08-19-20 Agenda and Packet FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSi
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1992, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Subdivision of a 5 acre parcel from a 19+ acre site on property zoned A2, Agricultural
Estate and located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard, David Teich.
2. Conceptual PUD on 18+ acres for a Commercial/Retail Center located at the southeast
corner of West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard, Target Development
3. Conceptual PUD for 113 Single Family Residential Lots on 63 (net) acres located on the
east side of Hwy. 41 adjacent to BMT Automotive (7305 Hazeltine Blvd.), Lundgren
Bros. Development on Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner Property.
4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Define Dock Setback Zones.
5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Fence Requirements.
NEW BUSINESS
OLD BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS
OPEN DISCUSSION
6. Tree Conservation Easements.
ADJOURNMENT
C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 8/19/92
" G
� 1
CIIAHAS5E N CC DATE: 9/14/92
CASE #: 92-9 SUB
By: Aanenson:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Create One 5 Acre Parcel Containing an Existing Home from
a 19+ Acre Agricultural Parcel
F-
Q LOCATION: South of Pioneer Trail and east of the State Highway 101
V
APPLICANT: David Teich
10151 Great Plains
a. Chaska, MN 55318
- Q
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates
ACREAGE: 19+ acres
DENSITY: 1 unit/10 acre (gross)-1 unit/5 acres (net)
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - A2, agricultural estate
- Q S - A2, agricultural estate
E - A2, agricultural estate
W - A2, agricultural estate
w WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site.
(f) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: There is an existing brick home, barn and several out buildings
located on the site. The majority of this site is in the Bluff
Protection Area.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
Teich Subdivision
August 7, 1992
Page 2
Subdivision
The applicant is proposing to subdivide his property into one single family lot occupied by an
existing home and leave the remaining 14 acres as an unbuildable lot. This property is outside
of the urban service area. The density requirement for this area is 1 unit per 10 acres. Because
this property is only 19 acres, only one dwelling is allowed for the entire parcel. In order to
allow for the subdivision of this property, a development contract shall be recordedstating that
the remaining 14 acre parcel is unbuildable until such time that this area is inside the urban
service area and services are available.
There are two ways to record property divisions; one is through a subdivision plat, and the other
is a metes and bounds subdivision. This 19 plus acres of property is described with a metes and
bound description. The parcel being split also has a metes and bounds description. Instead of
platting this property, a development contract will be used and recorded against the property
stipulating that the remainder of the property is unbuildable Under a metes and bounds division,
it is not possible to designate "outlot" status this. Thus, the development contract will be used
to achieve the same goal. There is an older brick home on the 5 acre parcel, as well as a barn
and several out buildings. The remaining 14 acre parcel has a significant ravine through the
parcel. The majority of the entire 19 acre parcel is in the Chanhassen Bluff Protection Area.
The existing home is not affected by the Bluff Protection setback requirements.
Remaining Parcel
The remaining 14 acre parcel will remain undevelopable, until this area is inside the urban
service area and services are available. A development contact will be required to ensure this —
condition is met. The 14 acre parcel can be accessed from the north via a 30 foot private road
the runs along the northern side of the parcel. More than likely when this property (Teich) and
the property to the north (Halla) develops this road will be come a public street.
Streets
The proposed 5 acre lot would continue to have access public street frontage from a gravel
driveway off of Hwy. 101. Additional right-of-way will ultimately be required on Hwy. 101 as
was from the Halla property directly to the north. Currently, the road right-of-way is 66 feet and
the proposed right-of-way for Hwy. 101 is 120 feet. Therefore, an additional 27 feet of right-of-
way may be required (Attachment #3). This is based upon a concept drafted by the city several
years ago. However, no construction is pending and final plans may be significantly different
when improvement occurs. The existing brick home may fall within the additional right-of-way.
Due to the uncertainty as to the final road alignment inthis area, staff is not recommending that
the additional right-of-way be taken at this time.
Teich Subdivision
August 7, 1992
Page 3
The applicant is providing the recommended drainage and utility easements along the lot lines.
Park and Recreation
A trail is proposed to run along Hwy 101, at this point it has not been determined which side to
the road it would be located. Parks and Recreation is recommending a 20 foot trail easement
along Hwy 101. Again, there is significant uncertainty as to where the trail will be located.
Undoubtedly, one would be incorporated into any Hwy. 101 improvement project. Since the
home may be impacted by the trail, we are recommending that no acquisition be taken at this
time. Park fees would not be applicable at this time because there is a home existing on the
property on now future development will occur until this area is in side the MUSA area.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - A2 DISTRICT
Lot Front Side Rear
Area Setback Setback Setback
Ordinance 21/ acres 50' 50' 50'
5 acre
parcel 5 acres 0' 50' Plus 50' Plus
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #92-9 to create one 5 acre
parcel from a 19 acre parcel subject to the following conditions:
_ 1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare a development contract stating that the remaining
14 acre parcel in unbuildable until such time that this area is inside the urban service area
and water and sewer are available.
2. A driveway easement is secured allowing for access to the remaining 14 acre parcel."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map.
2. Bluff Protection Area Map.
3. Proposed Hwy. 101 right-of-way.
� vr V o / ( N -
o��
W I , JW
((� a err•. —
0 L ti
1 a t a " s;
ti
Ci
�/ y -{ r
i Y .. I , _
1: N''
\ _
•r .:.
1 1{tt 1
f T.10
3 •I+
1 r
^ _ E rte..
`\v, 1 .+
Y
= i d • u
o e^
- C C• a ' - •nom' - •o. >.�i
"1) � � c�
61}
..
-A '' 44.1•0.,
L
1111111111 I I I I I I ' III 1 1
= IIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111
II111111111111111111111111111111111 111 '11111
,1,111111111111111111111111111111111r ii, Ij11I_
:1�1�1�11,1�11111111111111111111„ ,...1,.1j11�
--„11111111111111111111111,111111 , „4,.„„ .
_ -- ) 1 III11 , jIIII11 111 1 r
- , 1111111111111
`--L'ir,,--i-+� 1111 111111111111111111111111I111t1 IF 11 1 1 1 1LI II I
.�.., 41.111 T1'1111111111111 11111111111
El,
•+:.\ = 1111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111II111 11111111111111
1 111111111111111111111111111111E 111 11111111111111111111111111111' +8
.11111111111111Y� 1111111III111111 ♦•_
111 11111111111111111111111 !1 111111111111111111111111116 11111 •�
S 1,1 111I1I111I1111111t1- 1111111111111111111111111111.111111 ,,
1 111111111. 1111111111111114111
i's
4. . . ,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,,,,,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,,1,1,1 .r..,
- ,11111I1111I11 1111111111I11�11.1�111 1,1 s Tr Via."
•
111111/111 11111111111111 I 1 i
r3 .111 1 ��1111111 I.V:, j•'
. _e
DESCR,IP7101\) 'FoR: Di -R. ` F
N o coe -v 1 i -
s -7� 2 . S nch - 1DD \ee- -
1t.; \ 'Bake.o.L45 AQg kssUMCr.D
S
N �I B 3
,�. S118EL•T 'TO F.t45EtAC�.iT6 0� �coe.p
T51 � 1 1F AU 4-
\ $ \
\v
133 33 1 �c�5HNI ,
�(� S
vi
kW iN:
\gyp \ v
t. s
A 1 d
`}
G
r
\> ` o
1Q/ d7
f
r 9. 1
\_- m 1Q
1 � I1 • - •
/�. i
` 0
c4...
I �a•,� SO�l"CHEAfT �.021JEe e` C
1 a �� Soul-vrwaGT .QY44aT6R 07
- f N.4\°0\oo Sov ru. L,UQ o{ W1/<}�SEc.Z�i S6c. 25 'C.��bi X2.23
-1G-----1- 1538.-17 5896',z'ko'W
That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County,
• Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter;
thence on a assumed bearing of South 89° 12' 10" West along the south line of said Southwest
Quarter a distance of 1538.77 Zeet;;thence North 1° 01' 11" East a distance of 17.00 feet to
the point of beginning; thence North 60° 11' 32" East a distance of-289.79 feet;•thence-North
18° 47' 49" East a distance of 417.75 feet; thence North 76° 26' 34" West a distance of 591.83
feet to the centerline of State Highway No. 101; thence southeasterly along said-centerline a
_, distance of 705.73 feet to the point of beginning. - -
Co►,p/-"giu% E.q, i e.Es N1oze.oeLe-SS
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of the above described
boundaries of that part of the Southwest Quarter, Section 25, Township 116, Range 23,
Carver County, Minnesota. _
— That I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota.
Ilik
Dated: July 17, 1992 (10,,,J( 1. 41, - 1 ,
Allan R. Hastings ,,
Minnesota Registration No. 17009
121 Lewis Street S.
i : Suite 102
Shakopee, Minnesota
.5. 55379 -
_ Phone 612 445-4027
That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25 , Township 116 , Range 23, Carver
County , Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner —
of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 39 seconds East
along the north line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 1279.23 feet to
the center line of State Highway No. 101 ; thence South 3 degrees 25 minutes
00 seconds West 198. 77 feet; thence southwesterly 401 .01 feet along a tangential
curve to the right , having a radius of 546.83 feet ; thence South 45 degrees
26 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 826. 78 feet ; thence South 23 degrees
51 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 158.43 feet ; thence South 89 degrees
08 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 633.65 feet to the point of beginning
of the land to he described; thence continuing South 89 degrees 08 minutes 00
seconds East a distance of 721 . 35 feet ; thence South 00 degrees 52 minutes 00 —
seconds West a distance of 461 .00 feet; thence South 53 degrees 00 minutes
00 seconds East a distance of 521 .08 feet; thence North 79 degrees 16 minutes
51 secords East 239 feet more or less to the east line of said Southwest Quarter;
thence southerly along said east line to the southwest corner; thence westerly —
along :te south line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 1539 feet more
or less to the centerline of State Highway No. 101 ; thence northwesterly along
said centerline to its intersection with a line drawn South 34 degrees 42 minutes —
50 secoids West from the point of beginning; thence North 34 degrees 42 minutes
50 secolds East a distance of 685.20 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING
THEREFROM all that part of the above described property lying southerly and —
easterly of the following described line A: Commencing at the southeast corner
of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25 , Township 116, Range 23, Carver
County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 12 minutes
10 seconds West along the south line of said Southwest Quarter a distant_ of
1538. 77 feet to the point of beginning of said line A; thence North 01 .3..t.ree
01 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 17.00 feet ; thence North 60 deg: .::::
11 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 289. 79 feet ; thence North 18 degr •es —
47 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 400.00 feet; thence South 68 degrees
44 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 48.84 feet ; thence Sout11 51 degrees
57 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 110.61 feet; thence North 84 degrees
28 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 217.90 feet ; thence South 66 degrees
18 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 152.96 feet; thence North 89 degrees
12 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of 683 feet more or less to the east line
of said Southwest Quarter and there terminating. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the —
following described Tract: That part of the Southwest quarter of Section 25,
Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing;
at a point on the north line of said Southwest Quarter distant 2605. 14 feet
east of the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees
30 minutes 39 seconds West assumed bearing, along said north line 1325.91 feet
to the centerline of State Highway No. 101 ; thence South 3 degrees 25 minutes
00 seconds West a distance of 198. 77 feet ; thence southwesterly 401 .01 feet
along a tangential curve to the right, having a radius of 546.83 feet ; thence
South 45 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 826. 78 feet ; thence
South 23 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 158.43 feet ; thence
South 89 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 1025.00 feet; thence
South 00 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 30.00 feet to the
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 89 degrees 08
minutes CO seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet ; thence South 00 degree:-
52 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 849 feet more or less to the intersection
with the above described line A; thence northwesterly and westerly along said
line A, to the intersection with a line drawn South 00 degrees 52 minutes
00 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 00 decrees 52 minutes
00 seconds East a distance of 814 feet more or less to the poi. of beginning.
EXHIBIT "A"
{. �,---- - , 7___ - f�`'jt j . i,F. =4.yam t„ r-�
-'
r 9A_ It R `'
, •:et: *0,
--- •-g- to, .-s,<,\)( 1„ ;77
010,
' f - 1.„ ) -,N fes,
" - ,, J _ �:
_ �4.: .
T"f40 civilw t3`• �J 1�� f. I1�Qtd;e.' -- r .. 1 .i{ ,...," /
-4 - i 't f,"', ) ' . s .' . t:t''' '.) i '(1111,-------= ,!SS_,----:- ._., 11- ' , ,.
4_4 F
., leAtivp4.--,...),-,.._-4,va- i--.---,-...- 4.7i
4.'--- •+ j a _ - O
ACt•
f.
4"l; s'.. -: ..,•:--, 11; •-••••..Ny lr‘ ,' - . i_,IS.02-.- --',--..'•it• '... (1-* ..."‘•.\___-111* -t-
? .} +, s- X26 Y. ' t Y_ toill °} , ��- A
-FLU, \ ,! p . • �PCAg f _` 1� *` ' Z ~ Y _ ,~ t(
YY ' l a -. ,
L r , ,a4ten.•-•,---..„...„, .....____,_, _.j ., -,---.-2.,, ,,,..7.:..-.1
° iir
- `` T makk' 1 `-j 7 `.'1F
. , _ _—_ 4_it Pp, lc
x ' .r/
•
: - fr ' ' -,Z.7-'i 1-4-------,,, A"- ' - • '4
....._ 7 A ., !„.' ..„,...) i - .••'''•• • i. -:',.., ,k-1--Z.,".„`i.:, _ 411,f .iii -ligoi-.4, kg ;Lt.". .. = - r -- '
4 •-- ej 'Si- /./. ' 1-..-- - ',,, Zc':#. 12 ,A'r. 1, . ...:-,,41,:i-_-___-: .,s -•\a, 2. , ' N.,1,1.ti i
t ' vt„• .,(1 ,,i..,, ,.___ _„--.4ittf--- I w _:__ _. • ___ tilL „ '4
„ %Ale._ s. • . . .
t r t i t 7 t -‘ • A, . --- ..---0
/- 4 4 -tale ..,,,,: ,.. . , )1ks
_,p , - ., , .s. \,a...\...c. .ct....i.w---..,....,:t....:.,- - __, _-.....„..— ...3 ,
• ,.., .
_ . .
,r,"?
�,... m�,.. ` Sea tf, .• .---;,......)---E1.1 -�
. ,),,,, , ii.5".4.:::11.....14:_tia‘jrc
co..
: 44.;,j .: 04:.ir:0.;.:4;,..Y ri"-, .1. 1 A.1-7 v11,1,1,.._1_...:1..;.., , g
40
N ;1,-0—J: ' ' ;''4..;•''I7 ,
— ....\ if.:0 7. . ., 0 „.. ..4....,*,,:c9.,. _. ......,1‘z ,ite, ,-.... 'is. •2 -..-.. s/a ...°
(/.by� •4.• ► q . 1,
yam_ .�\\\.,.....,
-�„ :t!/ % •
'ti : ' i i. a k ; � •> � �, - fix, "»- 930.4r-
_
. °4"s ,$:4 441,:I:4,,,'"".t‘1 7- Pf Ili)0 t* i 4 /---' .' ''----- ' '- i'1 1''' ill i-it:'''6.TV". 9.. 1,:? ' :
Z -1 }
3
1
.EGAUY RECr)RDED Play -
:OMPgAT10N OF RECORDS
a IN INE CGavER COUNTY
Y..114SOURCES 70,15 MAP - S /I/
—+.ISED c0a aE�EREaENCE
COUNTY AND ITS AGENTS
-.NS,B.E TOR ANY
;ON1•.NED r.�E.E:N — Lrop3,ed -(-MVV' ' Ia 1 -
i hf of Way
I
__ I
co- .ce e.s .).) -e. k -£.s-A-
o H Y o:: „„oTu, VBm _ ,2„nsi --
Iw• 101 TTT
i _
VREgT / o.;.
/
s / /
I / / /
I / _
PL N
I /•,�io// AI
' / -c
/ , .4. •
•'VI +• O
Lb
I
V.
, I ...,
I P4, ,,,. ,
I. 7/ f =r °/ —
• \ lE'I
-- — — -
1
CC• •w .
•• • ..AssyNp E.
V \ �`.� :42..iSi �'
M
o�•�•
\. \ I
#0,\.
• \ r
•!., ^ -
'1'.
r a `
o
J , acO
+.1DAVID R
• .,
. TEICH
DOC.NO. '07235 ADp�,�1ON IN —
!1..
I
1 I
0
Y �� •. t
YV.. a0 =w •.
0 t. I
t A 0
��1 1. Z_
1 IT1 NAY Ps Ite {+'•” .,/ `'N+' •
I I
-xl
•
_1 iiWit
! BLOCK I 1w •
):+•2+'t
i ' 2 3 1 ` JEFFBRE55, PD38(
• '` .
w.... `y�iR• ,-t
K.Oi
1 4... :.1n.ou iota??
CRE;KWOOD DRIVE a.+•a'0 w
,4.i4 , /
.i-\ . 111 t‘ 'I #11064 4--:_- - _
• tit. in. al
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGj '����1 11111 I r-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wi i .
Wednesday, August 19, 1992, 7:30 P.M. = F
144fp**,
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Teich Subdivision , / i fr,' ',
_ . s . L.
ll 1 4.„cliii ,.. A
).•A,_ __.• ,..-
Developer: David Teich . g.Rair ��
ris. . .
Location: 10151 Great Plains Boulevard 4- t
`
11ir-- //
I .------"'"glrIIIV.r"rjpir Aldillilall..-------
) '
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 5 acre parcel from a 19+ acre site on
property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
_ wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of public hearing was published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 30, 1992.
ti -
PAUL & DEB. GRAFFUNDER JEFFREY & K. DYPWICK DAVID R. TEICH -
10001 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 10300 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 10151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
RUSSELL & YVONNE BARTO GARY & DEBRA ANDERSON RICHARD T. HALVER
400 LAKOTA LANE 725 CREEKWOOD 10271 GREAT PLAINS BLVD -
CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
DANIEL & C. SCHAITBERGER RICHARD SCHUELKE & HARRY E. NIEMELA
10241 MANDAN CIRCLE GINNY LIND 2901 WASHTA BAY ROAD
CHASKA MN 55318 10251 GREAT PLAINS BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CHASKA MN 55318
ROBERT & PAULA BURESH KEVIN BUESGENS 1ST AMERICAN BANK METR(
5817 HANSEN ROAD 9940 DEERBROOK DRIVE 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREE'i
EDINA MN 55346 CHASKA MN 55318 SO. ST. PAUL MN 55075 -
PAUL TAUNTON DONALD&SANDRA CWAYNA HALLA DAVID HALLA -
10125 CROSSTOWN CIRCLE 10000 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 10095 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
#310 CHASKA MN 55318 CHASKA MN 55318
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
I T O r PC DATE: Aug. 19, 1992
C HA H
Ass
EN
— � CC DATE: Sept. 14, 1992
CASE #: 92-5 PUD
- Elm Elm fa ammo
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Approval
I-
Z
_ a
V LOCATION: West 78th Street, north of Hwy. 5 east of Powers Blvd. and west of Monterey
Drive
APPLICANT: Ryan Construction RLK and Associates
700 International Centre 922 Main Street
_ Q 900 Second Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343
Minneapolis, MN 55402
PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business
ACREAGE: 18.78 acres
DENSITY:
— ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - BG, General Business
S - Hwy. 5/ IOP Industrial Office Park
— E - BG, General Business
411 W - R 12 High Density Residential
CI
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
W
- PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has a significant stand of mature trees including oaks, elms
basswood and box elders. The site slopes to the south. Currently,
a portion of this site is farmed.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota will be the developer of the Chanhassen Target site
and outlot/retail sites. This will be the first retail project Ryan Construction has developed in
Chanhassen. Target Stores will be the owner of the Target Store and property. The entire —
property is 18.78 acres including a 117,165 square foot Target store (10.36 acres), Outlot B
offering space for 26,00 square feet of future retail development (6.61) acres, and Outlot A (1.54
acres) tree preservation area. The HRA is also considering a gateway treatment in a portion of
Outlot B, which would be approximately .50 acres is size.
At this time, Target is proposing to receive site plan approval by the end of September. The —
approval of a specific site plans for the Outlot B will come in at a later date. The total acreage
does not include the Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. Staff will be recommending
that they be added at the time of preliminary plat.
At this time of conceptual review, Ryan Construction has proposed 3 alternatives for Outlot B.
Version lA of Outlot B includes 4 buildings and 26,000 square feet. Outlot Version 1B includes
5 buildings and 29,100 square feet of building. Outlot B Version 1C includes 6 buildings and
25,000 square feet.
When the city learned that Target was looking for a site in the community, the city took a
proactive role. It was clear that Target could locate on several commercially zoned sites in and
around the CBD without substantial city input due to the fact that it is a permitted use. Instead,
it was determined that if possible, the City Council should be put in a position of determining
only the most appropriate site but also the most sensitive site plan based upon the Hwy. 5
corridor design goals and Central Business District development plans. The staff set up a
meeting with members of the Planning Commission, City Council, HRA, and Chamber of
Commerce. The meeting was held to review the plans laid out by staff; Bill Moorish, of the U
of M Center for Urban Design and the city's consultant on the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study, Barton
Aschman. At that time, certain issues became clear. It was determined that the "Burdick" parcel
offered the best opportunity to compliment the CBD. First, the city gave high priority to saving
trees on the Burdick site. Views were important, as was image and the ability to fit with the
downtown area. This was a highly unusual method of responding to a developer. Rather than
waiting for plans to be reviewed and then making the best of them, the City Council was able
to make decisions prior to the formal submittal.
There is a large stand of mature trees located on this site. The HRA will be acquiring these trees
and the Target Store will be tucked against them. Loading docks and access will be located off
of Picha via Monterey. Therefore, all loading will be screened from view. One of the other
issues discussed at earlier meetings was an area for a gateway monument. The HRA is still
considering placing a monument sign along Powers Boulevard. This will be located just to the
east of any required right-of-way. The parcels that are included in the Target site plan include
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 3
the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, Lots 1-5 and West Village Heights subdivision, Lot 1, Block 2.
Staff is also recommending that the Burdick Park Addition, Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, be included
in this PUD. The reason staff is recommending this is that this will be the only parcel left out
between Powers Boulevard and Market Square and it makes sense to have these lots architectural
tied into the PUD.
The Target store proposes to be the first development in the PUD. It will be 117,165 square feet
in size and will 585 parking spaces. The staff has seem preliminary architectural drawing of the
store and it will be similar in design to those recently built in the Chicago area, which is a
significant improvement over typical Minnesota stores. The store will have the 8 inch tile
glazing with blue, green and red. The plan proposes a painted masonry with dark tan on the
bottom one-third and light tan on the top two-thirds. Block columns, ten feet in height will be
placed every 16 feet along the west side of the building. The building will be 20 feet in height
with a 3 foot 4 inch parapet wall. At the top of this wall will be a 11/2 corbelled element. The
_ parapet wall would block all views of HVAC equipment; this would include views from Hwy.
5. A pitch to the roof has been pr9 _t (around) S 59 t(to) S 59 t (the) S 59 t (West)_S 59 _t (78th)_
further refined to offer roof line elements consistent with downtown Chanhassen.
Staff is recommending the use of the PUD zone for several reasons. These reasons include:
= preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees), improved pretreatment of storm water,
improved and coordinated architectural standards (pitched roofs, uniform signage and building
design), traffic management and design techniques (reducing the potential for traffic conflicts),
screening of undesirable views of loading areas.
The project conforms with plans for the realignment of West 78th Street. The road will swing
to the north as it approaches Powers Boulevard. The proposal requests a significant improvement
over the status quo of the existing West 78th Street alignment. The intersection with Powers
Blvd. will be eliminated. This will allow for improved development coordination and traffic
safety. The right-of-way on West 78th Street has been shown at 50 feet from the centerline for
the entire length of the development. The 50 feet allows for two through traffic lanes, required
turning lanes and in some areas sidewalks and landscaped boulevard. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch
(SRF), the city's traffic engineering consultants will be preparing the road design for West 78th.
The Target proposal shows 3 access points into the proposed development; one at the entrance
_ to Target, one into the Target parking area, and one into the Outlot B parking area. SRF has
recommended that the access closest to Powers Boulevard servicing the outlot be a right turn-
in/turn-out only. A signal may be warranted at the Target entrance.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 4
SRF has looked at the traffic generation for this area traffic issues. They have completed a future
peak trip generation for the 78th and Powers area based on complete development of this area
(both sides of West 78th) as commercial development. Even with total development, the traffic
as proposed will exceed the design capacity. The ultimate Average Daily Trip (ADT) for this
area going south on Powers east onto West 78th would be 3830 or an increase from current —
levels of 800 trips. The ultimate ADT's from north on Powers Blvd. east on to West 78th Street
would be 10,071 and increase of 7,071 trips. Again, this ADT's include ultimate development
in this area including, Market Square, and the James property to the north which is commercially
zoned.
Staff believes that this project is well conceived but need to be refined as the process evolves.
The development of the PUD zone for this site shall ensure the type of development desired for
this area. This includes pitched roofs, compatible architecture, and controlled access, and
preservation of the trees. Staff recommends approval of the conceptual PUD subject to the
conditions in the staff report.
Site Characteristics
This site is currently vacant, although a portion of the site is planted with corn. There is a
produce stand located on the property that has been there for a few years. There is a 3 plus acre
area of tree. The site slopes towards Hwy. 5 and is approximately 25 feet below the road grade
on Hwy. 5. The city, in conjunction with Barton Aschman, is in the process of developing a
Corridor Study for Hwy. 5. The views from Hwy. 5 and the proposed development in this area
is critical to the image of the city.
The site is bordered by 3 major collectors, Hwy. 5, West 78th, Powers Boulevard. SRF has been
working on the West 78th Improvement District. Recently, the City Council has approved the
location of traffic signals at Laredo, Kerber, Great Plains and Market. SRF is also working on
the relocation and design of West 78th Street.
There is a significant change in elevation from the Target site to the Burdick property to the east.
There is a need for a retaining wall for the 5 to 6 feet in elevation difference.
Background
The parcels that are included in the Target site plan include the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, Lots
1-5 and West Village Heights subdivision, Block 1 Lot 1. Staff is also recommending that the
Burdick Park Addition, Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Lot 1 and 2. Burdick Park Addition approved in
1990, platted the area into 5 lots. Each of these lots could be developed individually. In the
worst case scenario they would each have incompatible architecture, individual pylon signs and
separate entrances onto West 78th Street. At the same time, traffic generation would be similar
to the current Target proposal.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 5
The HRA will acquire the property where the development is proposed. This purchase is
contingent upon receiving all city approvals including rezoning, site plan, subdivision, etc. Lots
1-5, Burdick Park Addition and Village Heights.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 18.78 acres from BG, General Business to
PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD
request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20-501. Intent
Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the
relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for
a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for
lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation
that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal
than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the
applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated
against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Finding. There is a significant stand of trees located on the south east corner of the site.
These trees include Oak, Elm, Ash, Basswood and Box Elder. The HRA will be
acquiring 1.54 acres of the tress this will include the area that is predominately oak, so
that the trees are preserved. These trees are highly visible form the Hwy 5 corridor and
their preservation will be an asset to the City. They will offer considerable screening
of a portion of the Target Store and all loading areas.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
— of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding. The subject property is triangular and bordered by 3 major collectors. The
advantage in the PUD proposal is that the city is gaining a totally planned concept_ If
this were to develop separately as individuals parcels, signage, landscaping, lighting and
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 6
architecture would not be compatible. The coordination of the site development will also
improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of public improvements. There will be a
comprehensive storm drainage system. The building pad on Outlot B will have a
common access as opposed to separate drives.
3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Finding. The applicants are proposing to submit individual buildings plans for each
development lot. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each.
The approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is
developed in a consistent and well planned manner. Higher quality development will
result. There will be compatibility with the development occurring in the CBD.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding. Sidewalks will be placed along West 78th and Powers Boulevard. In addition
the HRA is proposing a gateway treatment adjacent to Powers Blvd. Additional
landscaping will be provided along West 78th, Powers Blvd and Hwy 5. The back of
the Target store will be against the trees and all loading will be screened from view.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this are for commercial development. This area
is adjacent to the Market square development. The property north of the site is also
zoned commercial and guided for commercial development. The city is currently review
a multifamily development in the vicinity.
6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
Finding. The parks and recreation commission have recommend that sidewalks be placed
along West 78th and Powers Blvd. The Commission also recommended that the park and
trail fees be received in lieu of park and trail dedication.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Finding. Not applicable to this proposal.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 7
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding. Chanhassen is one of the few communities that is able to have a pedestrian
oriented CBD. This is possible by the creation of a centralized "downtown". There is
a park and ride facility in the area and the downtown is connected by sidewalks.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Finding. Access to this site will be from Hwy 5, Powers Blvd and West 78th. The city
Council has recently approved the location of 4 traffic signal on West 78th Street at Great
Plains, Market, Laredo and Kerber Boulevard. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch, the city's
consulting traffic engineers have recommended that a signal be placed at the main
entrance to the Target store. Of the other 2 entrances one will be a full access (non
signaled) into the target parking lot and the other access to the building in Outlot B will
be right in and right out only.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
reduced standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of
the site. In return for reducing the standards, the city is receiving:
• Improved pretreatment of storm water
• Screening of undesirable view of loading areas
• Preservation of desirable site characteristics (tees)
• Improved architectural standards including; pitched roof, uniform sign and
architecture
• Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
_ At this time staff is reviewing and developing the framework for the PUD zone. The Target
Store will be proceeding through site plan review at the September 16, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting. There are three proposal for Outlot B. While the number of building pads
range from 4 to 6 site the square foot is relatively constant. Staff is comfortable with all three
proposals but site plan review for any building in Outlot B must consider the balance of the
outlot.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 8
General Site Plan/Architecture _
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The applicant has proposed the following development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has
reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings and then given the staff proposal for
language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document.
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD commercial/retail zone. The use of the PUD
zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and
more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot
proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the
development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is requesting that all building sites within the
affected property shall be used solely for a Target store and commercial retail
development. Target Stores, Inc. will be the owner of the Target store and property.
Individual site plans will be submitted to Ryan Construction Company, the property
agent for approval relative to architecture, building materials, and site improvements.
Finding. The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and
service uses consistent with the City's CBD development goals. The uses shall be limited
to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the
definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation.
1. Day Care Center
2. Standard Restaurants
3. Health and recreation clubs _
4. Retail
5. Financial Institutions, including drive-in service *
6. Newspaper and small printing offices
7. Veterinary Clinic
8. Animal Hospital
9. Offices
10. Health Care Facility
11. Garden Center (completely enclosed)
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 9
12. Bars and Taverns
13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) *
* Drive thru's should be buffered from all public views
c. Setbacks
_ Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing to have all building no closer that 45
feet to Hwy. 5, Powers Boulevard and West 78th Street. Parking will be no closer than
20 feet to West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard and 15 feet from Hwy. 5.
Finding. In the PUD standards the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any
public right of way, parking along right of ways shall be set back 20 feet. Building
— located in Outlot B do not meet these standards.
Staff is recommending the following setbacks.
Street Building Parking
— Setback Setback
West 78th Target 55 feet 20 feet
— Outlot B 50 feet 20 feet
Powers Boulevard 50 feet 20 feet
— Hwy. 5 Target 120 feet 20 feet
Outlot B 50 feet 15 feet
The location of the Target store meets these standards but some of the building in Outlot B are
in non compliance.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 10
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
USE Lot Area No. of Bldg. Parking Impervious
Acres Bldgs. Sq. ft. Surface
Target 10.36 1 117,165 585 79.8
Outlot Version IA 6.51 4 26,600 219 59
includes gateway
area
Oudot Version 1B 6.61 5 29,100 243 68 9c
Outlot Version 1C 6.61 6 25,000 182 61 9c
Outlot A Trees 1.54
none
Outlot C Gateway .50
none
TOTAL 18.51 5-7 average average average
144,065 * 800 67 %
The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 709c for commercial uses. The proposed
development meets this standard with an average of 67% hard surface coverage. This excludes
the 1.54 acres of trees and the .27 acres for right-of-way.
*Parking as shown based on the uses proposed may be inadequate. Each site plan will have to
be reviewed to see if the parking meets the parking standards. Each development must deal with
the balance of the site.
e. Building Materials and Design
Applicant's Proposal. The developer is proposing that Target will establish the
architectural standards. Ryan Construction will approve individual site plans to approve
architecture building materials and site improvements.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 11
Finding. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of
architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with
material compatible to the building.
1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be
used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. Painted surfaces
shall be allowed on the Target store only.
2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone,
textured or coated.
5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one
of the above materials or curtain wall on office components.
6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by roof features (pitched roofs).
Wood screen fences are prohibited. Roof mounted equipment is to be fully
screened by compatible materials.
8. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as Target. (Target
will be the first store to build and they will establish or set the theme.)
9. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is requesting to install the required landscaping
incremental or as each lot developments.
Finding. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the
PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a
separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process.
1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or
covered with plantings and/or lawn material.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 12 —
2. Outdoor storage is prohibited.
3. The master landscape plan for the Target PUD shall be the design guide for all
of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape
plan for approval with the site plan review process. —
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be
required where deemed appropriate. —
6. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas
proposed for future development. —
g. Signage
Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing each lot to have a monument sign and
2 pylon signs, one for Target and one for the outlot. Signage would be consistent
throughout the development.
Finding. Staff is proposing one freestanding pole sign be permitted for Target and one
for the other buildings in Outlot B. All buildings in Outlot B should be limited to
monument signs.
1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into
the private site. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards
in the sign ordinance.
2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area
of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted.
3. All signs require a separate permit.
4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the
building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding
wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not
be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation.
5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 13
h. Lighting
Applicant's Proposal. The applicants are proposing a decorative shoe box fixture, with
a square ornamental pole. These would be in the parking lot and the street right-of-way.
Finding.
1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for
site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. This does not
apply to street lighting.
2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall
not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates.
3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as
activated by yearly conditions.
4. Light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards.
_ Streets/Access
This property is bordered by 3 major collectors; State Hwy. 5, County Road 17 (Powers
— Boulevard), and West 78th Street. West 78th street is proposed to be realigned and it will swing
to the north as it approaches Powers Boulevard. SRF is working on the design (West 78th Street
Detachment Improvement Project) of this street. Plans will be developed jointly with the
proposed Target Development. All access to the site will be gained off of West 78th Street.
The site plan proposes that the most westerly access be a full access intersection. SRF has
recommended that this access be a right turn-in/right turn-out only, full access at this location
would be dangerous. The other two access will be full intersections with a signal at the most
easterly access to the entrance to Target. Two of these accesses will also serve the property to
the north.
Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch has looked at the traffic generation for this area and traffic issues. They
have completed a future peak trip generation for the 78th and Powers area based on complete
development of this area (both sides of west 78th) as commercial development. Even with total
development the traffic as proposed will exceed the design capacity. The ultimate Average Daily
Trip (ADT) for this area going south on Powers and east onto West 78th would be 3830 or an
increase from current levels of 800 trips. The ultimate ADT's from north on Powers Blvd. east
on to West 78th Street would be 10,071 an increase of 7,071 trips. Again, this ADT's include
ultimate development in this area including, Market Square, and the James property to the north
which is commercially zoned.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 14
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
The site has a large stand, approximately 3. 5 acres, of mature trees. These trees include oak,
elm, ash, box elder and basswood. The city has already identified these trees as an asset as a
part of the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study. The HRA will be purchasing 1.54 acres of property for tree
preservation. The applicants have proposed thinning out all trees under 6 inches in caliper. Staff
is recommending that all trees regardless of caliper remain. The only trees to be removed from
the site shall be those trees that are diseased or dead.
The HRA is considering a gateway treatment at the corner of Hwy. 5 and Powers Blvd. This
would be approximately l/z acre in size. This gateway area is reflected on Plan lA for Outlot B.
The landscaping shall be consistent with the standards of the landscaping ordinance. The
landscaping plan shown for the Target site calls for extensive landscaping around the perimeter
of the property and planter islands in the parking lot. Staff would recommend that trees be
placed in the walkway in front of the Target Store. These could be spaced between the proposed
columns. Street trees are shown along West 78th, staff would recommend that the northeast
portion of the city have a larger landscaping element. It appears that the cross easement to the
property to the east will not work at this location. Landscaping plans will be reviewed at the
time of site plan review.
Grading and Drainage
The entire site is proposed to be regraded. The majority of the runoff will drain to a detention
pond located near the southwest corner of the Target building. The pond shall be constructed
to N1 RP Standards from a water quality standpoint and provide storage capacity to yield a
maximum discharge rate of 20 cfs under a 100 year storm event. A portion of the northwest
corner of Outlot B is proposed to drain via storm sewer to a future storm sewer facility to be
constructed with the West 78th Street Detachment Project.
The retention pond proposed a 2:1 slope, making maintenance difficult. Staff is recommending
that a drainage and utility easement be granted over the area and a graded turf driveway access
be designed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure.
Utilities
Water and sewer are available to the site. It is likely that future development of Outlot B may
require the relocation of some portions of the sewer line.
_ Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 15
Park and Recreation
The Park and Recreation Commission met on August 11, 1992, to review this project. There was
a consensus among the members of the commission to accept full park and trail dedication fees
as a part of this development. The Commission is assuming there will be sidewalks with the
_ development. Fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application. Presently these
figures for commercial and industrial property is are $2.500.00 per acre for park dedication and
$833.00 per acre for trail fees.
RECOMMENDATION
— CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of PUD #92-5 as shown on the
plans dated August 7, 1992, subject to the following conditions:
1. Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2 be added to the PUD at the time of
preliminary PUD.
2. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report
and Engineer's memo.
3. The most westerly access on West 78th Street shall be a right turn-in and right
turn-out only, full access be limited to the other two locations shown on the site
plan.
4. The three proposals for Oudot B may be acceptable but each building must
—
proceed through site plan review. This site plan review shall consider the
remainder of the balance of the site. This includes landscaping impervious
surface, parking etc. Any major changes would constitute a rezoning.
5. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street.
6. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees.
_ 7. Six foot sidewalk along West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard.
8. Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development. Compatibility
with all signage, lighting, and landscaping.
Target Development
August 12, 1992
Page 16 —
9. Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B. Target shall have a
parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched roof elements shall be _
introduced on the entry portion and the West 78th side of Target.
10. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm sewer, water
and sanitary sewer.
11. Uses are limited to those outlined in the report including the limitation of two fast _
food restaurants.
ATTACHMENTS —
1. Location Map
2. Architectural rendering _
3. SRF Traffic Forecasts
4. Memo from Charles Folch dated August 12, 1992
5. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated August 12, 1992 —
6. Letter from Carver County Engineering dated August 4, 1992
7. Narrative Document from RLK dated August 12, 1992
8. HRA Report dated August 14, 1992
9. Site Plan dated August 7, 1992
\ \ . . . t\ 0 -6'. -1 - ....--- • t
26 se
X - y N
r\''''.'.- - -."7 I 9
i O ¢ T R D
'Poen
O $ e
\ -. I .1. i
- r-- Z -* 1
, , C 5•( e
• . _
nf � r
i if.
I \:_------.- - '
f 4.1" `Slo 1 r •
ig
\ •,3)
o
•..I •IPS"17
..:. 1,48
, ala % 4._
w‘riss.
•
•
........ .y O
, c,....___
_c„,
..‹
N .ice ��to
• iiii
ir .(7. . ' 1 4-,
11 so
co a _
/
Fair A" 1
•
j24 a • F K4 ! .
— T di P I.1/ 8U DICK i, MD ►�roMTg -��`4
O.
w r.io�r A
1 ab . .k. ' F -,. 0..12 5
A
1- - .". - .. 1 :- inil-I- • ''
N.. \ .1 3.
r ,
t • : ..ifi'3"---'. " 1
la
+?� c 1•I'�t � ...le �
fal
. g,..
ows
DPW ;1
�WNRCT - •lV0 - -- r • 8 s G r • R� i W.
7114 QB
\lairtitli
1' �e�I.
..........z...,,, ,. .,,0-1
/111� 1� M t a Ilatu • ` A.. -,NIO °°'. _ i .ice
> ', 4 51-. ' LAIIII041102!"*1: ilib.' 4.4IWO.
i.
1;•511 sly . a . . ... . . ,., A
,i i A !..--- #
\Ji 1It.
t r j %•Trig _ uv.or _ i� Iv-` r..
•Ifs �w1 vPE z sis ; �- - _ - a = ► ;� ® � �4_ r .aZ v� -+ _ as+* '�w t{ iiiii• r _' '' s9G• O
.e----;-.---_ y 7�a. . (r yi9 - e i . i l' fi i : t 'F
• l ill E 14
.7,1e, 2f.$2.11 1§- Te; i is 4 ' .1
08-12-92 0:' .55PM FROM RSP ARCHITECTS TO 9375739 P002
t G
I MI i' ; , IN IN ; (i) C> ^; y
O• g dd ( W a•
! *-] 'G
e
Pi _ . --(4
ami ----° i :ii .s, -: I
p.-; imi F.4 ' _ .
l pli , -{
c I i .,--i
o �, I I —
D p -- - . 1- .
-�- !:�
s" _I
I � I —
a fS
--
LII
G ` 1-
1 I
II ii _ . .. e _.
P . .
BIM - i -_. 1 1
ell .. 0, !ip e
-o - • . C-)
I
I W ' I i
y aili� • - o --( ••{i)
Pi —
[Pit Vo4J
lei i.
'1iti`_
L
A
Z V
0 00
S J.< x -�
o X =
ZII _i ._360
z r ( 33)
F (Irk; 450
41 POWERS BLVD.
gg
t 5 3
g i O•c
z "ti
n
a
-n L Q
C
n
1-N CI' 1-111 e
03Til
Os„n! r#242
� ) KERBER BLVD.
—I' 1I 1'
13 m az4)4w-
N N N
D �n --1.0
162
Z
c =� ,a;as2�� r u MARKET BLVD.
-IN O (i41)1p� -1t� $
T z C C7 a
.4 cfo 4_177 x'44)
Z z Z l 3 j rt51 !�5)
_ c 7 z > .� r� LAREDO DR.
cl
_ =O z �O O°
5 <
-4 m si
M
il ��
z 1
-n 1,..",),
��" �
��
.O
IF
m Q`d0�a L.cb`'y� L 16
n SNS, ; r u FRONTIER TR.
cn L r r'
• 1 � y _
cp
CD es
_
.
— Crl c-)
y am.1 !est ( oas) NORTH
C 242...+41—
~ T.H. 101
CITYOF
CIIANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner —
FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer OdkDATE: August 12, 1992
SUBJ: Target Site Development Concept Review —
LUR 92-11
In review of the concept Target site plan submittal dated August 5, 1992, I offer the
following comments:
Watermain
Water service for the Target site (Lot 1, Block 1) is proposed to be acquired by connecting
to an existing 10-inch watermain located at the westerly limits of Picha Drive and extending
an 8-inch watermain along the east and north sides of the building tying into an existing 18-
inch
watermain along West 78th Street to complete the loop of the system. It is assumed
that this service line installation within the subject property will be owned and maintained —
privately. If it is intended that this line is to be public, appropriate utility easements for the
alignment will be needed. Water service to the proposed Outlot B is available via an
existing 18-inch watermain along West 78th Street. It is likely that the development of this
outlot will necessitate relocation of some portions of the existing watermain. A 20-foot wide
utility easement over the alignment of the existing 18-inch watermain through Outlot B shall
be established with new plat. Fire hydrant spacing and location requirements shall be _
determined by review of the fire marshal.
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer to the Target site is proposed to be constructed along the eastern and —
northern sides of the building and connecting to the City's existing 8-inch sanitary sewermain
along West 78th Street. This line is anticipated to serve only the Target site. Therefore,
%IS/ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Kate Aanenson
August 12, 1992
Page 2
it is assumed that this line will be owned and maintained as a private utility. Sanitary sewer
service is available to Outlot B via an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer pipe along the south
right-of-way of West 78th Street. It is likely that future development of Outlot B may
necessitate the relocation of some portions of this sewerline. A 30-foot wide utility
easement for the existing sanitary sewer alignment shall be dedicated over the newly created
Outlot B within the plat. In addition, a 30-foot wide utility easement over the existing
sanitary sewer alignment shall be granted through Lot 1, Block 1 of the plat.
Grading and Drainage
The entire site is proposed to be regraded to create the desired development topography.
The majority of the site is proposed to drain to a detention pond located near the southwest
corner of the Target building. The pond shall be constructed to NURP standards from a
water quality standpoint and provide storage capacity to yield a maximum discharge rate of
20 cfs under a 100-year storm event. A portion of the northwest corner of Outlot B is
proposed to drain via storm sewer to a future storm sewer facility to be constructed with the
West 78th Street Detachment Project.
The developer shall provide the City with storm sewer calculations and discharge rates for
the entire storm sewer system on the site as a part of the preliminary plat submittal. The
proposed pond embankment slopes are 2:1. This steep of a slope makes maintenance of
this pond somewhat difficult. If this pond is to be maintained by the City, an appropriate
drainage and utility easement shall be granted over the area and a graded turf driveway
access shall be designed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure.
Street/Access
The entire site proposes four access locations, three off of West 78th Street and the fourth
to be a service access from Picha Drive. The most westerly access serving future Outlot B
is proposed as a full access intersection. Information from a recent downtown traffic study
completed by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch (SRF) indicates that a full access intersection at this
location would be potentially hazardous and not recommended. Therefore, it is
recommended that the westerly access for future service to Outlot B be a right-in right-out
only controlled entrance with no median break on West 78th Street. The other two access
locations to this site from West 78th Street will likely be signalized intersections which will
be constructed as a part of the overall West 78th Street Detachment Improvement Project.
Review by the project consultant, SRF, of these proposed entrance locations and
compatibility with the proposed West 78th Street Detachment Project may result in some
additional issues that would need to be addressed.
Kate Aanenson
August 12, 1992
Page 3 -
The grading plan for the site also proposes to modify the profile for the future West 78th
Street Detachment Project. This may result in further issues that would need to be
addressed as it relates to impact to the proposed detachment project and the adjacent site
on the northside of West 78th Street owned by Mr. Charlie James. —
This concludes my review of the conceptual site plan for the proposed Target development.
jms
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
"♦
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: August 12, 1992
SUBJ: Land Development Proposal, Preliminary Site Plan Review - Target
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned proposal on August 11,
1992. A copy of the staff report presented that evening is attached. Mr. John Dietrich of
RLK Associates, Ltd. was present at the meeting representing Ryan Construction Company,
_ the applicant. Mr. Dietrich did respond to questions of the commission. Acting as the Park
and Recreation Commission, there was consensus among the members in accepting full park
and trail fees as a part of this development in lieu of any land dedication or trail construction.
This is assuming that the Planning Commission will be requiring the installation of sidewalks
along West 78th Street. However, a majority of the members acting outside of the parameters
of the commission wished to voice their disapproval of this proposal.
Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Andrews moved to recommend the City
Council require the applicant to pay full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication or trail
construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per
acre rate then in force for commercial/industrial properties. At present, these fees are $2,500
per acre and $833 per acre, respectively and that the applicant is held to the highest standards
of a PUD development to ensure a high quality development in the downtown business
district. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Koubsky. Commissioners Andrews,
Pemrick, Erickson, Schroers, and Koubsky voted in favor. Commissioner Lash was opposed.
The motion was approved.
•
is
t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Rrn/IN
I ,>>
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
't r / 600 EAST 4TH STREET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ / CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
(612)4481213 I `c
' 'NES0
COUNTY Of CAQVEQ
August 4, 1992
To: Paul Krauss, Chanhassen Planning Dire for
From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer/)
Subject: Preliminary Site Plan
Chanhassen Target Development
Comments regarding the preliminary site plan for the Chanhassen Target Development dated July
20, 1992, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated July 22, 1992, are:
1. The county highway department supports the proposed concept of site access being
limited to West 78th Street.
2. Discussion with the city about the potential redesign of CSAH 17 north of TH 5 to safely
and adequately accommodate traffic in the area of the West 78th Street intersection is
requested. A detailed analysis of projected traffic volumes and movements along this
segment of CSAH 17 will be required by the county highway department as part of the
CSAH 17 project review process. In particular, appropriate traffic control at the West 78th
Street and the Oak Ponds development intersections must be studied in detail. Traffic
signals at one or both of these intersections may be warranted. Necessary project
revisions and additions may require area developers and/or the city to invest additional
dollars in the CSAH 17 project.
3. It is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right-of-way.
Any such installations are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of
CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department.
5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-
of-way (Including trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be
completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than
what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the
developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the
final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this
responsibility will, in my opinion, result in fewer project oversight problems for both the
county and the city.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan for the proposed
development. RECEIVED
Affirrmatr:e Adan/Equal Opp rtunit, -''P' er AUG 0 6 1992
Prnrted on Rended PaPer
C'TV A1C ONANHAQQEN
AUG-12-1992 09 45 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES, .LTD. . . . TO 937579 F.O
6-fa.--1? DPA FT tom..
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. Post-it"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 «of;k nee ►
CONCEPT PUD NARRATIVE E _ tr► .
INIMMIM
CHANHASSEN TARGET DEVELOPMENT Dept► - Phone 4 rAMEN -
Fax
Revised August 7, 1992
INTRODUCTION
Located in the east central portion of the City of Chanhassen, on the western edge of the Central Business District
- lies two parcels identified as Burdick Park 2nd Addition and Block 2 of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition.
These two parcels in addition to the vacated West 78th Street right of way form a 18.78 acre parcel of property being
proposed for commercial development. Refer to Figure 1 for project location. Ryan Construction Company,
- hereinafter referred to as the developer, is proposing to develop the property into what shall be referred to as the
Chanhassen Target development.
The first step in the implementation of the Chanhassen Target development is to rezone the property from its current
BG (General Business District) zoning to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning. This document represents the
narrative that accompanies the seven site plan sheets submittal. The architectural details for elevations and materials
_ shall be submitted directly to the City staff from Target. The developer, via this submittal package for concept PUD
and the Target site plan approval, intends to go through the PUD process. Upon successful completion of this stage,
the preliminary, the final PUD and final site plan will be pursued. It is the expectation of the developer that the
following schedule is realistic.
CONCEPT PUD AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS
Concept PUD and Site Plan Submittal July 21, 1992
Resubmit Revised Plan Sheets and Narrative August 6, 1992
Planning Commission Hearing August 19, 1992
- City Council Hearing September 14, 1992
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD AND FINAL SITE PLAN FOR TARGET SITE
Submit August 24, 1992
Resubmit concept plan package, with developmental guidelines including the
Burdick property to the east of Target in PUD
Planning Commission September 16, 1992
City Council September 28, 1992
Anticipate approval of entire Target site plan which would allow the grading and building permit process to proceed
subsequent to the September 28th City Council meeting. This schedule assumes a decision is made at each
Commission and City Council meeting.
INTERIM USE GRADING PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS *
Conditional Use Permit Submittal (to allow site grading) September $, 1992
City Council Hearing September 28, 1992
CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 1
AUG-12-1992 09:46 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES, .LTD. . . . TO 9375739 P.02
RLI( ASSOCIATES, LTD.
It is the expectation of the Developer to have a final decision on this site prior to October 1, 1992. The developer is
committed to working with City staff on this schedule, in the anticipation construction would be under way prior to
the on.set of winter.
* Back up position, make application on August 24, and withdraw application if preliminary and final PUD are
progressing.
CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 2
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- PROJECT GOALS
The primary goal of the Developer is to develop 16.97 acres of the 18.78 acre site into a Target store on
— Lot 1 Block 1 (10.36 acres) and individual retail parcels on Outlot B (6.61 acres). Three schematic
layouts for Outlot B are included as part of this submittal package, which illustrate various options on how
this parcel may be developed. The remainder of the 18.78 acre site consists of proposed additional right
— of way for West 78th Street (0.27 acres) and Outlot A (1.54 acres), which shall remain in the possession
of the City for tree preservation purposes. There are several objectives that support the primary goal.
— 1. To integrate the Burdick Park 2nd Addition and Lot 1, Block 2 of West Village Heights Second
Addition into a Planned Unit development with compatible site organization and development standards.
2. Provide as a catalyst to the City to finalize the design and reconstruct West 78th Street per the Year
2000 Land Use Plan, the 1992 SRF Feasibility Study and input from this proposal on elevations of 78th
Street.
3. Provide a full turning movement access onto 78th Street from Outlot B which would also serve the
James site to the north. The grade of West 78th Street at the main entrance of Target has been
designed to be lowered approximately 3 feet over the present day grade. This drop in elevation
decreases the grade originally proposed for West 78th Street by BRW approximately 2 feet. RLK has
reviewed the impact to the James property to the north and based upon a preliminary review the lower
_ elevation of West 78th Street at the Target entrance would not place an undo burden on this site and
future development. Additional design and evaluation of grades and a site plan may be necessary. It is
our understanding that Mr. James has retained an engineer who will study further the elevation, grades,
and access impact to his site.
4. To create a utility system, ponding area and combination public and private roadway system in
conjunction with the site development.
5. Protect the majority of existing hardwood trees at the southeast corner of the lot in accordance with
discussions and objectives of the City staff.
6. Develop a quality commercial/retail area compatible with the west CBD sub-area study prepared in
April 1992 and the City's Year 2000 plan and code standards.
The commercial site described and shown on Figure 1 is guided for General Business by the City's
Comprehensive Plan. It is also zoned for General Business. In order to create a PUD for this site, the
developer intends to follow the City PUD zoning approval process. The developer wishes to enhance the
flexibility of development of the sites within the 18.78 acre tract of land through the relaxation of the
zoning district standards. In return, the developer's intent is to exchange improved quality and additional
landscape materials of the finished development project.
The PUD will encourage the items listed in Article VIII, Division I of Section 20-501. Later, in the
details that are contained in this narrative document and attached plan sheets, the methods by which the
City's expectations will be met are demonstrated. •
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 2
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL PACKAGE EXPLANATION
Discussion in this section of the narrative introduction briefly explains the contents of the submittal
material. This data was transmitted to the City, with the appropriate Concept Stage PUD, Rezoning, Site
Plan Review and Sign Package Fee. The items listed below are either included in this Narrative Booklet
(N) or they are included with the plan sheets (P). On July 21, 1992 the submittal package was delivered —
to City Hall in Chanhassen, Minnesota. A revised narrative and plan sheet with a revised date of August
5, 1992 were submitted on August 6, 1992.
1. Completed application for Development Review (N)
2. Written consent of all property owners within the PUD (N) —
3. Project narrative booklet explaining the project in detailed fashion using verbiage, sketches, charts, and
an appendices (N). —
4. Set of ten plan sheets that describe in concept schematics the components of the project with detail (P).
Sheet 1 - Site Plan; Sheet 1A, 1B, 1C identifying alternative development schemes for Outlot B; Sheet —
2 - Existing Conditions; Sheet 3 - Concept Utilities; Sheet 4 - Concept Grading; Sheet 5 - Concept
Landscape; Sheet 6 - Preliminary Plat; Sheet 7 - Tree Survey.
5. Plan sheet and description of materials and elevations identifying the architectural detail for the Target
store shall be submitted directly to the City by Target.
6. List of property owners within 500 feet of the site (N).
7. Topography map and legal description of property proposed for PUD zoning and development (P).
BACKGROUND OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM PARTICIPANTS _
CHANHASSEN TARGET DEVELOPMENT
Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. will be the Developer of the Chanhassen Target site and
Outlot B retail sites. Under the direction of Bob Goodpaster, the project will be the first commercial retail
development that Ryan has developed in Chanhassen. Target Stores, Inc. will be the owner of the Target _
store and property. Ryan has considerable experience in developing Target stores and their associated
developments such as the Rockford Road Plaza in Plymouth and the Cliff Lake Centre development in
Eagan. In addition, Ryan has developed a number of Industrial and Office Corporate Parks including the
Chanhassen Business Center proposed for Audubon Road. Their commitment to the business client and —
the City to provide a quality retail and business environment helps to assure that the Chanhassen Target
development project will be a successful development venture.
Architecture for the site development within the Target proposal will be performed by the architects on the
Ryan Construction Company staff in association with Target architectural staff. Greg Madsen will be in
charge of the architecture design and coordination with the other design team members. —
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 3
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Site planning, surveying, engineering and landscape architecture services will be provided by RLK
Associates, Ltd. Dick Koppy will serve to facilitate the project's involvement between the City and the
developer on all items related to site planning and infrastructure development. RLK Associates has served
Ryan Construction Company for over 5 years on many of their retail, industrial and office park
development projects around the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
* * * *
PROJECT DETAILS
Planned Unit Developments (PUD) offer enhanced flexibility for the developer to achieve a more creative
use of the land while easing the normal zoning district standard. In exchange, the City expects that the
development plan will result in a significantly higher quality development and more sensitive proposal than
in the more standard zoning district development proposal. This section of the Narrative discusses the
strategies of the development plan for the Target Development related to criteria the City has indicated an
interest in reviewing.
Through the variety of land use, efficiencies of the utility and roadway system the proposed PUD can
maximize the development potential of the subject parcel while remaining sensitive to its unique natural
features. Powers Boulevard and State Highway 5 serve as a focus location for the City of Chanhassen
with respect to the downtown Chanhassen amenities.
The proposed site plan identified on plan sheet one of seven identifies the suggested layout of the
structures, roadway and parking areas. Several key issues identified on the site plan are proposed in order
to meet the City's objective of a PUD zoning district.
1. Construct West 78th Street according to the Year 2000 plan and 2/19/92 SRF Feasibility Study to
enable the Target site to be developed concurrently with an organized internal roadway system and
coordinated access plan from West 78th Street.
2. Three full movement access locations are proposed from West 78th Street, one of which would directly
service Target, one would be a shared access and the third access would serve Outlot B. All three
access locations are proposed to service the James property to the north of West 78th Street.
3. Target service area is to be accessed from Picha/Monterey Drive to minimize the impact on the existing
woodland at the southeast corner of the site.
4. The stormwater ponding area has been moved to the west and north of the previous location in order to
minimize the impact upon the woodland within the southeast corner of the site. As a result the parking
lot has been re-arranged and pushed a bit further west. The access to West 78th Street continues to
_ remain in the same location, with slight modifications in the property lines and boundaries between the
Target site, Outlot A and Outlot B. Outlot B is proposed to be the area reserved for future
development of individual retail. Schematic plans of architectural styles and the theme of the
development will be presented, if it is agreed to proceed with Outlot B as shown.
5. Develop the site and incorporate the design objectives featured in the April 1992 West CBD sub-area
study of signage, access, preservation, gateway and landscape buffer areas.
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 4
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
The following items for discussion and explanation have been taken from Article VIII Planned Unit
Developments section 20-501 through 20-504.
1. Allowable Uses
The proposed Target Retail store and the schematic Outlot B development is consistent with the Year
2000 comprehensive land use plan which identifies this site to be used for commercial purposes. The
current zoning of BG - a general business category is not equipped to coordinate a large, integrated site
development which is being proposed. —
Specific uses and performance standards for this commercial site development are addressed later in the
narrative and on the plan sheets. —
2. Preservation of desirable site characteristics, buffer areas, and protection of sensitive environmental
features including mature trees, ponding areas and scenic views.
The site is a combination of sloping land, containing open space, ponding areas, shrub massing and a
significant woodland on the southeast corner. The open space areas south of the existing West 78th
Street is still in an agricultural state. Plan Sheet 2 - (existing conditions) identifies the existing
characteristics of the property. The existing utilities are shown on the map and the anticipated drainage
patterns will be compatible to the SRF Feasibility Study for West 78th Street. The existing trees on the
southeast corner of the site have been inventoried and surveyed. The trees over six inches in caliper
diameter have been recorded with their size, species and physical condition. Generally, there are three
significant tree groupings:
A. Boxelder with a few oak and elm
B. Basswood with boxelder and a few oak, elm and ash
C. Oak with boxelder and a few elm and ash. —
The significant clusters (B and C) with the dominate oak trees and other quality hardwoods have been
designated to be preserved in most of their entirety. The trees designated for removal on the average
are the boxelder and elm clusters and individual hardwoods which have suffered disease or storm
damage. Refer to plan sheet seven of seven for a print of the tree survey. The replacement landscape
quantities identified in the plant schedule on the landscape plan replace the quality hardwoods lost to
the site improvement.
The tree preservation plan includes thinning and removing all trees below 6" in caliper, all diseased
trees and all storm damaged trees in danger of falling over, in Outlot A. The plan was conceived in
recognition of discussions with the City staff and the developer (specifically note the May 15, 1992 and
the May 20, 1992 letters between Todd Gerhardt, City staff, Don Ashworth, City Manager, and Bill
McHale, Ryan). In addition to the discussions and meetings held between July 20th and 31st.
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 5
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
3. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the coordination of
West 78th improvements, access to the site and coordination of the utility system.
West 78th Street has gone through the feasibility phase and the cost of the upgrading are known. The
ability to refine the proposed grades of W. 78th Street at the entrance to the Target store will make for
a higher quality development. The in place sanitary and water mains on West 78th will adequately
service Outlot B and the Target Store. Access to Outlot B and the Target site will be constructed with
three full turning movement intersections along West 78th Street (see site plan).
The right of way on West 78th Street has been shown at 50 feet from center line for the entire length
of this development. 50 feet allows for the necessary 2-thru traffic lanes, required turning lanes and,
in some areas, sidewalks and landscape boulevard, enabling this site to be compatible with the existing
_ Chanhassen CBD landscape pallet. Area has been set aside adjacent to Power Boulevard for the City to
create the Gateway landscape feature. Access between the Target site and the property to the east has
been requested and is shown on the plans; however, due to the need for a retaining wall on the south
side of West 78th Street on the Target site there is a 5'- 6' elevation difference at the Burdick property
line. Further site adjustments to the grades between the two properties will be necessary. The
developer is currently working with Mr. Burdick to coordinate the site development between these two
parcels.
4. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding community standards. Site planning,
landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the
community.
The layout of the 10.36 acre Target site and Outlot B totalling 6.61 acres shall be committed to
architectural standards which will be established by the Target Store and compatible with the City
requirements. The site plan concentrates the ponding area into one location south of the parking lot
and west of the mature trees in Outlot A. The development plan for Target indicates a 79.8%
impervious hard surface coverage. The landscape plan identifies a higher percentage of required plant
stock to he installed as compensation on the slightly higher impervious ratio of 79.8%.
The Target store is the only site of the development being proposed for site plan review at this time
and is identified on the attached plan sheets. Outlot B is identified on plan sheets 1A, 1B and 1C for
potential lot and building arrangements. These have been submitted for discussion purposes only and
will necessitate a formal review submittal process by the City separate from the Target submission.
Individual site plans will be submitted to Ryan Construction Company, the property agent,
for approval relative to architecture, building materials, and site improvements. The basis of their
approval shall adhere to the general guidelines briefly mentioned above and more explicitly contained in
the Planned Unit Development, Developer's agreement for the Chanhassen Target Development.
A. Building Materials and Design shall be submitted directly to the City by Target.
1. All materials and colors shall be approved by the property agent prior to commencement of
property improvements.
2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 6
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
3. Stone shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
4. Concrete masonry details must be approved by Ryan prior to construction or alteration and shall
be finished in stone, textured or coated (smooth surface or rock face).
5. Metal siding will not be approved except as a support material to one of the above materials.
6. No ancillary structures that are considered to be part of the building structure can be constructed _
without prior approval of Ryan Construction Company.
7. Sloping roof lines constructed of metal or asphaltic shingles which will adequately —
conceal any rooftop mechanical equipment.
B. Site Landscaping and Screening Standards _
1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with
plantings and/or lawn materials. _
2. Approved screening techniques shall be used to block sight lines from adjacent properties and
roadways of service area.
3. The master landscape plan for the PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site
development.
4. Landscaping as exceeding City codes and to be harmonious with existing streetscape
features has been proposed on the landscape plan.
C. Open Space, Trails, Park Dedication
1. Outlot A for tree protection shall remain the property of the City of Chanhassen. The additional 10 _
feet of right-of-way along West 78th totaling 0.27 acres shall be deducted from the park dedication
fees. Construction of the road, pond and suitable grading will be completed by the developer.
The proposed park dedication fee is $2,500.00/acre and the trail fee shall be $833.00/acre. The _
total amount due on a per acreage basis is $3,333.00. The total acreage to be assessed for the
Target proposal is 16.97 acres (10.36 acres, Lot 1, Block 1 and 6.61 acres, Outlot B). The
amount due the City shall be paid at the same time permits are being purchased. _
D. Signage
1. Identification Signs: Identification signs will be building mounted in conformance with the City's
sign ordinance and consistent with the Target standard. Each property shall be allowed one free
mounted pylon sign located near the driveway into the private site.
2. Pylon Signs: Two pylon signs are contemplated as part of this development; one identifying
Target, to be located along Highway 5 and one identifying the retail area (Outlot B). The location
of the pylon sign for the retail area in Outlot B shall be determined as part of the site plan
approval for Outlot B.
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 7
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
3. Monument Signs: The retail businesses within Outlot B and the Target Store will have one
monument sign, each.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced
at the development's entrance monument, the signage monument adjacent to Highway 5 and used
throughout.
E. Lighting
1. A decorative, shoebox fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole
will be used throughout the development area for roadway and parking lot lighting.
2. The same lighting equipment that is mounted in the public street right of way shall be used in the
new public roadway areas.
3. Lights will be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as dictated by yearly
conditions. This type of lighting is as energy efficient as possible.
* * * * a
Agreement with details of the PUD Concept plan for the Chanhassen Target Development and for site plan
approval of the Target Site is being sought on this first submission.
PLAN SHEET DEFINITION
The verbiage in the following section of the Narrative briefly describes the contents of the plan sheets that
are part of the proposed Chanhassen Target PUD.
Sheet 1 - Master Site Plan: This plan sheet describes the basic intent of the entire development proposal.
It includes, but is not limited to, the following items:
1. Identification of each lot.
2. Location of building, service area, streets, pedestrian walks, parking and landscape
areas.
3. Location and extent of public and common open space (Outlot A).
4. Location and general type of land uses and intensities of outlots.
Sheet 2 - Existing Conditions: The project boundaries are identified and existing conditions of the site
are shown through the use of a two foot topographical survey. Topographic information was provided by
the City and MnDOT and verified in the field. In addition, the adjoining properties, roadways and
significant features are shown. A tree survey was completed on July 18 to identify and quantify species,
caliper inch and location. The trees found on site generally are within three basic groups (see Sheet 7).
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 8
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Sheet 3 - Concept Utility Plan: This plan identifies the location of the proposed water main, sanitary and
storm sewer for the Target site. In addition, the realignment of West 78th Street has been considered. The _
development of the utility plan for Outlot B shall be prepared upon the site plan approval.
Water Main: Has been sized to effectively provide domestic and fire protection to each parcel. Looping
of the system will be completed per City requirements.
Sanitary
Sewer: The site is within the MWCC service area and service is available along existing West
78th Street. Inverts of the sanitary are deep enough to allow the road access to be lowered
from West 78th Street to the Target site.
Storm Sewer: Pre-development drainage patterns will be maintained, with the ponding area adjacent to
the Highway 5 embankment. All disturbed areas will be resurfaced with pavement, sod, —
landscape materials or seeded to minimize erosion both during construction and after. The
ponding areas will be constructed per City of Chanhassen requirements and according to
the N.U.R.P. Design Guidelines.
Sheet 4 - Grading Drainage and Erosion Control: The grading plan identifies proposed contours,
ponding areas and suggest new roadway contours for West 78th Street. It is imperative the Ryan Team —
and the City work together to construct West 78th and the Target proposal in concert. Due to the service
access for Target designed to come off of Picha, the floor elevation of Target has minimal ability to be
adjusted. The contours on West 78th Street will have to be adhered to in order for the entry grades for
the Target site plan to function properly. All contours shown are 2' contours.
Sheet 5 - Landscape Plan, Exterior Lighting: The landscape plan identifies the location and placement _
of all new plant material, ground cover, and surface treatment. In addition, the area identifying protection
of oak trees and other significant species is shown. All plant material will be installed per the planting
details and notes and will conform to the City standards and species. The plant material for the Target _
site, which is being reviewed for site plan approval identifies caliper size, species and totals of plant
material proposed.
The landscape plan has been designed to exceed the value of plant material as stated in City Code Section
20-1179, Landscape Standards. The projected value for the target development is 3.5 million dollars,
which would equate to an approximate value of 37,500.00 in tree and plant material costs. The base
quantity of plant material as shown on the plant schedule corresponds to a budget estimated at 37,000.00. -
The enhanced quantity and value of the landscape plan i s being offered as compensation for the site's
impervious density ratio being at 79.8 percent versus the suggested 70 percent. Overall site
impervious/pervious calculations for the target site only including building coverage density are included
on the landscape plan.
Sheet 6 - Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat is a combination of two platted parcels and the vacated -
western extension of West 78th Street. The proposed plat will be named Chanhassen Retail Addition with
a the Target site and two outlots proposed. Outlot A shall remain the property of the City of Chanhassen.
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 9
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Sheet 7 - Tree Inventory: The stand of existing trees have been inventoried with all trees over 6" in
caliper inch identified. The plan addresses all trees in size but makes no value of a Boxelder vs. an oak
tree or the quality of the tree. It is anticipated 1500 caliper inches of quality hardwoods are being
retained. The quantity of quality trees proposed to be removed, excluding boxelder trees and/or diseased
or storm damaged trees, is estimated to be 360 caliper inches.
Sheet 1A, 1B and 1C - Schematic plans for Outlot B: The alternative plans have been submitted for
discussion purposes on the proposed development of Outlot B.
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 10
CITY OF q,
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
R`
MEMORANDUM
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Assistant Executive Director j lC
DATE: August 14, 1992
SUBJ: Consider Approval of Purchase Agreement with B. C. "Jim" Burdick/Brigitte
Burdick
Attached for your consideration is the purchase agreement between the HRA and B. C. and
Brigitte Burdick for the future development of a Target Store (Attachment #1) . Under this
agreement, the HRA would be purchasing Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Burdick Park _
Second Addition/Lot 3, Block 2, Burdick Park Addition (Attachment #2) for $4.00 a square
foot and then reselling approximately 10 acres back to Target for $3.00 a square foot and the
remaining outlots to Ryan Construction for $3.00 a square foot. The HRA would also retain
ownership of Outlot A and B, and Lot 3 for preserving the large stand of trees, city
maintenance of the holding pond area, construction of a gateway entrance on Outlot B and the
resale of Lot 3 for future development (Attachment #3). The most important section of this
agreement is in Section 7, the Subsequent Sale Contingency on Page 10. This section
outlines that the HRA will only purchase this property on the condition that Target Stores and
Ryan Construction agree to a subsequent repurchase at the same time we will be closing on
Lots 1 through 5 from Mr. Burdick (Attachment #1).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend approval of the purchase agreement with B. C. Burdick and Brigitte
Burdick for the acquisition of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Burdick Park Second Addition
and Lot 3, Block 2, Burdick Park Addition conditioned on the subsequent resale of a portion
of this property back to Ryan Construction and Target Stores, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Purchase Agreement
2. Location map of lots to be purchased
3. Future land ownership map
t 1. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made and entered into this
day of , 1992 , by and between the
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, a public body corporation and politic under the laws
of the State of Minnesota, with offices at 690 Coulter Drive,
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 (referred to herein as the "Buyer") ,
and B.C. BURDICK and BRIGITTE BURDICK, husband and wife, residing
at 615 Dream Island Road, Longboat Key, Florida 34228 (the
"Seller") .
RECITAL
The Buyer has eminent domain powers and is acquiring the
subject property described below under threat of condemnation.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND
AGREEMENTS HEREIN, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED BY SELLER AND
BUYER AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION 1.
SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND
1. 1) Seller shall sell to Buyer and Buyer shall purchase
from Seller, upon the terms and conditions hereof, the following
property (all collectively referred to as the "subject
property") :
1 . 1. 1) The land in Carver County, Chanhassen (the
"City") , Minnesota, legally described as follows:
Lots 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5, Block 1, BURDICK PARK SECOND
ADDITION, and Lot 3 , Block 2 , BURDICK PARK ADDITION
together with all right, title, and interest in and to any
roads or alleys adjoining or servicing such land, rights-
of-way, or easements appurtenant thereto, and in and to any
) /
r08/14/92
ditch, water, or riparian rights and claims appurtenant
thereto, and to any unpaid award with respect thereto (the
"Land") ;
1. 1. 2) Any improvements located on the Land;
1. 1. 3) All rents, leases, contract rights, causes of
action, permits, licenses, and other rights relating to the
Land and Improvements (the "Contract Rights") ; and
1. 1. 4) All right, title, and interest of Seller in
and to any plans, specifications, surveys, studies, reports,
renderings, or drawings pertaining to the subject property
and Improvements, including environmental , marketing and
related matters (the "Drawings") .
SECTION 2 .
PURCHASE PRICE
2 . 1) The purchase price for the subject property (the
"Purchase Price") is Four and No/100 Dollars ($4 . 00) per square
foot and shall be payable by Buyer to Seller by check on the date -
of closing.
2 . 2) Seller and Buyer agree the size of the subject
property is approximately six hundred eighty-four thousand
(684 , 000) square feet. Upon receipt of final survey in a form
acceptable to Seller and Buyer, the total square footage of the
subject property shall be determined by Seller and Buyer. Upon
such determination, Seller and Buyer shall adjust the Purchase
Price in order that the sum paid by Buyer to Seller equals Four
and 00/100 Dollars ($4 . 00) per square foot for the purchase of
the subject property.
SECTION 3.
TITLE MATTERS
3 . 1) Seller shall furnish to Buyer within twenty (20) days
hereof a current commitment for the issuance of a 1987/1990 ALTA
Form B owner ' s policy of title insurance (the "Commitment")
-2-
issued by a title company acceptable to Buyer ("Title") in the
amount of Two Million Seven Hundred Thirty-six Thousand and
No/100 Dollars ($2 , 736, 000. 00) , committing to insure that Buyer
will have good and marketable title to the subject property, free
of any and all standard and other exceptions to title, except
matters to which Buyer may consent in writing.
3 . 2) Buyer agrees, prior to closing, to obtain from the
City of Chanhassen the vacation of any part of West 78th Street
formerly known as CSA Highway No. 16 located within the
boundaries of Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, BURDICK PARK SECOND
ADDITION.
3 . 3) In the event any exceptions are listed in the
Commitment for title insurance, if the same results from any
voluntary action by the Seller, the Seller shall promptly cause
the exception to be removed. With regard to any other exceptions,
if the Seller fails to remove the same within the time allowed
for closing on the subject property, the Buyer shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement as the Buyer' s sole and
exclusive remedy.
SECTION 4.
CLOSING
4 . 1) If the contingencies specified herein have been
satisfied, the closing (the "Closing") shall be at a location
designated by Buyer, and shall occur on or before October 15,
1992 (the "Closing Date") . If the contingencies have not been
satisfied or waived by the benefitting party, this Agreement
shall be null and void. In the event formal closing does not
-3-
occur prior to November 1, 1992 , due to no fault of the Seller,
the Buyer may, however, extend the closing up to six (6) months
by paying to Seller on the first day of each month of the
extension a sum equal to one-half of one percent of the agreed
Purchase Price; if this privilege is exercised the first such
payment to be due November 1, 1992 .
4 . 2) On the Closing Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer
possession of the subject property vacant and free of any and all
debris. Until possession is delivered to Buyer, Seller shall keep -
and maintain the subject property in a neat and orderly condition
and shall not alter or damage any part thereof. Seller shall not
remove any dirt, trees, shrubs, or other natural growth, except
as to keep the subject property in a neat and orderly condition.
4 . 3) On the Closing Date, Seller shall execute and deliver
to Buyer:
4 . 3 . 1) A duly executed warranty deed, free from any
exceptions;
4 . 3 . 2) A customary affidavit that there are no
unsatisfied judgments of record, no actions pending in any
state or federal courts, no tax liens, and no bankruptcy
proceeding filed against Seller, and no labor has or
materials have been furnished to the subject property for
which payment has not been made, and that to the best of
Seller' s knowledge there are no unrecorded interests
relating to the subject property;
4 . 3 . 3) An abstract of title for the subject property
duly certified as to judgments, tax liens, property taxes,
special assessments, and bankruptcies.
4 . 4) Seller shall pay all real estate taxes due in years
prior to Closing, together with any taxes and special assessments
deferred. Seller and Buyer shall divide the general real estate
taxes due and payable in the year of closing as follows:
-4-
one-half Seller, one-half Buyer. Seller shall pay all
installments of levied special assessments due on or before May
15, 1992 . Except as provided in the previous sentence, Buyer
shall pay or assume all pending and levied special assessments.
Buyer shall be responsible for all real estate taxes, if any, due
and payable in years subsequent to Closing, which is established
herein as being the year 1992 .
4 . 5) Seller shall pay at Closing:
4 . 5. 1) state deed tax;
4 . 5 . 2) all costs of obtaining and updating the
abstract to the subject property, including name searches,
tax searches, bankruptcy searches, and property inspection
fees ;
4 . 5. 3) recording fees for corrective instruments
required to remove encumbrances and place marketable title
in Buyer' s name;
4 . 5. 4) Seller shall provide Buyer with copies of all
surveys in Seller' s possession.
4 . 6) Buyer shall pay at Closing:
4 . 6. 1) all recording fees and charges relating to the
filing of the deed; and
4 . 6. 2) title insurance commitment fees and title
insurance premiums; and
4 . 6. 3) if Buyer desires a survey other than a pre-
existing survey supplied by Seller, Buyer shall pay all fees
and costs incurred in obtaining such survey of the subject
property.
4 . 7) Seller and Buyer shall equally share the Closing fee
charged by the title company, if any.
-5-
SECTION 5.
COVENANTS, REPRESENTATIONS, AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER
5. 1) Seller, as an inducement to Buyer to enter into this
Agreement, and as part of the consideration therefor, represents,
warrants, and covenants with Buyer and its successors and assigns
that:
5. 1. 1) There are no leases, options, purchase
agreements, rights to redeem, tenancy agreements, or rights
of occupancy, written or verbal, and no person or party has,
or will have any rights of adverse possession, regarding the
subject property;
5 . 1 . 2) Seller will maintain in force insurance
against public liability from such risk and to such limits
as in accordance with prudent business practice and suitable
to the subject property from the date hereof to the Closing
Date;
5. 1. 3) To the best of Seller' s knowledge, neither
Seller, nor any entity or person has, at any time:
i) "released" or actively or passively _
consented to the "release" or "threatened release" of
any Hazardous Substance (as defined below) from any
"facility" or "vessel" located on or used in
connection with the subject property; or
ii) taken any action in "response" to a
"release" in connection with the subject property; or
iii) otherwise engaged in any activity or
omitted to take any action which could subject Seller
or Buyer to claims for intentional or negligent torts,
strict or absolute liability, either pursuant to
statute or common law, in connection with Hazardous
Substances (as defined below) located in or on the
subject property, including the generating,
transporting, treating, storage, or manufacture of any
Hazardous Substance (as defined below) . The terms set
within quotation marks above shall have the meaning
given to them in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response and Liability Act, 42 U.S. C. Sec. 9601 et
seq. , as amended ("CERCLA") and any state environ-
mental laws. "Hazardous Substances" means hazardous
waste, toxic substances, formaldehyde, urea,
polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, petroleum,
natural gas, synthetic gas usable for fuel or mixtures
thereof, any materials related to any of the
foregoing, and substances defined as "hazardous
-6-
substances" , "toxic substances" , "hazardous waste" ,
"pollutant" , or "contaminant" in CERCLA, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act as amended, 41 U. S. C.
Sec. 9601 et seq. , the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq. , the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq. , any
state laws regarding environmental matters, or any
regulations promulgated pursuant to any of the
foregoing statutes.
Seller shall indemnify Buyer, its successors and assigns,
against, and shall hold Buyer, its successors and assigns,
harmless from, any and all losses, liabilities, claims,
fines, penalties, forfeitures, damages, administrative
orders, consent agreements and orders, and the costs and
expenses incident thereto, including, without limitation,
reasonable attorneys ' fees, consultants ' fees and laboratory
fees, which may at any time be imposed upon, incurred by or
— awarded against Buyer as a result of or in connection with
the breach of any of the above representations and
warranties, whether such breach is discovered before or
after closing. Each of the above representations and
warranties shall survive the closing. Consummation of this
Agreement by Buyer with knowledge of any such breach by
Seller shall not constitute a waiver or release by Buyer of
any claims arising out of or in connection with such breach;
5. 1. 4) To the best of Seller' s knowledge neither
Seller, nor any entity or person has, at any time,
installed, used, or removed any underground storage tank on
or in connection with the subject property;
5. 1. 5) As part of this agreement, Seller shall
execute the well disclosure certificate attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" . Seller shall deliver the well certificate to
Buyer on the date of execution of this agreement. Seller
warrants that all statements set forth in the well
certificate are true, accurate, and complete to the best of
Seller' s knowledge.
5. 2) The covenants, representations, and warranties
contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to benefit Buyer and its
successors and assigns and shall survive any termination or
expiration of this Purchase Agreement or the giving of the Deed.
All of Seller ' s covenants, representations and warranties in this
Agreement shall be true as of the date hereof (and shall be a
condition precedent to the performance of Buyer' s obligations
-7-
hereunder) and as of the Closing Date. If Buyer discovers that
any such covenant, representation, or warranty is not true, Buyer -
may elect prior to closing, in addition to any of its other
rights and remedies, to cancel this Agreement, or Buyer may
postpone the Closing Date up to ninety (90) days to allow time
for correction. Buyer shall not be deemed to have waived any
claims for breach of warranty if Buyer consummates the
transaction set forth in this Agreement with the knowledge that
one or more of Seller' s warranties are false. -
5. 3) Seller is, or by Closing will be, the sole owner of
fee simple absolute title to the subject property and has all
requisite power and authority to execute and deliver this
Agreement and the documents listed in Section 4 above.
SECTION 6. -
ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AND TESTING CONTINGENCY
6. 1) Prior to the Closing of the transaction contemplated
by this Agreement, Buyer and its agents shall have the right, at
its sole option, to enter the subject property without charge and
at all reasonable times, to perform such environmental
investigation and tests as Buyer may reasonably deem appropriate.
If Buyer investigates and tests the subject property pursuant to
this section, Buyer shall pay all costs and expenses of such
investigation and testing and shall hold Seller harmless from all
costs and liabilities arising out of Buyer' s activities. If the
purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement is not closed,
Buyer shall repair and restore any damage to the subject property
caused by Buyer' s environmental investigation or testing, at
-8-
Buyer's expense, and shall return the subject property to
substantially the same condition as existed prior to such entry.
Buyer will make a good faith effort not to damage any crops
during testing. Buyer will furnish Seller a copy of all
environmental reports it receives.
6. 2) The obligations of Buyer under this Agreement are
contingent upon each of the following (the "Environmental
Contingencies") :
6 . 2 . 1) The representations and warranties of Seller
_ set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement must be true as of
the date of this Agreement and on the Closing Date, and
Seller shall have delivered to Buyer at Closing a certifi-
cate dated the Closing Date, signed by Seller, certifying
that such representations and warranties are true as of the
Closing Date.
6. 2 . 2) Buyer shall have determined on or before the
Closing Date, that it is satisfied, in its sole discretion,
with the results of and matters disclosed by any environ-
mental investigation or testing of the subject property.
If either of the Environmental Contingencies have not been
satisfied on or before the Closing Date, then Buyer may, at
Buyer' s option, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice
to Seller on or before the Closing Date. Upon such termination,
neither party shall have any further rights or obligations under
this Agreement. The Environmental Contingencies are for the sole
and exclusive benefit of Buyer, and Buyer shall have the right to
waive the Environmental Contingencies by giving written notice to
Seller.
-9-
SECTION 7 .
CONTINGENCIES
7 . 1) Seller acknowledges that Buyer is purchasing the
subject property for the subsequent sale and transfer of a
portion of the subject property to Target Stores, a Division of
Dayton Hudson Corporation, and the subsequent sale and transfer
of the remaining portion of the subject property to Ryan
Construction of Minnesota, Inc. Buyer's obligation to perform -
under this Agreement is contingent upon the simultaneous closing
of the above described transactions with the transaction
contemplated under this Agreement.
7 . 2) The parties ' respective obligations to sell and
purchase the subject property is further contingent upon an
agreement with Target allowing access from Lot 1, Block 3 ,
BURDICK PARK ADDITION, to the Target store. T
SECTION 8.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The Seller agrees that as additional consideration for the
purchase and sale of the subject property, Lots 1 and 2 , Block 3 ,
BURDICK PARK ADDITION, shall be part of the planned unit
development consisting of the subject property and other lands.
SECTION 9. -
MISCELLANEOUS
9 . 1) The covenants and representations made by Seller shall
survive the Closing of this transaction.
9 . 2) Seller hereby indemnifies Buyer for any claim, cost, -
or damage related to any brokerage fee due because of this
Agreement.
-10-
9 . 3) Any notice, demand, or request which may be permitted,
required or desired to be given in connection herewith shall be
in writing and sent by certified mail, hand delivery, overnight
mail service such as Federal Express or other form of telegraphic
communication, directed to Seller or Buyer. Any notice shall be
deemed effective when delivered to the party to whom it is
directed. Unless other addresses are given in writing, notices
shall be sent to Seller or Buyer at the following addresses:
If to Seller: B.C. Burdick and Brigitte Burdick
426 Lake Street
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
with a copy to: William F. Kelly
Kelly Law Offices
351 Second Street
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
If to Buyer: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
with a copy to: Roger N. Knutson
Campbell , Knutson, Scott & Fuchs
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
9 . 4) Time shall be of the essence in this Agreement. Where
any date or time prescribed by this Agreement falls on a
Saturday, Sunday or statutory holiday, such date or time shall
automatically be extended to the next normal business day.
9 . 5) Each party hereto shall promptly, on the request of
the other party, have acknowledged and delivered to the other
party any and all further instruments and assurances reasonably
requested or appropriate to evidence or give effect to the
provisions of this Agreement.
-11-
9 . 6) This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject property and all prior
agreements, understandings, or negotiations between the parties
are hereby revoked and superseded hereby. No representations,
warranties, inducements, or oral agreements have been made by any
of the parties, except as expressly set forth herein, or in other
contemporaneous written agreements. This Agreement may not be
changed, modified or rescinded, except by a written agreement
signed by both parties hereto. Seller and Buyer shall have the
right to modify, amend, or cancel this Agreement without the
consent or approval of any real estate broker or agent. Under no
circumstances, including, without limitation, any default (s) of
Seller and/or Buyer under this Agreement, will : (a) any real
estate broker or agent be entitled to any commission unless the
Closing actually occurs, or to any notice under this Agreement;
or (b) Buyer have any liability and/or obligation for payment of -
any commission or other compensation to any real estate broker or
agent regarding this Agreement.
9 . 7) If Buyer defaults under any of the terms hereof, then
Seller shall have the right, in addition to whatever other
remedies are available to Seller at law or in equity, including
without limitation, specific performance, damages, including
attorney' s fees, to cancellation of this Agreement.
9 . 8) If Seller defaults under any of the terms hereof,
including, without limitation, the delivery of marketable title
to the subject property as set forth in Section 4 hereof, and any --
of Seller' s representations, covenants, and warranties in Section
-12-
5 hereof, then Buyer shall have the right, in addition to
whatever other remedies are available to Buyer at law or in
equity, including without limitation, specific performance,
damages, including attorney' s fees, to cancellation of this
Agreement.
9 . 9) If any provision of this Agreement is declared void or
unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this
Agreement, which shall otherwise remain in full force and effect.
9 . 10) Failure of any party to exercise any right or option
arising out of a breach of this Agreement shall not be deemed a
waiver of any right or option with respect to any subsequent or
different breach, or the continuance of any existing breach.
9 . 11) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs,
personal representatives, successors and assigns.
9 . 12) This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
9 . 13) At Buyer's request, a memorandum of this Agreement
shall be executed by Buyer and Seller and filed of record in
Carver County, Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
-13-
BUYER: SELLER:
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: Clark Horn, Chairperson ; . C. BURDICK
AND i _
Don Ashworth, Exec. Director BR .: TTE BU' : CK
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1992 , by Clark Horn and by Don
Ashworth, respectively the Chairperson and Executive Director of
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Chanhassen, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of
the State of Minnesota, on its behalf.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF t R 14"
/ � The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of PIC^ 9 Ll S—C" by B.C. Burdick and
Brigitte Burdick, husband an: wgfe.
/Y ' Onr
NOTARY •UBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 452-5000
JRW: srn
-14-
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
WELL DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE ]
PLEASE TYPE ALL INFORMATION
A. PROPERTY SELLER INFORMATION
Seller' s last name , , , , I , I , I 1 , I 1 , I ,
Date of closing the sale , 1 , L Total number of wells , , ,
MMDDYY
B. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Attach a legal description of property in addition to the applicable property
information requested below.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1
House number Street name Type Direction
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '
City Zip code
•
If applicable.
1 I 1 1 1 I t l I 1111111111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Addition name Block number Lot number
C. PROPERTY BUYER INFORMATION
, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
First name MI Last name •
1 1 l 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 l 1 1 1 1 1
Company name if applicable
1 , I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 l 1
•
Address
1 I 1 I 1 1 , 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1
Address
I 1 1 1 1 l t I I ! I I f 1 I 1 1 ! I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
City State Zip code
1 I I 1/ , 1 1 I- , 1 1 1 ,
Phone number
— D. CERTIFICATION BY SELLER
I certify that the information provided on this certificate is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Seller or Designated Representative of Seller Date
E. CERTIFICATION BY BUYER
In the absence of a seller's signature, the buyer, or person authorized to act on behalf of the buyer may sign this well certificate. No
signature is required by the buyer if the seller has signed above.
Based on disclosure information provided to me by the seller or other available information, I certify that the information provided above
is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. •
Signature of Buyer or Designated Representative of Buyer Date
— F. CONTRACT FOR DEED PROPERTY TRANSFERS DEED ONLY
The buyer, or person authorized to act on behalf of the buyer, must sign a Well Disclosure Certificate for all warranty deeds given in
fulfillment of a contract for deed. If there are no known wells on the property, check the box below.
El I certify that I know of no wells on the property described herein.
Signature of Buyer or Designated Representative of Buyer Date
EXHIBIT "A"
L
•
L
m � ,� • b Yci
L
OUTLOT
o
U L
.C.1%
%6 I
New_ .1 - W
H 2tr
L
1 co
Gac5/- m
•
L
vo
1i i
.,,\1 2 B
c
Ge(" W
�`•
\.,
O 3�`6, K POO W
LWEST 4 Y
1
8 .:
; •STti 1
1
�� STo �,o
BLOCK 2 2
•
_/"
� Y fe
E ' • 2 0 ACR ,� � ��
b c
: L
BL�DI�v Y° .
r tir
,." ....-• .•
1.3 ACR •6 g c>R Awii :, ff :
21
r ACR � � ,. �,
:-•.. .:"..:!:.:
� �.�y. v w y a�.- Q
Q
s 4 3 d
• �, N ! )T ON �0 w
33 ACRE 'l : o
_ 1
T'! �0>R nJ1F jrh y L r• L Q
h
i
f FYt ✓i o, PICMA ::RIVE
s
•
i 7 0 ACRES; Y
`:::w. '' ...-: .: to 9
is :.:`:�`:
I :.5 v im' .,,.ar..::.':.' fi': %.
. co
„__.340w,,t4.1:4. si
tg 0,:4 Y •.�
•
, _ as
-:=:7-- ..::- -
...._— �-a t 1
•
•
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
ZONING - BG -GEN •
ERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
•
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE/ACRES MAP REFERENCEI._
NO.7
• BURDICK PARK ADDON •
BURDICK PARK 2ND ADDITIONITISEE ATTACHED BASE MAP L
•
7
-- .•................- ..., .
__
.....
... •
3
• •
•
�_ 5^ • , •
•
11
mp i % .. moi. -,i 1 .,C:5---_-, .: .•
.... i __ i .1
S> ; • - 11 1 . ingi
CQ56
4JJCiiJj' ç
•
•
,• t.
: 4101"mir . ,./ ,/ /I A
•
2 4,
..
., _
I 1., " i O
. / f • I.:
rs ► rz
I MI CI a
Om
A
sig ! �.; � 4 ., �.,
� r - - - -
Ifo
iu.,
t r4 . ;. ti i
_..
�;_ ._'� . •
•
z,..: 11,,, ,,
. . • .
,. 4,,,
_ z,
3 116 5 vi=
ara ' • T / iti=� i4-"t*6 I ,Wwg..:." ,a_ _ _.„,i.. '•- II I
, ,
..........
lie.
i.
, •I Tom. s� +
NiloI ei if
Ai, ., eX,
I
Jr
tAil •
k i ' ' .4 MONTEAAV D1WE
-
•
iIL
1
CITY 0 F
PC DATE: 8/19/92
, C H AN H A S S E N CC DATE: 9/14/92
Y CASE #: 92-4 PUD
�"' By: Olsen:v 67,---
_
-
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Conceptual Review for a Detached Single Family Residential PUD -
95 Ares Subdivided into 113 Lots (Note: Submitted plans are misleading - they
indicate 120 lots which includes outlots and exceptions.)
Z
Q LOCATION: West of State Highway 41, North of State Highway 5, Adjacent to the BMT Site
V
J
11.
APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction
Q 935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates
ACREAGE: 95 Acres (gross) and 61 Acres (net - less wetlands and streets)
DENSITY: 1.19 u/a (gross) and 1.85 u/a (net)
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - A2, single family/vacant
QS - A2, vacant
a: E - A2, single family/vacant
QW - A2, Camp Tanadoona/vacant
W WATER AND SEWER: Extension of utilities has been petitioned by the applicant.
F-
(r) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains steep topography, wetlands, and vegetated areas.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 2 _
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a single family detached residential planned unit development which
subdivides 160.88 acres into 113 single family lots and 6 outlots. One of the lots will be
occupied by an existing home, thus, 112 new home sites will result. The site is located east of
Hwy. 41 and north of Hwy. 5. The property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estates and is designated
as Residential Low Density and 1995 Study Area. The northerly portion of the site is proposed
as single family lots (PUD site) and the southerly portion of the site is proposed as an outlot for
future development. The northerly portion of the subject site was included in the MUSA line as —
part of the recent comprehensive plan amendment after Lundgren Bros. made a presentation to
the Planning Commission on the suitability of the site to be developed with sewer and water.
The site contains significant environmental features which include eight wetland areas, steep
topography and mature stands of vegetation. Due to the site conditions and the desire to provide
a variety of lots and housing units, the applicant is pursuing rezoning of the property to planned
unit development. A planned unit development will allow the site to be developed with reduced
right-of-way and reduced setbacks to pull the building pads away from sensitive areas and will
allow innovative techniques to be used with the wetland areas (buffer yards, native landscaping,
etc.).
The first step of the process is conceptual approval. Concept review allows the Planning
Commission and City Council to review the proposal in general terms to determine if it should
be accepted as a planned unit development and what changes need to be made prior to action on
the preliminary plat and rezoning. The City Code currently provides standards permitting
planned unit developments if certain requirements are met. Specific guidelines for single family
planned unit developments have not yet been adopted, but have been approved by the Planning
Commission and will be reviewed by the City Council in September. Staff will be using the
existing PUD requirements and the proposed single family PUD requirements in the review of
this proposed planned unit development. In addition, new wetland regulations are in the process _
of being reviewed for adoption by the city and these too will be used as guidelines for review
of the proposed planned unit development. The conceptual PUD is only for the northern portion
of the site proposed for the 113 single family lots. The southerly portion will remain zoned as
A2.
Staff believes that the PUD concept plan is quite well designed but as is normal at this stage,
further refinement is warranted. The applicant has taken noteworthy care to work with the site's
many natural features. Design flexibility allowed under the PUD ordinance is being put to
reasonable use. We have recommended a series of refinements that would serve to improve the
protection of mature trees. The wetlands protection/mitigation/enhancement program is also
unusually well developed for concept stage submittal. We note that the PUD does utilize
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 3
flexibility in lot areas with lot sizes ranging from 11,470 square feet up to 63,250 square feet
(including wetland areas). The total project density is extremely low for residential development
in Chanhassen. There is a gross density of 1.19 units per acre with a net density (excluding
wetlands and streets) of 1.85 units per acre. This compares to typical numbers of 1.7 and 2.0
units per acre respectively on typical single family development in Chanhassen. We also note
that this type of density is considered to be extremely low relative to other developing
communities in the Twin Cities.
Major access to this site will be provided by a new street that will ultimately run between Hwy.
41 and Galpin Boulevard. Since the applicant is only in control of a portion of this alignment,
only that section of the street which is located on the Lundgren parcel will be constructed at this
time. The remaining piece would be constructed across the adjoining Song property when this
area is subdivided. At this point in time, the applicant is negotiating with the Song's on
development possibilities. However, staff is unsure at the time of writing as to when
development might occur and who may actually be undertaking it. However, the Lundgren
proposal was designed with some sensitivity to coordinating ultimate development of the Song
property. The collector street right-of-way alignment is designed in a manner so that it can be
similarly used to service the Song property. Location of a collector street in this area is
illustrated on the city comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan does not purport to establish
an alignment for this street. In early discussions with the applicant on this site, the Planning
Director and City Engineer determined that it would inappropriate to construct the collector street
to typical collector street standards which would result in a road similar to Lake Lucy Road. We
made this determination based upon the extreme changes of topography and locations of wetlands
on both the Lundgren and Song parcels. It would be impossible to construct a street to the
standards without significantly impacting the site's natural features. Therefore, we agreed to
recommend that the collector street be designed to high quality local street standards which
reduce grading requirements and increase both horizontal and lateral design flexibility. The
important thing in our opinion is that the road will provide continuity such that residents and
emergency services will be afforded two means of ingress and egress into this area.
Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is generally consistent
with the guidelines established by the current and draft PUD ordinances. We also believe the
applicant is using reasonable and sensitive development standards with an eye towards creating
very high quality residential neighborhoods designed in a manner to protect a sensitive
environment. The applicant has held an initial neighborhood meeting to discuss the project with
residents of the area. Staff is recommending that the PUD concept plan be approved with
appropriate conditions.
BACKGROUND
•
The subject site was included in the MUSA line with the recent Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. At that time, the Planning commission and City Council felt that the property was
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 4
suitable for development with sewer and water.
The proposal contains the BMT property (northeast corner of entrance). The BMT site is a
nonconforming use (commercial in a residential district) which has the right to remain as long
as it does not expand or intensify. The owner of BMT has sold the property to Lundgren
Brothers with the condition of remaining until a new site is found or until 1994. The proposal
is locating one single family lot and an outlot on the BMT property which will be developed
once the property is vacated.
The applicant has initiated a feasibility study for sewer and water service to the site. Service to
the site will not be possible until 1993. —
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site contains 10 protected wetlands, steep topography, and heavily vegetated areas. The
subject site is bordered by State Hwy. 41 on the west, State Hwy. 5 on the south, the Song
property on the east, and residential/vacant property on the north. There are two exceptions —
shown on the plat. The first is located between State Hwy. 41 and street D. This property is
under separate ownership and has its own access to Hwy 41. To reduce the number of accesses
to Hwy. 41 should this site be subdivided in the future, staff is recommending the site be —
provided with access to street D. The second exception is located to the north of the proposed
private park. This site is separated from the subject site by steep topography.
The landscaping plan shows extensive landscaping on the outlot which is being used to meet the
requirements for enhanced landscaping for the PUD. Since this landscaping will not be possible _
for some time the applicant will either have to provide some means for interim landscaping or
the city will have to accept the landscaping being installed at a later date.
Site terrain includes large variations in elevation. The highest point of this site is located at the
north edge of the parcel near Street E where the terrain rises to a 1032' elevation. The lowest
point on the site is the 956' elevation found in the large wetland that forms the southern
boundary of the property and which is also the head waters of Bluff Creek. However, site terrain
is far from uniform with a series of knolls and depressions which typically are wet. Much of the
site contains large open field areas which were actively farmed in the past.
REZONING TO PUD
Section 20-501 of the City Code provides an general intent statement for planned unit
developments. Planned unit developments are to be used to enhance flexibility in developing a
site with unique features and when there is a desire to provide a variety of uses. In return for
this flexibility, the city should receive a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would
have been achieved through standard zoning regulations. Under this section of the City Code the
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 5
following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide:
(1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
*1. The site contains some difficult topography, several wetlands of varying value and
heavily vegetated areas. Upon review of the preliminary plat it appears that the applicant
is locating the streets and lots with the natural features of the site taken into
_ consideration. The blocks are situated around wetland and vegetated areas and the steep
sloped areas are avoided in most cases. But when reviewing the grading plan the extent
of alteration to the site becomes apparent and it seems changes to the plans could further
preserve some of the natural features. The applicant has been made aware of this concern
and is looking closer at the site layout.
_ (2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
*2. The PUD allows the site to locate more dense development in areas without
significant features while creating open space around natural features. The proposal is
providing pockets of open space throughout the site which will benefit the whole
development and is providing a variation of lot sizes. Staff feels it may be possible to
further reduce lot sizes and increase density where there are little or no natural features
and in return provide larger lots where it will further protect the natural features.
(3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
*3. The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality
homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots
adjacent to existing uses. The applicant has also provided for future development with
a future street connection. There will be covenants recorded as part of the PUD contract
to ensure high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be provided.
(4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city.
*4. The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential and the proposal is
accommodating existing uses and the potential for future development. Views of the site
from the Hwy. 41 corridor will be protected by the tree preservation and required
landscaping. A major land use transition south of the site is possible when this area is
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 6
brought in the MUSA some time in the future. However, no decisions on the future of
this area have been made pending completion of the Hwy. 5 Study. However, the large _
Bluff Creek wetland that separates the Lundgren site from the Hwy. 5 corridor has been
established by the comprehensive plan as the buffer area.
(5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
*5. The development is consistent with the comprehensive plan which designates the —
property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units/acre). The proposal has a net density
(minus wetlands and roads) of 1.85 units/acre. This compares favorably with typical
single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per —
acres. The site was included in the recent comprehensive plan amendment for
development with sewer and water and as a single family development. The
comprehensive plan also showed this property as a site for a collector street, which the —
applicant is providing.
(6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and
overall trail plan.
*6. The applicant is providing open space throughout the site, including a private park.
The Park and Recreation commission has accepted this proposal but full park and trail
fees will be required. No credit is being recommended for the private park. The Park
and Recreation Commission conditioned approval upon dedication of a trail easement
along State Hwy. 41.
(7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD.
*7. The applicant is proposing a variety of lots sizes and housing units. Overall, the
sites will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and
potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed.
(8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
*8. It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration. The applicant
should further address this issue.
(9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
*9. The proposal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
_ August 19, 1992
Page 7
east and was mentioned as part of the comprehensive plan. The remainder of the site is
serviced by cul-de-sacs which are used to protect some of the natural features. Staff is
recommending the connection of cul-de-sacs G and I to further improve traffic flow.
In addition to the general planned unit development regulations, the city is in the process of
adopting standards for single family planned unit developments. There is a specific intent
statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement states the developer will
be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing environmental
sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher quality of development.
The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following
guidelines:
a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD (draft ordinance) allows lot sizes
down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot
_ calculations). The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent
with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot
sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved
with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a
60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback
area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet
deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by
wetland/drainage easements.
Finding
The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 11,470 sq. ft. to 63,250 sq. ft. (including
wetland areas) with an average lot area of 23,514 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow
the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area and the applicant has been
told to provide revised lot area calculations removing wetland area. In reviewing the
plans, it appears that all of the lots will still exceed 10,000 sq. ft.
The site is broken down into six blocks which locate the lots around wetland and
vegetated areas. Upon review of the grading plan and the impacts to the vegetated areas,
staff is concerned that the proposed location of streets ,lots and the housing types are
removing more vegetated areas than may be necessary. Staff is recommending that the
applicant provide plans which lessen the impacts to the vegetated areas, such as:
Remove Lot 1, Block 2 and use retaining walls along the south side of the
street adjacent to Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 2.
Remove the cul-de-sac, H Street and possibly use private drives to remove
the need to fill in the ravine area.
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 8
Reduce the fill on J Street and on adjacent lots.
Review the impact of a better mix of lot areas where smaller lots are
clustered within areas with less natural features and providing larger and
a smaller number of lots within areas with significant natural features.
The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site which benefits each block.
The applicant must still provide detailed plans demonstrating that each lot is able to
accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any
required setback area of protective easement as required under the draft PUD ordinance.
This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without
needing to resort to variances. The detailed plans must also show a minimum rear yard
of 30'. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the
development of the individual lots will not encroach within and protected area or setback.
b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet.
Finding
There are approximately 39 lots which do not have the minimum lot width of 90' at the
building setback line. The applicant has been made aware of this and that the plans must
be amended to provide each lot with 90' at building setback. Staff feels strongly that the
90' width must be maintained since it is necessary to provide adequate building pad
widths to accommodate a single family residence, including a now typical three car
garage design, without encroaching within setback areas.
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
Finding
All of the lots exceed the minimum lot depth of 100'.
d) Minimum Setbacks:
PUD Exterior - 30 feet.
Front Yard - 20 feet.
Rear Yard - 30 feet
Side Yard - 10 feet.
Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a
minimum of 10 feet from property line.
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
— August 19, 1992
Page 9
Finding
The proposal appears to provide a 30' PUD exterior setback. The detailed plans required
under (a) will illustrate whether a 30' setback is being provided on all exterior lots.
_ The plans show a 30' front yard setback. Except for lots fronting on "A" street, which
is a collector street, staff is recommending that a 20' front yard setback be required for
all lots to pull the building pads away from sensitive areas of the site. The reduced front
yard setback is permitted as part of a PUD to preserve natural features and should be used
in this development. A majority of the lots have stands of trees and/or wetlands in the
rear yard and reducing the front yard setback will further protect these areas. The
applicant has been made aware of this recommendation and did not object to reducing the
front yard setback. We note that the reduced front setbacks will not be visible from off-
site locations. Additionally, given the 50-60' right-of-way widths homes will still be
operated by a minimum of 90-110 feet. Lastly, we note that rear yards are generally
much more important from the standpoint of family recreation.
In the narrative provided by the developer, it has been stated that the minimum rear yard
will be 30'. In many cases the rear yard will exceed 30' due to the presence of a wetland
which requires increased setbacks. The detail plans provided under (a) will verify the rear
yard setback.
The narrative provided by the developer proposes a 6' interior side yard setback for
garages and a 9' interior side yard setback of living area. The PUD standards require a
side yard setback of 10' and staff is recommending that this standard be enforced. We
have found that the reduced side yard setbacks result in future variance requests as
evidenced by the Near Mountain PUD.
The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied.
e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect
_ and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views.
These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by
permanently recorded easements.
Finding
= The proposed layout of the single family lots and streets have taken into consideration the
features of the site. Where possible, wetlands and mature stands of trees have been
located at the rear of lots so that they can be protected, but in some areas the grading for
building pads, streets and ponds appears to be removing more vegetation than may be
necessary. The applicant has been made aware of this concern and is reviewing the plans
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 10
to see what adjustments can be made.
The applicant is proposing to reduce the right-of-way for the collector street from 80' to
60' to reduce the removal of trees. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to
the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards
results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this on this
site would result in substantial destruction of natural features. To avoid this staff
determined that the street should be designed to ultimately provide continuity to Galpin
Boulevard but to be designed to local street standards.
f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of
over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and
roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to
preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. —
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more —
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where
necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required.
3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be
established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD,
the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the —
required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial
guarantees acceptable to the city.
4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation
of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be
used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to
maximize tree preservation.
Finding
The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan which shows landscaping at
the entrance of the PUD and cul-de-sac islands. The applicant must provide a revised
landscaping plan which shows boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping, and typical
foundation plantings/rear yard landscaping. Planting plans along Hwy. 41 need to be
refined. We note that a portion of the landscape buffering is proposed to be provided
by trees located in the Hwy. 41 right-of-way. These could well be lost at some time due
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 11
to possible highway improvements.
g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for
a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not
intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared
for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high
quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without
variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is
felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot
sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the
future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to
accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage
buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels
due to small lot sizes.
Finding
The developer has stated in the narrative that they will establish strict architectural and
protective covenants and that the covenants will be recorded with the county. The city
does not enforce private covenants recorded with the county, but in the case of a PUD,
the covenants will be reviewed and adopted as part of the PUD contract. The applicant
should provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the city.
SUMMARY
The subject site contains features that are ideally suited for a planned unit development. The
flexibility of PUD standards should result in the reduction of natural features being lost due to
road and building construction and the features which remain will be protected, and in some
cases,enhanced. Staff feels that rezoning the property to planned unit development is appropriate
for this site, but that the proposed concept plan can be revised to further protect natural features.
Staff is recommending approval of the concept plan with the stated conditions.
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to develop the 113 single family lots on 95 (gross)/61(net) acres. The
gross density is 1.85 units/acre and the net density is 1.19 units/acre. The lots range in size from
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 12
11,740 square feet to 63,250 square feet. The single family lots are located in six blocks which
arrange the lots around natural features of the site. The lots meet the guidelines for a single
family residential PUD except for lots which do not have 90' of width at the building setback.
The following lots need to be adjusted so that they contain a 90' width at the 20' front yard
building setback:
BLOCK 1 BLOCK 3
Lot 4 Lots 1-2
Lot 5
BLOCK 4
BLOCK 2
Lot 7
Lot l _
Lot 2 BLOCK 5
Lot 3
Lot 11 -27 Lots 4-6
Lots 29-30
Lot 34 BLOCK 6
Lots 36-37
Lots 40-44 Lot 2
Lots 47-49 Lots 4-5
Lots 54-58
Lots 60-63
Lots 66-67
Lots 74-76
Lot 4, Block 2 contains an existing single family residence and pool. The residence is in good
condition and will remain. The pool, which is adjacent to the rear lot line, is in poor condition
and will be removed by the applicant prior to filing of the final plat.
The subdivision creates eight outlots (a-h). Outlots A through F will be owned and maintained
by the homeowners association and will be used as follows:
Outlots A and F - Open areas used for entry monuments and landscaping. —
Outlots B and C - Large wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space.
Outlot D - Wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space.
Outlot E - Private park and open space
Outlots G and H - Property preserved for future development.
The applicant pursuing the acquisition of the Song property to expand the proposed development
to the east. Lots 77-83, Block 2 show extension of the lot lines into the adjacent property (Song
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 13
property). The lot area in parenthesis reflects the addition of the Song property. The Song
property should be removed from the plans until it is actually proposed for development and then
the plat can be amended if needed.
Landscaping and Tree Removal
The site contains several significant stands of trees. The applicant has stated that the layout of
the site has taken into account the existing vegetation and has tried to locate streets and lots with
the least impact to the site. Although the plan illustrating landscaping and wetland mitigation
is conceptual, it is somewhat deceiving in what is shown as vegetative areas remaining. A
portion of the vegetated areas shown on this plan have been removed as a result of grading the
site. Staff is requesting that the applicant provide a plan that clearly shows the existing
vegetation, the vegetation that is being removed and the vegetation that is remaining and
proposed to be preserved.
It is understood that there will be a loss of trees with any development of the site, but staff feels
there may be some changes to the proposal which would save more of the vegetation. For
— example, the type of housing design which is being proposed (WO) on J street (lower SE corner)
may be resulting in additional grading which is impacting the trees. Also, the open space
between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 has a large portion of the existing stand of trees
being removed as a result of grading for a house pad on Lot 1, Block 2. The city may want to
consider having Lot 1, Block 2 removed or adjusted and the use of retaining walls to reduce the
removal of trees. The city may also want to consider removing cul-de-sac-H street to pull back
grading of the ravine. The applicant has been asked to review the grading plans to determine
how the impact to the vegetation can be lessened.
The proposed standards for residential planned unit developments provide specific landscaping
requirements which the applicant will have to provide. The conceptual landscaping plan shows
landscaped islands which staff is recommending to be removed. The islands restrict emergency
vehicles, school buses and are a maintenance problem. The applicant should pursue other means
of enhanced landscaping.
GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, AND STREETS
Utilities - Sanitary Sewer
1. In February of 1992, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates (BRA) prepared a
feasibility study outlining a general plan for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water
service to this area. The plans outlined a future forcemain and lift station from the Lake
Ann Interceptor. The exact alignment has not been determined and may require utility
adjustment, i.e. additional manholes and pipe length within the plat. Subject to approval
by the City Council, the financial obligation for extension of this "sub-trunk" line from
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 14
the Lake Ann Interceptor will be the responsibility of the properties benefitting between
Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard. The properties served by the sub-trunk sewer
and lift station should be assessed a sub-trunk hookup charge pursuant to the feasibility
report in the amount of$520 per unit in addition to the overall $970 hookup charge. The
exact assessment would be determined at a future assessment hearing. _
2. The sanitary sewer layout throughout the development is fairly straightforward.
Provisions for sanitary sewer extension north of the site should be explored. For _
example, stub out a lead from one of the two northerly cul-de-sacs. Additional manholes
may be required to insure the sewer system is located within the street section.
3. All utility construction shall conform to the latest edition of the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. Formal construction plan and specification approval by
the City Council will be required. —
Watermain
1. BRA's feasibility report for the MUSA expansion area proposes extension of water
service from the existing watermain south of the pump house on Galpin Boulevard to
Trunk Highway 41. The proposed utility plans show extension of the trunk water line -
(16-inch DIP) through the site out to Trunk Highway 51 by others, meaning the City.
Scheduling-wise it may be prudent for the applicant to consider including this work
through this development proposal. Financial relief or credit would be given to the
developer for the installation of the trunk watermain through the site. For example, the
developer would be credited the difference between installation costs and materials for
an 8-inch line versus a 16-inch line.
2. The extension of watermain service along the east side of Trunk Highway 41 north and
south of "A" Street should be considered to avoid future disturbance of any proposed
landscaping or berming along Trunk Highway 41.
3. Street "B" is essentially a very long dead-end street (1500 feet) with two additional cul-
de-sacs ("I" Street and "J" Street). It is recommended that the watermain be extended
beyond "I" Street to "G" Street to loop the two water systems together. This will provide
better water quality and fire protection.
4. Fire hydrant spacing appears insufficient. Fire hydrants should be spaced approximately _
300 feet apart and in accordance with any location recommendations by the Fire Marshal.
Grading and Drainage -
1. The entire site drains in a southerly direction through a series of wetlands. The majority
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 15
of the site is proposed to be graded. Tree loss will be significant due to the challenging
topography. One option to reduce tree loss, grading and construction of streets and
utilities would be to eliminate "H" Street. The result would be a loss of two or three lots
but may balance financially with reduction in public improvement costs and increase lot
value with the trees that were saved.
2. Another concern would be Lot 1, Block 2 adjacent to Oudot B. Substantial grading is
required in order to construct the proposed house pad. Deleting this lot and implementing
a retaining wall would reduce tree loss and embankment material significantly.
3. At the end of "J" Street the stands of woods is almost completely lost due to street and
building pad construction. House designs (walkouts) require cutting the lots
approximately 8 feet lower than the already lowered street grade. Three options appear
available which will reduce tree loss and minimize grading. The first, "J" Street could
be shortened to outside of the tree stand. The second, type of house could be
redesignated as lookouts or rambler-type homes. The third would be to raise the street
grade. It also appears that any of these three options combined would be advantageous
to saving trees and minimizing grading.
4. Storm runoff from the streets is proposed to be conveyed through a series of storm sewers
which are proposed to drain to 7 different detention ponds located throughout the site.
Some of the detention ponds are utilizing some of the lower-quality wetland areas.
Detention pond Nos. 6 and 7 appear to be too small capacity-wise to adequately handle
the contributing areas. Storm drainage and ponding calculations will be required to verify
pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle
_ 10-year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well
as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped
runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event through the use of detention/retention
ponds. The appropriate easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the
ponding areas. Easements also should be provided along each side of the centerline of
any drainageway or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance and
to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100-year storm of 24-hour duration.
Appropriate drainage easements corresponding to lot lines shall be provided. Easements
for drainage and utility purposes shall be not less than 20 feet wide along lot lines
containing utilities, i.e. storm sewers, sanitary sewers or water lines.
5. The storm sewer lines to the detention ponds should be extended to discharge at the
normal water level to minimize erosion along the slopes.
Streets
1. The major thoroughfare (Street "A") is designated as an east/west collector street
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 16
providing future connection to the east and eventually on to Galpin Boulevard. According
to the City's ordinance, collector-type streets shall be constructed 36 feet wide within an _
80-foot wide right-of-way. The plans propose what appears to be a 36-foot wide street
within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Staff is comfortable granting a variance for the
reduced right-of-way in an effort to minimize setbacks and tree removal. Since this will
be a collector-type street staff feels it would be appropriate to construct a 5-foot wide
concrete sidewalk along one side of Street "A" as a part of the street improvements.
2. Street "B" is proposed as a 1500-foot long dead-end street. Staff recommends that the
applicant explore the potential of extending "I" Street to connect with "G" Street.
3. Preliminary street grades range from 0.50% to 7.0% which is in accordance with the City
Codes. Street grades at the intersections should be designed with 3.0% or less for the
first 50 feet to provide a "landing".
4. Street intersections should be aligned at right angles to the collector street. It appears on
the plans that several of the intersections are slightly skewed.
5. As previously mentioned in this report, "H" Street could be eliminated to reduce impact
to trees and grading limits. Another option may be to explore the possibility of a private
driveway to serve these lots.
6. Delete center median islands on "A" Street and all cul-de-sacs
Miscellaneous
1. When the project proceeds, the address for the existing home will be changed.
2. The existing house will also be required to hook up to the new sanitary sewer within one
year after completion and acceptance. Connection to City water is not required unless the
resident's well fails.
3. Additional erosion control fence will be required around some of the ponding/wetland
areas. Type III erosion control is recommended around the more valuable types of
wetlands.
4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the financial security
to guarantee installation of the public improvements.
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal on August 11, 1992. A copy of
Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal
August 19, 1992
Page 17
the staff report presented that evening is attached. Residents were present at this meeting, as was
Mr. Mike Pflaum, representing Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. One concern of the
commission was in regard to the association or "private" park. It was their desire that the
applicant be required to comply with the requirements of the 1992 Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA) and the 1992 U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines for Playground
Safety. The expectation that the applicant comply with the commission's request is reasonable.
Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Schroers moved that the City Council require
full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication or trail construction. These
fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for
residential property. At the time of permit application, the current fees are $500 and $167 per
lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon:
1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on the
general development plan.
2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction
purposes along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of
State Highway 41.
3. The inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirements for public recreation
and open space as part of a subdivision, therefore, no credit will be considered for the
inclusion of this private facility.
Mr. Pflaum did request that upon development of a trail along Highway 41, any unused portions
of the trail easement be vacated. Staff acknowledged that this request would be honored but only
for portions of the easement for which vacation would be reasonable.
CONCEPTUAL WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
The City is currently reviewing amendments to the Wetland Protection Ordinance. These
amendments were initiated due to new state regulations and new information on treatment and
protection of wetlands. The proposed standards contain innovative guidelines which staff feels
appropriate to apply to this proposal. By reviewing the proposal as a PUD, the city is able to
apply different standards from the existing city code if deemed beneficial.
The current city ordinance on wetland protection protects all wetlands of type 2-8, any size. If
there is any proposed alteration to a wetland, it must be mitigated with an equal amount of area.
All structures are required to maintain a 75' setback from the edge of the wetland. The proposed
ordinance protects all wetlands of type 1-8, any size. This requires equal mitigation in area for
a wetland of equal value or mitigation in the form of an improved wetland. The city's wetlands
have been mapped and classified as either pristine, natural or ag/urban. Each classification has
different standards in terms of setbacks, buffer strips and mitigation.
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
August 12, 1992
Page 18
One of the major changes in the new wetland ordinance is that the wetland setback has been
reduced and a buffer strip, which is landscaped with native vegetation and protected by easement, _
has been added. There is strong evidence that this provides significantly higher levels of
protection for the wetland while improving homeowners the flexibility to use his or her lot. The
following is a brief summary of the new standards: -
Pristine wetland- High quality wetland with unique features and little or no existing alterations.
The pristine wetland basically cannot be touched and is further protected from adjacent
development by a 100' setback and a 75' buffer strip which is required to contain native
vegetation throughout the whole buffer strip.
Natural wetland - High to moderate valued wetlands that have experienced some alteration, but
offer or can be improved to offer high wetland values and functions. These wetlands may be
impacted by development only when the city finds there is no reasonable or prudent alternatives.
Wetland mitigation must be designed to offer improved value and function and should not receive
untreated surface water drainage. The Natural wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 10'-
25' buffer strip which is 1/2 native vegetation.
AG/Urban wetland - Moderate to low valued wetlands which may be impacted by development
contingent upon the provision of mitigation/replacement plans. The city encourages
replacement/mitigation plans which improve value and function to allow reclassification to a
Natural wetland. The Ag/urban wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 0'-15' buffer strip
with optional native vegetation requirements.
Utilized - Water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or
water quality improvements. These water bodies are not classified as wetlands even if they take
on wetland qualities. No setbacks or buffer strip.
The site contains 10 wetland areas. There are three natural wetlands (3, 5 and 6) and the
remaining seven wetlands are ag/urban (la, lb, lc, 2, 4, 7, 7a, 8, 9 and 10). The applicant is
proposing to protect the natural wetlands, except for the northerly portion of wetland 5 and a
small area at the south end of wetland 8. The report prepared for the applicant by Summit
Envirosolutions stated that the northerly portion of wetland 5 is an appropriate location for the
proposed storm water pond. The city's wetland map shows this area as a natural wetland and
staff will work with the developer to determine whether any alteration to this wetland area would
be permitted. The small area of fill to wetland 8 is a result of street construction. Staff will look
closer at this to determine if the alteration can be avoided, but it appears that a minimal amount
of fill will be necessary. The city's wetland map also shows the ravine area, adjacent to H street,
is an ag/urban wetland. This wetland is not shown on the proposed plans. Staff will work with
the applicant to determine the location and status of the wetland.
The applicant is proposing to completely fill wetlands 4, 7, 7a, 9, and 10, and portions of
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
August 12, 1992
Page 19
wetlands la, lc, 2, 5, 6 and 8. As part of the wetland alteration permit, which proceeds after
PUD conceptual approval, the applicant will be required to provide detailed plans for staff to
determine whether the proposed filling of wetlands is acceptable, and if so, what form of
mitigation is required. The applicant will also be required to provide detailed plans showing the
setback areas, buffer strips and landscaping. After visiting the site, review of our wetland survey
and the applicant's environmental assessment, it appears that the applicant is proposing to fill
wetland areas which are in a degraded state and can be enhanced or replaced elsewhere on the
site.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan
for 113 single family lots with the following conditions:
1. Reduce the amount of tree removal currently proposed through reduction of grading, use
of retaining walls, removal and shortening of cul-de-sacs, different housing styles,
lowering of street grades, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations.
_ 2. Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over
6" caliper being removed.
3. Revise lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations.
4. Demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x
12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement.
5. Revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90' at the building setback.
6. Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30' rear yard setback and that there is a 30' exterior
setback.
7. Reduce the front yard setback for all lots on local streets to 20'.
8. Maintain a minimum 10' side yard setback for all lots and that all accessory buildings and
structures will maintain a 10' setback.
9. Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping required for a residential
PUD (boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping foundation and yard plantings, tree
preservation) and provide a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings.
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
August 12, 1992
Page 20
10. Provide architectural covenants.
11. Locate the extension for watermain service along the east side of Trunk Hwy. 41.
12. Extend the watermain beyond "I" street to "G" street to loop the two water systems —
together.
13. Locate fire hydrants approximately 300' apart and in accordance with any location —
recommendations by the Fire Marshal.
14. Provide storm drainage and ponding calculations to verify pipe sizing and pond volumes —
and extend storm sewer lines to the detention ponds to minimize erosion along the slopes.
15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A. —
16. Review the connection of I and G street to provide a 3% or less grade for the first 50'
at intersections.
17. Delete the center median islands on A street and all cul-de-sacs.
18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips and protection of
wetland.
19. Provide as built locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads.
20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments."
ATTACHMENTS —
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated August 13, 1992.
2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated August 12, 1992. _
3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 30, 1992.
4. Proposed Residential PUD Ordinance.
5. Draft Wetland Ordinance. _
6. Letter from Schoell & Madson dated August 11, 1992.
7. Lot summary.
8. Wetland Evaluation. —
9. Reduce copies of proposal.
10. Names of property owners notified.
11. Conceptual plans. —
•
.1-1,.,0 % �' '� ' 1 /
.....j.g.
: .s., 3 \ . : ; N `.milk �/ ® I0»
/
Ior
v + r - .�� _ �. IIS_ till
4./" '
iti4: ;:,C.::.:.,'..: : .,\Jo •
. t‘11-‘-•.\ ---1 iiiiiitiPlipoitte:
4 6 I ti..", :. Ep...)--i___-‘ 44 •ilt
.... 4...., .: /1,... ....._ ,..... p
l' -•IL------- 4 ••• 'sit—..1-: ' s . 2 '114.'",,, rik.r.---A_ , _ip.".,,,,s,,,,,,--;-.4)_.,. 10,,n ,,e_r"",s;•,'1!.-A,,,.,.1 ----)
. 4 'ill'k :EP ce - - 1% • • 0 401 .illi FA :____\/
1111
—111111- :Est.. „t" ,,,, -.:.
J
L \
; : CiAl*a 't.i . : d t at- -- . -4..‘ _., .jaz r.-. . r.: \Iii :v i-4 ' '-: la 1 /
.-..---(i'''.14� ,
•
1. CO,.,..i.,_,/) 1 C... , •• • -.'---
...e, ._. u
(-\\ -'‘• rli 7' .i%--91-V
If. ,
ot e;=i --' -:,7 ,. , __ __
..Ii
� .,.. -01: 40,....4 . ..... is
• ,
..,.1.DANS• ...
. � • 11
4
a
\ O . i W
p : p
— a I 1 -,,
O --441 CC r e
O
L
6 (U C) ti ti CA Q N 3
} Cb Q Q N ill
n g d i
W Q n f 0 O O et O «
Z = Q Si N 0 CV O ^ N O g
CC Q
d
,,^^ ~ Y
vJ cW r7.-.
W sr, W V UJ e
0 sirli
J Z 0 ita, k :? ` Q a > r °
Q G W !ti 5. 2! € b W ¢ 3 z H t7 z-
1„,
Y 4-
Z >
Z W Wi I.
O a ¢ o Al i c s x
cn G 4 1,,x t
0 U) Q $ iiii ilii j
(� Q I
ce: fIn 7
zZ .: i
W 'IV u FEt� r
Q - i SF
O = w911-
..) s''tv
0 (7 ' ■ i{:. ♦ . l ,a=t 9
—
6
ti• 6
• 2 2 ;<-7
• \ t ,-
\ • ...-. . - .. ..- ... -•: 2 3 F.
\ • " • ' • ci -..
C.1 ...
—
,_
/
• — -- .-4 •.. I el . .. $1
I
• ':; -:- ' -
li liq 11 6' C-1-N 4,
11 411/ , •
.• . "•41-I 11111:-..-
b'''-‘ i I %.." .-t 4'4-7' 0.•ar, , —
,_ 1, AP,=II.oil ,'1 t A ,, -Alba. . ___\.- .\-1.1."411 1,e_l"• 110111°6 :,.- i
L. -
‘-i .; p • ,iiklip . ,. ..
le II. ghair.•
. ,_ . , . • ,. ... .0.! .... tey tri-„, la',.: ilift 4,iiii
_d --- - : .... luiE000 :0-ii • ---0 o'slo. r . :
4 • .4---......i. I' !.! .
.S.\‘-• ; . /Li I ' 1,1_..le '"v i 1'741...; ' lig.&_„. iiii,, -_-______,,..._ .i.:-..„-- ...11-74........, . , -
......... ,... ,-„,„,„ _.....„,,• __, , ,....41) _4 • /..,..,,,, ...i.„.-,.-.._,___-,., a 1:114%.1) 4‘.1, IP .441§'',i/..
1,7 .440K , --,..,--:---_-_--. .. .•••• T.1 4.....ii .4.‘
\L''s:- k.:Zt -,S,'•-:': _ 1 r"'"'N.... .. !11%- ' , Aired?.1P. -.. IlAw Ver C.- • .4,-- . ..„
: i , ,....• , tve. %,_,,,,i,--71.,
„ _ A__•_... .
.14p. 41111'4111111111. 4111 • .
1
..i.
2
- ;t'; ,1_, • WAgansi . ,.-. ,., , -
_
• ( . •.;-• •,
- et-- , ,. : .,,,„, ,..,.• ).
, • ,.,,,......_. ,,......,i ,..i.,,,„ ; i
, , , . 7-4:;,,,,,,,- i.I.,,E,,, - ' ft• ; . _ = .
_. i • •
-,.. ..._.•, , . ..., .
„ . .
. ,,,....,,4• A -..,..,:..41• ‘ Ap. ._ , g —
al.' " - •::. '4"4.1 s.;...0* --‘?•,•%'\:- - •,1;,,,ty, - ..„..i.0 g
• -----
r 1 ••.
i11_,..-z--_-;..--.-_— ___ -- e: '
•
.5 1-..:-•-,-..,m.7.-=_,------N2W7-•-- -. _co• -....., do t._ ...
z., . - -- , ---- - '1.7-- ‘Iiliar .")_-. ''''
__,._._ .,,,,,,.....,-.-_-;-..=-•„- 4: • %
il---------1,0--'7-r----q---:-=-- -,„___!..13 ' illgie, •
- .. ./ . 0 • .-.._ N ._ ..4-",".
:, "4"`4.:". '"., re."•
\ \...' .' -A.
ft. s •,, \y. s. 1. !.- --•-- •
- : • • s ....—
- "..' __- __- .•-:" __,... ''t•
w •,... - :, • „.- ,,,- -
.---- •
. t.) !•.---• "''';;;•'. \ v • , - —
k •...)•4_2,741,!, .
••• •-., / •
- ' „...: -
-.0"" I. ) .,;. .
. ,. - -• ' :-•''• N.- / •)k. le' .: ' •;'.. - r
..4 4-:4::.• - *
- -• - 4t..•..)...7,, ;,.4...i?i lc ..44-•,X-i•X Ili !."
-•'•,. 4i . -
f• 1 . q .4... 1/0.' ,Z,"/Cf. .... ‘\ - .:,. S 2
/ ---
;.-. '!! ss. "!.. 1' ...„•• '44'• , -..--7._.-,- • % i•!I--'-..
,. • i ..;•• t ., I, . leen....0-= • -.. 0
.....-=-__- , s ,•1.‘
. , ,• ,.!/ :5, /CFLIW---=-•. • . ../00 •I. -- .
_ __
''.- N. •-.... t-.; i:itl- ...-'.OP.. .,... ,a—k, • __ _ _ . ft. .
• • . 111'4 • - • milk ' •
''''':,..s...k. s..,:k.t.I. ,I.. s : .. , . • , _ • ...Ala .
--4-:).. ---„,--t. ,,,,,...„ ...•... ...-N., ,,f-•• . 2. •-.
--...•,, -.,-.4., f•--,„ "- ,:;(.!,.,,,,...vr / • 1
41r
_...;. ,.
.• . f 4 ' ' •' r.I g
• (;.,a' . ,` , '
..
• • •.-.•i'' C0-ft" ;134' •‘ ''..-4 -)11b,
'‘"-'•-:-.i 6.7 A• -
.,-4 4`4Pe, --ir,: 1..,
.. ....„,,,,
'•- .. • ,--1.-.,,,, --) S . ,,r• . - _L-7,- -
•.• ' W,o•-- 24 ‘4..•
1- • •
„..
M •
LI • . . •
Cl_ 0
r . o4 - -
0
-9,. .• - -
- If -• :
CC • , -. cn'
a. z 0
Z ..4. : • '... 1-
CC .(6, ... a..• 0 <0 • . :.•, p: ,_
•
-
0 04<C "•
'‘.•'N': . 0 Z <
< P cc
U) 0
Z .
I-• a a
••:,.. i f7Th > 3 - >
< o a a
0 g , A .. 1,.. il
ii .% -71 1- 2
•I•fi 2 2 . 110\ C. —1 la 8
0 aj — . I.i
: qi ON I,
i''‘ J
I t I•C- CO IJ-
Z I 4
!1
•
0 I Li: Ir.
—) C.) • •
08/13/92 10:46 DSU, INC. IZ1002
•
-
.- -.: ,,.. ,.,314.7t.v,e,,,,,t --t-.* .--$-c,";5;s'--..*,t-Nf '' . '<,•;:-.e, • '• -. • - - . _ : 7
..„. `•. y /.--7.7=,..."'.,. '�-•`\�_ '--.• R •' ^ ' te. "' ' ,,{S '
i • : -- . , t .
. \TV:4 1 44t•
•
•r t• �' t 1 1l - -•..- ��� r• ? v�'�C�- '
` 4• ` y
• c) xf Cf X� / .
/
t4r moi; ''�rjL. .041 , i. /.
-........ ./. ...i.. .., isk, ...... .t . _3,, ..,: . ....„..,....57A -.,
VI W
• 4L • . tit -1 • .- • • 4 cufc`• xa
fitt co a>
— V '�� ,` % �. s• ..- !..• !� b T
o.
M '� •��•\�• ' •. ham-
- e
-1.5... 74.<A\ ,• 5 . C� " Cr
2_— LiJ
(1) �. • N. I r 0 - I'
LL• 4:: ILI
1 -� 2 %. .J_ Lt
z �t . !• ILL:- fl.
;�" ?
cc ill, CC
• o o' o
O /. = 1 la F [u
CC • a w Cn
.. CECI z
Z Q i3zt.i 1 -J J
•
— w 0 .Eis ta— i- H
0 c3 - 0 0 0
,e_1:
-- R m -
La
. —.
.T. !
?.....;
til
.. - -— • - -—' t I " I '•,1' '‘\ Z-_-..._'--,..--_ __.../. ,.••-,___...,.,—;_...Y 1 (.....,....1•••••••
__
....,
...
',.... l'''5.. •/-34iiiiiiir;,....,-.'"N;4.*... . - " '-- ' 1 f AIMPINIESINC ;Ar' --'4.44.., ,..14,:i ,.'I-3.f. ,;...7." - ! * .'....) -2-- N. --; - —7-
••3 ---"-- •••• 1:.z..,$,,,..,...**0...z.i ,---__ ,--- .----,\-.•,/ / ,,,• , /
7,
—. },:/- . 1._,.
:::%-es.„?..„:,-:-.-ml...,....w-z:-??....,....*---, :....--v-,,,---„; _.:.,/7 ...../
,.... .........„.:::::.::::::..s...,. ...% .e....i..::::
.
_ _ . ::„...„.„........„.......,.....:„...„....... .....,„.... .,.:......:.„,......:.:... . ( , ,. ..-... „. ---,..... y _...1 • . I e
7 i /
t --....----7 - .......__-•• ....... .41:?:• .4:••-•.: --7 s-!-----7 .- ----- ••
_-- _,,...."/ ••••••,-.1-f...... ,,.:::31-.:::.ik- ,. •. 1
/. —.
:....1)//1 , • ‘,.‘1 _-_..' /"Z. „ .... <-----"1". ----------- .. '''' - -::::_:::.,:.::..).,,,,,,,,,,....A..:-...,:t.s.:,.:-....;:,•:::::-......-..:.:,.,,:..1.•:-.*,...„;--":„.,....:•:::i
T.:.::::::;.?:::11:.i.44.ii-v• ...::::.,.......- •-•.......k:*...•:-. .. i, / •
.81 • • . `,-•-•:-.••-•••- ' -•• •..._:‘`... -"••': 7 21',...!f.. ,--- .7—:-.-..----- '• :::::•:•:,.: ':.::::::::-..,'•-•'.,,,,-,•....w.,...:;;;.:‘,
- -,,5," 7s.
..- • -- • .
%.,..., '....,.: ,.-s..--....:_.„... ,...,...... ____-,,,.„
v. /
/
'):': VI)\V:J'11 tif ..,of&''''' 'IZI'::.:M.... j) I.,"..:.2, 0.:''''''S-7.'''.. . ....."-1" --7;-. '..: -7--N, r•--:--..!•1,--\>•---, k! — ;- -•:"4",..'•%•••.•:::.::•.•-•:•:.• .....y....„.....! 1 ../
/ •f.-- Z---„---N-' • I • •+, , • z.• -•••-•; .. ''''•(:%%,::::•:,%•%:•:::;•%%:t •-•i :
's\. .........?7?....,.. __ •:.,••i 7*/';:17...= 4 -:" •1.---;--> .7- " •..":„:.:': :', :.; •>"- '-- -..."- ,-.
!A, •- (." ,.... •s, ._.- - -- / ! i-..;#.1,;.."• •
. .. <7 . • ' •`'A''''-T---
•-:,-..,. ,,, .
„.--.-4;...„---------
.. - - . 1 . \• i• ••.,.............-........„.. , ...-- i
. ',,,,, ‘,--- ' • , ..,,•:4.............:.f.--...-..... ...::::.?......,... 'I. k.\ 4:,-7-. ,,,,;„.;if: .,_
• i
1 g.:..->.:'•-....-!--...k.,„!--,-..:1.............__:_...1.,---' / . -----" ‘• '...--',...f.::::-.0.,- ...g.:- ::;......,:-...:•,... • L} ..9-,i /-72,., ! ..
,, . - ..:.,-.-.......,•-•:',....z.:::::-..-NA ...... 4
7 /. • ...11-.......c:•......., k„,, 1 /
f.•:/i •I I i
N : , I g , •I - r;
i.v ::::;:f:.:•:::::: :':iE::., -...,'- ,•//,:'' ' 1 .• /..•
/je
'ft • 1. •• , ,., 10..t,. , I 1 i /
: ..i.''.:**-',It::''''''. .., • " ,.. __.
/ • 8 g• i , ''
'; ; k*. •\• 1 '• •`*".ina 1-----:"•.- • : ,/ i • . ;
- • -..‘ /
. ... -....-, • _
._
---- :-. 2.,k,..........'p.- '- .., .. -.7.71 -----------.,- :\ Y -. ,
•.•-., ,_,
/ .‘
' • •'- / i .• : \ t 1 •
• ..:\,A . ( ' „ ' .•1/4i'••.I:•/*,•n:?0,r••.".i%:::,...'4'::........•..•••i.-::.,!-V.:.:X::.,...::... /
/
i • •1 / M
i .•
• ... . .. .....•-•• •• •••••• —
f.g; -...- •.../ . ••-•••••••:__
p I : , '`ZI ,..•\.t•.•. /I'''. :;;;;---7:-....-• • • Ntr•a:2 -%;:-V)-.14;.:•••''..'": ••.......-ty"... — .,‘ ___—__,..— -
•-- N s• ••'•''•' • • •••••••••*:...i..*i:i:::?4 ' 1......4.,
1.1 " • 1 I : Ti : !' . ?: eE•i•ii:4*.*.- /
4
.1 , W I i 2 t
/-• i •••,! V ' -': . :-.;*.;:1::%.*::••J•• 7
•, g 4 8. • •.),
i . :: l:---,"..+,1 * •-•:•.41:::::?:i::::- ;
7.. ' . - , :"04.- , : : -.-.. ,:,:0:::::::.:-... / ...
+? : •4 ; LP- 1,4.,;4";:•..§,g
.,\.; j•t3i / ./!0;•:•:•4•'•W':• i //
44,,__ , 7• . '' {17.-.... .T.'.. .."...."
\•, 1 . ••774Piiiiii,„I/ .- . - -- .1 ;: r-r-.'F'- /•Aq.`,'...f '1
..:e,.1,•.., ;i. „. / t , • ,•!.
13--' , V.,) ,'4:.•:•:..t:::it:::.;:::::i::!:•:,..??
. ---r . . "- •, . •
, . ... • . 41 ..1.::::w-.., , —.
% • • --,-tr NE '.? ,s•-1 . 1111111L.'0%" - - - - 1,,,,;:;:re''..:*:•. : /
`•. '' '' •• '-: ''.•• .t , .t- - ...::::•.........:::.:-,.. ..::::(-
--.
, 4. ...i*•:::i*:•:::•::....- tW..:•:::::..-VVitx::. :ie. r •••
i
-•- .".;% :,..\••.,... t?/ --;•,::*:i..: ; -... _•,...--•.....:. ..4.Z..::: x.:::.?:::,::- I.,
. --;..... ,..„,..., ,--. -::::,..:,:::::::•:.:1 •::• ......-
,,,.,:., . . : i ,....,.. .... .<*,...5. „.•,-,::-.7.......-:::::mi. ::::::::::: .. -. • mo
•
.....7;;;S''•-.s..•,' . -'! ..:;kkli::::•;:iiii::• - :
. •,,,N... .•,•os'..:t:2'. . • :;. - / ..'Nsiff..
.... '':.,,..... •:•:•„,,do f; ... ,,; Jo ...:•::::„.••:Kti;:A: ' • -
' • ...' "o'vf 1.`f,. .o '•::3::::::,:::::': .' .
'
(.) . .....• •. . .''''.:•-• kk) ! ":---2
:,. -..
Z .,. ...‘o 1/4.1... -•.,
•'i.•• • •• , ,' ...:V:,-:::•igg:ri
. . ..:1,. ...
. . vt , • ,, :::::+'••• .::::
Z '
CO
•-.•• 4.,o
--,.. „ b:•es,,f v...., .• 4
f ! ' •
. .. .
I"'" - •*, r'r -.`..., •
••••,. 1,A.,
(..) .. 74, . •I • : - ./..z , g t i
n `.... : : •••, 0 . '
••.," • •.4 ,., - i ---r : .: —.
CC t- - -
• NZ. -7.4 , i =
i• -
S. lf,st N % • % 0.k, :•
7:
Cr) ''' ..:' ..\\-. --...'•-ili;:
0 • N.,..\ .7 ..
•.. ‘ ._ % -
! -.
0
. . # i
•. *.
U) g•f)
o z —,
.
0
Ca 7.zi— 5i .
1..1 -• -
Z Z 2. 1::
•Ti.g. :it .
W ° a: :.•
C.) • i P
...;
CC :Ii Ili
(5 0 -: I
CI —
l•- '-
—.
_ 0
\...._2.....i
``' M X w •
›- a
v.i ..1 III 4
ri Lii
m
1 I
,zm.__.__4L....._._.__....,___,-.. . . r - .. ...-.- -•
` --
m
IG
fl ! `�
c. ..
I; I 4; NI \. f
I i i .; 1
r -...y.. .. , - ` • it
q ' i U { Imo"'
am Ch
/' ILI. ii . • .
fit is
lL ••• 1111% •.
,1
.
'" I 1 _J
f Q I
C a i .!f ! 1 I
�' ';
fi �° i If ; '
' 1
'_ \, �ing x r , 0 - 1
1 .gi I '! ! 4,,- -„,,_.„11-' ,,
. __ .. . .! it
- kl1/44410. .,,,,t.7401F.4) • .1 .
ni .
7:. g it;
. ___
_.
1 .1, . -
: tL I t ,
ftil
P 41
a
1 N„. 4 • CC
Ill
II
I j_____
•` 8 � I
I •
I
• ' Z I�i/
r r ii \ W 1
iz g
/ N E
{1 I. 1
l i
h
zurS Muir T•w+
M
., •__.
•
_�_ ^- 1 - .�
r �. 7
11
F ii ' i ,i 1 I '
(� 1 f i I }_
•
' a ` . I
s ••-� � i I I � „_ I.
.ill
_ S I •
Ii i ,, i 1 1 . • -.9...
I r j t I"."'•...... i
ij
/ • ; 4_ i .:. is I kr. FR' ..r,
I —J I - - --- f I
1 •, •- a I
5 I i
J I
i 1!, is a i 13, 1'. ;•
. iI. 1
.: ' if I I 1 - !„(
# #;
1
+ a ►; as ss
p' CC -
ii , I
CL
rr t
b, ' Y W
€ i lay. g Z
it .; _ �•.• II 1 1if
- .-_ i" ,{-_ 71V15-- r ` P-=-M...�_
I L1J e I
. i /
I:
` /
/41. SS
3
1 �. I Z , * Ir
/
j It
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
CONCEPT PLAN
AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
OF
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
Submitted by:
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473-1231
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
II. INTRODUCTION —
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
B. Legal Description —
C. Zoning
D. Project
E. P.U.D. Criteria
F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
3. Traffic Access and Circulation
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULING
V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY —
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT
VIII. TREE PRESERVATION/MONUMENTATION/SIGNAGE —
IX. COVENANTS
X. CONCLUSION
I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The developer of the Johnson, Dolejsi, Turner property is Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc., a
Minnesota Corporation located in Wayzata, Minnesota. The Lundgren Bros. tradition has been
synonymous with quality neighborhoods throughout the Metropolitan Area for 23 years.
The Development Team is coordinated by Terry Forbord, Vice President and Project Manager of this
development.
Consultants
Planner: The site plan design by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., Minneapolis,
MN.
Engineer: The plat and public facilities engineering by Schoell & Madson, Inc.,
Minnetonka, MN.
Surveyor: Site surveying by Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Legal: John Kuehn, Leonard Street & Deinard, Minneapolis, MN.
Wetland Biological Regulated wetland permits, delineation and monitoring by Summit
Analysis: Environmental, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
Landscape Entrance monumentation and landscape design by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and
Architecture: Uban, Inc.
Market Analysis: Preliminary market analysis by Conhaim & Assoc., Minneapolis, MN.
H. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Presentation
The purpose of this presentation is to provide the Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council
details of the proposed Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and to obtain the necessary concept plan,
preliminary plan and preliminary plat approval.
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
This proposed Residential Planned Unit Development by Lundgren Bros. is located in
Chanhassen in Section 9, Township 116, Range 23. The property consists of 95 acres. The
project is served by State Highway No. 41 to the west, State Highway No. 5 to the south and
vacant land to the north and east.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 2
B. Legal Description
See attached.
C. Zoning
The project consists of four parcels of land owned by three different owners. The property is
currently zoned A2. The developer proposes to rezone the property to a Residential Planned
Unit Development.
D. The Project
The project consists of 120 single family residential home sites that will be developed on lots —
ranging from 75' to 130' lot widths with lot depths varying from 130' to 400'. Each lot will
be developed to match the site with a choice of pre-designed models. Each home will have a
minimum two car garage with a wide driveway and major emphasis placed on walkout
basements where topography allows.
Lot Size:
Gross Average Lot Size 34,554 s.f.
Net Average Lot Size 21,485 s.f.
Smallest Lot Size 12,000 s.f.
Largest Lot Size 71,300 s.f.
Proposed Building Setbacks:
20' Front Yard Setback (minimum)
30' Rear Yard Setback (minimum)
6' Interior Side Yard Setback for Garages
9' Interior Side Yard Setback for Living Area
15' Minimum Combined Between Buildings
40' Rear Yard Wetland Setback (minimum)
Meandering wetlands create a variety of constraints to development, which can be minimized
by mitigative efforts aimed at providing quality homesites while maintaining the integrity and
contributing towards the enhancement of the wetlands. Measures such as conservation
easements, reduced setbacks and restrictive covenants all contribute to this and will be
discussed later.
As noted earlier, lots will vary in size from 12,000 s.f. to 34,000 s.f. The range of lots in this —
development is considerable and provides an opportunity to accommodate different home
styles. Besides offering the advantage of a highly varied streetscape, the mixture of home
plans and lot sizes can help to diversify target markets. Generally this option does not achieve
densities as high as those using conventional platting procedures evidenced by the gross
density shown on this plan of 1.3 units/acre with a net average lot size of 21,485 s.f.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 3
With the difficult constraints on the site, the mitigative measures that we propose such as
preservation of wetlands and vegetation with additional ponding proposed creates a
development that is aesthetically pleasing and environmentally responsible.
These mitigation measures speak to the purpose of the P.U.D. and successfully create the
ultimate condition that the P.U.D. was designed to affect.
Development Summary:
Total Acreage 95.19 ac.
Private Park 2.30 ac. 2%
Open Space 22.08 ac. 23%
R.O.W. 10.40 ac. I1%
Net Developable 60.41 ac. 64%
_ Number of Lots 120
Gross Density 1.3 units/acre (120 ± 95.19)
Net Density 2.0 units/acre (120 _ 60.41)
E. P.U.D. Criteria
The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance (May, 1992) outlines three expected attributes of Planned
Unit Developments. Those expected attributes and the developer's findings are outlined
below:
1. Attribute: The City should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond
normal ordinance requirements.
Finding: The overall concept is oriented around the development of individual
neighborhoods defined by the road system and the integrated open space system. This
community was designed to accommodate moderate-size single family homes while
providing generous amounts of open space.
The plentiful open space shown affords the visual amenity provided by ponds,
wetlands, mounds and depressions and combines them with the landscape elements
such as grass, flowers, shrubbery and trees.
Over and above this, open space provides the means to preserve and enhance existing
natural amenities, thus preserving wildlife habitat and migration corridors. Open space
can beneficially influence the micro climate by improving heat radiation and by
_ providing channels for air drainage and favorable air flows. The system operates as
more than just open space; it provides a readily accessible place for informal
recreation.
The developer has used this process that embraces the delicate balancing act of
locating roads and home sites where it has the least effect on the wetlands, trees and
steep slopes to create a development that is innovative and harmoniously sensitive to
the environment.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 4
2. Attribute: Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the sites' environmental limitations and
opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options.
Finding: The proposed plan maximizes the potential of the limited developable land —
on this property while providing an efficient use of open space that benefits as many
home sites as possible. Because of the unusual amount of constraints existing on this
site such as: the 10 wetlands, the visual and noise concerns of State Highway No. 41
and the extensive vegetation, Lundgren Bros. is requesting a P.U.D. on this property.
A P.U.D. would provide more efficient use of land and public services, consolidation
of areas for recreation, and reductions in street lengths and other utility related
expenses. The curvilinear road system, rolling topography, and general site design
help create many interesting and unique building sites which further promotes diversity
in housing within the development. —
3. Attribute: Quality of development in: landscaping, construction quality, provision of
public/private open and recreational space.
a. Landscaping - By design, the road system locates entrances which identify
points of arrival to individual neighborhoods. The entrance features will _.
consist of entry monuments, ponds, extensive landscaping and planted
medians. The cul-de-sacs, while allowing development of rolling hills and
creating niches for smaller more private neighborhoods, also affords the
opportunity for landscaped islands, another feature of this development. These
areas will be maintained by a homeowner's association as well as covenants on
the land that must be adhered to by owners.
b. Construction Quality - Lundgren Bros. invests a great deal of time and money
periodically upgrading its entire home product line keeping current with design
trends that are the most in demand and efficient. The latest innovative —
construction techniques are implemented upon their introduction to the
building industry.
Lundgren Bros. has been developing residential single family developments
and building quality homes in the Twin Cities area for 23 years. The
Lundgren Bros. tradition of quality neighborhood communities has been
recognized nationally by many industry publications such as: Better Homes &
Gardens, Professional Builder and Builder Magazine.
c. Public and Private Open Space - The amount of open space together with the
neighborhood recreation area and the numerous ponds created within the
development are a direct result of the flexibility allowed under a P.U.D.
Additionally, because of reduced lot size and setback requirements the
developer is able to provide other neighborhood community benefits that
reduce the strain on other City parks and trails.
The plan addresses the need for neighborhood park activity by locating a 2.3
acre private park in the center of the development. In addition to a pond
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 5
entrance feature, other features proposed are a tennis court, a 1/2 basketball
court, a play structure, and other areas for informal recreation.
Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard
areas, lot sizes and other minimum requirements and performance standards
associated with traditional zoning, Planned Unit Developments can maximize
the development potential of the developable land while remaining sensitive to
its unique and valuable natural characteristics.
F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density
The property is currently guided for Low Density Residential Single Family Housing
by the City's Land Use Guide Plan. This designation allows I to 4 residential
dwelling units per acre. The Johnson, Dolejsi, Turner property plan proposes 120
residential single family lots on approximately 95 acres for a density of 1.3 dwelling
units/acre.
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
The site is within the MUSA expansion area. The February, 1992 report prepared by
Boonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates presents the general plan for extension of
trunk sanitary sewer and watermain to this site.
Based on the report, sanitary sewer service will be provided by extension of a 12-inch
diameter trunk sewer from the Lake Ann Interceptor. This gravity sewer would
terminate in the Song property which is immediately east of the Johnson, Dolejsi,
Turner site. A lift station is proposed in the southeast;portion of the Johnson, Dolejsi,
Turner site which would pump the waste water by forcemain to the gravity trunk in
the Song property. The internal lateral gravity sewers would be extended from the lift
station. This would be done in phases as necessary to support the phased
development, beginning with the first phase at the west side of the site.
Trunk water service to the site would be provided by extension of a 16-inch diameter
watermain from the pumphouse on Galpin Boulevard to Highway 41. This main
would also pass through the Song property. Watermain laterals would be extended in
phases from the trunk as necessary.
Lundgren Bros. has been working closely with the Songs, and preliminary alignments
for the streets which would contain the trunk sewer and watermain in their property
have been developed.
A feasibility study for the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain extensions has been
ordered by the City. The preliminary schedule for the study and the project would
provide for a project bid award in February 1993 and July 1993 construction
completion.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 6
The storm drainage system on the site consists of storm sewers in streets which will —
discharge into storm water treatment ponds. These ponds will outlet into existing
wetlands. Storm sewer outlets are also provided from all of the existing wetlands to
allow controlling the water levels. In general, the site drainage pattern is from the
north portion of the site to the large wetland in the south portion. The drainage
facilities will be constructed in phases along with the other site improvements.
3. Traffic and Access Circulation
The road system, open space system and trails have been developed to best facilitate
the movement of traffic safely and conveniently in accordance with the City's
designated road system, while at the same time providing a unique neighborhood
community consistent with Chanhassen's high standards.
Primary access to the development will be off of an east-west collector connecting
State Highway No. 41 and County Road No. 117 additionally providing access to the
Song Property located adjacent to the east. The road system is designed to identify a —
hierarchy of traffic with cul-de-sacs running into this collector.
The preliminary plan provides for the preservation of 25+ acres of natural wetland and
high ground areas to be used for private park, trails and open space.
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULE
The developer intends to develop the project in five phases over a period of approximately four to five —
years. Obviously, economic conditions may affect the actual time frame and special areas of
development.
The attached accompanying phasing plan identifies the sequence of development of the proposed
development. This sequence is mostly derived by the approximate location of utilities.
V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
As the optionee, Lundgren Bros. intends to develop the Johnson, Dolejsi, Turner property once they
receive every governmental approval necessary for development to occur. Lundgren Bros. is a
principal developer in the City of Chanhassen and has never failed to meet its obligations throughout
its history.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
Except for a few concentrations of steep slopes, the topography is generally rolling terrain with the
highest elevation being 1,034 feet and the lowest elevation.being 954 feet. There exists 24+ acres of
10 separate protected wetlands on the site with both the Army Corp of Engineers and the City of —
Chanhassen having jurisdiction.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 7
this neighborhood community.
In addition to these natural features, the development will include significant ponding and
enhancement of existing wetlands and along with additional landscape elements proposed by the
developer, we believe the result will be an overall development that is attractive and enduring.
VIII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT
The project contains a total of 24+ acres of wetlands of various types. Generally, the wetland basins
on the project area have been heavily affected by past drainage activities. Virtually all of the wetlands
on site have been subjected either to ditching or subsurface tile line installation. In some cases, this
drainage activity has been effective enough to eliminate wetland hydrology and in others it has
rendered historic wetlands so marginal that they serve few, if any, functional wetland values.
After extensive analysis and a conscious effort to minimize the development impact on the site,
approximately 2.81 acres of wetland were found unavoidable and are proposed to be filled (see Table
1). In general, the impacts would be incurred by the most degraded wetlands on the site. Of the 2.81
acre total, 1.65 acres or 59 percent consists of Basin 9 and 10 which are extremely marginal in their
soils, hydrology and vegetation. More than 87 percent of the impacts associated with the project will
affect wetlands classified by the City as Ag Urban. Impacts to wetlands classified as natural have
been limited to fringes and degraded portions of these basins. Because of the extensive distribution of
wetlands present, it is clear that some wetland impacts cannot be avoided.
Sedimentation ponds will intercept and collect storm water runoff prior to discharging it into the
wetlands. The developer's intent is that upon its completion, the site should have equal or greater
wetland acreage with overall higher quality than existed prior to development. This should provide an
— improved variety of plant types and a better habitat for more species of wildlife.
Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses shall occur in the form of several wetland
creation projects distributed among the least disturbed portions of the site. We have tentatively
identified 2.81 acres of potential wetland creation at seven locations within the site (see Wetland
Impact/Mitigation Exhibit). These sites would provide 1:1 acre for acre replacement of wetlands to be
affected by the project. The acreage encompassed by these sites is exclusive of storm water
storage/treatment ponds to be constructed for the project. As the project moves into final design the
locations and designs of these sites may be altered.
Six of the seven replacement wetlands would be contiguous to and become part of Basins la, b or c.
These basins would be excavated to a depth sufficient to create wet meadow or shallow march
_ conditions. In general, the wetland types to be created will provide substantially higher wetland
functional value than the degraded wetlands affected by the project. Bottom substrates for created
wetlands will consist of organic material excavated from existing wetlands to be affected by the
project.
A conservation easement will be established around each wetland. The design of this easement shall
show a natural perimeter that meanders around the edge of the wetland. The depth of the easement
shall vary with 10' being an absolute minimum. This easement, with a minimum depth of 10'
combined with a useable backyard of 30', should provide setbacks to the wetland of 40' minimum.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 8 —
The primary purpose of the conservation easement is to provide nesting habitat and wildlife cover —
peripheral to the wetland. In addition, the easement combined with the proposed sedimentation ponds
will work together to improve and maintain the character of the wetlands.
Many species of wildlife reside in wetlands and depend, in part, on the presence of a fringe of upland
habitat. The design of this easement shall depict a natural perimeter that meanders around the edge of
the wetland. The depth of the conservation easement shall vary depending on the classification of the
wetland.
Each lot shall have a deed restriction in recordable form and easement that forbids the home buyer _
from violating and tampering with the conservation easement.
Table 1
Wetland Impact Summary
Lundgren Bros. Chanhassen Residential Development
City Regulatory Acres
Summit Basin No.a City Basin No. Cowardin Type Classification Filled
1 a A9-7(2) PEMCd Ag/Urban 0.05
1 b A9-7(2) PEMCd Ag/Urban 0
1 c A9-12(1) PEMCd Ag/Urban 0 —
2 A9-7(1) PEMC Ag/Urban 0.25
3 A9-8(3) PEMC & PEMNBE Natural 0.25c
3a ---b PFO I E ---b 0 —
4 A9-8(2) PEMF Ag/Urban 0.18
5 A9-8(1) PEM/FO 1C Natural 0.05
6 A9-4(3) PEM/SSC Natural+ 0.02 —
7 A9-8(4) PEMA Ag/Urban 0.22
7a A9-8(4) PEMA Ag/Urban 0.08
8 A9-4(9) PFO I/UBC Ag/Urban 0.06 _
9 A9-7(5) PEMA Ag/Urban 1.65
10 A9-7(5) PEMA Ag/Urban
TOTAL 2.81
a See attached Wetland Impact and Mitigation Exhibit
b Basin No. and Classification has not yet been assigned by Svoboda and Associates, Inc., _
because of its marginal nature, this basin was under further review to determine if it met
minimum wetland criteria.
c Of this impact, 0.22 acres is composed of a man-made drainage swale which provide an
overland outlet for the natural portion of Basin 3.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 9
VIII. TREE PRESERVATION/MONUMENTATION/SIGNAGE
The vast majority of the existing trees are located in areas along the southern large wetland and will
be subject to minimal impact by any home or road construction.
The design attempted to locate other large stands of vegetation in rear yards to preserve them and also
provide a screen to adjacent lots.
There will be some tree loss occasioned by this development, but it is the expressed intention of the
developer to keep tree loss to a minimum.
Professionally designed and landscaped entrance monuments shall be provided at each entrance to the
P.U.D. The elements of the monumentation and signage shall be consistent throughout the
neighborhood community. The design team shall take advantage of the creativity the P.U.D. ordinance
allows and develop an identity that blends well with the natural surroundings. All monumentation
shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and shall be consistent with the quality
monumentation found in other exclusive Lundgren Bros. neighborhood communities.
IX. COVENANTS
As in all neighborhood communities created by Lundgren Bros., strict architectural and protective
covenants shall be established and recorded to protect the investment of each homeowner and the
wetland conservation easements.
X. CONCLUSION
Lundgren Bros. feels that the proposed preliminary plan for development of the Johnson, Dolejsi,
Turner property enhances the quality goals and objectives of the City of Chanhassen. It is our
pleasure to respectfully submit to you our proposal and request your acceptance.
CITYOF
CIIANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner —
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: August 12, 1992
SUBJ: Land Development Proposal, Preliminary Site Review - Johnson, Dolesji,
Turner Property
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal on August 11, 1992. A copy of
the staff report presented that evening is attached. Residents were present at this meeting, as
was Mr. Mike Pflaum, representing Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. One concern of the
commission was in regard to the association or "private" park. It was their desire that the
applicant be required to comply with the requirements of the 1992 Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 1992 U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines _
for Playground Safety. The expectation that the applicant comply with the commission's
request is reasonable. Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Schroers moved
that the City Council require full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land _
dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit
application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. At the time of permit
application, the current fees are $500 and $167 per lot, respectively. The above —
recommendation being contingent upon:
1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on
the general development plan.
2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction —
purposes along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of
State Highway 41.
3. The inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirements for public
recreation and open space as part of a subdivision, therefore, no credit will be
considered for the inclusion of this private facility.
is
ta PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
August 12, 1992
Page 2
Commissioner Andrews seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Mr. Pflaum did request
that upon development of a trail along Highway 41, any unused portions of the trail easement
be vacated. Staff acknowledged that this request would be honored but only for portions of
the easement for which vacation would be reasonable.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM �"�♦
TO: Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official AkCW
DATE: 07/30/92
SUBJECT: 92-4 PUD, 92-6 SUB, 92-5 REZONE, 92-9 WAP (Lundgren Bros. )
1. Standard designation for dwelling type is:
TU --- tuck under
SE --- split entry
R --- rambler
SEWO - split entry walkout
WO --- walkout
These designations should cover all types of grading possibilities, and the
standardization helps avoid confusion. Plans should be changed to reflect
these standard designations.
2 . Problems have occurred with dwellings on corrected pads being too large
for the pad or missing the pad. The development contract should include a
provision requiring as built locations and dimensions of all corrected house
pads.
3 . Reduction of setback requirements, particularly in side yards creates a
potential for a number of problems. Drainage (from roofs and lot grading) ,
permitted encroachments, and future structures all have higher potential for
causing problems with the closer proximity of the dwellings. Four to five
foot drainage easements should continue to be required at each side property
line, with a drainage swale shown on the grading plan. All permitted
encroachments except cornices and eaves should be prohibited. This would
include fire escapes, egress window wells, stairs and landings, bay or bow
windows, chimneys, decks and patios, balconies and canopies. Floor plans
should be designed with no doors facing the side yards to avoid the perception
that future decks may be permitted.
4 . It isn't clear what is intended for the existing dwellings shown on the
plans. This should be clarified.
es
t 4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of the Chanhassen City Code
is amended as follows:
Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Detached Residential Planned Unit
Developments.
Intent
_ The use of Planned Unit Developments for residential purposes should result in a
reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains the
potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in
a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same
time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance
requirements. Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and
_ to offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of development, as evidenced
by landscaping, construction quality, provision of public/private open and recreational space,
should also be enhanced. As average lot sizes are decreased below 15,000 square feet, the city's
expectations will be increased and it will be the developer's responsibility to demonstrate how
the project meets the city's goals .
— a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a
minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations).
The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local
terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are
consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the
PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40'
building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or
protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This
area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage
easements.
b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet.
c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet.
1
d) Minimum Setbacks:
PUD Exterior - 30 feet.
Front Yard - 20 feet.
Rear Yard - 30 feet
Side Yard - 10 feet.
Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a
minimum of 10 feet from property line.
e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect
and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views.
These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by
permanently recorded easements.
f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
• 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of
over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and
roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to
preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where
necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required.
3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be
established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD,
the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the
required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial
guarantees acceptable to the city.
4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation
of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be
used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to
maximize tree preservation.
g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for
a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not
intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared
for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high
2
quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without
variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is
felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot
sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the
future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to
accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage
buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels
due to small lot sizes.
Section 20-507. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Attached or Cluster-Home PUD's.
a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be
allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan.
b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be allowed.
However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan.
c) Setback Standards/Structures and Parking:
PUD Exterior - 50 feet
Interior Public Right-of-way - 20 feet
Other setbacks - Established by PUD
Agreement
d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect
and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views.
These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by
permanently recorded easements.
e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of
over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms
shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more
intensive land uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of
mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining
3
walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural
topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where
necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required.
3) Foundation and Yard Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall
be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD,
the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the
required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial
guarantees acceptable to the city.
4) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tee survey should be
prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to
maximize tree preservation.
f) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for
a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not
intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared
for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high
quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without
variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is
felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot
sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the
future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to
accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage
buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels
due to small lot sizes.
Section 2. Amend Section 20-505, Required General Standards, by adding the following:
(m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer
yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity
uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot buffer yard is to be
provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard
is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines.
4
The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the
required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed
on the parcel containing the higher intensity use.
The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher
intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming,
landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed
feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,
however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan,
shall be the obligation of the property owner.
Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor
of the city.
In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the
city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by
up to 50%. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the
standards herein.
5
•
ARTICLE VI. WETLAND PROTECTION
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 20-401. Findings and intent.
Wetlands help maintain water quality, serve to minimize problems with flooding and erosion,
serve as sources of food and habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife, and are an integral part of
the community's natural landscape providing the aesthetic benefits of open space and a natural
separation of land uses. It is the intent of this article to establish a policy of sound stewardship
through coordination of regulations that strive toward zero degradation and no net loss of the
wetlands by conserving, protecting, and enhancing these environmentally sensitive resources. In
addition, it is the intent of the city to promote the restoration of degraded wetlands where feasible
and practical. It is the city's intent that the use of sound planning policies should strive to first
avoid alteration to a wetland which are of high value. Where alteration of prime wetlands cannot
be avoided, then wetland loss shall be mitigated. At the same time, wetland regulations will be
based upon the value and function of the water body as determined by the Chanhassen Surface
Water Management Plan.
Section 20-402. Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to assure the protection of the general health, safety and welfare
of the residents and the protection of the wetland resources of the city, for now and in the future,
through preservation and conservation of wetlands and sound management of development by:
(1) Establishment of wetland regulations that are coordinated with flood protection
and water quality programs under the Chanhassen Surface Water Management
Plan.
(2) Conducting an inventory and classification all wetlands within the city and
maintenance of a comprehensive set of official city wetland maps.
(3) Requiring sound management practices that will protect, conserve, maintain,
enhance, and improve the present quality of wetlands within the community.
(4) Requiring measures designed to maintain and improve water quality in streams
and lakes with its attendant increase in recreational use and value.
(5) Protecting and enhancing the scenic value of the wetland.
(6) Restricting and controlling the harmful effects of land development which
adversely affect wetlands through:
• Requiring proper erosion control practices.
1 _
• Preventing rapid runoff from developed areas.
•
Preventing pollution from gas, oil, salt, fertilizer, sand silt, and other
materials.
• Prohibiting dumping of waste in wetlands.
•
Restricting the placement of structures within wetland areas.
• Maintenance of a buffer strip to protect the perimeter of the wetland
(7) Allowing only development that is planned to be compatible with wetland
protection and enhancement.
(8) Providing standards for the alteration of wetlands when permitted by the city.
(9) Mitigating impact of development adjacent to wetland areas.
(10) Educating and informing the public regarding the function of wetlands and the
impact of urbanization upon wetlands.
(11) Obtaining protective easements over or acquiring fee title to wetlands as
opportunities occur.
Section 20-403. Interpretation.
Neither the issuance of a wetland alteration permit nor compliance with the conditions thereof,
nor compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall relieve any person from any
responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance
of any permit serve to impose any liability on the city or its officers or employees for injury or
damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit remove the requirement of
obtaining any other permit approvals from other regulatory agencies.
Section 20-404. Establishment of wetland areas.
Lands lying within a wetland area shall be subject to the requirements established herein, as well
as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable city ordinances and regulations.
The Wetland Protection Regulation shall not be construed to allow anything otherwise prohibited
in the zoning district where the wetland area is located. Land within the wetland areas shall be
classified by the city in accordance with officially adopted maps. In instances where the maps
prove to be inconclusive, or if the official maps are not in place by the effective date of this
ordinance, the city shall obtain further clarification from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources,U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, local
wetland professionals and reference documents established by current Minnesota Statutes.
2
Chanhassen's wetlands are classified as follows:
•
Pristine - High valued wetlands which have few visible signs of significant impact
by agriculture or urbanization. Pristine wetlands are considered to be areas which
all development is prohibited and for which the greatest amount of protection will
be provided. Should not receive untreated surface water drainage.
Natural - High to moderate valued wetlands that have suffered from some impact
but which offer or can be improved to offer high wetland values and functions.
May be impacted by development only when the city finds there to be no
reasonable or prudent alternatives. Wetland mitigation must be designed to offer
improved value and function. Should not receive additional amounts of untreated
surface water drainage from projects being considered for approval.
•
Ag/Urban - Moderate to low valued wetlands. May be impacted by development
contingent upon the provision of mitigation/replacement plans. The city
encourages the provision of replacement/mitigation plans that serve to improve
value and function to allow reclassification to natural wetland status. May directly
receive surface water drainage.
•
Utilized - Utilized water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water
runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not
to be classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland characteristics. Wetland
alteration permits shall not be required to undertake work on these water bodies.
Section 20-405. Determination of wetland boundary.
Wetland boundaries shall be established by officially adopted city maps. The official maps shall
be developed and maintained by the Planning Department. In the absence of having a wetland
defined by the official maps, the Planning Director shall make wetland determinations based upon
field investigations, applicable state law and in consultation with concerned agencies and
professionals. If an applicant questions whether a wetland exists or disputes its delineation, it
shall be the burden of the applicant to supply detailed information for review. The applicant
shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to, topographical survey
and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact wetland boundary. The
Planning Director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated wetland
boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data
that is supplied. Data required for wetland determination a registered engineer, surveyor, or a
qualified wetland consultant. The applicant may appeal the Planning Director's determination
of the wetland boundary to the City Council.
3
Section 20-406. Variances.
Variances from the requirements of this article may be granted in accordance with the variance
provisions of this chapter as regulated by Article II, Division III of this Code.
Section 20-409. General development regulations.
1. Setbacks. Setback standards described in Section 20-408 shall be applied uniformly to
all parcels of land in Chanhassen containing designated wetlands.
2. Permissible Uses between setback and buffer strip
Accessory structures, except garages and storage buildings exceeding 120 square
feet and fencing over 61/2 feet in height
3. The following standards apply to all lands within and abutting wetland areas:
(1) Septic and soil absorption system must be a setback minimum of one hundred
fifty (150) feet from the ordinary high watermark of the wetland.
(2) The lowest ground floor elevation is three (3) feet above ordinary high water mark
_ of the wetland.
(3) Docks or walkways shall be elevated six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ordinary
high water mark or six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ground level, whichever
is greater.
(4) Private boat launches requiring fill are prohibited in wetlands except on lakes
without a public boat access. All other access across a wetland shall be by means
of a boardwalk and only upon approval of a wetland alteration permit by the City
Council.
Section 20-408. Intent and Mitigation Procedures
Intent
The primary goal of this ordinance is to avoid wetland impact by careful design of development
proposals. An applicant for a wetland alteration has the obligation to demonstrate, to the city's
satisfaction, that reasonable alternatives to the action have been explored. The city must find that
the alternatives are inappropriate or that a wetland enhancement would result for the city to
approve the wetland alteration. The city's actions on wetlands shall be guided by the procedures
outlined in this ordinance and by the value of the wetland as established by official city maps,
Surface Water Management Plan, and information received from experts on wetland preservation.
4
Mitigation should always result in an improvement to the wetland function and value. The
wetland function and value will include improvement of water quality, maintaining hydrological
balance and provision of wildlife habitat.
Mitigation will be performed at ratios required by state law to achieve replacement of the wetland
function and value. Current state law requires a 1:1 mitigation until final rules are in place which
raise the ratio to 2:1. Wherever wetland replacement ratios are mentioned elsewhere in this
section it is understood that the prevailing state mandated ratio will be operative.
Mitigation will not always be based solely on an acre to acre replacement but may be based on
replacement of habitat units (HU) through the use of habitat evaluation procedures (appendix)
at a ratio of 2:1. When significant improvements in the wetland value result, direct surface area
replacement on a 2:1 basis may not be required. The city council will determine when wetland
impact will be allowed and the nature of mitigation which will be acceptable.
Mitigation Standards
Mitigation of wetlands for wildlife habitat should be restored/created/enhanced to have the
following characteristics:
• Relatively stable water levels subject to natural fluctuations -
• Pretreatment of inflow waters to improve quality
• High level of upland/lowland intermingling
• A ratio of open water to aquatic vegetation between 1:1 to 1:2
• High degree of intermingling of open water and aquatic vegetation
• High level of plant species diversity
• Restoration of native plant species in upland and lowland areas
• Undisturbed upland/lowland edge (i.e. buffer)
• Meandered wetland edge
• Irregular bottom contours - mix of shallow and deep water
• Shallow side and bottom slopes - preferably 10:1 to 30:1 around and within wetland;
steeper slopes may be used to provide open water and greater vegetation
variability
Mitigation Techniques
1. Mitigation will be performed at a ratio of 2:1 replacement of function and value.
2. The city will use the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) to determine Habitat Units
(HUs) to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1.
3. The mitigation shall provide a buffer strip. A buffer strip is an area of non-disturbed
ground cover left unmowed to filter sediment, nutrients, and chemicals. The wetland and
buffer strips will be protected by an easement dedicated to the city. Buffer strip
5
vegetation will be established and maintained in accordance to city requirements; plant
species shall be selected from a list of wetland and upland plants to provide habitat for
various species of wildlife buffer strips shall be identified by permanent monumentation
acceptable to the city. In residential subdivisions, a monument is required for each lot.
In other situations, a monument is required for each 300 feet of wetland edge.
The buffer strips and structure setbacks shall meet the following guidelines:
Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized
Structure
Setback 100'
40' 40'
measured measured
from the from the
outside edge outside edge
_ of the buffer of the buffer
yard* yard*
Buffer Strip* 25-100' 10-30' 0-20' 0
Buffer Strip
Minimum Average
Width 50' 20' 10'
% of Native entire entire optional optional
Vegetation**
in Buffer
Strip
6
* The dimensions of the buffer strips shall be determined by the city based upon the quality
of the wetland, local topographic conditions and the type and design of development
being proposed. The table above provides minimum and maximum dimensions for the
buffer strip. The use of a meandering buffer strip to maintain a natural appearance, is
encouraged. Structure setbacks are also described in the table. On single family
subdivisions in the RSF district, the applicant must demonstrate that each lot provides
sufficient area to accommodate the applicable front yard setback, 40 foot deep building
pad, room for a 12 foot wide deck at the rear of the home and a 30 foot rear yard area.
All of these elements must be provided outside of designated wetland and buffer strip
areas.
** Native Vegetation:
Restore disturbed areas in appropriate native ecosystem including native trees and
shrubs.
4. For development approved prior to (date of ordinance adoption) within
wetland areas and for lands abutting a wetland area, the following minimum provisions
are applicable unless alternative plans are approved by the city under a wetland alteration
permit:
TABLE OF WETLAND CLASSIFICATIONS
Pristine Natural Ag/Urban Utilized
Setback
Principal 100' 75'* 75'* 0
Structure
* The city may approve reduced wetland setbacks as outlined in Section 3. However, this
may only be approved in conjunction with compliance with buffer yard standards
continued within the same table and compliance with all provisions of this ordinance.
5. The mitigation shall maintain or enhance the wetland hydrological balance through the
following:
Restoration of deteriorated wetlands
• Flooding of previously drained wetland basins
• Creation of new wetlands
7
• Enhancement of existing wetlands
6. The mitigation shall provide for pretreatment of water prior to it entering the wetland to
improve water quality if required by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan.
7. The mitigation, through the buffer strip, shall provide landscaping for nesting and
food for wildlife habitat. The buffer strip landscape shall provide for wildlife cover and
utilize a diversity of native flora (i.e. trees, shrubs, grasses, herbaceous plants) to
encourage wildlife diversity and provide visual variety.
— 8. The mitigation process shall preserve the wetlands by dedication of easements or by fee
title.
9. The city's primary goal is to have wetland mitigation undertaken on-site. If this is not
considered to be feasible by the city, second preference is for mitigation to occur locally
within the sub-watershed. The least preferred option is for mitigation to occur outside
— the sub-watershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on site, or
if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off-site, the applicant shall be
responsible for contributing into the city's wetland mitigation fund. The mitigation
performed off-site shall meet the above requirements.
10. The city may determine that the public interest is best served by requiring off-site wetland
mitigation. This determination will be made based upon the city of Chanhassen's Surface
Water Management Plan. When this situation arises or when the applicant is unable to
_ restore wetlands on-site as outlined in Section 8, the city will require payment into the
dedicated Wetland Mitigation Banking Fund. This fund shall be used solely to create new
and/or expand and improve existing wetlands according to the priorities outlined in
Section 8. The City Council shall establish the fee structure on an annual basis. Fees
shall be based upon the average price for similar property elsewhere in the city.
Section 20-409. Construction Management/Long Term Wetland Maintenance.
The applicant shall follow the city's construction monitoring program to minimize direct impacts
due to erosion, construction practices, wildlife habitat protection, etc.
The applicant shall conduct a monitoring program and evaluation until construction is completed.
A letter of credit from the applicant shall be held to ensure compliance similar to any other
public improvement. The city will ensure that the applicant is delivering the wetland that was
promised. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the designed wetland as-built plans.
Where feasible, the city shall require the applicant to satisfy long term management requirements.
8
Section 20-410. Exemptions.
Activities exempted by Minnesota Statutes 1036.2241 from State Wetlands Protection
shall be exempted from the provisions of this statute. However, certificates of exemption must
be obtained from the city and filed with the County Recorder prior to starting work.
DIVISION 2. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Part A. General Provisions
Section 20-421. Required.
1. The following activities, if performed in a wetland area require a Wetland Alteration
Permit allowing the activity.
(1) Scientific research projects which benefit the specific wetland and provide
educational benefits for other wetlands.
(2) Public works activity shall require a wetland alteration permit for streets/utilities.
(3) Creation of ponds or dams and alterations of the natural drainageways of water
courses only if part of a mitigation project, or to restore or improve the function
and value of the wetland.
(4) Installation of boardwalks.
(5) Create sedimentation and/or water quality improvement basins if part of a
mitigation project, or used to restore or improve the function and value of the
wetland. These basins may not be created in "pristine" wetlands and may only be
created in "natural" wetlands if the city determines that there is no reasonable
alternative, if the wetland can be improved through the alteration, and if mitigation
for the impacted surface area is provided.
(6) Digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering a wetland if part of a
mitigation project, or used to restore or improve the function and value of the
wetland.
(7) Discharge of storm water runoff, only when pretreated and retained to maintain
predevelopment conditions.
2. The following activities do not require a wetland alteration permit;
(1) Normal maintenance, city facilities such as dams and dikes.
9
(2) Removal of diseased and storm damaged trees and vegetation shall not require a
wetland alteration permit.
(3) Repairing existing drain tile if the property has been in active agricultural use
during the twelve (12) months preceding (new adoption date).
_ (4) Emergency situations when the Planning director deems the action necessary to
protect public health, safety, and city infrastructure.
Section 20-437. Filling.
When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing fill in a wetland, the following guidelines
shall be followed:
(1) Any filling must be consistent with the provisions of the Chanhassen Surface
Water Management Plan.
(2) Filling shall not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to
be diminished to an extent that is detrimental to any area river, lake or stream.
(3) Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes may be used.
(4) Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
(5) Filling in wetland areas will not be permitted during waterfowl breeding season
or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the City that the wetland is not
used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning.
(6) Filling in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated as defined in Section 20-
407.
Section 20-438. Dredging/Excavation/Grading.
When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing dredging/excavating/grading in a wetland,
the following guidelines shall be followed:
(1) The dredging will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological
characteristics of the wetland.
(2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
(3) It shall not adversely change water flow.
10
(4) The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the
proposed action.
(5) Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area.
(6) Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient
retention measures.
(7) Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season of
fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the City that the wetland is not
used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning.
(8) Dredging in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated as defined in Section
20-407; if the activity results in a loss of functional wetland areas. Dredging
approved by the city to create water quality improvement basins may be allowed
by the city where reasonable alternatives are not available or where the wetland
is of low quality and designated for the purpose by the Chanhassen Surface Water
Management Plan.
Section 20-440. Storm water runoff.
When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing storm water runoff to a wetland, the
following guidelines shall be followed:
(1) A minimum increase over the natural volume of storm water runoff from a
development may be allowed when necessary for use of property but only when
it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological
characteristics of the existing wetlands. If the city is concurrently approving the
creation of a replacement wetland elsewhere or the alteration is demonstrated to
provide a direct benefit to the wetland by improving water quality. In no case
shall the restrictions on runoff set out below be exceeded. Since the total increase
in runoff which can be permitted is limited, the Council when considering permit
applications shall consider, in addition to the following, apportionment of
increased runoff opportunity to all wetland property within the surrounding
wetland area.
(2) Storm water runoff from a development may be directed to the wetland only when
free of debris and substantially free of chemical pollutants and silt, and only at
rates which do not disturb vegetation or increase turbidity. Sheet flow and other
overland drainage of runoff shall be encouraged.
(3) The allowed total increased runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed, shall
not cause total natural flood storage or nutrient stripping capaci.y of the wetland
11
to be reduced in a manner inconsistent with requirements established by the
Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan.
Section 20-441. Enforcement/Procedures.
(a) Violation of Article VI, Wetland Protection, or of the terms of a permit issued
thereunder shall be a misdemeanor punishable by ninety (90) days in jail and/or
a seven hundred dollar ($700.00) fine and be responsible for undertaking
restoration of the wetland.
(b) Wetland reviews conducted by the city shall be coordinated with State of
Minnesota Wetland Protection Regulations and official rules.
(d) Notice of requested wetland alteration permits shall be mailed to all property
owners located within 500 feet of the requested activity. Notification requirements
established by State of Minnesota Wetland Protection Regulations and official
rules shall be coordinated with city approvals.
Section 20-422. Application, issuance, etc.
The applicant, for a wetland alteration permit, shall furnish the information required by the City
including, but not limited to, a site plan, topographic data, hydrological data, and habitat
evaluation procedures for the review of a wetland alteration permit application. The Planning
Director shall use discretion regarding the level and complexity of information required to review
_ the request. A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued without having been first reviewed
by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council following the review procedures
set forth for conditional use permits. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the
proposed use or activity complies with the purposes, intent and other provisions of this article.
A permit must be approved by a three-fifths vote of the Council. The Council may establish
reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in the permit to ensure compliance with
requirements contained in this article. Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size,
kind or character of the proposed work, require the construction of other structures, require
replacement of vegetation and wetland function and value, establish required monitoring
procedures and maintenance activity, stage the work over time, require the alteration of the site
design to ensure buffering, require the provision of a performance security. The granting of a
wetland alteration permit does not abrogate the need to obtain permits required by other local,
state or federal agencies.
Section 20-423. Inspection of work.
The City may cause inspection of work for which a wetland alteration permit is issued to be
made periodically during the course of such work and shall cause final inspection to be made
following the completion of the work.
12
Section 20-424. Expiration, renewal, etc.
(a) Unless otherwise specified by the City Council, the person issued a wetland alteration
permit shall begin and complete the development authorized by the permit within one (1) year
after the date the Council approves the permit application.
(b) The permittee shall provide written notice to the City Engineer twenty-four (24) hours
prior to the commencement and completion of the development project. No project shall be
deemed to have been completed until approved by the City Engineer after receipt of notice of
completion.
(c) If the permittee fails to commence work on the development within the time specified _
in this section, the permit shall be void. The Council may renew a void permit at its discretion.
If the Council does not renew the permit, the holder of the void permit may make original
application for a new permit.
(d) The permittee may make written application to the Council for an extension of the
time to commence work, but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date
already established to commence work. The application of an extension shall state the reasons
the permittee requires an extension.
Part B. Issuance Guidelines
Section 20-436. Generally.
No wetland alteration permit shall be issued unless the City Council determines that the proposed
development complies with the provisions of this part, as well as the intent and purpose of this —
article. If the City determines that the required calculations in a particular instance are needlessly
burdensome because of the area and nature of a proposal, it may agree to a substitute analysis.
8/6/92
13
r•
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. n
ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS•PLANNERS
SOIL TESTING•ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD • MINNETONKA,MN 55305-1525
[612]546-7601 • FAX[612]546-9085
August 11, 1992
Ms. Joann Olson
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Subject: Johnson Dolejsi Turner Site
Dear Ms. Olson:
We have reviewed the areas and densities shown on the
preliminary plat. Following is the corrected information.
Total area 160 . 88 ac.
Area of Outlots G & H 66 . 00 ac.
(Future Development)
Area of Development 94 . 88 ac.
Street Right of Way 450, 864 SF or 10. 35 ac.
Area of Outlots A-F 1, 024 , 967 SF or 23 . 53 ac.
Area of Platted Lots 2 , 657, 160 SF or 61. 00 ac.
Total No. Lots 113
Average Lot Area 23 , 514 SF or 0. 54 ac.
Gross Site Density 1. 19 units/ac.
(Less Outlots G & H)
Net Site Density 1. 85 units/ac.
(Less R/W & All Outlots)
We will provide a tabulation showing the wetland areas for
each lot within the next day or two.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
4
Kenneth Adolf
KEA/cj
cc: Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros.
John Uban, Dahlgren Shardlow Uban
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPO-+I UNITY EMPLOYER
5
wt r-,7,t�fiNc, -`gy p-5_
• LJI,
JOHNSON,DOLEJSI,TURNER PROPERTY-LOT SUMMARY
1 Avera*e Lot Width ` 1 -
1 Block ! Lot S.F. I Lot Depth Street Setback
Block 1
Lot 1 19,070 160' 100' 110'
Lot 2 26,660 175' 80' 110' -
Lot 3 20,460 175' 50' 80'
• Lot 4 29,140 175' 50' 75'
• Lot 5 17210 150' 80' 90'
Lot 6 22,160 125' 150' 120' -
Block 2
• Lot 1 40,500 400' 100' 100'
• Lot 2 40,500 405' 100' 100'
• Lot 3 47,430 455' 110' 110' -
Lot 4 25,420 195' 110' 115'
Lot 5 17,360 180' 105' 100'
Lot 6 16,430 158' 100' 100'
Lot 7 16,890 163' 100' 110' _
Lot 8 16,500 150' 110' 100'
Lot 9 21,300 170' 50' 85'
Lot 10 40,450 230' 50' 80'
• Lot 11 44,800 245' 50' 80'
• Lot 12 30,100 240' 50' 80' -
• Lot 13 15,680 140' 110' 100'
Lot 14 28,500 270' 80' 85'
• Lot 15 23,470 248' 80' 85'
• Lot 16 18,870 245' 90' 80' -
• Lot 17 18,500 238' 90' 85'
. Lot 18 17,840 220' 80' 80'
• Lot 19 17,000 205' 80' 82'
. Lot 20 21,380 225' 115' 105'
• Lot 21 16,590 230' 170' 115' -
• Lot 22 16,770 215' 90' 90'
• Lot 23 19,550 230' 90' 85'
• Lot 24 18,000 225' 85' 85'
• Lot 25 28,130 225' 70' B0' -
• Lot 26 36,000 238' 50' 80'
• Lot 27 34,800 240' 50' 75'
Lot 28 34,400 238' 50' 75'
• Lot 29 22,990 243' 85' 80'
• Lot 30 19,100 240' 75' 80' -
Lot 31 18,500 223' • 80' 80'
Lot 32 16,770 215' 80' 80'
Lot 33 21,450 193' 105' 100'
• Lot 34 18,100 190' 70' 75'
Lot 35 32,700 190' 50' 80'
• Lot 36 41,540 268' 50' 80'
• Lot 37 63,250 332' 60' 90'
Lot 38 15,600 160' 100' 105'
Lot 39 14,700 173' 80' 80' -
• Lot 40 16,820 193' B0' 80'
• Lot 41 26,970 245' 95' 90'
• Lot 42 44,650 310' 65' 100'
• Lot 43 31,620 160' 70' 115'
• Lot 44 36,900 183' 70' 100'
Lot 45 24,500 190' 80' 105'
Lot 46 25,270 218' 250' 200'
• Lot 47 27,690 355' 95' 90'
• Lot 48 19,840 345' 100' 95' -
• Lot 49 19,500 325' 110' 105'
Lot 50 17,700 295' 110' 100'
Lot 51 20,460 260' 80' 80'
Lot 52 19,990 220' 80' 80'
Lot 53 16,430 205' 175' 120'
- I • Lot 54 21,080 245' BO' 80'
• Lot 55 21,080 255' 75' 80'
• Lot 56 18,910 260' 100' 90'
• Lot 57 18,600 250' 130' 115'
• Lot 58 16,890 243' 120' 105'
Lot 59 18,760 170' 100' 105'
• Lot 60 15,500 155' 100' 95'
- Lot 61 12,860 160' 85' 80'
• Lot 62 17,050 195' 90' 80'
• Lot 63 28,830 220' 100' 95'
Lot 64 27,120 185' 55' 85'
Lot 65 21,240 160' 60' 95'
• Lot 66 23,720 168' 70' 90'
• Lot 67 17,510 178' 105' 95'
Lot 68 16,890 175' 90' 95'
Lot 69 15,500 160' 100' 90'
Lot 70 17,980 135' 100' 100'
Lot 71 17,360 148' 160' 125'
Lot 72 14,410 158' 90' 90'
Lot 73 13,020 138' 100' 90'
• Lot 74 13,480 130' 100' 100'
• Lot 75 23,560 185' 60' 90'
. Lot 76 63,240 290' 60' 90'
Lot 77 35,030 260' 60' 95'
Lot 78 11,470 210' 120' 90'
Lot 79 14,730 240' 90' 90'
Lot 80 13,330 225' 90' 90'
_ Lot 81 11,780 205' 85' 90'
Lot 82 13,800 210' 70' 80'
Lot 83 20,600 220' 90' 100'
Block 3
• Lot 1 43,090 328' 110' 110'
. Lot 2 49,910 210' 190' 240'
Block 4
Lot 1 21,230 140' 90' 100'
Lot 2 16,430 145' 80' 100'
Lot 3 23,560 195' 60' 80'
Lot 4 22,170 198' 70' 90'
Lot 5 16,120 133' 85' 110'
Lot 6 20,770 170' 55' 95'
• Lot 7 28,670 210' 60' 90'
Lot 8 28,050 145' 90' 120'
Lot 9 19,070 160' . 70' 130'
Block 5
Lot 1 17,670 150' 90' 120'
Lot 2 24,340 265' 50' 95'
Lot 3 35,810 180' 60' 100'
• Lot 4 17,510 153' 150' 125'
- Lot 5 15,810 173' 173' 105'
• Lot 6 16,280 180' 180' 85'
Lot 7 14,570 153' 153' 90'
Lot 8 18,130 153' 153' 100'
I
Block 61
Lot 1 15,340 14.0' 110' 110'
. Lot 2 40,450 208' 310' 260'
Lot 3 24,490 225' 125' 120'
. Lot 4 28,830 165' 200' 185'
. Lot 5 28,050 1 175' 210' 1 180'
Lundgren Brothers
Construction:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Johnson, Dolej si, Turner
EVALUATION WORKSHEET Site
To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application
(Attach additional sheets if necessary) -
1 . WETLAND DESCRIPTION:
Size: See attached narrative
Class : See attached Type: See attached narrative
Location: Lakeside Streamside Upland X
Watershed District: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek -
Area of Open Water: See attached narrative
Drainage Flows To: Bluff Creek
Vegetation Types : See attached narrative
Soil Types : Basin 1 Pd (deep peat/muck) ; Basin 6 Ma (marsh soil) ;
All other basins Ge (Glencoe silty clay loam)
2 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Sec attached narrative
•
3 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Single family residential development. -
•
4 . APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 20-439, section 20-440,
Section 20-437 and section 20-438.
5 . A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO
ALTERATION IS MADE: Because of the extensive distribution of
wetland basins and intervening steep topography, the project site cannot
t developed for single family residential use with out some wetland impact.
If wetland impacts are totally avoided, the project becomes infeasible
because of the large proportion of lots that would be eliminated.
S . B . IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND
ALTERATION: As mentioned above, due to e extensive distribution of
wetland within the project site, no alternative exists which would totally
avoid wetland alterations. The project proposer has modified the site plan
several times to further reduce wetland impacts. See attached narrative for
more detailed discussion.
C . IDENTIFY THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED
ALTERATION: Thp primary advantage of the purposed alteration is that
much of the wetland on the project site has been substantially degraded by
drainage and agricultural activities. The project would allow the restoration of
both wetland acreage and wetland functional values in an amount well in excess of
(Continued on separate page)
6 . USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDE, DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE
AND PROPOSED ALTERATION: It is anticipated that proposed project
will be consistant with all of the ordinance sections identified above;
however, specific ordinance requirements cannot be addressed quantitatively until
the project design has progressed farther. The developer is committed to meeting
all of these ordinance requirements and will provide the City with documentation
of compliance as design details become available.
•
-2-
5. C. (Cont.)
the values that will be lost project. The site plan has been developed to avoid and
minimize impacts to the highest quality wetlands on the site and to limit impacts as much
as possible to those basins that have been degraded. Lost wetland values are being _
replaced at a ration in excess of 1:1 on an acreage basis. Also direct storm water
discharges into existing wetlands on the site have been avoided and all street runoff will be
preponded before entering wetlands that remain on-site. All wetlands remaining on the
site at project completion will be permanently protected by conservation easements. The
project proposer does not recognize any disadvantages to the purposed alterationgiven
the above described measures.
e Summit
"ea._ Envirosolutions
July 20, 1992
Mr. Terry Forbord
Vice President
Lundgren Brothers Construction Company
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
SUBJECT: Wetland Delineation and Regulatory Analysis
Chanhassen Site, TH 5 and TH 41
SUMMIT Project No. 921010
Dear Terry:
As requested, we have field reviewed the above-referenced property and delineated the
jurisdictional wetlands found there. Wetlands on the subject site were delineated using the
Federal Manual or Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task
Force on Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Revisions to the former method have been proposed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and are currently under review. Pending the adoption of these 'revisions, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is applying the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual. We
find that both of these manuals yield the same wetland boundaries on the project site. "Cowardin"
wetland classifications are referenced first throughout the text with abbreviations of Cowardin
types and "Circular 39" classifications being shown in parentheses. In analyzing potential impacts
and providing site layout recommendations, we have used the site concept plan prepared by
Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban and the preliminary stormwater pond locations provided by Schoell
and Madson, Inc.
BASIN.CHARACTERISTICS
Generally, the wetland basins on the project area have been heavily affected by past drainage
activities. Virtually all of the wetlands on-site have been subject either to ditching or subsurface
tile line installation. We have indicated on Figure 1 locations where we know or believe tile lines
to exist. In some cases, this drainage activity has been effective enough to eliminate wetland
hydrology and in others it has rendered historic wetlands so marginal that they serve few, if any, -
function wetland values. A basin-by-basin description of wetlands on the project site follows:
708 North First Street. Suite =233 • Minneapolis. MN 55401 • (612) 333-5050 • FAX(612) 333-5445
Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota • Milwaukee, Wisconsin
0
Mr. Terry Forbord —
Page 2
June 20, 1992
SUMMIT Project No. 921010
Basin 1; Sub-basins la, lb, and lc —
Basin 1 is a large wetland complex which lies partially on-site along the southern boundary of the
project area. In our mapping„ we have broken this basin into three sub-basins labeled la, lb, and
lc. This basin is a ditched/partially drained saturated to seasonally flooded palustrine emergent
wetland (PEMIB/Cd; Circular 39 Type 2 wet meadow). This basin may have originally been a
wetter seasonally to semi-permanently flooded shallow marsh prior to its being ditched. Sub-
basins la and lb appear to have roughly their original boundaries; however, sub-basin lc has been
substantially altered by historic drainage activities. Sub-basin lc appears to have originally _
extended farther to the north and encompassed what have been designated in Figure 1 as Sub-
basins 7 and 7a. Thus, the topographically flat area at the north end of Sub-basin lc represents
- former wetland that has been effectively drained by tile lines. The slender segment at the north _
end of Sub-basin lc is essentially a man-made ditch which offers few wetland functions and serves
primarily as a conduit carrying drainage from Basins 7 and 7a toward Basin lb.
The site concept plan shows about 0.05 acre of filling impact to the fringe of basin la and no
direct impacts upon Sub-basins lb and lc; the proposed stormwater pond locations all lie outside
these basins. It appears that there are substantial wetland mitigation opportunities along the —
fringes of these three sub-basins. There are a number of cultivated upland areas fringing this
wetland which can readily be excavated to blend into the existing wetland.
Basin 2
Basin 2 is a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEMIB; Circular 39 Type 2 wet meadow).
This wetland is totally dominated by monotypic reed canarygrass (a non-native wet meadow plant
species) with a few mature willows and box elders along the fringe. Because of the considerable
elevation difference between the north and south ends of this basin (about 6 feet) it appears that
this wetland receives its water from a tile line that feeds in from off-site uplands to the north.
Monotypic reed canarygrass extends uphill beyond the delineated wetland into a steeply sloping _
area that does not exhibit hydric soils or wetland hydrology. The lower portion of this basin feeds
into a ditch which flows under the existing site access drive and into Basin la. The flow observed
in this ditch during field work appeared to be considerably more than what would be expected of
a wetland with such a small, enclosed drainage area; again this suggests a subsurface tile line
supplying water to the basin. This basin has relatively low ecological integrity due to the
substantial invasion of non-native plant species. Also, because of this basin's lack of vegetative —
diversity, it has relatively low wildlife habitat value. The lower (south) end of this basin has the
most diversity and the highest habitat value.
The concept plan for the site indicates about 0.25 acre at the north end of this basin would be lost
to residential development. The portion of the basin affected is the steeply sloping and the most
marginal in terms of wetland hydrology. This portion of the basin appears unavoidable without —
Mr. Terry Forbord
Page 3
June 20, 1992
SUMMIT Project No. 921010
the elimination of at least two (and possibly three) lots. Even if fill in this basin can be avoided, it
is likely that construction on uplands to the north will disrupt the tile drains which provide some
of this basin's water. If the street and cul-de-sac to the east of this basin is shifted east to avoid or
reduce impacts to Basin 2, impacts to Basin 10 are increased. Because the character of the
ecological integrity of the affected portion of Basin 2 is very low and its hydrology largely
artificial, the proposed impact does not appear unreasonable.
— There appears to be a mitigation possibility at the south or downstream end of this basin. Since
the basin has been disturbed by tile drainage at its upper end and ditching at its lower end, it
appears that a control structure at the entrance drive could be constructed to restore wetland
hydrology to the portion of the basin which appears to be natural wetland. In conjunction with
this structure, we suggest that an attempt be made during construction to locate the tile line at the
north end of the basin and an extension placed on this line to carry water to the lower portion of
the basin.
Basin 3
Basin 3 is acre semipermanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1F; Circular 39 Type
4 deep marsh) vegetated primarily with cattails. This basin appears to be relatively undisturbed
and of high ecological integrity despite the fact that it receives tile drainage from Basin 3a and
has a man-made drainage swale as an outlet. Basin 3 has very high wildlife habitat value,
particularly for dabbling waterfowl. The drainage swale at the southwest end of Basin 3 is man-
made and vegetated with monotypic reed canarygrass; this reed canarygrass extends upslope
considerably beyond the margins of the swale itself suggesting that seed was spread to adjacent
upland during grading of the swale. Because of the monotypic nature of the reed canarygrass at
this location, we established the boundary of the wetland based on the limits of hydric soil and
wetland hydrology. The drainage swale has several mature willows, cottonwoods and box elders
running along its center.
The proposed lot concept avoids impacts to the natural, high quality portion of Basin 3. Filling is
limited to about 0.25 acre of the man-made swale. It appears that it may be possible to retain the
trees along this swale in the development of the site grading plan. We believe the proposed
impacts to this man-made swale will not result in a meaningful loss of wetland values and that
these impacts are unavoidable. We do not see any mitigation opportunities around Basin 3.
Basin 3a
We classified Basin 3a as a seasonally saturated palustrine forested wetland (PFO1E; Circular 39
Type 1 bottomland hardwoods); however, because of this basin's extremely marginal hydrology, it
is possible that the Corps or the City's wetland consultant might interpret this basin differently.
We have included it as wetland to provide a conservative analysis. This basin is dominated by an
Mr. Terry Forbord
Page 4 —
June 20, 1992
SUMMIT Project No. 921010
overstory of box elder and American elm with sparse ground cover of stinging nettles and
cleavers. The very sparse woody understory is composed of common elder. small willows,
riverbank grape and scattered buckthorn seedlings. This basin lies between two ridges and has a
very small enclosed drainage area. It appears that this basin receives most of its water from a tile
outlet at its north end (which appears to drain from Basin 6) and possibly would not be wetland
but for this artificial water source. A tile outlet exists at the south end of this basin which drains
to Basin 3.
Basin 4
Basin 4 is a very small (0.18 acre) temporary palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1A; Circular 39
Type 1 seasonally flooded flat) with a small saturated emergent (PEM1B; Circular 39 Type 2 wet
meadow) fringe. This basin had standing water in it during our initial field review but was —
vegetated with smartweed during subsequent field visits during the summer; the emergent fringe is
entirely reed canarygrass. This basin is presently surrounded by alfalfa; during other years when
row crops are planted it is probably cultivated. This basin is a good example of a temporary —
emergent wetland and offers habitat for waterfowl during nesting and brood rearing. A pair of
Canada Geese were observed with a brood of goslings on this basin during our field review.
The site concept plan shows this basin as unavoidably filled. It is our understanding that the
adjacent steep topography is such that grading for roadways cannot be accomplished without the
loss of this basin. We believe that we can readily replace this basin in kind at a location along the
fringe of Basin 1 in an area less likely to be disturbed by future human activity.
Basin 5
Basin 5 is a combination of saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B; Circular 39 wet
meadow) and saturated palustrine scrub shrub wetland (PSS1B; Circular 39 Type 6 shrub
swamp). The emergent portion of this basin is monotypic reed canarygrass with some mature
willows and box elders on its fringe; the scrub shrub portion of the basin is monotypic small black
willows. This basin appears to receive some of its water from a tile line draining Basin 6.
The emergent portion of this basin appears to be totally avoided under the current concept plan.
The scrub shrub portion of the basin also falls on rear lot lines and appears to be avoided. The
only impact to this basin appears to be about 0.05 acre of wet meadow at the northernmost tip of
this drainageway that flows into the emergent basin. Schoell and Madson identifies a potential
stormwater storage pond location in the scrub shrub portion of this wetland; we find this location
to be appropriate. This basin will provide pre-ponding for water entering the emergent portion of
the basin. There do not appear to be any mitigation opportunities available around this basin. —
Mr. Terry Forbord
Page 5
— June 20, 1992
SUMMIT Project No. 921010
Basin 6
Basin 6 is a semi-permanent to permanent palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1F/H; Circular 39
Type 4 deep marsh). This basin appears to get its water primarily from surface runoff; no tile
inlets were evident though they may be present. This basin appears to discharge via one and
possibly two tile drains; one tile flows to Basin 8 and the other (if it exists) appears to flow to
Basin 5. Basin 6 is heavily disturbed by past dumping activity. Numerous large deposits of farm
— debris and broken glass are distributed along the forested margins of this basin. The water in this
basin appeared substantially more turbid than in other wetlands on the site, possibly due to the
direct influence of agricultural drainage from the north. Despite its high level of disturbance, this
wetland offers good wildlife habitat value for feeding waterfowl.
About 0.02 acre of the most disturbed portion of Basin 6 would be directly affected by the current
lotting concept. This basin is not shown by Schoell and Madson as a potential stormwater pond
location. The only mitigation opportunity offered by this basin is any wetland value that might be
gained by debris cleanup; coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies will be necessary to
determine whether any such credit will be given.
Basins 7 and 7a
Basins 7 and 7a are 0.22 and 0.08 acres in size, respectively, and are partially remnants of the
drained wetland that once existed on this portion of the site and partially a function of drainage
that has been diverted to this area from off-site to the northeast. A small ditch which flows from
the south end of Basin 8 drains off-site to the southeast and then re-enters the site at Basin's 7 and
7a; this ditch does not appear to represent the natural drainage pattern. Basin 7 is a combination
of seasonally saturated and saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B/E; Circular 39 Type
1/2 seasonally flooded flat/wet meadow). It was evident during our field review that the area
these basins are underlain by drain tiles (as is the entire drained wetland that once existed in this
area). The amount of standing surface water in these basins did not correspond with the
considerable surface flow which was entering from the northeast.
It appears that these basins would be eliminated with the current site concept. Given the
substantial past disturbance and the marginal hydrology of these basins, the proposed impact
seems very reasonable. Even if these basins could be avoided, the tile system which feeds and
drains them will likely be disrupted during site grading; this will make it virtually impossible to
preserve these basins in their present form. Schoell and Madson have shown a stormwater
storage basin immediately west of these basins. There is an opportunity to obtain some wetland
mitigation value by restoring wetland functions to a portion of the drained wetland which lies east
of Basins 7 and 7a. This objective would be furthered by routing the drainage that flows into
Basins 7 and 7a directly into any mitigation basin that might be constructed in this area.
• Mr. Terry Forbord
Page 6
June 20, 1992
SUMMIT Project No. 921010
Basin 8
Basin 8 is a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1C; Circular 39 Type 3 shallow
marsh) with a substantial component of saturated palustrine forested wetland (PFO1B; Circular
39 Type 1 bottomland hardwood forest). This basin receives tile line drainage from Basin 6 and
discharges via a man-made ditch off-site to the east and eventually to Basins 7 and 7a. This basin
has relatively high ecological integrity despite these hydrologic alterations and provides good —
waterfowl habitat.
The current site concept shows about 0.06 acre at the south end of this wetland being filled for
road construction. This portion of the basin is not natural and represents a man-made outlet
ditch.
Basins 9 and 10
Basins 9 and 10 are very marginal, drained temporary to seasonal saturated palustrine emergent —
wetlands (PEM1A/Ed; Circular 39 Type 1 seasonally flooded flat). It is evident from field
conditions that these basins are heavily tiled with drainage flowing from the south end of Basin 9
through a ditch into Basin la. Soils in these basins are of the Glencoe series which is considered
hydric; however, our field inspection indicated only scattered signs of gleying and oxidation. The
soils under Basin 10 showed more signs of saturation, possibly due to a tile line between Basins 9
and 10 being damaged in the construction of a field road crossing. The vegetation in these basins
was nearly half upland and half hydrophytic, indicating that these basins are transitioning toward
an upland condition. These basins appear to have been cultivated in the past. The ecological _
integrity of these basins is very low and they offer virtually no wildlife habitat value.
A total of 1.65 acres of Basins 9 and 10 would be eliminated by the construction of the main
through road, a neighborhood park and one residential lot. Schoell and Madson have indicated a
potential ponding area immediately north of the road within Basin 9. Because of the extremely
disturbed nature of these basins and their marginal wetland status, we do not feel that the —
proposed impacts will be unacceptable to the applicable permitting agencies. We concur with the
use of Basin 9 for stormwater storage; in fact we suggest that as much of Basin 9 as possible be
used for this purpose to provide a significant water feature for the park and to reduce filling for
which mitigation would need to be provided.
Regulatory Ramifications
On the basis of the analysis described above, a total of roughly 2.81 acres of wetland would be
filled with the proposed project. In general, the impacts would be incurred by the most degraded
wetland areas on the site. Because of the extensive distribution of wetlands within the site, it is
Mr. Terry Forbord
Page 7
June 20, 1992
SUMMIT Project No. 921010
clear that some wetland impacts cannot be avoided. The regulatory ramifications of the proposed
project are described by agency below:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
All wetlands on the site fall within the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. All of these basins should be considered isolated for
purposes of Corps permitting regulations. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit
for up to one acre of fill in isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between one
and ten acres in such basins with predischarge notification (see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)).
Because the amount of fill involved in this project exceeds one acre, this project would likely be
covered by this existing nationwide permit with special conditions attached. Typically when filling
exceeds one acre, the Corps requires the applicant to demonstrate that impacts cannot be avoided
or minimized and that unavoidable impacts be compensated.
You should note that this nationwide permit expired on December 31, 1991 and was
subsequently reissued on January 13, 1992 without change. The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) has not yet provided 401 Water Quality Certification for the reissued permit.
The MPCA is asking the Corps to reduce the 1 acre threshold and to require alternative analysis
– and compensatory mitigation for any fills over this lower threshold. Until the Corps and MPCA
resolve their differences on this permit, you will be required to obtain individual 401 Certification
for this project.
Given the degraded nature of the affected wetlands we do not see a problem in obtaining a
Section 404 permit from the Corps provided adequate compensatory mitigation is provided.
Board of Water and Soil Resources
With the passage of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, wetlands on this site now come
within the jurisdiction of the Board of Water and Soil Resources. During the period between
January 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993, the responsibility for administering the provisions of this
legislation will fall to the local unit of government (LGU). In this case, the City of Chanhassen
will be acting as the LGU. We have reviewed the various exemptions contained in the Act and
— find that, unless the project has a pre-existing approved preliminary plat or other local
governmental approval, none of the exemptions appear to apply.
This being the case, the project will need to be certified by the LGU as having complied with the
provisions of the Act that apply to the interim period. These provisions require that all wetland
impacts incurred during this period be offset by wetland creation or restoration at a 1:1 acreage
ratio and in the same watershed or county as the impact. The Act also dictates that restoration or
creation of replacement wetlands only be considered after an applicant has demonstrated that the
• Mr. Terry Forbord —
Pace 8
June 20, 1992
SUMMIT Project No. 921010 —
impacts cannot be avoided, further minimized, corrected or eliminated over time. This burden is
essentially the same as for the Corps permit process.
Based on the above analysis, it appears that the Act requires that at least 2.81 acres of wetland —
creation or replacement be incorporated into the project to meet this requirement. The Act
requires that replacement wetlands be completed prior to or concurrent with the project
generating the impacts or that an irrevocable bond or letter of credit be provided to the LGU to
ensure that the compensation will be completed. It appears that sufficient replacement wetland
acreage can be obtained on-site.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The project does not involve any waters on the state Protected Water Inventory; thus, a permit
will not be required from the Minnesota DNR for the project.
City of Chanhassen
The City of Chanhassen has adopted a very stringent wetland ordinance which requires a wetland —
alteration permit for any project which calls for filling, dredging, or discharges of soil or
stormwater into wetlands in the City. In 1984, the City adopted an official wetland map for use in
determining the applicability of the ordinance. However, there is language in the ordinance that —
gives the City the flexibility to regulate all wetlands within the City. For some time the City has
been regulating all wetlands in the City without regard as to whether they appear on the either the
official City map or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps.
The applicable standards for each regulated activity are somewhat complex and are set forth in the
ordinance (attached). We believe that the highly degraded nature of most of the affected wetlands
will be considered to some degree by the City in determining whether they are satisfied that
impacts have been sufficiently avoided and minimized. The quality of the affected basins will not
be particularly helpful in reducing mitigation needs. Even if the City would otherwise consider the
quality of the affected basins in evaluating mitigation needs, the Wetland Conservation Act of
1991 requires 1:1 acreage replacement without regard to wetland quality.
The Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance requires a 75 foot impervious surface setback from wetland
boundaries within the City. Clearly the City recognizes that this requirement cannot always be —
met since the ordinance provides standards for impacts within the wetlands themselves. Because
the project site has such variable topography, it appears impossible to meet this setback
requirement in all portions of the site. The degree to which we can comply with this setback —
requirement will affect our overall potential for obtaining a permit for the fill that is being
proposed. Any design alterations that maximize our compliance with this standard should be
considered.
Mr. 1 erry Forbord
Page 9
June 20, 1992
SUMMIT Project No. 921010
•
•
We hope that the above analysis is of assistance in your planning efforts on the Chanhassen
project and look forward to working with you on the above-listed action steps. If you have any
questions on the above analysis, please contact our office.
Best regards,
Summit Envirosolutions
onald P. Peterson
Principal Consultant
cc. John Uban-Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban
Ken Adolf-Schoell and Madson
Enclosures
•
rpp/
Lundgren Brothers —
Construction:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Johnson, Dolejsi, Turner
EVALUATION WORKSHEET Site
To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application
(Attach additional sheets if necessary) —
1 . WETLAND DESCRIPTION:
•
•
Size: See attached narrative
Class: see attached Type: See attached narrative
Location: Lakeside Streamside Upland X
Watershed District: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek —
Area of Open Water: See attached narrative - -
Drainage Flows To: Bluff Creek •
Vegetation Types: See attached narrative •
Soil Types: Basin 1 Pd (deep peat/muck) ; Basin 6 Ma (marsh•soil);
All other basins Ge (Glencoe silty clay loam)
2 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: See attached narrative
•
•
3 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Single family residential development. —
4 . APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 20-439, section 20-440,
Section 20-437 and section 20-438.
5 . A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IFNO
ALTERATION IS MADE: Because of the extensive distribution of
wetland basins and intervening steep topography, the project site cannot -"
developed for single family residential use with out some wetland impact.
11 wetland impacts are totally avoided, the project becomes infeasible
because of the large proportion of lots that would be eliminated. _
L AICE \ I r�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING > l y �^
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING "' '°NAL _ _
Wednesday, August 19, 1992- 7:30 P.M. P' _t;
RK i�` -•••f�-
City Hall Council Chambers 1
690 Coulter Drive 1
I o
Project: Johnson Dolejsi Turner
Property
- -1 8
Developer: Lundgren Bros. Construction • 41
!)
Location: East of Hwy. 41, southeast of
Ches Mar Farms, Adjacent to
7305 Hwy. 41 (Hazeltine ! G•,
•
Boulevard)
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. Lundgren Bros. proposes to rezone 95.19 acres from RR, Rural Residential to
PUD, Planned Unit Development, a Planned Unit Development to subdivide 95.19 acres into
120 single family lots, and a wetland alteration permit for filling and altering 2.81 acres of
wetland on the site.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 30, 1992.
PAUL & R YOUNGQUIST JAY C DOLEJSI JOHN P SAVARYN ESTATE
7105 HAZELTINE BLVD 6961 CHAPARRAL LN C/O PAUL SAVARYN _
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1049 OAK TERRACE
N MANKATO MN 56003
DONALD & BETTY LOU ROY TIMOTHY & ANN OAS BRUCE & YNONNE GESKE
7205 HAZELTINE BLVD 7305 HAZELTINE BLVD 7325 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -
DAVID WEATHERS & WILLIAM.IAM&MERILYN TURNER WALTER & M WHITEHILL -
KAREN EDELMANN TRUSTEES OF TURNER FAM 7250 HAZELTINE BLVD
7235 HAZELTINE BLVD 3501 SHORE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 -
JANET C KOCH DEAN & J SIMPSON DAVID A STOCKDALE & _
7331 HAZELTINE BLVD 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD ANGA MCBRIDE STOCKDAL
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7210 GALPIN BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 _
GREGORY & N SCHMIDT TANNA L MOORE CHARLES & VIRGINIA GROSS
2700 CHES MAR FARM RD 2800 STONE ARCH RD 2703 CHES MAR FARM RD -
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYZATA MN 55391 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CHAS & IRENE SONG DUANE E & M JOHNSON MILLS PROPERTIES INC
7200 GALPIN BLVD BOX 102 512 LAUREL ST
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 P 0 BOX 505 -
BRAINERD MN 56401
BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY CHASKA GATEWAY DOUG & THERESA BENTZ
1000 HESSE FARM RD PARTNERS 7280 GALPIN BLVD
CHASKA MN 55318 3610 HWY 101 S EXCELSIOR MN 55331 _
WAYZATA MN 55391
DARLENE TURCOTTE T F & MARLENE BENTZ J P'S LINKS INC -
6430 CITY WEST PKWY #5314 7300 GALPIN BLVD 7750 GALPIN BLVD
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
�+
— MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: July 29, 1992
SUBJ: Dock Setback Zoning Ordinance Amendment
PROPOS AL
As the city has gone through the non-conforming beachlot process, there has been a lot of
confusion. The definitions section of Chapter 20 and Chapter 6 of The City Code states that
dock setback zone means:
"That portion of any lake lying within one hundred (100) feet of the ordinary high
watermark and which is bounded by the extended side lot lines of any lake shore site, and
by a line inside of and running parallel to and ten (10) feet distant from extended side lot
lines of any lake shore site, as measured at right angles to the extended side lot lines."
Much of the confusion raised during the public hearings was how far the lot lines extend out into
the water, and are the lines extended or do they run at right angles. Failure to run the lines at
right angles produces overlaps in dock setback areas as illustrated on an attached map. This
stems from extensions of angles of property lines on shore. The City Attorney has recommended
new language to state that the lot lines would be extended at right angles a distance of 100 feet
into a lake. Staff feels that this would be much easier to interpret and enforce violations of the
recently adopted 10 dock setback zone.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend
Section 20-1 and 6-1 of City Code, amending the definition of dock setback zone to read as
follows:
"Dock Setback Zone: Dock setback zone means the area inside and running parallel to
and ten (10) feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake. 'Extended lot lines'
I's
t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
July 29, 1992
Page 2
means an extension of the side lot lines 100 feet into a lake from and at a right angle to
a line drawn between the intersection of each side lot line and the ordinary high water
mark. If the extended lot lines of adjoining lots overlap, then the common extended lot
line between the lots shall be at an angle which equally divides the area of overlap."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Zoning ordinance amendment. —
2. Map illustrating setbacks.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 AND CHAPTER 6
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING DOCK SET-BACKS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20-1 and Section 6-1 of the Chanhassen
City Code are amended by amending the definition of "dock set-
back zone" to read as follows:
DOCK Dock set-back zone means the area inside and
SET-BACK ZONE: running parallel to and ten (10) feet from the
extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake.
"Extended lot lines" means an extension of the
side lot lines 100 feet into a lake from and at
a right angle to a line drawn between the
intersection of each side lot line and the
ordinary high water mark. If the extended lot
lines of adjoining lots overlap, then the
common extended lot line between the lots shall
be at an angle which equally divides the area
of overlap.
Section 2. Section 6-22 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding subparagraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) On or before June 1, 1993 , all docks not already
conforming to dock setback requirements must come into
compliance with dock setback requirements.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1992 .
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1992 . )
. -
. .
- I I 4 . .
•,
,
t! • -
7 e'
... 4/."% . —
••• \
A .
_7. II 1 r YPP
I:
71.
•-it --...... ----.—...-77 .4. —_
1 i'
i _.......7( /
1 111
.4 :!• `41,71t.
.. --:—..
... 1
. 1• Lilk<. j_ _
I, ....r
...±
i
..../—,?-
s
•
.1. ./ N• /N
1 . • III . _ I'• i
....<1 N
I-
L __11,--
r \ -
3 t•
..;
. —
---------..----- —
Ili
. 1:•
.i! .---.
I . ,
.
....
. _
5,
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I
DATE: August 12, 1992
SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-1023, Height of Fences and
Section 20-1019, Location of Fences.
Fences are common structures in the City of Chanhassen, often used for screening proposes.
Regulating fences would allow the city to determine the type of fences used, the distance from
a property line, and the height.
Sec. 20-1023. dealing with the height of fences currently read as follows:
Any fence over six and one-half (61/) feet must receive a conditional use permit. The
fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence.
This section does not deal with the location of fences within a front yard. This matter need some
clarification. Staff has recently received applications for fences to be installed within a front yard
_ setback of a home. As the ordinance reads now, a home owner could put a 61/2 foot high fence
within a front yard setback. There is also a safety issue that has not been addressed. Many
residents request the placement of fences or hedges within the front yard setback of corner lots.
Locating structures within a front yard setback creates blind intersections and blocks sight
distances.
The proposed ordinance amendment will remedy this situation and shall read as follows:
Sec. 20-1023. Any fence over six and one-half (61/) feet must receive a conditional use permit.
The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. All other
residential fences shall meet the following standards:
(1) Side Yards and Rear Yards. In any required side or rear yard on lots, the height
of fences shall not exceed 61/2 feet in height. (See Illustration #1).
P4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
August 12, 1992
Page 2
(2) Front Yards. Fences in required front yards shall be allowed provided that solid
type fences shall not exceed 3 feet in height, and open mesh type fences (for
example, chain link fences), shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
(3) Corner Lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section, fences
located on corner lots shall be subject to the following provisions:
A. Any fence, wall and/or hedge on the front yard setback shall not exceed
3 feet in height if opaque construction, or 4 feet in height if open
construction.
B. In the side yard setback which fronts on a street, height up to 61/2 feet shall
be allowed beyond 60 feet from the intersection measured from the
intersection of extended curb lines. Height within the 60 foot area shall
conform to the requirements of a front yard setback. (See Illustration #2).
C. Heights on the interior side yard setback shall not exceed 61/2 feet.
The Fence Ordinance also fails to address the location of fences in relation to wetlands. Section
20-1019. Location reads as follows:
All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner
of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence may be erected on the
property line of the respective properties. Such an agreement shall be submitted at the
time of building permit application.
Staff is proposing to add the following regulation to regulate fences near wetlands:
Wetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water Mark of a
wetland.
RECOMMENDATION
• Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20.1023, Height of Fences and Section 20-1019,
Location of Fences, as noted above.
—
ILLUSTRATIONS I yr ,
FENCE REGULATIONS
•
•
�„�� 6 ...,,.:'''...1?:,„„„
e
Front Yards. _
'•`= :1 Side Yards and Rear Yards.
r
opter -‘'. 1C4% .
s:
•:1,1S1-.:..,::.•:::•:-.,..:;.-,?:::
'1111114400. i •.:- E.:::1 -,..?:.:1':f;'.i:P:-..3 04:.'•-..:.'.•="4" .=;:•••
N --..::::-.:::: ..":.*::::'•1:t;'::-: 1-%. -.1-" OOP:-
tittig:::1:!..-:. .
_ •....,,,...,, --.:,-..:•,::,„,.... ••.::.:oli ,..,-;. ",-.....,:t,..5cv:-.,,I.,:::::,-;-..-„•:-:-,;,:.-...p.e:pf• :4:--
\\d LV._,.i: 1:14.•.`.: .':'-1.:'VP .71.1''' ���:
t, ��., j: ill r:. 1
Corner Lots.
N/
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 5 , 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p .m . .
- MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli
and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Kate Aanenson , Planner II ;
and Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILET ON A RECREATIONAL
BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
- Bill Hickey 6301 Elm Tree Avenue
- Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order .
_ Bill Hickey: Good evening my name is Bill Hickey and I 'm the Vice
President of the Minnewashta Homeowners Association . I really don 't have
anything to add other than what the staff report contains . I 'm here
primarily to answer any questions or concerns that the Commission might
- have regarding this particular application . I would note that I spoke
with Tom Huntington who is the President of our Association and he has
spoken with both of the neighbors to the adjoining land to our beachlot .
- Both of whom voice no concern about the portable toilet use at that site .
Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else from the public like to comment on
this conditional use permit?
Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Batzli : Ladd , do you have any questions?
Conrad: There are no , are there any homeowners here in the Association on
either side of the outlot?
Batzli : Nope .
Conrad: Paul , your comment , I wasn 't quite sure on the fencing . The
fencing you recommended , you don 't know that it should be up? I guess I 'm
- not sure .
Krauss: I didn 't get a chance to . . .defer to your judgment but we had
assumed that that was illustrative of additional fencing . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 2
Conrad: What kind of fencing is that?
Krauss: I believe it 's redwood . Yeah , and that 's true . We do have some
photographs of the approximate location .
Conrad: Okay . What 's the renewability on these portable toilets? Is it
forever? Until there 's a problem?
Krauss: With annual licenses .
Conrad: It is an annual?
Batzli : An annual . That 's what our ordinance . We put in our ordinance .
Conrad: But we won 't see that?
Batzli : Right .
Krauss: As long as it 's in compliance with the conditions , it 's an
administrative approval .
Conrad: Okay . I don 't have any more questions . -
Ledvina : Let 's see then . One of the conditions is that climbing vine
shall be planted along the base of the portable chemical toilet 's wooden
framework . So you 're recommending that this be omitted?
Krauss: Yeah . If there 's an acceptance that additional fencing isn 't
required , that 's not necessary .
Ledvina: Well I guess I wouldn 't have a problem with omitting that item
seeing that there is a opaque fence surrounding this thing and the
neighbors don 't have concerns with the way it exists right now . Is that
right? They have no concerns , the neighbors as to how it 's sitting there
right now?
Bill Hickey : That 's correct .
Ledvina: Okay . -
Batzli : Matt , can I interrupt for just a second? What happens if for
example since the fence really isn 't a part of this application anymore and _
we take the part out about the climbing vine , what happens if they remove
that fence and put in something else?
Krauss: They 're required by the conditions in the ordinance relative to
chemical toilets to have it screened .
Batzli : But we put in some of the conditions into our CUP but we haven 't
put all of the conditions in there . Why did we choose some of them? You
know we put in the Memorial Day to Labor Day prohibition . We put in annual
basis to renew the license . Why didn 't we put those other things in there?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 3
Krauss: We probably ought to or have a catch all that says compliance with
conditions contained in the ordinance .
Batzli : I 'm sorry Matt , go ahead .
Ledvina : Okay . Well I guess then if I 'm reading the staff 's opinion of
- this recommendation , then number 5 would be omitted . Is that correct?
Krauss : Correct .
Ledvina: Okay . No other items .
Batzli : Okay . Steve .
Emmings: How long , you 've had a chemical toilet down there in years past
haven 't you?
Bill Hickey: We did not last year but the year before there was one .
Emmings: I guess , you know I live just 3 or 4 houses , 4 or 5 houses I
guess west of this thing and I 've never seen it and it sure has never been
a problem of any kind . It looks like an appropriate thing to me .
- Batzli : Okay , Joan . Do you have any other questions?
Ahrens : No . As long as the conditions are complied with . I don 't have
- any problems with it .
Batzli : Okay . I don 't have anything else other than I would like to see ,
yeah . Steve was pointing out that in condition 4 we do have a location
restriction that if they moved it but I guess I 'd like to see compliance
with the ordinance or some kind of thing in there . I think that would .
- Ahrens: That should be standard for all .
Batzli : Yeah , I agree because otherwise I don 't like putting in some of
the conditions and not others because then it looks like we 're doing
something different than what the ordinance would require . Having said
that , is there a motion?
Emmings: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve Conditional Use Permit X92-1 to allow a portable chemical
toilet on Minnewashta Heights Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot .
It will be conditioned by their compliance with all of the conditions in
the ordinance and the specific conditions as set forth in the staff report .
Batzli : Numbers 1 thru 4 .
Emmings : 1 thru 4 .
- Ahrens : Second .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 4
Emmings momved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit U92-1 to allow a portable chemical
toilet on Minnewashta Heights Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot
with the condition that it comply with all conditions in the ordinance and
the following specific conditions:
1 . The applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis
prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet . -
2 . The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day
to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of
the year .
3 . The beachlot shall be maintained in good condition in a manner
consistent with previous approvals and current ordinance requirements .
4 . The portable chemical toilet shall be located in accordance with the
application/plans received by the City on June 26 , 1992 .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR LAKEVIEW HILLS
APARTMENTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION .
Public Present:
Name Address
Del & Nancy Smith 9051 Lake Riley
Norbert Lickteig 9111 Lake Riley Blvd .
E . Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd .
John Bushey 9000 Riley Lake Road
Ray Luis 9071 Lake Riley Blvd .
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order .
Batzli : Would the applicant like to be heard at this time on this
application? Anyone from the public like to speak on this particular
application? For or against .
John Bushey : My name 's John Bushey . I live at 9000 Riley Lake Road in
Eden Prairie on the chart there and immediately to the east of the beachlot
as indicated . I guess I 'd like to comment on the uses as they exist now . -
I 'm in a pretty good position to observe at all hours and I get a chance to
observe at all hours . As staff has indicated , it 's a unsecured and
unsupervised beachlot with a lot of I guess you 'd have rambunkish action
carrying on at all hours of the night . I can 't comment on what the status
of the dock was in '81 . I 've lived there since '85 . But there have been a
number of delapidated docks since then . Different ones built by , as I
discovered last night , the most recent one was built by a tenant . That 's
not necessarily provided by the Association or the apartments ' owner . I
- Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 5
guess I 'd like to urge the consideration of a permanent gate or some kind
of control of the beachlot with regard to access for trailered vehicles and
_ use of the beachlot and the dock by non-apartment personnel . If you drive
by , it 's a totally open area to Lake Riley Blvd . on that side of the city
line . And the fact that it 's uncontrolled , it is used regularly by people
when the Eden Prairie city park parking lot is full . The other issue is
- the use of the boats that have been used there in the past have been
relatively delapidated also and occasionally swamped and just left on the
beach , even though there was no permit for docking . They have been tied up
and beached and full of water and I guess just to look through the parking
lot there , some of the same owners of the cars that are up on blocks in the
parking lot in the apartment building may indicate the quality of the boats
that are being left there . It 's a bit of an eyesore and I don 't believe
- that that 's going to change in the future just by the fact that you have to
have city approval to put some docks and parking and storage of boats on
trailers . Boats are stored there now without approval . I guess approval ,
- I 'm not sure what it 's going to do to improve any situation that 's there
now . I guess that 's about all I have to say .
Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else that would like to comment on
this application?
Ray Luis : My name is Ray Luis . I live at , my wife and I live at 9071 Lake
- Riley Blvd . . I prepared a letter for the Commission . I ' ll just briefly
read the letter . My wife and I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd . , across the
north bay from Lakeview Hills beachlot . I wish to express my concern about
- the abuses of the beachlot priviledges and the effect on our community . I
think the city beachlot ordinances are intended to provide reasonable lake
access for residents , their families and accompanied guests . The most
_ bothersome abuse is the noisy and rowdy parties which frequently occur in
the spring and summertime . On several occasions in recent months we have
endured yelling voices , music played so loud that I can hear it in my house
1/3 of a mile away with the windows closed at 2 :00 a .m . . As I drove by the
- beachlot during one of these parties , there was perhaps 20 vehicles parked
in and around the beachlot area . I wonder how many of the party goers were
residents of Lakeview Hills . If so , I think the parking lot near the
building should be used . I 'm also concerned about control and use of the
launch ramp . The boat launch ramp on the beachlot . Lake Riley is a
treasured public domain asset enjoyed by many people each year . Extensive
time , energy and expense by the community , city and at state levels have
gone into preserving all of it 's recreational uses . Apparently we are at
war with menaces of Eurasian Milfoil and nutrient runoff problems . It
presents the presence of an uncontrolled launch ramp results in additional
- risks of further weed infestation and erosion . I suggest that there is no
reason to have two boat launch ramps on a 300 acre lake . Recommendations .
If the Lake Riley Hills Homeowners Association consider wild parties to
continue to be important , an enclosed party room facility should be
provided . This is commonly accepted and provided by many apartment
complexes . Control of beachlot noise should be mandatory to maintain
beachlot priviledges . The boat launch ramp should be closed unless Lake
- View Hills can demonstrate effective control of it 's use and protection of
the lake . It 's really not much of a problem to use the public launch ramp
a little ways down the road . All the rest of the residents use it . In all
- other respects the Lakeview Hills residents should retain all other
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 6
priviledges enjoyed by other beachlot users and allowed under current
ordinances .
Batzli : Thank you . Could you do one thing for me? Could you show me on
the map where the other launch is that you 're speaking of?
Aanenson: I think it 's in Eden Prairie .
Batzli : Is it in Eden Prairie? Okay . So it doesn 't show up on there .
Krauss: It 's off the map .
Batzli : Okay . Did you have other comments?
Ray Luis: No .
Batzli : Okay , thank you very much . Is there anyone else who would like to
address the Commission?
Del Smith : My name is Del Smith and I 'm at 9051 Lake Riley Blvd . and I
guess I 'd just reiterate what John and Ray have said . It would be
appropriate I think to have some kind of a curfew . Eden Prairie does have
a park across the lake and there is a curfew and that is watched fairly
regularly and controlled both by the , I think they have a park ranger and
both the police are through there . We have had a lot of problems . Late
night . This 12:00 to 2 : 00 kind of business where there are fairly good
sized parties there . The other concern as far as controlling that area is ,
there is a new development that 's going to be started that 's adjacent to
the apartments and I guess I 'd like to have you address some kind of
control . Concern there is that those people may also be down there using
that that aren 't necessarily residents of the Lakeview Hills Apartments .
So I think that whole issue of control and who 's really using it might be
an issue .
Batzli : Has the noise problem been a recurring theme over the years or?
Del Smith : We 've only been there for a year . We 've only lived where we
are for a year . I can 't answer that . Maybe Ray or John can .
Batzli : I think you indicated you had lived there since '85 . Has this
been a problem?
John Bushey: Yes , it has been a recurring problem . This year seems
particularly bad with parties going . . . Another issue that has come up is
boats . I can 't say with 100% certainty they 're coming from the beachlot
but I would bet something on it . Running wild with yelling and screaming
out on the lake at . . .at the same times as the parties are going on so . . .
So that may be a safety issue as well as . . .
Del Smith : I guess I just have a question too . There is a dock there now .
Are we talking about an additional dock or you 're just approving what dock
is there currently?
Batzli : I think we 're looking at the existing 30 foot dock .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 7
Aanenson: Yes .
Batzli : So that would not be in addition to that .
Del Smith: Okay , thank you .
Batzli : Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission?
Norb Lickteig: Good evening . My name is Norb Lickteig and I live at 9111
Lake Riley Blvd . with my wife . I just think that all of us on the lake
want everybody to enjoy the lake and we don 't care if they have picnic
tables down there and bar-be-ques and all the rest of it . All we want is
some responsibility . If they are going to use the lake , they use it in a
responsible manner . If they 're going to use that lakeshore property , they
use it in a responsible manner and leave at a responsible time . Thank you .
Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to address the
Commission? Is there anyone from the applicant in attendance at all?
Okay .
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Batzli : Joan , do you want to start?
Ahrens : Is each apartment in the apartment complex belong to the
association? Is that how that works?
Aanenson : Yes .
Ahrens : And so there 's a group of people who are moving in and out of
apartments all the time who are trying to make the decisions for the
beachlot and make the decisions for the association . Nobody 's here tonight
- obviously .
Aanenson : No but there is a management person who filled out the
application .
Ahrens: Is that an on-site management , caretaker?
- Aanenson : It 's my understanding they 're not on site .
Ahrens : Pardon me?
Aanenson: They 're not on site . That 's my understanding .
Ahrens : They 're just there during the day or how does that work?
Aanenson: They 're not in the building . They just own the apartments or
manage the apartments . They 're off site . Leasing or whatever .
Ahrens: Oh , it 's like a management company?
- Panenson: Right .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 8
Ahrens : Have you looked at the Association By-laws or anything? I mean is
there anything in there that regulates control of the beachlot? It sounds -
to me like it 's totally unregulated . It 's just kind of like a swimming
pool in an apartment complex .
Aanenson: Unfortunately because when this was built in 1960 's , there just
wasn 't anything put together at that time . It 's really run pretty loose .
Ahrens: If a complaint is made to the Association , who takes care of the
complaint? The management company . Have any of you people ever complained
to the management company or the association?
John Bushey : If you look on the sign going into the apartments , it says
professionally managed by the blank corporation . It 's just a big painted
out area . I don 't even know who owns it or manages it .
Ahrens: By the blank corporation?
John Bushey : It 's just painted over .
Del Smith: I think calls have been made in the past by residents . . .to the
police department .
John Bushey: I have called the police .
Del Smith : I don 't think we have any idea who to call .
John Bushey : Particularly at 2: 00 in the morning .
Ahrens: Do the police show up?
John Bushey: Yeah . Well , the music stops .
Batzli : It sounds like it 's a weekly hang-out from looking at the call
sheet here to the police .
Aanenson : That was just the last 2 months I put in there .
Batzli : Yeah , but it 's every week it looks like . Every couple days .
Ahrens : Well my question is , even if a gate is put up there , I mean gates
don 't keep people out if they want to use a beachlot bad enough . If they
want to have parties there and abuse their priviledges . I guess because
there 's such a lack of control here , that I have a real problem even
addressing these other issues . I mean who 's going to monitor the use even
if a gate goes up . And I understand , I think Mr . Bushey brought up the
problem with boat storage on the property . Are you saying that there 's
more storage on the property than what?
John Bushey : There 's not room .
Ahrens : They 're saying that there 's 7 boats on land?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 9
John Bushey: I can 't say how many there are right now . There have been
boats parked on trailers in past years and there are canoes there now .
Ahrens: More than 7?
John Bushey : I didn 't count .
Ahrens: What 's your guess?
John Bushey : My guess is it 's 7 or less right now .
Ahrens: Okay , so that 's not a problem?
John Bushey : No .
Ahrens : It 's just that the number of people using the beachlot and that
- it 's unsupervised because nobody really has a vested interest in what 's
going on there . I don 't know how anybody would supervise this if there 's
no on site management . Certainly the tenants aren 't going to do it . Short
of the police department putting an off duty police person there all the
time . I mean there doesn 't seem to me to be any realistic way to monitor
the situation . Is the dock dangerous? I mean is it in disrepair? Put up
by a tenant? Whoever feels like it . Whoever has a little extra money that
year puts it up .
Aanenson: I wasn 't aware of that .
John Bushey : I just discovered that in discussing it with a resident who
was fishing on the dock . There was some kind . . .built it last year and he 's
since moved out . There 's a very high turn over rate .
Ahrens : I guess since I don 't see how , staff is recommending that the
beachlot have better controls . That there be some supervision . That the
partying cease . I don 't see how that can be done . I can 't go along with
approval of this . There 's just too many .
Batzli : Speak to us Paul . Can we yank their beachlot?
Krauss: Well to the extent that , we were just talking about that . Maybe
_ we ought to clarify . I mean some of the aspects of this with the City
Attorney . It 's clear that there 's a right to have boats there under the
assumption that they had some boats before . But going beyond that and
asking them to chain the property and establish clear identification of
- who 's in control and who 's a responsible party . Keeping the thing neat and
clean . Those are additional conditions that sure would be nice to be able
to impose .
Ahrens: Can we do that? Can we demand that they post a sign with the name
of a person and a phone number to call if there are complaints?
- Batzli : Well more than that even . I mean this right now is a nuisance . A
public nuisance to the people on the lake . And at some point they may have
this right to use the beachlot but at some point the police power of the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 10
city has to , we have to be able to say something about a public nuisance .
And clear that 's what this is right now as it 's currently existing .
Aanenson: I think we need to separate the two issues and maybe we should
ask for a table and get Roger 's opinion on that because there is the
grandfathering issue and then there 's the nuisance problem and they do
blend together but I think we need to figure out how we can resolve that .
Batzli : Well I clearly don 't want to approve this given the fact that the
applicant didn 't show up and there 's a lot of concern .
Aanenson: So maybe tabling would be the best .
Batzli : Is there a motion to table?
Emmings : Well yeah , I couldn 't agree more . They 're not being responsible
running the beachlot . They 're not even showing up here tonight . I think
it may be two issues but it 's all one problem . So the other thing I 'd like
to know is , when we give approval for 7 boats and all they 've got is 6
canoes , that 's saying . I know that 's '91 they 've got 6 canoes but I don 't
want to give approval for boats if all they 've got is canoes and that 's all
they had back then . That 's a real difference to me . But I agree , this -
ought to be tabled and we ought to find out from the City Attorney what we
can bring to bear to force these people to be responsible for their
beachlot .
Ahrens : And if we can 't pull their beachlot permit , I mean what are we
doing anyway?
Emmings : Well we can 't because they 're grandfathered in .
Krauss: I think the issue here is the ability to impose additional —
conditions .
Batzli : But at some point , if they don 't follow those conditions , what do
you do?
Krauss: What 's the recourse , correct .
Batzli : Yeah . Matt , did you?
Ledvina : Yeah, I had a couple of questions . You know the whole basis for
our decisions in the past has been the 1981 baseline survey and I 'm just
wondering why was this site missed with the survey at that time? I mean
was it just overlooked?
Aanenson: I have no idea . People were just hoping it would go away . I
don 't know .
Emmings: I think the person who did the survey was afraid to go down there
maybe .
Ledvina : If we don 't have that survey , you know we 've looked at
documentation . Detailed documentation . Ledgers and things like that from
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 11
the homeowners association and what we have for documentation here seems
pretty scant in that we 've got a photo that says , this was 1977 . Sincerely ,
Leo Ganglehoff . Is he here today? No . I think that , have you verified
that this information is accurate with other people? That yes this was?
Aanenson: Yep .
Ledvina: Okay , so that was the use as of 1977 . Were there 7 boats at that
time and how was 7 boats determined? Was that just what they said?
Aanenson: Yeah .
Ahrens: . . .7 boats there , I think there was just a dock there .
Ledvina : Well 7 boats on land .
- Emmings: That 's what they 're asking for .
Ahrens : Right . They didn 't say that that it existed .
Ledvina : Yeah , at the time .
Emmings: The application says that .
Ledvina : At the time . They 're asking for continuation of the use from the
point at 1981 so when the ordinance came into effect . So if there were 7
- boats at that time , that should be documented as well . I think 7 boats on
land . Let 's see . Would it be possible to put a curfew in terms of no
personnel or no individuals allowed on this property after 10:00 a .m .?
Something like that . Or 10:00 p .m . .
Krauss: Matt , that falls into those questions we have to raise with the
City Attorney . There 's a good reason to be skeptical over what was there
- in 1981 too . I mean we don 't have the same level of information that
you 've seen on other ones . Nor the variety of people that can attest to
it .
Emmings: What do we , who 's burden is it? Ours or their 's?
Aanenson : Their 's .
Emmings : Okay . And if we don't believe them?
Aanenson : We didn 't inventory it either so .
Emmings : Maybe the best thing to go by is what they have now . Huh?
Batzli : Well , it 's clearly going to change much more so than a normal
beachlot if in fact there was a turnover in the apartments . There 's not
going to be the same number of boats year in and year out . I mean it 's
- going to change every year .
Conrad : Was the dock put out every year? It was not , okay .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 12
Aanenson: Non-conforming would fall in then if we can document that . You _
have to put it out every year to maintain non-conforming .
Krauss: We 'll put it together for you and bring it back .
Batzli : Ladd , do you have anything to ask before we table this Ladd?
Conrad: Are there boats on trailers stored there right now?
John Bushey : I don 't recall if there are boats on trailers right now .
There have been.
Conrad: There have been . Primarily canoes right now? What kind of boats?
John Bushey : There have been motorboats on trailers . . .
Conrad: My comment is , when I came in here was , they can have some of the
things that they 're asking for but they have to be closed down . They just
have to . You can 't have an access that doesn 't have control . I mean the
milfoil stand alone . It 's ludicrous so I guess my only comment , yet I
think they do have some rights and I 'm not disputing that . If they were
here I 'd be telling them that but they do have some rights to use the lake -
but right now it 's real abusive and it can 't be , my perspective is , that
site can 't be used for launching until there 's control . Period . And I
don 't know what leverage we have but it 's just like Paul , I would be
following this up real quickly . It 's one of those things that geez , I
can 't believe this is really happening .
Emmings: This is like Lowell Carlson .
Conrad: There are some parallels but it 's just like , I can 't believe that
there 's no control on it . That 's terrible .
Emmings: But when people are required , or non-conforming beachlots are
required to get a license . Is that right?
Aanenson: Permit .
Emmings : Permit?
Aanenson: Or cease and desist within one year of adoption of the ordinance
so if they don 't have a permit by February , it 's like 26th , 27th of 1993 ,
then they don 't have a beachlot license anymore .
Emmings : What if we denied an application? What would be the effect?
Krauss: Well , I mean without having Roger here , the basis for denial that
I see is that there 's not verifiable or acceptable verifiable evidence that
there was anything there in 1981 .
Batzli : Well I think it would be difficult to deny that there was a
beachlot . The issue is more of , what was on the beachlot .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 13
Ahrens : But there have been other beachlots that can 't document . . . We 've
approved those .
Emmings : We 've had something on most of them haven 't we? We 've had our
own survey and we 've had what they said .
Conrad : You know they 're asking for 6 or 7 canoes which is nothing . Yeah ,
that 's in my mind , those are not issues . If they want 6 or 7 canoes , fine .
The issue is access .
Batzli : Access and supervision .
_ Conrad: And supervision and they 're not asking for that so I don 't know
how we tackle but that 's a huge issue .
Batzli : Okay , is there a motion to table?
Emmings moved , Ahrens seconded to table the Non-Conforming Use Permit for a
Recreational Beachlot for Lakeview Hills Apartments for further
clarificaiton from the City Attorney . All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
Batzli : This Non-conforming Use Permit is tabled and it 's tabled pending
staff 's approaching the City Attorney to determine what conditions we can
place on this application for access and supervision to the beachlot .
Anything else?
Conrad: And can we get that back in here in 2 weeks? Oh we have a flooded
agenda in 2 weeks .
Krauss: Well I think this is something that we can , we 'll try . We will
notify the neighbors of when it 's on .
Batzli : Thank you very much for coming in .
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND
LOCATED AT 7201 JUNIPER AVENUE , GREG DATTILO.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dorothy Downing 7200 Juniper Road
Sam Potts 3628 Hickory Road
- Greg Datillo 7201 Juniper Avenue
Tom & Kathy Paradise 3755 Red Cedar Point Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order .
Greg Datillo : I 'm Greg Datillo . I think Kate did a great job in
presenting it . The only question I have is , on the erosion part . If the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 14 -
part that would cause a problem for any wetland to get destroyed from the
erosion . You know there 's really only going to be like one spot , like
right over there . If I could just put it up there instead of putting it
around the whole area . I don 't know if Kate , I 'm sorry , I can 't .
Batzli : We have our engineering expert here .
Hempel : Staff 's concern I guess would be to the adjacent property owners . _
It is a low point of the neighborhood . I think the wetland or the area
that you 're filling is right up to the common property line . That would be
of concern of any potential property damage on your neighbors from runoff .
Greg Datillo : That 's fine but you know the area where it 's real high on
the , okay thank . I mean that 's .
Batzli : Okay so , he can work it out then with City Engineering or staff as
far as which portions he would have to place the erosion control around?
Hempel : That 'd be acceptable .
Batzli : Okay . Thank you . Did you have any other questions?
Greg Datillo : Yeah , no . She did a great job . Thank you .
Batzli : If we have questions , we 'll let you know . Anyone else like to
comment on this application?
Dorothy Downing: We are the adjacent property owners and we 're fine with
it as long as everything is , I 'd rather have it level as long as everything _
is going down to the wetland . So I don 't know if the swale line would need
to go inbetween the two properties?
Aanenson: Yeah , it would go right in here .
Hempel : It would follow the common property line basically down towards
the wetland .
Dorothy Downing : Okay .
Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to comment on the application?
Conrad moved , Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli : Ladd , do you want to lead off?
Conrad: Kate , the purpose of this is , the particular function of this
wetland is what? Based on our inventory .
Aanenson : It 's just a holding pond before it goes into the lake .
Conrad : It is a holding pond for the lake?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 15
Krauss: If we could also clarify something too . I think you 're aware that
there 's a new wetlands ordinance that 's in the development stage . On
_ Monday night the subcommittee , Swamp subcommittee working on it completed
it . It 's going to come to the whole Swamp Board on next Wednesday and it 's
going to come to you in September . One of the things that is contained in
that ordinance is an elimination of this 200 foot but not impacting the
- wetland standard . Where we trick the wetland alteration permit . Here you
have a clear example of an activity that 's of no direct bearing to the
wetland . One which engineering could well have handled administratively
and we could have taken care of that in a grading permit . Yet because of
how the ordinance is set up right now , we 've had to run Mr . Datillo through
this and it takes an extra few months . So you won 't be seeing many of
these in the future if that ordinance gets approved the way it 's drafted
right now .
Batzli : Is that next Thursday?
Krauss : Thursday?
Batzli : I thought it was the 13th .
Aanenson: Thursday .
- Krauss: Thursday .
Batzli : The 13th . Next week from tomorrow right? 13th . You were going
- to show up on the wrong night weren 't you?
Conrad: Okay , anyway . The function is filtration and we 're not effecting
that? Okay .
Batzli : Okay , Matt?
- Ledvina : I guess I don 't have anything to add beyond the recommendations
from staff .
Emmings: Will this be a buildable area once it 's filled?
Aanenson: The lot?
- Emmings: Yeah .
Aanenson : . . .the lot?
Greg Datillo: I have water and sewer to the site but . . .
_ Emmings: My only question is , if this is a buildable area , would you be
putting any different conditions on it based on that use as opposed to use
as a playground?
Greg Datillo: No . Currently . . .
Emmings : No , I 'm asking the staff .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 16
Aanenson: No . As a matter of fact , if he came in for a building permit on
it now , we 'd be doing the same process .
Emmings: Okay . You wouldn 't look at it any differently? Then I 'm fine .
Batzli : Joan . Matt , were you done?
Ledvina: Yes .
Batzli : Okay , Joan .
Ahrens: Is this going to be a public park?
Greg Datillo: No . Can I talk?
Batzli : Yeah , go ahead .
Greg Datillo: My profession is insurance . So for liability , I can 't put _
Datillo 's Park on there . In other words , right now I put a basketball
court across the street and that 's already in there 2 years ago . And as
long as I kind of , you know I have kids so it 's their friends that come
over and 50% of the time my kids aren 't even over there but right now kids
are playing . And my liability , I do have a million dollar liability policy
and you know , for liability purposes I would never name it Datillo 's Park
or anything like that . Right now it 's got a swingset over there . I mean
there are things already over there . It 's just that I don 't have a
ballfield . . . I 'm not putting anything in writing that it 's a park .
Ahrens : You 're not going to have the same kinds of parties that they have
over on Lake Riley?
Greg Datillo: Maybe my kids .
Batzli : But this is your private property then and you just let kids come
and play on it?
Greg Datillo: Yes . That 's right . Exactly .
Emmings: You let them come and trespass on it .
Ahrens: I don 't have any questions .
Batzli : Okay . I don 't have a proble as long as the neighbors concerns are
taken care of that whatever needs to be done so that there 's no runoff or
that we 're diverting water onto their property is taken care of . Is there
a motion?
Conrad: I recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #92-8 as
shown on the plans dated July 1st with the conditions in the staff report .
Batzli : Is there a second?
Emmings: Second .
- Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 17
Batzli : Is there discussion?
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-8 as shown on the plans dated
July 1 , 1992 with the following conditions:
1 . A grading permit shall be obtained from the City of Chanhassen .
2 . Type I erosion control shall be installed between the existing wetland
area and the entire fill area , and shall be removed once the vegetation
has been re-established .
3 . A swale shall be created between the area of fill and the wetland edge
at approximately the 960 .0 contour to maintain the existing
neighborhood drainage pattern . Staff shall inspect the final grade
prior to seeding .
4 . Clean up debris .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A RIGHT TURN LANE ADJACENT TO A WETLAND .
CHEYENNE TRAIL AND HWY 101 . CITY OF CHANHASSEN .
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item .
Batzli : So Dave , speak to us about this sedimentation catching dealybob .
That 's a technical term guys .
Hempel : This is what was employed at Lundgren 's development up at
Trapper 's Pass where there was just simply no area to build a sedimentation
pond due to the terrain . The sediment basins were recommended on behalf of
the Watershed and staff . They do help from a water quality standpoint by
removing the larger sediments that wash through the pipe and so forth .
- It 's not as desireable as a sedimentation basin or a NURP pond which
removes a lot more of the nutrients and so forth but this is much better
than what is currently transpiring out there right now with an open ditch
- section and it 's been continually eroding into the wetland . So the
improvements that we 're proposing here will definitely help from a water
quality standpoint , as well as a traffic safety standpoint with turning
movements on TH 101 and Cheyenne .
Batzli : So this will improve the current sedimentation problem that 's
running into the pond but it otherwise won 't improve the water quality
- other than to catch the large sedimentation currently going in there throug
the existing culvert kind of thing? Whatever 's there now .
Hempel : That 's correct , yes .
Batzli : Okay . Is there anything that we could do that would improve the
water quality or potential for spills off the roadway or something? Is
there something we could be doing that we 're not?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 18
Hempel : A sedimentation basin or NURP pond would be a little bit more
beneficial than what we 're proposing but also would require mitigation of
the wetland and DNR approval and possible Army Corps of Engineer approval
also .
Aanenson: Can I just speak to that a little bit? When we first looked at
this issue , we were concerned because there is drainage and utility
easements all around this entire wetland area . And basically the wetland -
goes beyond the edges of all the drainage and utilities so there 's not , in
this area if we did go in there and do some work , there 's not a lot of area
to mitigate . We 'd have to take the mitigation elsewhere and that was part
of the concern I guess . That 's why we originally thought about the
sedimentation basin may do a better job . In looking at it , there 's nowhere
to mitigate so we felt this was the best alternative .
Batzli : But really the fact that the road has gone through or what have
you has probably eliminated the natural whatever you 'd call it of the
nutrients and other things in the water and currently , all this is going to —
do is take the particals out . The big chunks . But it 's not going to do
any other filtering that would normally be done prior to entering this type
of a wetland .
Aanenson: Well , there 's two drainage that goes in there . One from the
Eden Prairie side . Storm water and then one that runs through the ditch .
So those two are the ones that we 're trying to trap . You 're right . The
ones that are running off the road , the sheet flow .
Batzli : Yeah _
Aanenson: You 're right . We probably wouldn 't be catching those .
Hempel : This is a rather small area actually contributing to the storm
drainage system here . A ditch a few hundred feet each side of the culvert .
And a little bit of the backyards on the Eden Prairie side . So it 's not a
very large area that we 're talking about contributing to the wetland . The
wetland is essentially pretty much a dry wetland and it 's very heavily
cattailed and so forth . To do the filtering through the cattails .
Batzli : Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on
this wetland alteration permit?
Aanenson : I was going to say . We did receive phone calls from some of the —
residents that were concerned about impact to the wetland and whether or
not there was a need for the right in turn lane . I guess they were
concerned we were going to be taking out some of the wetlands . I spoke to —
quite a few of them so I don 't know if we answered their questions .
Batzli : Okay . The record shows there 's no one else in the room .
Aanenson: I was expecting quite a few people here actually .
Batzli : Well , there 's no one else in the room that wishes to address the
Commission . Okay . Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 19
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Batzli : Joan , do you have any comments?
_ Ahrens: Dave , essentially you 're saying that it 's just too much of a
hassle for the City to put the sedimentation pond or NURP pond in because
you 'd have to go through the DNR and possibly the Army Corps .
Batzli : But then there might be mitigation as well required somewhere
else .
_ Aanenson: But there 's no where to pick up the mitigation . Yeah , we can 't
pick up the mitigation on site . The wetlands gone beyond the easements .
We 'd have to take it off site .
- Batzli : So you 're going to have a net loss . You 'd have a net loss so
you 'd have to take your mitigation to another wetland and enlarge it or do
something else somewhere else , so yeah .
Ahrens: So what?
Batzli : Well yeah . Is it a hassle , is that your question?
Ahrens : Thanks for restating my question .
- Batzli : I 'm sorry . I didn 't understand it . Anyway Dave . . .
Hempel : Not necessarily expense . The project is being funded by MnDot 's
- checkbook if you will so the whole issue though I guess is , are we from a
water quality standpoint maybe enhancing or improving that somewhat but on
the other hand , actually constructing a pond in the wetland areas . Is that
_ an equal trade off , I guess . You 've got the natural wetland right now .
Going in and actually dredging it to create a NURP pond . It 's a balancing
act I guess . Kate .
- Aanenson: I was just going to add that if we did mitigate it on site ,
because we 've gone beyond that boundaries , there 'd be impacts to increasing
that wetland itself and what it would do to those homeowners . They 'd
obviously lose less of their backyard and that was an issue too because it
is a large wetland as far as how much it encroaches into the property
owners and I 'm not sure , at this point if they want a larger wetland or
less backyard .
Ahrens: In the long run , what 's better for the wetland?
- Aanenson: As far as the quality of the wetland , it 's not that great of a
quality wetland right now .
Batzli : We could make it better .
Aanenson: We could . We always can .
- Ahrens : Yeah . Anybody want to answer that question?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 20
Aanenson: Well we are right now . We feel like with the sump catch basins , -
that we are improving it from what it is right now .
Ahrens : But of all the alternatives that are available to you , what is the _
best alternative in the long run?
Hempel : I guess that would be the sedimentation basin . From a water
quality standpoint . For nutrient removal .
Ahrens: . . .bigger hassle .
Hempel : It 's the expense and time delays . We are on kind of a time
constraint here . MnDot , we applied for this project last August and it 's
taken until now basically to get through the hoops from MnDot . To get this
project in their books and so forth and if we delay it beyond the
construction season this year , we could possibly lose the funding mechanism
for this project .
Ahrens: Okay . I have no other comments .
Batzli : Thank you Joan .
Ahrens: Unless you have a question for me to ask .
Batzli : Yeah , would you ask them if it 's . Steve .
Emmings: I 'd just resort to general principles here and that is , I give
the City anything they want as long as it doesn 't involve a special
assessment on my property .
Ahrens : I suppose you get a cheaper water and sewer bill .
Emmings: If it works out that way , that 's fine with me .
Batzli : Matt?
Ledvina: Looking at the staff recommendations , they were considering the
installation of a sedimentation basin , is that correct? So we should
modify those?
Aanenson: Yes .
Ledvina : Okay . So should we substitute the word catch basin where it says
sedimentation pond? Would that be appropriate? Okay .
Hempel : I was going to suggest that we just maybe modify it , condition
number one to read , all filling should be limited to the 918 contour . The
project shall implement a sump catch basin to improve water quality in the _
wetland . Just strike , except for the extension of storm sewer pipe and
sedimentation pond .
Ledvina: Okay .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 21
Batzli : Did you want to say something Kate? You really looked like you
did .
Ledvina : Okay , then for condition number 3 . It says , there shall be no
filling or dredging permitted within the Class A wetland except for
sedimentation pond or do we say , except for the catch basin construction .
Aanenson: I don 't think it 's applicable anymore .
Ledvina : It 's not applicable at this point? Okay , so strike condition
3 . . .and that would be it . The catch basin now , obviously you 're catching
sediments and what is the capacity for that? Do you have an anticipated
schedule for cleaning and are there similar type structures? Is there
equipment for cleaning?
- Hempel : Yes . The City does have a VacAll truck that will have to , staff
will have to monitor as the sediments accumulate . We do have a number of
these type of catch basins in the city now so it will require an annual
cleaning .
Ledvina : Annual cleaning? Do you think there 's enough capacity in that
for an annual basis?
Hempel : We periodically will check them and see if there 's house
construction nearby or some other kind of construction which will increase
the amount of sediments washing into them but typically it 's on an annual
basis .
Batzli : Ladd .
Conrad: Dave , how much water is draining from Eden Prairie into this area?
- Hempel : I would say probably a couple hundred feet in each direction on
the culvert , backyards east of TH 101 .
_ Conrad : This wetland used to be a lot bigger . The house . . .basically built
into the wetland . And I think the wetland has deteriorated in quality in
terms of what it can do . It 's such a pretty wetland . So on the one hand ,
it 's probably an area that 's , 200 feet? See this one really is balancing
- act . On the one hand I start and I say , hey well the developer basically
built , put more houses in there than maybe . . .built right into the wetland .
Yet we don 't have a whole lot of drainage going through this . I don 't
- know , I guess I 'm going to have to go with the staff report on this . It is
a balancing act . I guess in this case I 'd go with the staff
recommendation .
Batzli : In general principle Ladd , do you agree with the notion that
because of hassle or because of expense or something else , we shouldn 't do
what 's best for the wetland here?
Conrad: Well you know , we are improving it . I think Dave 's right .
Things , we could improve it more and that 's the issue . We are making it a
- little bit better . And so from a philosophy standpoint , I can go with
that . If I thought that spending x number , I don 't care where the money 's
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 22
coming from really . . .if it makes good economic sense , and if Dave 's done
the limited drainage that they think it can . . .I 'm not sure that I would
spend a tremendous amount of money . . .It 's just sort of a gut reaction as to
how much money is being spent and how much it would cost to do . I
certainly don 't feel that the City should get by with anything but I think
our standard has always been , do we improve it? Is this situation being
improved and we are meeting that standard and I guess I don 't feel that we
need to push it beyond that . A little bit of me is saying primarily
because I know how this area was developed a couple years ago and basically
a lot of the wetlands . . .and I don 't know . That was probably more damaging
than anything else .
Batzli : Would you like to see staff at least be able to provide some idea
to City Council as to what would be the significance of making it much
better? How much money does it cost? At least in terms of around tens of -
thousands of dollars or hundreds of dollars . If it costs $200 .00 more to
do this and 6 more weeks , than I say do it . If it costs $50 ,000 .00 more
and it can 't get done in 3 years , then I say let 's improve it a little bit . -
But we don 't know that and that 's what I have trouble with . Anyway , that 's
what I have to say . Is there a motion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of -
Wetland Alteration Permit #92-10 to allow construction within 200 feet of a
Class A wetland and the installation of a right turn lane adjacent to a
Class A wetland with the following conditions: Condition 1 . All filling -
shall be limited to the 918 contour . The project shall implement a catch
basin to mitigate the water quality concerns with the associated wetland .
Number 2 . That Type II erosion control be in place around the construction _
boundaries of the wetland .
Batzli : Is there a second?
Emmings : I ' ll second it .
Batzli : Okay , discussion . Would anyone like to see added to that motion a -
direction to staff to look into the costs or other , further ways that water
quality might be improved into the wetland?
Conrad: Yeah , I would like to do that Brian . I don 't know how to word .
The motion is to approve it as worded but to also have staff . The motion
reads to approve it per the staff report . And you would suggest that that
also. advises the Council on the cost for an alternative .
Ledvina : Should I amend the motion then?
Conrad : Dave , what kind of exercise do we get you playing when we ask you
to do that?
Hempel : It would just take some rough calculations on the area of
excavation .
Conrad: Are you talking about an hours worth of your time?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 23
Hempel : Couple hours . Couple phone calls . Maybe consult the City 's storm
water consultant on it too and see what their input is to the improvements
- or the sedimentation pond would be significant .
Conrad: I 'd like you to do that . Yeah .
Ahrens: It 's kind of ironic the City , you know we have this pond committee
and we have a lot of lip service for preservation of wetlands and we 're
going through all this effort to identify wetlands and then we have this
wetland and maybe it 's not the highest quality wetland . Maybe it 's not the
biggest wetland . Maybe it 's not the greatest wetland in the city but just
because the City 's the applicant , and the City comes in and says the
- timing . Because the timing is short , we need to get this project moving
and we may lose the funds . And this seems to be the most , easiest way to
get it done at this point because we don 't have to spend as much money
- mitigating someplace else . And it seems ironic that we push this along
like this when Dave himself said this is not the best solution for this
wetland . What are we looking at? The immediate solution or a solution 10
years , 20 years down the line .
Aanenson: First of all , we 're not in the wetland . We 're within 200 feet .
That 's the reason why we 're here . We 're not in the wetland .
Ahrens : But it 's impacting the wetland .
_ Aanenson: No we 're not . The catch basin 's outside the wetland . The
reason we 're here is because we 're within 200 feet . We 're outside the
contours of the wetland . What we 're saying is , as long as we 're next to
it , we 'd like to improve it . Okay , that 's why . Originally we thought we
- could put the sedimentation then we realized we 're in the wetland now .
Okay . But our goal was to stay out of the wetland . Not to even touch it .
But we said , as long as we 're next to it , what can we do because we 've got
two ditches running in there . What can we do to improve it . We were
trying to be proactive . And our original thought was that we could do the
sedimentation but then we realized wow , we haven 't got any room to pick up
_ the mitigation . This wetland . Maybe those lots shouldn 't have been there .
I know that we 've got concerns from some of the other neighbors that those
homes didn 't belong there because they impacted the wetland to begin with
so . We thought we were being proactive .
Ahrens: The City is trying to . . .okay but if the City 's going to go to the
effort to correct mistakes made in the past , why not do the best job they
can do? If it 's not going to cost a whole lot more money . If it can be
done in a reasonable way . Why make the effort?
Krauss : We can look at that certainly . The potential for additional costs
comes about the need to mitigate 1 for 1 . There 's no room to do any
mitigation on this wetland which means we then wind up having to buy other
land someplace else and expand a wetland on that property .
Ahrens: Is that something that has to be done immediately or is that
something that could be done in conjunction with another plan when you have
to mitigate?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 24
Krauss : Well we 've done that in the past but .
Ahrens: It doesn 't mean that the City 's going to have to come up with a
whole lot of money immediately out of pocket and buy other wetlands .
Krauss: But we 're setting up that kind of a wetland banking program .
We 've done it in the past .
Ahrens: But it 's not in place right now?
Krauss: But there is a State law in place that says you have to do it now . _
Ahrens: You have to do it at some point right?
Krauss: Or you have to post letters of credit to say that you are doing it
and do it within a certain time frame .
Ahrens: Well , sometimes it 's maybe more beneficial to find out ways to do
it than to find out ways why you can 't do it .
Hempel : Let me just add also I guess , as you 're aware , the wetland has
been reduced in size over time with development . Development adjacent to
this wetland also has reduced the amount of runoff going to the wetland and
in some cases actually are pre-treating . Like Kurver 's Point Addition used
to drain towards this area and now it 's being pre-treated and taken towards
Lotus Lake so the overall drainage area contributing to the wetland has
been significantly reduced with the area development . As Kate stated , the
improvements that we 're proposing are cost effective . It 's something -
better than what 's out there right now . The overall , to go that extra
step , it may be feasible for us to do it . On the other hand , it may delay
the project until next year and jeopardize doing nothing out there .
Batzli : I don 't think anybody disagrees that what you 're doing is going to
improve the wetland . Our question is , have we looked at the alternatives .
Can we be doing something else? I 'd even love it if you 'd come back and
say well gee , yes . We should do this . We can 't do it right now but we
will phase it in and we 'll try to do it next year when we can mitigate it
by buying another piece of property . I 'd at least like to see the City
look at it in order to be fully responsive to the wetland that we 're
spending so much time on in other committees .
Conrad: Matt , would you amend your motion to add a point 4 that would ask
staff to examine .
Ledvina : Point 3 . 3rd condition .
Batzli : We got rid of number 3 last time .
Conrad: Ah . Okay . 3rd point that would ask staff to examine the cost and
feasibility and benefits to improving it with a holding basin . And staff
should spend no more time than 2 hours . Is that appropriate?
Ahrens: Then we 're back to the same problem where we 're approving this and
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 25
•
then adding another condition . I mean either we have to do one or the
other .
Batzli : We have approved it and as part of the approval , staff is going to
present alternatives to the City Council . I don 't see a problem with that
personally . We 've asked staff to do things .
Emmings: I think there is a problem .
- Batzli : Why 's that?
Emmings: First of all , I guess my position on this would be that , I agree
- with what Joan has said in principle , and Ladd and Brian . All of you I
guess . But I don 't think it ought to be applied in this case . It doesn 't
seem to me to be a case that requires all of this attention . And I think
_ if you want to do what you 're saying , I don 't think you should approve this
because then it goes up there saying , we approve this but we want
alternatives presented . When in fact what you 're saying is , if there 's a
cheap alternative , you think the alternative ought to be taken and not
- this . So I think you 've got a problem there . I would approve what 's here .
Ahrens : I agree with what you 're saying . Either we approve this or we
don't approve it .
Emmings: Yeah , I agree . That 's the way it 's got to go .
- Ahrens : Although I don 't agree with your first statement .
Batzli : What was the first statement? That it shouldn 't be done in this
- instance?
Emmings: Yeah .
Batzli : Is that the first statement? Well , I disagree with both
statements but that 's besides the point .
- Conrad: The point is , if you two decide you don 't like it this way , you
could potentially could delay the project .
Ahrens: We don 't know .
Conrad: We don 't know but you potentially could . And the City Council 's
_ going to make their decision . All we 're doing is saying hey staff , you 've
improved the situation a little bit . And in the process , in the next 2
weeks you could look into another alternative and they 're going to give
City Council a chance to take a look at a broader picture . Versus kicking
- it back to us and us kick it back to City Council . Which staff would give
them two alternatives , a second alternative that might be less possible .
Batzli : We 've done this a billion times in my opinion that we 've asked
staff to look into something and settle something . I 'm convinced .
Emmings: Yeah but not something that 's contrary to what you 're approving .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 26
Batzli : No . I don 't think this is contrary . What my point is , is that
they have improved the wetland . I would like them to examine to see if
there are other ways that would even further improve it . That doesn 't
necessarily mean that it has to be part of this approval process . Because
I would like to see them get into the habit of excelling rather than just
saying well , we 've improved it a little bit right here . See that 's what I
think we have to do with the wetlands eventually .
Emmings: If they were working in the wetland , I 'd agree with you . If they
were going to do anything in the wetland , I 'd agree with you .
Conrad: But your point is , you think this is , now I don 't know where you
stand .
Emmings: I think this is , for what 's being done here , I think they 're
doing enough .
Batzli : No but see , I disagree from the standpoint that when you look at -
the non-point source pollution , you 're looking at the stuff coming down the
whatever they are and that 's what they 're working on . That 's what they 're
trying to get rid of . They 're trying to get the sediment coming down the _
dealybops on the side of the road . Whatever those are .
Emmings : Ditches .
Batzli : Thank you . And you know , we 're looking at the non-point source
pollution . We 're looking at the runoff off the streets . We 're looking at
this stuff and this is when you fix it . They shouldn 't go into the wetland —
to fix it . That 's the whole point .
Emmings: But that 's what you 're asking them to do by building a _
sedimentation pond .
Batzli : Well if it can help further remove the non-point source pollution ,
they should look at doing it because it will improve the wetland . Even by _
going into the wetland .
Emmings : Okay . _
Conrad: Call a question .
Emmings : Well now wait .
Batzli : Well no one ever finished it , seconded it .
Emmings: No one ever seconded it and I won 't . I won 't change my second .
Conrad: I will .
Emmings : Well , is that procedurally what happens?
Batzli : If you don 't withdraw your second , we vote on that motion as it
stood before this amendment . So we will call a question on the motion
before us which was prior to his amendment .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 27
Ledvina : The original motion with the 2 conditions .
- Batzli : The original motion . You have to approve the friendly amendment .
So we ' ll call the question .
Conrad: What was the motion?
Batzli : The motion was to approve this , I 'm sorry .
- Ahrens: Approval with the first 2 conditions right?
Batzli : Approval with first 2 conditions except it was rewritten to get
rid of the sedimention pond .
Conrad: No , don 't you have to approve the motion . See I 'm not going to
_ approve that unless I know that I 've got the votes for my addition . Don 't
you have to approve the amendment first?
Emmings: Technically yeah . You 're supposed to vote on the amendment first
- if you 've got a second to the amendment .
Conrad : You don 't .
Batzli : Well , we might . Okay . So I 'll withdraw calling the question .
Your amendment was what? Give me your amendment again .
Conrad: Geez , this may not be worth the whole time .
Emmings: I thought Matt had made the motion .
Ahrens : Matt had amended .
Emmings: Matt amended his motion .
Ahrens: Can 't we just start over? Come on guys .
- Batzli : I tried to call a question . Nobody let me .
Ledvina : Should I start over?
Batzli : No , just give me what your amendment was again please .
_ Ledvina : Okay . The third condition to the motion was to direct staff to
evaluate the cost and the time schedules of constructing a sedimentation
basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland .
Batzli : Is there a second?
Conrad: I second that .
Ledvina moved , Conrad seconded an amendment adding a third condition to
read as follows:
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 28
3. Direct staff to evaluate the cost and time schedules of constructing a
sedimentation basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland .
All voted in favor of the amendment except Emmings and Ahrens who opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2 .
Batzli : Okay , it passes 3 to 2 . We 'll vote on the full motion now which
includes conditions 1 , 2 and 3 . Is there any discussion first?
Ledvina moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit U92-10 to allow construction within
200 feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a right turn lane
adjacent to a Class A wetland with the following conditions:
1 . All filling shall be limited to the 918 contour . The project shall
implement a catch basin to mitigate the water quality concerns with the
associated wetland.
2 . That Type II erosion control be in place around the construction
boundaries of the wetland .
3 . Direct staff to evaluate the cost and time schedules of constructing a
sedimentation basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland .
All voted in favor except Emmings and Ahrens who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2 .
Batzli : And your reasons for opposing .
Emmings: I would simply approve the original motion . I don 't think they
should go to the time and effort of looking into a sedimentation pond in
this case .
Batzli : Okay . Joan .
Ahrens : I think they should just look into the idea of approving or the
idea of sedimentation ponds period and forget approving this original
motion . It doesn 't make anything , it 's contrary to approve this _
application and at the same time tell them but go ahead and find out if
there 's something better we should do . Do one or the other . I don 't
understand that reasoning .
Batzli : Okay . Sounds good .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated July 15 , 1992 as presented .
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss : Well I didn 't give you the City Council update because there
wasn 't much on the agenda and I was in Seattle .
Aanenson: Wait a minute , I was there .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 29
Batzli : So Kate , was there anything new at the City Council meeting we
should know about?
Aanenson: The beachlot on Sunny Slope was tabled.
Emmings: The beachlot?
Aanenson: Sunny Slope . They asked to be tabled so it will be on in 2
weeks .
Conrad: What were their reasons for that?
- Aanenson: Originally I think we told them the 10th . . .they wanted a chance
to go through and see what other beach considerations for the other
beachlots had been given . I can 't remember what else was on .
ONGOING ITEMS:
Batzli : Do we need to talk about that? We 're probably going to talk about
- that in great length in a few minutes here so let 's put that aside for the
moment .
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS:
Batzli : Any administrative approvals of note?
Krauss: No . In terms of , well there is a note . I copied you on a letter
to Halla Nursery . I think that 's going to come up at the next Council
meeting as well . Ongoing issues with them but there 's nothing new about
- that .
Batzli : Okay . Are we going to adjourn before we hold our work session?
Krauss : That would probably be appropriate yeah .
Batzli : Okay , is there a motion to adjourn?
Conrad : Wait , before you do that . Under just some things that have , I
wanted to bring it up for public awareness . Over the last month I think
- I 've had like 5 citizens call me and they 've talked about some excellence
of city staff . Planning staff and engineering department . I was real
impressed and they were too . They really said , and these were unrelated
_ issues and just out of the clear blue so I just wanted to pass that along
to the staff and Dave left before I got to say that . I think it 's real
important that they hear those things . They were real complimentary .
- Batzli : Well tell Charles and Dave for us . I wonder how much they had to
give those people to come up to you and say that .
- Emmings : I think it was Charles and Dave that called him .
Batzli : Was there anything else Ladd? You 've been out on the lake with
your boat out on Lotus at all?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 30
Conrad: I take the risk every now and then .
Batzli : Is there milfoil out there?
Conrad : Quite a bit .
Batzli : Is there?
Emmings: Lots on Minnewashta .
Batzli : Lots on Minnewashta too huh .
Conrad: That 's a whole different issue . We really have some serious
concerns with access and how the spraying was done and now public was
notified that 24D was put in their front yard . A whole bunch of issues -
like that but I 've been up , we go and pull it every Saturday morning and
see what we can do .
Batzli : Okay .
Emmings: You pull it up and then .
Conrad: You 've got to get it by the roots so you 've got to , really what
we 're trying to do is , the Lake Association is to just everybody go out on
the weekend and take a shovel and we try to get it by the roots and take it -
totally out . But then you also see , it 's so easy to fragment . It 's just
like whoa , I just wonder if we 're helping or hurting .
Krauss : There was an article is last weekend 's paper talking about ,
interviewing somebody from the DNR on lake weed control . They pointed out
that they know of only one lake in the entire state that milfoil was
actually successfully eradicated on .
Conrad : It will not be eradicated .
Emmings: You just have to be careful to do that on a day when the wind 's
blowing out from shore .
Conrad: Seriously , on Lotus Lake it 's such a shallow lake , it literally
could be a carpet .
Emmings: Oh is that right?
Conrad: Yeah . The whole lake could be closed down . The good news is , the
lake 's so dirty that it might be too dark to grow . So we ' ll see . You
don 't want to yell wolf , but it could be devastating to the lake .
Ahrens: Is that from over-use? Is that why it 's so dirty?
Conrad: Yeah , pretty much the motorboats . And the drainage . The drainage
throughout the years but it 's gotten worse over the last 10 years with all
the development around it and I don 't think any of the controls we put in
have really done the job . But it 's still a dirty lake and really when you
see like last week , you get kind of suspect of the DNR . There were 35-40
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5 , 1992 - Page 31
boats out last weekend and it really is dangerous . It 's just absolutely ,
we came in . It was not good . And so when you 've got that many power boats
going around on a lake that 's maybe averaging 10 to 14 feet deep , you 're
propellers really stir up the bottom at that depth . It 's just taken all
the muck up and moving it around.
Batzli : Don 't you feel kind of silly having a 35 foot Cigarette boat out
there anyway? Okay . Is there a motion to adjourn?
Emmings moved , Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Mann Opheim
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN\ f
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: August 13, 1992
SUBJ: Report from Director
At the City Council meeting on Monday, August 10, 1992, the following actions were taken:
1. An extension of final plat approval for Ches Mar Trails, Craig Swaggert (applicant),
was approved on the consent agenda. Mr. Swaggert is working towards completing
requirements for final plat and has been working on the site in preparation to construct
a new dwelling. It is expected that the final plat will be received within the next
month or two.
2. Don Halla of Halla Nursery spoke to the Council regarding a request for additional fill
material to repair a dam structure on his property during the Visitor Presentation.
_ Staff and the Planning Commission have been involved with this site for a long period
of time. Mr. Halla built what was reported to be an erosion control dam in a ravine
leading to the Minnesota River Bluff Line approximately 20 years ago, according to
his statements. Again, according to his statements, he had been maintaining the dam
for this period of time. Staff believes that what is inferred by "maintenance" is that he
bulldozed material on the back side of the dam which would flush down into the
Minnesota River during heavy rains. The dam began to fail in the late 1980s. In
1989, staff approved the maximum 1,000 cubic yards of materials that was intended to
stabilize the dam which was in danger of collapse. This material was placed on the
property and Mr. Halla was instructed that if further material was going to be
necessary, he would have to come through the Planning Commission and City Council
for the interim use permit as required by the ordinance. In 1990, Mr. Halla did
approach the Planning Commission to place approximately 100,000 yards of material
on his site. Staff objected to the amount of fill and since it was quite apparent that
Mr. Halla's proposal would result in substantial damage to the ravine and that he was
using this site as a debris disposal area for his nursery operation. We asked that an
engineered plan be developed so that the dam structure could be stabilized once and
_ Is
to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission
August 13, 1992
Page 2
for all. The Planning Commission agreed with these recommendations and
recommended approval of the request with these conditions. Mr. Halla objected to the
proposed conditions of approval and widthdew his request.
Last summer Mark Halla requested staff to authorize another 1,000 yards
administratively. I refused to do so which is my prerogative under the ordinance if I
believe that the goals of the ordinance and the best interests of the community are
being endangered. In this case it was clear that we would be getting repeated requests
for 1,000 yards and that there was no end state plan indicating where this material
would be going or even if the dam could be stabilized. I copied the Planning
Commission on a memo informing you of this decision. Mr. Halla has the opportunity
to appeal my decision to the City Council but failed to do so.
In July of this year, staff became aware of fill material being hauled into Mr. Halla's
site. Staff from the Engineering and Public Safety Departments approached the crews
working on the property. They were informed that Mr. Halla had told them if city
employees approached them about their activity, they were told to tell them to "go to -
hell." It took the intervention of the City Attorney to shut down operations on the
site. Mr. Halla then appeared at the City Council meeting indicating he objects to
staff's interference and that he believes himself to be a "steward of the earth." Staff -
explained our position to the City Council and they requested that this item be
scheduled for the next meeting. Staff intends to resurrect the Planning Commission's
original recommendations for Council review. Based upon advice from the City
Attorney, we do not believe the Council could authorize the full 100,000 yards
requested by Mr. Halla without returning this matter to the Planning Commission for a
new public hearing. The Council does , however, have an ability to authorize up to
1,000 cubic yards if they so desire. The item is scheduled for the meeting on
Monday, August 24th.
3. Feasibility study for Nez Perce Road extension, approve road alignment. Over the last
3 to 4 years, the Planning commission has worked on several subdivisions, Vineland
Forest and the Troendle Addition, that will ultimately provide a through street
connection between the Nez Perce/Lake Lucy Road intersection and intersect with
Pleasant View Road at the Peaceful Lane intersection. Two-thirds of this road has
been constructed with the remaining portion located over the Art Owens' property,
which is currently completing a bankruptcy proceeding. Staff requested the City
Council provide funds to design this final section of road and officially map it such
that we are in a position to proceed with its completion whenever subdivision occurs
on Mr. Owens' property or if the city finds itself in a position where it needs to
construct the road in advance of subdivision. The Council authorized the funds for
this study and it has been completed. The Council continued action on the official
mapping pending resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings. Several members of the
Planning Commission
August 13, 1992
Page 3
Council, including the Mayor, made it clear that no action on this matter should be
construed as indicative of the Council's favoring of the use of eminent domain powers
to build this road.
4. Non-conforming use permit for recreational beachlot for Sunny Slope Homeowners
Association. The Planning Commission recently reviewed this proposal and
recommended that no boats be allowed. There is a long history of action regarding
this, including litigation that you are all familiar with. The Council listened to
arguments from the homeowners association at length, ultimately allowing them to
construct a dock but not allowing them to have overnight docking of boats. The
ability to construct a dock was allowed based upon evidence indicating that a dock
may have been present in 1981 and that it would facilitate other uses of the beachlot.
5. Concept review of PUD for approximately 168 rental units/72 owner occupied units
for the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill development between Kerber Boulevard and Powers
Boulevard. Since this matter was heard by the Planning Commission, the developer
held a neighborhood meeting that was well attended. It is staff's opinion that the
_ developer and his architect have proven to be quite flexible and show a willingness to
modify the proposal to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. We believe the
scope and severity of the residents' concerns appear to be on the way to being
resolved. The residents presented some of the same concerns at the City Council
meeting. The City Council generally took a favorable view of the project, however,
one of the main issues of contention was the proposal to locate the owner occupied
units on the south part of the property near the city's commercial district with the
rental units to the north closer to the single family homes. The Planning Commission
may recall that this is an observation that has occurred to most everyone that has
reviewed the plans but is explained by the applicants as providing the site design
flexibility needed to minimize grading and saving mature trees due to differences in
building footprints. On a 3 to 1 vote, the Council approved the concept but
encouraged the developer to respond to the residents concerns. Councilman Workman
voted against the proposal believing the owner occupied and the rental units should be
interchanged.
6. Interim Use Permit for earth work/clay mining of a gravel pit located south of Pioneer
Trail and north of the Moon Valley gravel pit, Tom Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate.
— Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has received several pieces of
communication responding to questions raised at your meeting. Hennepin County has
indicated that the access point on Pioneer Trail is a safe one operating under a recent
permit that they have issued. The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District has
approved the project and the district engineer has indicated that he does not share any
of the neighbors concerns regarding potential problems concerning the infiltration of
ground water in the seepage basins that would be constructed under this proposal.
Planning Commission
August 13, 1992
Page 4
Lastly, engineering staff computed the letter of credit requirements incorporating in
reforestation of the south facing bluff on the original Moon Valley site. The required _
letter of credit amount has been increased to approximately $129,000.
Residents from homes located to the west across the railroad tracks continue to object
to the proposal. Mr. Zwiers' credibility given past actions was repeatedly brought into
question by some of the residents. Due to the lateness of the hour, it was not possible
to explore all of these concerns in detail. The Council continued action to the
following meeting.
7. The Council was scheduled to review the draft PUD ordinance but was unable to get _
to this part of the agenda due to time constraints. Staff is probably going to schedule
it for the first meeting in September.
Miscellaneous Items
Highway 5 Urban Design Program The Hwy. 5 Task Force had its second meeting on
Tuesday, August 11, 1992. On issues and opportunities paper was developed and explored,
after which a bus tour of the corridor was undertaken. A public informational meeting on the
opportunities and issues confronting the study is scheduled for September 10th.
i
Surface Water Management Program Task Force Committee Work through the SWMP
committee continues to progress forward. A draft of the new wetlands ordinance has been
completed by the subcommittee and is scheduled to be heard by the full SWMP committee on
Thursday, August 13th. We expect to be able to present it to the Planning Commission in
September.
REVISED AUGUST 14, 1992
ONGOING ISSUES STATUS
Comprehensive Plan Issues
1. 1995 Study Area (North) First meeting held on July 15, 1992.
and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study
2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff.
Work to be initiated as time commitments
_ allow.
OTHER ITEMS
1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated information for
Planning Commission direction.
2. Sign Ordinance Work is continuing to progress with task
force. Program expected to be completed
-- shortly.
3. Tree Protection Ordinance Inventory is completed. Over view of
Mapping of significant existing tree protection regulations requested
vegetative areas by Commisser Erhart.
4. Wetland Ordinance/Surface Main group establishing public information
Water Management Program and erosion control program along with
Task Force established. other work. Special wetlands subcommittee
should complete work on August 3, 1992.
SWMP to review in full committee on
August 13. To PC by September.
_ 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on a draft of the
ordinance. Initial comments delivered to
MnDNR. Will place on upcoming PC
agenda.
6. Group home ordinance PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Currently preparing
draft ordinance.
7. PUD Ordinance PC approved on 7/1/92. Scheduled for CC
review on 8/10/92.
8. PC input in Downtown Ongoing
Planning and Traffic Study —
9. Review of Architectural 1992/may be combined in part with Hwy. 5
Standards to Promote High work. —
Quality Design
10. Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line Preservation —
Greenway ordinance, CC referred item to Park and
Recreation Commission. Staff working with
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed —
District to develop joint Bluff Creek corridor
program. Meeting held on conceptual Bluff
Creek park design prepared by Lance Neckar —
of U of M.
11. Ordinance amendment to Non- PC approved. City Attorney to redraft.
conforming use section to clarify _
ordinance.
12. Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC _
new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance
revisions to follow. Public Safety Director
proposing changes to ordinance.
13. Truck and trailer rental standards. Request by PC.
14. Sexually oriented businesses PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Sent to Public
Safety Commission. Reviewed on July 8,
1992. To be forwarded to CC. —
15. Review of Alternate Target site plans To be reviewed by PC 8/19/92.
16. Tree conservation easements. To be reviewed by PC in August.
17. Fence Requirements. To be reviewed by PC in August.
18.* Open Space Zoning
* Change in status since last report
CITYOF 1
CHANHASSEN- \ f
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
�-f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Surface Water Management Program Task Force,
Planning Commission and City Council
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: July 31, 1992
SUBJ: Metropolitan Council Interim Strategy to Reduce Non-Point Source Pollution in
the Minnesota
— In the past, I have passed along information concerning the Metropolitan Council's growing
role in mandating water quality protective measures for communities draining into the
Minnesota River. I have often stated that the City of Chanhassen is highly regarded by the
Metropolitan Council and other agencies because of our forward thinking efforts to
appropriately manage and protect surface water in our community.
The enclosed memo indicates that the Metropolitan Council's interim strategy to reduce non-
point source pollution in the river will take effect on September 30, 1992. After that date, the
_ Metropolitan Council will require modifications to comprehensive plans to ensure that they
incorporate the required use of ponding areas meeting NURP standards, use of best
management practices to mitigate impacts from development, and that the community adopt
the Minnesota DNR Shoreland Regulations.
Effectively, we have already complied with the three requirements or are in the process of
doing so. We already utilize NURP standards and best management practices on a defacto
basis as developments are approved. However, it is imperative that the Best Management
Practices Handbook, developed by Bonestroo Engineering for the city under the Surface
Water Program, be adopted by reference into city ordinances so that these standards can be
informally applied. The SWMP committee is in the process of making final
recommendations and changes to this and we expect to have it to the Planning Commission
and City Council by fall.
As to the third requirement regarding shoreland regulations, the city currently operates under
the DNR's existing shoreland protection standards. We are in the process of reviewing their
current proposals and are preparing ordinance modifications that we believe would be
�s
�4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
SWMP, Planning Commission and City Council
July 31, 1992
Page 2 _
reasonable and consistent with the DNR's goals. We do not believe that adopting the DNR
program by reference, as is currently the case, would be appropriate since it contains _
numerous standards that simply do not apply in the Twin Cities. Staff will be getting back to
the Planning Commission on these standards in the fall.
Chanhassen staff responded to a request for comments on the Metropolitan Council program.
Our concerns are discussed on Page 11 of the document.
"I III
AIMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre. 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-0904
July 24, 1992
Dear Local Government Official:
On May 14, 1992, the Metropolitan Council adopted an "interim strategy" to reduce nonpoint source
pollution to the Minnesota River. A copy of the strategy is enclosed along with the Council's
response to comments received on the strategy.
The EPA and the MPCA has set a goal of reducing nonpoint source pollution in the Minnesota
River by 40 percent from 1980 levels. This goal is designed to meet state water quality standards and
is to be accomplished by 1996. If this goal is not accomplished by 1996, the MPCA and EPA may
require extensive improvements to the Blue Lake and Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plants andlor
impose land development limitations in those areas tributary to the treatment plants.
As an interim or short-term solution to this issue, the Metropolitan Council is requesting that local
-- governments amend their comprehensive plans and respective official controls to incorporate three
items that will take immediate action on reducing nonpoint source pollution. The first item is that
local governments adopt design standards for new stormwater ponds that reduce the contaminant
loadings from surface water runoff. One set of design criteria that is widely accepted is from the
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP).
The second item is that local governments should include as part of their stormwater plans the
MPCA's urban "best management practices" (BMP), titled Protecting Water Quality In Urban Areas
or an equivalent set of standards. These standards arc to he used for all land development activities
that have the potential to create nonpoint source pollution.
The final item is that local governments should adopt the Department of Natural Resource's(DNR's)
shoreland regulations as found in the Statewide Standards For Management Of Shoreland Areas
consistent with the DNR's implementation strategy. Of course, local governments should work with
the DNR to determine the most effective way to implement the shorcland regulations.
This interim strategy to reduce nonpoint source pollution to the Minnesota River will take effect
September 30, 1992. After September 30th. the Metropolitan Council will require modifications of
those comprehensive plans that do not include the three measures described above. The Council's
legal department is preparing a model ordinance for adopting the NURP, BMP and DNR shoreland
regulations. You may contact Brian Ohm of the Council's legal department at 291-6638 for a copy
of this ordinance.
RECEIVED
JUL 271992
CITY OF CuANHASSEN
INTERIM STRATEGY TO REDUCE
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION -
TO THE MINNESOTA RIVER
July 1, 1992
Jack Frost
Steven Schwanke
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101
Publication No. 640-92-038
•
SUMMARY OF THE POLICY ISSUE
In 1990 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) agreed on a goal to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the Minnesota River by
40 percent from pre-1980 levels. The two agencies have set 1996 as the target date to achieve this
goal. To accomplish this goal, current land development and agricultural practices must be altered
to restrict nonpoint source pollutants from entering area water bodies.
THE PROBLEM
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) in 1990 established a goal of reducing nonpoint source pollutants in the Minnesota River
by 40 percent from pre-1980 levels to meet state water quality standards. This goal is to be
accomplished by July 1, 1996. See exhibits A and B. If this goal is not reached by 1996 the EPA and
MPCA may require:
1. A moratorium on land development within the Minnesota River Basin; or,
2. Expensive improvements to the Blue Lake and Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plants which
will only have a minimal positive impact on the Minnesota River. It is possible that water
quality standards will not be met even after the facility improvements are made. These facility
improvements, however,will be paid for by all existing and future sanitary sewer users in the
Metropolitan Area; or,
3. The Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to pay a fine for
failure to make efforts to accomplish the 40 percent reduction goal; or,
4. A combination of the above three (3) options.
The Metropolitan Council has documented an increase of nonpoint source pollution to area water
bodies. These added pollutants reduce the recreational value and accelerate the eutrophication of
area water bodies. Water quality standards in the Minnesota River are violated as a result of
nonpoint source pollution generated from Greater Minnesota as well as the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. Exhibit C lists those local governments in the Minnesota River Basin.
The increase of nonpoint source pollutants to area water bodies can be traced to two primary sources:
land development and agriculture practices. Land development or urbanization, generally increases
both the volume of runoff as well as the concentration of pollutants in the runoff. This happens with
the conversion of land to hard surface and by the destruction of wetlands. Detention ponds or
artificial depressions can help mitigate these impacts. The best designed ponds, however, will not
reduce the increased volume of runoff following urbanization nor will they totally remove the
additional pollutants following urbanization. An increase in runoff volume, total phosphorus and
other pollutants are the results of urban development.
Agriculture is the predominant land use in the Minnesota River Basin and the major contributor of
nonpoint source pollutants. Nonpoint source pollution from agriculture occurs as a result of intensive
land cultivation and husbandry practices and shows up in three basic forms: soil erosion; agriculture
supplements such as nutrients, pesticides and herbicides; and animal waste products. Each of these
1
program and official controls necessary to implement the watershed plan. As part of the local water
management plan, the local government will need to define water quantity and quality protection
methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan. Local —
governments will also be required to amend their local comprehensive plans to reflect the contents
of the watershed plan. Local governments will have two years to amend their comprehensive plans
from the time the WMO planning process is complete. Under rules currently proposed by the Board —
of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), WMOs have until 1995 to complete their plans. The earliest
local governments are required to revise their comprehensive plans is 1997. It could take several
years beyond 1997 to implement local government plans. —
The second piece of legislation is Minnesota Statutes,section 473.157, that requires the Metropolitan
Council to prepare a water resources plan that includes management objectives and target pollution
loads for watersheds in the metropolitan area. From this plan WMOs will advise local governments —
of their target pollution loads. Local governments will revise their stormwater management plans to
include implementation steps that assure the target pollution loads are met.
The Metropolitan Council has set as a priority developing the target pollution loads for watersheds
tributary to the Minnesota River. This is a priority because of the urgency to meet the EPA/MPCA
reduction goal of 40 percent by 1996. Target pollution loads for Bevens, Carver, Chaska and Sand —
Creek watersheds will be developed by 1992. Pollution loads for other watersheds in the Minnesota
River Basin will be developed by mid-1993. The Council will also be actively pursuing the
development of target pollution loads for all watersheds in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. —
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is in the middle of a multi-year river basin-wide assessment
project to evaluate the current condition of, and source and type of pollutants entering the Minnesota
River. The Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP) is designed to identify the sources of _
pollution threatening the health and vitality of the Minnesota River. The study involves over a dozen
organizations working in concert with local governments from Lac Qui Parle County in southwestern
Minnesota to Jordan. The goal of MRAP is to assess the water quality, aquatic communities and
current land uses in the Minnesota River system. This information will be used to develop specific
water quality goals and to identify programs and best management practices that can help reduce
nonpoint source pollution.
An implementation plan will eventually be developed that comprehensively addresses the nonpoint
source issue in both the metropolitan and outstate areas of the Minnesota River Basin. It will take
the MPCA until mid-1993 to complete the assessment phase. The MPCA is also now forming an —
implementation committee (MRIP) comprised of various interest groups throughout the Minnesota
River Basin. The implementation committee has been directed to develop a strategy that most
efficiently reduces nonpoint source pollution to the Minnesota River. —
The Board of Water and Soil Resources
The Board of Water and Soil Resources is the primary state agency responsible for surface water
planning and is the lead agency responsible for carrying out many of the administrative aspects of the
recently passed Wetland Conservation Act of 1991,better known as the"no-net loss" legislation. The
act provides landowners with three options for preserving or enhancing wetlands: the wetland
3 —
In addition to policy 1-1 of the Council's Water Resources Management Plan, Part 1, the Council has
two other policies addressing the environmental effects of nonpoint source pollution and water
quality. The Council's Water Resources Management Plan, Part 3 states in policy 3-4 that:
The Council, through its numerous review and approval authorities,will preserve all protected
and unprotected natural watercourses--including associated wetlands,channels,floodplains and
shorelands--to enhance water quantity and quality and to preserve their ecological functions
(page 3-26);
Policy 3-6 of the same policy plan states:
The Council, in conducting its project approvals and reviews, will protect the utility of the
region's water and related land resources and seek their restoration, where needed. Any
action that threatens the viability of the water and related resource will be negatively
reviewed (page 3-30).
A related issue is the Minnesota River Basin extends beyond the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
The Metropolitan Council has no planning or regulatory authority in Greater Minnesota. This makes
it difficult for one governmental agency,such as the Metropolitan Council, to coordinate water quality
planning activities in the Minnesota River Basin. The solution to nonpoint source pollution will
require the involvement of all levels of government throughout the basin. The Metropolitan Council
is committed to work with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Board of Water and Soil
Resources and other state and regional agencies to ensure that appropriate steps are taken in Greater
Minnesota to achieve the 40 percent reduction in nonpoint source pollution to the Minnesota River.
PROPOSED INTERIM STRATEGY
An interim strategy is needed to address both the nonpoint source pollution issue and to implement
— the Council's policy 1-1 of the Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan, Part 1, policies 3-4
and 3-6 of the Council's Water Resources Management Plan, Part 3 and the EPA and MPCA goal of
40 percent nonpoint source pollution reduction to the Minnesota River by 1996.
The Council is committed to working with WMOs and local governments through the planning
process outlined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.201. The Council also recognizes its
responsibility to prepare and adopt a water resources plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section
473.157. In the last year, Council staff has met with all of the WMO boards in the Minnesota River
Basin to seek cooperation in achieving the EPA/MPCA 40 percent reduction goal. In addition, the
Council staff has formed a technical advisory committee made up of local government officials and
other interested parties to seek advise and disseminate information on nonpoint source pollution in
the Minnesota River and its tributaries. However, it will take several years for the Council, WMOs
and local governments to prepare and implement the above referenced plans. In the interim, steps
should be taken that allows local governments and WMOs to take immediate action to reduce the
adverse impacts of nonpoint source pollution on area water bodies, specifically on the Minnesota
River.
The following interim strategy is designed to make progress toward meeting the EPA and MPCA goal
of 40 percent nonpoint source pollution reduction to the Minnesota River by 1996. This interim
5
8. The Metropolitan Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will work with
State of Minnesota agencies to reduce nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies in
Greater Minnesota. —
9. The Metropolitan Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will monitor
the effectiveness of the above-mentioned interim steps to address the nonpoint source
pollution problem in the Minnesota River Basin. If sufficient progress has not been made
by 1994 to reduce nonpoint source pollution to the Minnesota River, the Metropolitan
Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will work to devise a solution
designed to meet the EPA/MPCA goal of 40 percent reduction by 1996.
CAUSER\M E1702S\REVI S E-D:4.23.92
7 _