a whole lot of high density developments in Chanhassen. You haven' t experienced reviewing these kind of site plans very often because there simply aren' t that many high density developments out there. This is much more dense than what we typically look at . Schroers: So I 'm wondering if we have to, do we need to come up with new standards to accommodate the high density? (Sietsema: No, we have standards. 1 acre per 75 people is our standards .nd that ' s a valid standard . Schroers : And how does this compare to that? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 46 C Sietsema: There' s 500. Boyt : 112 units at 2. 8 people per unit which might be a little high but — we'd need over 6 acres so going below that. Sietsema: But it also is within the service area of parkland . Schroers : But the other parkland is currently running at capacity pretty much? I mean is it totally at capacity the adjacent City Center? Sietsema: It is at standard times of use. The after dinner hour, it' s booked through the summer . Schroers: For organized events? - Sietsema : With organized events . The totlot equipment and that kind of thing isn' t or the tennis courts aren' t necessarily but the open space field area is . Lash : And that isn' t necessarily what the kids would be using anyway. — Boyt: These kids will create the need for more . . . Sietsema: They' ll be joining the T-ball and Little League and putting ',...additional pressure on this park facilities . Boyt : We can just ask the developer to look at this again. — Sietsema: What I would suggest then is if you ' re going to ask for more land , if you don' t know an acreage, is to outline the facilities you want — to accommodate so he knows what types of land uses we' re shooting for. You want ballfields . Boyt : I think there needs to be an open space that would accommodate ballfields in here. Mady: Not necessarily a lined ballfield but an open space, wide open space for pick-up games and what have you. Touch football , soccer . Boyt : Isn ' t that what everyone comes in here asking for? They need an — open field for kids to play in. Schroers : Yes , they do . Time after time we hear them. Boyt: They need a totlot. They need new tennis courts . They need basketball . They ask for the same things over and over again in every development. They ask for ice skating. Not this time of year but they will this winter . lady: I guess what I 'm looking at is . . .we made a recommendation on it and it wasn' t good enough to pass . . .we want more. I don' t know that it' s up to us to design this plan to accommodate that. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 47 Sietsema: It' s up to you to decide how much acreage you want and how much — credit you want to give him for that acreage. Mady: We' ve usually done that though before a developer comes , he usually comes in with something that was at least almost close. Schroers : This isn' t typical . — Sietsema: Well , yes you usually do. We usually say we' re going to need this much parkland and show us where we can accommodate. . . — Mady: We've done that with our standard though. Boyt: Say 4 acres minimum of useable park space. An open area large — enough to accommodate a ballfield, a children ' s ballfield . Schroers: Is that a motion? — Boyt: Sure. Schroers : Is there a second? Mady: Yes . _( .tobinson : What was the motion? Boyt : 4 acres minimum. It doesn ' t have to all be together but there should be in one are a space large enough to accommodate a ballfield and — we' ve already talked about the other things. There should be tennis courts , volleyball, basketball , totlot. — Lash : I guess I would rather see them all together . Have one big open space. Boyt : I 'd rather leave him some room to work it in but the active space, have a space large enough for a ballfield. Lash : I 'm not good at judging . Boyt : There ' s about 26 acres here and this is a out 6 acres . The corner that's not developed . Dean Johnson : No . There ' s 17. 3 acres that I have to work with. Boyt: Okay. I thought you told us 19. 3 last time. Dean Johnson : 18 . 9 gross perhaps with the roadway. Boyt: Okay, we' re interested in the gross . lean Johnson : But I can ' t choose the gross figure for my calculations . Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 27, 1989 - Page 48 11:- Boyt: I think that' s what we normally use. — Lash : Just for my own trying to picture something , can you tell me what one of these average sized places where there' s a unit , about how big is — that? Would that be about an acre? Dean Johnson: Yes . Schroers : Okay, there' s been a motion and a second . Any further discussion? Boyt moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission require 4 acres minimum that will accommodate an open space large enough for a — children' s ballfield , tennis , totlot , volleyball and basketball , (typical neighborhood park facilities) . All voted in favor except Schroers and Robinson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. — PRESENTATION OF SOUTHERN PARKLAND STUDY, MARK KOEGLER AND AL KLINGELHUTZ. Mark Koegler : Given the hour , I ' ll be brief . There' s a fair amount of information in there. The site we looked at, I think is the one you' re all familiar with and I believe we walked at least most of them if not all of them. They' re labeled on this as Exhibit A, B, C and D. TH 212 is shown Vin here. I don ' t know that that ' s the exact official alignment. That ' s the last alignment basically that we had record of. You had gone through some time ago and identified some criteria that you were going to use for — selection of park and in trying to evaluate each of these sites in line with that criteria , I think the main thing that ' s noteable is that we did not in any way attempt to weight those which obviously you probably will — do . As I say, you didn' t do that but I 'm going to try and tell You that we kind of did in the conclusion because basically what we got down to was looking at southern Chanhassen which is what this park is supposed to serve and how do you define southern Chanhassen. Is it below TH 5? Is it below Lyman? Is it below TH 212? At this point in time, it' s basically anything below TH 5. But as Chan Hills and Lake Susan West develop and more urban development goes down , I 'm sure in everybody' s mind it' s going to be south of Lyman. As TH 212 goes in it becomes really a major barrier with the only crossing points being TH 101 and then probably over at the southerly extension of CR 17 at this point. You really have a corridor through there — that doesn ' t allow cross movement and at that point in time I think it ' s fair to say that southern Chanhassen almost becomes south of TH 212. One of the central objectives that you had was to have a park south of TH 212 or what was called the southern portion of Chanhassen and centrally — located . Obviously we' ve got two sites that really remain in the south of TH 212 are B and D. B is the Bandimere piece and D is the piece that' s owned by Bluff Creek Investment Company. First of all running through very — quickly, Site A it think is 40 acres. Site B is about 33 or 35 depending on which number you use. Site C is shown in the cross hatched section is (_ :0 acres. There' s an additional 40 acres on this side which is part of — the TH 212 alignment . Again , at least is portrayed , and then Site D is about 109 acres and Site D also is heavily impacted by TH 212. Another PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 1989 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Ed Hasek, Curt Robinson, Jan Lash, Dawne Erhart and Larry Schroers STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved , Schroers seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 27, 1989 as amended by Jan Lash on page 14, where it says Lash, to change it to Jeanne Hanely. All voted in favor except Hasek who abstained and the motion carried. REVIEW PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS FOR OAKVIEW HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUMS. Sietsema: At the last meeting the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed their previous recommendation to require recreational facilities that would be private facilities to meet the immediate needs of this development and to accept the park dedication fees . That recommendation was overturned with the recommendation to require 4 acres of active parkland. In L. discussion since with the developer , he' s unable to do the project with the dedication of 4 acres of parkland. Given the cost of the property and that if he dedicates , takes that 4 acres of parkland out of the proposal , then he no longer gets the density that the property is zoned for and he' s purchasing the property based on that density. It' s reflected in the price. Therefore it renders the project unfeasible. Even if the project were feasible with the land dedication, I wanted to bring to your attention that 4 acres of parkland, we would have to compensate the developer for the price of the property, the same amount as he pays for the property. That would be $160,000. 00 for that property and the park dedication fee, even with the sliding scale would amount to approximately $120, 000. 00. That would bring the cost of the property, that piece of parkland above and beyond the park dedication fee upwards of $40,000. 00. In addition to that , we'd have to pay out share of the street improve ents that would abut that property. Staff feels , I feel that by accepting the previousrecommendation to require the private recreational facilities, we do meet the immediate needs of that neighborhood and it would allow us to accept the park dedication fee where we could purchase property in another site or improve an existing piece of property. If we purchase something different, say we went across Powers Blvd . , the Eckankar property is valued at somewhere between $20, 000. 00 and $24,000. 00 and acre. We could buy 5 acres of more useable land than what this is given the topography of this site. Therefore, given all of the facts, putting it all together, it was my recommendation then to go back to the previous recommendation to require the recreational facilities and the park dedication fees . Robinson : So what we had seen 2 weeks ago, or whenever , the totlot, the basketball court and volleyball court, will remain? Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 4 Boyt: It was. It was going way down. Hasek: What I 'm suggesting is going back up again in a different way. Taking a chunk of ground and a chunk of cash. Lash : Well if he' ll settle for 4 acres , we' re still looking at some cash . — Sietsema: No. We'd have to pay an addition. Hasek: Have you done this anywhere else in the City? Is there any precedent for having taken a chunk of ground for one particular project? Sietsema : Where we've taken property? Parkland? Hasek: Yes , for example where we've got an apartment complex that went in, that we' ve got a high density development going in and we ask them to. . . — Boyt: We've seen a high density project go in next door that didn' t require it but now we' re asking for it and now they' re putting it in anyway_ because they see the demand there. They' re putting in little totlots throughout and we didn' t ask for it . Mady: At Lake Susan Hills West, the high density portion of that, we — required that they put their parkland in adjacent to that high density development because we knew there would be a lot of people there. Hasek: I ' ve worked on a number of cities where they basically, when a project like this comes in, the City will say that this is kind of above and beyond the burden that ' s supposed to be born by the regular policies of the City and they' ll require a fairly substantial amount of open space and parkland specifically to serve that particular development. If we did take 4 acres here, it would be 4 acres that basically would serve this development and that' s what I 'm saying . We would have to provide other — areas within another service area around this. This is kind of an island right? They' re serving themselves. They' re building this park basically for themselves and they' re being cut off. . . — Boyt : The road cuts them off and the topography. Hasek: Effectively it makes a park for them within their own area . Sietsema : That we would have to develop though. We would have to bear the cost of development. Boyt : And maintaining . One of the things you know we ' ve seen , every week we've been in here there' s people coming in here saying, we didn' t plan for_ outpark needs and now we want something . What are you going to do about it? Hasek : All I 'm doing I guess is asking questions . — Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 5 Robinson : At what point in time would we have to come up with the extra $40,000.00? Sietsema : As soon as they' re ready to deed it over to us . When they go for final plat. Have the plat signed. It would be soon. I 'm sure they would say either buy it or don' t take it. Robinson: And the development obligation would be ours then also? Sietsema: Right. Hasek: What' s the discussion here now? I don' t understand the $40,000.00. Sietsema: If we decide to take the 4 acres of property, it' s $40, 000. 00 per acre so it' s $160,000.00. The park dedication fee would credit that amount $120,000. 00 so we would have to come up with the $40,000.00 above and beyond the park dedication fee plus our share of the street improvements and for development of the park. Erhart: Have we ever had to do that in the past? Boyt: No. Never . Sietsema : Typically the park fee is higher than the property that we' ve asked for but this property is so expensive that it' s working the other way on us . Hasek: I was just going to say, is it really prudent? $40, 000. 00 an acre it is? Sietsema : That ' s what he told me he paid for it. Schroers : Even if we had these 4 acres , would it be reasonable to assume that we'd have to put another $80,000. 00 into it to develop it? Boyt : That ' s not good for us . Schroers : Where' s the $80,000.00 going to come from? Sietsema : Park dedication fees from someplace else or the general fund . We talked about different funding last night at our joint meeting. It comes out of the same fund as the rest of the park improvements . Hasek: So not only would we be paying top buck for the land but we'd have to come out of . . .and develop the propert after. that . Boyt: It probably wouldn' t be developed for a while. It ' s not in our budget for this year or next year . J Schroers: Then we' ve got to prioritize some other things . Hasek: The potential still exists that if the project does go , it would be developed out in just a couple years and then we'd have these people in Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 6 — here screaming at us again. We' ve got a ton of other areas in the city that are screaming. Robinson : But this is a clear cut deal where it isn ' t supporting, it' s nc : a. . .like here. We' re $80,000.00 down on one specific development. The rest you can say, yes we got behind a few years ago and now we' re robbing Peter to pay Paul or whatever. Here, we say this is 4 acres for this — development and it' s going to cost us $80,000.00 from someplace else. Schroers: It'd be like you have to. . . — Boyt: There ' s got to be another alternative that maybe Roger would know. We've never had to do this before. Sietsema : We gave Rosemount the credit for the amount of money that they paid for the property. Lake Susan Hills West was different because it was a PUD. They had to give above and beyond the ordinance. — Mady: Is this a PUD as well? Sietsema : No . It' s not . Boyt : It was my impression that this hadn' t been purchased yet. That the final purchase hadn' t gone through. — Applicant ' s Representative: It won' t be purchased of course until the project is approved. That' s the way you do that . — Boyt : We ran into a deal a few years ago where someone purcnased a piece of property that was known that we wanted it to be parkland and then — doubled the price on us or tripled the price on us so we had to pay it. Sietsema : It' s not to his advantage to double the price because that would only mean that he' d have to pay that much more in park dedication fees if — you choose that route because it' s 17% to 20% of the value of the property is what the park dedication fee is . Boyt: I guess I 'd still ask for the land. Mady: Is there a motion to reconsider? Hasek: I think there has to be a motion to reconsider . The question is what to reconsider . Mady: Until there' s a motion to reconsider , all this discussion is out of order . If there' s not a motion on the floor to reconsider , we have nothing to discuss . Hasek : How did it get open? Mady: Staff brought it forward . — Hasek: So then we can discuss it? Park and Rec Commission Meeting July 11, 1989 - Page 7 Mady: No. I 've asked for a motion. Robinson : To reconsider . '- Hasek: Okay, then I ' ll just make some sort of a motion so we get it back on the floor again to discuss it. Mady: It has to be by a person who voted in favor of the motion previously. Hasek: Let' s get .on it guys . Mady: Is there a motion? It dies for lack of a motion . EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT PRESENTATION, MARTIN SCHMIDT. Sietsema: I saw Martin get out of his car. I don' t know where he is. He was here . I saw him get out of his car at 7 : 00. An hour ago. We can come back to it though if you want to. Mady: We' ll come back to it. Sietsema : Because he has to present it to get his points . 1990 BUDGET, FINAL REVIEW AND CLARIFICATION. Sietsema: At the time that we put together our final Capital Improvement Program budget, I don' t know if you recall we were over in the banquet room at Filly' s and there was discussion regarding the money that we were going to take out of the reserve fund and put it towards different projects for next year . We discussed putting $10, 000. 00 of it at the Curry Farms site. I was under the impression that was part of the motion and that was the direction given but I relayed that to the residents there and in reading the Minutes that wasn' t the case and it wasn' t clearly stated. I wanted to make sure to bring that back to you to make sure, find out exactly what your intentions were on that motion. Lash : As I recall , Larry you were the one who gave the small talk on why you thought it shouldn ' t . . . Schroers: Why it shouldn' t? Lash : Yes . Schroers : I remember that , yes . Lash: I remember that too. I think it was intentional . Sietsema : If that is the case , then I guess I 'm asking you to reconsider another motion in that there' s $10,000. 00 that was put toward Lake Susan CITY O F P.C. DATE: Aug. 2, 1989 C.C. DATE: Aug. 28, 1989 \k\ 10. � I � Y CHANHASSEN CASE NO: 79-3 PUD Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development Amendment to Replace 114 Condominiums with 45 Single Family Lots I- z - Q V LOCATION: Outlot D, Near Mountain PUD _ APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros . 935 E. Wayzata Boulevard Rick Sathre Q Wayzata, MN 55391 Sathre Bergquist 106 S. Broadway Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: 39. 4 (gross) acres / 34. 6 (net) acres DENSITY: Gross 1.1 u/a / Net 1 . 3 u/a ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- Shorewood; future single family — L'1'4E S- RSF; single family E77. E- PUD-R; single family 1.1 W- RSF; single family W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is heavily vegetated with very (.n steep slopes and a Class A wetland on the northern edge. The site is between Lotus and Silver Lakes. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential High Density a J : �j 0 t0 I O to CV - I . R CAS'ADE ,•O,E I cAscAD •� , I H NEPIN I COUNTY ccDRr7 I _-C.IS TLE E CIRCLE 11 .t. s i.r' . PfA1„i 1.D', A 1 PicD'.10NT m I�I1, ; SHASTA CIRCLE �� ;OURT-7 C. o •�� �7IIIk HEST �r� . - 'e•- II•.Ia SHASTA :'IRCLE EAST / 1! ,\ I • .0 0,70 1 Ih OLYMPICCIRCLE��' ��► s� f 6300 TRAPLINE .�r f �. •� A11 � Y� I �� .�7 CIRCLE c'. ir �.�o' A air �,`� CASTLE RIDGE _� 1111k ...I1, 1,Pil 4) MOUNT IE Y1..1 'IW .� "V OCURT -' ClURT . .Ir��� LO M ' ,- ''��� � ' `` �r�.�i11i11■ 6400 F X •, .. '.II • BLUFF • � ,, r.- c:-' FOX HOLLOW , , ,, _ ,• ► *NV' z 2aw IP 6500 , 4• al, ir :,r,y, 11,A d&si fir» �' 'gar," �\, FOX,AIL .i 1-11041 VP - �. \ ' i •COURT , y _ = 6600 \, -- •LA0, / 7 - I 6700 — ,-- wt3D—R I 0,"0-1.\,' ...r. 7 % , _ _-_- s= M�1 9 \ ' ' F. — -6800 11a LcK Va �� ‘14 ■ `D & l'fr' ilitlIPP3 1;t - --N ,- ' - IlkArixortrita.1 _ . A co \� —6900 -. .1 NRS. ! LOTUS "" � -� _ tb R W � 5 N\r� - -° - 1Hf" W el - - �` �''"` rel; . _ 7000 III 0 es • et kk°11/ III .- _ A`�II�� - -700 1 ,.t �►i _/ :MAIO tip - a ir illffiltHill W , `F1 lag F 114101111 /(W' \ , 7200 _ / ,"All UMW c.... ' -' env . . ?30C _ G n•..err._ . 1M'GM WM" '417 �~ �' 7400 o .7! -4tfm to .4*M104""` ruilia. I- 0 co \ SA• • r 0ANIO . -W6.1'w'.- We 2 ''‘il g .. 0 .%;20/11. iftW ,..t.idalt4 . iirellg 040 . 11.1 0 1 0 .. _m .C. ..., =.w.-.. r _ / 4.rw some': Mem =Fr Ism, Illmip IIPZ LIJ 41 UM 1111111:4 Miall MI= gin , A Mar ta CI) > _ N �p U�►Wj 11u/ .11 !:'•I'I:911 P el _ Near Mountain PUD Amendment August 2, 1989 - Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #1 Public Safety Attachment #2 Park and Recreation Commission Attachment #3 BACKGROUND The original PUD was approved in March of 1981. The original PUD contained 64 Type A lots (100 foot minimum width-average lot area of 30,800 s . f. ) , 70 Type B lots ( 75 foot minimum width-average lot size 17, 700 s .f. ) , 36 quadrominiums and 120 condominiums , for a total of 290 units on 147 acres with 1. 97 gross units per acre. The PUD was first amended in July, 1983 . The amendment removed the 36 quadrominiums and replaced them with 31 Type C lots ( 67 minimum width-average lot size of 10, 900 s . f. ) . The total number of units was reduced from 290 to 285 for a gross density of 1. 94 dwelling units per acre. The PUD was amended a second time in February, 1984 . The second amendment reduced the number of Type B lots from 70 to 27 and increased the average lot size of the Type B lots from 17, 700 to 19, 900 square feet. The second amendment also increased the number of Type C lots from 31 to 40 and increased the average lot size from 10, 900 to 11 ,300 square feet. The condominiums remained the same with a total number of units of 308. The second amendment also incorporated the American Lutheran Church property of 6 acres into the PUD area, to increase the total acreage of 147 to 153. The gross density of the project increased from 1 . 94 dwelling units per acre to 2. 01 . The PUD was amended a third time in February, 1985. The third amendment reduced the number of Type A lots from 64 to 51 and increased the average lot area of Type A lots from 30,800 to 33, 300 square feet. The number of Type B lots were increased from 27 to 46 with a reduction in the average lot area from 19, 900 to 19, 300 . The Type C lots remained as amended in 1984 and the condominium units were reduced from 120 to 114 to main- tain the number of units at 308 with a gross density of 2 . 01 units per acre. Table 1, as part of the letter from the appli- cant, lists the existing and proposed amendments. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a final amendment to the PUD which would remove the 114 condominium units and replace them with 45 single family lots. The average lot size is 33 ,476 square feet ( 20,000 square feet using the PUD requirements of not counting any area over 20, 000 square feet) . The net density proposed is Near Mountain PUD Amendment — August 2 , 1989 Page 3 1. 3 units per acre with an overall gross density of 1. 56 units per acre. The proposed amendment reduces the number of units from 308 to 239 . The subject site, Outlot D, is very heavily vegetated with mature vegetation and contains very steep slopes. The applicant is proposing to service Outlot D through an exten- sion of Trappers Pass. Trappers Pass would circle the top of the outlot and contain one cul-de-sac, Summit Circle. Because of the steep slope from the existing street, Trap Line Lane in Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 2nd Addition, the applicant is not pro- posing to provide a second street connection from the existing PUD. Instead the applicant is providing Outlot C, which will be used as an emergency access connecting to Iroquois Road. The applicant is also providing Outlots A and B for trail access from the existing PUD to Pleasant View Road. Outlot D is being pro- vided for transfer to adjacent property owners to provide them with additional land for their driveways. The proposed amendment — provides large lots which exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the size of lots existing on the adjacent properties . The applicant is proposing to replace the condominium units with large single family lots due to the existing market for single family lots over condominium units. The applicant has met with the neighborhood to get their reaction to the proposed amendment. The neighbors did not have any objections to the pro- posed single family residences if the applicant provides some — sort of buffer to screen the residences. The applicant is pro- viding a 20 foot natural buffer strip along the westerly lots to screen the proposed single family homes from existing property along Pleasant View Road. The applicant stated that the single family residences would be built into the woods and would not be able to be seen from surrounding properties , whereas the con- dominium units would have to be a higher structure which would be — able to be viewed from surrounding properties. The PUD was first approved in 1983 prior to the new PUD regula- tions of the zoning ordinance. If the proposed PUD plan was sub- mitted for Planning Commission and Council review today, it would not be approved as a PUD. The applicant did originally provide clustered housing, housing diversity and open space which would have allowed it to be reviewed as a PUD. Through the amendments that the applicant has received, the clustered housing has been removed and replaced with single family lots. The only areas — remaining as open space are existing oonding areas , a Class A wetland which is protected as part of the wetland ordinance, and Outlot D. Through the previous amendment proposals , Outlot D as condominiums and open space was offsetting the complete develop- ment of the site. The proposed amendment will convert all of Outlot D over to private ownership and does not guarantee the preservation of open space. Near Mountain PUD Amendment August 2, 1989 Page 4 As part of the review of the proposed amendment, staff also took into account the physical aspects of the aoproved condominiums versus the proposed single family lots . The approved condominium units would result in massive grading of an area at the top of the outlot and will be more visible because of their height. (The Shoreland Ordinance restricts the height of any structure within the shoreland district to a maximum of 40 feet. ) Although there would be massive grading as a result of the condominium units, a large and sensitive area of the site including shoreland and wetland areas will be preserved as open space. The con- dominium units will also result in higher traffic counts on and around the site. The proposed single family lots can be designed to tuck the home into the existing wooded areas and the height of the structures will not be as visible as the condominium units. But as has been seen with past subdivisions, it is very difficult to control tree removal, wetland alteration, etc. once the lot is under single ownership. GRADING, DRAINAGE, STREETS AND UTILITIES Please refer to the City Engineer ' s report for discussion on grading, drainage, streets and utilities . PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the PUD amendment on July 25 , 1989 . The Park and Recreation Commission recommended the single family lot proposal and that there be dedication of at least 4. 5 acres of parkland (Attachment #3) . It was suggested that Lots 8 and 9 , Block 2 and a portion of Lot 7, Block 2 be dedicated as parkland. WETLAND The Class A wetland is located between the open water of Silver Lake and the proposed lots, specifically, Lots 3 through 9, Block 2. The Proposed plan show the lots ending at the edge of Silver Lake. The open water of Silver Lake does not occur until further beyond the lot lines, with the Class A wetland existing between the end of the lots and the open water of Silver Lake. Therefore, it should be made clear that Lots 3 through 9, would not be permitted access to Silver Lake unless they receive a wetland alteration permit. It should further be understood by the applicant that such a wetland alteration permit would most likely not be viewed favorably by the city. One option to pre- vent future requests for dredging of the wetland between the open water of Silver Lake would be to require a conservation easement along the edge of the rear of Lots 1 through 9 , Block 2 which would prevent alterations to the lots adjacent to Silver Lake and adjacent and within the Class A wetland. Near Mountain PUD Amendment August 2, 1989 Page 5 The storm water which is being directed to the Class A wetland along Lot 1 , Block 2 will either require a holding pond for storm water detention prior to it entering the wetland or sediment — traps along the storm sewer line. If the pond is required by Engineering, a wetland alteration permit will be required. SUMMARY There are two issues that need to be addressed with the amend- ment. The first is whether or not the proposed amendment of removing the condominium units is consistent with the original PUD approval . The second is the physical and marketing impacts between the proposed amendment and the approved plan. Planning — Staff has a difficult time recommending approval of the amendment in that it is removing clustered housing which will preserve a large portion of the property as open space and will preserve the — intent of the original PUD. In looking at the physical aspects of the proposal, it is difficult to say which proposal is less damaging to the outlot in the long run. The Planning Commission must determine whether or not the intent of the PUD as approved in 1983 is still being maintained by the replacement of the condominium units with larger single family — lots. Should the Planning Commission feel that the proposed amendment is in keeping with the PUD ordinance or that they prefer to see large single family lots rather than condominium units on the site, staff is recommending the following conditions be imposed which will help preserve the more sensitive areas of the site and help maintain some of the original and existing intent of a PUD. Should the Planning Commission recommend appro- val of the proposed amendment, staff is recommending the following conditions : 1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of the Class A wetlands adjacent to Lots 1 , 2 , and 3 , Block 2 and adjacent to Silver Lake and that the final plat would provide a drainage easement over the protected wetlands . 2 . A tree removal plan will be required for each lot in the sub- division prior to issuance of a building permit. There — shall be no clearcutting permitted for any lot except for the placement of the house pad and utilities. Clearcutting is defined as removal of any vegetation with a 4" caliper or more at four feet in height. 3 . A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour along Lots 1 through 7 , Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8 -• and 9 , Block 2 . The area below the 945 and 910 contour, including the wetland and shoreland, will not be permitted to be altered. — Near Mountain PUD Amendment August 2, 1989 Page 6 4 . Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake will not be permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a wetland alteration permit. 5 . Development of this site is premature until development of Outlot A is complete. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . 9. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi- - lize slopes greater than 3 :1 . 10. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City' s standards for urban construction. 11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the construction of the retaining walls with the plans and specifications . 12. The City' s standard detail for the installation of Type III erosion control shall be placed on the grading plan and uti- lized. Mom13 . All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility easements for ponding sites and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the final plat. 14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street access through Outlot C to Iroquois . 15 . Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided with the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed buildings and driveway location. 16. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City to provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the improvements. 17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water pressure concerns . Near Mountain PUD Amendment August 2 , 1989 Page 7 18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed construction. 19 . The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City stan- dards for comparison of hardship before a variance could be granted. -- 20. The developer dedicate 4 . 5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8 and 9 in lieu of park dedication fees and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed on the outer side of the thru street and along the trail outlots, in lieu of trail dedication fees. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Sr . Engineering Technician dated July 26 , 1989. _ 2 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated July 6 , 1989 . 3 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated July 27, 1989 . 4 . Letter from resident dated July 12 , 1989. 5 . Letter from applicant dated July 7 , 1989. 6 . Application. 7 . Plan amendment dated June 14, 1989. .., CITY QF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Warren , City Engineer FROM: Allan Larson, Sr. Engineering Technician t, DATE: July 26 , 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Planned Unit Development Amendment - Near Mountain File No. 89-15 Land Use Review LOCATION This site is part of Outlot B, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition located west of Trap Line Lane and north of Pleasant View Road. This site is comprised of rolling topography with mature vegeta- tion scattered throughout the site. This site rises some 107 feet. BACKGROUND The parcel was part of Outlot A, NearMountain PUD that contained 114 condominium units and was approved by the City Council in 1981 . -- The Near Mountain PUD has been amended four times since its final development plan. First, to replace quadraminiums with smaller single family lots; second, to add land; third, to improve sub- neighborhood transitions; and fourth, to adjust lot size to mix with changing marketplace interest. SANITARY SEWER The municipal sanitary sewer service proposed for this site is from Trappers Pass . This portion of Trappers Pass has not been built (at present it is Outlot A, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition - see Attachment #1) . Outlot A will need to be developed before utility service can be extended to the site. The proposed sewer main has been adequately sized to accommodate the anticipated development. Gary Warren July 26 , 1989 Page 2 Appropriate utility easements shall be required on the plat over all public utilities . — WATERMAIN Similarly, the plans show a looped watermain network through the site by the extension of the watermain along existing Trap Line Lane and Iroquois , and the proposed extension of Trappers Pass . The proposed watermain is 8-inch diameter. The applicant will need to verify and document specific valve requirements and watermain sizing for proper fire protection with submittal of the — plans and specifications. A water pressure analysis shall also be conducted by the applicant to verify that adequate water pressure will be available to the site in accordance with accepted standards . NOTE: Due to the height of this site, this was a candidate site for the City ' s ground storage reservoir which was built on County Road 17 and Lake Lucy Road . GRADING AND DRAINAGE Both for its dramatic topography and for the mature maples and — basswoods which adorn this site, earth work should be held to an absolute minimum. Therefore, single family homes placed among the trees is preferable to the mass grading and clearing of trees — which would have been needed to construct the condominium option. The applicant is to provide a sediment ponding site to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a — 100-year storm event . The storm sewer network that is proposed to drain this site will be directed to this sediment pond before entering Christmas Lake proper. Details and calculations will be — required with plans and specifications submittal . Access ease- ments will also be required. EROSION CONTROL The entire site needs to be wrapped with erosion control fencing in accordance with the City ' s Type III standard. All side slopes — greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blankets . Vegetative cover shall be established in accordance with the conditions of the Natershed District permit. _ STREETS The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for the exten- sion of Trappers Pass and Summit Circle. The roadways of this subdivision shall be built to the City ' s — urban standards and dedicated as City streets . The single family proposal will reduce the amount of traffic within Near Mountain Gary Warren July 26 , 1989 Page 3 and local residential streets compared to the 114 unit con- dominium as shown on the original PUD. — A second access through Outlot C onto Iroquois should be pro- vided in the catastrophic event that an obstacle should block Trappers Pass from the existing roadway system of Near Mountain 4th Addition. Without the second access, Trappers Pass becomes a very long cul-de-sac, exceeding City standards . Iroquois pre- sently has a 20-foot bituminous mat which would need to be upgraded to the full City standards if traffic becomes a problem in this area. The neighborhood in the past has resisted any request to upgrade this roadway. A possible alternative would be to make this second access an emergency/trail similar to Teton Lane in Curry Farms Addition (options to consider are barricade, width of road and trail use) . The applicant, in an effort to save the trees, has created street grades from 0 .6% to 10% with extensive use of rock retaining walls ranging in height from 2 feet to 8 feet. The 10% street grade exceeds the City' s maximum grade require- ments and a variance would be needed for construction. The retaining walls shall be constructed on private property and be the maintenance responsibility of the property owner. Due to the height that is being proposea, a structural engineer should be used at the design stage, along with a review of alternate material for the wall construction ( such as keystone ) before sub- mittal of the plans and specifications. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1 . Development of this site is premature until development of Outlot A is complete. 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 3 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 4 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . 5 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi- lize slopes greater than 3:1 . Gary Warren July 26 , 1989 Page 4 6 . All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City ' s standards for urban construction. — 7 . The applicant shall submit for approval details for the construction of the retaining walls with the plans and specifications . 8 . The City ' s standard detail for the installation of Type III erosion control shall be placed on the grading plan and uti- lized. 9 . All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the — side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility easements for ponding sites and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the final plat. — 10 . The plans and specifications shall show a second street access through Outlot C to Iroquois. 11 . Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided with the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed buildings and driveway location. — 12 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City to provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the improvements. 13 . Lot by lot tree removal , grading, drainage and erosion — control plans are to be submitted with each building permit application. 14 . A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water pressure concerns . 15 . A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed — construction . 16 . The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City stan- dards for comparison of hardship before a variance could be granted . ATTACHMENT 1 . Location Map. / 1.1 73 Po • '' `.N.\\ \\ • IMO . /- , s/7,0 /. No .4, s , a ,„// /X a• N )N 'Iii. - Ini Xi _ N/A 1 N I/ N ittcNs"N\ — \ 2 i ''' • 1 87 AK:-..., Y. "df;.: - . ..;,,,,, N'N-. �` ria til e.4„i,� c : o/ ,,. . . •.}:•:};{.;.•'•::�:ti•:. e i — / r = : : ''`: • - \ZA .., r ,1, '.. :it:: % '� i s :tai. Sf I. j 'I; :::::i:WIL" '..: •••• ::A::-.WA..;.&::*4:::i:- L g f. Ca Gi / •t f., •r ,-i:.'-_ .-Ali:•!} - 6. :}}:::• \ . 1 mai // - NI '0:;i:;g:iiiiii .::-:::::,:::::::!::*(feiik* .g:41iA, :tc*:,::::::::::..::::::::::. .--.-::!:::::::.,.- f...----z.-:-../ , I: -:::i:::i: ::::: : :.:,1.•::::•: ::-:.: :::!:---.,,,;•,,e::ti:,: ii*4••• , y\ :.. .--,,d),.' 2 : PI +11. )'!.:n.":.'..:. =: *:.:-;*. .lr.\S.. 1 = / rt ~ ' _\ L__, •7 F \J\ 1s �Vf//W �. ���/•. /.a21. 1: ;; t l'�i;jiil• I — _ _ \ R y' �/ / =N �� ,. _i •ce\. ;1.�/' A "' \\h�,� �_ < .__ -^ ' toy , Y,' ' �1 A ! C i , ''. . j7.•Oi . 1 : iil...41I/jh. \\\\i Z .1111 r r . - - e , / ` a�\ • — Ca. ,,, . ' ! a o: ii V0 =I / i f_ �: n _ •1 _ � p 2 y 1 ,�� ,I. _ —413 ` ` ' � m �� w. IN , vz _ . —' 1 + mu .AELI $NPL •T► r rl•':t) a t: TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAINz. *�•��•`' NA - 1,:i-, -1.!'' 3RD ADDITION IREVISEOI SATHgE•BERGOUIST. INC- ' '1 ji I LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION ac. � ' •°-.•..•_. . •.• j O t ., 1 —A.._ _ �•u.r. .Y CYOF \#1111, cEANBAssEN \ i1J 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: July 6, 1989 SUBJ: 1985 Amendment (Approved) Near Mountain P .U.D. _ Comments and/or recommendations : 1 . Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed 300 feet; 2 . Street names must meet the approval of the Chanhassen Public Safety Department; 3 . A 10 foot clear space shall b maintained around installed fire hydrants . CITY OF CHANHASSEN at, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: July 27 , 1989 SUBJ: Near Mountain Proposed PUD Amendment The Park and Recreation Commission recently reviewed the proposed Near Mountain PUD amendment. The Commission expressed a great deal of concern for preserving the mature trees and natural amen- ities. Although the originally planned condominium units would preserve a great deal of the wooded slopes, they felt that the single family units would be more suitable for the area. The Commission was also concerned that there is no park/open space in this entire PUD. They felt that a parcel of no smaller than 4 . 5 acres should be set aside for park purposes . They iden- tified the area around Lots 3 and 9 as the desired area. The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend approval of the proposed amendment with the condition that the developer dedicate at least 4 . 5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8 and 9 in lieu of park dedication fees , and that a 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalk be constructed on the outer side of the thru street, and along the trail outlots, in lieu of trail dedication fees. J l it 0_„ 1 r t/� 1 7 % ato l'RAPp E. CPQ/\ owpi_ - IN .4171111r- v• -----• • 4. MO - Niii k \ \ - 13 2 / /> \a ) —7 1 / ,A \ I .. ..,..,. ---- k,(' t ____\.7 .,\..... 41/ \ / A \ - S ,p 6 � \'‘.' - - A ,.-.--K V , , ...: 7 Itir_.------ A \,,p0 ey V ti,, 8 L r / ' ' - Nik, / 9 J F ..1.k. r e^ `v 1:3 P? .. . j C I- _ <o , 0L C 5 • Gal" e - �, B C� 9 ,-- 0 L Q. i5 • 53 0 0� 9 / '9 / M City of Chanhassen Planning and Zoning Commission 690 Coulter Drive _ P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 To the City Planner, I am writing to you in preparation for the Public Hearing on Wednesay, July 19 concerning the Proposed Amendment by Lundgren Brothers construction to replace 114 multi-family " condominiums " to executive housing at a 45 lot density. I have reviewed the plans submitted to the city and have great concerns about developing lots 9 and 8 on the Silver Lake side. Not only will developing those lots put severe pressure on the water fowl and other wildlife in the area, but the slope and the builability of the lots really comes into question. Does anyone from the planning commission plan on visiting the site before the meeting? I think this would prove to be very beneficial. I feel those lots specifically should be set aside as a natural area and should not be included in the buildable lots on the plan. I also would like some information on how the city of Chanhassen plans to enforce or currently enforces covenant restrictions concerning natural buffers and clear cutting. I feel the city of Chanhassen is not looking into their developments from an overall affect on environment, water supply, lot density, natural wildlife , and mature trees. Shouldn't the city have a vested interest with their residents on "preserving" the quality of life in Chanhassen? Thank you and I will be looking forward to your reply. Sincerely, Holly . Broden Chanhassen resident 7,401 JUL 13 1989 CITY OF CHANHASSEN WflD(iEfl R Q5coNsTRucTloN • INC. 935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 4) (612) 473-1231 July 7, 1989 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen Assistant Planner 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Near Mountain P.R.D. Dear Jo Ann: _ I have discovered several typographical errors and minor inaccuracies in the narrative explanation of our proposal to amend the Final Development Plan for subject project. — I am herewith therefore enclosing two copies of the 7/06/89 revision of this document -- a clean copy and one on which the changes from the earlier version have been underlined. Very truly yours, — LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. Michael A. Pflaum — MAP:bf Enclosure J u L 101989 I .it CHANHASSEN PROPOSAL BY LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. _ FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NEAR MOUNTAIN P.R.D. (7/06/89) PROPOSED CHANGE. Replacement of 114 condominium units with 45 large lots for construction of executive bracket single family homes. BACKGROUND. When the initial development plan was being created, there was little new home construction in the Near Mountain area. In 1979, the only homes in the immediate vicinity were along Pleasant View Road, Ridge Road and on Town Line Road in Minnetonka. To the north and east, the land was still being farmed, as were sizable parcels to the south. The project site had great aesthetic appeal -- woodlands, wetlands, rolling crop land, and, of course, its dramatic namesake "mountain" . It seemed perfectly suited for single family homes, and in certain areas amenable to multi-family attached applications as well. But no one on the design team could with confidence project what besides single family housing the marketplace would accept. The most prudent approach seemed to be to design as much density into the project as the site could reasonably absorb, and to seek amendment to the plan as housing trends developed and the northeastern Chanhassen housing market became more clearly defined. The two most logical repositories for increased density were the crest of the mountain and the easternmost portion of the property. The latter, 1 which was initially approved for 36 quadraminiums, was separated from off- site single family homes by a grove of trees, State Highway 101 and a — parcel belonging to a church. The mountain was amply broad to provide substantial horizontal, as well as vertical distance from surrounding homeowners. From the conceptual standpoint, it seemed an ideal place for 120 condominium units. Much has changed in the ten years since the Preliminary Development Plan was approved. The quadraminium has so declined in popularity that few new units are now being built. Luxury condominiums of the sort which seemed appropriate for lofty views of Silver and Lotus Lakes have been failures even in such close in and promising locations as Ridgedale in Minnetonka, or Kenwood. And, more importantly, surging development in northeastern Chanhassen and the surrounding portions of Eden Prairie and Shorewood has — for almost six years emphatically demonstrated how strong a single family housing area this has become. DISCUSSION. The Near Mountain PRD has been amended four times since its Final _ Development Plan was approved in 1981 -- first, to replace the quadraminiums with a more competitive small lot single family product, then to add land, improve sub-neighborhood transitions and adjust the lot size mix to meet the changing appetite of the marketplace. (For further detail, please see Table I, attached. ) _ While the desired action would eliminate multi-family, attached housing — from the PRD, Lundgren Bros. Construction believes that it is recommended for the following reasons: 2 1. It would further diversify the project's variety of single family homesites. Within Near Mountain, lots would range from the minimum of 7,600 square feet in the first Country Home subdivision to estate- sized sites in excess of one acre overlooking Silver Lake. This range in size and amenity equates to a spread in initial selling priced of from about $90,000 to over $500,000. (Please refer to Table 2. ) 2. It would speed completion of the PRD. A multi-family use which would be compatible with the homes in and surrounding Near Mountain might have to be delayed for many years -- until development acreage in the area is depleted and Near Mountain is perceived to be much closer to the metropolitan center. Such a delay would not be in the best interests of current Near Mountain homeowners, Chanhassen taxpayers, or Lundgren Bros. 3. It would remove from the view of surrounding homeowners the probably unwelcome sight of the relatively large buildings which would contain the condominiums. These buildings would be visible from all directions and, because of their elevation, from quite a distance. Lundgren Bros. believes that development with small structures, carefully placed and sensitively constructed among the trees, is preferable to the clustering of more massive buildings near the hill's crest. The latter, by restricting construction to the higher elevations, has the advantage of preserving a thicker belt of trees on the slopes below. But it would require clearing and earthwork 3 over much of the upper slopes and three story buildings which with even the most careful orientation and design would loom much larger than what neighboring landowners are accustomed to viewing. 4. It would substantially reduce traffic within Near Mountain, on local residential streets, and at the Pleasant View Road and Town Line Road intersections of Highway 101. 5. With its mature trees, spectacular views, extensive boulder retaining _ walls and dramatic house designs, the new subdivision would be a showcase of which all in Chanhassen could be proud, one which would soon take its place, Lundgren Bros. believes, among the City's most prestigious neighborhoods. SUBDIVISION FEATURES. Proposed minimum standards for lots: Lot Area: 20,000 sq.ft. Width at ROW (non-cul-de-sac lots) : 90 ft. Width at Front Yard Set-back: 115 ft. Front Yard: 30 ft. Side Yard: 10 ft. Rear Yard: 30 ft. The "mountain" is impressive, both for its dramatic topography and for the mature maple and basswoods which adorn its crest and north and east flanks. Because these trees are such a valuable asset, earth work would be held to an absolute minimum. Insofar as possible, streets would be set _ 4 to match existing contours, and where soil removal is unavoidable, retaining walls would be constructed to limit the area of disruption. On the more open southwest slopes, a 20-foot-wide buffer of natural vegetation would be retained to enhance the privacy of neighboring homeowners along Pleasant View Road and to retard storm run-off from the back yards of the adjoining homes above. From the east, a pedestrian trail would climb through the woods from Trap Line Lane to the northernmost segment of Trappers Pass, which it would follow to Outlot B before descending to Pleasant View Lane below. A fire lane through Outlot C would permit emergency vehicles to enter the site from Indian Hills Road, in the catastrophic event that an obstacle should block Trappers Pass west of its intersection with Timber Hill Road. Proposed Outlot D is a 10-foot wide strip which would be conveyed to the owner of the property adjacent to Lots 9 and 10, Block 3. This individual and his neighbor to the east have asked that such an outlot be created to facilitate widening their driveway access to Iroquois Lane, which, they have indicated, is now too narrow for adequate snow storage. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. The Declaration of Covenants for the new subdivision would be substantially the same as that of Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition, a copy of which is appended. 5 momil TABLE I LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. NEAR MOUNTAIN P.R.D. CHRONOLCGY 1ST AMENDMENT TO 2ND AMENDMENT TO 3RD AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED FINAL DEVELOPMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT RESIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY PLAN (1) PLAN (2) PLAN (3) PLAN (4) TO FINAL UNIT TYPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (APPROVED 5/11/81) (APPROVED 6/21/83) (APPROVED 2/27/84) (APPROVED 2/04/85) DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO.OF AVE./MIN. :NO.OF AVE./MIN. :NO.OF AVE./MIN. 1NO.OF AVE./MIN. 1NO.OF AVE./MIN. 1NO.OF AVE./MIN. UNITS SQ.FT. :UNITS SQ.FT. :UNITS SQ.FT. :UNITS SQ.FT. :UNITS SQ.FT. :UNITS SQ.FT. I I I I I Type "AA" Lot - I - i - I - I - I 45 34,100/ (115'minimum width) : 1 : : : 20,000 Type "A" Lot 52 33,000/- 1 64 30,800/ 64 30,800/ : 64 30,800/ : 51 33,300/ : 51 33,300/ (100' minimum width) : 14,400 1 14,400 : 14,400 1 17,200 : 17,200 -- Type Type "B" Lot 92 16,400/- : 70 17,700/ 1 70 17,700/ 1 27 19,900/ : 46 19,300/ : 46 19,300/ (75' minimum width) I 11,700 1 11,700 1 12,000 : 10,900 1 10,900 I i I I I Type "C" Lot I 1 1 1 I (67' minimum width- - : - 1 31 10,900/ 1 40 11,300/ 1 40 11,300/ 1 40 11,300/ Near Mountain) 1 1 7,600 1 7,600 1 7,600 1 7,600 -- (68' (68' minimum width- - I - I - i 57 13,700/ 1 57 13,700/ : 57 13,700/ Chestnut Ridge 1 i i 9,700 I 9,700 1 9,700 _ lst-4th Additions) Quadraminiums 36 1 36 i - i - i - i - -- Condominiums Condominiums 120 1 120 1 120 1 120 114 1 - I i I I Total Units 300 1 290 1 285 1 308 1 308 1 239 -- Total Total Acres 147+/- 1147+/- 1147+1- 1153+/- 1153+/- 1153+/- I I 1 I I I I I I 1 Grose Project 2.04 d.u./ac. 11.97 d.u./ac. 11.94 d.u./ac. :2.01 d.u./ac. 12.01 d.u./ac. 11.56 d.u./ac. Density NOTES: (1) Adjusted lot sizes and moved interface of Type "A" and Type "B" neighborhoods farther to the east. (2) Replaced 36 quadraminiums with 31 zero-lot-line type, small lot homes. (3) Reworked area east of Near Mountain Boulevard to incorporate American Lutheran Church property (6+/- acres) -- and and to convert 43 Type "B" lots into an enlarged Type "C" lot for the evolving Country Home product line. (4) Increased number of Type "B" lots to accommodate demand for enlarged Country Home plans; reduced number of Type "A" lots and condominium units; improved pond aesthetics and transition from Type "B" to Type "A" living areas. 7/06/89 TABLE 2 NEAR MOUNTAIN/CHANHASSEN BUYER AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS (6/26/89) APPROXIMATE DWELLING SIZE DESCRIPTION PLACEMENT BUYER CHARACTERISTICS PRICE BRACKET 950-1,600 sq.ft. "Country Home"-- Near Mountain, Chestnut Couples; young families; $90,000-$130,000 2 BR expandable to Ridge 2nd: young families with children; 3 BR plus den Smaller lots, less Empty-nester move-downs. privacy, less amenity, Typical buyer age: 25-20 mixed or transition with off-site elements 1,300-2,100 sq.ft. "Country Home"-- Chestnut Ridge 3rd-8th: Developing families; $120,000-$150,000 3-4 BR with or without Larger cul-de-sac or move-up buyers; empty den; greater design interior lots; luxury nester move-downs. flexibility housing fringe; proximity Typical buyer age: 29-45 to ponds. 2,400+ sq.ft. "Luxury or Custom Home"-- Trappers Pass Additions: Established, executive S190,000-S350,000 3-car garage, 4BR+/- Large lots, woods or marsh, and professional with more open space and private inner site families; move-up life style design location. buyers. Typical buyer age: 35-60 ' 2,400+ sq.ft. "Luxury or Custom Home"-- "Mountain" subdivision: Established, executive $300,000 up 3-car garage; 4BR+/- Large lots, woods, and professional with more open space and spectacular lake views, families; move-up life style design; private inner site buyers. highly individualized location. Typical buyer age: 35-60 in floor plans, features, and upgrades • —/06/89 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION JUN 26 (989 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chanhassen, MN 55317 ( 612) 937-1900 APPLICANT:Lundgren Bros.Construction,Inc. NER: - — ADDRESS 935 E. Wayzata Boulevard ADDRESS Wayzata, MN 55391 . Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) 473-1231 TELEPHONE REQUEST: Zoning District Change x Planned Unit Development — Zoning Appeal - Sketch Plan - Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance x Final Plan Amendment Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit — Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Near Mountain PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION — REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING P-1, Planned Residential Development District REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED Replace 114 multi-family attached units with 45 single family lots SIZE OF PROPERTY 39+/- acres — LOCATION East of Pleasant View Road, north of Indian Hills Road, west of Trappers Pam REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST See attached narrative description LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Outlot B, Trappers Pass at _ Near Mountain 3rd Addition C I T F Y O P.C. DATE: Aug. 2, 1989 1 fC.C. DATE: Aug. 28, 1989 1 rCHANHASSEN CASE NO. 89-8 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 11.2 Acres into 21 Single Family Lots - Q LOCATION: Lots 9, 10 and E. 16 Ft. of Lot B, Vineland - Directly West of Fox Chase, North of Carver Beach — Estates and South of Pleasant View Road APPLICANT: Chuck VanEeckhout Merila Associates Suite 165 Suite 63 1935 Wayzata Blvd. 8401 73rd Ave. N. Long Lake, MN 55316 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428-1293 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 11. 2 acres-gross 9 . 5 acres-net _ DENSITY: 2 .21 units per acre - net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family S- PUD-R; single family — 0 E- RSF; single family W W- RSF; single family WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water is available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The property has steep slopes and is heavily vegetated. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density I \'. CHR/ TMA PIN COUNTY ,,,,, '., LAKE ,� R PIEDMONT ,'y. rouRroRD -'isikiPUD-R - �►� 41 411 ~ TRAPLINE Al/Jr Y ,.,,,_ �� CIRCLE d� ���Ilk•, . � ■ • ! `Y� MOUNTAf!r'�IIEYIL�'Ilmillmo la' • - COURT w 0 .�.. 4 , F , . - BLUFF :I awl ►� C V. , /,�, V-4.k... . � C. -1 ) SA,8 .. ..fv,!- -` - R.a. rte■ / /& I , r (lira - : 4%t'-i'e-p _ lAw.ill irIimI 4N1 II.IeI I IrmrIeIetMunnI 0niaPr-a ViNgk .:..:yt;i•r7 //// • , ,� •. FOX TAIL • ''T \ ' 4 7 COURT lilt . 40°4 vir mmin!FiSITINTI 1 &ion k; •.--- ' Es It 4111 . .. ,\ ..x. , 7,---__ 111111 .111.9111111. momrimm...a al 4 --j,FirdilliM: "1.75 griv, -• \____ \ Piit,7 l? ‘ TIMUSW .44e,A4174. fisit7tAik \‘\ ii RD t., - .' -11 imi igo e.*%Vois •\ ),) ,41,4 ,t* 1# r: • ,./0, A=41:zpivat;opo ..„ _ - -a! / ---arb tram am �v , • � . '�►�� ►*�r� :...=.r.• .l q :R r` iarit .. on `, LOTUS ,= �� it®E / vi ��%yam': AS T...:"w p= - AIEV Illon . _ /1 11111VN11 \ -0111Nue• sow • is at d(11. \ )11 -------/-'-.' --. . ' At,, t IS of Zilleill,...00_, ocP 14. ".)1 T.:A - AirlArda /;: ..v k; '.0* 4k*-- L A KE \ \ i I RS; . • i' : t% •14eli"- • ..Mr. ■■u1 , - q I m /PO �.I�. ■■■■a . R $114 i �� - te. 1 NNW,Rirrilre r, - C•.-, �1�moi, .� +� ' \� R4 R• 1 - .4VIright-nap . :.. 4����• �1•i 7 ri���� :� �ij •C R12 ��• 10 et wo NOWA �: RI ter. 111111,4 UMW MIA Min Witi - mum 111111=4 NM •06- M ORO ••� 11111/,11 !!4:1::"1::1-11 gibi ,. r.L!1.. 3? I :'�f' 01711 . Vineland Subdivision August 2, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The RSF district permits a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet with 90 feet of public street frontage and 125-foot lot depth. The land use designation permits up to 3 . 4 dwelling units per acre. REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #1 Building Department No comment. Public Safety Attachment #2 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide 11. 2 acres into 21 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF and the average lot size is 19, 703 square feet. The net density is 2 . 21 units per acre. The site is located north of Carver Beach Estates and west of Fox Chase. The applicant has added property to the proposed plat which provides connection to Pleasant View Road ( see Sheet 4) . The new property added to the plat is 146 feet wide and 517 long. The strip of land is being platted into three single family lots -- with a proposed street connection to the west and Vineland Drive which will service the remaining 19 lots to the south from Pleasant View Road. The initial proposal by the applicant did not plat the land between the proposed subdivision and Pleasant View Road and was proposing to provide a temporary street through the property until future land could be acquired and a public street could be dedicated. After meeting with staff, the appli- cant has submitted amended plans which provides for a full street section and a 30 foot right-of-way to be dedicated to the city. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. The lots are located along Vineland Drive from Pleasant View with two cul-de-sacs located on the southern portion of the site. Two future accesses are being provided with Forest Street and Ivy Lane to the property to the west. The site is heavily vegetated and staff is recommending that a tree removal plan be provided along with each building permit application and that clear cutting of any vegetation with 4" or over caliper at 4 feet in height shall not be permitted to be clearcut except for what is necessary for the streets , utilities and house pad. A major issue which was brought up with the first review was that a secondary street access should be provided at this time. The Vineland Subdivision _ August 2, 1989 Page 3 applicant is providing two future accesses to the west and after careful study of the topography, staff agrees that a road connec- tion to Carver Beach should not be pursued with this subdivision. Grading, Drainage, Utilities and Streets The City Engineer addresses these issues in the attached memo. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the — following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision — Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated "July 20, 1989" subject to the following conditions: 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance of a building permit. Clearcutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be permitted. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the — improvements. 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 4. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. -- 5 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of construction. 6 . Appropriate utility and drainage easements shall be provided over all lots. 7 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- main in Pleasant View Road. 8. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather than Fox Chase. 9. The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. — 10. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualifed soils engineer. — Vineland Subdivision August 2, 1989 Page 4 11. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 12. Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedi- - cation. 13. Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector. 14. A 10 foot clearnance shall be maintained around fire hydrants. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated July 26, 1989 . 2 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated June 13 , 1989 . 3 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated June 15, 1989. 4 . Preliminary plat dated July 20 , 1989. CITYOF CHANHASSEN ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 16k — DATE: July 26, 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Vineland Forest Addition File No. 89-13 Land Use Review The site is located south of Pleasant View Road west of Fox Chase and north of Carver Beach Estates . The 11 . 3 acre site is comprised of a generally rolling terrain with very steep slopes — along the east boundary of the plat which is also heavily wooded. SANITARY SEWER _ Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from Pleasant View Road to the north and pox Path to the east. The plans propose connection from Fox Patn. Due to the extraordinary — steep slopes and sewer depth , the proposed alignment from Fox Path would cause extensive tree removal and leave potential ero- sion problems in the future . It is suggested that the sanitary — sewer be extended from Pleasant View Road along proposed Vineland Drive to serve the site. This alignment will not require addi- tional tree removal outside the street right-of-way. — WATERMAIN The plans propose a looped system to be constructed from the — existing 8-inch line in Fox Path to Vineland Drive and on to the existing 12-inch line in Pleasant View Road. Although, again, due to the steep slopes along the east boundary of the plat, — extensive trees will have to be removed and leave behind the potential erosion problems as in the sanitary sewer scenario. The watermain should be rerouted and looped with the existing 6-inch line in Nez Perce directly south of the plat. Some trees — will still need to be removed but will have much less of an evironmental impact on the neighborhood. The appropriate utility easements shall be provided over the plat to accommodate the utilities outside the street right-of-way. The exact hydrant and gate valve placement will be resolved with — the plans and specifications submittal stage. _ Jo Ann Olsen July 26 , 1989 Page 2 STREETS The plans propose a standard 31-foot wide urban City street within a 50-foot right-of-way commencing from Pleasant View Road along Vineland Drive approximately 1, 250 feet into dead-end cul- de-sacs . All streets will be dedicated to the City. Pleasant View Road serves as the only east/west connection bet- ween County Road 17 and Trunk Highway 101. The existing roadway design is unsafe in several areas for local residential traffic. Steep hills , sharp curves, hidden driveways and overgrown vegeta- tion all combine to create hazardous conditions. As the area continues to develop, traffic volumes will increase and hazardous conditions along Pleasant View Road will only intensify. It is desirable to have a secondary access to the site for emergency services and effective traffic circulation . However , it appears that due to the steep slope along the south boundary of the plat, the secondary access is not feasible. As future development proposals are reviewed for the area, the outlot provided in Carver Beach Estates should be utilized as a secondary access . These future developments will eventually tie back into this subdivision at Forest Street and Ivy Lane . GRADING AND DRAINAGE A majority of the site grading will be contained within the pro- posed street right-of-way with the exception of Lots 12 , 13 and 14 of Block 3 . In this area, it appears that the lots will require grading to create building pads and a aetention pond which in turn will require removal of some trees . The applicant is also providing another detention pond to be constructed on the east side of the property between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 3 . This detention pond includes a control structure to maintain the pre- developed runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100 year storm event. The control structure appears to be constructed in a large fill area . Soil compaction in this area should be clo- sely supervised and tested to meet accepted engineering stan- dards. The design itself should be reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer. Most of the runoff from the site will be conveyed through the storm sewers to this storage pond. EROSION CONTROL The plans do not indicate provisions for erosion control measures . An erosion control plan should be submitted and include erosion control fencing in accordance with the City ' s Type III standard ( see detail ) . All side slopes greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blankets . The site Jo Ann Olsen July 26 , 1989 Page 3 should be seeded and mulched immediately after rough grading to minimize sediment runoff over the site. — RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. — 3 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. _ 4 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar — plans will also be required upon completion of construction . 5 . Appropriate utility and drainage easements shall be provided — over all lots . 6 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- main in Pleasant View Road. 7 . The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather than Fox Chase . — 8 . The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 9 . The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualifed soils engineer. 10 . An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Type III Erosion Control Detail . 3 -ET POSTS FIRML• LOST ,.Lt BC OAK OR STEEL] ANO ..OUNF ..OG ...RE 70 POSTS. RECO:•L•FNOEO k 1 TO_-IN LtE MOO IF1 ` L '11NRF1 I00R. FAST/N r:/140G RIr:GS. _ I •-O I /-KAIIS OR STAPLE:.. l^---1 Yom.-'y-�`_- �% r.,,,/./.7„.,.;„,/, ,./.. /, 3 0.11N.OEPTH A.OIG TRENCH 8.LAY IN FABRIC a EACKFILL Q Q MI EROSION CONTROL t-- FENCE-TYPEI _ w -J CD STEEL PENCE POSTS Q SMALL DE USED TO 0 SUPPORT SAOr INCE 1 O1IlnN pnnnlnMn CC IIIA I III-Mule I W 0 1401410431 z O z _iv OR SrR.v 1,041.(5 TWO AE•BARS DRIVEN TNRO{1GN EACM •ALE Iti2'-zI OTO 6A01pe SALES TO BC RECESSED e•ELON GRADE AND Mt REO TO SNOW PENCE EROSION CONTROL_ W FENCE-TYPE 2 ~ w m O STEEL PENCE POSTS 1.. SA.LL SE USED TO \— SVPPOAT SMOr FENCE W I= nnflM� o . nnlI a LU unum�ttu mitnoII03 SILT TFENCE—•••••... Z TWO PE-B.RS DONNE•TNRDUGM E.c. e.LE H'5-z't.TO G.0..0 SALES TO •E A ECEsstO c-•ELO* GONE* ANO TIRED FO SNor PEACE EROSION CONTROL FENCE-TYPE 3 0 CITY OF \� 1 -1IiSILT FENCE- CilA: ::N to SCALE 1 DATE I PLATE NO. 5 - 89 5212 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: June 13, 1989 — SUBJ: 89-8 Subdivision Comments and recommendations per Fire Inspector: 1. Fire Department is requesting a through street connecting Vineland Court and Nez Perce. 2 . Add fire hydrant as indicated on site plan. 3 . A 10 ' clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrants. — CITY OF A CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: June 15 , 1989 SUBJ: Vineland Forest Proposal The Park and Recreation Commission, at their last meeting, reviewed the Vineland Forest site plan. As this site is currently served by existing parkland, it is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to accept park and trail fees in lieu of park land dedication of trail construction. LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive _ Chanhassen , MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Van Eeckhout Building Corp. OWNER: Same • — ADDRESS 1935 Wayzata Blvd. , Suite 165 . ADDRESS Ram,. Long Lake, MN 55356Zi TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 612/473-1578 Code TELEPHONE Same Zip Code REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development — Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment X Platting Conditional Use Permit Metes and Hounds Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Vineland Forest PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Residential — REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Residential PRESENT ZONING RSF REQUESTED ZONING RSF USES PROPOSED Single Family Residential SIZE OF PROPERTY 9.5 Acres LOCATION South of Pleasant View Road and East of Pacers Blvd. REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Pre.' Plat LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Lot 9, 10 and east 16 feet — of Lot 3, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Jim Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst . City Planner and Mark Koegler , Planning Consultant PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Ray Grant Don Patton Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla : Jo Ann, what are the remarks by Elizabeth Rockwell , the comments? Olsen: Those were comments from when we first reviewed the site when the concept plan was going through. These comments were just her general comments over all the wetlands on there. Headla : Are they still appropriate? I 'm not sure I can read all her writing but on that second line there under comments, it says by removing or plugging drain. Olsen : Right. See there are the 3 basins that are going to be altered . We' ve already done 2 with the first and second addition of those wetlands . They' ve already gone through 2 other wetland alteration permits so these comments are kind of all of them. The 3 wetlands that were going to be able to be altered . Headla : So it isn ' t quite appropriate to here? Olsen: Not with this specific wetland . Headla : The only other thing I had and I don ' t oppose what they' re trying to do, is that we put it at 927, 930, if you go out there and walk around , Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 2 how do you know where you are? I addressed this last time and I 'm looking — at this and I 'm thinking well , should we ask for like a 6 inch mound or something put around so it' s defined where the wetland begins . And I 'm not sure it' s appropriate and it's more of a question. — Olsen: The way we do it is , that contour will be reflected by a drainage easement so that will be on all the surveys and that will be recorded on _ the final plat. So whenever any survey comes in for the house at the start or any decks or additions in the future, we' ll see that easement . We' ll know that that is the wetland , the edge of the wetland and the 75 foot setback will be taken from that. The people who live out there, — that ' s why we also have that additional condition that it will be recorded against the property to try to make them aware that it is a wetland and it is protected . Other than having a fence out there or flashing light — saying this is a wetland, it' s protected, don' t touch, we really keep trying to add additional ways to make the public aware . Headla: That really doesn' t address my point. You can put it on paper . -- I 'm asking that we put it on land . Olsen : Right . I just don ' t know how you would without , I don' t see that — you really want a structure around a wetland. You want to keep it . Headla : That ' s why I 'm saying like a 6 inch mound or a drop in 6 inches — or something because somebody can go out and mow and mow that not meaning to be harmful at all . Good intentions but they do it for 5-10 years and somebody notices it and the you come in and say, well it used to be a wetland but now it ' s such a low grade B wetland , let them do it. I really — think we should address how do you define it when you' re walking out on that land . Conrad : Do you want a monument of some sort? Are monuments used anymore? Olsen: I don' t know if they are. I think just those little steel , but again people don' t always see those. Conrad: You don' t see them but . Headla : I think there should be something but I 'm ready to recommend something . Conrad : That ' s a good comment . Headla : Let me just pass it on but I 'd like to leave it for a time and we may not even solve it tonight but as we go along , maybe an answer will — evolve. Conrad : I think recording the wetland on the individual parcels is a step — but the issue is still there Dave. You ' re right . I 'm not for creating another barrier because that sort of defeats the purpose of what we' re trying to do. Yet on the other hand, you know full well that 5 years from _ now that people will be down mucking mucking in the wetland and when it' s dry, they' ll be mowing it. They' ll be an area that they shouldn' t be. W Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 3 Headla : And they aren ' t doing it intention to be harmful . Conrad: Probably not. No, not intentionally. Ray Grant : I 'm Ray Grant. A suggestion, I think one of the things that we have to do is establish some taller vegetation around the edge of the pond . Maybe a suggestion would be that that will probably grow up fairly quickly, especially if it's a wet year when there' s water in the pond and when the City drives by or somebody from the City drives on Audubon Road and they glance over and they see one of the neighbors has mowed down this cattails or whatever , they' re going onto the easement . Maybe they can just send a letter out and explain to the guy why he really can' t do that . I think that will , these cattails or whatever type of vegetation you 've got established around the edge, I think that would sort of define where the wetland is . We added , this is designed to have water in it at I think the 923.5 I believe is the normal water elevation so theoretically the end of the wetland is 923 . 5 but in this situation we' re using 927 . That ' s the highest the water can get to from a 100 year storm. If the water goes higher than that , it flows out a way lower in an emergency overflow into the catch basin and also out beyond the emergency outlet. That might be a way, and everyday I go for a walk and where I walk there' s a pond that ' s similar to this. It's in Burnsville but it' s got this cattails and they' re 5-6 feet high all the way around the pond . That ' s just grown up. I 'd say the pond' s been there 7-8 years, 10 years maybe. I 've discussed the mounds out in the middle and I envision that that ' s what this is like. I think that' s what they have in mind when they talk about the cattails . That defines the wetland just perfectly. That one has a fluctuation also . I think in a heavy storm it' s gone up 3-4 feet and that' s just about what happened . Conrad : Thanks for your comments. Anything else? Wildermuth: Do you represent Argus? Ray Grant : Yes I do. Wildermuth : Are you going to be developing the area or going to be selling lots? Ray Grant : Argus will build . I think they build all the houses uptown and they' ll be building the houses also. Joe Miller Homes builds the house . Argus Development , Joe Miller owns Argus Development and Joe Miller owns Joe Miller Homes . Wildermuth : I see . So that will provide some measure I guess of control . The pond appears to be a very nice, very attractive addition to the development there. The one question I have is , what is to the north of that? Is that vacant land? Emmings : Is that Dave Stockdale? Olsen : Well it will be Lake Drive just to the north. Then Dave Stockdale Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 4 — and the IOP district. Vacant IOP. — Wildermuth : How close will the wetland be to Lake Drive? Olsen: It's not right against it. I don' t know exactly how far it' s going to be. It just comes around to the north. Ray Grant: I could point out to you where the wetland is today and that's — this line right there so we' re actually moving the wetland a little bit away from there. I 'd say maybe 20-30 feet. About 20 feet. Wildermuth : Will the wetland be 75 feet from the road? Olsen: No it won' t . Ray Grant : Right now we' re moving it further away than what it is right now. Wildermuth : We don' t have any restrictions on that? Olsen: Not to streets . — Wildermuth : It seems like that ought to be something that needs to be addressed. — Conrad : Distance the road is? Wildermuth: Yes . In the future. Other than that it looks good . I 'd like to live next to it. Conrad : How far is the road away from the wetland Jo Ann? Olsen: Lake Drive? Conrad : Yes . Olsen : The actual right-of-way has not been established . It would be similar to what we' re doing on the east side where we have to work with the land so I can ' t tell you exactly. It will be within 75 feet. It ' s just north of it. Ellson: I like it. I think it will be better than it is now. I also shared Dave's concern because I don' t think anyone will be checking those sorts of things and if other cities use plantings might be a solution, then maybe we should add that plantings over x length of height or — something as far as surrounding it because that might just be the solution but I like it. Emmings : It seems like a very appropriate thing to do to me and the only thing I would do is say that the deed restriction, condition 3, that the language ought to include the fact that it' s a 75 foot setback from — elevation 927. Just so that' s real clear what it' s setback from. Other than that, I think it' s fine. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 5 Erhart: I don ' t have any problems with this . It seems like a logical thing to do and perhaps an improvement over existing. Conrad : Okay, thanks . The reason we went from 930 Jo Ann to 927 was what? Olsen : The 930, we have the plans that you have in your packet. It looks like the top portion of the new pond but actually once we got the calculations for the high water , that ' s where the water will , at the 100 year flood, that' s the highest it will ever be. There' s an outlet and it will never get above that so we always use the ordinary high water mark for that edge and that' s how we lowered it. Conrad : Of the 3 issues , if there are 3, that have been brought up, are documenting where the wetland really is for residents and I don' t think we have a solution for that . Is there a solution? Is that something we need to look at? Olsen : Like I said, each time we add another condition trying to make it a little bit tighter so it' s more fair . Wildermuth: In this case I think we' ve got some comfort because the owner developer is also going to be the builder . Rather than selling off individual lots . Olsen : It never gets passed on it seems . Emmings: If there' s a deed restriction though, that is something that an owner will become aware of when they buy the lot . If they read it or if they pay attention, if they remember it, it's a whole bunch of things that could get out of the way there but at least there ' s something . Conrad : Another issue is the setback from the road which is not necessarily this developer ' s problem. Wildermuth: I think it' s something we should look at in the future. Don Patton : Could I say something? Don Patton. One of the things that the, whenever title goes over, you normally do a title search. This is going to be your registered advance easement . That would show up in the title which is certainly highlighted to the new buyer as it' s closed so I guess I 'm enough of a conservative but I think we need less restrictions and I think that' s a certainly an option for the buyer to see where there is an easement as a matter of record . Conrad: I think we, well I don' t disagree with you Don. At least I personally don' t like a lot of restrictions yet if you have an asset , I could take you through Chanhassen, I ' ll show you where what we' re talking about is being abused right now. So on the one hand I don' t like restrictions and arbitrary laws and things that can' t be followed up yet on the other hand , people aren ' t diligent . People aren' t reading all of the deed restrictions. They simply don' t do that and I 'm not sure I want Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 6 to throw it on government' s lap to do it but we' re talking about , is there — an easy way when a knowledgeable group who is developing a property can, you' re the best source we have to help protect . You' re putting in the development and this is the time that we can put something in that might — last for a while and I 'm not sure we know what that is so , you' re project is in front of us. We' re talking kind of in general . Emmings : Ladd if I could interrupt just on his comment . An owner will find out that there' s an easement there and that there's a wetland out there and it goes to 927 but that isn ' t going to mean anything to a landowner. He' s not going to know where 927 is on his lot and that' s what — we' re talking about . Unless he gets it surveyed and gets a stake in the ground and that's what I think Dave is saying is that there ought to be some visual cue for that landowner or anybody else just where that 927 — contour is and that's what we' re really talking about. Conrad : I don ' t have any other comments . Jo Ann, in the staff report, the applicable regulations, you referenced Class A wetlands . We' re — talking about a B here . Olsen: Class B wetlands , right . — Conrad : So that' s simply. . . Olsen : Yes , we brought that out from another regulation that just got in there. It' s a B. Conrad : Any other discussion? Is there a motion? — Emmings: I ' ll make a motion to recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 10, 1989 with the 4 — conditions of staff and altering condition number 2. Changing 930 to 927. Condition 3, changing the last line so that it reads , 75 foot setback and then inserting, from elevation 927. Just those two changes. Wildermuth : I ' ll second it . Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 10, 1989 with the following conditions : — 1. The applicant shall submit revised plans providing for an uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth of at least one foot and showing that the basin will have a fringe of shrubs on the upland — surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. 2. That the new edges of the wetland at the 927 contour will be protected by a drainage and utility easement which will be shown on every lot survey and that the applicant understands that a 75 foot setback exists from the 927 contour for decks and accessory structures . Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 7 3. A deed restriction will be recorded against each lot abutting the wetland stating that the lot contains a protected wetland with a 75 foot setback from elevation 927. 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS. Mark Koegler presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Ellson moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Conrad : Tim, we' ll start at your end . Anything? Erhart: No. Not on this one. We discussed this thoroughly the last time. Emmings : The only thing I thought about when I read this and it may be real simple. If you have a place selling gasoline, and they have more than 400 feet, square feet of foor area for retailing non-automotive goods, what is it? Koegler : Can you repeat that? Emmings: If you have a place that' s selling gasoline or motor fuels but it happens to have 405 feet of floor area for retailing of non-automotive goods, what is it? Does that help? Conrad: It can' t be . Ellson : That ' s your definition of convenience store . Wildermuth : Convenience store with gas pumps . Koegler : You' re saying it would kick it above the threshhold of the motor fuel service station in terms of the retail square footage. That would kick it into the convenience store. Emmings : Now it' s a convenience store? Ellson: Right . Koegler : Convenience store picks up where that one leaves off with over Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 8 — 400. — Emmings: Okay, but the definition of convenience store doesn' t include an ability to sell motor fuels. Or doesn' t include the sale of motor fuels . — Koegler : There ' s two convenience stores . We have one with gas pumps and one without. Emmings : Okay, and do we already have a definition? Koegler : Yes. Along with . — Emmings: Alright. That was the case that popped into my mind and if it' s accounted for , that's fine. — Koegler : It probably would have been clearer if we would have repeated that in the previous report. Emmings: And I didn' t look for it. Ellson : I like it. I wanted to make these things and I like the way — we' re going so that' s fine. Wildermuth: I really don' t have any comments other than I think they probably all should be conditional uses. Permitted and conditional accomodati.on probably all should be reviewed on a conditional use basis . Headla: No comment. — Conrad : My only comment, under convenience store definition. Middle of that paragraph it says this includes soda and similar beverage dispensing — and food products which can be heated and/or prepared on site . Prepared . We do want the word prepared in there? Olsen : It ' s in microwaves . Emmings : Some of they do it now. I 'm aware of some that do. Conrad: Prepare? Not heat . Emmings : No , I 'm talking about . . . — Ellson: You mean like a bakery in there? Emmings: No, they put together pizzas . I don' t know to what extent they — do it. Conrad : That doesn' t seem like a convenience store to me. Convenience — store doesn' t prepare food. That's a restaurant. Emmings : Yes , they'd sell a frozen pizza but now make it on site . — Conrad: They can heat up what they' re selling to the public. I 'd buy Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 9 that but to prepare it throws it into a different category in my mind . Does it matter? And I couldn' t take it any further than that but prepared bothered me. Koegler : That definition is a carry over from some of the discussions that you had with Steve when he was here. I don ' t know what transpired at that time. I don' t know if there was supposed to be a distinction between heated and prepared. I think the intent of the ordinance from at least my perspective is clearly that it ' s supposed to be pre-packaged products that maybe you zap in the microwave for 30 seconds and you go out the door . It' s not supposed to be a food preparation area because that gets you into health requirements and everything else that these would not begin to meet. You have the venting requirements and everything else under building code that you have with kitchens. I don' t think there's any damage if it ' s troublesome to strike the word and/or prepared . Conrad: Is Tom Thumb a convenience store? Ellson: Yes . Conrad : Which we have down on TH 101 and they have a little deli in there. I don' t know what they do to get the food to their little deli but it ' s. . . Koegler : They' re doing more and more of that. Conrad: There' s a lot of business there. I guess you know, it didn' t seem in sync but I 'm not anti that word . I just bring it up and if anybody is bothered by it, we could strike it but on the other hand, just thinking about Tom Thumb. They have a little deli in it and it' s not bad . I think it is a convenience to their surrounding neighbors and doesn' t bother me. Ellson : What is your biggest concern? That someone will have a prepared thing and come and call it convenience store? I guess what' s the worst that could happen? Conrad : No, it just took a convenience store another step further into a restaurant category which means more traffic which means some other things but I think when I think about the alternatives of striking it , and maybe some assets that it brings to the neighborhood, I prefer to keep it in there. Ellson: He didn' t mean something that has to be warmed to eat and prepared could be either. Like you said , maybe a put your own sundae or something would be prepared but it wouldn ' t be heated so I think it should be in there. Emmings: I supposed being under 400 square feet is going to provide some limitations too where they' re going to want to be displaying so much merchandise in a fairly small space that they' re not going to want to devote much to preparation. I don 't know. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 10 — Conrad : I think the only thing I see Steve is, because of convenience store and where we put them. . . Ellson: He said anything over 400 feet . Conrad: Yes, it would be over 400 feet. I 'm not sure I see a down side. _ In a business neighborhood , traffic is what we' re worried about and as long as we can' t sit down, I guess I 'm not totally bothered after going through the logic myself. Anyone want to make a motion? I don' t think we' re talking about any wording changes to what is there. Emmings : I 've got a question. Elison: We don' t have any guidelines . . . Olsen : We' re looking for it too. _ Emmings : What, the definition? Olsen : Yes . Emmings : Of convenience store with gas pumps , yes . It ' s not in there. Olsen: Well we don' t even have convenience store but I know that we've. . . Emmings : No , it' s not in this draft of the ordinance unless it' s been _ added since. Olsen : That ' s why I 'm thinking it must have been an amendment . Emmings: I feel like I remember seeing it but it' s not in the Code. Olsen : Whenever we have anything in there, we always define it . Maybe it _ never was defined. I know that it was . Emmings : What are you looking from us on this? Do we have to make a motion recommending approval? Olsen : This is a public hearing . This is the real thing . Emmings: Do we need to close the public hearing? Conrad : It has been closed . We just need a motion. Emmings: I ' ll move that we recommend to the City Council that they approve the ordinance as presented to us by staff and I 'd also ask that staff check between now and the time it' s presented to City Council to — make sure that we have a definition for convenience store with gas pumps that corresponds to the other definitions we've been presented with tonight so that they all coordinate together . _ Wildermuth: Second . Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 11 Koegler : My only comment would be that convenience store with gas pumps, I think the assumption has been that that' s self explanatory. That the only differential between the two is the existence of pump islands. If we need to clarify that by adding another one that essentially says the same thing except this one has pump islands, we can do that but I think the assumption, the way the ordinance is drafted right now is that convenience store and convenience store with gas pumps are the same thing as far as the building goes. The only differential is the sale of petroleum outside. Emmings: Maybe you just want to add a sentence under convenience store that would say that if they sell motor fuels too, then it will be designated as a convenience store with gas pumps or something like that. I think it should be defined in there someplace. Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 adding provisions concerning convenience stores and motor fuel stations as presented by staff and directing staff to look into the definition of convenience store with gas pumps between now and the time it reaches City Council . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE: A. SECTION 20-3 REGARDING DEFINITION OF DENSITY. B. SECTION 20-409 REGARDING WETLAND SETBACKS (200 ' ) FOR COMMERCIAL DOG KENNELS AND STABLES. C. SECTION 20-441 REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF THE WETLAND SECTION. D. SECTION 20-1021 REGARDING SWIMMING POOL FENCES. Conrad : Jo Ann , there aren ' t many people in attendance . Do you have a staff report that you want to go through? Olsen : No , we can just go through each one . . . Conrad: Anything different than the last time that we talked about it? Yes, maybe we should go through it. I think for procedural purposes , we' ll open up the public hearing for any comments to the amendments proposed to our zoning ordinance for Section 20-3 , 20-409 , 20-441 and 20-1021. Are there any comments? If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad : Let' s go through them one by one. Any comments on 20-3 , definition of density? Any comments? How about 20-409? Wetland setbacks Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 12 for commercial dog kennels and stables . Emmings: I have a question. When we say that you' re going to set back a kennel or a stable 200 feet, what are we setting back? The building? Olsen: Yes. The stable would be what would be set back. The pasture, no. As far as like a dog kennel , when those come in I also include where the concrete is and the patio. That gets into the definition of structure — which we' re still . . . Headla: What did you say Jo Ann? Olsen : I take setbacks from like the concrete area around a kennel because that's permanent and I consider that a structure also so it wouldn' t just be the dog house . I would consider that part of -the kennel . — That we' re working on the definition of structure which would help define. Emmings : Our definitions of kennel under our definition sections of the code don' t, relates to the property more than it does to a building but when you use kennel with stable, that makes me think of something that ' s built to house the dogs with runways and all of that . What is the objective of setting back a kennel or a stable from a wetland? Olsen: The reason I did this was that we already have that control when they have to go through a conditional use permit. They have to be set — back 200 feet from the wetland but if it' s in an area where you don' t need the conditional use permit , we don' t have that setback from a wetland so they could be right up against it. Under the wetland ordinance, they _ could be 75 feet but when we reserached the conditional use permit for it , we felt in working with the Fish and Wildlife and also with Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson , that they should be set back. The stables themselves where a high percentage of they, that they should be set back — farther_ . Emmings: Why? — Olsen : Why? The concentration of the manure . Emmings: Well, I wondered if that was the reason because I supposed if — you had a small pasture and a lot of horses , if you ' re worried about nutrient overloading into the wetland, you may have the same problem with the pasture that you have with the stable. In fact, the stable is — probably cleaned out and put on a pile where in a pasture it' s not going to be so I don ' t know, it depends on what the objective is here . If you' re worry about nutrient overload, I don't know that this will do it . _ Maybe it will . If the pasture is big enough, it' s not probably going to be a problem. If it' s small, it might be. I don' t know that this does what we want it to do or not . Conrad : Dave, what do you think? Headla : I think we' re trying to solve a problem that isn' t a problem and — trying to fix something that isn ' t broken. I don ' t agree with the Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 13 ordinance, the way it is right now. I can cite a particular situation where I did a horse inspection. You brought up a very good point. Where is the pasture? Normally very few places that I inspect that don' t have a pasture around the barn. The barn invariably stays very neat and that' s the thing we' re trying to control . Your corral is where the horse will stay mostly during the winter and you have a manure accumulation but the people are picking that up in the spring or early summer , during the summer. They can take that, haul that out in the pasture and leave it and they can be with the ordinance or conditional use permit . What we' re trying to do, and the results that you' re going to accomplish, I think it might be negative. I 'd like to see this thing thrown out on the conditional use permit and take another look at it. If you ' re really trying to control nutrients , I think you have to control it probably by densing and keeping a pasture and that clean. Not just say a stable. And dog kennels, and I 'm kind of out of a dog era now but the dog kennels that I 've known and I know now, they' re spic and span. You go outside and boy they' re clean . What are we trying to control? I think we' re trying to control something we think is a problem but where has there ever been a defined problem? I don' t know. Conrad : Are you just saying where the stable' s located is really not the problem? Headla : That ' s right . Conrad: It' s the pasture. Headla : And the fella that applied here this last year . He jumped through hoops trying to get his barn at the right spot and he called me over and wanted me to look at it and we said okay let ' s put it here because the drainage is away. That kind of decides where the building and that made a lot more sense than that actual distance from the wetland . Conrad: Do you see a simple solution to this? I think Jo Ann is trying to solve some problems, not making it a big deal but maybe the simple solution for stables , it seems like dog kennels are easy to take care of this way but stable is probably a different thing . Should we delete stable from this one and work on it or is there a solution? Is it worth while? Headla : Yes . I think it' s worth while and the reason I say that , when I drive around and I hate to see it limited to just residential single family or anything . When I drive around and I see a horse pastures that go out into wetlands. I 'm having a hard time with that. I can' t say anything . That ' s not in an ordinance . I 'm not sure if cattle or horses , animals or such domestic animals should be grazing in wetlands. Maybe there ' s something , if enough people agree with that thought , maybe there ' s something there we could use to control the situation. I see animals , domestic animals grazing on wetlands, they' re just degrading it conjunctively. Wildermuth : But boy, is there going to be a human cry about something like that. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 14 Conrad : Yes . This is sort of a low impact way of doing something and — probably not much but do you think there would be a great deal of outcry Dave from the animal owners? Headla : Yes . I think so . They've had their animals out there for a long time. I 'm sure they look at it as their land. They bought it for that purpose. They've been using it for that purpose. I think there would be — some very strong opposition. Erhart : You' re referring to what? Cattle? Headla: Cattle. Domestic animals grazing on wetlands . Erhart : I didn' t know there was anybody left in Chanhassen that raised — cattle is there? Olsen : They'd all be grandfathered in. I don' t think anybody is moving — in. Conrad : The Kerber ' s used to have cattle out on Lotus Lake up until last year . Erhart : Did they really? Conrad : Oh yes . It was kind of neat to go by the cattle swimming in the water . Erhart : I think I agree with Dave that they shouldn' t be in wetlands. I — was trying to think of anybody in the south part of Chanhassen that has cattle. There' s one over on 17 that raises cattle over there . Conrad : Well should we, Jo Ann what do you think? What ' s your feeling? I think the point' s valid that Dave' s , real valid, that he' s raising . Olsen : Right . Wildermuth : But it' s two separate issues I think. Olsen: We could look into controlling that. The ones that it would really impact would be grandfathered in so it wouldn' t be changing anything . The structures we could, I 'd have more control on but if that' s — not what people the problems, then that ' s okay. Maybe it isn ' t necessary and if that ' s the case, then we should take it out of the conditional use permit . The whole initiation of this was just to make the ordinance — consistent. Conrad : Dave, tell us what your preference would be on this . Should we strike the stables at this point in time and do you want to do any work on — this project just to help Jo Ann or do you feel that , we can leave it in and there may be little impact. As Jo Ann said, she' s trying to make it consistent with Fish and Wildlife , consistent with what? — Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 15 Olsen : No . Right now our ordinance for stables and kennels , when they' re a conditition use permit, under the specific conditions of that conditional use required to be 200 feet from the setback. Conrad: So Jo Ann really is trying to make things consistent. It's almost more housecleaning . Headla : On the other hand , throw it out of the conditional use permit . I think those were the words that were restricted that were not appropriate. Emmings: What did you just say. I didn' t follow. — Headla: Remove that from the conditional use permit. Conrad : Dave would like to change the conditional use guidelines . Rather than syncing this up with the conditional use guidelines , he' s saying hey those are wrong . Emmings: Well , I don' t think we know what we' re doing here . I don' t think there's any real , I don' t feel any consensus up here for , maybe we should look at the whole thing again . Maybe we aren' t doing the right thing in the conditional use either . Conrad : Probably a valid, so the question is , we could modify the zoning ordinance in terms of dog kennels and throw out stables and re-evaluate stables in context of pasture, corral or whatever . Emmings: What the compelling reason to have a dog kennel 200 feet from the wetland? Erhart : To me that just eliminates a whole lot of people from having a dog kennel on their property. If you have a 25, 000 square foot lot , 200 feet deep, 125 foot frontage that backs up against a lake, that guy can ' t have a dog kennel . Wildermuth : Why don' t we let the wetland ordinance control it so you can' t be closer than 75 feet? Olsen : That ' s where a structure, it already is controlled by that way. Emmings: I think maybe that' s enough. Maybe we should table this one and think about it some more. Conrad: I think so. Emmings : We looked at it before and didn ' t bring all this stuff up. Our comments were based on public comments that we heard. Conrad : And Dave is as public as we can get . Olsen: So you' re tabling of this is what? I guess I 'm not clear on what you want . Do you want to review just taking out of the conditional use? Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 16 Conrad : I think we need you to review what the purpose of this is , especially for the stables . Also in terms of pasture land . Erhart : And dog kennels. — Emmings: Give us a rationale. Conrad : And I guess dog kennels too . Emmings: Both need a conditional use permit now. Erhart : Right . I think what Jo Ann is trying to do is good . We' re trying to make our ordinance consistent but let' s re-evaluate these things as it relates , what it ought to be. — Conrad: I would hope Dave could help you a little bit. Headla : I 'd be glad to work with Jo Ann on that . Conrad: And maybe what he' s suggesting is the conditional use permit may need some modification as well . — Olsen : I ' ll check with our experts and see what they say that stables should be that far away. — Emmings : I think what Dave said about density. Density would seem, near a population of horses for a certain size of land and also regulating how they dispose of their manure from the stable. Are they putting it out on the pasture? What are they doing with it? Or from a corral? Those things may be more important to regulate than where the building is . Erhart: I agree. Even the density of dogs lies because when you get a commercial kennel , then I can easily see where the 200 foot makes a lot of sense but 1 guy and 1 dog, being so restrictive is unreasonable I think. — Conrad : It says commercial dog kennel . Erhart: It also says private though too. — Conrad : Interesting . Emmings : I wonder , would the Fish and Wildlife people or DNR have any regulations or information about the effect on wetlands with these kinds of activities? Olsen : I can look into that. Emmings: They might be a good resource. Conrad : Section 20-441. Any comments on the penalty? Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 17 Erhart: I think the penalty is fine but I think the real .issue here again is this information about what' s a wetland and if we could provide some way of educating people, both existing Chanhassen citizens and people moving into the area buying houses, really what is designated wetland because I don' t think people have any foggy idea of where the wetlands begin, even in a brand new subdivision like this. The first guy that moves in there won' t have any idea where it is and just off hand I can think of 2 ways that we could improve the communications in that area. One would be to, a map that' s important , to put it up in the lobby of the city hall here someplace so when people walk in, you know how you always have to wait to get an appointment with staff . They' re always late and things, and they would browse around and look at these maps. Just kidding of course but the map and they could see what was designated land . If it was on their property, they would know. The second thing is, if we have all these pamphlets that we have up here and maybe print up a pamphlet . What are designated wetlands in the City so there' s a higher probability that a land owner here in the city and lot owner would know if there ' s an official wetland and then also include in there the penalties. What' s the laws and what' s the penalty. Right now I don ' t think there' s any convenient way. There is no way that anybody would know that there's a wetland on their property. Emmings : We could go around and paint them all red . Erhart: Paint them all red. Just some ideas . Conrad : You' re right. Nobody knows . Erhart: Nobody knows. And then there' s always the ones that, there' s always the people that do do it. They sort of know but the fact that it ' s not blatantly spelled out for them, they go ahead and do it because they can always say, well how was I supposed to know. Olsen: Even the ones that you point it out to them, they' ll still argue. They' ll say that ' s not a wetland . It doesn ' t have. . . Erhart: But if it's on a map. Emmings: They' ll say it' s not wet. It wasn ' t wet last year . Olsen: There's never been a duck in that wetland. Erhart : If it' s on an official map someplace, you can' t use the argument well it's not wet because it' s on the map. Olsen : We explain then it' s just soils and vegetation. Conrad : Any other comments on this one? Erhart : Also point out , the map does exists doesn' t it? Olsen: Well we' re updating it though. We' re trying to update it. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 18 Conrad : Section 20-1021, the swimming pool fences . Any comments on that? Jo Ann, it says that you got some comments from people in the City. Is that right or did I misread that? Olsen : No , we' ve had no comments . This came about because we had people — with the wording that if it was inaccessible from adjacent property, what they felt was inaccessible and what we felt was inaccessible, we didn' t agree on. Plus the building code would still require them to have a fence _ for safety, for people falling out from the pool over the cliff so we took it out just to make things consistent again. Just make it clearer that you have to have a fence no matter what. Wildermuth: Sounds like a good idea. Emmings: Is 4 feet enough? Is 4 feet what you want? I think that I 'm — aware that there are 6 foot requirements in other cities. I 'm wondering if , a pool is a very attractive thing and I think it ' s smart to fence it but I don't know if 4 feet' s enough and when it talks about perimeter fences being 4 feet in height , I was going to check our code on fencing . Can fences be 4 feet on perimeters in all places on a perimeter of a yard? Olsen : As far as like on the front or corner? Emmings: Yes . Olsen : Yes , we have no restrictions on that . You just can' t block visibility. That' s why we have site plans like on a permit . Emmings: Yes , like on a perimeter or something? Olsen: Yes. That' s a good point . -- Emmings: And I supposed , it says it ' s located on property which is completely enclosed by perimeter fence and is what you have in mind there _ that at least the yard in which the pool is , that' s what will be enclosed? Olsen: Yes . Emmings : Okay. I just don ' t know about 4 feet . Conrad: I would think that 4 feet is going to keep your infants and toddlers out . Anybody that wants , it is an attractive nuisance no matter what and because it' s so attractive you' re going to scale, somebody that' s capable can scale a 6 foot as well as a 4 . My thought there was making sure that infants, toddlers and little younger children can' t easily get in . Emmings : And I 'm quibbling now but if that ' s the goal , do you want to designate the kind of fence? Should it be chainlink? If you have a picket fence with the pickets this far apart , it ' s not going to serve that purpose. _ Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 19 Olsen : That ' s true. Everybody just assumes that they always put chain link. Conrad : It probably should be Jo Ann. Olsen: I 'm just trying to think if there's other types of fencing than chain link that they use but I can check that . Conrad: Yes , we need your guidance on that but I think the chain link is really the way you want to fly. Ellson : I ' ve seen people do the slat board right next to each other so you can' t even see in. Erhart : Why don' t you define it in terms of someone who can ' t get through it somehow as opposed to chain. Just try to find some words that says can' t be penetratable by children . Conrad : Any other comments on this? Headla : I 'd like to ask a question that Steve was pursuing and that he forgot to ask but he was going to ask. What' s the intent of this? Ellson : She talked about that . Olsen: The intent of? Headla : Of this ordinance. Olsen : We' re deleting certain words from the existing ordinance that were difficult to define. Headla : But are we trying to keep out neighborhood children? Olsen: Right. It' s for the protection, yes . Headla : Okay, but if I had a swimming pool in my backyard and I got perimeter fencing all over the place. I 've got probably 3 fences on different spots , but somebody could come in my front gate or come in the back and if I had a party, that swimming pool wouldn' t have to be protected by this ordinance. Are we really trying to protect the swimming pool? If we are, then we should put limits on how far away that fence should be away from the swimming pool . Emmings : My thinking would be there Dave that if you have guests, you' re aware of it and if you don' t have your swimming pool fenced , you' ll be watching it. I think this is more to prevent the situation where somebody wanders onto the property or is attracted to the pool from off the property where you' re not aware of it. Headla : See that ' s what I was questioning . What is the real intent? Is it from people who reside outside the property? Are they protecting the pool from them? Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 20 _ Emmings: I think so. Headla : If that' s the intent , then I think the wording is appropriate. — Emmings: You let the people have that choice. You can either fence your pool to protect everybody who might be on the property or you can fence your whole yard if you want to have a more open feeling around your pool and I think that ' s an appropriate thing . Headla : But I 've seen patio fences in the immediate area of the pool . Ellson: I know people who have a big patio area and their yard and everything too so they've got all the lounge chairs. I 've seen it both — ways but I think more the other way. Conrad: Any other comments? — Erhart: What if the closest property is 1, 000 feet away? Conrad: That' s okay. — Ellson: But you don' t want that split rail kind of fence. There' s that one part about what the intent is . Conrad : A toddler can go 1,000 feet . Emmings: Okay, maybe I 've got an idea. We can just add language to the swimming pool fence section that says the fence shall be chainlink or something else approved by the City which will prevent children from entering the area of the pool . Maybe people want to design something that — doesn' t look as cold as chainlink and if they do, fine but let' s say you' re going to use chainlink unless you come up with something else that we approve. I think that'd be a good way to do it. Conrad : Barbed wire, does that work? Headla: That works. That will keep a kid away. I use a lot of . . . —' fencing and it looks good and you can put wood up on it on top of it . Aesthetically I like it better than chainlink. I 'm trying to think, do I want to support the wording of chainlink. Appropriate fencing but by — who' s definition. Wildermuth: We want it to limit access . That ' s what we should put . _ Fencing that effectively limits access . Emmings : I think by saying chainlink though, you get the idea across real clear. Put the burden on them to come up with something else that works . Conrad : Is chainlink a brand name? Emmings: No. How' s that for a simple answer. I have no idea . Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 21 Erhart : Are you looking for a motion? Conrad: I 'm looking for a motion on all of them. Ellson : What about the one we wanted to leave out? Erhart: I move that we recommend to the City Council the ordinance changes as outlined by staff for Section 20-3, regarding definition of density with the changes they recommend. Section 20-409, we' ll not include that one I guess . Section 20-441 , as recommended by staff . And Section 20-1021 as recommended by staff with the addition of definition of a chainlink fence unless otherwise approved by the City. With the addition of those words in that recommendation. Conrad : Is there a second? Emmings: Your motion includes chainlink? Wildermuth: I don' t think we should use the word chainlink. I think we should say fencing that effectively limits accessibility. Emmings: Well let' s second it. I ' ll second it for purposes of discussion. Erhart : Okay, then I 've just left item 2 off in my motion. Conrad: Jim's comment is not too specified. Chainlink, in your motion Tim, did you specify chainlink? Erhart : I specified chainlink unless otherwise approved by the City. That 's the words I used. Conrad : Then let' s get consensus on that wording . Steve, you' re comfortable with that. Annette? Ellson: I like it. Conrad : Jim, you' re not . Dave, where are you? Headla: I think Steve made the point that it should say chainlink is getting the point across . With that, I guess I 'd support that . Conrad: I think I 'd go along with that too. I think your comment is valid Jim. Ellson : We' re still giving him other options . Just because you might get the interpretation that to me this is not accessible. Emmings : I like the idea of shoving the people all the way over here and —' then have them show you why you should let them out. Conrad : Jo Ann , I trust you can specify what we' re trying to get at? Typically insurance really dictates what goes around a pool . I don' t Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 22 _ know, I struggle with why we' re doing this because typically you don' t have a pool unless you've got insurance and insurance tells you exactly what they want around that pool . Emmings: I didn' t think about that. Conrad : I always wonder why we mucky mucking around with this particular _ one when private industry is typically taking care of it. Erhart: When people come in , aren ' t they responding to an insurance requirement? What do they tell you? Olsen : There are quite a few pools out there without fences . Conrad: They don' t need to carry the insurance so this will take care of , you could go out and dig your own pool and put it in and basically I don' t think you'd have to have. . . — Erhart : You' re right . My insurance company wouldn' t even know. They don' t even ask that question. Emmings : Do you know what any of those insurance standards are? What they do require? That would be a real interesting thing to know. Conrad : Barbed wire to the height of 15 feet. I really don' t know. Elison: I think it has to be a locked fence. I think I knew somebody _ that was looking into that and they had to have a lock. It' s not just that they have to have a fence but it has to be locked. Emmings : No kidding . Olsen : Yes, that' s in here. That it has to be latched . Emmings: Latched on the inside, yes. But actually a lock. Elison: Someway that yes , not just any old person could figure out how to do your latch and turn it and lift it up. Conrad : Having a latch doesn ' t mean it' s locked . Ellson: Really. It could be just a lift up kind of thing . I recall it being pretty tough. Erhart : If we didn' t have this and some neighbor kid fell in the pool and drown, the City would be in a position of receiving quite a bit of criticism for not having such an ordinance. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Section 20-3 , definition of density as recommended by staff ; _ Section 20-441, enforcement of the wetland section as recommended by staff ; and Section 20-1021, swimming pool fences amended to include the Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 23 addition of the definition of a chainlink fence unless otherwise approved by the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad : Everything passes Jo Ann except the one that we need you to do a little bit more work on and bring it back to us and see how we think. NEW BUSINESS: Erhart : I ' ve got some new business . Can I introduce an idea here or do you want to wait until the end? Conrad : Sure . Go ahead . Erhart : Just a quick one. Is there any interest on, a couple meetings ago we heard a horror story about the utilities company, and I don' t believe it was NSP, I believe think it was Minnesota Valley Electric came in and clearcut a 50 foot wide path under a power line. I started thinking about that because I have a Minnesota Valley Electric powerline quite a few hundred feet through my property and I 've been trying to reforest this area . As I 've been planting trees every year and I started realizing this year for the first time, since they came out and did the same thing on my property, now since they did it on my property every 10 years, it hadn' t grown up to mature trees and what had grown, a lot had been box elders so I was a little bit upset about it but didn' t say anything and yeah, go ahead and I was too busy to leave the office and find out what they really wanted to do but once I really started looking at where I 'm planting these trees so I don' t get them under the power line and I don ' t think it' s wide enough to give them 50 feet so I probably have some of the trees that I 've planted are closer in than that but then I heard this horror story about this property out here where they came through and did that. I 'm just wondering if that's something, it so goes against the effort we made in preserving trees and so forth. Obviously you have to maintain power line clearances and so forth but I wonder if there isn ' t some happy median that we ought to be looking at or is it something that we just don't want to deal with. Emmings : I went out and looked at that. I was out at Camp Tanadoona and saw where they came through there and it' s just ridiculous. It' s just incredible overkill for the purpose that they' re trying to reach as far as I can tell . I don' t see why they should be able to do that. Wildermuth : Is that the width of their easement, 55 feet? Emmings: I 'm sure it must be and I think they should be able to take reasonable measures to make sure that in storms, that trees don' t fall ont he lines but it looks like ground zero at Nakisaki . Conrad : It ' s just devastating . It' s just such an overkill . Erhart: One of the things we could do is we could get NSP' s policy for this and find out if Minnesota Valley' s approach to this kind of thing is Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 24 — substantially different than NSP. Don, do you know what NSP' s policy is regarding going in and clearing for lines? Don Chmiel : Yes . Normal procedure is that if you have, depending upon — what the right-of-way is, and a line is put through that right-of-way. Say you have 60 feet of right-of-way, the power line takes up 30 feet of it, they have the right to clear up to the outer edges of that right-of-way but they can ' t go beyond any of that right-of-way. Erhart: But the question, what I was wondering , do they really do that though or do they try to take into consideration, do they try to minimize — the cutting? I guess that' s what I 'm. . . Don Chmiel : Yes . In normal procedures as we go through, we avoid wooded — areas as much as we possibly can. In some instances you can' t but in proper kinds of routings that you look at, when a company goes out to see where a line would go, those can be moved one way or the other. It' s always a routing process basically. Erhart: But in this case it was an existing line. Wildermuth: It probably also depends on the voltage a transmission line carries out. Don Chmiel : That' s correct and I think what they put in there was a distribution line if I 'm not mistaken. It was not a transmission line. Is that right? Erhart : I assumed this was a line that was serving those houses there. Don Chmiel : Then that' s a primary line rather than a transmission line. — Emmings : Yes . That' s what it looks like. Don Chmiel: How wide of a cut was it? I was going to look at it? Emmings : You should . It' s at least 50 feet . Everything is gone. Don Chmiel : How many conductors are on that line? How many wires? 1 or 3? Emmings : I don' t know. Don Chmiel : You don' t need that much clearance. Conrad: Jo Ann, what would you see as being the right way to pursue this? Olsen : I can look into what sort of, is there an easement? They might have total right to do anything. I can check and see if we can limit that or make them contact us before they do that or I ' ll see how far we can go . What kind of control they've got. _ Conrad : Is that the right first step? Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 25 Erhart : The first thing is to see if there' s any interest on the Commission level to spend any time on this thing and if we could just get the guy to contact us and we give him the pitch about trees and then obviously find out about what our level of authority is . Emmings : At Tanadoona they told us, they told me that after they did this they lost power out there because something did knock their line down. Ellson : So in other words it was for no good because if they hadn' t moved it and then 3 weeks after that . Emmings : That almost sounds like it was made up but that is what I was told. Ellson: I heard that too . Conrad : Is this a case where we can contact the power company and they may have a public relations person that could come in and talk to us? Olsen: Sure. I ' ll see if that necessary. They might just be able to send us their information. Conrad : I 'm a little bit sensitive to how you spend your time. We could give you a whole bunch of stuff and maybe a starting point would be to see if they have a public information officer or somebody who will not know the answers but might be able to address us . You could tell him or her what our comments and concerns are and maybe they could be prepared to address those issues . Emmings : And if they would come to a meeting too , it might be good to have somebody from that, a spokesperson from that neighborhood here also. Conrad : Tim Foster . Maybe he' s not in the neighborhood yet. Emmings : Somebody. Conrad : Most of it went through his land . I don' t know how much went through the property owner ' s land . Ellson: Well we have Minutes from the people who were commenting on it . Those types of people. Olsen : We ' ve got their names . Conrad : Okay. Any other new business? Any other old business? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated July 5, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 26 _ OPEN DISCUSSION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION, MARK KOEGLER. Koegler : Pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan and a couple of items that — we'd like to briefly discuss this evening . The first is a schedule that was handed out to you on the table. At the meeting that we discussed the Gotta case, we spun that off a discussion and threw together some land use information that was necessary for the comp plan and to thoroughly address that application as well . At that time that we stated contingent upon some things falling in line that we thought a land draft would be available in about 90 days . I guess I 'm pleased to be able to tell you — that things seem to be falling in line and we proposed a schedule that you' ve got in front of you and are asking you basically for approval of that tonight. The reason we' re kind of asking for approval , you notice it — shows an August 30th meetin and that is a special meeting that we would like to ,see with the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of addressing comprehensive plan issues . That happens to be the fifth Wednesday in the month of August so we pick up potentially another night, if we can tie up your time, that we think we could get quite a bit accomplished if that was the sole item on the agenda . We would ask consideration of that and then be ready on the 16th , coming back with — material on the socio-economic section and going into land use shortly thereafter . Conrad : Comments . Specifically August 30th , which is what Mark is asking. Anybody have a problem with having a special meeting? Headla : I ' ll be in Alaska . Conrad : You may have a problem with this meeting . Anybody concerned with the schedule that they see in front of you? -- Ellson : These things are going to be on the schedule in addition to our ongoing things right except for on the 30th, that will strictly be a — comprehensive plan . Erhart : We have a meeting on August 6th? Emmings: 2nd . Elison : Are we going to be making room for this purposely like maybe — putting off some of the other things or is this always going to be at the tail end? Do you know what I 'm saying? Like sometimes when it' s 2: 00 or whatever and we' re saying well we've got this comprehensive plan thing. I _ mean I 'd like it to be as important as item 1 all the time. Olsen: It' s been real hard to push off, when you have that application deadline and they get it in on time, it ' s been really hard to say well it's already full . Erhart : I ' ll agree to it if I can get a double per diem. — Conrad: Hey, Tim you can get triple. We' ll give you all of ours. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 27 Erhart : On the agenda , Mark, where are we discussuing , in this series of meetings, are we discussing land use of the rural area or is that outside? Koegler : No, we' re discussing everything pertaining to land use. All issues. Spinning off of that, we assume that's a go, also at the time the Gorra request came up for the addition to the MUSA line, that request was subsequently joined shortly thereafter by the American Legion, if you recall , who wanted to add about 5 or 6 acres additionally. Prior to that time in conversation with Steve Hanson, there was a decision that was made that the comprehensive plan should take a more thorough look at the MUSA line expansion issue than perhaps it had been to date. Parallel to that, I was recently contacted by a couple of groups who have interests in, particularly the corridor along TH 5 and certainly have some vision of what they desire to see happen there most of which requires sanitary sewer service. In order to kind of apprise you of the status of things and basically let' s get everything out in the open so to speak to begin with. In meeting with Jo Ann and meeting with these individuals, it was felt that it would be beneficial tonight to allow them to provide just a brief commentary to you just to kind of orient you to what their interests are. Some of the properties they represent and kind of basically introduce you to some of the faces that I 'm sure we' ll be monitoring fairly closely the activities that go on as we continue in conformance with this schedule. John Shardlow I think is here tonight and two other gentlemen, Bob Morehouse and Paul Napier . Both of these groups have been invited to give you a brief orientation as to who they are. Who they represent and what some of their thoughts are. We would suggest that again this is part of setting the stage for what we' re going to launch into come the month of August and would encourage the Commission to listen to that and take that into account. So with that , Mr . Chairman I 'd suggest however they want to start, with either John or Bob or Paul . John Shardlow: Good evening . My name is John Shardlow and I 'm one of the principles with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. We are planning consultants with offices in Minneapolis and we serve as planning consultants to a number of cities in the metropolitan area and also represent private developers before communities representing them and requesting development approval . I 'm here specifically tonight on behalf of the property owners that are shown in the rose color on the exhibit that ' s in front of you and I 'm going to make my comments very, very brief . We did talk to Mark and appreciate the time that he took in meeting with us , to talk about the fact and recognition of the fact that the City is taking a closer look at the comprehensive plan . We would like to play an active role in the process to try to assist you in looking at the advantages of looking at a comprehensive planning strategy that would change the MUSA line and provide sanitary sewer service along the TH 5 corridor. Just very briefly, I think there are a number of advantages that are presented by that area. First of all , from a land use standpoint, the vast majority of the land owners out there are looking at an industrial office park type of a land use that is not in competition with downtown Chanhassen. It' s also a logical progression of the development pattern that' s already existed in Chaska with the Arbor Park and the Jonathon West Industrial Park and a logical extension over time of the industrial development that ' s already Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 28 — occurred in Chanhassen along that corridor . It is for the most part removed from existing neighborhoods and the City of Chanhassen which avoids questions of capatibility of use and so forth. It also presents the opportunity over time to accomplish and capture a very significant tax — base. I did some calculations , just very rough and very preliminary but also very conservative. You' ve got approximately 900 acres shown in that rose color in front of you and obviously it has to be a staged development pattern and done in an orderly fashion and there' s a whole lot of discussion that needs to take place, but with very conservative estimates as to percentage of lot coverage, building value and so forth, I see about 315 million dollars worth of assessed valuation out there which breaks — down to about 15 million dollars in annual taxes. It' s the type of land use that we find from our experience doesn' t require a lot of municipal services and is a very good rateable in the sense that it doesn' t require — a lot of services and yet contributes greatly to the tax base . We also have an opportunity since all of these people are willing to work together with us as their representatives , to work in a meaningful way with you to — try to plan that area as a cohesive unit and not be bound necessarily by lot lines and topography and so forth, other constraints. We' ve got the opportunity to look at a large scale planned unit development. Look at perhaps more stringent controls on building materials and landscaping and — lighting and signage and the other things that communities look at in terms of community aesthetics. We realize that this is at least a 2, if not a 3 step process if you look at it in the broad base. Obviously the — first goal that we have is to convince the City of Chanhassen that it makes sense to change your current comprehensive planning strategy and look at trying to sewer this area . Then there ' s the whole interest of the — Metropolitan Council and issues related to the extension of the MUSA line. We have a burden of proof in this process of convincing you that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and then once that has been accomplished , to work together with you to try and carry the ball to the — Metropolitan Council and assist in providing the type of information that obviously will be required in order to accomplish those policy changes . When you look at moving the MUSA line, I think some things that argue in favor of this type of change are certainly the amount of dollars that have already been planned to be spent on TH 5. That' s consistent with the Metropolitan Council ' s strategy of trying to be prudent about where Metropolitan investment is in getting the most bang for our buck if you — will . So I think there are some arguments and some good logical arguments that could be advanced as part of that process. I should also be candid and straight forward in saying that one of the interested parties is Mills — Fleet Farm. You may have heard that around the community that there is an interest on the part of Mills Fleet Farm in locating in the northwest quandrant, excuse me northeast quadrant of TH 5 and TH 41. They have been — involved as a part of this group and we also realize the sensitivity in the City of Chanhassen for competition with the downtown area. We feel quite clearly after the review that we' ve done, that Mills Fleet Farm is not the type of a commercial use that would be a threat to the downtown type of commercial development . Again, that ' s our burden of proof and it's for information to be brought to meetings outside of this meeting . We really think given the type of market and the scale of market that a — Mills Fleet Farm has, that they become a destination, and actually bring people to the community and would be a net benefit but again I 'm not going Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 29 to preach that to you tonight . I'm just going to tell you that we recognize that as our burden of proof. There probably would be in the long range scenario the desire for some very limited service oriented commercial as part of that overall development but the vast majority of the development that we would talking about would be in the indudstrial park and office park type of land use. That' s really it. I guess we' re coming here hoping that this is a timely point in your process to ask for the opportunity to participate in some meaningful way as you deliberate these important decisions for the future. Bob Morehouse: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, I 'm Bob Morehouse and I 'm a local real estate broker that' s been active in the area for the last 34 years. We' re representing primarily 2 of the landowners on parcels that have recently been sold on the south side of TH 5. The Mary Welter Farm comprised of 137 acres and the property known as the Butler property on the west side of CR 117 . About all I can say after Mr . Shardlow' s excellent statement is amen because this is basically the main thrust of our effort is to petition for the extension of the MUSA line in an orderly fashion and the enhancement of Chanhassen I think is going to be a natural outcome of a reasonable extension of the MUSA line due to the broadening of the tax base that' s inherent in the development we hope to bring in. We' ve been approached by a number of outstanding corporate users that are sincerely interested in the area and one of the ingredients that we find lacking is enough industrial or business park land to offer these people the kind of corporate sites they' re actually looking for . I guess that ' s about all we have to say at this meeting except that we sure appreciate any questions that the Commission would have regarding any of the sales efforts or any of the contacts that have been made to us and through us and we just look forward to working in uni.som with the commission and with the City of Chanhassen for the fullest and best use of everybody involved. Thank you. Emmings: Could I ask just one question? Conrad: Sure . Emmings : Are the people that have approached you, are they looking for sites for , you say it was corporate headquarters. Is it manufacturing type of facilities or is it office building type? Bob Morehouse: Well I think they are composed of both of these things . I think most of the things that the people that have contacted us would be putting installations that would be virtually under roof with practically no outside storage of any kind . They'd be the kind of style buildings that I think would be a credit to Chanhassen and this is one area that we' re vitally interested in. We' re very anxious to see that corridor which is going to be a showcase for Chanhassen and if we all pull together and get together and make the serious effort to see that that corridor of TH 5 as it' s four laned out to TH 41, does become the kind of showcase that I envision Chanhassen will be forever proud of it and that ' s the thing that we have to do in working together to see that this does transpire and it can be done. It ' s just a matter of the will and the effort and the union between all the entity groups that are working Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 30 _ towards that end . I know we can accomplish big things if we just put our — mind to it. We can have the kinds of industrial campus like arrangements that the City will be proud of. Wildermuth : Does the change to the MUSA line that you' re proposing involve any residential construction? Bob Morehouse : I think that that' s incorporated within the rose colored area that was on Mr. Shardlow' s map. I think that the Michael Gorra property would be largely a residential effort and the way I understand Mike' s thrust would be upper bracket type housing is what Mr. Gorra — envisions on most of his property. I think that the TH 5 frontage would perhaps have to come under some form of PUD standard that would be maybe other than residential but I think his main thrust is for the nice — residential on the whole Lake Ann area there. There are possibilities in the PUD effort on some of these other parcels to incorporate some form of residential , maybe multi-family would be something that should be looked — at . Wildermuth : I should tell you where I 'm coming from. I categorically I guess coming in tonight, I 'm opposed to any effort to extend the MUSA line — beyond the Met Council ' s recommendation in the year 2000 except for IOP, industrial office park reasons . Bob Morehouse: Well this is of course our main, this is where Paul Napier and myself put most of our efforts. I don' t know how many of you are aware of it but we' ve been working very diligently for the last 4 years _ almost exclusively in the Chanhassen-Chaska area. I have a long tenure of activity in the real estate business in the City of Eden Prairie and was largely responsible for some of the early on industrial activity there. I sold the former Charlyn site years ago to Buck Charleston and I also sold — the MTS site down there and the Water Products site and some of those other locations . This is the end of the business that we love and recognize that we've got to have residential too but we' re primarily — interested in the IOP effort . Thank you. Koegler : My only other comment Mr . Chairman in closing this item, would be that as John referenced the question on the timeliness of this and I — think certainly I would hope everybody recognizes it is very timely. There is a parallel as to what transpired in this city back in about 1978 when Ed Dunn came forward with the PUD that was largely residential at that time with the industrial component . It was , John would probably remember , he was involved , 2, 000+ acres so we have a parallel in that time I think the chief advantage of that proposal coming forward at the time it did was it led a concrete example of everything we were discussing and hopefully we' ll have that benefit once again . I think if it ' s in the City's best interest and it' s determined to be in the City' s best interest , to expand the IOP sewered area , we' re going to need some — supporting documentation that perhaps some of these people can perhaps provide in terms of market forces and so forth that ultimately. . . Metropolitan Council so I don' t know, none of us can sit here tonight and — say that all of our interests will be exactly in parallel with one another but I think we' re all definitely headed generally in the same direction Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 31 and certainly welcome some of the input that they will provide. Bob Morehouse: Mr. Chairman, can I just interject at this point. We are prepared to dig in with the engineering and all the data that we have already compiled and data that will be forth coming as we progress along this effort so we will be most happy to accommodate the Commission and the City of Chanhassen with anything that we have. Conrad : That ' s good . I 'm sure we' ll use your input . I think it' s helpful as we try to decide how we' re developing Chan. I think you obviously have a vested interest but I think from the sounds of your presentation tonight, you sound quite competent and if we decide to extend the MUSA line, it' s nice to have some advocates out there that can provide us with information to go to the Met Council with. I think almost every word you bring up brings questions to mind . How do you develop and it gets a little bit mind boggling and how much planning can we do and we' re concerned about taxes and we' re concerned about residential and we' re concerned about environment and how they all mesh and we' re also concerned about TH 5 and we' re not really wild about bringing too many more people on TH 5 until the highway is upgraded so a lot of situations that we have to mesh together and it ' s an imperfect system we' ve got but I think, I 'm impressed by the comments you made tonight and it' s good to have you out here and looking at it. Bob Morehouse : One further remark that I 'd like to make is , I just thought of this and it' s vitally important on something that you just said about bringing the people, the traffic on TH 5. Bear in mind that when we sold the McGlynn site, Paul and myself, that ' s been almost 2 years ago and they still are not completed and the lead time necessary to get these installations, these large corporate users in place is sometimes anywhere from 2 to 3 years and some of the companies that have approached us and are interested in the area are thinking in terms of not moving in for 2 years or more so I just want to leave that thought in the Commission' s mind that time is of the essence because we need that lead time. . . Conrad : Mark, what else? Koegler : That ' s all Mr . Chairman on that topic . We will proceed then in accordance with the schedule that I outlined earlier. Conrad : It may be a good time to bring up and I probably should have done it under old business. It relates to Don' s comments back on the City revenue and land use. Did everybody read this , Don' s comments? Erhart: I read it again just before I came. I thought it was excellent. Conrad : It' s kind of fun to go through the data . Erhart: Yes , that data was the good part. It ' s surprising . Conrad : In summary Don says , hey we can ' t apply any formula to what we' ve got going here and how the balance, revenue and expense and I believe that Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 32 — but on the other hand it' s certainly interesting to see what costs money and what brings in money. It' s a strategy you know and it' s that kind of stuff that helps us decide what we want. When there is a cost of putting in multiple unit dwellings and I think it' s intriguing to see what that is and it' s not that you want to rule them out but you've got to know that there's a price tag attached and if there's a price tag attached to that, you have to make sure that there is compensating balance. The bottom line _ after reading this, I don' t know that Don expects us to, I guess Jo Ann I 'm not looking and I 'm going to open it up to other members here . I'm still intrigued by what he said. I 'm not looking for a formula from him and I 'm not looking for , to hire some PhD' s to come up with the Chanhassen formula but I guess I 'm looking for some of this kind of input as we go into the planning process where somebody comes in and rezones 2, 000 acres to IOP, it' s kind of fun to see what that could mean financially. I — guess I 'm interested in what people think would be the next step on what Don said in back. Are there any comments? Tim, based on what Don said, do you have any need to know information besides this? Erhart: I think, in the first place I was really surprised at the data. Not at the direction but to the extent of the numbers . Considering how much and then more recently I started looking at buildings in the — industrial area here and what we pay, what currently pay for taxes . I never really looked at it until just recently and I was absolutely shocked at how much commercial and industrial businesses pay for taxes . — Wildermuth: And how little they require in the way of services comparatively. — Erhart : Yes , well basically. Not only that , I was more taken back just recently when a friend of ours was looking at buying a house down here on Riley Lake Woods until he found out what the taxes were on that house . I — just couldn' t believe it. I figured they had to make a mistake but it's a 2 1/2 acre house and it' s a big house and the value is $350, 000. 00 which I don't understand who can pay those kinds of monies for houses but besides — all that, the taxes were $10,000. 00 a year which exceeds my monthly house payments. But anyway, I mean $10,000. 00 a year taxes for a house is just, I don ' t know. I guess anyway, without trying to make a case , what it' s telling me is that I know we have high taxes just in our average house here in the City it ranges from $3,000. 00 to $4 , 000. 00 a household . We' re right at the top level in the metropolitan area. I also know that there' s people who want to come into this city with additional offices and — industrial and that we' re getting to the point where there isn' t much land left to give us a whole lot of flexibility in trying to attract those people when in fact we have I think Todd Gerhardt here, one of his major _ job responsibilities is to try to attract industry into the city so on one hand we' re trying to attract industry and then on the other hand we don' t have a lot of space. You take that and combine it with the tax problem and everything and then add this data on top of it, it clearly indicates to me that we ought to immediately go in the direction of trying to get some, try to increase our commercial and industrial tax base in this city over the next 5 years if possible. Certainly not to restrict it which I — think we' re approaching. I think that' s what we' re approaching at this point so I thought the data was very good in combining with real world Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 33 experience here, it' s clear to me what we ought to be doing . Conrad: Anybody else with comments in where to go and what to do? Wildermuth : I 'd like to see an analysis like this done for Chanhassen but I 'm not so sure that it really is required once you have an analysis for an area like Lakeville . I think the example is there. Emmings: It confirms what we've kind of been told and have suspected all along so I think we' re thinking right and that ' s it ' s value to me. He said this is too simplistic but I 'm real happy to have it and I think it's right . Wildermuth: I think the data was a lot more revealing and constructive than the cover letter. After I read the cover letter I thought, oh wow. Conrad : We' re not going to find out anything . Wildermuth: We' re not going to find out anything. Conrad : The only thing that I saw, and is it worth while? Is it worth while, do we have questions that we'd like to, as we get into planning and zoning and passing things up to City Council , are there still further financial things that we could ask Don if we had him to a meeting? I guess I 'm looking for anymore input that we need as we try to glop zones together on the next map. I have one question. As residential grows by a thousand , the next thousand , are there any hidden expenses? Ellson: New fire truck? Conrad : What are those things. Wildermuth : When do we get into a full time police department? When do we get into a full time fire department rather than volunteers? Conrad : Yes , and what that tells me is how we zone things or how much more, and maybe we' re getting too fine in some of the thinking but what' s hidden out there that goes in these big increments . It ' s not the next 3 houses that push you over but another thousand houses . Are we expecting , is there a big increase in taxes due for some magic reason? Those are the things that I 'm kind of intrigued in. Erhart: There' s got to be a balance to this thing . Obviously from this data , the perfect city would be one great big industrial park. Ellson: And my house. Erhart : And a few administrators around to collect the taxes and obviously cities don' t do that so there must be some other end of the spectrum that says you don ' t have, there must be something that planners can tell us why and how much land we should look to industrial or how much industrial tax base do we want for the ideal city because we' re only looking at the tax standpoint. There' s got to be another . . . Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 34 — Wildermuth : I think we just saw an example of what we should be looking at and that is the TH 5 corridor . On both sides for what, I don't know, a quarter of a mile probably ought to be IOP because you sure don' t want, I — certainly wouldn't want to see any other kind of zoning, or any IOP type of zoning down around where your property is Tim. Emmings: I think that' s a perfect corner for it. In fact, I intend to make a motion to that effect . Conrad : I guess what I 'd still like to propose Jo Ann is that we get Don to one of our meetings , the early part of the meeting so we can just, and Mark might be there too . We may be asking good questions Mark, just by chance, we may ask something that might dictate where we go zoning wise, — especially on that TH 5 corridor because of the MUSA line and obviously the commercial use of that but I think the first step, this is interesting stuff and I think maybe if we took a half an hour with Don, that might give us some. Olsen: He' s always offered to come. He' s here tonight he said if you want to have him come down. — Conrad : Let' s not do it tonight but let' s do it before, let' s sync it in with the schedule of updating the Comprehensive Plan. — Olsen : You might get him in on the special meeting and that would give us time. Erhart : Are we going to get into some discussion tonight or this is it? Olsen: On the blending ordinance? -- Erhart: No, I mean on this planning thing . Koegler : No. That wasn' t our intent. Erhart : I have questions about John Shardlow' s map there relating to what you said Jim now. The year 2000 MUSA line does not go below TH 5 isn ' t that correct? Koegler : Until you get to the McGlynn site. — Erhart: I 'm talking about that area that' s excluded currently. Koegler : Correct . Erhart : Now these fellows are coming in here. Emmings: It doesn' t even go down to TH 5. Erhart : Right , it doesn' t even go. — Emmings: Some of it. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 35 Erhart : So you' re saying that this Chanhassen line that we' ve always been, that I 've been looking at for 4 years is basically, we' re taking a complete fresh look at this . Obviously because what these guys are proposing is even beyond that and so is it in your mind conceiveable that we would enclose a little area north of TH 5 that wouldn' t be in the MUSA line or are you suggesting that we' re going to go to Met Council with a MUSA line extension that basically goes down to TH 5 plus this industrial area or what's your thinking Mark? Koegler : It ' s premature for me to sit here and tell you that at least from a staff point of view in putting this together that we could support a wholesale expansion of the MUSA line just as it was shown tonight . That may or may not be true. The other statement though that you made Tim that I would pick up on was kind of what I think you were eluding to is kind of a donut hole. We end up with an area that was not in the MUSA line north of TH 5 and possibly have some in the south of TH 5 and my initial reaction to that is is that probably wouldn' t happen. What you might have is a MUSA line that encompasses both of those areas but within the framework of the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan, which is related very closely to the land use element , we' re required to show in 5 year increments how sewer service is going to be extended into new trunk sewer service areas and to phase it in that way. The MUSA line will be ultimate framework of 2000 or 2010 or whatever date we' re looking at and then have these 5 year blocks , if you will , that have some more progressive kind of approaches as to how those areas are serviced. A large degree of it is going to be simply due to where utilities exist right now and which way is the most prudent way to expand those. As a result of the property that' s south of the McGlynn site being added to the MUSA line, it appears as though that with some sewer improvements done in that area , it may service some of the area west of the McGlynn with with a lift station down in that area. Again , those kind of things we' ll look at in detail and be able to come back and say that if you've made the fundamental decision first of all that we need more IOP, these are the areas that make sense initially to look at that. Erhart: Yes , along TH 5. Headla : I ' ve got a question for you Mark. This whole area here . If we make a decision not to support their request, what's your best guess when that would be sewered? Koegler : The standard response to that is what I ' ll give you for now pending any further investigation but the sewer plan that the City adopted when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted , showed most of the area needing to be serviced by the Lake Riley Interceptor that eventually would be constructed up along Bluff Creek, the Bluff Creek Interceptor excuse me, and come on up through, kind of the southern up to the northwest portion of the community. You should be aware, I think there are some viable options for servicing some of that property and that is , in a joint powers agreement potentially with the City of Chaska where the landowners to see if there was interest in Chaska and Chanhassen to have Chaska annex part of Chanhassen . You' re talking about possibilities over the next 20 years , Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 36 those are possibilities . The industrial park that was referenced along TH 41, I presume just a cursory review, you could extend some of the utilities northward into Chanhassen and serve some of the Chanhassen property that way. -' Headla : But if we don' t do anything, when do you think there 'd be sewer? Koegler: I don' t really have a date. We have always talked after 2010 and who knows , maybe it ' s 2050. Headla : Then the other question is , if we would decide to support this and it got approved, when do you think that sewer lines would go through there? What ' s the lead time for all this to happen? Koegler : Again, that would be largely at the control of the City of Chanhassen through the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan that you would identify the areas that based on market conditions, based on finance, _ based on ability to construct new utility lines , certain increments would be brought in over say the 1990-1995 period. 1995-2000. 2000-2205 and so forth. So I think that largely would be back at the City' s control if and when you get the overall approval to include that in the MUSA line. -' Headla : So it could happen by 1995 or 1996? Koegler: Portions of it could, yes . Erhart: Why is that little loop on the top TH 5 you say a Bluff Creek _ Interceptor , why not the area also to the west of it out to Lake Minnewashta? Koegler : That falls in that same category, if we' re talking about the same thing. The Mills Fleet Farm site is an example. Erhart : Yes , I know. The line that Dave showed there. Headla: We' re talking this area right in here now? Erhart: Yes . Now what ' s to the west of that though? Koegler : The Zimmerman piece and all of that? Erhart: Yes . How do you see that served? Koegler: The plan as it sits right now shows that being served again by _ this future interceptor sewer . Erhart : So it ' s only the land to the north and to the east of that that will be using the Lake Ann Interceptor? Koegler : Well , the caveat that I always throw out here that I think you do have to keep in mind is that all of those decisions for the last 10 years have been based on the 10 foot contours that the City has had available. At the present time , most of the City has been flown and Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 37 contours are being developed at 2 foot intervals for a great deal of the — community. That may shed some new light on what is actually serviceable through gravity sewer to different areas potentially going out to this new interceptor. So it has been based on gravity flow and gravity flow up to and including now it says that has to go into a new interceptor . Erhart: I guess it would seem inconceiveable to me that we would somehow put industrial/commercial on, I don' t see how we can restrict industrial/ commercial along TH 5 until the year 2050. Koegler : You' re going to receive a great deal of pressure. You are now. Erhart: Yes . Emmings : We forsaw, you' ve drawn a plan already that showed , we' ve looked at plans that you've drawn that show that kind of development along there already. It isn ' t like it' s a surprise . Conrad: The surprise is the people wanting it. Emmings : I 'm also surprised that they all got together and are coming in here. Headla : There ' s one little spot that they didn' t get . This area right in here. If you get the rest , why wasn ' t that included? It would be the property going strictly east from the Tanadoona Road. Erhart : They didn' t have the property right adjacent to , what is that CR 117? Conrad : That' s going to be a green area . Erhart: It seems to be driven, again having that loop again when it now appears it doesn ' t make sense seems to be driven by this gravity flow thing and how important is that or is that just something we've hung on hat on a few years ago? Why not have, I mean right now we have what , 30 lift stations in the city of Chanhassen? Why not plan for lift stations? If it makes more sense to develop land along current arterials and logical places from a transportation standpoint to have industrial property, why weigh so heavily on lift stations when it ' s something we've already accepted it as part of our sewer system? �- Koegler : There are probably two reasons for that . The major one has been a policy side at the Metropolitan Council level . It goes back to that they would recognize that just as you got into some arguments over the years with properties adjacent to the existing MUSA line, the intent originally was if it can be served by gravity sewer , it should be included in the line because that didn' t require the construction of new trunk facilities which was one of their concerns. That has historically been a major policy issue. The minor thing is exactly the point that you referenced that ideally you would develop the property without lift stations because there are 30 or whatever the number is currently in the Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 38 — city and those are a constant maintenance problem so if you can , you avoid those. Conrad : Okay. Let' s talk blending . -' Koegler : Interesting topic. Blending was a topic that I first became familiar with a while ago. I think Tim gave me a copy of his ordinance — draft. We had agreed to try to get something together on that and then Steve was retained and I think the intention was that Steve was going to follow up on that and now given what' s transpired it's fallen back in my camp, which is fine. I sat down to look at this and had intended to put together a draft and the way I started with that was to play with sketching up a couple of things in some areas and I picked some sites adjacent to other properties where I knew they were larger lots and would — be developing and I quickly realized that there still are a lot of general kinds of thinking that I needed to get back from you. Some of the parameters that you' re looking at . Some of the exact things that you wish _. to accomplish by this ordinance. Focusing on the two drafts that have been put together , both of which certainly are workable, they vary in a number of areas. They vary with regard to the lot size that each of them recognize. Tim' s approach takes a distance of 200 feet where Bill ' s approach, if I interpret it correctly, he's only concerned with lots that are adjacent to new development . As I looked at this , the one issue that I began to ponder was eventually will you get into having to blend with -- blended lots . What I mean by that is , right now if you' ve got a property that' s adjacent to a 30, 000 square foot lot and you require a 29,000 square foot lot or whatever , the guy with the 30,000 can come back and — potentially split that legally under your ordinance into two 15' s and then where are we? So I think some general thinking on where this is going to apply needs to be offered. The A-2 zone for example with 2 1/2 acre lot sizes, is blending going to be required there? We need to address I think — the intent which I think is pretty clear but obviously that has to be part of the statement of the ordinance that ultimately we go with . Then another topic that as I looked at it I don' t think probably was addressed, — was the whole issue of abutting lot lines . Just to talk about lot size to a certain degree doesn' t necessarily give the buffering that I think you' re trying to achieve. If you look at lots , I ' ll take Greenwood Shores as an example but don' t use that necessarily as a strict example, those — lots are maybe 200-250 feet long in some areas . Do you want to allow developments that potentially can align 3 maybe single family homes backing up to that 1 lot? Does that accomplish what you want to do even — though those lots might be 23,000 square feet or whatever the number may be? Seemingly, if you' re going to look at this issue , there should be some relationship regarding to unit placements and lot lines so the guy — doesn ' t have, if you' re trying to protect the large property that ' s there now, should he be looking at 3 homes or should he be looking at 1 home with maybe a different shaped lot that more closely matches the size of the lot that the current house is on. So those are just some of the very — general issues that I guess I was pondering as I was going through this and prior to trying to wade into this and put a draft together so the material would welcome any comments that you have, thoughts that you have — on some of these items. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 39 Ellson : It can ' t be done . Koegler : I should add to that , that I have probably got on file in our office somewhere in the neighborhood of I 'm guessing 40 to 50 zoning ordinances for Twin City communities and other metro area communities that we work in. I did not find in a review of those ordinances, anybody that does this outside of having language in a PUD ordinance that sets the framework for trying to match conditions around the periphery sites and so forth. That ' s not to say it doesn ' t exist somewhere. We' ll look a little further. I have not yet found another community that has the blending ordinance that we could say here it is guys . Cross off blending city and insert Chanhassen and we've got it so we' re kind of inventing the wheel here for the first time. Ellson: And it sounds like it' s awful hard to do. Conrad : Yes. Your questions in this area real relevant and I can' t imagine we' re going to get concurrence on any of the stuff . We typically can figure it out here. I just don't know how it' s going to go through City Council and to what degree of depth we want to get in. I 'm going to start it off just by talking about what I perceive to be the purpose Mark and I guess I ' ll just start it off so that everybody can have something to base their own comments on but my perception has always been a need to protect the older neighborhoods. As we see certain size lots , which are typically smaller coming in, I always felt it was unfortunate that we took away their community and imposed a brand new one on them. Yet we always had an ordinance that said 15, 000 square foot and you can do it so my general feeling is to somehow temper the ability of a new neighborhood to sit on an old neighborhood or house so that we don't take away that community, that neighborhood that the previous resident was there. That that previous resident had. The only other thought that I had, so I 'm not looking at new stuff on new stuff , I think the A-2 district becomes a real intriguing deal and I could figure that one out. That one just sort of is mind boggling to me and primarily I kept thinking , there' s so many variables I want to stay away from it. That was where I came from there but I also want a simple ordinance. I don' t think I want an ordinance that just is so difficult and restrictive that we need a staff to interpret what it' s saying . That was my philosophic reason for wanting a blending ordinance. I guess I ' ll open it up for comments. Tim, you' re obviously concerned with this but anybody else who 'd like to react to what I said and then maybe we can take some of Mark's points and go through them and see if we philosophically have any kind of a basis to direct him. Wildermuth: Tim, I agree with you. I think we ought to be looking at abutting lots . With your initial proposal , I think we ought to be looking at abutting lots and I think we ought to be looking at something like abutting lots being within 75% of the adjacent existing lot. I don' t think we can get into lot lines and abutting lot lines. I think it' s just such a nightmare. Erhart : Yes , let me respond real quick, if I can interrupt . I tried to define a process to gradually, if you have large lots, how to gradually get the lots , require them to be larger than adjacent and gradually as you Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 40 — go away they can get down to our 15,000 foot and I used this , this is a — typical engineer 's way of doing this kind. It's a mathematical way to do it. I 'm not saying at all it' s the best way to do it and for a non-engineer , these kinds of things I 've learned through 20 years of being — in sales , are very difficult for non-engineers to perceive what you' re trying to do here but I 've tried it in a number of examples and it does work if you go through it . It' s a process but the parameters are totally _ open to discussion. It' s essentially the process of what you describe . It can be 75%. You can change 75% each level . Only by changing the constance, that 300 there will dictate what the blend rate is. If you _ want a faster blend rate , you change that number to 150 or 250. If you want a slower blend rate, which I don' t care what it is, you increase the size of that number and it will come out . The other thing is that I 've already, by fact of limiting the, you set a max limit of 25,000 square — feet as the number that you use for one of these lots when you calculate this thing. By doing that, you limit the size of the new. If you limit this requirement so it isn ' t so restrictive and again that 25, 000 square — feet is arbitrary. Wildermuth: Right but I would say that probably ought to be 30, 000 square feet. . . Erhart : The effect of that constant would be, if you had a whole bunch of lots 2 1/2 acres as opposed to a whole bunch of lots that were 25,000 — square feet, the effect of this would be none because you even include the 100,000 square foot lot, you calculate it as 25, 000. So it takes into consideration that at some point you just can ' t, you don' t want to blend _ at some point. The constant, if you' re going to use this process, we have to talk about what these constants are. I'm not advocating this process . I think it' s one that I would naturally introduce being an engineer but I believe it will work but I 'm not sure it' s the best kind of thing you want to put in our zoning ordinance but I only offer it as, I think it' s a workable one . I hope we will come up with one that was more easier to understand by the people using this ordinance. I ' ll make it clear , I 'm not advocating it . Headla : Let me make a couple comments . I tested your formula at both end of the extremes and it seemed to make sense. The formula. I look back, — what are we trying to accomplish and what did lead to it. Didn' t one of the things that really percipitated was up in this Murray Hill area? Real nice homes here and then this other development came in. We' re trying to — use square feet as a common denominator. I don' t think that' s a good yard stick. We jump at it because it' s easily measureable. Up in Murray Hill , they put in some nice homes but you' ve got some large properties with some nice homes. I can think of a couple properties there that they' re going to be developed . Those people, you could split that into 15, 000 square foot lots and have the beautiful homes and be a real asset to that same neighborhood . If we put in the blending restriction , they wouldn' t be — able to do that so we' re really holding back some areas with the yardstick we' re trying to measure and do we really want to do that? Erhart: Your point of this question was whether we want to have a blending ordinance at all? Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 41 Headla: Yes . Erhart : We' re responding to, I can remember two examples of this since I 've been on here where we came in with a new 15,000 square foot subdivision and then I think in one case it was a PUD so some of them were less than that and the neighbors came in and complained that gee whiz we all have 22, 000 square foot lots and this is devaluating our property. I thought that' s what we were responding to. Headla : I think we all reacted positively that we should come up with some type of blending thing. That was the surface cut at it. We looked at the advantages , not the disadvantages . I was trying to look at different places in the community and then when we started talking about maybe one place is going to be adjoining 2 or 3 pieces of other property, how do we, we' re seeming to be very interested in control rather than what are we really trying to accomplish . Erhart : What does that do to a neighborhood that ' s got predominance of 30,000 square foot lots and one of them, through his own good planning , decides to split his in half so you' ve got two 15,000 square foot lots in the midst of 20,000-30,000 square foot lots. Is that good or bad? Headla : Neither . What if that guy puts up a half a million dollar home and has a well groomed yard? Conrad : He probably won' t do that. That' s not realistic. The neighbors wouldn' t like that. The neighbors bought the neighborhood. They bought the 30, 000 square foot lots . Headla: I don' t know. I think they'd like that . Wildermuth : With the blending ordinance , he couldn' t do that . Headla: That's right. Wildermuth : He couldn' t split his 30,000 square foot lot . Headla: And I think we ought to leave that open. Conrad : So you don' t want a blending ordinance? Headla : Not the way these are structured. I think a thought went into them and I looked and I looked at it and I thought they were starting to make sense and then I went back to how they were doing it and I went back to Murray Hill and I thought dog gone it , those people have the right to develop it and it' s just going to be beautiful homes in there, do we really want to limit that? I did a lot of back peddling . Emmings: The people who live on Murray Hill sure wanted to. Who live there now. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 42 — Conrad : But the fact is , in the few years that I 've been here, there' s no new development. Realistically, every development that comes in is smaller than the neighborhood previous development . I just don' t know of many cases, well there are a couple but there are not many. They' re — always smaller and they' re always , the neighbors are always sitting out here saying why are you letting these people do that? Don' t you have any standards? And we said, our standard is, that ' s right , there goes the — neighborhood and our standard is our zone and it's 15, 000 square feet. That' s it. They said, there' s got to be more than that . Dave, that ' s just group after group that says that so the logic of this one is, well — we' re not going to, obviously the economics are different these days but typically as you bring in new PUD' s or new developments, what we can do is we can buffer that old development with at least 1 ring or 1 house of a transition type of zoning or a blending which is what we' re talking about — here. We' re talking about a 1 house blend or a 200 feet blend , whatever it might be. I don't know, maybe it' s a 100 foot blend, to somehow get it away from that old neighborhood until you put in 15,000 square foot lots. — I think that's what we' re reacting to. And you bring up some points and they' re valid so the task here is, is there anything that ' s simple that allows the old neighborhoods to be protected. . . Emmings : I like much better the way you just said it then the way you did when you started out. When you started out you talked about in terms of protecting the old neighborhood and I don ' t think we ought to think about — it in terms of protecting anybody. I think we ought to think of it in terms of doing what we do all the time and that is providing transitions from one thing to another . If you think about it that way, because I also — think that what you just said about , I think of this coming up most often in terms of larger developments where you ' re doing a bunch of acres. Up here where they did it around that pond when Boyt and Johnson got. active in city politics here. A lot of those issues involved blending there as I — recall too . I think if you have the outer perimeter of any development like that so that those lots maybe with a cap of an acre for the lot you' re blending to , the lot next to it shouldn' t be smaller than 60% of — it' s size or something like that. I don't understand Tim' s formula . I need a math guide but if we could work out something like this , I think it would be good to have something like this in the ordinance because the _ people who are going to be looking at it are engineers and if there' s something that will express our intent clearly, then I think it would be a good thing to have it in there that way with maybe some intent statements . I think this is very complicated and unless we can simplify it, I think — it ' s hopeless . I think what we need to do is come up with some simple ideas maybe as a starting point and have some examples worked up so we can see what it would wind up looking like but other than that, I think it' s a _ good idea to have it. Headla : You started out talking about Ladd , his last statement was good with that small transition area. To key off of that transition area I — think is kind of nice. Emmings : Typically what you wind up with is you' ve got lots backing onto — lots. You' ve got existing lots and then you ' ve got a new row of lots backing up to them and then you' ve got a street . That ' s what you usually Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 43 see. So what we' re really talking about is that row of lots that ' s between that street and the lots are backing up to, existing lots are backing up to . It would seem to me that if no lot in there could be smaller than 60% of the lots it's backing up to, you' re never going to wind up with more than two lots on the boundary or it ' s going to be unusual to wind up with more than 2 lots on that existing lot. Headla : What if it' s across the street? Ellson: That' s kind of a natural transition. Emmings : Yes , maybe you don' t need it or maybe you do it for the first row. I don' t know. For the first row of houses , maybe you do it again. Wildermuth: So many feet. 200 feet. Whatever the number is . Emmings: I 'm scared of using feet because I think that could get weird couldn ' t it? Conrad : My thought was real simplistic on this and maybe it' s too simple but Steve, and I think Tim had some concepts in there. I don't understand the formula either and I didn' t try to so that ' s my problem Tim. It was a formula and I just didn' t try. Headla : You guys are hopeless you know. I thought it was a tremendous idea. Conrad : So then I went to Boyt ' s and I got confused totally so I went back to yours Tim and I tried to understand the formula . Emmings : I went to college as a math major and quickly changed to English. Conrad : But my thought was not to be matching things but with looking for transition more than a match and I think getting specific with lot lines and stuff like that , I thought that might be too many situations that we couldn' t predict. Tim brought up some maximums and so did Steve. I think there ' s a maximum lot size in this transition area . If you' ve got a 5 acre lot so maximum blend lot might be an acre. It might be 44, 000 feet or whatever the number might be . I don' t know. And maybe there' s a reason to have a minimum size and I just took 50%, and I don' t know, but I took 50% of the 15, 000 square foot and said well maybe our minimum blend is 22,500. So those are the sizes of the lots that we' re talking about that are the transition lots . So inbetween an acres or 44 , 000 or whatever the number is and 22,000 and then the only other thing I wanted to know is when do we have to do, apply or what formula do we apply? Maybe it ' s a 60% factor. Maybe it' s, I don' t know what the percent number is but it' s something we know that most lots that go in are going to be 15, 000 square feet so we want to take it from what we think is a big lot and have some kind of a transition lot that gets this down to 15,000. Visually or whatever . That' s where I 'm at. Something real simple. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 44 — Headla : Would we have said. . .when more than 4 lots are going to be built on? Ellson : You' re saying when it affects a development, not just another new house? Headla : Yes . If I have an acre of land and I come in with a 15,000 foot _ in just one spot, that's a different situation. Emmings : No . I can give you an example though where that might not work. _ Remember that development over by you. Headla : Dave Johnson was to coming in here? Emmings: No, there was a little hill there. Help me. Olsen : Stratford Ridge. — Emmings : No . Further down Minnewashta there' s Maple Ridge. Headla: Right across from Little Joe. — Olsen : They kept changing it but it was with the one with the 5 lots . Emmings: Yes. There' s that long street that goes back, I think it' s called Maple Ridge and they' re still building on it . Right over next to that there was a little hill and they wanted to just pack that with houses — of 15,000 square feet and we all thought that was the wrong thing to do in that area. I don' t remember how many there were. There were only 4 or 5 houses in there though but that' s an example of where I think a blending ordinance should apply. — Olsen : That ' s when the blending ordinance got started . That ' s when it was first mentioned. — Emmings : Yes that was a place it was mentioned but I don' t know if it was the first time. Headla : That ' s a good example of why there should be one. Emmings: Yes, because there you've got all neighborhoods. Either you've — got big open spaces, or you' ve got neighborhoods going in where the lots were all bigger than that and it just didn' t seem to fit. Ellson : It went in didn ' t it? Emmings: It was approved but. . . Olsen : We couldn' t deny it. Emmings : Nothing ' s been built. And maybe they can' t sell their lots — because. . . Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 45 Ellson: That was across the street too wasn' t it? Olsen: There was a lot of financial in there too. They had to put in a cul-de-sac . Emmings: But when you say maybe it should be a minimum of 4 lots , I don' t know but if you don' t put any minimum on it, then you run into the guy who, and I almost wonder if you have to worry about this being a taking in some ways because you've got people who've sold off their land but retained a couple of lots to sell later and now all of a sudden they' re not going to be able to develop at all. Do we have to worry about that? Koegler : That case you just referenced is a very interesting one because I looked at that when I was talking to Jo Ann. I asked, where did this first start and she said that was one of the subdivisions. I looked at that one and I don' t know when those lots were platted or under what circumstances but they' re highly unorthodox lots . If you look at them, they' re neck lots that go back that you probably would never approve a plat today of that configuration so yes , they have large land area but they' re not exactly normal lots . Emmings: No , that was a weird development. Koegler: So that clouded it for me a little bit that clearly you should blend with those lots . I 'm not saying those are undesirable but they' re not normal lots so to speak. You don' t have normal frontages with those lots . You don ' t have anything else. You have a small exposure to the street and you have a very large frontage that is being exposed to future development and if future development comes , then everybody screams about what' s happening. Headla : Really it wasn ' t blending , we just didn ' t like the whole set-up. Emmings: If blending had applied, they never would have been able to come in with that goofy configuration. Olsen : Are you also then talking about definitions of old and new? Emmings: I don' t think we have to worry about that. If it' s just based on size, who cares how old it is? Ellson: It will probably fall in. Olsen : But if you limit the size of a lot going up against an existing property, then what if that property, the existing one wanted to subdivide in the future but they wouldn ' t be able to be because they they would have to blend against the other one. You'd be. . . Ellson : Penalizing them. Olsen: Both yes . Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 46 — Emmings : No . Everybody' s got to play with the same dice , that' s all but I wonder about that in terms of if we have to worry about if Roger should be consulted as to whether or not we' re going to create something here where people are going to come back and say, you took something very — valuable from me here . This was my retirement . I was going to divide this piece off and sell this later . I kept 30, 000 feet just for this . Olsen : It 'd be like just any other ordinance amendment . We all of a sudden went to the ordinance amendment and made our minimum lot size 30,000 square feet . — Emmings : I hope that' s the right answer . Wildermuth: Why don' t we just increase the minimum lot size to about — 18 , 000 to 20, 000 square feet , wipe out the PUD and solve this whole thing . Conrad: I told you the story about increasing, having a zone with bigger — lot sizes Jim and it didn' t sell . Wildermuth: Is that right? Who didn' t it sell with? Erhart : Let me point out one more thing in developing . I think my ideas on this, or were you just having a private conversation? Conrad : No, this is a real subject that applied but go ahead . Erhart: I didn' t mean to interrupt. Regarding the idea of blending . I — still think it' s for the transitional thing . I think it' s something that we ought to have, try to develop. I also think that we can get a neighborhood of a bunch of 25, 000-30, 000 square lots and if one guy divides his lot, I don' t think that' s good. We should try to prevent that. On the other hand , if developing this , my feeling is in any blending situation, and the reason I picked 25, 000 in that one constant is that it would be unconchable to require anybody to make a lot bigger than — 21,000 square feet in any event whether he' s got 5 acre lots there or 1 acre lots or whatever . To me there' s a certain size that for the City to come in and say you've got to have 1 acre lots there or you' ve got to have a half acre lot because it' s, well because 22, 000 is a half acre lot. — There' s just some lot there that just is unconchable to waste land. So in my mind in developing this formual , I kind of felt that 21,000 is about the maximum you'd ever want to require . That ' s why I picked the 25, 000 so — that leaves a formula. That' s my input. . . . I don' t think you have to develop lots bigger than 21,000-22, 000 because to me above that , that ' s, unless somebody wants to buy that lot, then you let the market drive that but from a city planning standpoint , we should never force people to build or develop lots bigger than that. SO the whole range of this thing to me is pretty narrow. You' re really only serving those guys , the existing lots that are in this 25,000-30, 000 square foot range and anybody above — that , we can ' t force people to put out 1 acre lots just because if someone has a 1 1/2 acre lot next to him. That generally was my thinking on the rate there. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 47 Conrad : I like your logic, I 'm just not sure whether those numbers are — the ones that I 'd support. I buy what they' re thinking. Koegler : Coming to some consensus though on just that kind of point is what obviously we need to eventually do and so if anybody has any preliminary thoughts on 25, 000 or 21, 000 or whatever , it would help to hear that. Ellson: You had a number based on what? Conrad: I narrowed it down to 22,000 to an acre. That was the range of the transition . I haven ' t gone through and exercised it. Tried to apply it in different zones. Tim way saying he couldn' t imagine having a lot bigger than 25, 000 and I 'm just saying , maybe I can ' t imagine forcing somebody larger than 45, 000. I didn' t have a good reason for that but my range is in there someplace and I don' t know what makes sense. I think there's a point where we' re sort of playing a game here that doesn' t count. If we don' t make the transition significant, if you go from a — 15, 000 transition up to 19, 000, I ' ll guarantee you nobody can tell the difference. Those people are still going to be angry that we' re allowing a 19,000 square foot deal coming in next to them so it ' s got to be a significant one yet we can ' t penalize. I 'm also worried on the other side of really penalizing somebody and making sure this works for everybody. I don' t know that it counts to add a transition of an additional 3, 000 square foot to a lot size because most of the ones that I 've heard that I — remember so well , they' re typically sitting on something that ' s probably pretty close to an acre in size and typically somebody' s coming in with a 17, 000-18 , 000 square foot subdivision next to them. Those are the ones — that I remember . Erhart: Really? See the ones that I remember people were sitting on 25, 000 square foot lots. Conrad : The Greenwood Shores probably average that I would guess . The examples, North Lotus Lake. Those were all 1 acre. Erhart : But the one on Murray Hill , those were 25,000-30 , 000 square foot weren' t they? Conrad : Some of them were up to an acre as I recall . Erhart: I think what you' re looking for generally is a consensus of what we' re trying to get to . If I could put something on the board and you guys plug in some numbers, I think I could give you what you want. Koegler : That ' s what I was going to suggest is my next move is to bring back some examples to the Commission to review playing out different scenarios . Taking some of the existing conditions around the City that you' re likely to encounter . Conrad : That 'd be a good exercise . Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 48 — Koegler : There was another point though that was raised that' s valid and that is, what's the threshold for when you apply the blending ordinance? If there ' s one 1 acre lot in the middle of the development or if there' s two 2 arce lots in the middle of the development, does that cross the threshold . Does it have to be a lot that' s part of a subdivision of 4 or more lots contiguous lots? Is there some threshold there that needs to be considered? — Emmings : Are we talking about the lots that abut up against that lot. So you might have a big development and there' s one 1 acre piece up here but — it would only be the lot, to me it would only be the lots that touch that one. Koegler : Okay, so if you have a big development that completely encircles — a 1 acre lot that has a little old couple on it or something that want to live there forever and ever . Are you going to require those to blend even though realistically when those people pass on or retire or whatever , someone' s likely to come in and resubdivide that property? Emmings : If you' re going to be petty Mark, I 'm leaving . How do I know? Koegler : If they get a sign off from that landowner saying I don't want to be blended , then is that okay? Erhart : You know, this is a lousy way of doing things, the averaging takes care of that problem. Emmings : I don' t know. Headla : What did you say Tim? Erhart : Again , using this formula method which again I ' ll repeat it' s hard to conceptualize but the fact that you average surrounding lots takes care of that problem. One 1 acre lot by itself, in the first place you — only use it as 25,000 square feet so that ' s the maximum that it' s going to affect. Koegler : Is that your impression? — Erhart : That' s right . That ' s my impression. The other way that that dilutes that is of course the averaging is one lot by itself given that — within 200 feet you' re probably going to calculate in anywhere from 6 to 8 lots , will dilute that. Headla : Let me give you another scenario then. Ellson: Yes, why don' t you do some of these formulas with examples . Headla : The Stratford Ridge, there were some nice size properties on the west side. On the north side Dave Johnson is coming in with properties that are around 15, 000-16, 000. Now the person that' s to the south of Dave — Johnson and to the west of Stratford Ridge, their property' s, when they sell that, it ' s going to abut the small ones and Stratford Ridge. Now do Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 49 you go by the smaller ones you abut or the larger? I 'm not looking for an answer , it's another consideration. Conrad : There' s one thing that bothers me and I 'm not looking to protect one house. I 'm trying to keep the integrity of a neighborhood, or make a transition from one neighborhood to another so there ' s less focus on, and Mark you ask some questions that I just can' t come up with answers but the logic is , we' re talking neighborhood and not houses . Ellson: . . .x number or more. Koegler : That does put it back to you then to define what ' s a neighborhood. What' s the minimum for it being a neighborhood that you then consider it to be blended? Wildermuth: 5 parcels within a couple hundred feet? Koegler : Whatever . If you have 5 contiguous parcels sharing a common street or whatever it is. I don' t know what it is but maybe we could sort through some of that by again looking through some examples and seeing how some of these scenarios fit. That will probably raise 10 other questions that you haven' t even thought of tonight . Emmings: You' re going to know it when you see it. Conrad : The problem is, we may never see it. Koegler : It' s not a black and white issue. Headla : There ' s got to be a reason why you haven ' t been able to find an ordinance. Conrad: Okay, that' s enough to look at it. Is there anything else you wanted to talk to us about? Olsen : The only other thing is I have the church ordinance at the end . That again was as a result of Eckankar . Conrad : And you don' t need a reaction? Olsen: No. I guess I ' ll be bringing it in front of you. Headla : The first time. . . I 'm afraid that may not get whole hearted agreement on but to me one of the strongest objectives I had and still have to the Eckankar property, if that church was supported maybe by 10% or 15% of the people in Chanhassen, I wouldn' t have looked at it entirely different . Wildermuth : That ' s not in the Constitution Dave. Headla: I don't know if this is level or not but it seemed like if we' re going to take something off the tax rolls of Chanhassen, it should be for the benefit of the people in Chanhassen. Therefore, I think a certain Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 50 — percent of that membership should be a resident of Chanhassen. Jo Ann , you' re smiling. Ellson : That ' s like saying people who work there should live here. — Headla: No. Erhart : If they pay taxes . Headla : No comparison . Can we do anything like that? Emmings : Absolutely not. Headla : Why? — Emmings: Because people have a right to buy property wherever they want to and you can' t abridge that right. People have a right to build their — church of any kind anywhere they want to and go there and you can' t abridge that right and boy, if you want to get into a lawsuit real quick, you do something like that . Although I have my own thing to promote you know that' s also unconstitutional . I don' t agree with what you just said — because I don ' t think you should limit a church like that but I feel very strongly that churches shouldn' t be allowed for example to own commercial property and collect rents from those and receive city services for those — and not pay taxes on that income and not pay property taxes when they' re operating just like a business . That is an outrage to me but again, . that's not something I think you can touch with a 10 foot pole. I 'd be — willing to swing at it but you'd get nowhere I think. I think that' s a door that can' t . . . Olsen : The only other thing was that memo from Don. — Conrad: Yes, and that's just for our information? Olsen : I told him that the Planning Commission is very anxious . What ' s to know what' s happening, as we all do so he gave you that memo. I just had a chance to just briefly look at it so it doesn' t give some dates . I don' t know that they've picked the candidates yet. I don' t know but — again, he' s upstairs and he said that if you guys wanted to talk to him about that, that he'd be welcome to come on down. I don' t know if you need to . — Conrad : I only want to know if that little agenda is not being met . We' re 8 months away versus a month away. — Headla : Tell me a little bit about that Lowell Carlson effort. What' s going to really happen? Olsen : What' s happened is that we are going to start pursuing him to remove all unlicensed vehicles, junk. We've got a list from 1985 to prove, a list from him, saying what was there for his business . We' re — going to use that list and try to get everything else removed. He' s a non-conforming use now. He' s grandfathered in but he cannot be a Planning Commission Meeting July 19 , 1989 - Page 51 contractor ' s yard . His business is essentially really limited and we' re going to pursue it. Legally it will takes years. Headla : What ' s going to have to happen? Is he going to have to back down and cooperate and then get something resolved? Olsen : He can still apply for a building permit to store some of the structures inside, the machinery but he can no longer be, contractor ' s yards are not permitted so he can' t follow that route again. He' ll always just be a non-conforming use and he can' t expand. He has expanded so what we' re going to do is try to go back to what his original size was . I think that he' s thinking of moving out of Chanhassen now but I don' t know. Headla : I thought maybe they could settle it fast and both sides come to a good agreement. Wildermuth : Where is this? Olsen : King ' s Road . Off of Lake Minnewashta . He did the same thing . They both got up there and said boy we really want to get that building and we' ve been trying to do it. The Council almost gave them another extension. Conrad : Anything else? Emmings : I was just curious about the 25 acres on the church site . I have no idea what that means. They could have 100 acre parcel and carve out a 25 acre lot , they still own the other 75 acres . I don' t know what it means to have a 25 acre lot size. Olsen : There are certain things that we could do legally. There are certain things. We couldn' t go, as you were saying, there' s Constitutional rights so what this is doing is saying that they would have to subdivide it and have that 25 acre lot for their church and they could own the other 100 acres but they'd have a harder time proving that that should be taxed. Emmings : No. Anything that a tax exempt organization owns is exempt from taxes period as far as I know. Olsen : No because like with Eckankar , Carver County is reviewing that and they may have to pay taxes. They may not have to pay taxes on the portion that' s being used for the church but the remaining parcel might be taxed . So it's not set in stone. Emmings : To my knowledge it is but that ' s real interesting if they can' t. Erhart: Keep us informed of that. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 52 Emmings moved , Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 20 p.m. . Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst. City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF P.C. DATE: Aug. 2, 1989 C.C. DATE• \4I CEANEASSENAug. 28, 1989 CASE NO: ermasimmommisisminammossimimminimimmffsmimisimminiimisisamissiiimmeammaimmilimminimPrepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for a Commercial Shopping Center Z - Q — LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Market Boulevard and West 78 -J Street th APPLICANT: Market Square Partnership AMCON 5775 Wayzata Blvd. , Suite 820 200 W. Hwy. 13 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Burnsville, MN 55337 • PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: 1. 2 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IO and CBD; Chan Bank & Realtor/Dr. Office S- BG; vacant E- CBD; Filly' s and Hotel Site - Q W- BG; Lakeshore Equipment W WATER AND SEWER: The site has services available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Currently a vacant level parcel. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial _ : til 4% 1,1 4,.. A I -u D . / F '- - -- ,, atjej51 -110-- vrvin re• I‘ k0- yi n 64 118E1111 ,-;g0007 v``,I te ^ c� �'�� i (,) lie J RSA : . E O W. LAS � � ��t. - (.... --; :11111 gr°§1,,,, i I s, ho-u Elmira i A. ite alp R , : ►SII► �- woosti�� > ';-4 R4 - R 1• rto �m►="-t•4 401411 IVop -4Lipp IP ._il y meal/3R .. • • [1i•.tmeal � / R12 - 0 • .. _ 2. � .a — R -._ I ,� .,nen —4 mew MIPS �A - 12 �=± f i_C:4 -.: MI ill Wail' . : ..�.tiiir11 !•'.1:,• cVARD " � r�= : 1111 rte( 1 :1111: P4 RK I , �- DG ;'�`�► � PD , 1IZ �, c ?T et ii......._i / a. 111111111 0 ► 1 MINI R0-0_ gliN- cci-1. . • -inec4b.,- I iiiw4c0t.iv.,•,„ .,„ i, _,/h.. , glOPP.- ifro• n A , i t. , ,-- 4, , \ , , \, Rg- -,---- BG -1 .4 , _\ .,, -ide _I- \ 6• • 11.110P- IG10410 _J '�s i la. •tl! r . , ....., . y 1 , :..,.... 4„,......._ __ • _,. , . .� is , t.1 i? _ .,, D4K0 L • , _____ • __ , • ,6,(7 ( _ _ _ --..' ��IpJNEN ! c.:,.....f o ! LAKE SUS,: N . � J 03 ,RD --i* . • _ jWI ' UD — Ri �s H ` . �cv rlI � 86 TH ST' _ 11 P Market Square Commercial PUD August 2 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-501 defines the intent of a PUD as to encourage creative site planning through the use of variety, sensitivity, efficiency, density, district integration and parks and open space. A PUD may only include those uses consistent with the general land use category for the area on the official comprehen- - sive plan. The PUD ordinance does not have specific standards or regulations for commercial planned unit developments . Section 20-507 provides a general concept plan for a PUD allowing the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and general nature of the development for review by the Planning Commission and Council. REFERRAL AGENCIES Engineering Department Attachment #2 Public Safety Attachment #3 Building Department Attachment #4 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a commercial planned unit development for a shopping center located at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. The site is zoned BG, General Business and has street frontage along the east, west and north side of the property. The applicant is proposing a shopping -- center with 73 , 000 square feet to begin with and future expansion for an additional 18,000 square feet. The applicant is also proposing an outlot to contain a veterinary clinic with 3 , 000 square feet and additional development which has not been deter- mined at this time. The shopping center is proposed to contain a grocery store, drug store, lawn and sport, liquor store, hardware store and general retail. The structure will be located along the westerly and southerly lot lines with future development in the northeast corner of the site. Parking will be located within the center of the site between the proposed shopping center and future development of the outlot. Additional parking will be located at the rear of the buildings for employees and truck traffic. The site plan is showing access from all streets with the main entrance coming from Market Boulevard and West 78th Street and service entrances from Monterey Drive. The building material is proposed to be a stucco-like finish with large expan- ses between the stores . Market Square Commercial PUD _ August 2 , 1989 Page 3 The purpose of the concept plan is to allow the applicant to receive direction from the Planning Commission and City Council whether the PUD proposal is acceptable and should be pursued or — if the PUD proposal is not meeting the intent of the ordinance and needs to be revised. The property is currently zoned BG which allows all of the uses proposed either as permitted or con- ditional use permits . The setbacks of the BG district are 25 foot front and rear yards and 10 foot side yard setbacks . The maximum height of structures is 3 stories or 40 feet and the maximum lot coverage is 70%. The site plan is meeting the set- backs of the BG district but is exceeding the maximum impervious surface coverage by 13% for a total lot coverage of 83% . The applicant is also proposing to share parking since the demand times for parking of the uses proposed on the site enable parking to be shared. Uses such as a movie theater and a restaurant have been suggested for the outlot on the northeast corner of the site — which would have parking demand at different times then the gro- cery store, lawn and sport, hardware store, etc. To maintain the site as proposed, the applicant had two options to pursue. The first would be to rezone the property to CBD and the second option would be to pursue a PUD designation. The Central Business District does not have minimum setback require- ments or a maximum lot coverage. If rezoning to the CBD district was pursued and approved, the applicant would be able to have the amount of impervious lot coverage as proposed. In addition, the — 25 foot setbacks that are being shown on the plan would not have to be maintained. Rezoning the property to CBD does not allow all of the uses proposed with the plan. Outdoor storage and equipment rental are not permitted in a central business — district. In order for these uses to be allowed, the applicant would also have to amend the ordinance or remove these uses from the site. In meeting with the applicant, staff did not feel that — rezoning the property to CBD was the correct action to take. The location of the site is beyond where the CBD district should be extended to. In addition, a reduction of any control over imper- vious surface and lot coverage with a proposed commercial — shopping center could result in overdevelopment of the site. Staff directed the applicant to pursue the planned unit develop- — ment designation . By rezoning the property to PUD, the applicant would be able to increase the percentage of lot coverage, to have the uses as proposed and to share the parking. But in return for — receiving the PUD, the city would have the ability to request higher architectural standards, increased creativity in the landscaping, and in the building design and structure. As previously stated, the zoning ordinance does not have specific regulations for commercial PUD 's and this would be the first opportunity to review such a proposal. The intent of the PUD — Market Square Commercial PUD August 2, 1989 Page 4 used for residential developments could still be used as a guide- line in that creativity and additional amenities should be pro- vided in return for a PUD designation. Staff understands that the applicant is limited to how much money can be spent on the site due to the rental rates that can be demanded versus the square footage cost of the property. But, staff also sees this as the largest shopping complex within the City of Chanhassen and that it should be carefully designed so that it will be an ame- nity to the city. Staff does not feel that the current pro- posal provides enough creativity and amenities to be considred a PUD. The following list contains comments on the site plan that staff feels would improve the plan as a PUD. Site Plan 1. The main entrance to the site from Market Boulevard should have a right-in/right-out lanes for easier access and the 12 foot aisles should be increased to accommodate such right-in/right-out turn lanes. 2 . Stop signs should be provided at the appropriate intersec- tions within the parking areas to better direct and control traffic. The stop signs should be located at either north/south or east/west directions. 3 . Restrictions should be placed upon the outlot stating that unless the future development of this site consists of a shared parking type use i .e. theater/restaurant, that the outlot should be required to provide all of its own parking on site. 4 . If it is determined that the future parking shown adjacent to Market Boulevard ( shown with dashed lines) will only be necessary for certain busy periods such as holidays, then the applicant should design the area so that it can be used as parking during times that overflow parking is necessary and the remaining period it appears to be a grassed area with landscaping. S. Circulation directly in front of the hardware store is poorly designed and the two parking bays with 8 cars each should be reduced to allow for a straight movement along the face of the building. 6 . The applicant should provide plans showing the trash enclo- sure locations and their screening and also show how any rooftop equipment will be screened. Landscape Plan 1. The landscaping does not meet the city minimum requirements of the ordinance. Although the amount of green space is Market Square Commercial PUD — August 2 , 1989 Page 5 reduced by 13%, creative and beneficial landscaping can still be provided. In return for receiving a PUD designation, staff believes that the number and size of landscaping should — be increased throughout the site including exterior screening and interior landscaping. Such interior landscaping should also include island landscaping within the parking area and — additional landscaping along Monterey Drive and the south side of the center to further screen the service portions of the building. 2. The landscaping plan should also include berming as required by the ordinance. 3 . Ornamental trees should be planted along the facade of the building to help break up the linear expanse of the develop- ment. — 4 . Landscaping along Market Boulevard should continue along the outlot to the north to West 78th Street until development of that outlot occurs . — 5. A landscaped pedestrian sidewalk should be provided through the center of the parking area from Market Boulevard to the — stores . Staff is suggesting that the hatched area shown in the parking area on Page 1 of the site plan should be con- verted to a landscaped pedestrian walkway. — 6 . A sidewalk should be provided along Market Boulevard up to West 78th Street. Building, Elevation and Materials 1. The majority of the building will be a stucco-like finish. — To date all new construction in Chanhassen is built of either wood and or brick. Staff is not suggesting that the whole shopping complex be made of brick which is very expensive, but the design of building materials should include brick or other types of material to break up the expanse and to provide a more appealing structure. 2. The elevations of the shopping center need to be improved to break up the expanse of the center. The larger stores are brought out towards the parking areas to break up the expanse but additional design features should be provided to make the building more appealing. 3. Staff feels that the rear of the buildings which are acting — as the service entrances for the stores , should be treated as such and that additional landscaping and berming should be provided to screen the rear of the buildings . Customers — should not be attracted or directed toward the rear of the buildings. Market Square Commercial PUD August 2 , 1989 Page 6 Signage 1. The applicant is proposing two pylon signs , one along West 78th Street and one along Market Boulevard. The pylon signage proposed will have to receive a separate sign permit but staff is recommending that as part of the PUD designation that the city require creativity in the pylon signage rather than the basic 20 foot high sign on a single pole. The applicant has stated that they would request wall signage on both the front and rear of the store. As stated before, staff sees the back of the stores abutting Monterey Drive as a service area and that the rear wall signage would not be necessary since they should not be promoting customers to use the rear entrances. Small identification signs could be per- mitted. The Planning Commission and City Council have the opportunity to define what type, size and location of signage shall be permitted. Engineering 1. The applicant is proposing drainage ( Page 2 ) to be directed to the south of the site along the southerly edge to an outlet which would go beneath the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul , Pacific Railroad track. Proposing to pipe the drainage in this area conflicts with the proposed landscaping along — the southern edge of the property. The applicant must resolve this issue since it is necessary to have extensive landscaping along the southerly edge to screen service areas. SUMMARY Staff feels that the PUD designation would be the most — appropriate for the site. Variances to the BG District would not be easily approved and staff is not in support of rezoning the property to CBD which would also include the request for amending the zoning ordinance to allow certain uses not felt to be appropriate in the central business district. At this time, the applicant wishes to receive comments from the Planning Commission and City Council on whether or not they would prefer to see the property designated as a commercial PUD and if so what the Commission and Council would like to receive in return for the PUD designation. Should the Planning Commission and Council not feel that a commercial PUD is appropriate for this site, then the applicant would either have to pursue the current BG zoning and pursue variances or rezone the site to CBD and receive any — necessary zoning ordinance amendments. CITYOF - ,:, \ CHANHASSEN .... _ , ,, ,. . ,.. .. , .., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector Adk. - DATE: July 19 , 1989 ' SUBJ: #89-2 PUD Based on plans submitted, nine handicap parking places are required for initial site. A total of eleven handicap parking places will be required after future expansion is complete. — Spaces must be distributed along the length of the building at the spaces closest to buildings. The building as proposed with 78, 712 square feet must be Type II - - F.R. construction. As an alternate, a two-hour area separation wall may be built, creating two buildings. The Lawn and Sport Store will be a B-1 occupancy; this would be an ideal place to — build the area separation wall since an occupancy separation will be required. I Ty F Y CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 5531 7 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: July 25, 1989 SUBJ : 89-2 PUD - Commercial Development For Southwest Corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard Attached is a site plan review as submitted by the Chanhassen Fire Inspector . Let me know if I can be of further assistance . • SITE PLAN REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of these questions is to determine the necessary requirements for _ the prevention or minimizing of loss of lives and property. A committee of Jim Chaffee, Scott Harr, Dale Gregory and Mark Littfin will determine the answers based on the site plan submitted by the contractor. The — contractor may also be called for further verification. The results of the questionnaire will then be forwarded to Jo Ann Olsen with the committee recommendations. reccmmendations. Non- Q»Pstions Camnly Compliance 1. Means of access for fire department apparatus shall be provided to all structures in planned building — groups in accordance with Section 3-1 and the appli- cable provisions of Sections 3-2 through 3-8. XX 2. Every dead-end roadway more than 300 ft (91 m) in length shall be provided at the closed end with a turnaround acceptable to the fire department. XX 3. Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road Must be indicated on width and shall be constructed with a minimum radius drawing and approved of 25 ft (7.5 m) at the inside curb line and a radius by the Fire Departmen+ . of 50 ft (15 m) at the outside curb line. ------- 4. 4. Roadways shall be not less than 24 ft (7 m) wide pro- vided no parking is allowed, not less than 30 ft (9 m) wide if parallel parking is allowed on one side, and ?-Need further detail:. not less than 36 ft (10.5m) wide if parallel parking is allowed on both sides. _ ------- 5. _5. Parking in any means of access shall not be permitted within 20 ft (6 m) of a fire hydrant, sprinkler or N/A at this time — standpipe connection or in any other manner which will obstruct or interfere with the fire department's use of the hydrant or connection. _______ 6. "NO Parking" signs or other designation indicating that parking is prohibited shall be provided at all normal Will review at later and emergency access points to structures and within 20 date — ft (6 m) of each fire hydrant, sprinkler, or standpipe connection. 7. Where no recognized water supply distribution system exists, appropriate access shall be provided for water supplies in accordance with the provisions of NEPA N/A 1231, "Standard water Supplies for Suburban and — Rural Fire Fighting. " ------- ------- • Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 2 — Non- Questions Comply Compliance 8. Fire lanes shall be at least 20 ft (6 m) in width with the road edge closest to the structure at least 10 ft (3 m) frau the structure. XX 9. "No Parking - Tow-Away Zone" signs shall be posted in accordance with the instructions of the fire Will review at later department having jurisdiction and a method of date enforcing such provisions shall be provided. 10. Fire lanes connecting to public streets, roadway, or private streets shall be provided with curb cuts extending at least 2 ft (0.6096 m) beyond each edge of the fire lane. 11. Chains or other barriers may be provided at the entrance to fire lanes or private streets, provided that they are installed according to the requirements of the fire department having jurisdiction. 12. The designation and maintenance of fire lanes on private property shall be accomplished as specified by the fire department having jurisdiction. 13. Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 ft (7.5 n) clear width between rows of parked vehicles Drawing indicates 241- for vehicular access and movement. Will review further 14. At least three perimeter walls of structures and all exterior doors into structures constructed as a part of a planned building group shall be within 200 ft (61 m) of an approved fire lane or street. XX 15. Structures exceeding 30 ft (9 m) in height shall not be set back more than 50 ft (15 m) from a street, fire lane, or private street. (Exception: When any combination of private fire protection facilities, including, but not limited to, fire-resistive roofs, fire separation walls, space separation and automatic fire extinguishing systems, is provided and approved by the fire marshal as an acceptable alternative, 3-4.2 shall not apply.) 16. All structures exceeding three stories in height and 3,000 sq. ft (279 sq m) in ground floor area and containing nonrated openings in exterior walls facing other structures shall be separated frau other structures by at least 20 ft (6 m) of clear space between structures, and 10 ft (3 m) frau a common property line. Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 3 Non- Questions Comply Compliance 17. Al least two means of access for fire apparatus shall be provided for each structure exceeding 30 ft (9 m) or three stories in height, not less than one of which shall be a fire lane, or street. XX 18. At least 14 ft (4 m) of nominal clearance shall be provided over the full width of streets, fire — lanes, and other means of vehicular access. XX 19. Landscaping or other obstructions shall not be placed around structures in a manner so as to Will review landscapix r impair or impede accessibility for fire fighting plan when available and rescue operations. 20. The location of structures and access to each structure shall be approved by the fire marshal Will review further before permits for construction are issued. 21. All structures more than three stories in height or over 50 ft (15 m) in height above grade and — containing intermediate stories or balconies shall be equipped with a standpipe system in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems. Fire — department standpipe connections shall be located within 50 ft (15 m) of a fire hydrant. 22. Water supply systems not publicly owned and in- stalled shall meet the minimum requirements of NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, or N/A at this time NFPA 1231, Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting, where no recognized water — supply distribution exists. 23. Fire hydrants shall be provided in a ratio of at _ least one fire hydrant for every 90,000 sq. ft (8370 sq m) of ground area or portion thereof Will review utility pl, i involved in the development. (Exception: This at a later date requirement shall not apply to land planned or left for other than structural development. ) Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 4 Non- Questions — Comply Compliance 24. The fire flow requirements shall be not less than that established by the fire department having jurisdiction. In cases where a water supply system consisting of mains and hydrants does not exist, the provisions of NFPA 1231, Standard on water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting, shall apply. 25. Water supplies shall be capable of supplying the required fire flow for at least one hour for fire flows of 1500 gpm (6750 L/min) at.20 psi (1.38 bars) or less; or for two hours for fire flow greater than 1500 gpm (6750 L/min) at 20 psi (1.38 bars) . (Exception: In those situations where the provisions of NFPA 1231, Standard on water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting, are utilized, 3-6.2.2 shall not apply.) 26. The contractor or installer of water supply systems in planned building groups shall demonstrate by actual test that the capacity of the water supply system will meet fire protection design requirements. Fire flow performance tests shall be witnessed by the fire department.and other authorities having At a later date jurisdiction who desire to do so. 27. Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed 300 ft (91 m) unless fire department operations or technology would otherwise dictate increased spacing. For buildings exceeding 20,000 sq ft (1860 sq m) in ground floor area, a fire hydrant shall be installed within 300 ft Will review utility (91 m) of any portion of the building. Actual plan when available location of fire hydrants shall be as required by the fire department prior to installation. 28. Fire hydrants located in parking areas shall be protected by barriers that will prevent physical Will review later damage from vehicles. 29. Fire hydrants shall be located within 3 ft (0.9144 m) of the curb line of fire lanes, streets, or private streets, when installed along such access ways. 30. Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the American Water Works Association. Site Plan Review Questionaire — Page 5 `ion- Questions — Comply Compliance 31. Threads on fire hydrant outlets shall be American _ National Fire Hose Connection Screw Threads and shall be equipped with thread adapters when the local fire department thread is different. 32. Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6-in. (15-cm) diameter main installed on a looped system, or not less than an 8-in. (20-cm) diameter Will review at a — main if the system is not looped or the fire later date hydrant is installed on a dead-end main exceeding 300 ft (91 m) in length. 33. Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 ft (182.5 m) in length for main sizes under 10 in. (25 an) in diameter. 34. Fire department vehicular access to all structures under construction shall be provided at all times. _ In areas where ground surfaces are soft or likely to beccine soft, hard all-weather surface access Will review later roads shall be provided. 35. The fire protection water supply system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and in service prior to placing combustible building materials for structures, or combustible pretested fabricated building assemblies on the project site or utilizing them in the construction of building structures. If phased construction is planned, coordinated installa- Will review later — tion of the fire protection water system is permitted. 36. Trash and debris shall be removed frau the construc- tion site as often as necessary to maintain a firesafe Will monitor construction site. 37. Flammable or combustible liquids shall be stored, handled, or used on the construction site in accor- dance with the applicable provisions of NFPA 20, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code; NFPA 58, -- Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases; and NFPA 395, Stannard for the Storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids on Will monitor Farms and Isolated Construction Projects. WMID • •i Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 6 Questions Non- Comply Compliance 38. At least one portable fire extinguisher having a rating of at least 4-A, 30-BC shall be within a travel distance of 75 ft (22.5 m) or less to any point of a structure under construction. Personnel normally on the construction site shall be instructed in the use of the fire extinguishers Will monitor provided. 39. All plans for planned building groups shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction for approval before the issuance of the construction permit. This approval procedure shall include the Will monitor fire department having jurisdiction. 40. In addition to the requirements of 3-9.1 a small- scale drawing of the site's surrounding area showing streets, access points, water supply sources, and other items of fire suppression interest shall be submitted to the local fire department before the N/A at this time start of any construction. 41. Drawings showing building floor plans, fire pro- tections sytems, and items of fire suppression interest shall be submitted to the fire department having jurisdiction, as requested, upon completion N/A at this time of the project. CITY QF CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: July 28 , 1989 SUBJ: City Council Update - July 24 , 1989 Agenda 1. The City Council denied the wetland alteration permit for the filling of a portion of a Class A wetland for Daryl Kirt but did approve the wetland alteration permit for development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. 2 . The City Council approved the first reading for the zoning ordinance amendment to amend Section 20-237 for Revocation and Inspections for Conditional Use Permits. The Council changed the wording of the amendment so that annual reviews were required for all conditional use permits. REVISED JULY 14 , 1989 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISSUES 1. Comprehensive Plan Update September 2 . Amendments to MUSA Boundary September 3. Future Use for Areas Out- September side the MUSA Boundary B. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS 1. Contractor' s Yards City Council Approval - May 3 , 1989 - 2. Update Zoning Map Ongoing 3 . Blending Ordinance July 19 , 1989 4. Rezoning BF Distict to A-2 August, 1989 5. Convenience Store Moratorium August, 1989 6 . Sign Ordinance September, 1989 7. Update Zoning Code Ongoing 8 . Trash and Recycable Users- Ongoing Where should they be located? 9 . Wetland Violations - Add July 19 , 1989 section to wetland ordinance 10. Tree Ordinance - Mapping of End of 1989 significant vegetative areas Working with DNR Forester 11. Rezoning of 2i Acres Lots Ongoing to RR District 12. Noise Ordinance Public Safety proposed an ordinance which was denied by City Council 13. Storage 14. Front Yard Fencing 15. Standards for R-12 September, 1989 Developments - Parking, garages, architectural standards REVISED JULY 14, 1989 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS — 16 . Heliports — C. OTHER ITEMS 1 . Update development proce- Close to completion dures including submittal — dates, design review com- mittee, submittal check list and process — 2. Computerize land use files, Waiting for intern permits, conditions and Waiting for computer to be expiration dates on a par- repaired cel by parcel basis 3. Wetlands mapping by Fish Estimated to be completed and Wildlife Service. by September, 1989 4 . Trail Involvement of _ Planning Commission 5 . Light Rail Transit 6 . Recycling of Oil 7 . Eurasian Water Milfoil Public Safety Involved — 8 . Review of the impact of Not actively pursuing until Residential Development direction from P.C. in _ on the financial structure response to memo from of the city. Don Ashworth 9 . Temporary conditional use August, 1989 — permits. 10 . Setbacks from wetlands for _ kennels and stables.