Loading...
10-7-92 Agenda and Packet PC DATE: 8/19/92 / CITY OF \ 1 CIIAHAE CC DATE: 9/14/92 CASE #: 92-4 PUD By: Olsen/Hempel:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning from A2 Agricultural Estate to PUD, Single Family Residential Planned Unit Development - 1". 2) Development Review, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 161 acres into Z 112 single family lots and 8 outlots — 3) Wetland Alteration Permit for dredging, filling and development V within protected wetlands J LOCATION: West of State Highway 41, North of State Highway 5, Adjacent to the — BMT Site Cl. Q APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction — 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates ACREAGE: Northern Portion 95 Acres (gross) and 61 Acres (net - less wetlands and streets) Southern Portion 66 Acres (Outlots G and H) DENSITY: 1.19 u/a (gross) and 1.85 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, single family/vacant Q S - A2, vacant E - A2, single family/vacant W - A2, Camp Tanadoona/vacant w WATER AND SEWER: Extension of utilities has been petitioned by the applicant. (f) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains steep topography, wetlands, and vegetated areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density , I/#/ IV •.' -4,•-•••2refAIWir p..."'"N , -. ki3iL7.11. ...mrill - nimmill if k 1 •'4-..•.i.��1 1 ti L. �' ,..• ...1,. . \"' , / ' . ••••1 .41 haft ' • ` -4,--11--r-r- ..,^..� .t i'A , •. \ �. ti r :'.'. - .-' ,� N. :,, ;2 • ••••••%,... •-••• , .-• ....,•-• .- -4..••••- -.--.4-,„ ...,•••• -..1 lio • .. A r.`I��!}!tIa.1L "w`, . ^1 `1:r`.' •.'^-:• :_..r '; ': . • , r /1/4 : lib Ilsf ,-`rte,-•tSf f•; 1•> , •••i• ¢�• •• {*,;A`A•` f�`0";P,.,, •., I - �-� C A E ~ 0 r- rl.:f!. ;P. rc<�t••.ir�'•e• ,.. { r,..,F rrt - ,.!`C' •11i IVARR/s. V ..� el,/.•.\ ,1 erg I'-rAt. % MIMI. - i. . lirli I C k • ft qr ,L ; a D ; i B �' j o m ,.-"Attt 0 /90 - 5. ir,,,, \� DANE � f` - i �"' -.-./01--Le'- -I` t1f' �'u tet '-t-�• y mai,t t: I. • � , RE(LT AO Z PRS--I,�f,oL / n f Illiti al I I ' I 1 99 ', Dy . 1111 * - �► 4 *rip . . . ,, . 401PPr C..ei "11 %IMP 4 4A' veld, \- --41-11/.....i./..14 C.aLj:I Ak./11-1/ -*AA, is at -21. If. --- . :11"Irs,:. .. • 7:41:ae A.A.aiiii-oiluviluiri- i , T.' :1::-.::::::::::-.. 1% 1:1'. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY OF PUD The applicant is proposing a single family detached residential planned unit development which subdivides 160.88 acres into 112 single family lots and 8 outlots. One of the lots will be occupied by an existing home, thus, 111 new home sites will result. (The concept plan proposed 113 single family lots, one lot was eliminated as the plan was revised to accommodate concerns that were raised). The site is located east of Hwy. 41 and north of Hwy. 5. The property is zoned A2, Agricultural Estates and is designated as Residential Low Density and 1995 Study Area. The northerly portion of the site is proposed as single family lots (PUD site) and the southerly portion of the site is proposed as an outlot for future development. The northerly portion of the subject site was included in the MUSA line as part of the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment after Lundgren Bros. made a presentation to the Planning Commission. It was concluded that the wetland which forms the site's southern boundary, was the appropriate dividing line between the MUSA area and the 1995 Study Area. The site contains significant environmental features which include ten wetland areas, steep topography and mature stands of vegetation. Due to the site conditions and the desire to provide a variety of lots and housing units, the applicant is pursuing rezoning of the property to planned unit development. A planned unit development will allow the site to be developed with reduced right-of-way and reduced setbacks to pull the building pads away from sensitive areas and will allow innovative techniques to be used with the wetland areas (buffer yards, native landscaping, etc.). The City Code currently provides standards permitting planned unit developments if certain requirements are met. Specific guidelines for single family planned unit developments have not yet been adopted, but have been approved by the Planning Commission and will be reviewed by the City Council in October. Staff will be using the existing PUD requirements and the proposed single family PUD requirements in the review of this proposed planned unit development. In addition, new wetland regulations are in the process of being reviewed for adoption by the city and these too will be used as guidelines for review of the proposed planned unit development. The development review for the PUD is only for the northern portion of the site proposed for the 112 single family lots. The southerly portion will remain zoned as A2. The applicant has taken care to work with the site's many natural features. Design flexibility allowed under the PUD ordinance is being put to reasonable use. The lot areas range from 11,550 square feet to 60,370 square feet (including wetland area) and range from 10,075 square feet to 57,813 square feet (not including wetland area). The total project density is extremely low for residential development in Chanhassen. There is a gross density of 1.18 units per acre with a net density (excluding wetlands and streets) of 1.84 units per acre. This compares to typical numbers of 1.7 and 2.0 units per acre respectively on typical single family development in Chanhassen. We also note that this type of density is considered to be extremely low relative to other developing communities in the Twin Cities. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 3 Major access to this site will be provided by a new street that will ultimately run between Hwy. 41 and Galpin Boulevard. Since the applicant is only in control of a portion of this alignment, only that section of the street which is located on the Lundgren parcel will be constructed at this time. The remaining piece would be constructed across the adjoining Song property when this area is subdivided. At this point in time, the applicant is negotiating with the Song's on — development possibilities. However, staff is unsure at the time of writing as to when development might occur and who may actually be undertaking it. The Lundgren proposal was designed with some sensitivity to coordinating ultimate development of the Song property. The collector street right-of-way alignment is designed in a manner so that it can be similarly used to service the Song property. Location of a collector street in this area is illustrated on the city Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not purport to establish an alignment for this street. In early discussions with the applicant on this site, the Planning Director and City Engineer determined that it would be inappropriate to construct the collector street to typical collector street standards which would result in a road similar to Lake Lucy Road. This determination was based upon the extreme changes of topography and locations of wetlands on both the Lundgren and Song parcels. It would be impossible to construct a street to the standards without significantly impacting the site's natural features. Therefore, they agreed to recommend that the collector street be designed to high quality local street standards which reduce grading requirements and increase both horizontal and lateral design flexibility. The important thing, in their opinion, is that the road will provide continuity such that residents and emergency services will be afforded two means of ingress and egress into this area. Staff is also recommending that the local street right-of-way be reduced from 60' to 50' to further reduce impact to the site. The applicant is proposing alteration to some of the existing wetlands on the site. The wetlands that are proposed to be altered are in a degraded state and the alteration is being mitigated. The applicant is proposing the creation of buffer yards to protect the remaining wetlands and to be permitted a reduced setback from the 75' wetland setback. The proposal for the wetlands is consistent with the city's proposed changes to the wetland regulations, but staff has recommended some additional mitigation through combination of new and existing wetlands and by increasing the depth. The first step of the PUD process is conceptual approval. Concept review allows the Planning Commission and City Council to review the proposal in general terms to determine if it should be accepted as a planned unit development and what changes need to be made prior to action on the preliminary plat and rezoning. On August 19, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the concept plan for the PUD. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 single family lots with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff on the conditions presented in the staff report in accordance with the _ Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 4 comments made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission felt that Conditions 4 through 9 could be reworded to allow some flexibility to the applicant and still meet staff's intent. The majority of the Planning Commission also felt that the cul-de-sacs "I" and "G" should remain (staff had recommended that they be connected) and that they liked the cul-de-sac islands (Attachment #1). The City Council reviewed the Concept PUD on September 14, 1992, and also approved of the concept plan. At the City Council meeting, the applicant presented the City Council with comments on staff's conditions and proposed changes to the conditions (Attachment #2). The City Council approved the concept plan with the applicant's proposed conditions. The major changes to the conditions were to remove the condition to connect the cul-de-sacs "I" and "G" and to permit the cul-de-sac islands. The second stage of the PUD process is the Development Review where the applicant receives preliminary plat and rezoning approval. The major concern of the city and staff during conceptual review was the amount of grading taking place on site and the resulting removal of trees. The city and staff recommended that the applicant review the grading plan and make changes in the house types, street locations and design, etc. to reduce the amount of grading on- site. The applicant has submitted revised grading plans for review. The new plans do somewhat reduce the amount of grading. The reduced grading is primarily a result of reducing the number and size of ponding areas and not always showing grading beyond the house pad. Some of the house types have been changed from walkouts to ramblers and lookouts which will reduce the amount of grading. Until the final storm water calculations are submitted for review, staff cannot verify that the proposed ponding areas will be adequate, but at this time the engineering staff feels additional ponding may be required. If this is the case, the applicant will have to increase the number of ponds and/or increase the ponding areas, either of which will result in more grading to the site. Although staff agrees the building sites should not be mass graded and that the creation of usable rear yards could be done individually, the proposed grading plan showing some sites to not be graded beyond the house pad is not correct. There is typically at least a 15' area around the house pad which is altered during construction of the home. When this area is added to the revised grading plan, much of the areas of reduced grading will in fact be graded. During concept review, staff suggested the applicant review some significant changes to the plat such as pulling back the most southeasterly and south central cul-de-sacs (H and J streets). Staff has sketched out some alternatives, using private drives, to determine how many lots would be lost, how much vegetation would be saved and if what is saved is worth such a significant change. Such a revision would result in the removal of some significant lots and the applicant has not proposed such changes. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 5 — The grading for lots located on ''H" street are affecting a wooded ravine. The vegetation in this area is mostly box elder which does not warrant a drastic change in the lot configurations -- resulting in loss of lots. "J" street and the adjacent lots are resulting in the removal of significant vegetation, including large oaks. Staff worked on alternative street and lot configurations for this location to determine how to save some of the vegetation and found that, other than removing 3 or 4 lots, even the use of private drives and pulling back the cul-de-sac does not preserve the vegetation. Therefore, staff is agreeing with the layout presented by the applicant. It should be noted that the applicant did reduce the filling of "J" street which has reduce the amount of alteration to the area. Staff recognizes that the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated acceptance of the proposal to maintain two cul-de-sacs on I and G streets. We continue to believe that their connection is warranted due to issues of access and public safety, however, the proposed conditions reflect the direction you have given us. Similarly, the Engineering Department — continues to have reservations with the proposal to provide landscaped islands in several streets and cul-de-sacs. Again, the conditions reflect your direction that these be allowed. Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is generally consistent with the guidelines established by the current and draft PUD ordinances. We also believe the — applicant is using reasonable and sensitive development standards with an eye towards creating very high quality residential neighborhoods designed in a manner to protect a sensitive environment. Staff is recommending that the PUD Development Plan, Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit be approved with appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND — The subject site was included in the MUSA line with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment. At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council felt that the property was — suitable for development with sewer and water. The proposal contains the BMT property (northeast corner of entrance). The BMT site is a — nonconforming use (commercial in a residential district) which has the right to remain as long as it does not expand or intensify. The owner of BMT has sold the property to Lundgren Brothers with the condition of remaining until a new site is found or until 1994. The proposal — designates one single family lot and an outlot on the BMT property which will be developed once the property is vacated. The applicant has initiated a feasibility study for sewer and water service to the site. Service to the site will not be possible until 1993. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site contains 10 protected wetland areas, steep topography, and heavily vegetated areas. The subject site is bordered by State Hwy. 41 on the west, State Hwy. 5 on the south, the Song property on the east, and residential/vacant property on the north. There are two exceptions shown on the plat. The first is located between State Hwy. 41 and street D. This property is under separate ownership and has its own access to Hwy. 41. To reduce the number of accesses to Hwy. 41 should this site be subdivided in the future, staff is recommending the site be provided with access to the adjacent cul-de-sac. The second exception is located to the north of the proposed private park. This site is separated from the subject site by steep topography. The landscaping plan shows extensive landscaping on Outlots A and F which is being used to meet the requirements for enhanced landscaping for the PUD. There also are landscaped cul-de- sac islands and median. Site terrain includes large variations in elevation. The large wetland that forms the southern boundary of the property is also the head waters of Bluff Creek. Much of the site contains large open field areas which were actively farmed in the past. REZONING TO PUD Section 20-501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit developments. Planned unit developments are to be used to enhance flexibility in developing a site with unique features and when there is a desire to provide a variety of uses. In return for this flexibility, the city should receive a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been achieved through standard zoning regulations. Under this section of the City Code the following nine items are listed and which the PUD should provide: (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands,lakes and scenic views. Finding The site contains some difficult topography, several wetlands of varying value and heavily vegetated areas. Upon review of the preliminary plat, it appears that the applicant is locating the streets and lots with the natural features of the site taken into consideration. The blocks are situated around wetland and vegetated areas and the steep sloped areas are avoided in most cases. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 7 — (2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. — Finding The PUD allows the site to locate more dense development in areas without significant features while creating open space around natural features. The proposal is providing pockets of open space throughout the site which will benefit the whole development and — is providing a variation of lot sizes. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where impact will be minimized by using density transfer. (3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect — high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding _ The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots — adjacent to existing uses. The applicant has also provided for future development with a future street connection. There will be covenants recorded as part of the PUD contract to ensure that high quality building architecture and enhanced landscaping will be — provided. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along — significant corridors within the city. Finding — The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential and the proposal is accommodating existing uses and the potential for future development. Views of the site from the Hwy. — 41 corridor will be protected by the tree preservation and required landscaping. A major land use transition south of the site is possible when this area is brought in the MUSA some time in the future. No decisions on the future of this area have been made pending — completion of the Hwy. 5 Study. However, the large Bluff Creek wetland that separates the Lundgren site from the Hwy. 5 corridor has been established by the Comprehensive Plan as the buffer area. (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 8 Finding The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units/acre). The proposal has a net density (minus wetlands and roads) of 1.84 units/acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment for development with sewer and water and as a single family development. The Comprehensive Plan also showed this property as a site for a collector street, which the applicant is providing. (6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. Finding The applicant is providing open space throughout the site, including a private park. The Park and Recreation Commission has accepted this proposal but full park and trail fees will be required. No credit is being recommended for the private park. The Park and Recreation Commission conditioned approval upon dedication of a trail easement along State Hwy. 41. (7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. Finding The applicant is proposing a variety of lots sizes and housing units. Overall, the sites will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed. (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration or if this condition is relevant to single family home development. (9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 9 — Finding The proposal is providing a collector street which will service the property to the east and was mentioned as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of the site is serviced by cul-de-sacs which are used to protect some of the natural features. Staff continues to — recommend the connection of cul-de-sacs "G" and "I" to further improve traffic control. Although the Planning Commission and City Council have already taken action on this item and have agreed to not require the cul-de-sacs to be connected, staff feels we should — still be on record of being in favor of connecting the two cul-de-sacs. In addition to the general planned unit development regulations, the city is in the process of — adopting standards for single family planned unit developments. There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement states the developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing environmental — sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following guidelines: a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD (draft ordinance) allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot — calculations). The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot _ sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. — Finding The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 10,075 sq. ft. to 57,813 sq. ft. (not including wetland areas) with an average net lot area of 20,601 sq. ft. The PUD standards do not allow the inclusion of wetland areas in the calculation of lot area. — The site is broken down into six blocks which locate the lots around wetland and vegetated areas. Upon review of the concept grading plan and the impacts to the — vegetated areas, staff was concerned that the proposed location of streets, lots and the housing types were removing more vegetated areas than may be necessary. Staff recommended that the applicant provide plans which lessen the impacts to the vegetated — areas, such as: Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 10 - Remove Lot 1, Block 2 and use retaining walls along the south side of the street adjacent to Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 2. Remove the cul-de-sac, H Street and use private drives to remove the need to fill in the ravine area. - Reduce the fill and pull back "J" Street and reduce the fill on adjacent lots. The applicant has submitted a revised grading plan which has reduced the amount of grading to the site. The type of vegetation which will be removed with the creation of Lot 1, Block 2 consists mostly of box elders and elms. Therefore, staff does not feel the removing Lot 1, Block 2 and installation of a retaining wall is warranted. The vegetation impacted by "H" Street and adjacent lots is also low quality consisting mostly of ash and box elder. Therefore, staff does not feel the removal of "H" Street is warranted. The area adjacent to "J" Street is where the most significant trees will be lost and where staff feels some significant changes may be warranted. There are a number of sizeable oaks which will be removed (see Attachment # 3, Area D). The applicant has changed some of the house types in this area and has reduced the fill of "J" Street, which will reduce some of the grading. Staff has sketched a revised plan using private drives and pulling back the cul-de-sac. Staff found that without removing 3 or 4 lots the tree removal would not be reduced. Given the already low density of the project and high quality design, staff cannot justify recommending elimination of these lots. We believe the applicant's tree preservation efforts, when viewed over the entire project, are satisfactory. Therefore, staff is agreeing with the proposed layout. It should be noted that the applicant has reduced the fill on "J" Street which has reduced the amount of grading to the site. The proposal is preserving open space throughout the site which benefits each block. Open space is found in undeveloped outlots, the private park and numerous wetland areas. The applicant has provided plans which demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area of protective easement as required under the draft PUD ordinance. This standard ensures that each lot provides a satisfactory home site and yard area without needing to resort to variances. The PUD development contract will document this information to ensure the development of the individual lots will not encroach within a protected area or setback. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 11 Finding There are 14 lots which do not have the minimum lot width of 90' at the building setback line. The lots which do not have a 90' width at the building setback are "pie shaped" lots which have adequate building width at the building setback. Staff is comfortable that the intent to provide adequate building pad widths is being accommodated. Essentially, the front setback line is proposed to be moved to the rear of the lot to the point at which a 90' width is achieved. The only concern that staff has with this is that some of these lot configurations will result in the building pad being pushed further back into sensitive areas of the site. We have asked the applicant to respond to this concern in the final plat. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. Finding All of the lots exceed the minimum lot depth of 100'. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet Front Yard - 20 feet Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Accessory Buildings and Structures - located adjacent to or behind principal structure a — minimum of 10 feet from property line. Finding — The proposal provides a 30' PUD exterior setback. The preliminary plat provides a 20' front yard setback on certain lots (lots illustrated with a dot). The reduced front yard setback is permitted as part of a PUD to preserve natural features and should be used in this development. A majority of the lots have stands of — trees and/or wetlands in the rear yard and reducing the front yard setback will further protect these areas. Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and has noted additional lots which with a 20' front yard setback would reduce the impact to the site. The following lots are recommended to also maintain a 20' front yard setback: Lots 22-24, Block 2 Lots 30-31, Block 2 Lots 46-47, Block 2 — Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 12 Lots 58-61, Block 2 Lots 66-72, Block 2 There were additional lots which would benefit by a reduced front yard setback (example, Lots 27-29, Block 2), except that they would then not have enough width at the building setback. Therefore, staff is not recommending the reduced setback on these lots. In the narrative provided by the developer, it has been stated that the minimum rear yard will be 30'. In many cases the rear yard will exceed 30' due to the presence of a wetland which requires increased setbacks. This is in keeping with the draft ordinance. The narrative provided by the developer proposes a 6' interior side yard setback for garages and a 9' interior side yard setback of living area. The applicant has also stated that a minimum side yard separation of 20' will be provided between each principle structure. As long as a 20' minimum side yard separation is maintained, staff is comfortable with reduced side yard setbacks. The setback of 10' for accessory buildings and structures should also be applied. e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. Finding The proposed layout of the single family lots and streets have taken into consideration the features of the site. Where possible, wetlands and mature stands of trees have been located at the rear of lots so that they can be protected. As stated above, staff was at first concerned that in some areas the grading for building pads, streets and ponds was removing more vegetation than may be necessary. The applicant has made revisions to the plans which reduce the area of alteration. The applicant is proposing to reduce the right-of-way for the collector street from 80' to 60' to reduce the removal of trees and impact to site features. Staff has encouraged this request to be made due to the sensitive nature of the site. A wider collector street with normal design standards results in a street having the appearance of Lake Lucy Road. To accomplish this design on this site would result in substantial destruction of natural features. To avoid this staff determined that the street should be designed to ultimately provide continuity to Galpin Boulevard but to be designed to local street standards. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 13 — In addition to reducing the collector street right of way, staff has also reviewed reducing the right-of-way on the local streets from 60' to 50'. Staff found that this reduction in — right-of-way will help pull building pads from sensitive features of the site, and is recommending that this be done. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. — Findin The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan which shows landscaping at the entrance of the PUD on Outlots A and F, on cul-de-sac islands, on an entrance median and along the boulevards. During the concept review, it was agreed by the Planning — Commission and the City Council, that foundation and rear yard plantings would not be necessary. The landscaping along Hwy. 41 needs to be revised. A portion of the landscape buffering along Hwy. 41 is proposed to be provided by trees located in the Hwy. 41 right-of-way. These could well be lost at some time due to possible highway improvements. Therefore, the applicant must satisfy the landscaping requirements with landscaping on the subject site. — Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 14 g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. 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 OF REZONING The subject site contains features that are ideally suited for a planned unit development. The flexibility of PUD standards will result in a reduction of impact to natural features due to road and building construction. The features which remain will be protected, and in some cases, enhanced. Staff feels that rezoning the property to planned unit development is appropriate for this site, but that the proposed concept plan can be revised to further protect natural features. Staff is recommending approval of the Development PUD plan with the stated conditions. DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to develop the 112 single family lots on 95 (gross)/61(net) acres. The gross density is 1.18 units/acre and the net density is 1.84 units/acre. The lots range in size from 10,075 net square feet to 57,813 net square feet. The single family lots are divided into six blocks which arrange the lots around natural features of the site. The lots meet the guidelines Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 15 — for a single family residential PUD except for lots which do not have 90' of width at the building setback. The lots which do not have 90' of width at the 30' setback line do have 90' at the building site. Essentially, the developer is proposing to impose a larger than normal setback standard to relocate the line to a point where the lot widens out to 90'. Therefore, staff feels the intent of the regulation is being met. — Lot 4, Block 2 contains an existing single family residence and pool. The residence is in good condition and will remain. The pool, which is adjacent to the rear lot line, is in poor condition and will be removed by the applicant prior to filing of the final plat. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 contain the BMT site. The applicant has stated that BMT will remain at the site until they find a new site or until 1994. A condition of approval will be that Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6, be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The subdivision creates eight outlots (a-h). Outlots A through F will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and will be used as follows: Outlots A and F - Open areas used for entry monuments and landscaping. — Outlots B and C - Large wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space. Outlot D - Wetland and vegetated area preserved as open space. Outlot E - Private park and open space Outlots G and H will be owned by the applicant and are preserved for future development. The applicant is pursuing the acquisition of the Song property to expand the proposed development to the east. Lots 77-83, Block 2 show extension of the lot lines into the adjacent _ property (Song property). The lot area in parenthesis reflects the addition of the Song property. The Song property should be removed from the plans until it is actually acquired by the applicant and then the plat can be amended if needed. Landscaping and Tree Removal The site contains several significant stands of trees. The applicant has stated that the layout of the site has taken into account the existing vegetation and has tried to locate streets and lots with the least impact to the site. The applicant has made changes to the proposed plans since Concept — review and has reduced the amount of alteration to the site. Staff has also sketched alternative street and lot layouts and has found that the amount of alteration cannot be significantly reduced without removing a number of lots. The proposal already results in an unusually low gross and net density. Staff does not believe that overcrowding of the site is a problem and is not recommending that any lots be removed. The proposed standards for residential planned unit developments provide specific landscaping requirements. The landscaping plan shows landscaping of Outlots A and F, the entrance median, Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 16 the cul-de-sac islands and along ihe boulevard. The exterior landscaping along Hwy 41 needs to be revised to provide screening which does not include the existing trees within the Hwy. 41 right-of-way since these trees may be lost when/if the highway is improved. As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission and City Council are not requiring the applicant to provide foundation and rear yard landscaping due to the existing conditions of the site. The areas that are shown as tree preservation areas, on sheet 7 of the plans, will be protected by preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, AND STREETS Utilities- Sanitary Sewer On September 28, 1992, the City Council received a feasibility report for providing trunk utility improvements to service this development. The City Council also called for a public hearing to be held on October 26, 1992 to decide whether or not to authorize the project. The feasibility report estimates the project to be completed by August, 1993. The public improvements shown on the preliminary utility plan sheets could be constructed in conjunction with the trunk improvements in order to meet the scheduling needs of the applicants. The drainage and utility easements should be dedicated with the final platting process. The easement surrounding the lift station should be 25 feet wide on each side. The proposed sanitary sewer lines are fairly well-designed throughout the development although no provisions have been made for servicing adjacent parcels. Staff has reviewed aerial topography maps for the adjacent parcels and has determined that sewer and water stubs should be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant should extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary to serve a small portion of the adjacent property to the east. An individual sewer and water service should also be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. This parcel would pay the appropriate connection and hook-up charges to the City at time of connection. The City will then refund a portion of the fees back to the applicant for reimbursement of the cost of installation of the sewer and water service. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and the existing home (Lot 4, Block 2) will be required to connect to the municipal sewer line within one (1) year of the sewer system being operational. The existing water system (well) on these parcels may be utilized until the well fails, then connection would be required. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detailed plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with final platting. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 17 — Utilities - Watermain The proposed municipal water system has been designed in general conformance with the recently approved feasibility study. The feasibility study proposes a 16-inch watermain to be extended by the City along Street A from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. This — development proposes to connect on to the 16-inch watermain to service each phase of the development. The applicant has proposed to loop the water system from Street B to Street A through Cul-de-sacs G and I. Fire hydrant spacing appears sufficient. Final review and approval of the fire hydrant locations will be subject to the City's fire marshal. Extension of municipal water service to the adjacent properties to the north should be extended with sanitary sewer services between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. — Grading and Drainage The applicant has submitted a revised grading/drainage plan since the conceptual review process. The revised preliminary grading plan has reduced the grading limits in some areas of the development. This was accomplished by reducing street grades and elimination of sedimentation basin No. 7. As a result, tree loss has been somewhat reduced. In an effort to save trees staff has reviewed the possibility of shortening Street J and servicing the remaining four lots in the private drive. This however does not accomplish saving trees as so desired. It is recommended that Street J be left as proposed. The entire site drains in a southerly direction through a series of wetlands. Approximately 2.60 acres of wetlands are proposed to be filled as a result of the development. The applicant is proposing 2.81 acres of mitigation to compensate for the filling of wetlands. The grading plans _ shall be revised to include mitigation areas. Staff is also concerned with the size of the sedimentation basins proposed. No drainage calculations have been submitted to verify sedimentation basin storage capacity or water quality standards are being achieved. This may — result in larger sedimentation/retention basins than are shown on the proposed plans. The applicant shall provide the high water elevation for all wetlands to determine drainage easement limits and lowest floor elevations on the homes adjacent to the wetlands. The grading plans also indicate realigning a drainage swale through Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 2. The new proposed drainageway brings the swale fairly close to the proposed homes. The — appropriate drainage and utility easement over this drainageway will be required to maintain the drainageway. The applicant may want to consider shifting the drainage swale further from the building pads to allow for future anticipated decks or patios that would encroach the — drainageway. The same scenario holds true for Lots 70, 71, 72 and 73, Block 2 and Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block 2. The wetland mitigation sketches show existing and proposed drain tiles. The drain tile systems should also be shown on the final grading plan and record drawings be provided upon Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 18 completion. We question the purpose of the drain tile at this time since the purpose of the wetland is to retain water and habitat for waterfowl, wildlife, etc. We understand the need for drain tile prior to the development phase when the land was under agricultural use. The applicant should provide reasoning why the drain tiles are still necessary with this subdivision. From the City's maintenance perspective, the drain tiles are typically difficult to locate as well as maintain a small diameter of pipe. Plans propose storm runoff from the streets and lawns to be conveyed through a series of storm sewers which drain to six different sedimentation basins located throughout the site. As previously mentioned, some storm drainage and ponding calculations have not been submitted. The ponding sizes may vary depending on final calculations. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10-year storm events and detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain surface water discharge rates at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed over the drainage areas as well as all storm sewers leading to and from the areas outside the street right-of-way. The storm sewer proposed through Lot 33, Block 2 should be extended to discharge into sedimentation basin No. 6. As proposed, the discharge would be in the middle of Lot 33. Drainage and utility easements should be provided along the centerline of the drainageway or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide property maintenance and to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100-year storm, 24-hour duration. Appropriate front, side and rear drainage and utility easements corresponding to lot lines should be provided with the final plat. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide in areas containing utilities with the exception where two utility lines may occupy the easement, i.e. sewer and water. In that case, a 30-foot wide easement should be dedicated. According to the EPA's federal guidelines, construction activities that are initiated after October 1, 1992 which disturb 5 acres or more need to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit administered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Due to the size of this development, the applicant will be required to apply. All erosion control measures should be designed to be consistent with the Chanhassen Best Management Practices handbook. Watershed District approval is required. Streets The major thoroughfare (Street A) is designated as an east/west collector street providing future connection from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. According to the City's ordinance, collector-type streets shall be constructed 36-feet wide face-to-face with an 80-foot wide right-of- way. The plans proposed what appears to be a 36-foot wide back-to-back street within a 60-foot right-of-way. Staff is comfortable in granting a variance for this right-of-way in an effort to minimize setback and tree preservation. The plans propose a typical roadway section for Street Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 19 A of 36-foot wide back-to-back. Staff recommends that the street be widened to 36-foot wide gutter-to-gutter to accommodate two 12-foot lanes and one 10-foot parking lane. The concrete _ sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Street A. The sidewalk is proposed to be constructed within one foot of the property line. This will leave a 41/2-foot green space between curb and sidewalk. The plans propose a series of landscaped islands in the cul-de-sac as well as in the center median on Street A at the Trunk Highway 41 entrance. Engineering Department staff strongly recommends removing the island median in the cul-de-sacs. This creates snow plowing problems, safety hazards and possible liability risks to the City. The Public Works Superintendent has indicated that the islands as proposed will restrict movements of the plowing equipment and require the plows to make pass between the island and the curbs, thus piling most of the snow in the homeowners' driveways. City plow crews typically utilize the entire cul-de- sac so as not to pile the snow in the homeowners' driveways. These islands will also create a — parking problem. The street will have to be posted no parking to accommodate turning movements of garbage trucks, school buses and delivery vehicles, etc. Without the island, the vehicle would be able to maneuver to negotiate the cul-de-sac turning radius. — As we are all aware, cul-de-sacs are fully utilized by the neighborhood children as play areas. The island will only be a magnet for children to play in and around. This will create a safety hazard with regards to vehicles utilizing the cul-de-sac not being able to see around the other side or when a homeowner is backing out of their driveway. The islands serve no purpose for traffic delineation, therefore, may result as a liability issue on behalf of the City. Islands also create added maintenance responsibility for the City. The applicant may desire to have the association maintain these islands. While Lundgren Bros.' developments appear to have cooperative homeowner associations, other developments may not. By allowing the island areas, the city is opening the door to all developments in the city. Engineering Department staff predicts the city will become overwhelmed with maintenance responsibilities requiring additional staff & equipment. The center median proposed along Street A at the entrance off Trunk Highway 41 has some of the same problems as previously mentioned. In addition, Outlot F at sometime will be built on and thus the vehicle will have to do u-turn at the first intersection in order to gain access to its lot. The applicant should delete the island median and construct an entry-type monument which should be place on one of the corner lots (Outlot A or F). There currently exists a driveway to serve the existing building located on Lot 1, Block 6. This driveway will have to be relocated to access off Street A. Staff predicts turning movements at Trunk Highway 41 and Street A will require roadway improvements on Trunk Highway 41 such as deceleration and acceleration lanes and/or bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41. The applicant shall incorporate these improvements into the street construction plans accordingly. An Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 20 access permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for work proposed in MnDOT right-of-way. Street grades range from 0.80% to 6.49 which is in accordance with City codes. Street B is proposed as a 1500-foot long dead-end street. Staff strongly recommends that Street I be extended to connect with Street G. The applicant is already proposing to extend sewer and water utilities along the same alignment. From a traffic engineering and safety standpoint, it is only prudent to have these two streets connected also. Miscellaneous Addresses for the existing homes in the subdivision as well as the businesses will need to be changed when the new streets are completed adjacent the property. Plans propose erosion control barriers adjacent to the wetlands. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher quality types of wetlands. There appears to be an existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. The applicant will need to resolve vacating the private road easement prior to final plat. The preliminary plat proposes drainage easements over all of the existing wetlands within the subdivision except for those on the outlots. Staff recommends that the applicant provide drainage and conservation easements over all wetlands including those on the outlots. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. Park and Recreation Commission The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal on August 11, 1992. A copy of the staff report presented that evening is attached. Residents were present at this meeting, as was Mr. Mike Pflaum, representing Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. One concern of the commission was in regard to the association or "private" park. It was their desire that the applicant be required to comply with the requirements of the 1992 Americans With Disabilities Act(ADA) and the 1992 U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines for Playground Safety. The expectation that the applicant comply with the commission's request is reasonable. Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Schroers moved that the City Council require full park and trail dedication fees in the absence of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. At the time of permit application, the current fees are $500 and $167 per lot, respectively. The above recommendation being contingent upon: 1. The applicant indicating their intent to develop the private park area as indicated on the general development plan. Lundgren Bros. Hwy. 41 Proposal August 19, 1992 Page 21 — 2. The applicant supply a 20 foot wide easement for potential future trail construction purposes along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Highway 41. 3. The inclusion of the private park does not diminish the requirements for public recreation and open space as part of a subdivision, therefore, no credit will be considered for the inclusion of this private facility. Mr. Pflaum did request that upon development of a trail along Highway 41, any unused portions of the trail easement be vacated. Staff acknowledged that this request would be honored but only for portions of the easement for which vacation would be reasonable. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The City is currently reviewing amendments to the Wetland Protection Ordinance. These amendments were initiated due to new state regulations and new information on treatment and protection of wetlands. The proposed standards contain innovative guidelines which staff feels appropriate to apply to this proposal. By reviewing the proposal as a PUD, the city is able to apply different standards from the existing city code if deemed beneficial. The current city ordinance on wetland protection protects all wetlands of type 2-8, any size. If there is any proposed alteration to a wetland, it must be mitigated with an equal amount of area. All structures are required to maintain a 75' setback from the edge of the wetland. The proposed ordinance protects all wetlands of type 1-8, any size. This requires equal mitigation in area for a wetland of equal value or mitigation in the form of an improved wetland. The city's wetlands have been mapped and classified as either pristine, natural or ag/urban. Each classification has different standards in terms of setbacks, buffer strips and mitigation. One of the major changes in the new wetland ordinance is that the wetland setback has been reduced and a buffer strip, which is landscaped with native vegetation and protected by easement, has been added. There is strong evidence that this provides significantly higher levels of — protection for the wetland while improving the homeowners flexibility to use his or her lot. The following is a brief summary of the new standards: Pristine wetland- High quality wetland with unique features and little or no existing alterations. The pristine wetland basically cannot be touched and is further protected from adjacent development by a 100' setback and a 75' buffer strip which is required to contain native vegetation throughout the whole buffer strip. Natural wetland - High to moderate valued wetlands that have experienced some alteration, but — offer or can be improved to offer high wetland values and functions. These wetlands may be impacted by development only when the city finds there is no reasonable or prudent alternatives. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 22 Wetland mitigation must be designed to offer improved value and function and should not receive untreated surface water drainage. The Natural wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 10'- 25' buffer strip which is 1/2 native vegetation. AG/Urban wetland - Moderate to low valued wetlands which may be impacted by development contingent upon the provision of mitigation/replacement plans. The city encourages replacement/mitigation plans which improve value and function to allow reclassification to a Natural wetland. The Ag/urban wetland is protected by a 40' setback and a 0'-15' buffer strip with optional native vegetation requirements. Utilized - Water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland qualities. No setbacks or buffer strip. The site contains 10 wetland basins. There are three natural wetlands (3, 5 and 6) and the remaining seven wetlands are ag/urban (la, lb, lc, 2, 4, 7, 7a, 8, 9 and 10). Wetlands 1A, 1B, 3A and 6 will be preserved. The applicant is proposing to slightly alter two of the three natural wetlands (3 and 5). The applicant is proposing to fill .25 acres of wetland 3. The area proposed for fill is a narrow drainage way which is part of the larger natural wetland. The area is proposed to be filled for a street and building pads. Staff does not object to this portion of the wetland being filled. The northerly portion of wetland 5 is proposed to be excavated for a storm water pond (.12 acres). The report prepared for the applicant by Summit Envirosolutions stated that the northerly portion of wetland 5 is an appropriate location for the proposed storm water pond. Staff has reviewed our wetland data and agrees the northerly portion of wetland 5 could be used for a ponding area. The storm water entering the pond is proposed to be pretreated and released into the wetland at the predeveloped runoff rate. The Engineering Department is concerned that the proposed ponding area may not be large enough for a 100 year storm. Should the ponding area be required to be larger, the additional ponding area must go to the north and cannot additionally impact wetland 5. The small area of fill to wetland 8 (.06 acres) is a result of street construction. The street is shown in this location so that a future connection to the east will be feasible. Therefore, the street cannot be moved to prevent any alteration to wetland 8. The applicant is proposing to completely fill wetlands 4, 7, 7a and to partially fill and excavate wetlands 1C, 2, 8, 9, and 10. After visiting the site, review of our wetland survey and the applicant's environmental assessment, it appears that the applicant is proposing to fill wetland areas which are in a degraded state and can be enhanced or replaced elsewhere on the site. The following table summarizes the proposed alterations: WETLAND AREA ALTERED REASON 1C .16 acres excavation for storm water pond 2.05 acres 2 .05 acres excavation for storm water pond Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 23 - .21 acres ' filled for street 3 .25 acres filled for street and building pad - 4 .17 acres filled for building pad 5 .12 acres excavated for storm water pond 7 .22 acres drained for lot - 7A .08 acres drained for lot 8 .06 acres filled for street 9 & 10 1.23 acres filled for street, park, building pad and excavated for storm water pond TOTAL AREA ALTERED 2.97 acres For mitigation, the applicant is proposing to create 2.97 acres of wetland. The proposed wetland areas are located within the large wetland located along the southerly border and to the south of "C" street. Attached to this report are details on the proposed mitigation. The proposed wetland mitigation replaces the altered wetlands in acreage but with some changes could greatly enhance the quality of the wetlands on the site. The proposed wetland just south of "C" street and directly adjacent to Hwy. 41 is receiving runoff through a tile line from Hwy. 41 and land across from Hwy. 41. This runoff will provide water to the wetland. The design of the pond is such that it could take on characteristics of a Natural wetland (6' depth, natural contours, etc.). Staff is recommending that the drain tile leading out of the new wetland to wetland la not be replaced. This will prevent water from being drained out of the wetland. If the applicant has a reason for _ the tile line remaining these should be presented to staff, but if there is no reason for the tile line, it should be removed. There is an existing source of water entering wetlands 7 and 7a from the Song property. This water is clean and is at a high enough rate to be present even during dry periods. The applicant is proposing to drain these wetlands for the creation of two lots and to redirect the drainage to the rear of the house pads and into the newly created storm water pond at the rear of lots 29 and 30, Block 2. Staff has concerns with drainage being directed to the rear of building pads because it is protected by an easement which prevents the use of this area by the resident and there is still a good chance that the basements could be flooded. Redirecting the drainage to the storm water pond is also a waste of clean, high quality runoff which would better serve the wetlands adjacent to lots 27 and 28, Block 2. Therefore, staff is recommending the runoff currently entering - wetlands 7 and 7a be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to lot 28, Block 2. Staff also noted that one of the submitted plans (wetland boundary and setback) still shows wetland 7 and that the lots can meet the required setbacks with the wetland being maintained. Another plan (wetland mitigation) shows wetland 7 being drained and removed. If wetland 7 can remain without affecting the lots, staff is recommending that this be done. The water entering the site will then continue to enter wetland 7 and the drainage can then be piped from wetland 7 to the new wetland to the south. This will result in less drainage problems to the house sites and be better for the water passing through the site. - Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 24 To further enhance the wetland mitigation proposed adjacent to wetland la, lb and lc, staff is recommending the three proposed wetland basins have more depth than what is proposed (at least 6') and that the proposed wetlands to the north and south of wetland lc be combined with wetland lc and that this entire basin have a depth of at least 6'. Currently the proposed mitigation with the three basins will result in similar wetland characteristics as what currently exists within wetlands la, lb and lc. These wetlands are Ag/Urban type wetlands with monotypic vegetation and no open water. What staff is proposing will result in wetlands with natural wetland characteristics with more benefit to wildlife and which will be more aesthetically pleasing to the residents. The materials excavated from wetland is for the storm water pond and from increasing the depth of the wetland can be placed in the newly created wetlands as an excellent base to the wetland and source of seeds for wetland vegetation restoration. The applicant has submitted a plan titled wetland boundary and setbacks. This plan illustrates the wetland boundaries and the proposed setbacks. The applicant has also submitted detailed information on each lot with a wetland as far as the buffer strip width and wetland setback (see compliance table). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat (#92-4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following conditions: 1. Lots 22-24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58-61, 66-72, Block 2 shall maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. 2. Each lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each principal structure, including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right-of-ways from 60' to 50' and reduce the cul-de-sac radius from 120' to 100'. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 25 — 4. The Iandscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy. 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. — 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff. 6. The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2, shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. 7. Outlot F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. — 8. The area shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy — vegetation. 9. The applicant shall provide "as-built"locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees as the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction along _ the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Hwy. 41. 11. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for construction of the lift station within the development. 12. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant shall extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual — sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 13. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer — system is operational. 14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 26 and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. 15. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR and MnDOT. 17. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas as well as show locations of existing and proposed drain tile systems. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10- year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each side of drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. In those areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 20. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6. 21. The applicant shall construct a 36-foot wide gutter-to-gutter urban street section along Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31-foot wide back-to-back). - 22. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). 23. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher-quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds. 24. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 27 — 25. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots. — 26. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee — construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. — 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de-sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This will depend on the size of the cul-de-sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul-de-sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. _ 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit#92- 9 with the following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland lA shall not be replaced. 2. The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to Lot 28, Block 2. If possible, Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location. 3. The 3 proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands 1A, 1B and 1C shall have a depth of at least 6 feet. The proposed wetlands to the north and south of Wetland 1C shall be — combined with Wetland 1C and this entire basin shall have a minimum depth of at least 6 feet. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner August 12, 1992 Page 28 4. A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffer strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. 5. The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum average buffer strip required is being provided and shall provide details on how the vegetation requirement of the buffer strip is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffer strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. 6. All conditions of preliminary plat and rezoning." ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 19, 1992. 2. City Council minutes dated September 14, 1992. 2A. Applicant's proposed changes to concept plan recommendations. 3. Tree removal table. 4. Compliance table. 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 30, 1992. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman October 1, 1992. 7. Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 1, 1992. 8. Narrative from applicant. 9. Plans dated September 8, 1992. Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 43 PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PUD FOR 113 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 63 (NET ) ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41 , ADJACENT TO BMT AUTOMOTIVE (7305 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD ). LUNDGREN BROS. DEVELOPMENT ON JOHNSON/DOLEJSI/TURNER PROPERTY . Public Present: Name Address Tim Oas 7305 Hazeltine Blvd . Tim Keane 7900 Xerxes So . , Bloomington Dean Simpson 7185 Hazeltine Blvd . Don Roy 7205 Hazeltine Blvd . David Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Blvd . Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Blvd . Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparal Lane Linda Carlson Galpin Blvd . Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros . Development Company John Uban Dahlgren , Shardlow & Urban Ron Peterson Summit Envirosolutions Ken Adolf Schoell and Madsen Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Jo Ann , you 're recommending that we approve the concept? Thank you and welcome back . Does anyone have any questions before we hear from the applicant? Farmakes : Has the type of tree cover , has the city evaluated the tree cover that 's proposing in your recommendations that they not build through? That they eliminate some of these lots . Has the types of woods been evaluated? Olsen: Right , the applicant has provided on some of the plans . I think it 's on the grading plan you can see where there 's detailed trees that have been shown and yes , we have looked at some of those areas . Farmakes : I couldn 't discern what exactly was on there . Olsen: We did request a cleaner copy which we got today which shows — without all the grading and everything on it , which shows specific to what the trees are . I have not had a chance to: look at that closely . We just received it today . Emmings : Have you looked at connecting the cul-de-sac at the end of Street B? Whether it makes any sense to preserve the option of connecting that to the east? Olsen: Which one was that? Emmings : Whether the cul-de-sac that 's at the end of Street B , whether it makes any sense to look at preserving options for connecting that to the east or the one at the end of the Street 3 or connecting it to the south . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 44 Olsen: Right . We looked at all of those to see whether there should be future connections and we found that due to topography and to existing wetlands , that we should not be . The topography going east of the B cul-de-sac was fairly extreme and the connections would not have been possible . And Dave looked at that closely . Emmings : And south out of that cul-de-sac on J , is that wetlands down there? Olsen: Again that 's wetlands . That large wetlands . Emmings : So if they develop the property to the south of that that 's in the 1995 study area , that will have it 's entrance off of the new road? - Okay . Batzli : I guess Terry , if you have a slide show and a presentation for tom. Please proceed . Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair , members of the Planning Commission , my name is Terry Forbord . I 'm Vice President of Land Development with Lundgren Brothers in Wayzata . 935 East Wayzata Boulevard . Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this evening on this proposal . At this time I think I need to say that we 're a little confused because I believe- our application was for a concept plan , a preliminary plan and I think ot. application shows that and certainly our fees do and this was the first that I realized that this was just a concept approval because I believe our application was otherwise , to the best of my knowledge anyway . With us this evening I have a development team that I 'd like to introduce to you . To my immediate left is Mr . John Uban of Dahlgren , Shardlow and Uban . To his left is Mr . Ron Peterson of Summit Envirosolutions . And to his left s Mr . Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madsen . He is our civil engineer . Ron will has done all of the wetland delineation on this property and he can address all those issues . Our land use attorney Mr . Bruce Mulkerson has a confli—t this evening and he may be here shortly . I thought that prior to me turning the presentation over to Mr . Uban , I should give you just a little bit of background . Most of you know who we are . Some of you may not but. we 've been in the community already for approximately 12 years and Lundgr n Bros . has developed over 23 years , approximately 2 ,200 single family detached dwellings in the metropolitan area . Primarily in the western suburbs . Also there has been hundreds of multi-family and commercial - projects developed by the company. Approximately 75% I 'm guessing of the e have been planned unit developments . The planned unit development within your community that you may be most familiar with is the Near Mountain planned unit development , half of which is in the city of Chanhassen . Tt- other half , the northerly half being in the city of Shorewood . And like I said , that approval was obtained here I believe somewhat around 12 years ago and we are just finishing the final phases of that . John , would you e so kind to run the slide machine for me . I 'm just going to talk very briefly just about our planned unit developments , and Near Mountain in particular because it 's easier for me to refer to that being that you may- be most familiar with it . It 's approximately 300 and some acres . 360 acres . Approximately 450 dwelling units and there 's a number of reasons of why we did that as a planned unit development . Primarily because it allows flexibility and design and for us to achieve an objective while being at Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 45 the same time sensitive to the existing land features . Typically , as you all know , we provide a great deal of detail in our entrance monumentation . It 's point of arrival to our neighborhoods . And as you know , the PUD oftentimes allows you to have some open space where you can provide other amenities that you may not see typical in other standard subdivisions . These particular slides are going to be of homes in the Near Mountain neighborhood . These lot sizes that you are going to see range in size from 8 ,500 square feet to about 11 ,000 square feet . Lot width at the setback of 55 feet to 75 feet . And these are homes in an established neighborhood . They 've been tucked into the trees . A great deal of care was given , even 12 years ago before most people were attempting to do that . And these slides represent examples of that . Now you 'll see in this particular slide in Chestnut Ridge , even though there are 9 foot setbacks on the house side and 6 foot on the garage side , you will see that this is probably about a 30 foot amount of space between these two dwellings and that is because it 's on a curvalinear street or it may be on a cul-de-sac . This is another home with a 20 foot front yard setback . 9 foot on the house side . 6 foot on the garage side . This home was featured on the front page of Better Homes and Gardens . This is another example of the type of homes that we 'd be producing within a neighborhood community that we have before you this evening . Again , it 's the same setbacks . This particular lot is a 55 foot wide lot and is 8 ,500 square feet . That 's another example of a home where this one is more in an open area . This particular street where you 've seen most of these homes has been featured in three national publications . Many of you may not know this but the reason it was featured was because of the environmental sensitivity that was used in the design of this neighborhood on a small lot product in a wooded area . And again this is 12 years old and the city of Chanhassen , even 12 years ago was on the cutting edge of developing planned unit developments in the United States . This is an example of how you have a steep topography , terrain . Significant wooded area where you nestle a home into that area with the least impact on the environment as possible . You can see , if you look closely in the shaded area under the trees on the left side , that that is a boulder wall . A retaining wall that enabled to limit the amount of grading on this particular building pad . This is another example of something . There 's not a lot of grading here but just right in the front of that sidewalk we were able to put in some retainage and maintain the least impact possible to that significant tree . This is a home that 's typical of an open area in Chestnut Ridge and it 's not unlike the homes that we would be proposing in this planned unit development . And likewise with this . We showed you earlier one of the entrance monuments to Chestnut Ridge . This is an entrance monument to Churchill Farms which is in Plymouth . Now one of the things we try to do is a little bit better: job every year in the way we identify our neighborhood communities . The reason that we 're showing you this , as the next slide will show, is that this isn 't a very good shot of it but it has the split entrance . There 's a median in the middle that 's vegetated or plantings and flowers . Petunias . All of our entrances are irrigated so they stay green during the growing season . And you can see , if you look closely , that it 's a very grand entrance and this is very similar to the type of entrance that we would be proposing for this neighborhood community . This gives you a little closer shot of the median . Now the medians are , most of you are familiar with them . They 're all over the Twin Cities . It 's not , if you ask any public works department or any engineering department in any city , anywhere in the United States , they Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 46 will tell you they prefer not to have them . The reason that we put them in is because we don 't design them primarily just for engineering purposes . We design them for people . It softens the entrance . It gives you a ver)i very nice point of arrival . The neighborhood community that we are proposing this evening has a private park . This is something new for us in the city of Chanhassen , although we 've been doing it for years in other communities . We haven 't had a new development here that was large enough in order for us to provide a facility like that . But what we do is we go in at the very beginning . Before all the homes are built , we put in totlots similar to this . This is a $30 ,000 .00 structure that was install d in Churchhill Farms in Plymouth . We put in tennis courts , basketball hoops , volleyball courts and we do those things at the very front end . And it provides our homeowners with something that they can't get anyplace else . It certainly increases the appreciation value of their homes and insures that their investment will be well protected and then when they go to resale their home , they stand a very , very chance of competing very well with all the other homes on the market . I won 't get into elaborating in detail about Lundgren Bros . because most of you know who we are . We try Lo do a good job in the city . Every project that we do we go back . We assess it . Try to determine what we could have done better . It 's very interesting if you look at Near Mountain and the newer neighborhood communities we 've developed since then . There 's a significant difference . There 's more open space . We 're trying to do a better job . This is not (- departure from that . The proposal before you this evening is very , very low density . Has a lot of open space . A lot of things that we wouldn 't be required to do . We 're trying to provide a neighborhood community that is- different sdifferent than what the buying public can buy someplace else . At this time I think it 's , I should just tell you , in case you may have forgotten , that we 've been working with the city on this proposal for 2 to 3 years . I was going to look up the date before I came and I just didn 't have time . I was trying to prepare a presentation but it took place when all of you we e adopting the comprehensive plan . You may recall at the last minute you included this property into the comprehensive plan for reasons that you - already know and so it 's been a long process and now the feasibility studies are being done for the sewer and water . We have had numerous meetings with staff over the last 2-3 years on this proposal and now we _ finally have the opportunity to present it to you . With that , I will tur the meeting over to Mr . John Uban of Dahlgren , Shardlow and Uban . He will be presenting and conducting the presentation for Lundgren Bros . and we will be then also utilizing the other two consultants to talk about engineering and wetlands . Thank you . John Uban: Thank you Terry . What I would' like to start with is give you- an overview of the site so you can see it from the air . Get some feeling about the natural features because that is really what 's driving the uniqueness and the difficulty on the site and the flexibility that we 're requesting in the PUD . How to get around trees . Work with the rolling terrain . The wetlands . All these things come to play and at the same time , take these things that are difficulties and make amenities . Make actually very positive open spaces that enhance the neighborhood that we '--e creating . This aerial shows generally , if you were over TH 5 looking across toward the land , on the far right corner is CR 17 I believe and then you can see the lakes and so forth in the background . And just below what looks like a cultivated field , that is the northern boundary of the Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 47 property and the property then comes all the way to the south on down to the wetland . This is looking from the north . Looking back toward TH 5 which is right at the top of the picture . We see TH 41 as the large highway running through and once again that cultivated field that forms the - northern edge of the property . Along TH 41 we have just one opportunity for access and we have trees . We 're working inbetween trees . There 's an industrial site there that we will be removing . Taking out a non- - conforming use . Parts of the areas you can see are wooded . It 's mixed . Very rolling and through all of this we 're trying to locate a collector road as sensitively as possible , which has to go from TH 41 and through the adjacent property . Once again we 're looking at the site from the south , approximately over TH 5 and in the center of the picture you can see the property and then there 's a line that separates the property from the adjacent property which is a power line . And this forms the eastern edge of the property . And forms a sort of barrier that we have to incorporate into our platting . Terry Forbord: John , maybe we could pause there for a minute and just show where the collector goes . John Uban: Yeah , if you could trace generally where the collector road — will go . We 're going through and there are wetlands and rolling hills and lakes and we have to follow really a very specific course and then we miss wetlands . Come down through the property and back out to TH 41 . And as we go specifically into the plan you 'll see how this has to snake through the terrain . Batzli : On this picture , where is the proposed PUD in the future , can you point where that is on that page? Terry Forbord : You mean the outlot? Batzli : Yeah . Terry Forbord: To the south . That property . . . ( There was a tape change at this point in the presentation . ) John Uban: . . .we have a power line and then we have a wetland and this is the area where the collector road is going to come through and link what is called the Song property directly to the east with this parcel . And you can start seeing some of the wetlands and so forth that are in that area where we 're trying to meander our road . Just another general photograph from looking at the site . Another one from the north looking back onto it . Terry Forbord: . . .the Johnson property . John Uban: That gives you an overview and I will now use the overhead projector and go through the various drawings . The subject property , approximately 95 acres . This shows the surrounding property and it also shows the general location of the proposed collector and this is located — really to meander through the property and miss all the wetlands and so forth in that area . The comprehensive plan places this area just north of the study area , as brought out before and we 're at 113 lots and if you Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 48 looked at the net density and translated that into maximum , it 'd be about twice that amount , so we 're really at a fairly low level to begin with . The kind of density that we 're anticipating on the property . Existing conditions on the property and if you recall the photographs that we look , we saw that here were the wooded areas in green . Along in here . Down on the southern edge . Here 's the wetland that forms the southern edge . We - have inside of this various different kinds of wetlands . There 's a varie y of qualities and these are the ones that we 're trying to get through , miss , mitigate where we have to fill and at this point I 'd like to , here 's our - line , power line that goes through the western edge and in orange , here 's the industrial use and here 's the existing house . And you can see some other trees that are just single lines which was also incorporated which were planted with the homestead . And all of this is' folded into our - approach to the property . The wetland conditions , we 'd like to have Ron tell you now how that mitigation and which wetlands are being treated in different fashion . Ron Peterson: Thank you John . The wetland resources on this site were locked at in some detail , almost from the outset and delineated or staked_ in the field and surveyed in so these are pretty precise boundaries . The e is approximately 10 wetland basins on the site . The reason I say approximately is that some of these basins are remnants of larger basins where you have two remmants of what formerly was one basin . The reason f-r that is that this entire site has been very heavily tiled for agricultura use . And virtually every wetland on this site has tile graded to some pipe . For that reason , some of these wetlands have been greatly benefitted by the tile drainage . Other ones have been virtually eliminated . What we have tried to do in the process of laying out the plans for the site , we tried to , besides from just avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts in general , we 've attempted where we can avoid impacts , to orient those impacts towards the most degraded basins . So that the more pristine or natural basins on the site are the ones that we had the most emphasis on preserving . There 's approximately 24 acres of wetland on the site so out- of 9E acres , that 's roughly a quarter of the property . The impacts that are associated with the proposed layout are 2 .81 acres . The . . . approximately 60% of that , involves this wetland in the center of the _ property . I think that in your packet it labels it as basins 9 and 10 . That area is probably the most graded wetland on the site and in fact whe. we looked at it , we spent a lot of time scratching our heads deciding whether or not it really met the prairie wetland criteria in the first place . The reason for that is because it 's extensively tiled . Tile drainage flowing to the south and into this larger wetland complex of the development . I think the City 's wetland consultant has also looked at th"s area and he had similar reaction . . .difficult to make a determination . . . o upland versus wetland on that development . But as you can see , we 've tried to limit our impacts as much as possible to the most degraded basins on the site . The one on the far left , we 're attacking the uphill of that basin . Again , part of that basin was formed mainly by tile drainage from upwards to the north . The third . . . is man made drainage swale that carries drainage from the face of the three . The next one over is a small seepage flooded basin and then the last one on your far right is the remnant of a drained wetland that once existed at the edge of the property . The only reason there 's any wetland vegetation there at all is , does that help? The only - reason there 's any wetland vegetation in that area at all is because then, Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 49 is this drainage coming in from off site to the east . That 's still flowinc into that area and because of the extensive tile drainage underneath that area , water flows onto the site and essentially disappears . Percolates into the ground and enters this tile system . Comes out through a ditch down into the wetlands to the south . The blue areas , which Ken can address in more detail , are proposed storm water ponding locations . In developing our wetland mitigation areas , we have kept those separate from the storm water ponding needs of the site so as to avoid routing speed runoff into our mitigation areas . We 've shown a series of locations along the south end of the site trying to keep our mitigation areas somewhat isolated from human activities as much as we can and tie them in with the existing wetlands on the site to insure that they 're viable . Those areas , we have done a preliminary grading analysis to make sure that they fit in with the grading that 's needed for the other storm water ponds in the lots . However , we will be refining that as we get into the detailed design process and there may be some refinements to those areas as we move forwarc if we find that we can actually reduce impacts further as we get into more detail . Then we may modify some of those . The mitigation that we 've showr is at a 1 to 1 acreage ratio to what 's being effected . I would say that the quality of what we 're going to end up with in the form of mitigation areas and the number of cases on the site , far outweighs the value of the wetland remnants that we 're replacing . Each wetland will have a conservation easement around it . Both the portions of the existing wetlands that are being preserved as well as the mitigation of wetlands that we 're creating . I think that 's all the comments I have . Any questions? Batzli : I think we 'll probably have some a little later . Thank you . John Uban : What I 'd like to do now is really go through the attributes of the PUD . Why we 're doing it this way . What we 're trying to create from a design point of view and how we see a neighborhood being created here and the sort of uniqueness and the flexibility that we hope will meet with your approval . This is important to us . How this all works together is part of the creative nature of planning but it 's real important because what we do is really create neighborhoods and it 's this process that 's very important to us . This is the general layout and you can see that what we're trying to do , as you recall the slides , that we 're trying to adhere to the topography of the area the best we can . Yet at the same time , incorporating a collector road through the site . Using cul-de-sacs to reach up into the areas that do not have access from other directions . We 're also reaching down into the areas along the wetlands for really the nice homesites . So we look at it , where do homes really want to be . Where would they naturally want to set and then build a road system to serve those homesites . And we 're also preserving woods . Of course staying out of wetlands and through this process , we have an existing home we 're saving . We 're building on the front edge entrance . Boulevard conditions . We 're bringing people in on a bridge that comes across this connection to the wetland . This bridge system really starts to make this neighborhood a special place and where all these things have to work together to make a nice design . This collector road, as talked about earlier , as it goes through our property . Here we 've shown how it has to miss the wetlands and we have some high points and steep grades . in the north so we actually go through here missing all the significant features and placing it in the Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 50 best place possible . This is how we 've organized this area and pre-studiec then the future connection . The overall impact , and I think some good _ points were brought up in the staff report and we are endeavoring to do better as we start our grading . But what we have seen and what we can dL by some adjustments . Some of them were pointed out . Making sure our homes or design of each individual home meets the site by grading our road sys'-?R but trying to leave as much of the wooded sites ungraded so we actually • it a home to that site . Doing that kind of approach , really a tailor made connection between each lot and each home because there are 15 homesites _ that we can show you tonight if you we have time , and how they fit on ea( 1 one of these sites . So what we 've done is we 've calculated with our mos _ sensitive siting and so forth , that out of all the treed areas , we will be preserving about 2/3 of it . And that 's really a , from looking at this _ difficult a site , is doing very well . And this is what we 're striving f. - and we think we can accommodate that . We have very good preservation techniques for actual construction . And we will preserve a fair amount these trees . The important thing is to understand that we also , even though these are trees that are in the backs of lots and so forth . That you saw on the photograph that when we just grade the roads and leave the_ lot , when we match the home , we can save trees up in the front yard too . It 's hard for us to predict at this point exactly what that 's going to bL like but that is how we 've developed in the past . The open space that we 've provided is in a system . We have a large wetlands to the south of course but along the collector road , we 've also located other things . A' i you can see the private park . The front entrance . At the bridge we have this view in towards the wetland . This is part of our entrance feature . - we have a wetland that we 're exposing to the traffic as you drive by . I. is , we don 't want to hide all these in people 's back yards . We want to brine them cut onto the street as much as possible so that your feeling of what the neighborhood is really like . Sharing all the amenities as peop. drive in . And this is important because we have to build roads then because no one has a lot up and we have 1 ,090 feet of frontage on roads that are being built that don 't have a home on it . And that is a lot of - frontage and this is frontage we could otherwise consume as lots and be more efficient . But this is what we think creates a very special neighborhood . And this is part of the flexibility . This is what we 're giving is all this amenity exposed to the public street . Over 1 ,000 feel and we 're looking for in return the flexibility on how we design our lots and make it fit to the site . Part of that , when we look at the different lot sizes . This is just a quick graphic that shows the different sizing The green being the smaller lots and the blue being the large lgts . OveT 3/4 of an acre . The largest lots get up to an acre and a half or so . And what we 've done is those are the ones close to the wetlands or in the her 'y woods on this side . This is up next to the power line but here 's next tc the amenity in the northeast corner . All of these work within the system of creating a variety of lots . This creates a variety of homes . Variety_ of prices . All of which are the goals or attributes you look for in a PL . So it 's this variety that 's very important and trying to adhere to just f instance a 90 foot width on a lot . It 's very important for us to be able to fluctuate from that and that 's what a PUD ought to do . You should mak - sure that it works well and that you can locate lots . For instance , 2/3 f the lots are under 90 feet . Or 1/3 rather., but 2/3 are above that . But one half of the product can sit on those lots that are under 90 feet . And so we have a great variety . A great opportunity to put a lot of differer Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 51 product on these variety of lots . If we went ahead and put in 90 foot lots and figured it also that all the lots had a 20 foot setback because this is designed on a 30 foot setback to begin with and then see where we need the flexibility and so what we looked at is where we have lots around a cul-de-sac for instance . It 's a pie shape and if you move the setback in to 20 feet , which we don 't really anticipate doing , the width actually narrows up considerably but yet the lot is very large . And so this is the flexibility . This is where you have a large lot and sensitive area but you 're really narrowing it up on the front side but you need to match the product to that lot . And so we might lose up to 7 lots if we just tried tc _ make them all 90 feet for instance . And this , on a product around a desigr that already is very low density and already contributing 1 ,000 feet of frontage of road that exposes amenities , it becomes a burden and an edge tc the PUD that is saying , are we really getting the flexibility that allows us to make this kind of design work . And this is just one consideration . Batzli : Is this discussion in response to the staff 's request that you move the front yard setback to 20 feet? John Uban : It 's on all lots . We don 't need it on all lots , especially on cul-de-sacs we don 't need that . We need the flexibility on just certain lots around wetlands . Terry Forbord: We would prefer to have a reduced front yard setback . It makes a lot of sense from an environmental standpoint . It makes a lot of sense from quality of life standpoint for the people who live in these homes . However , there are certain areas where it just doesn 't work . There 's a few number of lots that it doesn 't , and that 's not uncommon to have some degree of flexibility on those difficult lots to adjust . . . John Uban : It 's that flexibility we 're really looking for in the PUD . The flexibility on the side yard setbacks . This shows generally how it really works . Still keeping the separation of 20 feet between buildings . Where we would have a 6 foot setback to a garage , perhaps there is a tree that — happened to fit just off the property line and if we were 10 feet from it , we 'd rather be 14 feet away . You know it 's that kind of adjustment to get away from trees or on curvalinear streets where all the lots are just a little bit different and the home wants to sit straight but it 's not straight to the one next to it . Corners of buildings may come a little bit closer and then we can move the buildings around and this works very well — when you have a developer that develops the lots as well as builds all the buildings . And this gives that adjustment and yet when it 's all done , you don 't notice that it 's any different than .,a normal development . The separation is still there but there 's the flexibility to move it back and forth a little bit with each siting of each home . Terry Forbord: It 's important to note that those are minimums . It 's a minimum of 6 foot on the garage side and a minimum of 9 feet on the house side . If you go to up Near Mountain and took a tape measurer . I would guarantee that you would find very few instances where they are actually that long . But what it does give you is the flexibility as an example that John gave . If there are trees there , a steep slope , you can move that a little bit and that certainly is in step with what the staff and the city have been suggesting as far as preservation . . . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 52 Olsen: But you 're also saying that you will maintain at least 20 feet at all times . Terry Forbord: Correct . And the staff , the PUD ordinance apparently as written is 10 and 10 and the idea probably behind that is that you want to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between homes and we 're assuring you that �hi would have that . John Uban: Specifically on the entrance , I just want to share with you some of the design and how it works . There 's a single spot on TH 41 tha we 've worked out with MnDot where access is appropriate . We 're curving that road in . It comes in and curves around and at that same time you get a view that comes right across into the wetlands and this is part of our entrance . A way to make a dynamic entrance . A special place to live . It 's looking at it just beyond trying to fit a certain number of lots on a piece of property . And right in this area there 's a very large oak tree that we 're going to key on and create this bridge with a large oak and t, r we ' ll have the pond and the wetland and it will be a very nice setting and nice entrance . We are planting along the highway through here where we _ have lots that back up to the highway . The problem here is the highway ': higher than the property . We can 't berm for it . I mean it would create another highway next to a highway practically . So all we can really do is do some planting along the back sides of the property , and that 's what wc- plan to do . Terry Forbord: John , would you please note the outlots at the entrance . Typically we do not believe that it is good practice to put homesites rii it at the entrance to a neighborhood community . If at all possible , we preleT not to . And so this neighborhood community is depicted on the landscape _ plans . Those are outlots that will be vegetated and are planted heavily and s: we 've deleted the homesites from those areas . John Uban: It helps , as people come in . Get a focus towards where we wr-it them to look and see a nice area . It also shows the median that we 're proposing to help separate traffic but at the same time make a very nice entrance . The park area , we 're proposing the skating pond , tennis court ._ snd as you come across this bridge , here 's a big row of evergreen materia that we 're saving to help edge this entryway . Coming in and then focusing once again on open space which is the park area . The double cul-de-sacs that we 've talked about . This design , here are two wetlands you see in little lighter green . This is an upper cul-de-sac and a lower cul-de-sac and they look out over these wetlands . So we were creating these lookout conditions . Really nice sites . Once again looking for where the nicest - sites would be and then creating the road system to work with that . We have explored , as suggested by staff , a method of combining these two . 1 don 't know if I 'll get it to line up perfectly here . In that fashion generally . Connecting those two cul-de-sacs . This is something we will strongly consider . We think the cul-de-sac system gives us really nice home sites but if there 's a strong need to connect and the City really wants us to , we will look at this and see what adjustments we can make . -e would prefer of course to keep the cul-de-sacs . Terry Forbord: Now we do concur with the city engineering department that moving the water and we would not be opposed to running the sewer through Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 53 those cul-de-sacs down that ravine . Actually that would be beneficial to us . . . However , the main purpose for the cul-de-sacs is that 99 .99 people out of 100 would prefer to live on a cul-de-sac is you gave them that opportunity . And that 's why we 're showing it like that . We actually gain a homesite by connecting the road but it 's not a deal breaker by any means for Lundgren Bros . if you demand that we connect those . We just think it would make a nicer neighborhood . John Uban : Also , part of our system of cul-de-sacs . There 's another element that 's important to us and that is the development of the landscape island . This island really breaks up that large expanse of asphalt that often ends up there and that 's usually the most negative part of a cul-de-sac system . People love to be on cul-de-sacs . They like the privacy and so forth but that expanse of asphalt is usually the part that people don 't like and we have worked in other communities . We 've worked it Burnsville for instance since they became a city . We 've been their consulting planner and we 're making a list of all the cul-de-sacs and we found that it 's several pages long which have islands and it really enhanced the city as a whole and it 's a very nice way of breaking up these cul-de-sacs . We have some slides to show you . In addition , we just want to point out that we 've studied this in detail working with the standards of a city . Making some adjustments . Working within the right-of-way that this will accommodate most trucks and firetrucks and so forth . The turninc radius while maintaining an island in the center . And I think this detail will be able to work out with city engineering . Oftentimes it 's the people who plow snow , do maintenance and so forth that wish they didn 't have to gc around something . It slows them down . But in reality is , they aren 't that much more difficult to plow . That really an island absorbs the snow . VOL don 't have to plow the snow off the island and it actually provides a place , when properly constructed , to place snow. And we 'll show you some slides on how that works , and all of these are maintained by the homeowners association . All the open space . All the recreational facilities . All the medians . All the entryway features . All the landscaping that is common to everyone , which includes these islands . And it is there . They pay fees and it works very well . If I could just turn this off , I don 't think we ' ll conflict without moving . These are just medians and roads . This would be similar to the median we proposed at our entrance but you car see how it really would break up and help create and define views as you enter first into the subdivision . But designed in such a fashion that it allows good sight .distances out to the highway. Those two things must work together . Here 's an island in the center of a cul-de-sac . You can see this particular one is elevated . You pile snow around the edges of it . It is not , it doesn 't have to be grass . Gravel works out very well so you don 't have to mow it . The snow doesn 't kill it . Maintenance is much lower and then you plant trees and so forth and what it does then , is here 's a planted island from the ground and you can see , instead of driving down a cul-de-sac and seeing many garages , that will be broken up . You 'll see the plantings in the center . And this really does a great job of creating a nice setting for the cul-de-sac system . Terry Forbord: I think it 's appropriate to point out that the myth that people have or misperception that they have that vehicles cannot turn around when there are islands . If you take for instance a semi-trailer . Semi-truck trailer , even without an island in a cul-de-sac they can 't turn Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 54 around . That 's a fact . If you 've ever been in a semi-trailer or if you know anybody , watch them . They cannot turn around in an existing cul-de-sac right now . The island does not become a factor for a moving \-in so to speak . Some of the large fire trucks cannot turn around in a cul-de-sac without an island . So they have to back up anyway. So often times you may have heard the argument that well if there 's an island there , that means they can 't turn around or can 't drive through it , can 't anyth: 1g so I think it 's very important to recognize that . John Uban: The last thing I want to show you and then I 'll have Ken Ado: go through some of the engineering elements , is just what we 've done to further show that we 're adhering to all the setbacks . The setback from wetlands . The buffer edge . Adhering to the useable back yard plus - accommodating a deck on a 40 x 60 pad . And each one of these lots we 've exhibited the wetland in gray , a line around the wetland shows the combination of buffer area and the useable rear yard or setback which is 30 feet , and then we 've shown each one of the homes and a deck that would happen on each one of those lots . And this shows how we 'd . . .regulations and buffer ourselves and separate ourselves from the wetlands . Ron Adolf : I 'm going to briefly discuss the site engineering issues . Tt site is within the MUSA expansion area that was described . The developer or Lundgren Bros . has petitioned the City for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service to the site . The sewer service would cc e from the extension of a gravity trunk main from the Lake Ann Interceptor which is east of Galpin Boulevard . That gravity sewer would be expanded at some point east of the site and then a lift station would be constructed . In discussions with Bonestroo , that would be constructed someplace over i this area . When that lift station would then service the . . .elevation properties both on the site and also east of the site . Property of the - site and that lift station would pump the flow into the gravity sewer . Lateral gravity lines would then extend from that lift station along the streets to serve both lots . The trunk sewer , as well as the trunk water ,_ as I said , that feasibility study is in the process and the current time table on that is .that will be available in 1993 . Water service to the si _e would be provided by a 16 inch diameter trunk watermain which really follows the collector street and continues east through the Song property- and then connects to the water system at the pump house on Galpin Boulevard . Again the lateral lines would be extended from that trunk main . The trunk main would also provide the lateral benefits along the collecto- street . The storm water management plan would consist of accepting the surface runoff in the streets and gutters . Conveying that to some storm sewer . All the storm sewers would discharge into some storm water _ manage-ent ponds which are shown in blue . The number of ponds is really dictated by the amount of relief on the site . It is very difficult to tr. to consolidate the runoff into a central location so each one of these provides treatment of surface runoff prior to discharging into the existi-a wetlands . The storm water management would comply with the City 's curren draft ordinance on the storm water management . On the site grading , the first phase of the development would be on the west side obtaining access_ from TH 41 . TH 41 does have a controlled access and really the location shows whe-e this collector road connection is the only location that is available for access . The site would be graded in phases . Probably a total of five phases over a period of 4 to 5 years . Initially we 'd just Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 55 grade the first phase plus the street alignments that would contain the necessary sewer and water lines to provide service to the first phase . Fo• instance this collector street would need to be graded to allow the watermain construction and some sanitary sewer would be required down to the lift station . The details of the grading plan will be refined . Staff has come up with some good comments in their review and we 're reviewing those comments and trying to really achieve the goals of minimizing the loss of trees and the total grading on the site . I 'd be happy to address any questions later . Batzli : Thank you . Is this a wrap up? Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair , members of the Planning Commission . We actuall' edited our presentation to you this evening because of the lengthy presentation to you earlier so we 've skipped over a number of things that may be of relevancy to you . We have a number of concerns about the recommendations . More importantly I 'm concerned about that we were applying for a preliminary plat and I 'm not exactly sure how to handle tha' at this time . But we are available for questions and I 'm assuming that yo: have a lot of them and we ' ll do the best that we can to answer those . Batzli : This is a public hearing . People in the audience that would like to address the Commission , please step forward to the microphone . Give us your name and address and we would appreciate brevity . Linda Carlson : My name 's Linda Carlson , I live on Galpin Boulevard . I heard the- say that the roads that go through there are public roads . I don 't know if that 's normal or not for a PUD but my feeling is that the parks ought to be public as well . There are no parks in that area for the people in that area . So that was my comment . Paul Youngquist : My name is Paul Youngquist . I 'm at 7105 Hazeltine Blvd . . I 'm the cultivated area on the north side that you saw in the pictures . Boy it 's late and I would not want to be on the Planning Commission . Thanks for doing your job . This might sound like a paid endorsement of this project but unfortunately it 's not paid . But I 'm assuming that this in general is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and I feel pretty lucky that Lundgren Bros . has laid it out the way they have and I 'm pretty well sold on everything that 's been talked about . I like that east/west road . I know the earlier plan called for a much larger road and this is a smaller road in size and it meanders through and respects the contours and the trees and everything . I like the amount of open space . I like the way they 've left existing trees and so forth and I personally appreciate that the larger lots seem to be on the north side and the smaller lots on the south side , although the smaller lots are smaller than I thought they really would be . But having said that , we have a couple of concerns . One is assessments . We were hit for the Lake Ann thing here this last year and I 'm worried about are we going to be hit for something else? I was real pleased to see , I didn 't learn until tonight that things are coming in from the east rather than like coming from the north or something . I 'd encourage you to take a good look at the density and lot size and then I 'd trust you to enforce the wetland regulations . Thank you . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 56 Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Dave Weathers: My name is Dave Weathers . I live at 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard and that 's the. square block which 's marked out as exception on the north side part of it . And I pretty much echo the comments that Pau. had just made . That we are fortunate that the developer that came along has laid it out the way he has . My concerns are the same thing . The density . The amount of what I consider a high density in that area . I '. prefer to see it less possible so I hope you study that as closely as you can . And also I am concerned about the assessments that will come with L . And with that I will make it as brief as possible so I 'll stop there . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Don Roy : I 'm Don Roy , 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard . I 'm on the northwest corner of that property . The only concern I have is the , we all have we`is that are up there at this present time and I wonder what the plans are f hooking up when this comes through and how soon and when will the sewer be available to us if this projects goes in? You will have a little bit of problem I think as far as drainage from these properties . Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Erhart moved , Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : 3oan . Ahrens : I 'm sure my fellow commissioners will be greatly disappointed bt I 'm going to have to abstain on this project from discussion because of conflict of interest . If you want me to talk about something else I will . It 's only 11 : 30 . Batzli : She was the epitome of brief . Okay , Jeff . Farmakes : Did the staff on their recommendations that I read in here in regards to shortening J , eliminating H, connecting G and I . Did you do calculation of the 120 lots , what you envisioned that would reduce them? I mean I did a guesstimate of 6 maybe . Did you calculate that out at al : ' Olsen: No , we did not . Farmakes : So I 'm assuming that some of those comments that you made that you , I believe the time here that you want to discuss that further . I think that the recommendations are right on. Exactly where they should he . It seems to me that the purpose of the PUD , as far as the City goes , is t achieve some of the objectives that were pointed out here tonight . 37% c . those trees it would seem to me would be greatly reduced , that figure anyway if the city 's recommendations were followed . It seems to me percentage wise , lot wise , that would impact on the total amount pretty slight . I 'm not sure on your bottom line .where that falls but from the City 's position I think the comments have been a good recommendation from Planning Com- ' ssion rieeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 57 the staff . As far as the cul-de-sac and connecting I and G . I think that that cul-de-sac is too long as it is without a connection there or a loop . I 'm sure obviously Lundgren is market driven . They 're a successful developer and a good one in this part of town and it helps sell . We certainly know here anyway that it helps sell homes and that 's what people want . The problem of course is that they don 't provide bus transportation . Someone else has to do that for them and pick up their kids and take them to school . They don 't drive an ambulance and some of the other problems that are involved with long , single access cul-de-sacs . I think the City 's recommendation on a connection is a good one . Was there a price range at all mentioned in that report? I couldn 't find one . I was wondering , do you have any information in regards to the pricings since the lot sizes is so different from the bottom to the top? John Uban : We do have a general range . We have the products in a general range . we didn 't show you all of that because of time . Farmakes : So from the bottom to the top in the price range would be? Terry Forbord: In today 's dollars? Farmakes : Yeah . Terry Forbord: And this is subject to change at all times . _ Farmakes : I won 't hold you to it . We won 't close the deal tonight . Terry Forbord: The intent here is , if you study the market in Chanhassen , there is very little housing stock in , it is usually at the extreme . All the way . . . low end and at the high end . And we believe that what Chanhasser probably needs the most of . . .housing objectives , is probably to be , have some housing stock in that $150 ,000 .00 to $250 ,000 .00 range , including lot and that 's our intention . Now we are working on additional assembly of parcels in this area and if that occurs , and it may , then that would be a broader price . There would be some homes in the higher price range and hopefully some homes below that . Although it 's getty very difficult in Chanhassen to do that because of development costs . Farmakes : The other point I wanted to make , is we spent a lot of time discussing the issues of minimum square footage on a single family lot . It seems to me that the ratio here , I guesstimated here that under 15 ,000 , they had about 24 , somewhere in there , of under 15.000 square feet . Olsen: I haven 't done that calculation yet until the preliminary plat . Farmakes : Percentage wise , it seems to me that that would be reasonable . It doesn 't seem to me that they 're taking advantage of that situation . The private park . You said that the Park and Rec had went through that and I 'm not sure that they inquired about the park needs in that area and I 'm not really familiar with park service on that end of town so I guess I have no way to comment on that . Olsen : The way they would have looked at it is that the neighborhood would have been resulting in the need for a neighborhood park and they feel that Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 58 the developer is still providing that . Farmakes : The final comment that I have here , on that lower section that_ you develop , I hope that by that time anyway , is that frontage road woulc come through in that section correct for TH 5? Was that our vision? It wouldn 't meander because on the preliminary section it kind of meandered up a bit . - Krauss: Yeah , we 're not exactly sure where it 's going to go . You have that Bluff Creek system coming in through there . It needs to be defined - whether it 's going to come north or south of that creek . Batzli : Let me ask the question before we move on , on this private park ._ How private is a private park? John Uban : It 's a private park in the sense that the homeowners use it . They maintain it . They own it . They pay taxes on it but it 's pretty - obvious that children know no bounds and friends of friends and so forth , . So in a way , there 's no way to stretch any significant . . .but it is something that is part of that neighborhood . It 's designed to be an amenity that they control . If they want to add another tennis court , it ; up to themselves . They 're in control of their own destiny in that respec.� . Batzli : But there 's no parking there correct? -- John Uban : That is correct . Batzli : So it would be limited to on street if you will . For example I ride my bike from Lotus Lake . I go to the park . Can they kick me out? John Uban: I suppose if you 're drinking beer and being rowdy . Terry Forbord: For most of you who have traveled around the country and this is certainly something that is not uncommon all over the United - States . You don 't see a lot of it in the Midwest . You have to get to Chicago probably to see a lot more of this . We 've been doing it for probably oh 3 to 5 years but we have not done it in Chanhassen because we_ have not had a new neighborhood community in Chanhassen . As I eluded to earlier , we 've gone to great lengths to try to be better at everything that we do everytime we do a new project . You can't do something like this _ either unless you 've got a significant , enough size of a site . We were before you not more than a year ago on what is now called Willow Ridge , c you may recall it as Ortenblat/Ersbo on Lake Lucy Road . And that particular property was not large enough for any type of a park and had a-y type of economic feasibility in it . But more importantly . what we are trying to do as a company is we really don 't have any desire to try to develop real estate and have neighborhood communities that are just like everybody else 's . We can , all of us can get in our cars and drive all o , r the metro area and see plenty of that already . What we try to do and wha_ we 've always tried to do , we 're more a nitch developer . A nitch builder . We 're trying to have something that is a little more upscale I guess or something . A little more special than what everybody else is doing and c r buyer profile , if you look at them or interview them , or even the census data , will show you because it 's that localized now . The data 's so - Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 59 specific , the buyer profile that typically comes into our neighborhoods is willing to pay a little bit more money to have something that 's not just like all of our competition . And we also have found through exit interviews of our homebuyers and we also have found out just by market analyst data that when people sell their homes , they have a much easier time selling it if they have some special amenities in the neighborhood where they live . And so really what we 're trying to do is have a competitive edge over our competition . Create a better neighborhood community . There 's absolutely no doubt that it takes stress off the city 's park system . When we do this . we go in and we build it right away . Now those of you who have worked on the parks commission in the city know that they usually wait until all the people are there and then when there 's enough money , maybe then they build the park . And every city has that problem because there 's just simply not enough money . So what we are doing is we are putting it in immediately so people know that it 's part of the package . The homeowners association controls it and owns it and it 's a real benefit to those people who live there . And it also benefits the cit because it takes some of the financial burden off of them . Batzli : So the operative word there though was the homeowners own it and control it . Terry Forbord: That 's correct . Emmings : I don 't think I have much to add . I guess my observation would be that I think that the staff , the conditions that have been attached her( or put down by the staff are a good list of issues . I 'm not sure that I necessarily agree with , when it says reduce front yard setbacks for all lots on local streets to 20 feet . I don 't know if you want to do that but I think the conditions do a good job of identifying the issues and maybe that 's enough since we 're , this is really a concept plan . Why does he think we 're doing a preliminary plat and the rest of us think we 're doing e concept? Krauss: We 're really not sure . We were under the impression we were in sync on that but it is a PUD . Emmings : We always do a concept review , right? Krauss : Yeah . It 's optional actually . Emmings: Oh really . Krauss: Yeah , it 's optional to do . By typically what we do is we come back in and the same thing with Hans Hagen . You come back in after the concept with the preliminary and plat concurrently at the next round of meetings . And then that would be the last time you see it . Emmings : But as far as , just so we 're clear on what we 're doing , we 're looking at it as a concept? Krauss : It 's set up as a concept . Batzli : It was published as a concept . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 60 Emmings : Okay . Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair? Batzli : Yeah . Terry Forbord: I would like to point out that the ordinance allows an applicant to go through both processes at the same time and we 've done that before with the city and our application I believe it clearly shows that '- what we applied for and the fee structure that we paid for . . . And if it was an error , then so be it but I want to make sure the record 's straight . Emmings : And I guess if we were going to look at this as a preliminary plat at this point , we had an awful lot of conditions and we 've got an awful lot of things that are unresolved and I don 't think I 'd be willing tc do that , but . - Batzli : No . But clearly if they 've paid the fee for the preliminary plat . Olse^ : It 's just one fee for the PUD . Krauss : We went with the unitary fee structure . It 's not broken out . Batzli : So they will not have to pay another fee to go through the preliminary plat? Krauss : Well , we 're always willing to take a developer 's money . Batzli : Ladd . Conrad: A gentleman had a comment about sewer and connecting . Krauss : I think we can try that one . We 've got the feasibility study - being done now and the honest answer is we won 't know the answer until tt feasibility study is completed . Now knowing what we know about how this project is being laid out , there 's not , I won 't say there won 't be any _. assessments off site to the north but I don 't think there will be . The utilities are being brought in from the east . If there 's any benefit accruing directly to lots , it comes through the east side . So as it goes out to Galpin and Lake Ann Interceptor . That information will be availab e when the feasibility study is completed and there 's a public hearing held at the City Council . When that happens , all benefitting properties , all the properties that stand to get an assessment are notified and invited t- come to that public hearing . And the Council makes the final determinati n as to who 's going to be assessed and what will be deferred , if anything . The other question in terms of extending utilities to adjoining lots , that 's something we regularly look at when we get the final engineering done . We look at where it 's appropriate to extend it . I don't know specifically if it will reach some of your properties . Some of them are considerably uphill from the site which makes for difficulty . We usually - terminate these things at property lines and don 't extend it . If you wan to give Dave Hempel in engineering a call in the next couple of days , he can tell you specifically how close he thinks we 're going to get with the utilities . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 61 Hempel : If I just may add to that . I believe the acceptance or consideration of acceptance of the feasibility study is scheduled for September 14th City Council meeting . Conrad: Parks . The Park and Rec has identified , is there a neighborhood park in the area? Krauss: No . Conrad : Will there be? Olsen: Well it wouldn 't be a neighborhood park . What they 're providing is essentially a neighborhood park . What you 're probably thinking about is more of a community area and I don 't know that they have identified a larger park in that area . Aanenson : I think you also should look at the fact that Minnewashta Regional Park is close . Olsen : Kitty corner , yeah . Krauss : This is the first private park if you will that the Park Board has looked at and we didn 't know how to react to it but they were comfortable with it . Keep in mind too that they 're not getting any credit on park dedication so the developer , for the right to do this , is essentially getting hit twice . Conrad: That 's recognizable . There was a comment that said maybe we need parks in the area and I just wanted to follow that up . That somebody livec outside this area . Krauss : The other property in this area that could theoretically benefit from a park is the Song property . Now Lundgren Bros . may or may not work on a coordinated project with that . In the future I know that it 's been discussed . If there is , and if it coordinates with it too , I suppose they would have . . .to this park or another similar one would be built there . If somebody else develops that , I think the Park Board 's going to have to look at having a separate neighborhood park and resolving some of those recreational issues on that site . Conrad: Generally I really like the plan. I think it 's neat . Recommendations from the staff , 5 , 6 , 7 and 8 are pretty absolute and I guess , you know it 's sort of the PUD. We pan slip those . I don't want to slip them in all cases but I think , I 'm not sure I 'm as absolute as maybe the staff is on that and I think there was some things that Terry talked about and other presenters that I think we should listen to . Again , I think we just want to be sensitive to that . My only other two comments , and I 'll probably be all by myself on these . 16 and 17 in the staff report , connecting I and G . I really like how it looks . I just like the cul-de-sacs that way . I think it 's terrific design . If we take a look at what City Council approved at Kurver 's Point and the cul-de-sacs there , we 're not consistent as to how we implement this . I really like this . I like how it makes the neighborhood and I know there 's concerns about that but that 's just my point . I like the center islands . I always have . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 62 I think it makes it attractive and I know there 's no engineering group or maintenance that will say they like it in the world but I like them . Batzli : You like the little islands? Conrad: I sure do . - Batzli : And cul-de-sacs too? Conrad: Yeah . I think they look neat and they can be an asset . So tho e are my two off the wall comments . . . Erhart : Okay , well other than the late hour , I 'd like to say that Lundg -er Bros . , and thank them for really , they 've spent an enormous amount of ti on this in the last , I didn 't realize it was 3 years but they volunteered to come to our wetlands ordinance group and speak to us about this and t64> brought in practically their whole staff on another evening to describe DI, the new ordinance would effect this development . So that 's appreciated guys . And I think the development 's really neat . The difficulties that_ you have here combined with , in light of the fact that actually it 's a beautiful piece of property and this particular piece I think represents e lot of the property that remains to be developed in Chanhassen . I think we really use this as a prototype of what we do with the rest of the city - because what it is is essentially wooded areas that have been , where the trees have been removed from small fields that are high ground surrounded by wetlands and it 's just a lot of , as you walk around Chanhassen , that 'ss, really what all remains in the whole city . So I think we 're learning a )t on how to do this and how to do it right and I 'm pretty confident it 's going to look really neat when it gets done . So just quickly , I 'll just gc through my list . On page 4 that you talked about this exception to the property being designed so that it can be ultimately access from Street but it 's just not clear on the plans to me how that would happen . I 'm not asking for an explanation now . . . Also , again when we go through these P!—) lists of things that we 're looking for , it implies there that we 're actually expecting the developer to react on each one of them and I didn 't think that was our intention of a PUD . That they had to give us something on all of them . . . .ask them now to respond with more and I 'm not sure that 's needed . I agree with Ladd . I see no point in connecting I and G . People want cul-de-sacs . It 's safer . It is safer and these are not long . So I 'd like to see it the way it is , although I guess I 'd like engineerir; again to review the possibility of extending Street B to the end of the property so if it 's possible to hook up later on in what I think is the Song property . Krauss: We looked at that in a lot of depth . Over a period of about a year . Erhart : well I 'm getting used to be disagreed with tonight . One more isn 't going to hurt . Removal of 8 in lieu of private streets . I think we ought to look at doing more of that . I think private streets , when you i---,t in this kind of area with the slopes and the wetlands and stuff , can do e lot to fit things in without destroying things and what you 're giving up there sometimes though is a sharing of some of the things . The nice thin about the streets and cul-de-sacs , it 's sort of a nice , even sharing of t .e Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 63 wetlands over a large number of houses so I think agree that looking at private streets is a good idea , and they do work and they 're used a lot really outside of Minnesota . But when you travel around you see a lot of private streets . I think our ordinance allows what , 3 houses? 4 houses? Krauss: Four . Erhart : The lot widths , we tie that into the 20 foot . Terry , you tried tc tie in the 20 foot setback and correct me if I 'm wrong but I thought what you said is , if you measure the lot width at 20 feet , then it becomes smaller . That 's one of the reasons why you have so many sub-standard narrow lots . I guess my feeling is that I sort of agree with staff that we ought to maintain the 90 foot , although they ought to be measured at the 3C foot setback . So when you get on those lots where you have 20 foot setbacks , it could be less than 90 feet . Then going back to the recommendations where we say reduced front yards on all those streets at 2C feet . You know if we just want to make a carte blanche statement like that , then you 've got to question is our ordinance right . I don 't think our ordinance is wrong . _ Olsen: I intended it more for . Erhart : I think we ought to do it lot by lot . Olsen: Yes , that 's what we . . . Erha -t : Let 's see . I think I 'm now convinced that the idea of just requiring 20 feet between buildings has some merit and would agree with that . I notice I don 't see woodland easement or what do we call it , tree easerents so I 'm pleased with that so far . And hopefully on a later meeting we ' ll have time to discuss trees before this one comes back in . I 'm not suggesting we do it tonight anymore . This foundation plantings anc your rear yard trees is an interesting thing Terry . I don 't know , you must have read the Minutes of the meeting where we discussed in our new PUD . I voted against the PUD because of particularly those two requirements . I didn 't think it made any sense and in discussing with Paul earlier , I think now I understand where we weren 't communicating on this . I viewed the PUD as it is applied against a subdivision where the lots are sold and the people get their own developer and make their own builder and build their own house and I could not visualize how you made the connection between the guy developing the lot and the guy who builds the house were two entirely different people . Apparently you were not thinking that way at all . Your idea was , or most of the Commissioners idea was in this PUD is that the developer also is the builder . Now maybe I 'm wrong . Is the builder always as a developer? See , I didn 't think so . So I think we 've got this first case of a problem , this foundation plantings and your rear yard trees are problematic . I don 't see how we can . it doesn 't seem to make sense to us to have a PUD where we require foundation plantings and rear yard trees because it is unconnected to the subdivision . It 's something that relates to the building itself so I don 't know . I think it 's a good point and maybe we can . Krauss : we 've spoken to Terry tonight about some options for resolving that particular point that I think you 'll wind up agreeing with . You also Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 64 are trying to cover with the ordinance , you 're covering cornfield development too where there isn 't anything and it may be sold off to individuals . But I think we 've got a positive way to work out that issu . Erhart : Okay . My question here in , we talk a lot about saving trees . I_ was a little surprised that someone stated here that we were going to lo: approximately 1/3 of the trees . How do you know this far in advance exactly where the building pad 's going to be to determine how many trees are going to be lost? Can you do that? Do you know where the building - pads are going to be? John Uban: Generally yes . Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros . . Even though we are i the conceptual stage of this , staff usually likes to know so they have an idea of what impact the development may have on the site . And so we tak - the time . It 's not specific because we haven 't been out and surveyed ea, 1 lot and surveyed the building pad . But by utilizing the technology that we have , you can get a fairly clear idea , plus or minus there 's obviously some room for error . But a fairly good idea of what you 're going to be takin out and the grading plan , you 're trying to balance the dirt on the site sic so you know what you have to do and so you come fairly close but you reall> don 't have a real concise idea until you 're in the final design phase . - Erha-t : But this 1/3 does include the building sites? Terry Forbord : I 'm sorry , I can 't hear . Erha-t : Losing 1 /3 of the trees , that includes the trees lost for build inc_ sites? Terry Forbord: That 's from development . I don 't believe that was calculated into actual pads , was it? Farmakes : Total loss to development is 37% . John Uban : That 's based on grading the whole site and in some cases putting in different homes like ramblers . Not ramblers but not having wtajk outs in some cases . So we 've adjusted the grading plan to reach that number . And also we may be able to save more but we don 't know until yoi actually match a specific house for a specific owner . Terry Forbord: It 's probably fairly close- because we recognize that most- of the building pads in this neighborhood community will have corrections In other words , you 'll be doing soil corrections on almost all the pads so that 's probably fairly close . Erhart : Of the 33% , what does it do to house pads versus streets and utilities? Okay , 33% of the trees are going to be lost . Of those 33% , say now that 's 100% . Of the 100% trees lost , what percent is due to streets and utilities versus the housepad? John Uban: About a third for a street system . Actual street and then th- rest . Eden Prairie for instance . They are very aggressive when it comes Planning Commission Meeting — August 19 , 1992 - Page 65 to fitting development into existing woods . Aggressive in the sense that they have very strict rules and very . . .method of figuring things out . So they just automatically assume that you 're going to lose probably around 40% of the trees . And that 's just what you have to accept in development . You know doing a road with lots and you get the lots and the homes . . . Erhart : Alright , well that just gives me an idea here . I 'm trying to figure out where this tree thing for notes later . The islands . Maybe once and for all we can get an action here where we can have islands in our city . Because everytime islands have been proposed by a developer , it 's always okay Dave . We 're going at you here . It 's always the street maintenance don 't like it and by the time you get all done and we all up here kind of go along and it gets thrown out . And I 've always liked islands . They 're all over the place . Eden Prairie 's got them . Maybe we have more snow than them . Do we get more snow than Eden Prairie that we can 't have islands here or something? I guess I 'd really like to see the Commission take a stand and maybe a poll here to see if we can get rid of this mentality that we shouldn 't have , of not having islands because I think they 're , as Terry said , I think there 's a lot of advantages . I think we ought to allow islands . I know Ladd said we ought to allow islands . Batzli : I don 't know if we 're going to allow rebuttal . Do you have real rebuttal or just it 's going to save us money and stuff like that? Hempel : No , just a couple comments I guess towards the islands that we have problems with . One of them is our public works maintenance . Snow plowing and so forth . Damage to the curbs on the island and so forth takes repairs . Again , the street function in itself is for vehicles . Manuevering and so forth and with those islands and that , they do look aesthetically pleasing and they break up the neighborhood asphalt surface but again there may be safety issues with children playing on them . Cars coming around and so fo-th . These are all issues to be looked at . There may be some liability risks of having an island such as what is proposed . Those are some of the things we consider . Batzli : Thank you . You don 't get rebuttal . Next point . Erhart : Can we get what the other Planning Commissioners . Some direction . Batzli : Oh , I like islands . Emmings : I like islands . Erhart : Jeff? Farmakes: I think they look just fine . Personally I don 't like cul-de-sacs . I think that they 're private streets and a lot of them are are paid for by the public . But they 're in demand. Consumers want them and that 's why they 're there . It obviously looks nice . Ahrens : It hasn 't been a real big issue for me Tim but you know , I guess they 're okay . I agree with Jeff 's statement about cul-de-sacs in general . I think it does create too many private streets but they 're okay . Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 66 Erhart : Okay , then to go through your recommendations . I think most of them look reasonable . 5 maybe add lot widths so each lot has a minimum of 90 feet at the normal 30 foot building setback . Jo Ann , maybe that 's . . . - We talked about the 20 foot . 16 . I would not connect I and G . On 17 , delete islands , we talked about that . So that 's it . Thank you . This guy extracts all this stuff out of me from Target when I had little to say , arc now I have something to say and you guys laugh . Batzli : Thank you Tim . I just have a couple of quick comments or questions . One is , there was talk of a lot of tiling on the site . What -Is the effect going to be when we start grading it? Are we going to take of the draintile and how is that going to effect the wetlands? Is this going to effect which wetlands still exist or is that being calculated into the- runoff through the NURP ponds or whatever we 're putting in? Olsen : We haven 't looked at that in detail yet . Batzli : Okay . Have you guys looked at that in detail? Ken Adolf : I 'm Ken Adolf . I 'll address it from the engineering point o' view . As far as the drain tile , I think it would be best when the drain tile are found , to try to maintain them , especially they can be routed intc some storm sewer and then go into ponds . The drain tile is providing a _ function in kind of draining the on site soils and if you just arbitrari. • block that , it could cause water table to rise in some area that we don't know about . So I think we take some care to try to maintain those and connect them into the new storm sewer and drain it into ponds . As far a;- the impact on the volume requirements for the NURP ponds and so forth , tf , drain tile typically drains at a very slow rate over a period of time so as compared to the runoff you get from a rainfall , it 's very low volume so ?~. really wouldn 't impact the storage requirements for the NURP ponds . Batzli : Okay . Are we going to require or are we going to need to require some sort of easement over these drain tiles if we 're going to try to maintain them? Have we ever done that before? Hempel : Mr . Chairman , I don 't believe we have . We have numerous drain tile systems within the city and we constantly are uncovering them . We c have problems in the future once the development is in and the home building starts and these drain tiles are uncovered in building sites . And the homeowners are subject then to a drain tile system and sump pump that pumps 24 hours a day , 365 days a year . Their only recourse is to pump it usually out into the city street and the City then has ramifications of repairing that . Connecting them to a storm sewer system or something . I fact we are considering in some of these areas to look at requiring a drz r tile system behind the curb just for these situations that come up where they 're excavating large amounts of fill along the sides of hills that ma- expose a seam where there 's ground water problems or drain tile problems . So it 's starting to be a problem for us I guess from a city maintenance standpoint and we are having some injuries from pedestrians and bicyclist_ with these drain tile systems draining out into the city streets . Batzli : Have we looked at , I know we 've spoken about this at the City Council/Planning goal session or what have you , to have everyone 's sump - Planning Commission Meeting August 19 , 1992 - Page 67 pump drain into the storm water , storm sewer system . Has that been looked at all for this particular area? Krauss : Actually there 's some changes in the Building Code that they 're looking at . It 's now mandatory for every new house that you pipe a sump pump to the outdoors . Batzli : Understood . Krauss: Which it didn 't used to be . You used to get a sump pot and then it was up to you and most people just dumped it in the laundry tub which causes problems . Batzli : Right . Krauss : What Dave is referring to is situations that run all winter long . We 've had icing situations . Batzli : That 's why I 'm asking . Can we require them to put it into the storm sewer directly and not into the street? Krauss : If it becomes an issue , I suppose we could . We haven 't tried that yet . Hempel : I believe that 's something the City Engineer is trying to get on the books . Batzli : Thought I 'd ask . The private park I 'm sure is an interesting concept . I 'm not quite sure how it works . I 'm not sure how it ties into the development to the east or to the south . I don 't necessarily like the idea that this is private to the exclusion of someone bicycling in from the neighborhood next door . Although it may not be very likely to happen , but the possibility would exist for in essence the neighbors to say , get out of here . This is private . That kind of troubles me . I think I like the price range that 's going in here . I like the development in general . I think a lot of work 's been put into it . I like the treatment of the wetlands . The one thing that did concern me regarding the streets , I actually like the cul-de-sacs . I like the islands . One thing that concerned me about the street was the way that this , I don 't know what we 're calling it a collector , or what are we calling it , the one Street A? Olsen: Collector . Batzli : What kind of traffic are we expecting on that street? Krauss : It really should not generate significant thru trips . You 're talking about serving this neighborhood and the adjacent neighborhoods . Now emergency vehicles will be able to transit through there if they need - to . Delivery vehicles . But there 's really no reason for , especially when the new frontage road is built , there 's really no reason for anybody else to use it . Batzli : Okay . So this bridge is going to have to be built for pretty heavy duty stuff if it has to , firetrucks -and what have you anyway . City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve the contract with the Carver County Sheriffs Department for 32 hours of police contract service for 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Pyr ,;CONCEPTUAL PUD FOR 113 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 63 (NET) ACRES. EAST C70-,., SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41 ADJACENT TO BMT AUTOMOTIVE. LUNDGREN BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT ON G: � THE JOHNSON/DOLEJSI/TURNEl2 PROPERTY. • C12' Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission reviewed this and did recommend unanimously, recommended approval for the concept plan. The applicant , this is the first stage of a review for a planned unit development and it's just a conceptual plan for you to determine whether or not you want to accept it as a planned unit development . Staff in the report did recommend approval that it be rezoned to PUD. We feel that the site does contain some sensitive features that the applicant has been able to work around using some of the relaxed standards of the Zoning Code through the planned unit development. We have several conditions as part of the approval for the concept plan. Mostly it's just recommendations for changes in the new submittal that they have actually made at this time and they have already addressed several of these conditions. The Planning Commission again did recommend unanimously that it be approved for the concept plan. Some of the conditions that they commented on, that we would also hope that the Council give direction to staff on. The connection of the - cul-de-sac I and G. We are still recommending that those do be connected. It is twc long cul-de-sacs that will be difficult for buses to, they will not be able to go down there and for the children to. . . Another one of the things that was mentioned or discussed was the cul-de-sac islands. The Planning Commission generally felt that the cul-de-sac islands should be permitted. They liked them. Staff had been recommending that they be removed because there has been some difficulty from an engineering perspective as far as snow removal, emergency access and those type of items. The PUO does meet all the items for a planned unit development . The density is quite low. They are not really utilizing a lot of the smaller lots. It 's more so to get flexibility of some of the setbacks and to work around some of the vegetative areas. In summary, we are again recommending approval with the conditions that are on page 19, 20 and 21. The applicant is here to answer any questions. I think he does still have _ some comments on the conditions that staff are proposing and then again we would just like some direction on some of those conditions from Council. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. And with that, are we going to see what this is all - about? What the conceptual plan is. Do we have anything at all? Jo Ann Olsen: Do you want the plans? I've got all the. Mayor Chmiel: Are you going to put that up so other people can see it? Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant also has slides if you're interested in that , he can set that up. Mayor Chmiel: Which would be better? Jo Ann Olsen: Oh, I think this is fine. The location of the property and it's surrounded by State Highway 41 and Highway 5. The northern part of the property is where the applicant is proposing to develop at this time. The southern part 15 is in the 1995 study area on the comprehensive plan, that 's going to remain as outlot . Nothing's being proposed for that at this time. He's showing a preliminary plat with some of the features of the site. One of the concerns that staff had with this was that the extensive vegetation that was going to be. . .and the applicant has been working with that. . . Do you want more? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think that covers it fine. It is your time. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry Forbord and I'm Vice President of Land Development for Lungren Bros. at 93S East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata, Minnesota. And out of courtesy and respect for the schedule that you have, I know you have a lot of items coming up behind me. I have a 2 hour presentation but I don't think that it 's, I just don't know what, how many questions you have and I'd be happy to go as much into detail as the Council would wish. This is a concept plan approval. We have already submitted our preliminary plat to the city and they are reviewing it at this time so I will be before you very shortly again with the preliminary plat approval. So at this time I think I would just ask the Council how far they would like me to go at this time because I'd leave that up to the Council. Mayor Chriel : Well, I guess I have a few questions in relationship to some of the sizes of the lots in comparison. Some of those being what , 11,000 square feet . Which is about another 4,000 and I guess my concerns with some of those particular lots, wanting to know what size those lots were in themselves. And if considerations had been given to many of the things that we sit up here and have people coming back for all those good things such as their decks and things that they want to do and yet we sometimes cannot allow them to do. And as I had been a strong advocate of the 15,000 square foot lots within the city, I feel strongly about that and I would maybe like to see some of those 11,000 square foot lots be upped and some of those larger lots be cut back. And there is a whole host and assortment of different sizes of lots. But that 's some of my concerns. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: I have four questions too. I guess I'll just bring them out and then you can answer them throughout your presentation. I'd like to know where you are in the petition process for the extension of the utilities because that will certainly effect this. Would you also please give us the results of the neighborhood meetings you've had with the neighbors and how they've been going. I'd like an explanation of the cul-de-sac islands and how they'll impact the safety. And also, is this project likely to force assessments on existing neighbors with sewer hook-ups, etc. . Terry Forbord: Those are good questions and I think that I will set up my projector and kind of prepare for some of the things, because each one of those kind of leads to another question. And for se to adequately address them, I will need the visual aids that I have. Jo Ann Olsen: Maybe to answer one of your questions Mr. Mayor that you were bringing up, as he's setting this up. As far as the lot sizes. One of the things that we were looking at with this PUO was that there was always still buildable area for a 60 x 40 pad which we were feeling that 's necessary to provide to prevent variances in the future and they are providing that. And a 16 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 lot of the larger lots actually are wetland areas or vegetated or preserved so I don't know how easy it would be to reduce those and put that elsewhere. Terry Forbord: The other thing I need to do, in case you haven't figured it out , is stall a little bit for time because all these high priced consultants that I've got are coming from different Council meetings. Oh, there's one of them. Before I get into this, probably the biggest issues or the burning issues that the Council will have related to the plan itself, is the lot size and why are certain things the way that they are. Many of you have heard me address some of these things before and just talking conceptually about PUD's, or in other neighborhood communities that we have brought before you. PUD's are really a hassle to do from a developer's standpoint because the process that we have to go through is certainly more complex. It costs more money. There's money documentation. Really the ordinances and the codes are kind of set aside in the city, the legislative authority of the city can pretty much be put on the developer in the manner that the city determines. Whereas if I just came in as a standard subdivision, I could by the code and the subdivision and basically the city would be in a position where they'd probably legally have to approve it as long as I met the code and the ordinance. So you know, people say well, why in the heck do you go through all this then in doing a PUD? It takes more time. It 's more costly. Well, it 's very simple for a company like ours. In order for us to be successful at Lundgren Bros. , we find that we have to do something _ different than what all of our competition is doing. It 's really that elementary. If we were just to go in and put in normal lots and no other pizzaz or any of the things that most of our buyer profile says that they want , then we'd be just like everybody else. It's just as a business, what we're trying to find and we interview and survey all of our clientele 2 or 3 times a year. Say what is it that you want from us? What can we do? What can we provide you with to make the investment that you're making in the community the quality of life that you want better than our competition. Well, the down side of that is all • of those things have a price to pay. There's a price to pay for all of those things, whether they be tennis courts. Whether they be volleyball. Whether they be skating rinks. Whether they be intense landscaping and berms and entrance monumentation and irrigation and all those other things. They all cost a lot of money. So one of the benefits for us, when we go into a situation like this, along with being able to provide open space and special little amenities in our neighborhoods that normally we could not provide elsewhere under standard subdivision rules and regulations, the PUD allows us to be a little flexible and allows us to divert a little bit from lot sizes and/or setbacks and often times we're able tc get a few more lots. .Not always, because if you look at the density, the density is extremely lot , but sometimes those additional generations of revenue enables us to do some of those other things. That's only one aspect of it. From a city like Chanhassen's standpoint. and I've talked directly to you about this before on a neighborhood community that you probably recall being referred to as Ortenblat/Ersbo. which we now are marketing as Willow Ridge. The reason we did a PUD there is just purely from an - environmental standpoint , it was easily to do that and defer from the standard regulations and be more sensitive to the existing conditions. And this site is not unlike that . I'm going to go to the slides at this time. just to kind of give you an overview of the particular site and it's existing condition. This represents aerial view, helicopter. we flew the site. . .just some photography so it would be easier to explain to folks on the Planning Commission and the neighbors, Planning Commission and the City Council the general lay of the land 17 FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIOA. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Lundgren Bros. property is located on the east side of Hwy. 41, north of Hwy. 5 and adjacent to 7305 Hwy. 41 (Hazeltine Boulevard): a. Rezone 95 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development b. Preliminary PUD approval for the subdivision of 112 single family lots and 8 outlots c. Wetland alteration permit 2. Concept approval to rezone 178 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development and located at the SE quadrant of Hwys. 5 and 41 and NW quadrant of West 82nd Street and Hwy. 41, Gateway West Business Park, Opus Corporation. 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code concerning construction site erosion/sediment control requirements. NEW BUSINESS 4. Appointment of Planning Commission Representative to the Tree Preservation Board. OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT city council Meeting - September 14, 1992 and why we are proposing this neighborhood community in the manner in which we do. We also do this, not just to explain to you but in the initial stages we want to see ourselves. I mean many of you have seen aerial photogrpahy, satellite photography and you can kind of get a feel for it then but when we start doing this type of analysis, you really get a different feel for it. It 's very helpful from a planning, and those of you who are familiar with us, we spend a lot of time in just plafning. Before it gets to you, we've probably gone through 10 to 20 different concepts and staff often times see those through the process because we come in and say, what do you think of this. What do you think of that so we've usually done probably more concepts planning than what typically is done. But you can see right here is Highway 41. You have Lake Minnewashta over here. This ■ass of water is the sprawl of Lake Minnetonka to the north. Right along through here there's a power line that goes, you can see the power poles and this one quite readily. This property from here northward, up to about right through Lake Harrison is commonly known as the Song property. North of that is the Carlson property. The subject property of what we are before you tonight is kind of cuts right through this wooded diagonal here and up like this. And right in this general area is what is called the Johnson/ Dolejsi/Turner property and it consists of approximately 95 acres of land. A couple points before I change this slide here. I don't know what you can see from that angle of where you are but right here is a ravine. Then it goes up only about a 75 foot distance. Maybe 100 feet. It goes up approximately 70 feet . And then right into here there's another ravine. And then it goes up very abruptly another 65-70 feet or another 50-60 feet. Then there's a big wetland here. There's a wetland actually within these trees. There's actually a wetland here and a couple other potholes and there's an inferior wetland complex in this area. And we'll get to those items here in a minute. Here's the existing house so if you were out in front here, you could kind of see this topography and how it changes. It 's really an interesting phenomenum. The same thing occurs on the Song property over through here. This is the Song home right on the edge here. This is looking from the north towards the south. This is Highway 41. We have Highway 5. The subject property would be like this and like this. You can see this large wetland here, here, and there are a couple of scattered ones throughout the site that are difficult to see in this pa-ticula- photograph. And here's the power line. You may note by looking at both slides, most of this was all farmland at one time and in fact a dairy farm that was owned by the Donnelly family. And it consisted of a larger parcel than what we now are submitting to you this evening in the planned unit development. And it was grazed a lot in certain areas and it was not grazed in others. So there are certain tree stands that , there's nothing here that 's stunning. There's no big woods or anything like that but there certainly are some little areas of groupings of trees that are worth spending some time at trying to save them. For us because there are so few trees, we work very, very hard to try to same them. And the wetlands are interspersed in a somewhat unusual way primarily because of the topography that I described to you earlier. The initial plans that we submitted to the staff and they reviewed them and they came back with some ideas on how they thought that we may minimize some of the grading and maybe lessen some of the impact on certain vegetated areas. We embraced those ideas to the extent that we were able to. Oftentimes at this conceptual stage I might add, you don't really get into exactly which tree is going to go and which one isn't. You get into that sore in the design stage. The final design stage. But the diligence of the staff, they're trying to get as much of that up front , at this point in time as possible so we've worked with 18 city Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 them and identified those things and we've actually changed the grading plan that has been submitted just within the last few days as part of the preliminary _ plat which you'll be seeing shortly, to minimize that . So that kind of gives you a general idea of the site from that direction. I'm not sure if I need to go any further. You can really see the topography on this particular shot . Now again, why are we doing this as a PUD. Anytime you have such constraints like this, I have a couple options. What I can do is what I said earlier, and we've actually developed this plan. We didn't bring it to show it to you because we knew you wouldn't want it anyway but we do have this plan. I could make all the lots 15,000 square feet . Make them all exactly 90 feet at the setback. I could get more lots on this site than are in this proposal and I could maintain my setbacks from the wetlands and the streets and sideyards and everything, but what you would end up with is a vanilla subdivision. Every lot would look identical to the next lot . There'd be more grading than what you're seeing on this proposal and it just wouldn't certainly be what we would want to propose to the City or what we know that our buyer types would want. You look at the other neighborhoods we've done in your community, Near Mountain in particular, and we look at that and we see a bunch of mistakes there. I mean we see a lot of things that we would never do today. We would do a much better job. And yet _ that 's still recognized, even today as a nationally acclaimed neighborhood comm.,^ity and it still gets coverage. But we see a lot of mistakes there so what we're trying to do is get better at it . But the reason we do the PUD is to cover the issues that we've just addressed and actually with your staff, it 's refreshing because they come back to us with ideas that, like reduced front yard setbacks, which we normally propose. I've never proposed that here in Chanhassen because I've never received or had it embraced by the Planning Commission or Council. But we do it in every other community we work in. Staff came back with the idea here because they know it will help keep the structures away further from the wetland. It will save a bunch of trees and things like that . Those are very creative solutions to problems we're all trying to solve. Let re see who has, okay I've got some of my consultants here with me. The question regarding lot size. I think I'm going to defer that to John Uban and John can address lot size. And just for their benefit , being that they've just received here, there's been some questions asked right up front due to lot size and w y are the lots the way that they are. There were questions about the status of the petition for public improvements and I think the consultants are here for the city. They can probably address that better than we can. There was discussion about the neighborhood meeting. Cul-de-sac islands and assessments on neighbors. Before I give up the podium to John Uban, I'll just tell you a little bit about the neighborhood meetings. As most of you probably know, we typically always have a neighborhood meeting or even more than one on every neighborhood community we develop. And really it's because we sometimes learn something from them. We find out what they don't like and what they do like and we think that it actually saves time, not just for us but it saves time for the Planning Commission and the Council because we try to address the issues before we come before you. There were some concerns by 3 or 4 neighbors about _ certain things, primarily related to drainage. A couple neighbors said that they would prefer that they would all be acreage lots and that's a normal concern that you see on any growing community that's urbanizing. But generally speaking, I felt that the neighbors felt that it was a good neighborhood community. I have not had anybody come forth and say, we just oppose it and we don't want it to there period. I have not heard that as of this date. Related to the islands, cul-de-sac islands and assessments. I think we'll get to that in 19 a minute but right now I'd like to introduce John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow - and Uban. He is our planner. He's a principle with the firm and he has designed this and worked very closely with our firm and staff in putting this proposal to you this evening. Now for the benefit of the audience and for the Council , we have a considerable amount of overhead transparencies to probably address the questions that you're going to have related to setbacks, wetlands, trees, things like that . And just give us a couple seconds. We'll put the, John I think we can put- the overhead right up here like we did at the neighborhood meeting and use them simultaneously if we need to. John Uban: What I'd like to go through with you, if you can see our overhead projection. The basic elements of design. Why it's designed the way it is. How the road system and the lots work together and how it works with the topography of the land. Then how our lot sizes work. Primarily we wanted a road system that absolutely tried to miss all the wetlands and natural features and would wind it 's way through the area and actually attach, and we've looked at the adjacent property so it gives access on over to CR 117. This curvilinear road system moves through the area and crosses between these two wetlands on a little bridge. It 's about the only place you can get through. There's some beautiful pines that have been planted with the previous homestead and we're saving those as an entry feature. Moving on across missing this wetland area in here. Moving up to the north and skimming across the southern end of this wetland and onward to the very northeast corner. And at this point it lines up to miss the wetlands on the other side which are on the Song property. A large one down through this area, and another large one to the north. So it 's designed very specifically to work with the land. In addition, we're working back into the property where we can with a curvalinear road system. It's rolling. We're missing these wetland pockets. The whole southern edge is wetland up in this area. That 's why we have the cul-de-sac and it 's very. . . , it 's rolling. So these follow the ridge lines and then it drops into steep valleys that feed this wetland. The same with this wetland. This little area works it way back up between these two and this works out on a little pennisula that 's all surrounded by wetlands. So the road system is designed specifically to fit with the land. Also, it 's curvalinear and what we don't want are a lot of straight roads where all the houses line up the same and we drive down and you see fronts of houses that sort of march down the street like soldiers or a commercial development or something. We want it to curve so as you enter the subdivision, you focus on this nice woods and area. There's a big beautiful oak tree right here. We're going to create a bridge effect and then you focus on that and curve around here and you focus on these pines and then these houses, and we're keeping the existing home in place too. They start coming off all in different positions so that there are no homes that just line up with the next one. So we're doing that all throughout . And the curvalinear patterns were important. And what that creates in the cul-de-sacs are of course lots that are pie shaped. And because of the curvalinear system, we have very few perfectly rectangular lots. They all have lots with side lot lines that come in at angles. And because of that , we have a variety of ways of working with setbacks, sideyards, front yards, to make that all work. And it's really, that flexibility we're looking for in a PUD. The lot size of the smallest lot out here, without wetland in it , the smaller buildable yard and lot is a little over 10,000 square feet which is. But the average lot size overall is 23,000. So we really have a lot of large lots in here and then some small ones. So what we need is diversity and that 's what we like to work with also. The diversity is good for attracting a number 20 • HCCu11y ,7CNlCMUCI 14i, 177E of types of homeowners. It isn't all just one kind of home. It provides a variety of experiences. Wooded lots. Lots that look out . Lots that are flat and will have garden spaces in the backyard. All of that works together and is - created specifically for diversity. We think that 's very important . And so our lot lines and how we measure the width of the lots varies. What we're looking for is some flexibility that not all lots would have at the setback line of 20 feet , not all of them would have a 90 foot width and that only happens though at lots that are on the ends of cul-de-sacs where the pie shape moves in becomes narrow right at the cul-de-sac. But it gets very wide as it moves out and all you have to do is move the house back, sometimes only S feet beyond the calculated setback and we have 90 feet more. And those lots also incidentally are larger than all the other lots. They're the largest lots but they just happen to be the narrowest when you count the setback right at the road. So - it 's that pattern and that flexibility so that we still get that 90 foot width but only by moving the house back or just moving the garage back with an offset which makes it work very well. That design has worked out excellently. . . Terry Forbord: The interesting phenomena about that , and anytime you look at , and I get caught up doing this myself when I'm working on this, and I think even at one time we prepared an exhibit for the Council or the Planning Commission of a neighborhood like that without any lot lines. So if you just looked up there and you didn't see any lot lines, that 's what you're going to see when you drive through the neighborhood. You're not going to see lines on the ground. It 's _ going to look just like a neighborhood. Now, the other thing that you have to rerember is the minimum lot size that has been quoted to you of 10,000+ square foot is of the upland area. The lot itself is larger than that but the staff often times tries to show the Council that that is exclusive of wetland. Now as you know, many of the lots in Chanhassen have what is today considered wetland. I would say a lot of lots in the city of Chanhassen have and if you took out those lots what is wetlands, you'd find many lots very, very small. So the lot that has been expressed to you as being that size, is exclusive of that . The other question that was asked is related to cul-de-sac islands and medians. I think what we'll do is just very briefly tell you a little bit about that . I've got a few pictures that I can show you and the reason that we've never presented them to you before is because, just candidly speaking with members of the City, we didn't think that the City would embrace them. We were quite surprised to find that the Planning Commission, the majority of the Planning Commission said that they'd always wanted to do, or they wanted for a long time to have cul-de-sac islands and medians and I didn't even know that . But we have never brought them forth to you before. We have done them in other neighborhoods - before and we're finding now that cities are asking us to do them where they had not before. And the reason is very simple. As you all know the movement afoot for less impervious material on the ground. Less pavement. Subdivisions not designed for cars. Subdivisions that has more green space. Things that set them apart from what is normal. Now there's obviously, there's some difficulty in embracing that for many cities. Primarily by the public works department and often times by public safety. But if you go to communities like Burnsville where they've been doing islands for years and years and years and if Roger Knutson was here tonight he'd tell you because he's worked in that community for years. Decades and Burnsville almost demands them. They want them in their cul-de-sacs. Now you have to remember some of the reasons they don't like it is because they say, well. If you were going to turn around with a vehicle in there, the island would be in the way. Well that's not true becuase they never 21 get close to the island. If a vehicle's so big such as a moving van. Have you ever see a moving van turn around in a cul-de-sac? They can't . Even one without an island. They can't do it . They have to stop and back up and then go once again and they can get out . So the island has nothing to do with a moving van being able to turn around because they can't turn around anyway. The other issue that typically comes up is snow removal. And I used to contract in the city of Plymouth, myself in my business to plow their snow and I plowed areas that they had islands in and it is different than plowing a normal cul-de-sac but the neat thing about it is, you don't have to plow the area where the island is because that has storage capacity for snow all by itself. And the other thing is usually you go further on the outside of the cul-de-sac and you blade that to the outside. When you make your other pass, you blade that on the inside and there's storage capacity on that island. Now the down side to islands, if somebody was trying to figure out , well what is it that we should be worried about . One is obviously maintenance. Who's going to take care of it because I've seen personally some very unsightly cul-de-sac islands because there was no mechanism set up to maintain them and keep the weeds out of them and all that other stuff. Well, as you probably guessed, we're having a homeowners association in this PUD that's being presented to you, not unlike in what we do in other neighborhoods because there's a lot of open space. There's a lot of entrance monumentation and plantings and things like that that have to be maintained and the islands would be maintained by the homeowners association. Now it 's important to design these so they take as little maintenance as possible, and I'm going to show you a couple of examples. Here's an example of a median. Many of you have seen medians before. You probably have a few in the city. I think that it 's important to note that the medians that we're going to have are right at the entry. This is a neighborhood community and basically the purpose of this slide is just to show you that they can look very nice. I don't know if any of you have ever been up to Carlson Parkway by the Carlson Companies corporate offices and I had a slide that I didn't bring it tonight , but medians can really change the feel of what roadways look like. And I think there's a lot of interest . The discussion on the Highway 5 Task Force that 's been debated around this community for the last few years and I've heard a lot of people say that it 's very important to them how that roadway looks. What is the impression of the community gcing to be when you're driving through it? The median certainly softens the impact of the roadways. I don't know if you're going to be having planted medians on Highway 5 into the business district of the city but I think you can probably get the gest of what I'm saying. When you put landscaping and green space or lighting and flowers or anything like that in a roadway, it really softens the impact . This is a picture of a cul-de-sac island. This is taken from a helicopter. This particular island. I don't know if you can see it from where you are, but it has a curb. A surmountable curb around it . It also then has what is called rush. White river rock. Many of You have probably used this for a landscaping element around your home. Around your shurbs. And then it has the small boulder retaining wall that goes around it and then there are the types of the plantings in the middle of this that are fairly easy to take care of. They don't take a lot of maintenance. They're durable and in the case of the evergreens, they're green year round. And this is not exactly the type of planting materials we would probably put here for the way we would do it . We'd put the emphasis on evergreens and things that are green all the time and then maybe have some lower bushes in front of them that in the summertime they bud and perhaps even flower. Now underneath all this rock is fabric to keep the weeds from growing through it and because there's no 22 grass here, many of you may have seen medians and cul-de-sac islands that have grass. Obviously somebody needs to maintain those and what we would propose would be something of a lower maintenance. Something that softens the impact of the pavement . Because if you've ever looked, if you've ever flown over a community, cul-de-sacs are these huge things of pavement and they just sit there and they're really quite ugly. So we think that this does soften it . Here's one at ground level . The reason I'm showing you this slide is probably the first thing you'll notice if you take a look at it for a few minutes. What do you normally see when you drive into a cul-de-sac? In today's architecture, because of what people can afford as far as design. The first thing you're going to notice is boy, there sure are a lot of garage doors looking at me. And again, it 's ugly. Garage doors are not a beautiful element of a house. The other buying points of a house that people like, the roofline, the point of entry, window treatments, things like that , maybe some specialty windows. Those are the things that capture the eye and are aesthetically pleasing. But because of the economics of construction today and because all the lots can no longer afford to be large lots where you spread that house out really wide, we find that people having to put the garage out in front. Shorten the distance of the pavement to the home because that helps save cost , etc, etc. You certainly can see by coming into this cul-de-sac that really the first thing you see is that - there's a lot of really nice landscaping done on the island. And that 's exactly what we would propose, or something very similar to it. Is any of you are familiar with our entrances, we're getting better at it . We think we've done a fairly good job but we're actually getting better. This is a new one in Plymouth celled Churchhill Farms. And this one has a median in the middle to the entrance. It 's quite a grand entrance. The theme of it is thoroughbred racing and has an authentic rail fence that you may see at a Kentucky farm and it has this type of little gingerbread design on the monuments and a lot of flowers and things like that . And you can see this median right here. This is all irrigated and there will be flags. An American flag, and on the other flag pcles ging in we'll have a Minnesota and another flag that 's going in will have the logo of the development . And the same thing is repeated on both sides and ttien we planted all of these trees to make kind of a promenade into the neighborhood community. . . .point of arrival and as this matures and fully develops, it 's tremendously dramatic. And we think that it makes a statement that identifes the project and is really quite nice. Now because we're coming off of a major trunk highway, Highway 41, we think it's important immediately to address that and if you looked at the site plan that you have, one of the other thir.c_s we're learning to do over the last 5-6 years is that we don't put any lots right at the entrance. Right when you come in, we could put a lot right behind that fence and one on the other side. We put outlots in there now and we keep those houses back in there and try to keep them at least 150 feet, 175 feet into the development so when you come in you get this feeling of open space. You get to see flowers. Everything's taken care of. Somebody's maintained it and it certainly is a feel that if we were unable to do those things, they wouldn't have the same effect. This is just the flip side of that entrance. Some of the other things as part of the DUD that we're able to do that we probably couldn't do under standard subdivision, is we can put in little park areas. Now some of you may have some questions about the private park later on here. What we have found, and we've done this before, right away. One of the very first thing that we do, once it 's platted and we open up the neighborhood communities, we put in these facilities. Typically as you know, in the park plans, the park, usually the Geo:1e are all there and then the parks get developed because the city just 23 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 doesn't have that kind of money in their budgets to go out and put in all kinds of extra little features that they may like to. They just don't have the money. What we're proposing, we go in and we build a tennis court ourselves. This righ there a $27,000.00 play structure. We put in the volleyball courts. We do all that stuff right away and we still pay a park dedication fee. So what we're doing is we're providing a little, something special in the neighborhood right up front and the real benefit for that is, it isn't just for the city in alleviating some of the pressures on the park system. But really we do it for the benefit of the people who buy homes from us. When it comes time, for them it's an investment . When it comes time for them to sell their home, what's going to give them that special advantage that the other homes that are for sale on the market don't have. And if you go through the other neighborhoods that we have these type of play structures in, you can go by there any time of the day and there's mothers out there, or fathers for that matter, with their kids and there's people playing tennis at any time of the day. And those are all maintained by the homeowners association and it 's a real plus on the resale value of those homes. I know that you have some questions related to assessments and to the public improvements. I think at this time I would defer those questions to the city's consultants and then I have an exhibit here when they're done that I'd like to just pass out to each one of you and put it up on the overhead. Basically going through the recommendations because there's just a few things we'd like clarified and a couple of items we'd like to share with you. So at this time I think I'd defer the issue about assessments and the status of the public improvements that have been petitioned to the consultants and then I'm available to answer, or my consultants are, to answer any of the questions that you may have. Whether they're engineering, wetlands, or planning matters. Phil Gravel: We will be at the September 28th meeting to present the public improvement . . .and there will be some proposed assessments for the area. . .not _ included in this development that are, most of them are green acres so we're assuming that some of the same standards that you've taken on like the Bluff Creek project . . .only one unit assessments. The small homes. . . Councilman Workman: So there are single family homes adjacent that are going to be assessed? Mayor Chmiel : Could be, yes. Councilman Workman: Hook up charge? Phil Gravel : Like the Song parcel. . .Properties to the east of this. Councilman Workman: Are those people all aware of that? Phil Gravel : They'll be noticed. We're planning on having a neighborhood meeting in early October before the public hearing which would probably be. . . Councilwoman Dimler: I have one question on the assessments too that doesn't really relate to other properties but your own properties on the pie shaped lots. The configuration there where they have very little front footage but the lot gets bigger as it goes back. They're only assessed for the road on the front footage and so what you're actually having there is that the large lots 24 are paying less and some of the smaller lots would have more front footage. Is that a problem for your own assessment rolls or has that been in other developments? Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, the improvements in the neighborhood, when people buy a home from us. All the assessments are in and paid. They buy a package from us. They buy the home, the lot and everything is included in the sale price of that so there isn't , they don't get hit with that additional assessment later on. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so that's not likely to be a problem in the future? Terry Forbord: No, no. It 's a package of what they buy. Councilwoman Dimler: It will be though when the road's redone. Te-ry Forbord: I'm sure the city has a policy in how they deal with local neighborhood, residential communities. Councilwoman Dimler: That 's why I asked. Terry Forbord: I'm sure it 's consistent . I would hope that it would be and this project wouldn't be treated any differently. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but we did have some problems. That 's why I asked the question. Terry Forbord: Okay. Hopefully, I wish I could tell you these roads last forever and they never need any maintenance but that would be a lie. Cc::^cilwcman Dimler: Thank you. Terry Forbord: Are there any other questions that I may address or would you life re to put the items up on the screen for clarification? - Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, could you explain and again, I liked your cul-de-sac presentation but I did ask about the safety impact there. It looks to me like that if you have parking then, if you allow street parking for visitors and whoever, the-e might be a safety problem as far as safety vehicles getting through. Can you address that as to what other communities are experiencing? Terry Fo-bord: I think I could best let John Uban address that . He could do it better than I could. John Uban: On the cul-de-sacs, it really won't work any differently than your existing cul-de-sacs in the city when it comes to parking. Around the cul-de-sac you notice that the driveways are closer together. But the driveways themselves hold quite a few cars in addition to what's in the garage. And we have not ever found a situation in which a cul-de-sac itself really gets parked UP beyond a reasonable sort of level. What is nice about an island, it actually helps control the parking. It defines and makes the cul-de-sac look more like a typical street going around in a circle. And it maintains the same width of street all the way around so it isn't substandard in any respect and actually we 25 think it works better because it better defines the street edge and allows for — better organization of traffic just from looking at it . Councilwoman Dimler: And is all your curbing surmountable, in the proposed development? John Uban: Yes. We would like it to be that way. Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions at this particular time? Tom. Councilman Workman: Only, what was the, we have an outlet through the Song property. How does that jibe with future development? They just have to accept that as a connecting point or how does that connect? Paul Krauss: It 's really, whoever goes first cast the die for how this will happen but we've done a lot more than that. We've had a meeting with the Song's, Mr. Forbord and I and their engineers meet with the Song's 3-4 months ago when it became clear that this was where the road was going to go. We asked their consultant , John Uban to sketch out an alignment that made sense that missed the wetlands. We basically had a need to connect the two points. We know we needed continuity between TH 41 and Galpin. Early on in the process we realized this is not the kind of terrain that you plow a road that looks like Lake Lucy through. It just was much too hilly and we'd lose a lot to do that so we wanted the continuity and then it became a question of where to put it and there really was only one location that lent itself to the continuity and that's where it is right now. Terry Forbo-d: I think it 's fair to say, and some of you know this. If you just would stop and think about it for a minute but we've been working on this nolo for 3 1/2 yea-s and we've actually worked very closely with the Song family on the alignment of that road. And the city has been, has really kind of asked us to take the initiative and figure out , okay we know this road's got to go here someday. So let 's figure out the way that it can be done with having the least impact on the area and they helped provide us with data and aerial photography and topography so we could determine where that future roadway would be. And the exhibit that you see on the screen right now is very close to where that road would end up being. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Paul, getting back to those street widths. As you're well aware, in some of the subdivisions that have been constructed and built up, the given problems that we're having with parking on streets and some of the accessibility of emergency vehicles getting to these. Do you see much problem here if the parking is done, and it's going to happen. I don't care how hard you try. What 's going to be a problem for us as a city? Paul Krauss: Well, we're not looking at reducing the pavement widths here. Charles, what are we looking on the collector street portion. Charles Folch: It 's still a 36 foot wide street. The right-of-way is what's been proposed to be reduced from 80 to 60. But the pavement width will actually remain the same. Or remain the standard. 26 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Paul Krauss: So from what the eye sees and what the car parks on, it 's not going to be any different than an oversized actually street elsewhere. There's also not all the homes front on that street . Relatively few actually do. The people parking in the streets more than likely will be parking next to the homes on the cul-de-sacs. Mayor Chmiel: If and when those homes go in and closely situated as they were, with the driveways coming in, what total numbers of cars can be parked in that drive and what is the distance of that drive from the garage back out to the street? Terry Forbord: Okay, every particular situation is different because it depends on the type of, if you've ever looked at it like. Mayor Chmiel: The lots themselves. Terry Forbord: Not even just that. But have you ever looked at a plan, view of a plan, what does the footprint look like. We have a repertoire of probably 25 different floor plans that would be available to people in here and everyone looks a little different and some of them, the garage is forward a little bit more and sore of them, the garage is back a little bit. But I think it 's fair to say that most cars, excuse me, most homes and driveways have a stacking capability for a minimum, I mean in a worst case scenario, even if you had a 20 - foot front yard setback, which on some of these lots is being recommended by staff and we agree with that , that you'd probably have a stacking capability of 2 cars in the driveway and then you have 2 cars probably in the garage or maybe even 3, depending on the style of home or if the people elected to have a 3 car garage. In that case, then the driveway would be even wider and then maybe you'd have a stacking capability of -3. But more typically it 's not uncommon to _ have a stacking of 4 cars in a driveway. It just depends on the given situation. Mayor Chr;iel: And I keep looking back at a couple of the subdivisions. the probler.s that we're having now. It 's the same situation where the driveways do not have the capacity to keep the vehicles there. Before you know it, they have 4 cars and maybe they have 4 children. They have 6 cars and there isn't room enough within those driveways to park these vehicles and they're parked on the street . You get that with adjacent neighbors. They ■ay not be quite as prolific within those families but , there is some of those problems that I see concerns with that I see happening within town right now. And then they come back and we decide maybe we're not going to put no parking on one side. Well they don't want that because they have no place to really park. But yet the problem that comes back to me. as I stated before, is the accessibility of having our fire department or police department. Fire department's •ore my concern, because we're not providing them the proper amount of space for them to get to their destination. And I can see where it could come back to the city and make us liable because we approved basically what went in and not giving enough room on those streets. Terry Forbord: Yeah, the streets in our proposal are no smaller than any other neighborhood street that is currently within the city and there may be some that are even smaller. You may have some that have some reduced road widths. Well eve- the road right out in front of City Hall is a quite narrow roads but the 27 roads in these neighborhoods would be larger than the road in front of City Hall. I don't think, and maybe Charles or Paul can add to this but I don't believe that there's a street or a situation in this proposed neighborhood community that jeopardizes the public safety any more than any other neighborhood community would. Charles Folch: Related to the collector street , 36 foot width allows for parking on both sides. Mayor Chmiel: It provides parking on both sides of the 36 feet. The average width of a car is 5 feet? Depending. Give some, take some. Okay, so that 's 10 feet. Richard, what's the size of the engines going through? Councilman Wing: They're 8 footers. Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me? Councilman Wing: Most of them are maximum width, 8 footers. Mayor Chriel : 8 footers. Okay. Councilman Wing: Don, I guess I don't see a problem. And even with these cul-de-sacs, you can get it near a cul-de-sac. There's no problem with the hose lengths at that point . Mayor Chmiel : And I was thinking mainly of our main engine. Councilman Wing: The big one. Mayor Chmiel : Yes. It could give us problems. I guess I've had some of my questions. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, I'm going to pass out some material that I'm going to put up on the screen and it's just a copy of the recommendations of staff and just to get some clarification and address a couple things that the Planning Commission are requesting and hopefully answer some questions. The purpose of this is basically what we have here is what is before you in your recommendations and the bold items underneath each item are just my responses to those things and we're requesting a couple items be deleted. The first item is on the recommendation is 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. The applicant has set with staff and considered their recommendations where possible. Altering the grading plan, utilizing retaining walls on home sites, reconfiguring lot lines, whie still keeping with the applicant 's design. And the applicant does not wish to delete the cul-de-sac H and replace it with a private road. And I've asked that those items in number 1 be deleted. If we could put up the site plan just briefly John. There was some discussion and some concern about the connection of two roadways in this neighborhood community. John, if you could just point to those. That is I believe I and J. Is that correct? John Uban: G. I and G. 28 wily LounCll meeting September 14, 1992 Terry Forbord: I and G. Now it's really quite simple why we are submitting these as cul-de-sacs. And the cul-de-sac debate, all of you have heard on numerous times before I'm sure throughout your tenure as public officials and really, and you've heard me talk about it before and I won't belabor the issue but we create neighborhood communities. We design them to be safe. What we really want are these little individual neighborhoods and alcoves that cul-de-sacs really offer you and 99.9 people out of 100 would prefer to live on a cul-de-sac. So what we do, if you recall when I was showing you the aerial photography and I was showing you where that ravine was and then the hill went back up and then the ravine went down again. John or Ken, can you kind of show where those are there? John Uban: Here is one ravine through here. There's another ravine down through here so this is a hill and then it drops down and once again you have this area between these two wetlands. So it drops down and then it drops down again into here. Mayor Chmiel: What 's the height from one end to the other? Terry Forbord: Pardon me? Mayor Chriel: You're talking with the ravines going down. John Uban: Some of these ravines are what , 30 feet or so approximately. Through here and here and I really don't know, it 's 90 to 100 feet probably the full distance. Terry Forbord: And so all we typically do and this also helps eliminate some grading, is we try to put where the houses and the roads are going to be on the highest parts and have as many walkouts as we possibly can because again, 99% of the peoCle would prefer walkout if we could make it available to them. Yes, you cold connect a lot of roads in there. We just think it makes a better neiyh.bcrhood and there's issues on both sides of the fence on that and that 's why I'm asking you to allow us to proceed as it 's proposed. We don't feel that it 's really a safety issue. There's no documented evidence anywhere in the United States, there's never been a death anywhere documented that somebody died _ as a result of a cul-de-sac that was too long. I mean that 's a fact and the Urban Lard Institute will tell you that and any other organization that follows these types of things. But that 's for your consideration and we would just ask that that item be deleted. Item number 2, provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over 6 inch caliper being removed. The applicant has submitted on September 11th a tree removal tabulation chart for the site. A more detailed plan will be developed during the final design stage of each development phase, and I believe that our consultants have discussed that with staff and I think that meets their satisfaction. Number 3, revise the lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations. The applicant has submitted those revisions on September 11th. Item number 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. And we have submitted that information to the staff as well and you'll be seeing that information as part of the preliminary plat application, if you haven't already received it. Item number 5, revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90 feet at the building setback. Or 29 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 — provide justification that the required buildable area can be accomplished. We would like to delete the first part of that sentence. We've submitted drawings and narrative and other examples on charts describing how this can occur and we certainly could meet the 90 foot if we just move the houses back anywhere from 5 to 0 feet and then we'd be at 90 feet . Remember that the lots that aren't at 90 feet are the ones that happen to ,be in the cul-de-sac and they're not 90 feet at the setback but we could just push that house back a little more and it would be 90 feet , and also those are the largest lots. Number 6, we've submitted information to answer that . Number 7, we've done the same there. Number 8, I'm going to just talk to you a little bit about that in case you have any questions. The ordinance requires a 10 foot sideyard setback. The intent of the ordinance is typically to make sure that there's 20 feet between each structure. What we have asked for, and I believe staff accepts that and is recommending that they accept it , is that we are allowed some flexibility to shift that house back and forth for the simple example is if there's a large tree on one part of the lot . Give some flexibility so that home can move back and forth. So in other words, it's the same thing that we've done on other neighborhood communities for the same reason. And we're asking for a minimum setback of 9 feet on the house side. 6 feet on the garage side but at no time ever will there be 20 feet , less than 20 feet between structures. And the other neighborhoods we've developed over 300 homes with this exact same arrangement in othe- neighborhoods. And the minimum ends up being 20 but the vast majority of themm are even greater than 20 feet between structures. Primarily because if you remember the way the site plan looks, the roads are moving and so just because of the way the houses get situated on the lot , it's not like a bunch of homes just lined up in a row. Every home's tiled, angled and things like that so you typically end up with far greater than 20 feet . 20's the minimum. Number 9. _ The applicant accepts the staff recommendation. Number 10, same. Number 11, locate the extension for watermain service along the east side of Trunk Highway 41. Now I believe that our consulting engineer has talked to the engineering departrent and the reason that they asked for that recommendation is they thought there was going to be a berm built along Highway 41. Well if you're familiar with the site at all, the topography drops off dramatically downward from Highway 41 and so it 's nearly impossible to build a berm there and have any - impact whatsoever so there isn't going to be a berm built . Staff wanted, if there was going to be a berm built , they wanted to get that waterline in there now before the berm got put on top of it. And so it 's my understanding that staff has decided that that 's not a problem. Number 12, the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation. Number 13, the applicant agrees with staff recommendation. Same with 14 and 15. Item number 16. We ask that the words, . the connection of, be deleted and so that recommendation would say. review I and G streets so it will provide a 3% or less grade for the first SO feet . For the reason that I've already stated to you, is that we'd like to keep those cul-de-sacs and not link those streets. We think it makes a better - neighborhood. Number 17, I would like to delete the portion that says, delete the center medial, islands on A Street and all the cul-de-sacs. We would request that you allow us to put the medians in in the cul-de-sac island for the reasons that I've already stated. At either way, this might be an opportunity for the city to decide if they like the idea. I mean I don't know if you have them in any neighborhood communities. I think that we've been diligent in the way that we handled all of our homeowners associations in the past and the way we've maintained our neighborhoods. This might be a good time for the city to try it . We think that we'd do a good job and that the city'd be happy with the outcome. 30 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Number 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips, and protection of wetland. And then, continually submitting revised and additional detail and working with the staff to provide the most sensitive application as possible, and we've even submitted additional information as of today. And those items typically will be handled in the final design. Number 19 is a very major problem for us. Provide as build" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. We have never been required of that in the city before. In all of _ our neighborhoods, we're the builder. We don't just develop it and then put a shingle out and ask other builders to come on in and build a house without any knowledge of what 's been done in the grading and the developing and the soil corrections. And if you were going to do an as build on every single lot , in other words that 's a cross section of what's been done on that lot for every one, it would greatly increase the cost of developing the site and we don't feel that it 's necessary and there's really any benefit from it. We would just ask that you allow us to do it in a manner that we've always done it with the city in the past. And the last item is respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments. We would do everything that we possibly can to continue to work with those various departments to answer all those questions and supply any information that they may request . If there's any other questions of me or my staff, we'd be happy to address them. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, in reviewing the comments that are here, are you in agreement with what , on some of these, are you in agreement with Mr. Forbord? Are all these in the best interest of the city? Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, we've been working with Lundgren Bros. on this for quite some time and we think basically we have a real excellent proposal. I mean it 's extraordinarily low density. It 's protecting most of the site. Most of it 's going to remain green so fundamentally we're in agreement . Most of the items that Terry read through are items that we're making good progress on. The revised plans have been submitted to Jo Ann and we have to review them but we think we're making good progress. -We continue to, I mean the only salient one that we still continue to disagree on is whether or not those two cul-de-sacs should be connected. I guess I'm not going to argue about ULI data but ULI is an organization of and by and for developers. You had situations here twice over the summer where fundamentally Teton Lane is basically two cul-de-sacs right now abutting up against each other where the fire truck got stuck on the wrong side. It happens. To say it doesn't happen trivializes the information. We agree that most people would like to live on cul-de-sacs. We don't think we're being knee jerk and in a community like, I believe Eden Prairie says you can have two cul-de-sacs or three cul-de-sacs. That's it. You decide where they're going to go. I mean other communities do that. We do believe that it should be connected. The cul-de-sac right now is 1,400 feet long. Many communities have a 500 foot limitation. We don't do that here. We try to be more sensitive. There's 45 homes on it. So we still would prefer to have that connected. As for the other things, I think we're basically in agreement on everything. By the way, that cul-de-sac design change is one that can be incorporated very simply. I mean there's no question it doesn't have a major impact on the layout of the subdivision. As to the islands in the cul-de-sacs in a parkway type of sense, it presents us with a little bit of a dilemma because as planners we agree with a lot of what Mr. Forbord's saying but the _ question for us, is there a way to work that out that 's acceptable to our 31 • Lily Lound$ meeting - September 14, 1992 engineering department and to our public safety department . We hope there sight be but we'd really defer on that issue to Charles and his folks. Other than that, I think we're pretty much in agreement. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any specific questions that any of the Council may have? Mike. • Councilman Mason: I wanted to ask about those two cul-de-sacs and that 's a bone of contention that will have to be resolved. I guess I don't have any specific questions. I think as usual, Mr. Forbord's done an excellent job of saying what Lundgren wants to do. I just wanted to make a comment on diversity. I'm not quite sure how much diversity there is between a $150,000.00 home and a $250,000.00 home. But that 's my bias. Do you want some more general comments now or do you want to wait on that? Mayor Chmiel: If you'd like to provide those at this time, that 's be acceptable. Councilman Mason: I like the idea of the cul-de-sac islands. I think many of the people on the Planning Commission did too. Certainly seeing that picture with some bushes in the middle is very nice. It looks as the other Lundgren developments in this town, looks very nice on paper. I guess my other major concern is assessments for people that don't own or are not part of the Lundgren property, and I know there's the discussion of future benefit and what not . I think we need to talk about that because I have some strong feelings about that . But it sounds like the City is for the most part in agreement with what's going on here and it looks to be pretty well done. Mayor Chmiel : Thank you. Tom. Councilman workman: I don't have a whole lot of questions. I just, we're talking about Street I and Street G connecting? I too just have the question right now. These conceptual ideas look different to the neighbors when they know they have an assessment . If they do or they don't . The concept can be one of indifference if they don't have one but it can be rather ugly if they do. I guess I'd like out consultant to as soon as possible try to get that information out to the neighbors so they can maybe better assess their impact. That's all I have. Mayor Chmiel : Okay, Richard. Councilman wing: Well I like the PUD concept and my concern is, like of a PUD ordinance. This has been how many years now we've been talking about a PUD ordinance and if you look on page 3 or wherever it is, it talks minimum lot size and it has the word draft . The Council still hasn't come to terms with minimum lot size. And I don't care if you want to decide on 5.000, 10,000's too small for me. I've made that clear and I think we ought to get the PUD off the draft stage and in the ordinance stage which means to do it, we've got to plug in one number which is the minimum lot size. And between the five of us, we ought to be able to come up with a number. 10,000's too low for me but I . not going to argue it if there's a majority opinion. I think we've said we don't want to go below 15,000 but then you don't have a PUD so I want to protect the PUD ordinance and maybe there's a compromise number that we can come up with that we 32 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 can plug into this and be part of this right now. But right now, the PUD ordinance doesn't exist because it 's a draft and we still haven't decided on minimum lot size so I think that has to be done. 10,300. Pick a number. I don't care anymore. I just think we've got to get off the draft stage after all these years, at least Council should, before you people leave, take responsibility for a minimum lot size. Councilman Mason: Here, here. Yeah, I don't have any trouble at all with 10,000 feet . For RSF, I would strongly disagree. With the situation with Near Mountain and what not , I know some people that are on those small lots that are perfectly happy. Mayor Chmiel: And I also know some that aren't. Councilman Wing: And I know many that are. Councilman Mason: We'll be going back and forth on this one for a while. Councilman Wing: It's only going to take 3 of us to say we don't like 10,000 square foot lots. Okay, 4/5. We may never get it . Alright , PUD ordinance. I think we should address it along with this. At the Board, the variance Board. What do you call that group that met at 6:00? Councilman Workman: Board of Adjustments. Councilwoman Dimler: That you're part of you mean? Councilman Wing: Carol Watson brought up a comment about that she doesn't like the appearance that we're giving our city and this is with some justification, and Paul does justify his position here as Terry did earlier, and that 's our 20 foot front yard setback. And Carol commented, we go from street to curb to the house and they're narrow. We have a very short driveway that holds 2 cars, etc. etc. and we wind up with more parking on the street. I like the appearance. I like the parking. I like the front yard of a 30 foot setback versus a 20 and I realize there's environmental concerns but if our rule is 30 feet , and we stick with it , these rules evenly applied are going to come in and develop that way and we don't have to argue about it. If there's a wetland back there, it still has to be protected. I wouldn't shift anything. That lot just has to be built differently. So I don't like the 20 foot frontyard setback. I'd like to see that maintained to 30. I think it 's a better apperance. Having the houses that close, we can talk about who likes front yards and backyards. And the backyards are wonderful for bar-be-ques but the reality is, the kids get on their tric's and they head down the driveway and they head into the street. That's where the action is and you can go through any neighborhood with children, and all the complaints we get , it 's not the problems in their backyards. It's the problem in the streets and their frontyards. A 20 foot driveway's pretty short into the street so, my preference would be that we don't go with the 20 foot front yard setback. I would like to maintain the cul-de-sacs. I'm happy with it. If the fire department has to go to Street A or 6 or I. they know how to get there and there's numerous cases in the city that maybe should be dealt with. 2190 Murray Hill Road is on the east side and there's no connection and 2200 is on the west side. It 's a long way around. So we've got a lot of problems like that but in this case, if we're going to go to cul-de-sac A. we know how to get there and 33 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 connected or not , I don't see that as an issue. I like the medians. I'd urge you to continue the medians and go with the cul-de-sac islands. I think they're classy. I've seen them. I think Terry's got some, I think they'll do it very attractively. Paul, is that as build, you said you're happy with that? The delete the as build, you're content with that? Jo Ann Olsen: The language that we put in there was that Terry had mentioned that he had some other ways of doing that , of meeting that condition with other cities and so we were accepting that. Councilman Wing: Okay. And beyond that , I feel real comfortable that Lundgren Bros. is going first class here. This is going to be one of the nicest projects in our city. The setback and the cul-de-sac's I'm happy with. The medians. That 's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Ursula. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay I asked my four questions up front . I think they did an excellent job of answering them. I want to thank you for that . You didn't evade any of the issues. I like the concept here of a PUO because it does give the city more control . As Terry said, that he could go ahead and develop it . It wouldn't lock as nice and probably get more lots so to me that makes sense to go with the PUD in this instance. I don't really have any objections to any of their deletions. I do like cul-de-sacs. I know people prefer to live on them. The one thing that still remains in my mind is the connection of I and G but if Richard is comfortable with that , being that he's on the Fire Department, then I don't have a problem with that either. Mayor Chmiel: That 's it? Thank you. Councilworran Dimler: But I do think we still need to talk about the assessments to existing neighbors and I know they're going to have a meeting on that but that is a major concern. Mayor Chmiel: That was the first thing I had was the assessments. And secondly, I fully agree that we're going to have to come up with a PUD ordinance rather than going through all the, excuse the expression, Micky Mouse that we've done. And I think we should really try to determine what that figure is going to be. Because I too don't like, you know as well as I do the smaller lot size because there's just a lot of problems that we have to live with once those things go in. And a 12 x 12 deck is something that some people like but there are other people who like the 14 x 60 as well and to have it wrap around the side of a house and not have the proper setback requirements. If you put for that particular pad that you put in. So those are some of the concerns that I still have on that . I too don't like the 20 foot setbacks. I think the 30 are probably a little more acceptable because that way there can be additional vehicles parked, not only in the garage but also on that driveway. And I do really like that aspect of it . And I think I had some of the questions that I had answered too as far as the lot sizes and the street widths. I guess I really don't have any problem with those islands either. I think it dresses it up. It makes it absolutely look neat in appearance and gives a certain amount of richness just to that particular area. But I know there's a given problem with some of our people in doing the snowplowing and the time that 's taken away 34 City Council Meeting - September 14. 1992 from that to get everybody else out during the wintertime is crucial as well. So there's some things that I live with one and look at the other and understand their concerns. So with that , is there any other questions? Councilman Wing: Just one clarification for Paul. On this 90 foot width. That 's not clear to me. These pies are coming in and those houses really look, — they're in like the middle bf the pie and they really point at each other. Are you buying that? Terry's proposal. Paul Krauss: That 's typical for a cul-de-sac. What Terry's proposing that we accept , the problem comes if you assume that all the homes are 30 feet back from the right-of-way. If you arbitrarily say that , because this is a PUD, some of ther,. might have a 40 foot setback or a 35 foot setback, if you push it back to that point , the lot 's plenty wide enough to accommodate the house. We don't have a problem doing that and in the PUD you have the flexibility to say Lots 10 thru 12 on this block are 40 foot setbacks and it works just fine. Councilman Wing: So you're comfortable with number 5 and his deletion? The Planning Comrission looked like they put a lot of concern into that . Councilman Mason: What 's your feeling on that 20 as opposed to 30 foot? Paul Krauss: Well, again we've been advocates of it for the flexibility it — provides. Our streets are designed to accommodate on street parking. If they're not supposed to have any cars on them, let us make them narrower than we do because we're spending a lot of money and taking down a lot of trees and _ doing a lot of grading to make them wide enough to accommodate it. There is no house that 's built in the city that can accommodate any less than 4 cars. Most of them can accommodate more than that without being in the street . I'm sure there's sore cases of abuse. We had on the Board of Adjustment tonight , Carol was talking about people parking semi's and RV's and other things that may probably be in violation of other parts of the City Code right now. We also have sore situations where some streets were built under width. I mean having the right-of-way that we do now and the street design that we do now, is a relatively recent phenomena. It 's only been in the last 4 years, 3-4 years or so that the streets have been that size. So I don't know on a case by case basis where those problems are cropping up. But I know that when you take 60 feet or BO feet for the street and then you take another 30 feet for the front yards, and then you have to pave these long driveways down it , that 's a lot of blacktop. It 's not always, not serving a purpose all the time. It serves some purpose. But you're really pushing out those grading limits and everything we try to do with the PUD is cluster. So we would support the 20 foot. And other flexibility to reduce the amount of impact that development has. Councilman Mason: Let me ask you a question Terry. I mean obviously you're in the business to please the people that buy homes from you. What's your thought on the 20 as opposed to 30? — Terry Forbord: In the last 30 days I've been asked that question by four City Councils and the best way that I can answer this question is that there's a phenomenon, many of you have already heard me say this. There's a phenomena taking place in the marketplace of people buying homes today. Most people not..adays are two income earning families. There's about 3 1/2. 3 to 3 1/2 35 • - --- �•� q .acv4cruUCl lq, 1774 people per household. And they're not sure if that 's going to shrink or if it's going to grow. It depends on who you talk to. And it depends on what part of the country you're talking to and actually even there's some differential just between parts of the Twin Cities area. But those people now, children are more active. All the kids are playing piano or they're in soccer or hockey or, I mean kids are more active and families are more active than at any time in the history of man. And what our people, customers are telling us, the vast majority. Not all. Are telling us that they do not want to spend a lot of time maintaining lawns anymore. In fact , our company is going through a critical self analysis right now because we have always put redwood siding on all of our homes for 23 years. And now we are having people not buy homes from us because they have to stain it and they're saying, why won't you put aluminum siding on? Why won't you put vinyl siding on? Now of course we offer stucco and brick but for the vast majorities of families, they cannot afford those types of _ non-maintenance type of material. The point that I am making is we have seen a vast , this is not just me standing before you saying give me smaller lots so I can have more of them. Our customers are saying, they don't want large lots. They don't want to maintain them. If they have any time at all on the weekend, they want to spend it with their family. Now that does not mean that everybody feels that way. What we're seeing is 10% to 20% of the people that are moving from somewhere else. Maybe they're moving from inner city or maybe they're moving from Richfield, or maybe they're moving from another community where they want a little more open space and they want the bigger lot . We still have some of those people and that 's why, if you look at the proposal that 's before you, we try to have a variety in there and we don't want all the small lots in the open areas and all the lots in the wooded area, if possible. Even though from an environmental standpoint there may be some benefit to that because we find some people want a small lot in a wooded area. Or a large lot in an open area. The kid's on the football team. He's a quarterback and he wants to be able to run and whatever. So that 's why we try to have a variety but it is an interesting phenomena. And it 's taking place all over the country. Not just here. And so all we've tried to do as business people is react to what is it that the buyers are telling us that they want . Okay, now how do you do that and do it taster? And make it so it doesn't feel like a streetscape in South Minneaoclis where the setbacks from the sideyards are 5 feet. And you've got homes 10 feet together. And they're all in a row. That 's one of the reasons if you've noticed in our subdivisions you see this undulating serpentine roadways and if you just drive down a street that looks like that , you can't tell by driving down in your car how close those homes are. I know nobody can. I can't , and I've developed them. I can't tell unless I got out . Now if they were all like little soldiers right next to each other in a straight line, yeah then you could probably tell. You'd say boy, they look awfully close. So I don't know if that 's answered your question but I do know from a demand standpoint , what our customers are telling us they want . I do know from an environmental standpoint , the flexibility that's allowed by that type of setback, front yard, side yard, rear yard is definitely, if used correctly and applied correctly, is environmentally sound. There's no question about that. That 's the benefit of the PUD. It gives you flexibility. Now if a city decided that they didn't want PUD's and they wanted them all to be standard subdivisions, they'd all look alike. There'd be very little diversity and there'd be far more grading and far much more tree loss and all those types of things so, those are the benefits. And interestingly enough, in Chestnut Ridge 9th Addition in the Near Mountain PUD, those are 8,500 square foot lots. 36 They're wooded lots and I would imagine that if people went up there and looked, they'd be shocked. They wouldn't believe me if I told them they were 8,500 square foot lots with 55 foot width lots. Most people would never say that . And they're very successful. There's probably 60 homes up there like that and I bet most people didn't even know that because it doesn't look like it . So the point is, it becomes a perception in people's minds that if you have this much _ width, then it 's bad. But if you went out and looked at it, you might say, geez that doesn't look so bad. I can't see the line on the ground. The homes look nice so a lot of it depends on how it 's done. If you've done a good job in the way you've laid it out . I hope I didn't talk too much. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not , I would accept the motion to carry through with some of the thoughts and some of the recommendations, or not — recommendations for this concept approval. Councilman Wing: I didn't hear any, if we accept the applicant 's changes which _ were approved by staff, I would so move PUD 192-4 with the changes requested by the applicant as approved by staff. Councilwoman Dimler: I second that . Councilman Wing: Numbers 1 thru 19. Mayor Chmiel : 20. Councilwoman Dimler: And 20. Councilman Wing: What did I miss? Oh excuse me, 1 thru 20. Councilwoman Dimler : I'll second it . Mayor Chmiel : Okay, it 's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Masor: Where does that leave the I thru J? mayor Chmiel : I think that 's something that is still in staff's hands. And we 're not saying that we're not going. Councilwoman Dimler: No, we deleted it in this motion. Councilman ting: Yes, they remain cul-de-sacs. Mayor Chmiel: It will remain as cul-de-sacs? Jo Ann Olsen: That 's if you're accepting. Mayor Chmiel: That is if we are accepting. Still staff has some concerns with that . Jo Ann Olsen: We're not going to beat on a dead horse. Paul Krauss: The purpose of bringing it up here is, I mean we've made our positicn clear throughout but the Planning Commission had a difference of 37 Lity council meeting - September 14, 1992 opinion and we'll go with whatever you tell us. I think the developer here, and we're looking for some guidance tonight as to would you prefer that it be left alone or be brought back as a thru street . Mayor Chriel: Okay. Would you like to restate that? Councilman Workman: I'd like i't left alone. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: So in other words, accept the deletion? Councilman Workman: Correct . Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve Planned Unit Development, PUD 192-4 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, 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. Provide justification that the required buildable area can be accommodated. 6. Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30' rear yard setback and that there is a 30' exterior setback. 7. The PUD is permitted a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet . 6. Mairtair a minimum 10' side yard setback for all lots and that all accessory buildings and structures will maintain a 10' setback, or maintain at least a 20' separation between principal structures. It will be the burden of the developer to verify that there is a 20' separation between principal structures at time of building permit application. 9. Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping required for a residential PUD (boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping tree _ preservation, foundation and yard plantings) and a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings will not be necessary since the site is already so heavily vegetated. 10. Provide architectural covenants. 38 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 11. (Deleted. ) 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 recommendation by the Fire Marshall. 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 I and G street to provide a 3% or less grade for the first 50' at intersection. 17. If the cul-de-sac islands are permitted, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to provide an acceptable design. 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips and protection of wetlands. 19. (Deleted. ) 20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPTUAL PUD ON 18+ ACRES FOR A COMMERCIAL/RETAIL CENTER. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD. TARGET DEVELOPMENT. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Ryan Construction is proposing a development of approximately 18.78 acres. This proposal has changed. We've already added additional acreage. It 's going to the Planning Commission for preliminary and site plan approval on Wednesday so a lot of what I'm talking abo.t is dated information but for the purposes tonight , which is conceptual approval, we'd like to go back and show you what we've gone to the Planning Commission with and give you their recommendations and pass those forward back through the process. So the conceptual proposal was 17.78 acres which included a Target store on approximately 10.36 acres and Outlot B. And Outlot B that they came in with was approximately, excuse me. There were three variations in this area right in here. The proposal also includes a possible gateway project in this area in here, which the HRA is looking at. And in addition, outlot here which would be the trees that the City will be purchasing. The HRA, excuse me will be purchasing and one of the conditions of approval that we would maintain is that those trees be not disturbed. It'd be approximately an acre and a half. Based on the length, the time of the hour, I'd just briefly go to the summary of the rezoning issues and the reasons why the staff would support the zoning to the PUO, which would be that it 's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for screening of the undesireable views of the loading areas. The preservation of the desireable site characteristics. More specifically the 39 • JOHNSON/DOLEJSI/TURNER PROPERTY CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 Concept Plan Approval Issues RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves 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 DELETE reduction of grading, use of retaining walls, removal and shortening UNDERLINED of cul-de-sacs. different housing styles. lowering of street grades, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations. Applicant has met with staff and considered their recommendations where possible; altering the grading plan; utilizing retaining walls on homesites; reconfiguring lot lines, while still keeping with applicants design. Applicant does not wish to delete cul-de-sac H and replace it with a private road. 2. Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over 6" caliper being removed. Applicant submitted on 9/11/92 a tree removal tabulation chart for the site. A more detailed plan will be developed during the final design stage as each phase of development occurs. 3. Revise lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations . Applicant submitted revisions on 9/11/92. 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. Applicant submitted a plan on 9/8/92 showing building pads on each lot and a lot tabulation chart detailing setbacks on 9/11/92. DELETE 5. Revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90'1 at the — UNDERLINED building setback or provide justification that the required buildable area can be accommodated. On 9/8/92 and 9/11/92 applicant submitted narrative drawings and charts describing how this can occur. 6. Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30' rear yard setback and that there is a 30' exterior setback. On 9/8/92 and 9/11/92 applicant submitted drawings and charts that demonstrates this. Julu,sun/UuleJsi/lurner Properly Concept Plan Approval Issues Page 2 7. The PUD is permitted a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. Applicant accepts the recommendation of staff and agrees with its application. Providing flexibility for environmental purposes. 8. Maintain a minimum 10' side yard setback for all lots and that all accessory buildings and structures will maintain a 10' setback, or maintain at least a 20' separation between principal structures. It will be the burden of the developer to verify that there is a 20' separation between principal structures at time of building permit application. Applicant accepts staff recommendation and the responsibility of monitoring the condition. 9. Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping required for a residential PUD (boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping tree preservation, foundation and yard plantings) and a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings will not be necessary since the site is already so heavily vegetated. Applicant accepts staff recommendation. 10. Provide architectural covenants. Applicant agrees. DELETE 11. Locate the extension for watermain service along the east side of UNDERLINED Trunk Highway 41. Applicant has discussed this with the engineering department. They thought a berm was to be built along Highway 41 and they wanted to put watermain in first. No berm will be built due to the existing drop in topography. 12. Extend the watermain beyond "I" street to "G" street to loop the two water systems together. Applicant agrees with staff recommendation. 13. Locate fire hydrants approximately 300' apart and in accordance with any location recommendations by the Fire Marshall. Applicant agrees with staff recommendation. 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. Applicant requests that during final design these conditions be met. 15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A. Applicant agrees with staff recommendation. Juhuson/Dolejsi/Turner Property Concept Plan Approval Issues Page 3 Delete 16. Review the connection of I and G street to provide a 3% or less UNDERLINED grade fon the first 50' at intersection. Applicant agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation to leave the cul-de-sacs as proposed. Applicant agrees to provide a 3% or less grade for the first 50' at intersection. DELETE 17. Delete the center median islands on A street and all cul-de-sacs. UNDERLINED If the cul-de-sac islands are permitted, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to provide an acceptable design. Applicant agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation to include the medians and cul-de-sac islands as proposed. Applicant agrees to work with the engineering department to provide an acceptable design. 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips and protection of wetland. Applicant has continually submitted revised and additional detail to staff for review and comments, providing the most sensitive application possible. DELETE 19. Provide "as build" locations and dimensions of all corrected house UNDERLINED pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official . Because applicant is the builder on all the lots in the subdivision applicant believes this condition is counter productive. This condition is very expensive and not necessary. 20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments. Applicant agrees to work with all City departments to resolve any issues. JOHNSON-DOLEJSI-TURNER SITE TREE REMOVAL TABULATION AREA A Box elder 6" - 8" caliper 57 trees 8" - 12" 17 10" - 12" 6 AREA B Ash Maple 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees 6" - 8" caliper 1 tree 8" - 10" 2 10" - 12" 1 Box elder 12" - 14" 1 6" - 8" caliper 19 trees 8" - 10" 13 10" - 12" 9 12" - 14" 4 AREA C Ash Box elder 6" - 8" caliper 7 trees 6" - 8" caliper 68 trees 8" - 10" 3 8" - 10" 32 10" - 12" 3 10" - 12" 25 12" - 14" 1 12" - 14" 12 14" - 16" 1 14" - 16" 4 30" 1 Cottonwood Apple 16" - 18" caliper 13 trees 12" 1 tree 30" 1 Basswood Oak 10" - 12" caliper 5 trees 30" 1 12" - 14" caliper 1 tree 30" - 32" 1 1 AREA D Ash Oak 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees 6" - 8" caliper 1 tree 8" - 10" 1 8" - 10" 2 10" - 12" 1 10" - 12" 3 12" - 14" 1 12" - 14" 2 14" - 16" 3 Maple 16" - 18" 14 6" - 8" caliper 4 trees 18" - 20" 6 8" - 10" 3 20" - 22" 2 10" - 12" 3 22" - 24" 3 14" - 16" 4 24" - 26" 6 26" - 28" 3 Elm 28" - 30" 3 6" - 8" caliper 10 trees 30" - 36" 3 8" - 10" 10 Box elder Basswood 6" - 8" caliper 13 trees 6" - 8" caliper 5 trees 8" - 10" 1 12" - 14" 1 10" - 12" 4 12" - 14" 1 Cottonwood 18" - 24" 4 6" - 8" caliper 5 trees 14" - 16" 8 AREA E Oak Ash 6" - 8" caliper 1 tree 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees Elm Willow 6" - 8" caliper 11 trees 10" - 12" 1 tree AREA F Box elder 6" - 8" caliper 12 trees 8" - 10" 7 12" - 14" 10 14" - 16" 1 AREA G Box elder Basswood 6" - 8" caliper 3 trees 14" -16" caliper 3 trees 8" - 10" 5 2 AREA H Box elder Basswood 6" - 8" caliper 11 trees 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees 8" - 10" 2 12" - 14" 3 10" - 12" 1 Willow Oak 16" 1 tree 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees Chokecherry 6" - 8" 2 trees AREA I Ash Oak 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees 6" - 8" caliper 7 trees 8" - 10" 3 8" - 10" 11 10" - 12" 2 10" - 12" 4 12" - 14" 4 Elm 18" - 20" 1 6" - 8" caliper 2 trees 20" - 22" 1 22" - 24" 3 Hickory 8" - 10" caliper 8 trees Chokecherry 6" - 8" caliper 5 trees Poplar 8" - 10" 7 6" - 8" caliper 1 tree 8" - 10" 1 AREA J Box elder 6" - 8" caliper 25 trees 8" - 10" 5 INDIVIDUAL SCATTERED TREES 6" Spruce 4 trees 10" Ash 1 24" Poplar 1 12" Willow 6 3 0000000 0000000000 r 000000 r rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rtrrrtrtrt rib rtrtrtrt 0 rtrtrtrtrtrt 0 rrrrrl-+ I--� rIDO V ON (xi t. W Nr 1) C u-t .PW Nr x -1 C\ In .A W N r O N - rNNNrN .A WrrrrrN .PwW rrNNNr ti tDo W Co .PIOW V) 0 CA Ch Ln �1U10C ch ...4 LC 0 . . . . 1-3 vDN1DCAtDNN NCNr0oOC1 .p .A .10o 00U1 ,11DW O 10w0 --.10 VDlJ1 F-aOJN ‘.D (J1 -.10U1La VD (71 (..30 --3k.00 �+ U100 U1OU10 L71 (.7100000 (1100 000000 ',L1 P trar 0 cn rH 0-1 1-4 r rrr til vD0 vD1D00000 Co 0 0000KJ V) V) D I-JIDONOtD y £ 000000U, 000U1000000 0U1U1000 co 1-i > O (-) H x = r NNNNrNN Nrrrrrr .P .P .A. rrrrrr < l'i 0 w •A •t=. ch .p r -1 0 .P Ch (,n O 00 1D U1 O O -1 U1 .P U1 U1 Ch CI U1 U1 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 U1 0 U1 0 U1 0 0 0 M 0 • tl1 OA G) ro 0 Cl' 0 r H 0 H r Cn ttl N N NJ NJ W W W W W W W lJ W W W W NJ W W W W U W CO 0 r" H 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 › Z 5 1 X •-3 H 03 N x CV to £ ZI til tli 0-3 rn 0 Z Z 01 r Z Z Z ZZ Z rn o CA Z a .AZ Z Z Ro° y H A� - cnOwcvwo op1A� Wp1A, wU100 AuU10iyA? ) H (") z 0 x0 £ Ci) m W C\ z z W .p o z z z z z z w v W F-11-1Z Z Z 0 Z Ft U1 0 w AJ A7 U1 0 o Al W Al Al Al Al U1 0 o Al U1 0 AI CoA) l-3 1-1 ►Tj srorri W Z r r N N r N N W r r r r r N W N r r r N N N r tT1 al co W W .P000 CO vD ON Ch 0 -JL1O41. J JVOC\ rCh . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . CA VD VD Ch 1D 1D W vD C% r CO O Ch .p .p r .P CO r A 1D W 0 VI C CNrU -. 000 -] o00N �DL1 �10U10 W U1NC1 -. C0 • J wLa0U10U10 U1U101r100000w00 0000000 k+ 0 ( z1 to o .A .a N N > o -1 -1 Z ZZZ Z ZZ ZZ 7 Z M Z Z U1 C1 Z z t� L.) N �1 w Cu A) CU P a CUAl Ar Al a Aa 01 A) w a U1 o rD W > 3 > o -1 Ln 0 -4 tt 0-3 HZ rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrt-4 tD bcI 00000000 0000000000 0000000000 r a0 rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrt rtrtrtrtrtrrrtrtrtrt rtrtrtrrrtrtrtrtrtrt 0 4 n (D A .0. .0. A A . W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N I--+ LI) cn A W N I-+ O tD W J Ch Ul A W N N O t0 CO J cn U1 4N W N F' O VD CO N p 1 N N W W W N N1-+ 1.4 ch L4 +.+ N N N N W W W N NF' N ► + N1.4 C) N N Ch N 01 Ul W Ch J O O N CO c0 O N W U1 Ul N N N N CO Oh CO CO 1D 0 CD y u. ,4 CD OF O0 Ch F W CAJNVDFrJcnCh W OW J001-+ U1O+ N ch CO N CO 1--+ O I--1 QO N Q1 O J Fa J 1D l0 U1 O W Ul A CO V0 O Ln W 1.4 O UD I-+ • F+• 0OUIOU1U100 OOO Y OU10000 OU1cnOU1U10000 I H D s✓ 01 fD rr 0 CO 1-3 r I—' tli 0 1D O N Co 1D 1D LID CD 0 uD CO CO O LO uD Co 1D 0 Co Co O 0 .D O O tD lD HZ rt U1U1U1OU1000 cTOCU1000000 OOOOOOOCnOO CDH > v H (-) 1-3 Al xx tr sv - r rt N N N N N F' I-+ W N N N N N N N N N N 1-+ N N N N N N N C 1�-3 0 J J N O W CO N J CO F-+ O N J uD N N A N W ID CO O A I-+ N W O N tt 00000Ut00 CDcn OU1c1L1U10o OOLI, cn0cncn Ln0101 poO U1 tt 0 ro x h7 'T1 PJ W N N N N N N N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N CD 0 00000000 0000000000 0000000000 2 C) F3 • tIl 1-3 AA Q\ AAA AAS A � AA ONAc\ UTAAU1JUl01 bhH w co 000000 a oosv oC1 w a ocn U1U100cnU100tri 0 ry C) Co 113 F-IHC .,. .:. Fr co N N :5 N :3 :3 W 1"+ W N N 1.4 N A N N v W W Al 000000 Al OOG1 0W >v sv OU1 U1U1000T1U100010 HH +T1 pC b tr1 NNW NN1-+ NN NcnW WNF-+ NNNN WwWNNF-+ NNNN t=1 A F+ - 00 .Ch -4 --I + 01tDO 1.4 0O +POF400tri UIJ .PA ▪ CD VD W W oQ1F-+ 1.4 CO AJ CO ID 1.4 COO O0AAco\ W 1-, 1.+ 01 Cl NJ CO W NU1J �00o 01-+ W J1DtDQ10 +P - JJQ Ln -4LnANDcDcn 1 000000U10o O O W OU1U1U10000 U10U1ww01 03 cDcn0 to c„) ccoZ0,1 00 N toZOi H :G 3021-3W rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr x roCa 00000000 0000000000 0000000000 r a0 rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrt rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrrrtrr rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrt O ,0 J J J J C11 CA CACA Ch C>1 CA CA CA CA in in U1 U1 In 1`n rrn Ln Ln V1 4h. 42. 'JXC N LJ N N O vD CO J Cr Ul .P W N H O 1O CO J Ch in .P w N N O 1D CO J Ch CJ O N O — I v NJ F J 1-4 1-4 N 1� 1-+ N I-+ N N 1� 1� ►-+ H+ h+ h+ ►-+ N N o--1 N N I-+ 1-+ F. N 0 r O wNUIUIJ PCh J w1DUtJCO610 vD .P .A OhNNCnwWcou, VDVD OO CD .• ••• ••• y u. CAN .PONCAJw JCN41. tO .NO3KJchCn .P tJ11DJtDONwtDJJ {t rn .P JNwCOLn PCA HNNCOat. JJOUIID H .PCOJNLn VDChCh • F.• 000Ln0000 U10000100000 0000000U100 I P II ezD CD fD r 0 VI 0-3 NHH HH H HH tt71 0 CD VDONOVOIDlD 1O t0 CO co v0 COvOOO1 vD vDOuOvOOO D 'D 0-3E rt O00000 0 V 000000U1000 OOOUiU10U1U1OU1 WH > 0 1-3 O H xx tr • r rt H H H H H H H N N N N N N H H H N N N N N N N N W w w w < 1-3 0 LJ .A ch U1 CA in CO lD a1 U1 J N O U1 Ch ch LJ 4tb Ch ch i1 U1 .P C>• O NJ Ln ch tri InOOU1OUIOO U1OU1OOU1U1U1Ou, OOOOUIOOUIOOOhl • CT] Mq th 'TJ N W W W w W w w N W w N LJ w w w N N N N N N w w w w w w p• 0 00000000 0000000000 0000000000 ;Db z ny stn ►-3 1-3 0 ) ) ) 0 Oa a 000a a lno 0oln0lna D Ul0 0 › E 0 xv Emo, HI-3 C H J O O N H :J NNNJ O HN NNHNH 0 HHH O ;b 'TJ 0aaaaaa0 Oaa000aaU10 00U10u1 WU100 b-3H0T1 xbr>y - z z N N H N N N N H H H N N H N H H H H H H H H N N H H H N CTS N NUIUIJ PCh U11OU10wC.1U1l0NH NCh00C>1NwCOC>1 La 4t. ',D' ►3 J N A O N CT J CO N Ch .P CO .P O N CT w O O N N Ch 1D N w CO N .P Cl" CO J N w OO U1 .P CO CT H N In O H J O N O VD N UP Ch w U1 J N J tO CO OO U10000 CO000CoCOOOInw C.10LOU100Jww rn 1-3 (l-i• z0 N N H ,'D+ 20i waaaaaaw Aaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa 0 0 J wp t y rrrrrrrrr rn t-, t-' CD rrrrrrrrr CD Vca 000000000 r 00 r 000000000 r w0 rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt 0 rt rt 0 rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt 0 4 1000J01UI .A W NH C) NHN 7. 00 00 CO J J J J J J N1-, 01.003J01U1 .P ,pp .P L.) N Z I 1 0 0 HNJ W NHNNNN (J1 .P NN1--, 1-+ NN .P171N () r 011..../ 01,./ 1...) i-, `..1 (.710 O 1-+ N .P N W A N N U1 N 0 0 (D y u. W 0N01.0N01J (JI W 10 (..) i-4 ulc: pNWJO rt to U1 N N N U1 W J O .P J U1 W N U1 .P Q• .P 1•+ N N • 1, 00000 (.71000 UlO U1U10000000 I y sv 01 Z CD ns) t-0 n 0 - Cn F-, 1--, 1--+ 1•-1 N F-, N Pi ►3 r N1.--. o1D101010100 NN 0CO 10 10 10 10 10 00 10 yrt oU10U1U10U1U10 Ul0 OU100000U, 0 W - n 0-3-3 w N x Cr Z A r rt - • H 1-' N HI--, r N 1•+ Fr N w 1-+ 1-+ 1-+ N 1-r N N W1-) C 1-30 �-3 0 W N CO (..71 N J 03 W 01 1--, W CO W N .P 01 O W N U1 tri OUl o000U100 00 o0U1Cn0U100U1 � 17 pJ [!i c) 'V VI 0-3x c tri 'T1 1-3 XI W w w w w W W W W W W W N N N N N (...../ W N DJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D:' Z r)• ►3 to E tritzi - W w o o 1)) w a g1) w 0 v1 Al Cu Cu Al AI Ai Lu o cn > E n my x u) tx, Z Z F� N Z Z Z r Fr J Z Z Z Z w F� O PO 'Ti - Al A 0 o Cu Cu Cu Al AI o LT) A+ w A+ w AI a A+ O 1s 0-3 1-1 021 x 'XI tri Pi 1-+ N N N N N N N N W H+ N H N N N N A U1 N ttz 01 W .PN W NJ (.710 W 01 N .PI-+ W .PNN .PN q W O H J 10 N 01 J c71 0 10 N F+ UI 01 10 N W .P 0 rli U1N CO HU1 W00 .P 10 J WNU1 .A0\ .PN070 'l7 00000171000 WN U1U1000U100 W G CD (!! Z0 o-& H3ali A) wACuAA 0) CuA) A) 0) A) CuPAIAIA WiUw 1 x! tii H 0 rrrrr m rrrrrrrr w ro4 00000 r 00000000 r cu rt rt rt rt rt 0 rt rt rt rt rt rt rt rt 0 u O' U1 .AWNH x OJQ• 1_nAWN1--k x O (n U1 O rn z NNNWH HHHHHWNI--1 r H 00AlDU1 X10100 W U1 U1w01 0 fD y u. AH . 0 10HrnH0w01 W U1000U1 00 N0 - AUlo ►�• 00000 000010000 I y z fD rr n 0 my r HHHNH H HHH r tri 0 OoWN -.1H 0k0tr) HHHt00 0-3 rt o 01 U1 0 0 001010100001 (71 H • p y 0 0-3 xx rr H r rt • 0 H• NHN1 I.) HHHHHNHH C ►3 0 0O1N0A 0101 . \ 0 - J til 0001001 00101001000 ;Up (!1 yet=] caro t�1 0-3 tT1 'TJ �3 x1 w w w w w w w w w w w w 1:0 0 00000 00000000 lz 00-3 Cr) E tri 1-3 H A A J z J J z z Cd 010 01 a a a a a a a a � E n x cn xv H y C HHZHZ Z Z 0 0 Z 0 0 0 p 7r1 'Tj U100) Ula a a a a a a a a yH017 • Cr) _ x1 x N N N W H H H H H H W N H tt] N N A N U1 01 CO W U1 U1 W 01 1-3 ►-+�N� o � H.41 ONHOwrnw rtaa --Iwo Lo co ) A 0 -.30100 PO OwOwO 000010000 t� Cr)• 0 1D H zG 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aaaoa aaaaaaaa g0-3 rti H• 7�d CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 '1 OFFICIAL ENGINEERING CC MEMORANDUM Revision No. TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Sr. Planner rived b i Engineer Date p �1 FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Approved by Call Goin... DATE: September 30, 1992 Oen SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Johnson/Turner/Dolejsi Property Between _ Galpin and Trunk Highway 41 - Lundgren Brothers Development LUR File 92-8 Upon review of the preliminary plans submitted by Schoell & Madson dated September, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations: _ UTILITIES - SANITARY SEWER On September 28, 1992, the City Council received a feasibility report for providing trunk utility improvements to service this development. The City Council also called for a public - hearing to be held on October 26, 1992 to decide whether or not to authorize the project. The feasibility report estimates the project to be completed by August, 1993. The public improvements shown on the preliminary utility plan sheets could be constructed in conjunction with the trunk improvements in order to meet the scheduling needs of the applicants. The drainage and utility easements should be dedicated with the final platting process. The easement surrounding the lift station should be 25 feet wide on each side. The proposed sanitary sewer lines are fairly well-designed throughout the development although no provisions have been made for servicing adjacent parcels. Staff has reviewed aerial topography maps for the adjacent parcels and has determined that sewer and water stubs should be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant should extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary to serve a small portion of the adjacent property to the east. An individual sewer and water service should also be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. This parcel would pay the appropriate connection and hook-up charges to the City at time of connection. The City will then refund a portion rs t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 2 of the fees back to the applicant for reimbursement of the cost of installation of the sewer and water service. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and the existing home (Lot 4, Block 2) will be required to connect to the municipal sewer line within one (1) year of the sewer system being operational. The existing water system (well) on these parcels may be utilized until the well fails, then connection would be required. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detailed plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with final platting. UTILITIES - WATERMAIN The proposed municipal water system has been designed in general conformance with the recently approved feasibility study. The feasibility study proposes a 16-inch watermain to be extended by the City along Street A from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. This development proposes to connect on to the 16-inch watermain to service each phase of the development. The applicant has proposed to loop the water system from Street B to Street A through Cul-de-sacs G and I. Fire hydrant spacing appears sufficient. Final review and approval of the fire hydrant locations will be subject to the City's fire marshal. Extension of municipal water service to the adjacent properties to the north should be extended with sanitary sewer services between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The applicant has submitted a revised grading/drainage plan since the conceptual review process. The revised preliminary grading plan has reduced the grading limits in some areas of the development. This was accomplished by reducing street grades and elimination of sedimentation basin No. 7. As a result, tree loss has been somewhat reduced. In an effort to save trees staff has reviewed the possibility of shortening Street J and servicing the remaining four lots in the private drive. This however does not accomplish saving trees as so desired. It is recommended that Street J be left as proposed. The entire site drains in a southerly direction through a series of wetlands. Approximately 2.60 acres of wetlands are proposed to be filled as a result of the development. The applicant is proposing 2.81 acres of mitigation to compensate for the filling of wetlands. The grading plans shall be revised to include mitigation areas. Staff is also concerned with the size of the sedimentation basins proposed. No drainage calculations have been submitted to verify sedimentation basin storage capacity or water quality standards are being achieved. This may result in larger sedimentation/retention basins than are shown on the Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 3 proposed plans. The applicant shall provide the high water elevation for all wetlands to determine drainage easement limits and lowest floor elevations on the homes adjacent to the wetlands. The grading plans also indicate realigning a drainage swale through Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 2. The new proposed drainageway brings the swale fairly close to the proposed homes. The appropriate drainage and utility easement over this drainageway will be required to maintain the drainageway. The applicant may want to consider shifting the drainage swale further from the building pads to allow for future anticipated decks or patios that would encroach the drainageway. The same scenario holds true for Lots 70, 71, 72 and 73, Block 2 and Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block 2. The wetland mitigation sketches show existing and proposed drain tiles. The drain tile — systems should also be shown on the final grading plan and record drawings be provided upon completion. I question the purpose of the drain tile at this time since the purpose of the wetland is to retain water and habitat for waterfowl, wildlife, etc. I understand the need for drain tile prior to the development phase when the land was under agricultural use. The applicant should provide reasoning why the drain tiles are still necessary with this subdivision. From the City's maintenance perspective, the drain tiles are typically difficult — to locate as well as maintain a small diameter of pipe. Plans propose storm runoff from the streets and lawns to be conveyed through a series of storm sewers which drain to six different sedimentation basins located throughout the site. As previously mentioned, some storm drainage and ponding calculations have not been _ submitted. The ponding sizes may vary depending on final calculations. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10-year storm events and detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain surface water discharge rates at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year,24-hour storm event. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed over the drainage areas as well as all storm sewers leading to and from the areas outside the street right-of-way. The storm sewer proposed through Lot 33, Block 2 should be extended to discharge into sedimentation basin No. 6. As proposed, the discharge would be in the middle of Lot 33. Drainage and utility easements should be provided along the centerline of the drainageway or storm sewer to a width sufficient to provide property maintenance and to provide protection from storm water runoff from a 100-year storm, 24-hour duration. Appropriate front, side and rear drainage and utility easements corresponding to lot lines should be provided with the final plat. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide in areas containing utilities with the exception where two utility lines may occupy the easement, i.e. sewer and water. In that case, a 30-foot wide easement should be dedicated. Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 4 According to the EPA's federal guidelines, construction activities that are initiated after October 1, 1992 which disturb 5 acres or more need to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit administered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Due to the size of this development, the applicant will be required to apply. STREETS The major thoroughfare (Street A) is designated as an east/west collector street providing future connection from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. According to the City's ordinance, collector-type streets shall be constructed 36-feet wide face-to-face with an 80- foot wide right-of-way. The plans proposed what appears to be a 36-foot wide back-to-back street within a 60-foot right-of-way. Staff is comfortable in granting a variance for this right- of-way in an effort to minimize setback and tree preservation. The plans propose a typical roadway section for Street A of 36-foot wide back-to-back. Staff recommends that the street be widened to 36-foot wide gutter-to-gutter to accommodate two 12-foot lanes and one 10- foot parking lane. The concrete sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Street A. The sidewalk is proposed to be constructed within one foot of the property line. This will leave a 41-foot green space between curb and sidewalk. The plans propose a series of landscaped islands in the cul-de-sac as well as in the center median on Street A at the Trunk Highway 41 entrance. Staff strongly recommends removing the island median in the cul-de-sacs. This creates snowplowing problems, safety hazards and possible liability risks to the City. The Public Works Superintendent has indicated that the islands as proposed will restrict movements of the plowing equipment and require the plows to make pass between the island and the curbs thus piling most of the snow in the homeowners' driveways. City plow crews typically utilize the entire cul-de-sac so as not to pile the snow in the homeowners' driveways. These islands will also create a parking problem. The street will have to be posted no parking to accommodate turning movements of garbage trucks, school buses and delivery vehicles, etc. Without the island, the vehicle would be able to maneuver to negotiate the cul-de-sac turning radius. As we are all aware, cul-de-sacs are fully utilized by the neighborhood children as play areas. The island will only be a magnet for children to play in and around. This will create a safety hazard with regards to vehicles utilizing the cul-de-sac not being able to see around the other side or when a homeowner is backing out of their driveway. The islands serve no purpose for traffic delineation, therefore, may result as a liability issue on behalf of the City. Islands also create added maintenance responsibility for the City. The applicant may desire to have the association maintain these islands. While Lundgren Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 5 Bros.' developments appear to have cooperative homeowner associations, other developments may not. By allowing the island areas the City is opening the door to all developments in the City. Staff predicts the City will become overwhelmed with maintenance responsibilities requiring additional staff & equipment. The center median proposed along Street A at the entrance off Trunk Highway 41 has some of the same problems as previously mentioned. In addition, Outlot F at sometime will be built on and thus the vehicle will have to do u-turn at the first intersection in order to gain access to its lot. The applicant should delete the island median and construct an entry-type monument which should be place on one of the corner lots (Outlot A or F). There currently exists a driveway to serve the existing building located on Lot 1, Block 6. This driveway will have to be relocated to access off Street A. Staff predicts turning movements at Trunk Highway 41 and Street A will require roadway improvements on Trunk Highway 41 such as deceleration and acceleration lanes and/or bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41. The applicant shall incorporate these improvements into the street construction plans accordingly. An access permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for work proposed in MnDOT right-of-way. Street grades range from 0.80% to 6.4% which is in accordance with City codes. Street B is proposed as a 1500-foot long dead-end street. Staff strongly recommends that Street I be _ extended to connect with Street G. The applicant is already proposing to extend sewer and water utilities along the same alignment. From a traffic engineering and safety standpoint, it is only prudent to have these two streets connected also. MISCELLANEOUS Addresses for the existing homes in the subdivision as well as the businesses will need to be changed when the new streets are completed adjacent the property. Plans propose erosion control barriers adjacent to the wetlands. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher quality types of wetlands. There appears to be an existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. The applicant will need to resolve vacating the private road easement prior to final plat. The preliminary plat proposes drainage easements over all of the existing wetlands within the subdivision except for those on the outlots. Staff recommends that the applicant provide drainage and conservation easements over all wetlands including those on the outlots. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. Jo Arm Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 6 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for construction of the lift station within the development. 2. The applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant shall extend the sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the sewer and water service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. 3. The existing business on Lot 1, Block 1 and existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer line within one year after the sewer system is operational. 4. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction with the final platting. 5. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA,Health Department,Watershed District,DNR and MnDOT. 7. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas as well as show locations of existing and proposed drain tile systems. 8. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10-year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. 9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding areas. An easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each side of drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 7 with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement area. — In those areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. 10. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6. — 11. The applicant shall construct a 36-foot wide gutter-to-gutter urban street section along Street A. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31-foot wide back-to-back). 12. The landscaped islands proposed for the cul-de-sacs and Street A at the Trunk Highway 41 entrance shall be deleted unless the applicant can justify them from a _ traffic engineering standpoint. 13. Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in accordance _ with the City grid system once the streets have been constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). _ 14. Street B is proposed as a 1500-foot long dead-end street. Staff recommends that Street I be connected with Street G, thus eliminating two dead-end cul-de-sacs. — 15. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher-quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower quality wetlands and - sedimentation ponds. 16. The applicant shall resolve vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 17. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including outlots. 18. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 19. The applicant shall provide high water elevations for all wetlands. 20. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if Jo Ann Olsen September 30, 1992 Page 8 so required by MnDOT. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 21. If islands are allowed in the cul-de-sacs, No Parking zones shall be established to prohibit parking in the cul-de-sacs. jms/ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITY OF _ Vihtl4CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 •1 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official • , L DATE: 10/01/92 1� SUBJECT: 92-4 PUD, 92-6 SUB, 92-5 Rezone, 92-5 WAP. Response to applicants ' Concept Plan Approval Issues dated September 14 , 1992 . 1. Item 19 . Provide "as build" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. We currently have subdivisions in which the developer is the builder and problems have occurred and continue to occur relating to properly locating dwellings on corrected pads. Problems have occurred with homes being too large to fit on the pads, appendages to homes (porches, decks, etc. ) missing the pads, homes being moved or twisted to suit customers and missing the pads, and pads not being placed exactly as originally intended. Other problems have occurred after the area is developed and homeowner apply for permits for additions or accessory structures and the Inspections Division is unaware of the presence or extent of corrected pads. I strongly recommend a condition remain stating: Applicant shall provide as built locations, dimensions, and elevations of all corrected house pads prior to issuance of building permits. 2. I requested a clarification of the intended use of the existing buildings. Buildings or structures intended to be demolished are required to obtain demolition permits. A condition should state: Applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any dwelling or structures to be removed. t., PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: October 1, 1992 SUBJ: Planning Case #92-4 PUD #92-5 Rezoning and 92-9 WAP (Johnson, Dolejsi, Turner Site) I have reviewed the plans and have the following requirements: 1 . All new street names must be approved by the Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. 2 . A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to firefighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e, NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 3 . Fire hydrant locations as proposed are acceptable. 4 . Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de-sac with the center island must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. This would depend on the size of the cul-de-sac, and the ability of fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parked in the cul-de-sac. t«: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER BCHOELL & MADBON, INC. ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS•PLANNERS SOIL TESTING•ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD• MINNETONKA,MN 55305-1525 (612)546-7501 • FAX(612)546-9065 September 8, 1992 City of Chanhassen c/o Ms . Joann Olson P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Johnson Dolejsi Turner Site Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed are 26 sets of revised preliminary plans for the subject project. The revisions are intended to address the issues in your August 14 , 1992 letter and consist of the following: 1 . Preliminary plat - The plat has been revised to show the lot configuration shown on the August 21, 1992 lot sketch plan prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban and which was presented to you at last week's meeting. The plat contains 112 lots. The street alignments are the same as the previous plan. The intersections have been revised to be at essentially right angles. A revised tabulation of the lot areas and widths will be provided. The wetland boundaries and setbacks are shown on a separate plan. 2 . Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan - This has been revised to conform to the new plat. Some modifications have also been made to reduce -the site grading and the wooded and wetland areas disturbed by construction. In general, this was done by changing the lot type and reducing grading in the rear yard areas. Attached is a plan which shows the areas where site grading was eliminated. The drainage plan is similar to the previous . The major change is that the stormwater management pond south of "H" Street (old pond 7) has been eliminated. The drainage plan will comply with the requirement of Item 9 in the August 14, 1992 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. City of Chanhassen 2 September 9, 1992 letter. Detailed calculations and design will be provided with the final plan for each phase. A five- foot wide concrete sidewalk is shown on the north side of "A" Street. 3 . Preliminary Utility Plan - This plan has also been revised to conform to the new plat. The watermain has been looped between "I" and "G" Streets and hydrants are shown at approximately 300 foot spacing. The sanitary sewer on "G" Street has been changed to flow south to "I" Street. The trunk sewer lift station is shown south of the southeast corner of the site as proposed in the feasibility study. Sanitary sewer can be extended to the north plat line from either "D" or "E" Streets. Watermain along TH 41 can be done in the future within the highway right of way. No berming or other site improvements are proposed that would preclude future construction. 4 . Vegetation and Preservation Plan - This plan shows and identifies the scattered individual trees on the site and also the edges of the wooded areas. A general description of each wooded area is provided. The areas that will be cleared for the site grading are shown cross-hatched. We are in the process of obtaining the number, type and size of trees within each removal area. This tabulation will be provided by Friday. A separate concept landscaping plan is also provided. Also included in this submittal is a narrative, Wetland Boundary and Setback Plan and Concept Landscape Plan prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, and a Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Ron Peterson of Summit Envirosolutions. Please contact us to schedule a meeting if you have any questions. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ops L Kenneth Adolf KEA/cj enc. cc: Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. John Uban, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Ron Peterson, Summit Envirosolutions JOHNSON-DOLEJSI PROPERTY CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LUNDGREN BRO'S. SINGLE-FAMILY PLAT 1. The development plan has been adjusted to minimize the number of lots with widths less than 90 feet. The basic concern with lots less than 90 feet is that some homes with three-car garages may not fit on a lot of less than 90 feet. The plat contains 22 lots that are less than 90 feet at the setback line. All of these lots are on cul-de-sacs, which form the end radius, pie-shaped lots. These lots also are among the largest lots in square feet within the subdivision. The end cul-de-sac lots, by their very nature, are narrow at the front where they have access to the cul-de-sac turn-around. The Iots widen very quickly as one moves away from the edge of the cul-de-sac. By moving a home back 5 to 8 feet, or jogging or offsetting a garage or building in the development plan, one can obtain widths in excess of 90 feet. Technically however, when measured at the setback line, these lots are less than 90 feet. The fact is that these lots offer a great deal of flexibility in locating homes. Requiring the 90-foot width at the setback line would actually force lots to be much larger than is needed and would be noticeably less efficient than normal development. Specifically, the following lots proposed are less than 90 feet at the setback line: Block 2 Block 5 Lots 9 through 12 Lot 3 Lots 25 through 29 Lots 33 through 36 Lots 62 through 65 Lots 74 through 77 2. Lundgren Brothers, developers of the property and builders of all of the homes, will control the relationship of all principal structures on the site. This control will guarantee that there is at least a 20-foot separation between all principal structures. The requested flexibility of the 6 feet for the side yard property line for garages and 9 feet for living space allows final siting adjustments for home construction. With each permit, a site plan is submitted, which will also show the surveyed closest structure to each side yard. The 20-foot separation will clearly be delineated for each building permit. This flexibility allows for certain minimum conditions to take place, which often times are corners of buildings since the subdivision is designed in a curvilinear fashion to minimize adjacent buildings having a long, common facade-type appearance. The twisting of buildings on the site and adjusting the buildings to the specific site terrain creates a much more interesting subdivision, but also demands flexibility in customizing as the building process takes place. Flexibility up front minimizes the potential for requested variances later on. 3. The revised full-site landscape plan shows the boulevard and screening types of plantings that will take place on the site. All of the homes in the subdivision are built for specific customers and not as large blocks of spec. homes. Obviously, there will be models built on the site for sales purposes, which will be fully landscaped. However, we find that individual customers and future residents of the area have a great variety of tastes in how they want to landscape Lundgren Bro's. Single-Family Plat 7 September 1992 Page 2 their home. This is a personal choice and we believe that it should be left up to each home owner. Some will choose lots with woods and others will choose lots that have an open character so that they can enjoy the summer sun with gardening or a swimming pool and other activities. To dictate the landscaping in rear yards and around buildings eliminates the individual choices that the home owners demand. We believe that the front yard as viewed from the street is important and the development of the streetscape with boulevard plantings adds to the overall attractiveness of the subdivision. This important landscaping is included in our master plan. It is within this framework that we believe the landscape plan should be most effective in single-family developments. n. ExcAv �, ,,„,,,,,,Nn • STDzmwAT ri_________- ,___:\ 60 : r -1 two) L ---1 1 L 1 i / it +___ ________ _______ - /' r—I . 1• /1 ___41.... , '') I 95 \\ — Lok------e M, ~ \Gra-17'7r :.__---- ----^ .. .) ------/\ _______...4:}AO\ c.\l \)1------\z / \, \• • , (5i%,Sttr) v i'' —---1 \ / _ \ .t.* 2 I, ( J EPLI;;* 907 Z1 r11 • 1G \ i f LIETL�II`1p' go / 1 • . I :1,4b6.--\:-.7- — _____ _.\-_____—_-:—/ / .1 75% .--..,. r-X161-11\1 .0t ii 1 .. . 1 ti-i,AN . * _ ....A , ... ----- .. • •' /C12,- ..6,117 . 4 . wTl_16N0 — >✓xisTiNG wETI,A,N7 113 Scale 1" = 100' 4`..... . j Wetland Alteration Plan Legend _Johnson, Dolejsi, and Turner Site Lundgren Brothers Construction -- -"-- Existing Wetland Boundary —Southeast Wetland Compensation Areas --,••".... Created Wetland Boundary _ /- N / V / / / >./ . _ ' 1, 0 /c_ . z__ T• I .l, . 3 \ � / c -fil. L41..ia- / ,' ____f C441-iii PEW , • bi. .A! •o. .L.4- c- 9 G � _ — •. STo RM >z -- / f P Z(', ,l'-----/------- -15.0 Z:''''N........" ' - 1.3aW Le LA • -- P '16-11 .' Scale 1"=100' ixTt.i;Np Lk\ _ , le 40' MINIMUM C411)4,10" WGWp, 13°' RF.Ae. `t'Ag9 3E'11!Se c , 4 IO WEf _ ,.ANo corfoEKvikToi.! rate, Wetland Alteration Plan Legend Johnson,Dolejsi, and Turner Site —Lundgren Brothers Construction Existing Wetland Boundary ,��,,,..1 Created Wetland Boundary _Southwest Wetland Compensation Area PC DATE: 10/7/92 .;; . C ITY OF CC DATE: 1/13/92 .; � � CUANHAEN CASE #: 92-6 PUD By: Aanenson/vc _ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual Development Plan for Rezoning 178 Acres of Property from A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development for Gateway West Business Park Z — 4 LOCATION: SE quadrant of Hwys. 5 and 41 and NW quadrant of West 82nd Street and 0 Hwy. 41, Gateway West Business Park. D. ai. APPLICANT: Opus Corporation — Q4 800 Opus Center 9900 Bren Road East Minnetonka, MN 55343 PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 178 acres DENSITY: _ ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A-2; vacant S - A-2; vacant - Q E - A-2; vacant W - A-2; Minnesota Landscape Arboretum 4 , — 1.1 WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer will be available with Phase II of Upper W Bluff Creek Trunk Improvement Project. — PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: This site has varied topography, including 22 acres of wetland and 10 acres of upland wooded vegetation. There are 3 existing homes on the subject site. One will be — removed and the other 2 homes are shown as exemptions. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: OI, Office Industrial ' 111 *'! g11/AN F/ELD, ARR 'O' L�,�/��"GsLL'\ii��Ij s- 0 . .'. - ! L-- -- gai.3•/1.� l 1. .,, =s i i A KE ' 7 - �f p y'= I,' ic...) .• ' ' , , itiri, r W fIASN7A � RR I L t J D-R ____ - - 1 _,- .�� RD L I N1.iw.•w.sow . 1 LAKE LUCY _17 �� PUD-R ,i14/ft. 11111' F-- - • — - - _ - , �,: � .J ' RR — RD S : /, ,11�1��� - 'c / .• ,. • ,� B LAKE ANN ' AN talgr w.. : 1r., /is_. . LAKE ANN _ PARKam I r� No 1 R O i � . R � � ow Jx_ _ � ;t ,VP- _ - iOP . •� tea . �A CNANHASSFN 5U ECt I mla. • . f = - �/ _ ,may j/ or if 4NifitsA,Io gV t tt.,[2.,, ..cP•7-' * 7•. 4,,, .I. A. -r- _ xY - .Qp 9 7ji I I 1 (1700 / I o G j • M .L(1 1 dt! 4<v ‘ Jr: _ . a 9.0.:._ i li 1 , i ii �l gpn y �`I 3EN ;( . • -- . - . . . . _. • . . ,P ::: - ANG DEPT. x..,990 9500 1 ',� ,�.; '` T..1991 \._, _ -. /1 / 1-1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Gateway Partners Limited Partnership, Opus Corporation, is proposing to develop a 178 acre office/light industrial park. The subject site is located south of Highway 5 along Highway 41, south to the Chaska border, and west to the Arboretum. The applicants are requesting conceptual approval at this time. This proposal includes 22 lots with approximately 963,000 square feet of building square footage. There is also a 29 acre lot located at the intersection of Hwys. 5 and 41 for which no uses have yet been proposed. This property is currently zoned A-2. Staff is recommending a PUD zoning for the site. Because this project is located on one of the major gateways to the city, the design and layout of this proposal is of utmost importance to the image of the City of Chanhassen. Concern about community image is part of undertaking the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The Highway 5 Task Force has been meeting to develop the plan. The purpose of this plan is to review the uses allowed in the Highway Corridor, site design standards, location and design of Hwy. 5 and proposed frontage roads, trails and gateway treatments. Because the corridor plan is just underway, no formal documentation has yet been generated. Staff is recommending that this proposal be reviewed by the Highway 5 Task Force so that their concerns can be addressed. Lot 22 of this proposal, which is 29 acres in size, is being proposed for mixed use development. This lot is located on the southeast corner of Highways 5 and 41. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for light industrial and office uses. Staff is uncomfortable with some of the uses proposed, for example, a shopping center could be proposed in the future. We would like to keep the door open for innovative uses of this site. It is probably the premier location in the corridor and could support a corporate headquarters or some other campus type of use. Staff is recommending that this 29-acre lot be platted as a part of this office\industrial park. This will include showing how this area will be accessed by internal roads. The site plan show approximately 5.8 acres of support commercial. In the PUD Ordinance, it states that the "PUD shall be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit up to twenty-five (25%) percent of the gross floor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for land uses for which the site is not designated in the comprehensive plan, if the City Council finds that such uses are in the best interest of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this section." Staff feels that support commercial may be appropriate, but on a limited scale. A restaurant or convenience store may be a permitted support commercial use; but a 50,000 square foot building for retail commercial would not be. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide a list of proposed support commercial uses so that they can be developed into the PUD zone. There are 22 acres of wetland and 10 acres of upland vegetation. A wetland alteration permit will be required. The majority of the wetland and wooded areas are found in Lots 17 and 18, which are being proposed for park dedication. Because this project exceeds 750,000 gross square feet of new office/industrial development, an Environmental Impact Statement is mandatory. The city will be the Responsible Governmental Unit. The EIS will provide an opportunity to develop detailed information about the project and potential impacts. Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 3 The proposal shows a water tower located on Lot 4. As a part of the city's Water Policy Comprehensive Plan, this site has been determined to be the most appropriate location for a water — tower to service the area. The applicants will have to work with the Engineering Department to ensure the appropriate location for this water tower. Staff is recommending that this property be developed as a PUD. While this site warrants a PUD zoning for reasons such as traffic management,comprehensive storm water management,wetland protection, architectural control, etc., this plan as proposed needs to be further developed before — staff can make a recommendation of the proposed design. The site size, prominence and potential for coordinated development are major opportunities to create a high quality, sensitively designed corporate environment. We do not believe that the city's many goals have been met by the concept plan. However, given the state of Hwy. 5 planning, they have not yet fully articulated either. This proposal and the review process will allow for the incorporation of numerous refinements. Thus, we view the concept as the beginning of the design process, not its end. Staff is recommending that the PUD concept be approved. We have provided a list of concerns in the report and expect the applicant to respond to them along with those raised by the Planning Commission/City Council, Hwy. 5 Task Force, and through the EIS procedure. —' Site Characteristics The property is approximately 178 acres in size located south of Highway 5. Highway 41 splits the property into two parcels. The westerly parcel is 28 acres and the easterly parcel is 150 acres. The property is currently cultivated with one farm homestead along Highway 5. This home will be removed from the site. There are two other adjacent properties being exempted from this project. There is a farm homestead along Highway 41 owned by the Wrase's that is — 3.15 acres in size. The other residence is owned by the Paulson's and is 10 acres in size. Staff is recommending that these exemptions be included in the proposed layout of this project. Future street and utility access to these sites needs to be assured. If possible, they should be — acquired. This site has varied topography with rolling hills, wetlands and wooded areas. There are 22 acres of wetlands. They are mostly found in the eastern edge of the property. A large wetland, 6.5 acres in size, is located west of Highway 41. Ten acres of upland woods consisting of maple, basswood and oak is located in the southeast corner of the 150-acre parcel. The plan proposes to include the largest wetland and wooded area Lots 17 and 18) into a 29 acre park. This property is currently zoned A-2 (Agricultural Estate). The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for a future land use of Office/Industrial. The proposed land uses, office/industrial, includes those properties exempted from this proposal. The University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum is the adjacent property use to the west of this proposal and it is zoned A-2. To the — north of this site it is zoned A-2, and this area is also currently cultivated. To the east it is also Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 4 zoned A-2 and is a cultivated field. To the south, the property is bordered by 82nd Street and the Chaska city limits. This property in Chaska has been developed as an industrial park. Overview The city is currently in the process of developing a Corridor Plan for Highway 5. Barton Aschman is the consulting firm hired by the city to spearhead this planning process. The Highway 5 Task Force has been meeting to assist in the development of this plan. Some of the goals and objectives of the Highway 5 Corridor Plan are: consider amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (future zoning), if necessary; site design criteria including: landscaping, parcel access, building orientation, preservation of natural terrain and vegetation, parking lot placement and configuration, placement and screening of loading facilities, and pedestrian amenities; location and design of proposed frontage roads; bicycle trails and pedestrian crossings; gateway treatments; - work with MnDOT on final refining the design of the highway extension. One of the major issues of the Highway 5 Corridor Plan is to develop the frontage/parkway roads that will run on either side of the highway. The location of the southern frontage road directly impacts the design of this project. The proposal shows a full access onto Highway 5 approximately 1600 feet east of the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 41. Based on the concern with the site design criteria, gateway treatments, and the road location, staff is recommending that the proposal be submitted the Highway 5 Task Force for their review. This project will require a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The mandatory requirement applies when there is new construction of 750,000 square feet of gross floor area. This project proposes a total of 963,000 square feet, excluding the 29 acres for future _ development. The city will be the Responsible Governmental Unit. As a part of the EIS, staff is recommending a study of the traffic issues for this area be completed. Staff also recommends that the applicant reimburse the city for the cost of this study. The sewer for this area will be serviced by Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements. The southwest portion of this site will be serviced via gravity sewer line from Chaska. This past year, the city took a pro-active role in a joint Chanhassen/Chaska Water and Sanitary Sewer Agreement. This agreement provides for an area Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 5 in Chanhassen to have water and•sewer service provided through the Chaska utility system. This service area, the southern portion of the site, will be the area the applicants propose to develop first. The Comprehensive Plan shows a buffer around the Paulson's home because it is a residential use adjacent to an office/industrial use. Because the Paulson property is guided for office/ industrial, a buffer may not be necessary. Staff would recommend that the use and timing of the development of Lot 19 be considered before the buffer is required. — The plan and narrative appears to ignore the fact that the Arboretum is the westerly neighbor. Staff is recommending that during the preliminary PUD, site plan design be modified to reflect the Arboretum uses. Items of concern include buffering, possibility of joint access on Hwy. 41 and reflecting the presence of the Arboretum into the site plan for the project. Consideration of the Arboretum should also be given to all proposed landscaping plans. — REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone 178.3 acres from A2, Agriculture 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 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 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. Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 6 Finding. There are 10 acres of upland wooded vegetation including; box elder, willows and green ash on the eastern portion of this site. This wooded area is adjacent to a wetland that will be preserved through dedication of 29 acres to the city. 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. This is a large property, and when it is approved for subdivision, it will have _ a master transportation plan, and a sewer, water and storm water management plan. If each of these parcels were to develop separately, they would not have the comprehensive utility and traffic plans. 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 building 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. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. This is the area where this proposed plan is most lacking. Highways 5 and 41 are significant corridors, and the adjacency of the Landscape Arboretum needs to be addressed with sensitivity. Staff expects revisions to the plan to be reflected in the next submittal of review. The Comprehensive Plan shows a required landscaping buffer with the residential property to the east. The majority of this property is a wetland. Therefore, staff feels that the existing topography meets the buffering requirement. The Comprehensive Plan shows a buffer along the Paulson property located west of Hwy. 41. Because the Comprehensive Plan guides this property for office/industrial, staff would recommend that buffering be considered at the time this lot is developed. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. _ Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for office and light industrial use. The applicants are proposing a business park. They are requesting a mixed use area that may be commercial, educational, office or industrial. Staff is recommending that support commercial may be approved if recommend by the Planning Commission and City Council as defined in the PUD Ordinance. Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 7 — 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 recommended that a community — park be developed on the site. This park would require dedication in excess of the 29 acres, which includes Lots 17 and 18 as proposed by the applicants. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. Not applicable to this proposal. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The conservation element will evolve as the wetlands, roads and building orientation are established as part of the standards for this PUD zone that staff will be developing. Provisions for ultimate service of the site by Southwest Metro Transit should be incorporated into the plan. 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. Staff is recommending a traffic study be completed for this site. The applicants shall reimburse the city the cost for this study. 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 flexible standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for modifying the standards, the city is receiving: • Consistency with Comprehensive Plan; — • Screening of undesirable views of loading and parking areas; • Corridor sensitivity on Highways 5 and 41, including building orientation; • Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands and trees); • Improved architectural standards including, uniform signage and architecture; • Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts; • Improved pretreatment of storm water; • Gateway treatments. Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 8 CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL General Site Plan/Architecture The applicant has stated that the standards for this development are critical to the quality of the business park. Opus has developed many such parks in the past, and proposes to use similar standards and development techniques for the Gateway Business Park. The applicant proposes that this business park will be identified at its major entrances with monuments and enhanced landscaping. In addition, to the entrances on Highway 5, Highway 41 and West 82nd Street, special attention will be given to the perimeter along the highways. The applicants have stated that they will be careful that the development of parking and loading areas will be screened with landscaping. Each site will have to proceed through site plan review. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Intent The applicants are proposing to develop 178 acres into 22 lots that would form a business park. Staff envisions this area as a well-conceived, cohesive light industrial office park. This area has a varied topography, wetlands and upland woods. It is bordered by two major collectors, Highway 5 and 41. It is adjacent to the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. All of these features should be designed to make this site an assent to the community. Some of the site design issues include: buildings of brick or better material on visible sites, screening of parking lots and loading areas, orientation of buildings along Highways 5 and 41, and the natural terrain and vegetation should be preserved. Staff feels that a PUD zone is the appropriate zoning for this area to ensure a higher quality of design and a more sensitive development. The plan as proposed needs to be further developed to reflect these concerns. b. Permitted Uses The proposal calls for office, warehouse, manufacturing, and some support commercial. The plan has a 29 acre lot (Lot 1) that shows a mixed use on it. The comprehensive plan guides this area for light industrial and office use. Staff is recommending that some support commercial be approved as part of the permitted uses for the zone. They should be limited in scope to support and not free-standing retail commercial. Lot 1 therefore needs to be redesigned to show how it can be developed into the business park. The industrial uses shall be limited to those uses that do not emit smoke, have no outdoor storage, result in excessive truck traffic, and do not emit excessive noise and vibrations. Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 9 — c. Setbacks The plan, as proposed at this time, is too conceptual to review the setbacks, although staff will be working with the Highway 5 Task Force to develop appropriate setbacks for the Highway 5 and 41 setbacks. — d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Not able to review at the time of conceptual approval. e. Building Materials and Design Because this will be a large business park, there may be many types of building materials being used. One of the major concerns that staff will be addressing is building orientation along the highways. Lot 16, as proposed, shows a 30-foot front setback along Highway 5. Staff feels this is too close to the highway. Staff will also be looking at which uses, office/industrial, should be adjacent to the highways. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Block shall _ have a weathered face or be polished, fluted or broken face. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or precast, and shall be finished in stone textured or coated. Metal standing seam siding may be used as support materials, curtain wall on office components, or as a roofing material. — All roof top equipment shall be screened, however, wood screen fences are prohibited. f. Site landscaping Screening _ Again, because this is a large business park, the landscaping will be a significant unifying element. An overall landscaping plan needs to be developed. This plan shall take into consideration the adjacency of the Arboretum, views from Highways 5 and 41, and gateway treatments. All lots with in the PUD will be required to submit a landscaping plan consistent with an overall landscaping theme. — All outdoor storage shall be prohibited. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of- ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. — g. Signage The PUD shall develop a cohesive sign theme consistent with the building architecture. The signs shall be limited to one monument or ground sign only on each lot. In addition, wall signs shall be permitted to no more than two per street frontage. There shall be no freestanding/pylon signs permitted, especially along Highways 5 and 41. Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 10 h. Lighting Lighting again should be consistent throughout the business park. This would include street lighting and building lighting. Compliance Table Acres Uses Bldg. S.F. Parking Lot 1 28.9 Mixed Lot 2 6.8 Industrial 90,000 209 Lot 3 5.6 Industrial 45,000 150 Lot 4 1.3 Water Tower Lot 5 7.4 Industrial 80,000 254 Lot 6 5.3 Industrial 63,000 180 Lot 7 5.6 Industrial 60,000 197 Lot 8 2.0 Support Comm 10,000 37 Lot 9 4.9 Industrial 62,000 179 Lot 10 5.6 Industrial 85,000 232 Lot 11 6.4 Industrial 48,000 139 Lot 12 7.0 Industrial 70,000 200 Lot 13 5.1 Industrial 42,000 121 Lot 14 6.7 Industrial 63,000 185 Lot 15 3.7 Industrial 30,000 86 Lot 16 7.8 Industrial 80,000 232 Lot 17 5.9 Park Lot 18 24 Park Lot 19 9.05 Industrial 90,000 290 Lot 20 2.2 Support Comm 9,000 103 Lot 21 1.6 Support Comm 4,000 41 Lot 22 13.4 Industrial 50,000 165 Total 963,000 S.F.* 3,000 stalls s Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 11 * Total excludes any development on Lot 1 which they are proposing as mixed use. Streets /Access The proposed street layout is fairly consistent with the City's comprehensive roadway system. The access points to Trunk Highways 41 and 5 are subject to MnDOT approval, which apparently the applicant has been in contact with. There is a home on 10 acres, the Paulsons, located west of Hwy 41. This home has access off 82nd Street via an easement. This easement — is shown as a 60 foot right of way. Staff is recommending that this easement (shown as a cul- de-sac) be used as the public street to serve Lots 29, 20, and 22. A concept plan of the future roadway alignment would be compatible with the topography on the adjacent parcel. Another — roadway alignment concern is between Lots 10 and 11 where the proposed road connects to existing 82nd Street. The proposed roadway is skewed and should be redesigned to be perpendicular with 82nd Street. — The concept proposes a number of median islands with landscaping. It is recommended that _ these islands be eliminated except those necessary for traffic delineation. The applicant should explore the use of an entry-type monument on one of the corner lots at the two main entrance points of the trunk highways, and not on any internal streets. This will also reduce the amount _ of landscape maintenance required by the City as the corner monument will most likely be maintained by the property owner. A traffic study should be prepared either by the applicant or by the City, with the applicant responsible for all costs to define traffic warrants for signalization, turn lanes, etc. The concept plan does not indicate the right-of-way width. The roadway should be constructed in accordance with the City's designs for industrial/commercial type use. The road right-of-way should be a minimum of 80 feet wide with a 36 to 52-foot wide pavement section. Typically, this collector- type roadway system would include a sidewalk or trail system adjacent to the street within the right-of-way. With this type of use, it would be prudent to include a sidewalk or trail system to promote pedestrian traffic through and around the park system. Landscaping and Tree Preservation The eastern portion of property is covered with vegetation consisting of mainly box elder, willow and green ash. This area will not be altered as it falls into lots with wetlands which are being proposed for park dedication. Landscaping, especially the treatment along Highways 5 and 41, should be given special consideration. The landscape design needs to include consideration of the adjacent Arboretum. Again, the Highway 5 Corridor Plan will be addressing this area as the plan develops. This is another issue the Highway 5 Task Force should review. Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 12 Wetlands There area 22 acres of wetlands located on the project site. The wetlands are found primarily on the eastern edge of the property, adjacent to a larger wetland to the east that the DNR has jurisdiction over. These wetlands are proposed to be preserved with the preservation of the adjacent upland hardwood. A portion of the wetland in Lot 17 in the northeast corner of the site needs to be filled for roadway purposed. This road is the proposed east/west collector frontage road that needs to cross the wetland area. Also, a small wetland between Lots 10 and 11 is proposed to be filled for a roadway. The mitigation for filling these wetlands is a proposed wetland and pond to be established directly adjacent to the wetland in Lot 18. The mitigation will be at least 2:1. The wetland in Lot 1 will be left, but may be required for Hwy 5 dedication. The wetland found in Lot 22 runs north and south through the entire lot. The applicants feel it is a marginal wetland, and propose to fill the southern portion of it and create an enhanced wetland on the remainder. A portion of this wetland was filled in the past with the construction of West 82nd Street. The City is currently reviewing amendments to the Wetland Protection Ordinance. These amendments were initiated due to the new state regulation and new information on treatment and protection of wetlands. The applicants will have to provide further detail on the type of wetland and alterations proposed. This process will require a wetland alteration permit. Grading and Drainage The concept plan does not provide any preliminary grades for the site. It is assumed, due to the topography, that extensive grading will be necessary. Appropriate erosion control measures should be employed in accordance with the Best Management Practices Handbook. The concept plan, again, does not provide data in regards to storm runoff from the development. It is assumed that the wetlands or pond area will be utilized for storm water retention. The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standards and 100-year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the subdivision codes. Pretreatment and retention ponds may result in reduced size of lots or potential elimination of a lot. Utilities Sanitary sewer and water service will be available to the site from Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements. The southwest portion of this site may be serviced via a gravity sewer line from Chaska. Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 13 — This site contains a very high knoll adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. The City has programmed into its comprehensive water study to construct a future 2 million gallon elevated storage reservoir in this knoll. The applicant is proposing Lot 4 for the City's future water tower, although the location proposed is not in accordance with the City's comprehensive water plan. The water tower should be located at the highest elevation, preferably 500 feet southwest of its — current proposed location on the concept plan. Although there has been some discussion with regards to lowering State Trunk Highway 41 to improve the grade for truck traffic, this may result in grading this site which, in turn, would lower the highest point elevation. The applicant should be aware that the City is intending to utilize the highest point on the site to install a future water reservoir tank to service this quadrant of the City. Park and Recreation The applicants have proposed dedicating two lots (Lots 17 and 18) which includes 29 acres for park dedication. The Parks and Recreation Commission met on September 22, 1992, to review this proposal. The Commission recommended that the applicant provide a community park site. This site should be sufficient is size and suitable character and topography to include a natural vista, sufficient area for viewing and picnicking, a designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site, with — picnicking and viewing areas and the street plan and sidewalks. The park should be sufficient in area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 foot fences, a basketball court, a double tennis court, and sufficient upland areas to buffer these amenities. This would require the designation of considerable more park property than called out on the sketch plan. However, it is desirable that all park and components be contiguous. This park — shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient ingress/egress. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant conceptual approval to Gateway West Business Park PUD #92-6 as shown in site plans dated September 8, 1992, subject to the following conditions. 1. A future roadway alignment should be explored through the parcel east of the proposed development to see if the proposed roadway is compatible with adjacent topography. 2. The southerly road extension which connects to existing 82nd Street should be redesigned to be perpendicular with 82nd Street. 3. The median islands should be eliminated except for those necessary for traffic delineation. Gateway West Business Park — October 7, 1992 Page 14 4. The applicant should explore placement of an entry-type monument on one of the corner lots off the trunk highways in lieu of landscaping medians. — 5. A traffic study should be prepared to determine traffic warrants for signalization, turn lanes, street widths, etc. — 6. The street should be constructed in accordance with the City's design for industrial/commercial uses. — 7. The roadway improvement should include a sidewalk or trail system located within the street right-of-way. — 8. The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standard and 100-year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the City's subdivision code. 9. The applicant should coordinate with the City's engineering consultant, Bonestroo, for location of the water tower site. 10. Completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of a traffic study for the project. 11. Review of the site plan shall be given by the Highway 5 Task Force. _ 12. The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit. 13. Dedication of park land as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission. ATTACHMENTS — 1. Narrative from Opus dated September 28, 1992. 2. Letter from Dave Hempel dated September 24, 1992. 3. Site Plan dated September 8, 1992. Opus Corporation 1 OPUS. 800 Opus Center Mailing Address 9900 Bren Road East P0.Box 150 Minnetonka,Minnesota 55343-9600 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55440-0150 612-936-4444 Fax 612-936-4529 September 8, 1992 Mr. Paul Krauss Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Gateway West Business Park Dear Mr. Krauss: On behalf of the Gateway Partners Limited Partnership, Opus Corporation is pleased to submit the enclosed PUD Concept Plan for the Gateway West Business Park at the intersection of Highways 5 & 41 in the city of Chanhassen. The subject property covered by the PUD Concept Plan is the property of approximately 150 acres located in the southeast quadrant of Highways 5 & 41 as well as the land located in the northwest quadrant of West — 82nd Street and Highway 41, consisting of approximately 28 acres. The property currently is utilized for agricultural purposes. It consists primarily of rolling — farmland with significant wetlands along the eastern boundary of the easterly parcel and another wetland area on the westerly parcel. Gateway West Business Park envisions the development of a quality mixed use business center. It will contain approximately 960,000 square feet of total development including approximately 937,000 square feet of office,warehouse and manufacturing space and 23,000 square feet of commercial development to support the businesses locating in the park. In addition, 29 acres in the northwest part of the park has been reserved for a special mixed use development that will reflect the quality and standards consistent with the high visibility of this site and the objectives of the city of Chanhassen. At this time, the exact nature of the land use is not known but could include institutional, educational, office, industrial, or commercial uses. We request that a mixed use land use designation be given to the property _ at this time so that the highest and best use for the property can be found. Park covenants will be developed to assure quality development. The plan respects the natural features of the site to the utmost extent possible. The plan has been developed in order to create a unique business park setting, which consolidates the wetland areas into park areas for preservation and serve as focal points for the development. The important wooded areas to the south and east are also preserved. The internal circulation for the park is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan by providing a parkway like extension of the Highway 5 frontage road, connecting to the existing Opus Corporation is an affiliate of the Opus group of companies—Architects,Contractors,Developers Austin,Chicago,Dallas,Denver,Houston,Milwaukee,Minneapolis,Pensacola,Phoenix,Seattle,Tampa 01. OPUS, Mr. Paul Krauss September 8, 1992 Page 2 West 82nd Street at the Chanhassen/Chaska border. Only one major intersection is provided with Highway 5 and another with Highway 41 in order to provide access into the park. We are requesting that improvements be made to Highway 41 to lower the elevation of the roadway which will allow for safer ingress and egress into the site. Utility service for the development is requested as part of Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek District sanitary sewer and water main improvements. It is anticipated that interim services can be provided to the southerly portion of the site through a cooperative agreement with _ the city of Chaska. A site for a future water tower has been incorporated into the plan to be located along Highway 41. We are requesting Planning Commission and City Council approval of the Gateway West Business Park PUD Concept Plan and rezoning as the first step in the governmental approval process for this project. This approval will be followed by a request for preliminary plat, approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Tax Increment Financing, and the extension of utility service. We request that you accept the enclosed application for sketch plan review and rezoning for consideration on the October 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Please call me if you have any questions or require any additional information regarding our application. Thank you for consideration of our request. Sincerely, Michele Foster Director Real Estate Development MF/km cc: Paul Steiner/Steiner Development, Inc. John Uban/Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK — CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PUD CONCEPT PLAN Property Description The total property consists of approximately 178 acres, of which 150 acres are south of Highway 5 and east of State Highway 41. The westerly parcel is 28 acres located directly west of Highway 41 and north of 82nd Street. The property is under cultivation with one farm homestead along — Highway 5. Approximately 22 acres of the land has been mapped as wetlands by the City of Chanhassen. Ten acres of upland woods consisting of maple, basswood, and oak are located in the southeast corner of the 150-acre parcel. The property has about 1/2 mile of frontage along Highway _. 5, 3/4 mile of frontage along Highway 41, and approximately 1/2 mile of frontage along 82nd Street. Wetlands Twenty-two acres of wetlands have been mapped on the property and are shown on the Existing Conditions map. The wetlands are as follows: — a-16-4(2) 4.7 acres a-16-7(1) 7.2 acres — a-16-7(2) .2 acres a-16-7(3) 2.5 acres a-16-7(4) .4 acres a-16-6(1) .2 acres a-16-1(2) 6.5 acres a-16-2(1) .4 acres The wetlands are found primarily on the eastern edge of the property, adjacent to the larger wetland and drainage system that continues to the east. The area to the east is also covered with vegetation consisting of primarily boxelder, willow and green ash. These wetlands are proposed to be preserved with the preservation of the adjacent upland hardwoods. The unique character of this area — forms a natural preserve suitable for public park purposes. A portion of A-16-4(2) wetland in the northeast corner of the site needs to be filled for roadway purposes. The road is the proposed east-west collector frontage road that needs to traverse the wetland area to the east to complete the City's comprehensive transportation plan. Approximately, an acre would be filled depending on fmal plans. Also, a small wetland A-16-6(1) on the southern — edge of the property also needs to be filled for the alignment of the collector. To mitigate the filling of these wetlands, we are proposing a wetland and pond to be established directly adjacent to A-16-7(1) wetland and to be part of the proposed park system along the eastern — edge of the property. The mitigation is proposed to be at least 2:1. Wetland A-16-2(1), which is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highways 41 and — 5, is proposed to remain the same. It is quite possible that the Highway Department may need to amend this wetland as future highway improvements are made. Gateway West Business Park Narrative 4 September 1992 Page 2 Wetland A-16-1(2) runs north and south through the property west of Highway 41. This has been described by the City's wetland specialists as very marginal and would need enhancement to bring it back to a wetland condition. We propose to fill the southern portion of the wetland and create an enhanced wetland on the remainder. A portion of this wetland was filled in the past with the construction of 82nd Street in preparation for development to the south. The design of the eventual storm sewer system will include ponding for the purposes of catching water before it enters the wetland systems. Specific wetland mitigation details will accompany the preliminary grading plan and the preliminary plat. Existing Land Use All of the property is presently used for agricultural purposes -- the residential home site on Highway 41 is an exception. The Gateway Partners are presently negotiating with the owner to include this property in the overall development. The University of Minnesota's Landscape Arboretum is located to the west of the property. To the south is the City of Chaska and primarily Industrial land uses. The boundary between the two cities is 82nd Street. A large wetland complex running north-south from Highway 5 and drained by a rural drainage ditch is located to the east. County Road 117 is located east of that wetland. Undeveloped Agricultural land is located to the north of the property across Highway 5. Our concept plan shows that the proposed intersection with Highway 5 would serve the property to the north. The entrance to the north considers the location of the existing woods. The City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Industrial. The land use designation is consistent with the surrounding land uses and road system. The business park is located in a prominent area, important to both the City of Chanhassen and the City of Chaska. At the intersection of Highway 41 and 5, the City of Chanhassen has expressed concern about community image as a gateway to the City. We agree that careful consideration should be made as to the overall image of the proposed business park. Transportation Plan The City's Comprehensive Plan proposes an east-west collector road connecting 82nd Street east from Highway 41 to County Road 117 south of Highway 5. The plan also shows a north-south connector between 82nd Street and Highway 5. Our road circulation plan includes all of those connections and routes as indicated in the City's plan. Eighty-Second Street serves development in Chanhassen as well as Chaska and curves to the south serving additional industrial land within the City of Chaska. It will directly serve the southern border of the proposed business park. Access to the interior road system includes one access onto Highway 5 and one access onto _ Highway 41. We have worked with MnDOT to confirm points of access. The access points have been determined to be appropriate distances from the intersection of Highways 5 and 41 to handle future traffic concerns. We are also anticipating a future safety improvement project on Highway 41 that would help eliminate the steep grade coming off of the Highways 5 and 41 intersection. MnDOT indicated that the steep grade slows truck traffic through the intersection, and a lowering of that grade would also improve overall capacity. The lowering of Highway 41 through the area would improve overall circulation and would better match the grades of future development in the business park. This Gateway West Business Park Narrative 4 September 1992 Page 3 work can be done in conjunction with the City's future watermain and water tower project that are planned along the Highway 41 corridor. Proposed Land Use The Concept Plan illustrates the road system contemplated in the City's Comprehensive Plan facilitating the development of industrial lots along the collector road while preserving the eastern edge for park and natural area. The road system is developed to create T-intersections, which form safe intersections for traffic. The T-intersections also focus business park visitors toward the amenities and the entrance to the park area. This entrance experience is an important part of the image of the park and is incorporated in the design of the circulation system. Part of the road entrance design includes landscape islands to define traffic movements and create an enhanced image for the park at critical points. Primary entrance points will be off of Highway 5 and 41 with a — secondary entrance off 82nd Street. The plan has developed into 22 lots, including Lots 17 and 18 for public park purposes. The park area is proposed to be approximately 30 acres in size. Lots 8, 20, and 21 are proposed to be the initial phase of support-commercial for the industrial area. These uses may include a bank, service station, restaurant, etc. Approximately 29 acres are in Lot 1, which is proposed as mixed use to be determined at a time in the future when the business park matures. This location is very prominent in the City of Chanhassen and should be held for the best use possible. Often the temptation is to develop the best sites first, however, we believe that it is to both the developer's and the City's advantage to hold onto this site for a mixed use development that could include office, a hospital or specialized medical clinic, research center, educational facility, commercial and other uses complementary to the business park and the City of Chanhassen. Along Highway 41, Lot 4 is proposed to be the site for the City of Chanhassen's water tower. We have located the water tower next to our western entrance in anticipation that its design will be of high quality and a recognizable landmark. Overall, we anticipate the develop will consist of approximately 960,000 square feet of industrial and associated uses. A majority of the site will develop within the next 10 years, with the first phase of development beginning along 82nd Street on the southern edge of the property. The road system will be built as development moves northerly and to the east. The phasing works in unison with the installation of utilities. It is anticipated that the southern portions of the site can be served through the City of Chaska, with the remainder of the site being served with a future extension of sewer from the southeast. Amenities Amenities and the standards for development are critical to the quality of the business park. Opus has developed many such parks in the past and proposes to use similar standards and development techniques for the Gateway West Business Park. In order to integrate the business park into the natural surroundings and adjacent land uses to the — east, the development plan indicates a 30-acre public park to include wetland and wooded areas for the purpose of public enjoyment and long-term preservation. The park area would extend from the wetlands and woods along Highway 5 to 82nd Street. As land is developed to the east, the City can add additional land to this park preserve system. Gateway West Business Park Narrative 4 September 1992 Page 4 The business park will be identified at its major entrances with monuments and enhanced landscaping. These areas will be designed in conjunction with the traffic islands to create a prominent entrance and identifiable image for the area. Details of the amenity designs will accompany the preliminary plat for each phase of development. In addition to the entrances on Highway 5, Highway 41, and 82nd Street, special attention will be given to the perimeter along the highways. The perimeter plan will include groupings of plantings in recognizable blocks rather than stretched out in a linear fashion, which is the typical street treatment. The use of tree groups will enhance the road character and still provide visibility to the attractive buildings within the park area. Also, care will be given to the development of parking and loading areas so that ample screening is provided to minimize the visual expanse of large parking areas lots. The perimeter plans will be completed as each area develops and based on the eventual design and reconstruction of adjacent highways. Each individual industrial site will develop according to specific site development standards that will be included in the development controls for the business park. These standards will include the design and location of entry drives and parking, buildings, signage, lighting, and site grading. The landscape treatment of each site will include boulevard plantings in public streets 6 feet from the curb, with emphasis on winter attractiveness, spring blooming, and fall colors around the building and parking lots. Perennial plantings will be encouraged in highly visible locations to add more summer beauty throughout the park. Where appropriate, native grasses may be used as part of the landscape treatment. Architectural standards for buildings will be developed to cover building materials, utilities, screening, lighting, architectural design, loading and signage. These standards will discourage the use of outside storage, metal buildings, and other less desirable components of industrial development. CITY OF i CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: September 24, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Concept Plan for Gateway West Business Park Southeast Corner of Trunk Highway 5 and Trunk Highway 41 File No. 92-15 LUR Upon review of the concept plan dated September 4, 1992, I offer the following comments: STREETS The proposed street layout is fairly consistent with the City's comprehensive roadway system. The access points to Trunk Highways 41 and 5 are subject to MnDOT approval which apparently the applicant has been in contact with. The dead-end street to the east side of the plat remains somewhat of a concern due to the direction the roadway alignment is intended to proceed after the site. A concept plan of the future roadway alignment through the adjacent parcel to the east should be explored to see if this alignment would be compatible with topography on the adjacent parcel. Another roadway alignment concern is between Lots 10 and 11 where the proposed road connects to existing 82nd Street. The proposed roadway is skewed and should be redesigned to be perpendicular with 82nd Street. — The concept proposes a number of median islands with landscaping. It is recommended that these islands be eliminated except those necessary for traffic delineation. The applicant should explore the use of an entry type monument on one of the corner lots at the two main entrance points of the trunk highways and not on any internal streets. This will also reduce the amount of landscape maintenance required by the City as the corner monument will most likely be maintained by the property owner. A traffic study should be prepared either by the applicant or by the City with the applicant responsible for all costs to define traffic warrants for signalization, turn lanes, etc. The concept plan does not indicate the right-of-way width. The roadway should be constructed t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson September 24, 1992 Page 2 in accordance with the City's designs for industrial/commercial type use. The road right-of- way should be a minimum of 80 feet wide with a 36 to 52-foot wide pavement section. Typically, this collector-type roadway system would include a sidewalk or trail system adjacent to the street within the right-of-way. With this type of use, it would be prudent to include a sidewalk or trail system to promote pedestrian traffic through and around the park system. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The concept plan does not provide any preliminary grades for the site. It is assumed due to the topography that extensive grading will be necessary. Appropriate erosion control measures should be employed in accordance with the Best Management Practices Handbook. The concept plan, again, does not provide data with regards to storm runoff from the development. It is assumed that the wetlands or pond area will be utilized for storm water retention. The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standards and 100-year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the subdivision codes. Pretreatment and retention ponds may result in reduced size of lots or potential elimination of a lot. UTILITIES As mentioned in the narrative, sanitary sewer and water service will be available to the site from Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements. The southwest portion of this site may be serviced via a gravity sewer line from Chaska. This site contains a very high knoll adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. The City has programmed into its comprehensive water study to construct a future 2 million gallon elevated storage reservoir in this knoll. The applicant is proposing Lot 4 for the City's future water tower, although the location proposed is not in accordance with the City's comprehensive water plan. The water tower should be located at the highest elevation, preferably 500 feet southwest of its current proposed location on the concept plan. Although there has been some discussion with regards to lowering State Trunk Highway 41 to improve the grade for truck traffic, this may result in grading this site which, in turn, would lower the highest point elevation. The applicant should be aware that the City is intending on utilizing the highest point on the site to install a future water reservoir tank to service this quadrant of the City. Kate Aanenson September 24, 1992 Page 3 — • RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS — 1. A future roadway alignment should be explored through the parcel east of the proposed development to see if the proposed roadway is compatible with adjacent — topography. 2. The southerly road extension which connects to existing 82nd Street should be — redesigned to be perpendicular with 82nd Street. 3. The median islands should be eliminated except for those necessary for traffic — delineation. 4. The applicant should explore placement of an entry type monument on one of the — corner lots off the trunk highways in lieu of landscaping medians. 5. A traffic study should be prepared to determine traffic warrants for signalization, turn — lanes, street widths, etc. 6. The street should be constructed in accordance with the City's design for industrial/commercial uses. 7. The roadway improvement should include a sidewalk or trail system located within the street right-of-way. 8. The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standard and 100-year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the City's subdivision code. 9. The applicant should coordinate with the City's engineering consultant, Bonestroo, for location of the water tower site. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, October 7, 1992- 7:30 P.M. .Q`�.. JIII.:+: CityHall Council Chambers r '."' •;.•f,:Nl:7•' �' rte.. 690 Coulter Drive Project: Gateway West Business Park Developer: Opus Corporation Location: East of Hwy. 41, south of Hwy. 5 Intersection R tYAM v�f i [ i I _ -_- Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Opus Corporation proposes to conceptual review to rezone 178 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The applicants are also seeking conceptual PUD approval for an office/industrial park. The property is located at the SE quadrant and NW quadrant of West 82nd Street and Hwy. 41. 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 overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 24, 1992. ' Uy Jay C. Dolejsi Mills Properties, Inc. Betty O'Shaughnessy _r 6961 Chaparral Lane 512 Laurel Street 1000 Hesse Farm Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 P. O. Box 505 Chaska, MN 55318 Brainerd, MN 56401 E. Jerome Carlson Henry & E. Wrase Paul & C. Paulson Instant Web, Inc. 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. 3160 82nd Street W. — 6950 Galpin Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 Nordic Track, Inc. Bruce C. Perkins Henry Adams, Jr. & 141 Jonathan Blvd. N. 125 82nd Street W. Cynthia Calderon Chaska, MN 55338 Chaska, MN 55318 115 82nd Street W. — Chaska, MN 55318 David K. & R. Dungey Trustee Group Realty Partners S & P Properties 105 82nd Street W. 3610 Hwy. 101 S. 4311 Peavey Road Chaska, MN 55318 Wayzata, MN 55391 Chaska, MN 55318 — Chaska Consolidated Steiner Development, Inc. HTD Assets of Oshkosh, Inc. — Suite 20 3610 Hwy. 101 S. 4275 Norex Drive 200 Hwy. 13 West Wayzata, MN 55391 Chaska, MN 55318 Burnsville, MN 55337 — Chaska Investment Ltd. Prtshp. 5201 73rd Street West — Edina, MN 55435 J • '*:1111CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Q4. DATE: October 1, 1992 SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment to Adopt by Reference the City of Chanhassen Construction Site, Erosion and Sediment Control, Best Management Practices PROPOSAL/SUMMARY As the Planning Commission is aware, for the past year we have been working on the city's Surface Water Management Plan. This is a 3 phase effort designed to present the city with improved wetland protection, a surface water management plan, and a surface water quality improvement program. The program has begun to produce a wide variety of results including enhanced street sweeping to remove nutrient laden materials before discharging into the lakes, a new wetlands protection ordinance and official maps which the Planning Commission will soon have an opportunity to review, water quality improvement projects, done either as new separate construction or improvements to ongoing city and private developments, and our ongoing educational efforts. One of the program's products which should have a major positive impact on our environment is the Construction Site, Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Handbook. This document represents a working handbook that contains what will become mandatory construction practices for use on projects in our community. It is designed to ensure that the most appropriate erosion control and site management techniques are incorporated. It was developed by reviewing and using appropriate sections from Best Management Practices handbooks prepared by the Board of Water and Soil Resources and by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. It also includes some design specifications developed by Bonestroo and by our City Engineering Department. It will result in a much more coordinated and high quality approach to this major water quality concern. For instance, while we are concerned with the long term impacts of urbanization on lakes and wetlands, we find that erosion from a large scale construction project such as a residential subdivision can equal 10 to 15 years of normal impact on a lake in one construction season if it is not managed properly. �s t«, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER — Planning Commission October 1, 1992 Page 2 _ The proposed ordinance amendment is a simple one. It simply bases a reference to this handbook in both the city's subdivision and zoning codes. The handbook itself is then _ handled as an operational manual which can regularly be updated by the City Engineer on an as needed basis. A copy of the handbook is attached for your review. We would appreciate it if you could return your copy to us at the Planning Commission meeting so that we may _ utilize them again when the City Council reviews it. Once the ordinance and handbook is adopted, we will undertake to print permanent copies which will then be sold to developers as needed. _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the amendment to Sections 18-62 and 20-94 referring to the Chanhassen Construction Site, Erosion and /Sediment, Best Management Practices Handbook be approved. — ATTACHMENT 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS : Section 1. Section 18-62 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (d) to read: (d) Subdivision development shall conform to the City' s Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Handbook, as amended. Section 2 . Section 20-94 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (f) to read: (f) All construction activity that results in disturbance of the ground shall comply with the City ' s Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Handbook, as amended. 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 . ) 09/04/92 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 7, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in _ Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an amendment to the City Code concerning construction site erosion/sediment control requirements. The amendment will formally recognize the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices _ Handbook. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions — with respect to this proposal. Paul Krauss, Planning Director — Phone: 937-1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 24, 1992) — 14 CITY of i - CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: October 2, 1992 SUBJ: Appointment of Planning Commission Representative to the Tree Preservation Board The preservation of trees within the City has been a long time goal. The intent has always been to protect, promote and plant more trees within the city. Staff is recommending the establishment of an official Tree Board. The group will be comprised of a City Council member, Park and Recreation Commission member and a Planning Commission member, along with 4 citizens at large. The city has received 7 applications from interested residents. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend a member to serve on this board. ATTACHMENT 1. Memorandum from Todd Hoffman dated September 23, 1992. is t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER JLk CITY TF cHANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator lAV DATE: September 23, 1992 SUBJ: Tree Preservation Board The idea of establishing a board or commission to address issues pertaining to tree preservation and the promotion of planting trees in the city' has been addressed for some time. Trees are often a topic of discussion for the City Council, Park and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission. Trees dominate discussions in some cases, and in others they are discussed in less detail. The intent has always been, however, to protect, promote, and plant more trees within the city. The establishment of an official Tree Board is also a requirement of being named a Tree City USA, a designation the city is currently seeking. To move ahead in this regard, invitations for applications for membership to this board were placed in the city's quarterly newsletter and the Chanhassen Villager. Excluding Council and Commission members who have voiced an interest to serve on this board, seven "at-large" applicants have shown interest. A suggested organizational structure to get this board up and running is to select one member each from the City Council, Park and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission to form a base for the board. On Tuesday, September 22, the Park and Recreation Commission approved the appointment of Randy Erickson to this board. Upon confirming all three of these members, the at-large applicants can then be interviewed by the appointed board members to facilitate the selection of an additional four members to round out a seven member board. Once all members have been selected, an inaugural meeting of the board to establish an agenda and to take care of general housekeeping items, i.e. selecting meeting dates, times, chairpersons, etc., will be set. Upon the City Council's approval of this format, and upon their appointment of a member of the City Council to the board, staff will facilitate the coordination of interviews and the establishment of this new City of Chanhassen Advisory Board. Both Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner and I would be working cooperatively as staff members to this board. pc: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner es t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , and Jeff Farmakes . Ladd Conrad and Tim Erhart arrived during the discussion of item 2 . MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Kate Aanenson , Planner II ; and Charles Folch , City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Batzli : Do we have a staff report Kate? Aanenson: Can we see if there 's anybody here? I don 't see the Association President here . Batzli : Sure . Is someone here from the Association from Minnewashta Creek? No . As I recall , this was tabled last time because we didn 't know what they were applying for . Do we know what they 're applying for , even though they 're not . Aanenson: Yes , they 've resubmitted a new application . I can go through the report if you 'd like . Batzli : Why don 't you do the condensed 30 second version of what 's changed since they came in last time . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli : Just to clarify one more time . They had in in the inventory in '81 and '91 , boats on land but they 're not requesting any boats stored on land correct? Aanenson: Correct . Batzli : Okay . Thanks Kate . This is a public hearing . If anyone would like to speak on this issue , could you approach the microphone and give us your name and address . No one wants to speak . Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Matt , why don 't we start with you . Do you have any questions? Ledvina : Well , I was looking through the documentation . There 's one letter here by Terrence Thompson , Sr . and he 's got these signatures that attest to the fact that he was there . Kate , was there another one for? Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 2 Aanenson: No , there wasn 't a letter . The only other evidence was provided at the May 6th meeting where Mr . , I 'm not sure how you pronounce his name , got up and spoke and stated to the fact that he had a boat in — the water prior to that . The same amount of time so it 's basically documentation in the Minutes . Ledvina: Okay . Other than that I really don 't have any other questions . I think that they 're going ahead and they 're making provisions to improve the safety of the beachlot by adding the buoys which I think is a real _ good thing . Other than that , if those two boats were docked in 1981 , I should say moored , that would seem , the request to continue that would seem reasonable . Other than that I don 't have any other items . The chemical toilet , is that something that 's . — Aanenson: They do have a conditional use for that and it 's separate . Ledvina : And that 's A-okay . So that 's it for me . Batzli : So we 're approving this . We 're not actually approving the portable chemical toilet other than in conformance with whatever — conditions were placed on that from our other conditional use permit process? Aanenson: They do have a separate conditional use . Batzli : So if we make a motion to approve this , or recommend approval , — should that be somehow reflected that the use of the portable chemical toilet is governed by a separate conditional use . Aanenson: That might be good . "' Batzli : Steve . Emmings: I read my comments from our last meeting and I took a position at that time that I didn 't think they should have any boats at this one and I 'm going to turn myself around 180 degrees on that . They 've moved these boats in front of this property this summer and I 've kept my eye or it and it seems to be working over there . And if that 's what they want , I think it 's primarily a policing function of the Association there and so I guess I 'd vote for in favor of approving this . The only question — I 've got is , just as an example Kate . I thought we weren 't going to get into picnic tables and grills and all that kind of stuff . Aanenson: We 're not . Emmings: But on the request , they haven 't requested any . I know they have some . They had them in '91 . They had them in '81 , just for picnic tables for example . But we 're not in any way eliminating their right to . Aanenson: No . When we issue their permit we 'll take that off as part of— it . As long as we 're on that , can I make one other clarification? Where it says swimming beach , it says no but they are requesting that . So really the only things you 're making an interpretation on is the number — of boats to be moored , because they 're not asking for a dock . And then Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 3 by ordinance they can have a swimming beach so really all we 're looking at is the number of boats and they 're not asking for anything on land either . Emmings : Okay . Batzli : Jeff . Farmakes: On these enumerable requests , I 'm just sticking with the '81 census , if there is one and I 'm going to stay with that . I think that 's what we should do to be consistent . If the City Council and staff want to make an exception on the issue that they didn 't have any boats on the site in '81 moored , that there were no moorings out on the lake and now it would seem to me two was an expansion . And if you want to make an exception on that and you have some justification for that . I don 't see any here but in a reasonable compromise or whatever you want to do that or in the interest of doing that , I 'll leave that up to staff . The issue of the raft and the marker buoys . If you 're going to have a raft , I wholly support the marker buoys but again , if that is an expansion , the raft and the buoys . According to the census , there were no buoys or a raft at that time . So again , that 's an expansion of the use in '81 . And again , if the issue is one of compromise , I don 't feel a burning desire to hold that up if that 's the situation that the city 's worked out . Batzli : Okay . My perspective on this I guess is , they 've provided some evidence that they did have some boats moored . I 'm willing to accept that . I think that the reduction in the number of boats on land from 4 to 0 , 2 boats moored and a swimming raft , I don 't think is , when they demonstrated that they had the 2 , I actually think there 's been a reduction in the use of the beachlot here and swimming raft I think is a reasonable thing to approve so I 'd vote in favor for the swimming raft and 2 boats being moored . Does anybody else have any other comments? Otherwise , I 'll ask for a motion . Emmings : I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Minnewashta Creek Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot with 2 boats moored , with the swimming raft and the marker buoys and also with the understanding that the chemical toilet is governed under a separate conditional use permit . Batzli : Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Minnewashta Creek Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot with 2 boats moored, with the swimming raft and the marker buoys and also with the understanding that the chemical toilet is governed under a separate conditional use permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING: RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PROPOSES REZONING 20.96 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A — PRELIMINARY PUD AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TARGET DEVELOPMENT ON 10+ ACRES, AND AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING OF THE ENTIRE SITE, TARGET DEVELOPMENT . — Public Present: Name Address Bill McHale Ryan Construction Co . Fran Hagen RLK Associates — Eric Johnson RLK Associates Margaret Fleck Target Corporation Ursula Dimler 7203 Kiowa Circle — Dave Dimler 7203 Kiowa Circle Charlie James T .F . James Company B .C . "Jim" Burdick Excelsior Mike Mason City Council Member Kate Aanenson presented the staff report for this item . Chairman Batzli — called the public hearing to order . Bill McHale: Mr . Chairman , members of the Planning Commission . My name is Bill McHale again and we would specifically like to address what we saw as the main issues 2 weeks ago . Specifically the general architecture of the building , the elevation on 78th , landscaping and the — parking lot and also Outlot B . The main thing I think you 're looking at Outlot B is you shouldn 't feel hamstrung about approving any concept per se here . I think that that concept has been backed off somewhat . In — fact the HRA has voted to go ahead and acquire this property whether or not there is a purchase agreement in place with Ryan . So that they can make more control over it in the future . Understanding that that was — tough to get a handle on and maybe it was causing more concerns with the Target parcel unnecessary . I 've got Fran Hagen here tonight from RLK whc can bring you through some sections that we had done through the site . Hopefully to get more comfortable with the landscaping in general and -' Margaret Fleck from Target is also here to go through the building , architecturally with the rendering and explain what she 's done since the last time we were here . Fran , why don't you go through the sections — first . Fran Hagen: To start with my name is Fran Hagen . I 'm with RLK . At the Planning Commission meeting previously , in the concept level , there was concerns about the views from West 78th . We hope that some of these have cross sections will help illustrate the points we were trying to make earlier about the views from West 78th . This first section , the top one :- The top section is this section right in here at the very east end of the site . I 'll put it down here so you can see . East end of the site here . You can see that we are burying part of the building , and that 's what we — were discussing earlier . There 's the , at this end over here is the plaza Planning Commission Meeting — September 16 , 1992 - Page 5 area that was discussed up in the easterly corner . We have a small retaining wall up to about 6 feet at the very east end going down to a couple of feet or 1 foot about 20 feet , 30 feet into this site . Not very extensive because we 've buried the building partially to make up some of — that grade difference . Let 's see . You can see here the parking . There 's more grass in this area because again , it 's way over here . As I illustrated . It 's not actually through the parking area . That is what this illustrates a little bit clearer over here and that is , this section — here , BB . You see at this point the grade has come down a little bit so we 're not as , we 're quite a bit above the building elevation . We have the parking . We have landscaping . We 'd like to point out that since the — last time you saw it , we 've added landscape islands interior to this parking area along with a string of islands through this area here . We also found by going back and looking at using the standards of the city — for a parking lot dimension , that we were able to pull the whole parking lot area up 20 feet to get more green area , as far as impervious area for the site . I mean pervious area for the site , not impervious . — Batzli : How wide is the road through to Burdick 's? A standard width road? Fran Hagen: Ah yes . It 's a one way road . It will be two way up at this far end . This parking lot to the north of the Target Center , or Target store is a one way diagonal parking system so you would come in on the south portion and then there 's a turn around to come back . Well , you could also make a maneuver here and this is 30 feet , or what is it . 20 , I 'm not exactly sure what the standard is but it would be whatever the city standard is . I believe that 's 25 feet . — Batzli : How wide is the sidewalk on that edge of the building? Fran Hagen: Right along here , 5 feet . Batzli : And does that lead to nothing at the east end then? Fran Hagen: On the east end , well there is an emergency exit . Or yeah , an emergency exit at this point right here . Batzli : And then it continues on to those bushes? Fran Hagen: It would basically end where the parking is , yes . Basically — from the parking over . Batzli : Okay . Fran Hagen: You 're indicating maybe some type of tie for the Burdick site? I guess I would point out that there is a sidewalk right up here . In fact there 's sidewalk proposed all the way along West 78th and I would tend to feel that most of the people would be walking that direction . Aanenson: If I could make a clarification with the Fire Marshall . We 've — also asked that that sidewalk is part of a fire code thing . That the hard surface also go over towards the exiting doors . That 's in his report so part of that is the sidewalk that sort of is again a fire , for them to Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 6 get access to those doors . Around the corner . Fran Hagen: Are there any other questions in regards to this section? — I 'll move to the other portions of the main parking lot with the next section . Batzli : One other question . Assuming then that people walk all the way to the corner and don 't cut through the parking lot because you 've got a retaining wall that 's about 6 feet there , is there then a sidewalk that — comes down across the island through the main drive to the front of the store? Fran Hagen: Yes there is . Once again this parking on the north side of — the building is going to be designated as employee parking . It will be circuited so that the lights stay on after the store is closed . But that was being designated as employee parking . That 's about the number that — they need for their employees . Farmakes: In reality A and 8 are superimposed on one another . There _ actually would be more trees extending back from Outlot B . We 're also seeing trees in the background of A? Fran Hagen: Yes . Yes . Well , those sections , they 're not superimposed — if that 's what you mean . Farmakes: No , I understand that but they are in reality . — Fran Hagen: There 's actually more trees . Batzli : There 'd be more cars too . — Fran Hagen: The next two sections again are views from West 78th . Through sections from West 78th into the parking lot area . The top one , — CC , is right in this area here . What we 're trying to show there is as the road bends away from the site , we are able to get a larger massing so as you 're looking down West 78th from down in the main part of town , we — will be able to put more of a massing of trees here so that youget more of that green appearance than say you would normally have in your 20 foot setback . I think we 're approaching 40 feet wide at that point and there 's quite a massing of trees proposed in that area . And again , -' you 're not seeing the full magnitude because we 're showing the trees that actually are in that area . But as you 're looking from west to east , there 'd be more masses of trees and I 'd call your attention to the — landscape plan to see the exact number and species of trees that fall within that area . Batzli : So we 're looking west in that scale? In that view there . Fran Hagen: No , you 're looking back east again because . Batzli : We 're at the back of the building . Fran Hagen: Well the building would be over in this area , if you were to_ see it in the background because you 're looking this direction here so Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 7 the building would start right about there off in the background . And also it cuts through I guess these islands right in here . That 's what those two islands are shown as . This bottom elevation is stepping back from West 78th , say going up maybe on the Charlie James side of the road there . The north side looking down at the building . This is somewhat of a better view of how many trees . You can see the trees that are up here , up on top of the hill but you can see the ones where you just see the heads of the trees . You can see that those are the ones that are down inside the parking , which is lower than the road . West 78th . Any questions on this cross section? The last two cross sections came about kind of in reference to what City Council had requested some views of . These are from the Highway 5 side . Starting on the Highway 5 side of the project . The upper most section here , Section DD , would be straight out from the building at a 90 degree at the top of that overpass . Or approach to the bridge . So that is roughly in this area here . It is showing the , it 's before the truck dock . It 's going through here showing the mass of trees that exist now . Those aren 't trees that we 're planting . Those exist now . Other than the one tree up in here , we are proposing a string of ash and I believe they are down along where we are grading . But this mass of trees exists now and that 's what the City is _ trying to preserve as a screen partly and also just to preserve the existing mass of trees . This section , which is called EE , would be roughly starting here on Highway 5 and kind of looking across the parking . Through the parking area towards the building itself . And you can see that 's the entrance area of Target . We have a high portion there and you can see how much we are depressed down from that area , and you get a somewhat picture of the massing of the trees and also . . . If there any other questions as you 're going along , I 'd be happy to answer them . Now , I 'll turn it over to Margaret . Batzli : This was in lieu of the computer aided graphics . Fran Hagen: I guess I skipped over the landscaping itself . Do you want to at this point address the specific landscaping or is that something? As we had mentioned , since the last time we were before you , we have tried to provide more green area on the site and in the parking lot itself trying to break it up a little bit . What we 've proposed in addition to previously submitted first of all is a string of , we 're taking advantage of the allowance in the Code of some compact car . Actually I think we 're allowed quite a bit more than what we 're proposing here but what we 're doing is putting these smaller islands of two ornamental trees in each one of these islands and they will all be irrigated I believe . Isn 't that a city requirement? Folch : Yes . Fran Hagen: I believe it is . I know it 's a Target requirement from a previous discussion we had . Krauss: We 'll make it one . Fran Hagen: We have a string of trees here . String of islands to try to soften that up , as we mentioned . We 've also , because of the ability to tighten down the dimensions and such , we found more green space down in Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 8 through here . Specific trees , at the previous meeting was discussed putting a few trees in front of the building . Those are the ornamental crab apple type of trees . I don 't see the specifics there . We 've got — quite a mixture of different trees . I don 't know specific you want me tc get at this time but we 've got marshall ash along this roadway here . Over- in here , especially where height is going to be a big , we want them — to get up high and fast to try to soften the view of the Target from West 78th . Then we also have them proposed over here where they 'd be dwarfed by the existing trees anyway if we tried to put anything other than — something that grew fast and large , especially an ash . We have pin oak and lindens scattered in a lot of these different islands . The pin oaks actually are not in the islands except this large island here . Those pin oaks are in this more landscaped mass area . — Batzli : How do pin oaks do with salt? Fran Hagen: This is Eric . Eric Johnson: I 'm Eric Johnson . I 'm the landscape architect for RLK Associates . And with the salt that you 're talking about , the pin oaks we have located here in the back side of the building where we won 't have tc worry about a salt spray at all . We 've got the pin oaks that are set farther back into , away from the parking area here . There are the three — that we talked about in this larger island area . But due to the size of the island we 'll be able to set them back farther to get away from any splashing . This island here will be irrigated as well to . . .the salt — spray and take care of that particular row of trees . Batzli : I was thinking snow removal . People might use that as a place to pile snow . — Fran Hagen: Just given the nature of this parking lot , it 's actually sloped this direction and given the nature of this large area , I 'm — relatively certainly that snow removal will be in this manner . Just in looking at it from ease of , this is the most logical place for snow removal , not to mention all the depressed hole of ponding area . — Batzli : Do you have any questions on the landscaping that you want to talk about now? Farmakes: I 'm concerned about the interior area . Are we talking ornamental sizing? Let 's say for instance on the double areas that are on , just to the left or right of the center line of trees . — Fran Hagen : Yes , those were called out for G and I . Those are crab and hawthorne . Farmakes: So what type of heights are we talking there? Eric Johnson: With the hawthornes we 're looking at , they generally get — about a 15 to 20 foot height as far as that goes . They 're a rather wide spreading tree . So they work very well for screening uses . We also have along the front space here overstory trees . Along the center islands — here , we have the overstory trees also with the mixtures of . . . We 've Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 9 been mixing ornamentals in there so we don 't have continual , the same species throughout the parking lot . One thing 's to give the parking lot a little bit more character . With the ornamentals we bring in different , _ in the springtime we bring in colors as they bloom and they also work well with the screening . And as far as different species in the parking lot , just . . .we want to avoid monoculter throughout the parking lot . But with the alternation of the ornamental trees as well as the deciduous overstory , we get a varying heights that will help screen out . The ornamentals will work well with the 15 to 20 foot height , keeping as a person looks forward , out towards the building . Their eye would be blocked that way . With the large overstory deciduous tree , as your eye looks up , it 's drawn upward , that takes care of the sight lines from above . And it acts as almost a two level of screening as far as that goes . Farmakes : Are these shown as maximum crown cover with a mature tree? Eric Johnson: Right now actually these are not . The ornamentals we have drawn here have about a 10 foot spread right now and with those , there 'd be about a 15 or 18 foot spread . With the crabs there and the hawthornes can even get to a 25 foot . They 're rather wide . These are the honey locust here . Those will get to a height of about I 'd say 35 to 40 feet . And right now with your drawing , they 're showing a 20 foot crown and those will max out to about a 30 foot crown with those . They get rather spreading also with maturity . So this is about a 5 year type of plan showing here . These will get much larger . Farmakes: As a general rule of thumb , you 're saying that these crown areas indicated here , they 'd be about 30% bigger when they 're mature? _ Eric Johnson: I would say more like about almost 50% . 50% as far as the overstory deciduous here . About 30% as far as the ornamental . Batzli : What 's the expected life of a locust? Eric Johnson: The locust , we 've seen many mature trees, especially since these islands will be irrigated , that will definitely help in the life span . But I 've seen some up to 50-60 years that have been quite large . Farmakes: There is no landscaping at all in the area to be directly to the south . There 's that little strip there and then it 's all open up . Your pylon sign I believe is indicated to going there . Is that correct? Fran Hagen: The pylon sign was indicated here . When they come in for the actual sign approval , which I understand is a separate approval . I know there 's been some discussions about possibly moving it more towards the west just because of the grade difference here . This road is going up so fast . They want to get it as far west as they can so that , given that your height requirements . . . The reason for leaving this open , as I mentioned . part of the reason is just where can we put the snow . I know that there 's been discussions about cleaning it out this way , number one . Number two , if you remember the grading plan , or I 'm sure you have copies of that , this is a steep slope . 3: 1 slope going down to the ponding area itself . In fact , during a high water storm or 100 year storm , I would Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 10 say at least 50% of that area will be covered with water . So there are a lot of trees that would be sensitive to that kind of environment . So the_ trees are kept up on the bench . If you 're looking at the grading plan , there 's about a 20 foot area that 's flat on top of the hill . And that 's where those trees are shown . Conrad: We just discussed the parking lot . You gave more green space tc the bottom. I 'm not sure the green space at the bottom really counts because you 're looking over it from the highway . But you compressed the _ parking lot . Why didn 't you take that as an opportunity to add some green space in the middle to break it up a little bit visually? In other words , take 20 feet of that green space at the bottom , run a strip through the middle of the parking lot . Maybe meander a sidewalk through — that . You added the space . Why . . .do that? Fran Hagen: Well a sidewalk wouldn 't give us the pervious surface first — of all . We were trying to up the impervious . Or we 're trying to increase the pervious surface of the site . Conrad: Because we were over the ratio? Fran Hagen: Well the ratio was high on this site but the total package of this with this is below the 70% required . Margaret , did you want to — address that at all as far as , we did look at that type of a layout . From a maintenance standpoint , there were some reservations on Target 's part as far as maintaining the . Bill McHale: That came up with staff several times and RLK I think did draw a pictorial for Target but Target 's tried this before in other _ locations . One specifically in St . Louis Park and they 've had terrible luck with it . It 's not just the volume , the lack of use . They 've had a lot of problems . It doesn 't handle the carts movement through , the carts through the lot . And based on not being able to achieve that , they thought the next best option was to expand the green area to the south . They have determined that they just functionally cannot live with a large pedestrian path through the middle of the lot . _ Conrad: See I 'm surprised at that . You would think that that would add to this , and Knollwood is not a good example . I 'm real familiar with , that 's a cockeyed parking lot . '- Bill McHale: We 're talking about St . Louis Park on Highway 100 . Conrad: Yeah , that 's the Knollwood shopping . Aanenson: No , no . Knollwood 's on 7 . Byerly 's and Target . They go _ between the two . Conrad: Ah , okay . I 'm surprised . I would think that that would add to the ability to get out to the lot . Fran Hagen: Were there any other specific questions on the landscaping? Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 11 Farmakes: On other Target stores , do you normally do on site storage of snow removal? Bill McHale: Yes . Batzli : Thank you . We may have some questions later . Margaret Fleck: Down at the bottom here I brought in what we standardly begin with when we go out on a site . It is the basic Target building . It is the basic footprint we use and exterior that has been accepted by the Target Vice President and from there we go beyond that when required . Here in Chanhassen we 've worked a great deal with the staff and of course here at this meeting previously . The building here has a 22 foot 8 height of a parapet and in doing sight line studies , we have raised our parapet to 26 foot 8 to cover all of the HVAC rooftop units and have shifted the satellite dish to the back so that we 're guaranteed that it will not be showing by any of the sight lines . The sight lines we worked with were Highway 5 at the peak . Down a little lower and then 78th Street in several areas . Batzli : Is back east? Margaret Fleck: I had to shift it back into the roof further . We normally place it , the satellite dish is normally placed very close up because of where it drops down into the communication area that we use it for and I 've shifted it back and that has , because the roof 's sloping to the rear , it accomplishes having it covered with the 4 foot parapet . They 're exactly flush with each other . The only way you would ever see anything on this roof , or should be able to see anything on this roof now is if you 're above the parapet height . Farmakes: Which would be the entire Highway 5? Margaret Fleck: No . Highway 5 is not above the parapet height . Highway 5 , the spot elevation I took I believe was 878 . 978 , excuse me . I got my base number off there . And our parapet height is . Aanenson: Well the bottom elevation is 958 plus . Margaret Fleck: Yeah , 984 . So there 's a 10 foot difference . Or a 6 foot difference there . Our parapet is 6 feet higher than the spot elevation I 'm aware of being the top elevation of Highway 5 . This was an earlier sight line study that was done . I don 't know whether you were ever handed one of these . I know that I did work with Kate and Paul on this . Since then we have been able to verify the height of our satellite dish , and again I said we 've shifted it so that we 're assured that it does not show . So nothing should show any longer . If there 's any spot on Highway 5 that goes above it , which I have not found from my topo elevations , yes . It 's going to be seen but it 's going to be , if anything , way back here where I do not have topography on this point . All along my building I 've got the topography and it is not above the parapet height . Moving along . What we have done is , our normal standard building does have some changes in the front but we 've included more changes . One in particular is this area in here that works out as a Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 12 gateway and then also is capped with the metal standing seam roof . And then we 've added another massing here that begins to reflect the masses on the West 78th Street side . We 've also taken the two toned building we- have Ehave here and with the additional 4 foot height , we worked with the lower color and then added the two color bands that we normally use on our Greatland stores . The blue and the green and then added the red up _ higher so that you get more break in the building . When we 're working with the projections that project out even further than the base building , we have dropped the parapet , or dropped the wanescoat down to 3 foot 4 and that 's again to accentuate that massing projecting further out than another part of the building and you 'll see that here and you also see that we 've used a brown band to kind of again project that and make it pull out even further than just what you would see from the fact that — you get shadows . On the West 78th Street side here you will see these masses and in working with the staff even further , we have come up with the fact that all the masses will have the legs like this and actually look like similar to entries . They 'll be recessed . This projection is 4 feet so you ' ll have a 4 foot overhang there and we 'll be putting some downliahts in so that during the evening they will be lit up and this wall won 't be just extremely dark . We do use some security lights and — wall mounted lights to light our parking lot that would be on this side but these will be specifically to accent these masses . Batzli : You said each one of those masses will look like the one on the far right? Margaret Fleck: Correct . And that was something we worked out with the , oh yes , thank you . We did bring you a perspective this time . Excuse me , and this begins to show how much the front repeats and then you begin to see what the actual massing will do at the West 78th Street side . — Farmakes: I have a question or clarification? The previous landscape drawing showed the roof elements being red . These are taupe color like — they are here? Margaret Fleck : Yes , that was our intent was to use a similar color to _ this down here . I 'm not sure why they were accented as taupe or terra cotta on the other areas . Farmakes : No , they 're red in the landscape drawings . — Margaret Fleck: Like a terra cotta? Farmakes: They look like red to me . Margaret Fleck: Okay . Well we hadn 't intended on making them Target red . I don 't think that that would be , they 're there as elements to — reflect a residential motiff and that certainly wouldn 't be appropriate . We may choose to do that in some other area but I don 't think Chanhassen , that 's an appropriate color to choose for . Are you interested in a — particular color? Farmakes: No , I just noticed the two different colors and I 'm asking which one are we looking at? Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 13 Margaret Fleck : No , it will stay the taupe or , my intention was for it to be a little bit shinier bronze color . Get a little bit of a polished metal color to it . Almost an iodine . I can 't talk tonight . Again , a polished color . It would get a little bit more reflection than you 're seeing here . Batzli : What is that top treatment going to be? What 's the materials in that top treatment? Margaret Fleck: Meaning right in here or are we talking about the roof itself? Batzli : Yeah . Margaret Fleck: It will be a metal standing seam roof . The reason you see the lines is because it will have a slight panel piece and then it will come up as a trim piece . The one thing I haven 't mentioned is the . fact that at the parapet , right at the termination we 'll be doing some beveling . Moving the block back and forth to give you a corbelled effect with the masonry itself . Farmakes: I just have a general question for you , as far as style goes . What is the reason behind the building having such a limited glass area? Margaret Fleck: We really don 't need the glass . We don 't display materials out on the exterior . All of our sales is in the inside and it 's a reachable , sellable material . The only glass we need is the glass that we need for the entry doors and that 's what we put in now . Farmakes: It 's not a security issue? A styling issue? You just don 't need it? Margaret Fleck: Well , I think there 's a security issue with it also . At one point we did have a little bit more glass . This front modual here is , the longer front modual is our offices for our merchandisers that are in the store . And at one point we would have given them glass but we don 't find it one , that they necessarily need it . And two , it is a security problem . It 's better if we don 't have those openings . We 've very careful about our doors also . Farmakes: So there aren 't versions of this particular unit elsewhere that have more glass? Margaret Fleck: Earlier on versions . Perhaps 5 years ago to 10 years ago or possibly stores that we have purchased and take overs we 've done to stores that are already existing . Where we 've just lived with what was there . Batzli : Do you have an emergency exits on the front of the building here? Margaret Fleck : Yeah , there 's several of them . Well no , I shouldn 't . Yeah , there 's two of them . There 's these two here , which will be painted out the same color as the base and these two here , which there will be a Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 14 light above those in the evening . And of course they 're never intended on being used as entries . They 're only exits . Farmakes: Isn 't there also on your plan more lower landscaping that 's not shown here? Does that screen need more area there? Margaret Fleck: In this area? At this moment , no we had not put that in . Unless something was mentioned somewhere else that I 'm not aware of . At this point it was major trees . Oh , the sign . Do you want me to show _ them the sign? Ranenson: Sure . Margaret Fleck: These are the two signs that will be being placed . This is the pylon sign and this is the one that will be being in placed by the one driveway . And again , they 're the two tones that we're talking about — here . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Margaret Fleck: Thank you . Batzli : Do you have anything else? — Bill McHale: No , except to answer your questions , I think that 's it . Batzli : Okay , we 'll probably have some in a little bit . This is a public hearing . Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission at this time? Dave Dimler : Hello , I 'm Dave Dimler of 7203 Kiowa Circle here in Chanhassen . And I am presently leasing , along with my brother , Burdick 's property . And I would like to address a concern that we presently have a— crop of pumpkins on that land and I 'm here to address the issue of the grading permit . We would like to get our pumpkin crop out this year and that would go of course until Halloween on October 31st . That 's where _ our concern is . Is just that we can get our profits out of that . We have put a lot of time and money into getting our crop in and we would like to see the proceeds . Emmings: Did you have an agreement with Mr . Burdick about being able to get your crop out? When you leased the land from him . Dave Dimler : The lease goes until December 31st . Emmings: Alright . So you 've got rights there? Dave Dimler : Yes , we do have rights . Emmings: Okay . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Charlie James: I 'm Charlie James . I think you all know that . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 15 Emmings : Is that all you want to tell us? Charlie James: No , but you know being here tonight kind of reminds me of the old story about the town hypochondriac that hears that there 's a new doctor in town so he figures he 'd better go check this guy out and see if this guy can tell him what 's wrong with him . So the guy goes down to the doctor 's new office and there 's no one in the waiting room but there 's a big sign there and it says , initial consultation $150 .00 . All subsequent visits , $25 .00 . So when the doctor comes out to greet the man , the man jumps up and goes , nice to see you again . So that 's what I 'm saying to all you tonight . Nice to see you all again . Batzli : I really liked the chicken and the pig one the other night . I 've been telling people that at work . They all think it 's original . Charlie James: First of all I want to say that I support this project and I think they 've got a really good looking building here . I 'm in the development business and I 'd be happy to be their neighbor . I think they 've done a good job . Really what the issue comes down to for me is , what 's going to happen to West 78th Street . And as you probably all know , I 've been kind of held hostage for the last 3 1/2 years . We had a '- building that was approved by your Planning Commission and City Council 3 1/2 years ago and I executed a development agreement with the City that said that that street was going to get built and well , I guess we all know the rest of the story . I met this morning with RLK and this afternoon with Don Ashworth . And we 're following kind of a two track approach here . We 're trying to work , see what happens if we go with the existing right-of-way that I prepared according to MnDot specifications . According to my development agreement or whether we 'd go with the realigned location as proposed on these drawings here tonight . In a nutshell my position is I don 't care . I have two concerns . Number one is , the development agreement that I had with the City and my entire plat was based on driveways located in a certain position that were full access driveways . So I want to make sure that I maintain the integrity of access to my northern property . And second of all , this isn 't a Planning Commission issue , it 's an HRA issue . I want to get a fair price for my property which recognizes the grading , the soil correction , the _ architectural plans , mechanical engineering plans and so forth . So I 'm flexible on either way we can go there . Paul told me , Paul Krauss , told me one time when I was asking what this PUD was all about . He said , I 'm paraphrasing Paul here . He said the purpose of a PUD district is not to subvert the ordinance but to get a higher quality product . That 's there some trade-offs involved but the net result should be that the City gets a higher quality product . I don 't think we should forget that part of this PUD is Outlot B . And the Council the other night asked that this matter of West 78th Street be resolved by September 28th and I agree . I would like a resolution by September 28th . I just can 't be left twisting out on the wind any longer . I can 't have , I understand where these folks are coming from . I empathize with them . I know why they need to get this dirt in and let it settle over the winter . I 'd like to see them get going . But on the other hand too , if we get so focused on letting this happen and not enough attention is paid to Outlot B , I 'm going to be sitting there for another year or God knows how long . I mean if we take the pressure off the resolution of this 78th Street issue . So I 'm Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 16 flexible on that . I 'm trying to work with the parties . I think we had a productive meeting this morning . I had a very productive meeting this afternoon with Don Ashworth . He 's going to the HRA tomorrow . So I guess in summary I 'd just say , I 'd like a resolution of this thing by September 28th . I 've just got to know where I stand on this road . And otherwise Target will proceed and I 'll be just kind of left twisting in the wind — again . So I support the project and my opinion as a developer , I think they 've done a good job on the building . Like I say , I 'd be proud to be their neighbor . And I guess in closing , I 'll just tell you the rest of that story . The doctor comes out and says come on in . Let me hear what your problem is . So the doctor 's thumping the guy on the chest and he goes , oh God , this is bad . This is bad . And he thumps him some more and goes , oh . This is bad . He says , let me hear you breathe . The doctor — says , this is bad . And the patient says , doc what 's wrong? What 's wrong? Am I going to live? What 's going on here? And the doctor says , well if you just keep doing what I told you to do during our initial — consultation , you 'll live . Thank you very much . Batzli : Can I paraphrase something you said? You don 't , I think I heard you say that you don 't care where the road goes but you need a — resolution . Was that true? You don 't care if it 's moved south? Charlie James: No , really they 're HRA issues . Let me tell you what some— of the issues are here . If you want to know . Batzli : Give us the Reader 's Digest version . Charlie James: You guys know I can 't do that . You 've known me long enough . Basically if we go with this kind of realignment here , what will happen is , where the existing alignment that we had previously . It kind — of came down here like so . So I 'd be getting that alignment back plus a strip here . I don 't know , maybe 12 to 30 feet wide . And I guess what I would like to see here . I didn 't speak up during the first Planning — Commission meeting . I was trying to show my support by being here and keeping my big mouth shut . I figured it was better for me to be here and keep my mouth shut than to not be here and have you wonder why I wasn 't here . So I wish I would have spoke out about that issue about the right turn , right in thing here because that kind of complicates the negotiations that are going on right now . But if we go with this kind of an alignment , which is fine with me , what I 'd like to see is this — entrance closed . I 'd like to see a signal here and if Target wants a signal down here too , that 's fine with me . I 'd like to see some sort of cul-de-sac come in here to serve these properties and then I 'd like to — have , I had a full access point approved . This is 210 feet back from the center line from the property line . I had a full access point approved 300 feet back . So in order to facilitate this , if I 'm going to accommodate everybody here by kind of getting blown out of the water , I 'd— at least like to have some good access retained on my property to the north . In order to facilitate that , I 'd like to see this closed . We 've had some discussions with Strgar about a signal here . I understand — Target works here . There 's some issues here as to whether or not I 'll ever be able to build a driveway here but we 're talking about that . Basically my property 's on a slope . Their property 's on a slope . They _ want to lower the grade of the road so they have less of a slope into Planning Commission Meeting — September 16 , 1992 - Page 17 their property but that raises the slope up into my property . So I 'm trying not to get brain damage about this . We 're trying to work it out . I 'm hoping we 're gonna . Batzli : Why does a right turn in and right out effect you across the way there? Charlie James: You know in talking to Strgar , they start out with the best case scenario and then they kind of enumerate what happens there . And so the best case scenario , if I 'm going to have this , is to have nothing over here . Then the next case scenario would be on and on and I think there 's some sense to having this traffic coming off of a controlled intersection and according to Strgar and the conversations we 've had , the difference in travel time here . Coming from this direction westbound . The studies have shown that as I understand them , most of the customers are going to come from the north and the west and from the south . They 're certainly not going to come from Eden Prairie back this way . So they 're going to be entering from this direction here . So what Strgar is saying is that the travel differential and time between being able to turn here and simple going down to a stop light and turning here to get in , really is insignificant . But what does make a big difference for me , if I 'm trying to do all this stuff to accommodate this development , is if all this traffic 's coming from the west , how the heck do they get into my property up here where these two lots were where I had a driveway granted? Are they going to drive all the way down to the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre and do a U turn in their parking lot to come back? So these are just , I 'm just giving you sort of an idea of some of the issues that are trying to be worked on there . Batzli : Are you looking for a full intersection then at the entrance to your? Charlie James: Here? Batzli : Yeah . Charlie James: No . I 'm looking , there 'd be a left turn lane there and there 'd only be a movement to the north here . By eliminating the thing to the south , that 's like the second best or you know , on this enumerated list of scenarios , that reduces . . .conflicts there and facilitates me having access into the land . Because I feel that to lose that access to my land to the north is really a down zoning because then it turns it into like a destination visit like an office or something where you 've got to sit there and go , get on your personal computer and go , now how do I get to this place . Now I 've got an appointment at 5:00 and rather than convenient shopping . So those are some of the issues and I think we 're starting to have some productive meetings now and I 'm trying to be flexible both ways . There 's some other issues that there goes some existing alignment . I want to be accommodating . I want to facilitate this development . I think it 's good for Chanhassen . I think this project will give people who have never had a reason to come and even stop in Chanhassen before , a reason to come here . Shop and that 's going to help your downtown merchants . And it 's going to help me and things across the street . So I support this project but I have to , you know I 'm Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 18 being asked to change this . Change that . Change this , and there 's only so far I can go before the negative impacts start to outweigh the positive benefits and so those are the issues that we 're negotiating now .— I 'm hoping that in the next two weeks we 'll be able to solve these issues to everyone 's satisfaction . • Batzli : Okay , thank you . Farmakes: Can I ask you a quick question? Yeah , you mentioned that your_ marketing studies show that customers are coming from the north , west and south . Charlie James: I believe that 's what was Strgar did . They did a traffic— study . Farmakes: Earlier they considered coming from the east . _ Charlie James: Fran , is that right? Didn 't Strgar 's study show that the majority of the traffic would be coming from , eastbound on West 78th Street from the west . Aanenson: There 's a chart in the staff report . Fran Hagen: There is a chart in the staff report . Farmakes: I took that to mean from the east period . From the east on _ TH 5 . Krauss: The east on TH 5 and down TH 101 . Powers Blvd . is a very minor player in the traffic forecast . Farmakes: There was a high percentage of people coming east on TH 5 . Less on TH 101 and TH 5 coming from the west . Is that correct? Bill McHale: You may want to go up on the overhead and show them . Fran Hagen : This won 't work on that overhead . Bill McHale : Oh . . . Fran Hagen: Coming from this direction , I 'm sorry from Highway 5 and Powers , the total of , I 'm sorry . Coming up Powers is a total of 1 ,071 . About 300 are turning this direction . It says p .m . peak hour movement . — They didn 't go to Highway 5 . Unfortunately , they just show it . I don 't know if this was included in your packets . Aanenson: Yes , it was . Fran Hagen: But 78th , they have 421 at Kerber it appears . If I 'm reading this correctly . 421 coming straight thru to the , or coming , it 's— not saying that the destination is here necessarily . This is p .m . peaks for the entire roadway . This is not specifically one site 's destination . Kerber at this intersection they 're showing a total of 427 making this movement into Monterey I guess it 's called when you go south of West Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 19 _ 78th . 123 going north on Kerber and 421 going thru that direction to the west . Coming down Kerber itself , very minimal . 88 turning turning towards the Target side . — Bill McHale: How about coming off of Powers going east on 78th? Fran Hagen: That was the 300 . That 's all that 's shown there is 300 — coming around this corner here . Bill McHale: Okay , so we 've actually got more traffic coming from the east than the west . Fran Hagen: Yes . — Charlie James: That doesn 't jive with what 's in the report here because they talk about generating 7 ,000 trips a day . Fran Hagen: This is just a p .m . peak count . — Charlie James: Okay , but I 'm saying , they 're talking about 7 ,000 trips a day just to the Target . Somewhere in here . Fran Hagen: Right . Strgar-Roscoe , I do not believe addressed Target specifically . They were addressing all the different business districts — that are along the West 78th . Am I right Kate? Aanenson: That 's correct . That whole super block . Fran Hagen: That 's what this report is . The whole super block . Not just Target . These numbers do not mean that 300 are making the turn at Powers and West 78th and coming to Target specifically . Conrad: Did they know Target was a factor? Krauss: Oh sure , yeah . Farmakes: So you 're actually showing more trips on Monterey during peak hours than you are showing coming east on Powers and 78th? — Emmings: That 's what it says . — Farmakes: I 'm not a traffic engineer but that doesn 't sound right to me to a dead end street with . . . Emmings: A dead end street with no business except one little one . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else that would like to address the Commission? B .C . "Jim" Burdick: Good evening . B .C . "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior . First of all , please don 't change those figures on Monterey . Now maybe — Paul would help me a bit by pointing at certain items . Paul or Kate . I went along with 5 or 6 different things that I didn 't care about in my purchase agreement with the HRA or the City of Chanhassen . And one of Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 20 the things that is favorable to me in agreement is that there should be good access between the Target parking lot and our two lots . And I just wanted to bring this up . This is part of the agreement . And secondly , — it 's very important to us , we want a semifore at Kerber and 78th . As they just said , by the way I didn 't have anything to do with this report or paying for it . To route traffic on Monterey but there 's going to be a— lot of truck traffic there if nothing else . And we no longer want to call it Monterey . I ' ll bring that up again but I corresponded with Todd Gerhardt about 2 months ago about changing Monterey to Kerber . Everyone — of the property owners has given me a letter saying that it 's fine with them . They 'd like to have it changed to Kerber . Somebody from Market Square , Chaska Tool and Ryan Construction and Target . So I 'm going to put that as Kerber . Anyway , it 's quite essential to us we have a semifore at Kerber as part of this deal because as you folks can see , these two lots have been hurt quite a bit by the configuration . The configuration of Market Square which largely faces to the east and a configuration of Target which faces to west . When they originally started doing on this , the Target store was an angle facing northwest . Whereas we finally agreed that they could turn the store so we 'd actually be behind this store so we do want these two items to offset part of this damage . That would be the very good access from Target 's parking lot anc a semifore at Kerber and 78th . That 's all unless there 's some questions . Batzli : The current way that they have the access aligned through the parking lot , you consider that adequate? You 're not asking for more than what 's currently in the plans are you? — B .C . "Jim" Burdick: No , just one entrance . Batzli : But you 've looked at the plans and you 're comfortable with what 's currently designed? B .C . "Jim" Burdick: Well strangely , I probably haven 't . This plan 's been changed no less than 50 times . I have about this thick on a table in my office and which is the latest one , I never know . Batzli : But that 's a one way into his property isn 't it? Krauss: No . Batzli : Two way? Aanenson: Oh two way , yeah . You can go both ways . — Bill McHale: You can go either way . B .C . "Jim" Burdick: Yes , I 'd want two way . Fran Hagen: Out of his property there 's no , it 's a straight up shot . Out of his property it 's straight up this way because you 'd be following — the right side of the road and you 'd be straight out . That 's why we inverted so the parking comes in this way and comes out this way so it was a straight in shot to his property . And coming out of his property , — again you would come in through here and you would have to go like that . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 21 Come through this parking and turn . It 's two directional here but it 's one way coming to it . Batzli : Okay . You confused me earlier . Does Mr . Burdick then gain some sort of driveway easement recorded against the Target property? Krauss: Well actually , that 's a reasonably good condition for the plat . In it 's entirety it 's all in one PUD so we have the ability to do that easily . — Aanenson: That 's why we wanted to include him in the PUD to make sure that that access was maintained and he is part of that . Krauss: But it will be in separate ownership . It should have a cross access easement . As should all the lots on Outlot B . Batzli : Yeah , okay . Thank you . Go ahead . Charlie James: If you look on page 14 of the , I don 't know if these are all sequentially , but it was the August 29th . Third paragraph it says , Strgar-Roscoe has looked at the traffic generation and completed future peak trip generations for West 78th Street and Powers based on complete development of this area . Both sides of West 78th as commercial . Even with total development , traffic will not exceed the design capacity . The ultimate ADT for this area going south on Powers , south on Powers and east on West 78th would be 3 ,830 or an increase from the current levels of 800 trips . So you 're going to have 3 ,000 more cars coming up to the _ north . The projected ADT 's from Powers Blvd . , coming here running east onto West 78th Street would be 10 ,071 , an increase of 7 ,000 trips . This increase occurs only on the short section of Powers between Highway 5 to West 78th Street . North of West 78th Street there will be a 10% increase in traffic over existing levels . So that in fact verifies this if you reference page 14 . For the traffic counts . Batzli : Okay . Is there any other public comment? Mike Mason: Mike Mason , 833 Woodhill Drive . I suspect I 'm speaking more as a Council member now but I just have a few concerns . The discussion about the middle sidewalk . As I 'm looking at that I 'm thinking , if I was shopping at Target and I wanted to go to a restaurant , I 'm not going to walk to 78th Street . Hike up there and then go back down 78th Street and come down . There is a middle sidewalk on the Target in South Minneapolis and Hiawatha so it has been done , unless it 's been removed . I 'm also concerned about lights and how long they 'll be on . After hours , that kind of thing . Security lights , fine . I mean I know it has to be done but how much more light is there going to be in Chanhassen because of this? Also , the landscaping on West 78th , as I was just sitting talking _ with Councilwoman Dimler , evergreens sure would be nice as opposed to deciduous trees . The trouble with deciduous is , in the winter we don 't see much . Just on the West 78th side there . Aanenson: I think there 's a mix . I can double check . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 22 Mike Mason: Yeah , and there may be enough evergreens there now but just as I 've been spending a lot of time to think about this and thinking about the presentation from Monday . Just some concerns that I 'd either — be bringing up now or at the next Council meeting , so thanks . Aanenson: Could I just make a comment that we raised in the staff report_ to make sure that it 's clear that Target has a lighting policy that 's inconsistent with our 's . We specifically made that a condition because that was brought up before at the Planning Commission and that 's the half foot at the property line . Their standard is one foot . We did make note of that as a condition that they meet our standards for lighting . Eric Johnson: If I could address the issue of the evergreen trees . We — have looked at evergreen trees in the widest portion of the island . Of the areas between West 78th and the Target parking lot . The reason we do not have more is the concern for the salt spray on these coniferous trees . The coniferous trees have a very bad problem with the salt spray and survival rate is rather low when they 're planted close to the road . That was the reason why we did not include more coniferous trees . We do have them here at the widest point because they 're able to set back from the spray and their survival there would be pretty good. Emmings: There 's some in that parking lot just to the north too isn 't -- there? Eric Johnson: Right here in these two . Along the parking lot area , the speeds generated should not spray the salt that much but along West 78th , when you get the higher speeds , salt and the snow is kicked farther out . Batzli : Thank you . Is there anymore public comment? Is there a motion — to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted — in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I 'd like to start out with the sign first . I 've got a couple questions about the sign . I have heard 34 , 30 and 36 feet on the pylon sign . Which one are we talking? The plans show 34 . The copy shows 36 and , is the ordinance 30? Aanenson: On the PUD , no . We didn 't put a specific height regulation or this because we weren 't exactly sure where the placement would be and to get their visibility . That was one , we left that open . — Farmakes: Okay , which one within the figures of 34 and 36? Which one 's the , the sign here says 34 . Aanenson: Right . I 'm assuming that 's what it should be . Margaret Fleck: Again , we 're a little concerned to commit completely — until we actually get the sign set up . I understand that there is a specific permit that needs to go out on that . Because of the proposal , either to set it here or in here , it 's a low dip point and of course the pylon sign 's probably the most important to be able to visually see off Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 23 of Highway 5 . With Highway 5 at the height it 's at , we could end up losing 10-15 feet of that base of the sign . Farmakes: So you haven 't chosen a location? Margaret Fleck: No , we haven 't chosen a location or truly a height . Farmakes: Would that be taken care of at a later date? Krauss: Well actually as a PUD , it should be designated on the site plan since the normal sign ordinance doesn 't apply in a PUD unless you deem it to apply . Now in this case we 've been fairly restrictive on signage . I mean we 're limiting the number of pylon signs . If you go back to some of the original meetings we had with Morrish and the HRA and how the site plan developed in the first place , we always acknowledged that Target was going to need a fairly large single , architecturally designed pylon sign because we 've got the building tucked back behind the trees we 're trying to save . If you want to put a maximum , not to exceed 40 feet , I think that would be a good number . I mean they can shift that sign down on the site and see what works the best and we can work with them . But it should be written into a set of sign covenants that are adopted with the PUD contract . Farmakes: So your answer is , we can take care of that later? Aanenson: No . 40 feet . A maximum of 40 feet . Batzli : Shall not exceed 36 feet . Emmings: That 's what it says now in the condition that 's here . Batzli : It says they 're entitled to one . Farmakes: If they have a case for changing that later , they can do that later? Krauss: Sure . Farmakes: The next question I have in regards to the sign is the color of red then . Is that the more blood red that 's on the tower or is that the warm red that 's on the Target 's logo? Margaret Fleck: I 'm sorry . Farmakes: The red that you 're using here , that you 're indicating here on the plans . Is that on a white plexiglass and is that a 185 red or is that a darker red that you 're using in the architectural item? Margaret Fleck: . . .when you say 185 , you 're talking . Farmakes: I 've seen Target as a very bright red and I 've also seen it as a darker red . Margaret Fleck: It was intended on being a bright red . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 24 Farmakes: I don 't know if that 's on purpose or if it just happened to be that way . Margaret Fleck: . . .back lit or not back lit . . . Farmakes: Is it off white? Is it bright white? Is it cream? What is _ that? Margaret Fleck: I believe it 's bright white . Batzli : Yellows to a fine cream over the years . Margaret Fleck: Not if we can help it . Farmakes: And you 're showing that as a gray , so the red pole that 's described in the copy here , that 's not a consideration then? Margaret Fleck: The pole being described , are you thinking of the narrative? Farmakes: I was talking about the pylon . The red pole . Margaret Fleck: . . .no . _ Farmakes: So that then will be a gray or that will be the color of the building? Margaret Fleck: The base will be the brown color . . . Farmakes : Okay , so that 's not as the plan that you have it there? That a you 're holding . Color wise . That would be a more tan , taupe , whatever . Margaret Fleck: That was . . . _ Farmakes: Okay . I 'm not sure on the entrance . Just the questions that I have listed here based on going through the material here so for a moment if we can get out to Outlot B . When we have 50% of the surface or Outlot B , or the buildings on Outlot B , don 't we have a maximum cap then that the sign can be? Say for instance if they have no windows or whatever on the sign facing the highway , is that 15% of the entire wall — of the building? Or do we have a maximum? Not to exceed . Aanenson : We don 't right now , no . Farmakes : Okay , I know Minnetonka does . That 'd be a concern of mine . That we don 't wind up again like with something that we have with Holiday or something . That we have a very large wall so you wind up with a very — large backlit outdoor billboard . Bigger than the pylon sign . Jumping back to the landscaping and tree preservation . On the plan they show an area on Outlot A and I asked Paul about this earlier . He answered my questions but I just want to go over it so it 's on the record . There is on page 15 comments as to sort of eludes that the applicant will be doing the thinning out and I want to clarify that that property is the HRA 's and they will be , if not doing that themselves , contracting to have it Planning Commission Meeting — September 16 , 1992 - Page 25 _ done . Where the property borders next to the truck delivery point behind Target , there still is a , from the tree chart a significant overflow of oaks into that area and I 'm wondering , is there an agreement as to how those will be trimmed? On the plan it shows that the crown cover comes — quite close to the actual impervious surface area . Is that , is there a tighter landscape version of that than what we have here? Krauss: Commissioner Farmakes , we share the concern in that area . It 's kind of hard to tell with this level of plan development exactly what 's happening . We 've been reviewing it with an eye towards pulling things back to the minimum required . Some of this is also going to have be — staked out in the field before grading work starts and we 'll make decisions out in the field . We put in , we have a standard condition for tree preservation that allows us to do that and to modify grading plans — in the field . Even up to requiring small retaining walls if that works . So you 're really not certainly until the thing is staked out . Farmakes: I haven 't walked through the whole thing . Is that bordered area that goes through there , are those full mature oaks? 70 year oaks or , it just shows oaks on there . '� Krauss: It 's really mixed . I 've walked it a couple of times and Pica Drive is really the dividing line between the better quality material which is to the south and the lesser quality . Although when you view it in a distance it looks kind of bulky and green . That stuff 's to the north . Scattered in amongst it there are some quality trees that some of those are inevitably going to be lost but the better quality stuff is further to the south and again we 're going to meander that line as much as possible . Farmakes: With Outlot B , again we 're going back to Outlot B . The fast — food areas . Is there , it puts a limit of two in this but you 're doing a PUD and the limit of 2 , if Target controls that property , is that still a site application type situation where they have to still get city _ approval , correct? Aanenson: Correct . Farmakes: So if say a Hardee 's comes in and they want to build an orange plexiglass building , is that? — Krauss: You 've got it tied up every which way from Sunday . I mean basically the zoning on the property will be the PUD designation with those limitations and provisions of the PUD contract , one of which is that you 're limited to two fast foods . Another of which is that the fast — foods have to be architecturally consistent with the theme that 's established by Target and recognizing the fact that they 're in downtown Chanhassen . So if it doesn 't meet those goals , you 're under no — obligation to approve it . Farmakes: Okay . And the signage for it , let 's say we get Hardee 's . I 'm — just using that as a good example . The Hardee 's as it stands right now , the proposal is 15% , two sides of the building and a pylon sign for each then building? Or how many pylon . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 26 Aanenson: One pylon sign for the rest of the outlots identifying all the outlots . So if there 's four , they get one pylon sign . Then they each get a monument sign only . For each parcel , and then the wall sign . — Farmakes: Okay , I 'm confusing maybe the monument and the pylon sign . The pylon sign then would have a height level then of . — Aanenson: 8 feet . Farmakes: 8 feet . — Aanenson: Monument? Farmakes: Pylon . I 'm talking about the pylon sign . Not the monument sign . You show pylon on , let 's see . That 's page 8 . Staff is proposing one free standing pole sign to be permitted for Target and one on the _ other buildings in Outlot B . Is that then the outlot generically when you talk about that or a building? Say a Hardee 's or . Krauss: I 'm sorry , we were chatting . — Farmakes: Okay , on page 12 . Paragraph , or excuse me , Finding . One for the other buildings in Outlot B . — Aanenson: One free standing sign exceeding 8 feet . Farmakes: Per building? Aanenson: No , no , no . No , no , for all four outlets . One . Farmakes: For all four? Aanenson: Correct . — Farmakes: Okay . Next question I have is on there 's a bituminous trail mentioned on 20 . I had heard somewhere in the background that Chanhassen wouldn 't be building anymore bituminous trails . I sure hope that you — reconsider the Park and Rec Commission is recommending an 8 foot bituminous trail along Powers Boulevard . The City 's had really a bad record of bituminous trails . Just really an awful record . It is , I — certainly hope something for the City to look at to avoid using that and go to something that is more useable for people than a bituminous trail . The example that I 'm using is the one on Lake Ann where there 's a — bituminous trail dug out and then they wound up putting in a paved surface . Everyone uses the paved surface . To go on with strollers and so on . I hope you really reconsider because that bituminous trail that the City had worked on for , it must have been 6 years at least , never Bot— any better and actually got worse . It was a good collection point for old shoes and beer cans when they brought in whatever fill they were using . They kept on redumping it every other year and I hope we don 't — wind up with something like that . And lastly , the study , the traffic study . For some reason I keep on being told that this has all been worked out but I just have a gut feeling this is going to wind up to be _ something that is what it wasn 't supposed to be . And I 'm looking at Planning Commission Meeting — September 16 , 1992 - Page 27 these peak hour numbers that we 've got here . I drive on that road 2-3 times a day and something just isn 't right about that and I 'm sure there are smarter people here , some of the traffic managers or City Council people that can question that further . Something just doesn 't seem right — there . And having worked on some studies and , not on traffic studies but sometimes studies can say what you want them to say . I hope you look long and hard at that . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Steve . Emmings: What happens to Outlot C? That will become . — Aanenson: That will go back to Mr . James . — Emmings: Okay . As far as the discussion in the staff report concerning the development standards and you stated their position and the staff 's position . I take it that I didn 't compare what you 'd written there with what wound up in the conditions but I take it that the staff 's position on all those points made their way into the condition . Krauss: Yeah . Emmings: Okay . Generally I think it 's better than it was . I don 't understand what , when you talk about these , let me find the language — here . They talk about the facades on West 78th Street having back lighting . She explained that they 're going to change the design of those and that there 'd be some . Aanenson: Right , that 's what I mean . They 'll be lit . Emmings: So the lighting that 's coming down on the side though that — you 're calling back lighting? Just so I know what you mean . Aanenson: Yes . Emmings : Alright . And as far as Outlot B is concerned . Somebody said something earlier about the HRA buying that . The gentleman from back here said something about that . Now I don 't know what we 're doing tonight , you know there are conditions in the preliminary plat approval and the PUD approval that effect what can happen on Outlot B . But now is there a plan to change the ownership of that so we shouldn 't be worrying — about that? Krauss: Our recommendation to you is not to worry about anything other than the fundamental development concept of Outlot B , which is also somewhat up in the air right now . There 's a lot of negotiating going on between Ryan and Mr . Burdick and Mr . James and our City HRA , and it should all , I hope become clear who 's doing what to whom and when within — the next 2 weeks . Emmings: But you want us to ignore that? Krauss: Well yeah . I think the thing for you to look at is how is Outlot B laid out and keep in mind , Outlot 6 is laid out right now based MIRO Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 28 upon a shift of 78th Street which is looking increasingly like it 's going to happen . But we 're not even sure of that because the City 's got a role in this and we have to build 78th Street and we 're not looking to — engender a lot of increased cost by shifting this . There 's a lot of things that will be decided by the time this gets to the Council meeting in 2 weeks . Coincidentally , when this item gets to the City Council on _ the 28th , the City Council is also going to be hearing the , is it letting the project Charles? Or issuing the contract? Folch: Yeah , that 's correct . The continuation of the public hearing — which was first held last March will basically retake place again on the 28th , or is scheduled to . The Council on Monday night passed a resolution to basically continue the hearing that night . — Emmings: Hearing? What hearing? Krauss: On the construction program for 78th Street . Emmings: Oh , okay . Krauss: So all these things , and we 've got that actually on the agenda before Target so the City Council 's going to make the final decision . Now if some of those decisions have a bearing on what Outlot B looks like , — either because of final arrangements between the property owners or because the road shifts back to where it originally was , we 've thrown a condition in here that says , within 30 days they have to bring a revised _ plan for the concept for Outlot B back to you for your approval . The Target site stands alone . I mean throughout all this the Target site plan itself isn't doing anything at all . Emmings: Well but the action , we 're taking on the preliminary plat and the rezoning , that effects all the properties? Krauss : Yes it does . Emmings: And the site plan effects , is only directed at the Target site? Krauss: Correct . Emmings: And the interim use permit effects all the property again? — Aanenson : Correct . Emmings: Really it 's all that 's south of 78th Street . Alright . I understand that I guess . One objection I have , oh and then , well do you . Batzli : Steal my thunder , please . Emmings: Geez , frightening . If the two lots that are east of the Target building , north of Pica Drive , that 's included in the , not in the — rezoning but in the PUD? Krauss: No , they 're one in the same thing . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 29 Batzli : Yeah , they 'll be rezoned to PUD . Emmings: I 'm sorry , they 're not included in the preliminary plat but they 're included in the rezoning . Aanenson: They 're in the plat . Krauss: No . They 're already platted . Aanenson: Oh , they 're platted , yes . I 'm sorry , right . Emmings: They 're already platted so they 're part of the PUD but not part of this preliminary plat . Alright . Batzli : How can you do that? Krauss: All the underlying . The description of what was advertised and the legal description for the rezoning covers the entirety of it . Batzli : I agree . Krauss: The plat only covers that portion of it outside of those two lots that Mr . Burdick is going to continue to own . Batzli : Well you 've got it set up as one motion that we 're approving rezoning and preliminary plat and then you 're going to eventually need to include as one of the conditions a cross license or something . Easement of the driveways which will effect that . Don 't you need two motions then? One just for the rezoning which you 'd include in that one condition and that 'd be the plat . You 'd have to include it in there . Emmings: I don 't know . Batzli : Okay , I 'll let Roger worry about it before the City Council . Krauss: It 's a situation where we have willing buyers , willing sellers , and all of us are agreeing to do it so it 's not as though the cross _ access easement needs to be forced onto the situation . I 'd like you to make a condition that the cross access easements be provided . Batzli : Well see my concern is , in our motion to rezone , we don 't have anything which indicates what we 're rezoning . In our motion . 22 .03 acres . It doesn 't say when . Doesn 't say where . Aanenson: It references the site plan though . Batzli : But the site plan . Aanenson: Includes all the . Batzli : Okay , if you looked at the dotted lines and kind of guessed , maybe it does . Aanenson: We can do exhibits , make the two exhibits if you 'd like . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 30 Emmings : Well I think you can tell from the preliminary plat plus we know . . . The cross easements for ingress and egress between Lot 1 in the new plat and Outlot B and also between the Target site and the Burdick — property , should that be under number 1 on the preliminary plat conditions? Are those plat easements? Aanenson: Yes . Krauss: They 'd be recorded with the plat , yeah . Emmings: Okay . So that 's where that should appear? Aanenson: E? Batzli : E , yeah . Emmings: And then I guess the only real reservation I have is having two fast food restaurants out on Outlot B . On that basis alone I 'd oppose this motion . The preliminary plat . But other than that , it seems to be a pretty good plan to me . — Batzli : Matt . Ledvina : One thing that I wasn 't quite clear of was the grade change on West 78th Street . Is that actually part of this proposal? Meaning will there be West 78th Street excavated that foot and a half . Krauss: Well , again I mean that gets into , there 's been a lot of previous designs with this . The original design of 78th Street always lowered 78th Street by , 2 feet? 2-3 feet? — Folch: At that one particular location . Krauss: At the main entrance into Target . The current proposal would result in it being lowered marginally further . But again those final plans need to be laid out and there 's some peripheral negotiations between Mr . James and Ryan and how the sites might balance earth wise . — Ledvina : Will that work on West 78th , be part of the interim use permit? Or would they propose to leave that alone? Krauss: No , that 's a city project . Ledvina : Okay . So there wouldn 't be any road work done this year then? Krauss: Well , if the contract was let , it would be let for spring start . Folch: Correct , spring of next year . Ledvina : Okay . But the grading work will be , the grading work for this — site would be done this year right? This fall? Krauss : For the Target store , yes . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 31 Ledvina: I think the modified views look really good . I think that the . . .features are really going to improve the building and I 'm happy to see the changes that are made . I guess we haven 't talked about the walkway connecting Outlot 8 and I think that that should be part of the proposal . I would support the staff in desire to make that a part of this . Other than that , I don 't have anything else . Conrad: Are we giving Target the exposure that , are you comfortable with the exposure you 're getting on Highway 5? Bill McHale: I think that what 's their concern with what the pylon . . . .they realize with trees there . . . Conrad: I guess I don 't want to hide you . I really don 't . Bill McHale : They 're trusting that the pylon will take care of that . They know that the block of trees effectively screen . That was something that staff wanted . . . Conrad: And we haven 't restricted that pylon to the point where it 's not . Bill McHale: I don't think so . Conrad: Okay . Batzli : Ladd , given the fact that they have absolutely no landscaping to the southwest of the building , we 're looking over a pond . We 're looking exactly at the top of the building from the road and we 're looking at a couple hundred thousand square foot parking lot or something . Are you serious that you think this thing is hidden? Conrad: Coming from the east . Batzli : Okay . Conrad: And I really don 't , I honestly don 't have a problem with giving , you know we constantly appear at times we 're trying to hide some things . I think if we do things in taste , we can do it very well and we can give the folks who are moving in the exposure . Emmings: But Ladd , you 're worried about hiding the biggest thing in Chanhassen . I don 't know if you have to worry about it . Conrad: No , people will find it . Farmakes: Anybody that wants to . Emmings: Gee , where can it be? Batzli : Traffic on West 78th Street . What 's planned for 78th Street? Folch: What 's currently and has been on the table for some time , at least as it relates to the portion of 78th Street between Kerber Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 32 and Powers is to reconstruct the detachment section to a four lane , divided urban roadway with right and left turn lanes . And we hope to be able to reinitiate the process and continue forward with this project - starting on September 28th 's Council meeting by completing the public hearing and ordering the project , authorizing preparation of plans and specs . The other portion of the project as it relates to the segment of — West 78th Street from Kerber to Great Plains Boulevard is kind of a side or sub project , if you will , of this overall downtown improvement . That will involve , at least at this , in the interim , reconstructing if you _ will the segment between Laredo and Kerber to also a four lane divided section consistent with what the new construction going on between Kerber and Powers . Basically that segment will involve moving both the north curved line and the south curved line to add additional lanes and providing the right turn lane to southbound Market from eastbound 78th tc southbound Market . Exactly what will happen with Laredo to Great Plains , is not yet been decided . There 's some ideas on the table as far as what — we can do to improve the traffic serviceability in that area . Some of the ideas on the table involve some minor widening . Some median noses being tapered back to allow better turns for trucks . And overall , _ there 's the issue of traffic signals . Strgar 's study has basically provided justification for signals at least 3 intersections . That being Great Plains , Market Boulevard and also Powers Boulevard . Both the volume standpoint and an economic standpoint . But there 's also unlikely — to be the need to look at potential signals . I mean we have other non-volume type needs at the intersection of like Laredo where you 've got fire trucks , emergency response vehicles coming out . A lot of other _ traffic at Kerber . There 's still a lot of things apart from the traffic signal standpoint that need to be worked out . Traffic signals are a big thing . They 're expensive . It 's a big change to the downtown . Conrad: Could Target move in without modification to 78th to the east of Kerber? Would you allow , having 800 cars on a peak hour coming through from Highway 101 , is that tolerable? Could it handle 800 an hour? The — way it is now? Folch: Without signals , that 's tough . Without at least having some sort of traffic control , that 's a tough question to answer . — Conrad: Can it handle it with one lane as it is? Folch: So much as handling thru traffic or as much as handling , I think where the problem lies in is not so much handling the thru traffic as it is the side streets that feed the downtown . The cars that need to come — out and have safe access . Have safe time intervals . That becomes a problem . The more cars you throw on the main drag . Conrad: I don 't know , I think one of the bigger problems here is traffic handling and until there 's a plan in place to handle the traffic , we can make the visits to Target or anyplace , we have to be really comfortable that we have the traffic system in place . And Target 's a huge draw . — Absolutely huge and if these are accurate numbers , I can 't assess that . Obviously . Somebody hired to do this knows their job but I also know that Target draws from a huge area and will draw from a huge area and we ' ll just have to make sure that the systems there . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 33 Krauss: Ladd , just to reassure you . The 78th Street construction plan as Mr . Burdick and Mr . James know have been going through evolutionary changes . I mean this is about the third or fourth design and through it all it 's because we finally have an understanding of what 's happening on 78th Street . Now when Market Boulevard , when Market Square was approved , at a staff level we became very concerned that 78th Street in front of Market Square was only two lanes . And had some reservations about even that working . Now the improvement that 's going to occur with this project is one that the city wanted to do and has needed to do on 78th Street• for years . It 's just going to finally get done . We have added that second lane in each direction . There are some . Conrad: Ah , but you 're talking from Powers . Krauss: From Powers over to Market , yeah . Conrad : Yeah . I 'm not uncomfortable with that . I think you have that _ under control . That 's new stuff . I 'm worried about the old stuff . I 'm worried about where a lot of your traffic is coming from . Krauss: I mean Strgar 's telling us , I mean as Charles pointed out , there are some inherent design problems that I think we 've all encountered in the originally rebuilt section from Laredo on over . That the turn radii are kind of tight . Some of the turn movements don 't work very well and Strgar has come up with plans to improve that . Long term , by the year 2000 I think is the number that Strgar uses , the year usually uses , that other section too is going to have to be four lane . But they didn 't see that as an immediate need . You need to have those safety improvements down there to make turning easier but you don 't need the fourth lane all the way through . Conrad: That 's real surprising I guess . I think with Festival coming into town , they 're a good retailer . Market Square . They 're going to draw and you combine a Target , you 're going to find out that we have traffic folks . And I 'm going to . . .but I 'm not convinced Paul . I 'm really not convinced that we 've got a traffic system in place coming from the east . I 'm comfortable from the Powers that it 's okay . But I certainly am not comfortable coming from the east and I don 't see a sequence right now that says hey , we 're going to be able to tolerate traffic coming from the east . I 'll let that one lay but powerful retailers coming in . And powerful draw from the north . Just a last couple points . I think they 're doing a lot of really neat things about the elevations . I 'm still not comfortable on the north elevation . Just some basic things that always bother me a little bit when you put employee parking on your main street , that bothers me . But I won 't , I 'm not going to press that . I think some things have been done , how do you break up a 380 foot wall? That 's , and does it count . Whatever we do , does it count? That one I 've been struggling with and I 've tried to look at the elevations that came in tonight and say geez . I 've bet you I 've driven downtown 20 times trying to figure out how this will look down there and how it fits in and it 's just a hard thing to comprehend , especially when we , I think what we 've done so far is really pretty nice downtown . I really like how , there 's obviously some problems here and there but overall it 's a pretty good community feel . Then I try to sink Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 34 this in . Yet on the other hand I know what the future of retailing is and it 's of the Targets of the world that do it and so how do we sink it into the downtown area and have we done a good job? Is the question . — You know it 's a matter of who 's paying for it and how much did we pay for it and again , does it really count? I think a lot of the design elements that Target 's put in are real nice and I 'm comfortable . I , like the front— elevations . I still think that breaking up the parking lot with a green strip , a green sidewalk would have helped break up the parking lot . I 'm not convinced we need to add green space to the south . That doesn 't _ count . A strip down the center I think would break it up a little bit and I like that idea and I still feel it 's important . When you talk about a PUD , you try to connect everything and I don 't know that we 've really done a good job of connecting . You can get there . And I think — somebody could come back and say , well people aren 't going to walk anyway . They 'll use their car . That 's probably the truth . But again , the green strip in my mind going down the center of the lot , that maybe — had a sidewalk , would break up that massive parking lot . Big chunk of property . In terms of the elevation , I haven 't heard anybody else concerned about the elevation . I think everybody 's saying that the roof _ line has done it . I 'm not convinced it has but it 's tough to sink what I 'm looking at here again back with what , we 're looking at a little bit different things . I think I would too like to see something breaking it up in the wintertime and I heard our consultant in terms of what an — evergreen would do with the salt spray and I know that 's the case . They 'c be dead but still we have to break that north up . The north elevation up and I think I 'd like to challenge them to figure out how to do that . I _ thought there might be other ways to break that elevation up but they 're all expensive ways . So I guess the bottom line is , we 've done something where this is Chanhassen 's , this is the major downtown tenant of Chanhassen and I guess I still think there 's something missing from that view . I think everything else is pretty good . I like all the other things that I 've seen about Target coming in . Batzli : Give me a for instance . How would you do it? Conrad: How would I do it? Batzli : Yeah . Conrad: Well I think , there 's some what I say are probably costly things"' and I probably would have put a little bit , I don 't have a real good solution . Especially when you think that there 's going to be a community area across the street on 78th . At first I wanted a big plaza there . A — people plaza . Friendly . I didn 't want a parking lot for employees on West 78th . Even if they took it off the blueprints , that would have made me happier . I just don 't like to see employee parking . Usually you hide employee parking . You put it away someplace . You let your real people , ` your customers take the higher visibility type of parking areas . I woulc have made that , and I 'm not sure the connection to Mr . Burdick 's property is important but I understand why they 're doing it . That never made a — whole lot of sense to me and I would have used that as a green space area I think and it 's probably impractical and it 's probably something that HRA would have to fund . Probably whatever I 'm saying is a financial — impact on the HRA . But what I was saying before was that , you 've got to Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 35 put it in light of what 's happening across the street when you 've got a little bit of an area for people so then why do we need another plaza right by Target . So that sort of takes the wind out of that idea . I 'm not totally sure what would do it right now . The broken , I guess the only thing that I see on this elevation , the roof line hasn 't been broken and that to me , that 's what we did on Market Square . We broke the roof line . We paid for it but we broke the roof line . On this elevation we haven 't and so it 's still , we 've done some things that are kind of cosmetic but it 's still flat line . And that would be my only other comment on that . Batzli : Thank you . Tim . Erhart : Well it 's obviously not going to follow my recommendation from last meeting and move the entrance to the corner or have two entrances . One facing west and one facing south right at the corner . So combined with moving the parking lot way off to the west end and so the north parking lot could also be customer parking lot so I guess I won 't go on that anymore . But I will try to answer your question because I think while we 've made some improvement to the north side , I think we can go a little bit further following the theme that 's been outlined here . Specifically what I would like to see is to add one more of what you call a facade punch out so there are four evenly distributed there and then to take those and make the inside of it or the area between the two columns appear as a window display area . Now it may not have to be real glass . Itmay not have displays but to give it a different , if it 's just more block behind that , or tile behind that , I just don 't think it 's going to be viewed as breaking up the building . Yeah , there 's going to be some corners and angles and a slanted roofline but I think the way to really make it work is to put glass back in there and maybe back light that . Batzli : But in the section they showed us , if you 're up on the road , or on the sidewalk , you 're not going to be able to , you 're not going to get . Krauss: The bottom one there . That 's the view from up on the road . Aanenson: There 's another one that 's a better one . It shows the retaining wall . You can 't see most of that parking lot . Erhart : What are you saying? Batzli : I don 't know that what you 're proposing would help . It depends on who you 're trying to break up the view for . If you 're trying to break up for people in the employee parking lot , I think you 're remarks would be . Erhart : People on West 78th Street . He asks me what I 'd do and now he argues with me . Okay , I 'm not going to tell what I 'd do after this one . Batzli : I just don 't know if you have stuff down here , windows or whatever , if you 're even going to be able to see it from up here . I liked Ladd 's idea of breaking up , because that 's what you 're going to be able to see . For years until these trees do something and this is actually a bad view . This is the one that probably actually . . . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 36 Erhart: Well I 'm not convinced that the jagged roof line is going to give you much of an improvement . I think the problem is that , well yeah ._ We 'll make you Chairman again . My view is to see a 300 foot wall of block and I guess to me it 's not the roof line so much . You know trees are only going to have leaves 5 months out of the year . Greenhouse effect keeps going the way it is , it 'll only be 4 months of the year . Farmakes: So you 're talking about reflective glass or display? Erhart: Something . Something that it 's not block or tile behind there . I just don 't think , some different color or something . I think it 's an improvement to volunteer to make the second and third like the first one _ but as you pointed out , now you 're going to make all three such that the back wall is actually further back . Margaret Fleck: . . .what you 're referring to these masses . Erhart: Yeah . Yeah , what 's in the back of those masses? Margaret Fleck: The back or the darker color we tried to push it back even further . Erhart : But it 's still block or tile . Same material that 's on the rest of the building . Margaret Fleck : Correct . - Erhart: Yeah , and I 'm just saying that it would look better if you would make that glass or baked enamel steel or something that would even make it look more like a little bit like a storefront . It 's a great improvement to make . . . Margaret Fleck: We 've already dropped it , and you really do have a change in your plane and as far as , I mean we might be able to go to the lighter color here which will pull it down even further . My concern with putting another material in there is glass , it 's going to be . . .glass that— breaks very quickly . It 's not going to be vandal proof . There's going to be a lot of maintenance costs with that . We could go to possibly a polished tile that for three masses or four masses is going to , we 're _ really touched immediately . The lighter color , maybe even going to a smooth block rather than a rock faced block which would give you a different surface . Erhart : I 'm not an architect but I 'm just giving you some general . Margaret Fleck: At the same time , there is a great deal of . . .so you 're — getting a great deal . Erhart : Well it 's certainly an improvement over the other two , the way _ they 're drawn . And I think if we just carry it one step further and get that material on that back wall that 's substantially different than the rest of the building , would probably do it . And again I 'd put one more in there and make them equally spaced . You already have , what is that an— emergency exit door and an employee entrance door . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 37 Margaret Fleck: We trees and . . .even numbers . That 's why we stayed with the three . Five would be crowding the elevation . Erhart : Oh , I think five would be crowding . Margaret Fleck: And the number three really works better for breaking up the . . . If you start putting a fourth on here it 's going to even it up , and the masses don 't have any effect whatsoever . There 's really a big difference with a person picking up their perception on that . Erhart : I can 't see that . Those are my points with regard to that . Margaret Fleck: The other comment that was made was the actual consistency of the parapet height . We could . . .height area but again that 's tricky with avoiding the visual of avoiding the rooftop units . We could raise the parapet greater but at 26 '8" I have a tendency not to _ want to do that any more than you 're already there . 26 foot height is . . . And again , on this side perhaps they could do that . I 'm a little uncomfortable . . . in this direction that works to actually use masses on these portions a great deal already . . . Ledvina : Could you raise the facade punch outs and have that metal roof portion above the top of the building line? Margaret Fleck: We could lift it up so that it slightly projected above it but I wouldn 't recommend it being brought even with that because again then you 're bringing your mass up to the height of the other and you 're not getting your variation . You really aren 't getting your variation and you 're getting a variation of your metal roof . Where here you needed a variation in your height itself . Farmakes: What if you had a softer scattering effect? Margaret Fleck: It really does work better for terminating this as working with it . Massing wise we played with it up higher , medium and this works the best as far as aesthetically being balanced . Farmakes : What if you had a softening effect on the areas on either side of , you 're referring to them as parapets? Batzli : Yeah , masses . Margaret Fleck: These masses? Farmakes: Yeah . Now go a little more to the , inbetween there . Yeah . Up above there you have some shadowing that 's caused by the curving of the block . Falsify that so you break up those masses with some shadowing . Margaret Fleck: You 're saying change the surfacing here? Farmakes: I 'm talking about the visual effect when they 're talking about along 78th . If there 's wide expanses of block . Flat block . Is there a way that , what you 're done on the front is quite nice where you 've broken up the shading with the curving of the block . Is there a way to falsify Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 38 that either , if not the whole building , partial so you have some shadow play on those wide , flat expanses? — Margaret Fleck : Right . You 've already got shadow plays in here . Farmakes: I understand that . It 's the area inbetween . As I 'm looking — at the one on the front . Margaret Fleck: The curving ends up causing a great deal of projection — out . We don 't have a great deal of area over in there to be playing with . The 4 foot was the maximum projection . These curves are , you 'd have to follow through with an 8 foot radius . It gets to be very — difficult . Again I can add another one of these but that 's about the best I can do . Farmakes: What is the project of , I don 't have the . — Margaret Fleck: 4 foot . But again , I 'm concerned about the balance of that as far as four of these getting . . . I can certainly shift this over — and break it up that way . But I believe very strongly that there was a very careful look at . Conrad: . . .boring though . As much as you 've tried to break it up , it 's still . And a little bit of that is because we don 't have landscaping projected in there . But on the other hand , we 're not going to have the landscaping , it 's going to take quite a while until that landscaping — really starts breaking up this side of the building . Erhart : I think Jeff was onto something . It 's too bad you couldn 't add — those curves in there . But those require a minimum of 8 foot difference . Why did you put the curves on the west side of the building? — Margaret Fleck: Those are pretty much standard . . . Erhart: Making that center one wider might do something for you . Making it a triple column mass . — Margaret Fleck: That 's a possibility . Erhart: Yeah , that might do it . Margaret Fleck: Bringing this out . . .give you some variation . . .but we 'll _ work with that . You know I hear what you 're saying , that you 're feeling it 's boring and largely because of this flat surface . I hoped that the perspective could give you some of the . . . I also would prefer to call it , subtle and strong statement . It 's not truly a boring building . — Erhart: Oh , I didn't say that . Margaret Fleck: But it 's also not , we 're not trying to be zooby . We 're trying to be pretty subtle about our building . We want it to look stable and strong . We want it to be something that over the next 20-30 years , we don 't have to do a lot of changes to and it doesn't look out dated in — your Chanhassen area , which I 'm sure you can think of buildings that Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 39 have . Or do . I think it 's a strong statement and I think it will last as well as anything . . .buildings do . Farmakes: What if that last one was just shifted over more? Do you find that area on the far right by the entrance where they 're closer together , do you find that less offensive than the one to the left that 's a farther expanse? First of all there 's trees in there so this . . . Erhart : Can you break it up with clumps of evergreen trees planted right next to the building? Margaret Fleck: No we can 't because we show sidewalks being . . .fire and there 's already overhangs approximately in that area . There 's pretty limited space when you 're talking about that sidewalk over on the side . Erhart: Right on the end , on the east end there . In fact you 've shown I think , well you 've shown shurbs there but you could cut the length , right by your hand there . One down , right there . Up one . That end of the building , you could cover up that end with evergreens and make the building look shorter . And then move that one mass over a bit . Farmakes: My eye goes to that open area between those two . But not so much to the one to the right . So if they moved that over a little bit , then you saw a little bit up above the site like , or the roof line . Margaret Fleck: . . .what you 're talking about this point in here? Erhart : Yeah , in other words take what you 're got room for landscaped there and really make that mass really dense evergreens . The building looks shorter . That will make the building look shorter . Margaret Fleck: Yeah , I definitely believe that needs to shift over . . . Erhart: Right , and then move that one over . Is that what we 're saying? Margaret Fleck: And then shift this one over and cross double this one . . . We can certainly can work with that . Conrad: Let me ask the Planning Commission something . We 're all , and I have no idea . . . We 've got trees to the south that are blocking the highway vision of the back of the building . Do we want to rob from those trees? Do we want to rob from that property? I have no idea how we do that . I know the agreements are in there but it probably means cutting down trees there . And that footage to the 78th Street side , so you can create a green , more of a green belt . Erhart: You 're talking about moving the building back? Conrad: I 'm saying moving the building back . Batzli : No . Farmakes: I think by a slight shifting you 'd get the effect . If you raised those up so it broke the roof line coupled with the trees , you 'd Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 40 _ get more of a storefront type look to that . Break it up quite a bit . And it 's deceptive to look at it because it 's all opened up . There are — no trees sitting there . There will be . Margaret Fleck: It 's also very deceptive to look at a full elevation and_ think you 're ever going to see it that way . . .especially from the depth you have in here and sidewalk . When you 're visually standing here . . . you 're going to see an expanse of about 100 feet is your angle of vision and maybe you 'd turn and look all the way across this but it 's going to . . . Farmakes: If you broke the roofline , the outcropping roof , how , did you — look at that at all? Margaret Fleck: I 'm real relunctant to do that . Partially because it _ means that I would have to have an absolute . . . Farmakes: I 'm talking about playing with the roof line . I 'm talking the roof elements that you have and the part that sticks out . You 're talkinc— about sticking those up above the roof line? Margaret Fleck: I do really not recommend that because one , it just — doesn 't balance properly . . . It 's just not my desire to avoid doing that . The idea that you 're looking for something to break it up and give it some scale in the residential motiff . This gives a motiff of about . . . _ It just doesn 't give you any benefit . It causes you greater height . Farmakes: I guess what you 're sort of competing with here I think is sort of a mind set . We still think of ourselves as a small town . We 're not but we think of ourselves that way . We keep on gravitating to the old small town where you have an irregular roofline . You don 't have the long straight line . And to a certain extent I agree with you . — Margaret Fleck: Well we 're giving you an irregular roofline . It 's just you guys are concentrating on the back line behind . Farmakes: Well anytime that you get a long expanse of a linear line around here , people get uncomfortable . And as was said before , you 're a big fish in a small pond . — Margaret Fleck : Something we could play with is just a very minimal change to not only the beveling , or the corbelling up but possibly one — single row of block and playing around with it and taking it out but it wouldn 't be extreme again . It 's not something that 's going to be . . .but even in your small town building , like a two story motel , you don 't get much of . . . Erhart : Okay , thanks . One last thing . Like Jeff , someone who drives back and forth between the industrial park and downtown 3 times a day , I — much prefer the southern route of West 78th Street . I never could quite understand why we were making such a break to the north other than at the time the argument was that the stacking distance was required . Now apparently , how are we resolving that? I prefer the southern route . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 41 Krauss: The currently illustrated one . Erhart : Okay , that 's it . Batzli : I have a couple of things for Kate and Charles . We have some easements here on our first motion and I thought that we needed an easement to the NURP pond , etc . Do we have that in the conditions somewhere? Folch: That 's correct . It 's the easement for the pond's already shown on the plan . Batzli : So these are in addition to the ones shown on the plan? The ones we 've got right here then in condition 1 . Folch: That 's correct . We 've got our NURP pond to get any sediment and stuff coming out of the parking lot . Batzli : Where 's the water draining off the roof? Do we know? Fran Hagen: Yeah , three access points on the back of the building . It all drains to the back of the building and it 's all piped out . It 's not spillways . It 's all piped in three locations . Basically up in this . The exact location is yet to be worked out based on this . It will either be three or two piped directly right into the storm sewer system . The utility plan currently shows the storm sewer line coming along this side and coming down here and then they ' ll get into the pond . Batzli : Is the roof of the building a gravel/asphalt kind of thing? Fran Hagen: I 'm sure that that 's . . . Batzli : In our experience with these kinds of buildings , do we get any — sort of oil or anything draining off these roofs? Do you know . Krauss: No . Batzli : No we don 't have any? We don 't have any problem with the storm water . Krauss: You see an oily sheen on every sidewalk after the rain , no . That doesn 't happen . Once the thing is dry , it adheres . Batzli : Okay . So we don 't need any kind of skimmer or anything else for what 's coming off the roof? Krauss: Well we 're probably going to have a skimmer on the pond . Batzli : On the pond . I 'm talking about our drainage off the roof . Krauss: Well but everything is going to go into this pond so it 's all going to be going through the skimmer before discharged . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 42 Batzli : It 's discharged from our storm water into the pond project . You 're going from the back of the building , around the building into the — pond . • Fran Hagen: Correct . . . This parking lot has a storm sewer . . .The parking, lot drainage would come in at this portion in right about the middle . . . Highway 5 and there will be a skimmer on that also . . .I think that 's what you 're looking for with the oil . Batzli : Right . When we say there 's only two fast food restaurants , are we counting the one inside the Target? Krauss : No . Batzli : Okay . The submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm water , sewer , sanitary sewer , etc . , condition 11 . Haven 't— they already done that? Aanenson: They may have done that , you 're correct . That was mine in — addition to Charles ' so if Charles feels comfortable that they 've met that , then you can stike that . Batzli : I mean are we expecting more? Folch: Well we 'll be getting a . Batzli : Or this apply to Outlot B I guess as well eventually , does it not? These conditions . Aanenson: Yes . It 's for the entire . Batzli : So we don 't have everything for Outlot B so this is a good — condition to have here? Folch: Yeah , and from the standpoint that the applicant has submitted between conceptual and this stage here , the actual construction plans for— the public improvements so that 's another basic set of documents which WE approved . Review and approve . But that has been submitted . We 've sent drawings back so that will also be a part of the final process . So I — would say , we need . Aanenson: Well , except it applies to the whole PUD so you 're right in that respect . Target 's met that but it could apply to the Outlot B too . Or Mr . Burdick 's property too . Batzli : The site plan , number 14 . Site plan shall be consistent overall— impervious surface coverage . Does that mean that we 're approving the impervious coverage that 's above what we normally require? Aanenson: For that site but we 're taking the whole balance meets , is underneath the 63 . Krauss: What you 're doing is the gross hard surface coverage is going to-- be well under the PUD standard . But to achieve that as sites are brought Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 43 in on Outlot A , we don 't want them to exceed the total that they 've committed to . So it 's something that you 're going to have to review and cumulatively add up as each site plan comes in . Emmings : You just said Outlot A . You meant B . Krauss: B . Batzli : Okay . So in other words , future site plans for development will be consistent . Krauss: Yeah . — Batzli : Okay . What I would like to see regarding the sidewalk issue is , I would like to see some sort of sidewalk . I 'd also like to see a requirement that there be stop signs and a huge crosswalk in front similar to what they 've done at the Cub store in Minnetonka . Stop signs on either side of the entrance . Big crosswalk . Krauss: Oh yes , okay . The Cub does that regularly . I know what you — mean . Batzli : Yeah . I would like to see some sort of pedestrian , I mean we 've done a lot of work on a lot of things but one thing they haven 't done — anything on , in my opinion is handling people within the site , unless you count walking up and down the aisles between parked cars handling people . Maybe that 's not important to us . Maybe we don 't care . Maybe we 're — trying to get people to walk or not walk from store to store . But the whole concept of our downtown I thought was to avoid having a group of little mini-malls next to each other that you get in your car and drive — and it 's supposed to be conducive to walking . I don't see that we 've made this conducive to walking at all . — Aanenson : I did leave it as a condition . So it 's in there as a condition even though it 's not reflected on the site plan . Batzli : Yeah , well but the applicant is saying they 're not going to do it . And we haven 't really talked about it much other than we 're saying yeah , we like it . _ Aanenson: I said they have to do it . That 's in the conditions so we 're expecting , before we sign off on it , that be shown on the site plan . Unless you take it off . — Batzli : Well yeah , I know . Pedestrian access , I mean I can meet your condition by putting in a 6 foot sidewalk from the edge of their parking lot to the outlot and I 've met your condition . Aanenson: Right . Batzli : And I don 't think that we handle the people . I don 't think they — handle the people from the sidewalk up on 78th Street to the front of their building very well . And I don 't think they 've handled the people through the parking lot . And I imagine , what I 'd really like to have IMO Planning Commission Meeting Septem _ er 16 , 1992 - Page 44 them do also is put some , a little cart racks in their parking lot . They 're probably going to lose parking spaces though so they can 't do that but I always crash into their carts in the parking lot . But anyway . I 'm very cynical that this thing is hidden . I think we 've hidden a wall that deserves to be hidden . I don 't think we 've hidden them . I noticed quite cynically that they haven 't put any landscaping to the southwest and they thought of a very good excuse not to have to do that . Since nobody else complained about it , I won 't complain too much but we have a very broad expanse there where they 're highly visible . They are a big — building . They have a huge parking lot . We 're up above grade a little bit there from the highway and that concerns me . People are going to see them . — Aanenson: Where the retention pond is? Where we want to get access to? Batzli : Yeah . The retention pond . So there 's not much landscaping between the corner of the , southwest corner of the building all the way out past the retention pond area . Aanenson: In here? Batzli : Yeah . There 's no landscaping as far as I can tell . I 'd like to— see , as part of them looking at the northern part of the building , I guess I 'd like to see them maybe try and throw some more evergreens into the employee parking . I think they 've only got four of them in _ there . And that may help also but if we 're going to play around with it as a whole unit of looking at those masses and looking at the trees and from the sounds of it , they 're willing to look at that and juggle it a little bit more . So I don 't know if we can say much more about that . None of us has really spoken about the request we had to delay the grading until October so they can get their pumpkins out . I don 't know how anybody else feels about that . Emmings: Well , if he 's got a crop in and he 's got a lease , my recollection of that is , once you put a crop in , you 've got a right to take it out and that 'd be a private matter between him and Mr . Burdick . — If he doesn 't get his crop out , he 's going to , whoever takes it away frog him is going to owe him for it . Batzli : The lighting policy of the parking lot and things like that , we 've in the past , it seems to me , required people , gas stations and such , to not have their signs lit after certain hours or things like _ that . Do we have any control over that here? Do we care? Do we want them to light their whole parking lot all night long? Have we talked about that with them? Aanenson: It 's my understanding that they put in their narrative that they do have timers on some of those and if you want to be more specific , we can put that in . _ Batzli : I don 't know , one of the comments by our concerned citizens was that we avoid putting too much light in our downtown area . The thing that I saw was a limitation on the strength of the light at the edge of — the property . Not a curtailed , you know for security purposes , I don 't Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 45 have a problem with them lighting things that have to be lit . I also understand there will probably be people working at night to restock . I don 't know exactly what their policy is but I don 't want to make it unsafe environment for those people coming in and out from the employee parking lot or so that vandals start spray painting the side of their building or something . But I would , I don 't know that they need to light their whole parking lot and I don 't know if that 's addressed . And I don 't know if it needs to be addressed or if Target has a policy that they do or don 't do it . I don 't know . Aanenson: Sufficient lighting for security . Batzli : Paul , on these types of conditions , do we normally tie any of them together? Krauss: Mr . Chairman , in this case it 's , I mean normally we do yes but this , everything is being packaged up into a unitary PUD contract in this case . It will be taken care of . Batzli : Trust me . Okay . I like what they 've done on the north side of the building so far . I think if they do a little bit more , I think all of us are going to be pretty pleased with the results , or I sure hope so . I think they 're going to be a good addition to the city . My last comment was on the Mr . James ' concern about closing the right-in/right-out . I think that would be detrimental to Outlot B but on the other hand , he does need access to his property to the north and if we 're lowering the grade of the road at the main entrance to the Target , does that in fact make it too steep to get into his property? Do you know Charles? Folch: If the north , if Mr . James ' property is left at it 's current elevation , yes . It would make it too steep . Some sort of modification , either to the elevation or to the access location would need to be looked at . Batzli : Don 't we want intersections that are directly across from one another? Folch: That certainly helps to concentrate them that way . You can coordinate and control them with traffic control devices , yeah . Batzli : But if we go any steeper at the entrance to the Target , do we have a problem with ice in the winter or people not being able to make that grade at the traffic light if they stopped at the light and then trying to get going again? Is that the concern? Folch: Yeah , that 's correct . Yeah . We wouldn 't , from staff 's point of view , we wouldn 't want to see the entrance into the Target site any steeper than it is now . Now would we want to see it potentially any steeper into the James property . On the north side . So we 're hoping that this issue can somehow be resolved between the two property owners and/or with our help in any way that we can do that but we 're certainly hopeful that the property owners can work this fill elevation situation between themselves here . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 46 Batzli : But with the current way we 're going to develop 78th Street , with the improvements , are we making the problem worse to get into his — property? Are we lowering it right now? Folch: The current plans would lower the road about a foot and a half _ and I believe the Target proposal is looking to lower it another foot anc a half so a total of about a 3 foot difference . Batzli : Okay , but right now on the plans it 's a foot and a half . Folch: That 's correct . Batzli : Does that make it a problem to get into Mr . James ' property? Folch: I don 't know . I guess I 'd have to ask Mr . James . If his _ engineer has responded to that or not . That was the plans that , that is based on the plans that we 've had on the table for about a year and a half and it hasn 't been until this proposal has come up that I 've heard that it was a problem . — Batzli : Okay . Those are my comments . If there 's any other discussion or a motion . Conrad: I just have another comment . What 's our sign ordinance say in terms of signage on a building? How many wall signs can we have? Aanenson: What we 're recommending for this one is they have one pylon sign . We said a maximum of free standing sign , maximum 36 feet in height . And then they 'll have one , low profile sign 8 feet in height and— they ' ll have one wall sign facing Powers Boulevard . Conrad: What could they , based on our sign ordinance? _ Aanenson: Have an additional wall sign on the West 78th . Conrad: I keep looking at the 78th Street side and nobody , my impression is nobody lives here and it 's like I 'd like to have a signature . Batzli : You mean like a Target sign? ._ Conrad : Yeah . I don 't think I 've ever asked for more signage but again , I guess I 'm still struggling to make the 78th Street side friendlier . And maybe the pylon sign will help do that . Or the monument sign . I don 't know . Batzli : Where 's the monument sign go on there? — Aanenson: I was just informed that they also want to put a pharmacy sign . Batzli : They want to put a who? Aanenson: A pharmacy sign . — Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 47 Margaret Fleck: It 's 2 foot high and 20 feet wide . Batzli : Where do you put that , on the front of the building? Margaret Fleck: On the front of the building , right in here . Batzli : So you go in the emergency doors to get there? Margaret Fleck: Well no , you don 't go in the emergency doors but that 's advertising and it just happens to be located in that module . Batzli : I 'm just being silly , I 'm sorry . Farmakes: Wouldn 't that be inconsistent with what we do? Aanenson: Pardon me? Farmakes: That 'd be inconsistent with what we do? Aanenson: Well we say 15% of the wall area . Farmakes: That 's advertising . . . instead of the name of the retail operation . Wouldn 't that be the equivalent of putting hot dogs or a cold beer? Emmings: What kind of hot dogs? Farmakes: I guess I 've never found signage to ever make a building more friendly . Conrad: But Jeff you wouldn 't like to see the 78th Street side? Farmakes : It might be more informative but I don 't know if it would make it more friendly . So I agree with some of what you 're saying . I don 't know if it 's a positive versus . We 're trying to make it look nicer . I guess another tree might be , get my vote versus another sign . Batzli : Does the Ridgedale store have a sign on the north side of the building? It does doesn 't it? Sort of a rectangular one . Krauss:, It faces Highway 12 , yeah . Farmakes: The one thing that worries me about putting superfulous signage on a building like that is you obviously stock a lot of different things . And it 's pretty common knowledge of what 's in a Target . Margaret Fleck: A pharmacy 's unusual for the Target . Farmakes: All the ones I 've been to have had pharmacies . Margaret Fleck: Only in Minnesota and it is a necessary . In fact , not all the stores in Minnesota will necessarily have them . Smaller markets do not have them . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 48 Farmakes : You 're seeing the drive in farther than Minnesota for this Target? Margaret Fleck: Pardon? Farmakes: You 're seeing the drive in farther than Minnesota for this Target? Margaret Fleck: No , but it 's just to our advantage . Pharmacy is a — fairly unique thing to have in that store . Farmakes : I 'd be against any additional signage at all . — Batzli : Is there a motion? Erhart : Is this number 22 conditions on the first one . Does anybody have any changes other than the time? I mean we talked about a lot of ideas here . Emmings: Yeah , to add the easement is 1( e ) . Erhart: Is 1( e )? — Emmings: Yeah . Erhart : Can you make the motion? — Emmings: Yeah , I can . I 'll move the Planning Commission recommend preliminary approval to rezone 22 .03 acres of general business to PUD and— preliminary plat approval as shown on PUD #92-5 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the addition of a condition that will be 1( e ) . Those would be cross easements for ingress and egress between the Target parcel and Outlot B on the one hand and the Target parcel and the Burdick property to the east of the Target building on the other hand . And as long as it 's my motion , I 'm going to say that , I 'm going to change number 12 so there are no fast food restaurants permitted in Outlot B . Now that 's the end of my motion . Batzli : Is there a second? _ Erhart: Help me . Your problem with fast food restaurants are , is it the food? Emmings: No , no . I go to them and I don 't mind them . I 'll tell you where I think they belong is right back there on Monterey behind the Target building . In fact I 've advocated that for years that that be a — strip of fast food restaurants . This is one of the most prominent sites in Chanhassen and I wouldn 't even care if they had some fast food restaurants if we can mess around with the design of the building a — little bit . I 'd like not to see drive thru 's . I don 't mind fast food . I wouldn 't mind a fast food restaurant out there like an Arby 's . Conrad: What do you want there? — Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 49 Emmings: I don 't want to see a Target and I don 't want to see a Burger King . Erhart : You want close architectural review of those? Krauss: You have that . They 're going to have to be built . Emmings: Here 's my problem . You can argue with me all you want . I 'm not going to change what I said . You can vote it down . If you say there 's a maximum of two fast food restaurants , there will be two fast food restaurants . I 'm sure of it . Erhart: You don 't care as long as you have strong architectural review . Emmings: Yeah , and I might not want it then too . But other than that I could be talked into , an Arby 's that was built right , even a McDonald 's _ that was built right . I don 't know about drive thru but this is such a prominent site , all traffic from the west , this is the first thing they see of downtown Chanhassen and I sure don 't want to look at an ugly buildings . And most of those buildings are not the kind of thing I 'd want to see out on that corner . So that 's my reservation . I don 't mind fast food restaurants . Erhart : Maybe item 12 ought to , instead of dealing with fast food , the term fast food restaurants at all , maybe item 12 ought to deal with architectural review of those restaurants in Outlot B . Aanenson : We have that in there . That 's already in there . Erhart : Maybe you should just strike 12 . Emmings: Yeah , that 'd be fine with me . Just take 12 out . Krauss: I should tell you that 12 is already written into the purchase agreement between the HRA and the . Erhart : But there 's a little bit of implication there that McDonald 's could come in with their standard design . Krauss: No . There 's no question they can 't . Aanenson: No , we changed the zone . Krauss: I guess , we took , when we drafted up these original agreements , we put the expectation that if nothing was done the probability would be all 4 or 5 or 6 , depending on which plan you had , were going to be fast food . And came it from the standpoint that 2 , while we felt it was reasonable , could well be perceived as being pretty onerous for the developer but we felt that that was consistent with the quality of development that we wanted to see there . Farmakes: So there potentially would be a total of 6 signage . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 50 Emmings: Well why are we asked to pass a condition that 's already part of another agreement? I mean this is just ** . — Krauss: Well , you modify your , I mean the HRA condition is a part of , well the HRA authorized the purchase of the property from Mr . Burdick and_ the resale to Ryan and to do that , there were sets of conditions like everything is going to be done as a PUD so you can review it that way . Things are going to be architecturally similar and consistent with downtown . Just general terms so there 's something to hang the — development on . And in doing that again , we threw in the thing about the fast foods and we approached it from the completely opposite end . Is that again we had an expectation that if we did , weren 't up front about _ this , we would wind up with all the outlots being fast food . Emmings: Well I take it we don 't have to worry about that because it is a PUD and we can control that? — Krauss: As long as there are appropriate conditions in there , yeah . Emmings: Well , now that just confuses me because if it 's already , is it already a condition? Batzli : Does that condition run with the land? They can 't do it anyway no matter what we put in this? Krauss: That they can 't . — Emmings: It seems to me that 's all written . Krauss: You can probably further limit it . I mean I supposed you could further limit it . You couldn 't allow 6 is what . Emmings: Well , I don 't know . If this isn 't in here , what posture are we on? Krauss: Well . Emmings: Or let me ask another question Paul . I told you what my concern is . Is the prominence of the site and I don 't want to see _ standard buildings there but you 're telling me we 've got lots of architectural control over it . If McDonald 's comes in and says we want ours right out on the corner , are you telling me we 'll be able to tell them you 're going to have to build it to look like all our other buildings in downtown? Krauss: Yeah . Aanenson: We said , they all have to have pitched roofs , etc , etc . . All the standards that we just built in this whole PUD . _ Emmings: And no arches? Or little ones . Or little ones with pitched roofs on them . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 51 Krauss: You have the latitude to do whatever you want within reason with the architecture and we fully expect and it 's written into here that it means that when Hardee 's comes up with orange building 37 , you say go to South Dakota . You 're going to build it , and frankly most of the fast food operations these days are sophisticated enough to know that they build to the style that 's being requested . And we wanted to lay out enough parameters so they know what we were looking for . Emmings: Could we tell them if you want to have people come in and sit down and eat or come in and take out , that 's fine but you 're not going to have drive thru . Could we do that? Krauss: Theoretically you could do that but the business is such that the drive thru is the business and they go hand in hand . Farmakes: How do we define like let 's say a Bakers Square? They have drive thru for some food items . Is that defined as a fast food? Krauss: The issues are blurring but Bakers Square serves through waiter service . At tables and that 's their primary . Farmakes: So that 's how it 's defined then? Krauss : That 's a standard restaurant and we do , the ordinance does define the difference between standard and I believe they call it convenience food restaurants . Farmakes: Where you could still have a drive thru if you have waiters? Krauss : Presumably . Erhart : I don 't think there 's any harm in making item 12 , that all future buildings will meet some kind of architectural standards and we don 't know what they are today but . Aanenson : That 's what they are right here . We spelled them all out . The colors that you can use . The screening . The lanscaping . Everything . The lighting . It 's all spelled out for this whole development . Emmings: 15 . That applies to everything that 's in this one applies to everything that goes into the PUD . Even off the part , even on the Burdick part . So maybe it 's alright . Erhart : Well , it 's your motion . I 'm just trying to . Emmings: Okay , well maybe I 'm over reacting a little bit here . What do I do now? I made my motion . Batzli : No one seconded it yet . Your motion is dying on the vine . Emmings: I don 't know . Conrad: Just withdraw it . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 52 Emmings: I 'll withdraw my motion . Thank you Ladd . Batzli : I 'm sorry , did you amend your motion at all? Emmings: I withdrew it . ,r Batzli : You withdrew it? Emmings: If you 'd pay attention . Batzli : We were trying to correct another informality here . Another condition you had totally ignored . — Farmakes: . . .train of thought when you were crescendoing . Sorry . Erhart: Okay , I ' ll make a motion that 's exactly the same as Steve 's motion but leave item 12 in as is . Change item 20 to read , concrete . That 's it . Any second? Emmings: Now wait a minute . Change 20 to read what? Erhart : 8 foot concrete trail . Aanenson: Instead of asphalt you want concrete? Erhart : Is that what you want Jeff? Farmakes: Pardon? Erhart : Isn 't that what you want , concrete trail? Emmings: But isn 't concrete harder to maintain than asphalt? _ Farmakes: I 'll tell you , I 've lived next to , I think the only bituminous trail in Chanhassen and it 's a disaster . It 's now grown over along with the beer cans , the old socks . — Erhart: This is essentially , this is going to utlimately be a sidewalk isn 't it? _. Krauss: When we say bituminous , we mean paved with asphalt . Farmakes : It was described to me as a bituminous trail that is , when I was involved with the Park Commission , bituminous trail is a chip trail . Erhart: Oh no , no . — Batzli : Asphalt . Farmakes : Okay . Erhart : Leave 20 as is . Call for a second . Farmakes: I 'll second it . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 53 Batzli : Discussion . Farmakes: Can I add one thing? Batzli : Go ahead . Farmakes: On 17 , is the site , should that be outlot site? Or it just says site . It doesn 't say building site . Aanenson: Each parcel . Each separate parcel . There 's four parcels in those outlot . Batzli : Well , do we know there 's four parcels in the Outlot? Aanenson: We don 't know . As long as they can meet the standards . Krauss: Well no , I think though Commissioner Farmakes is correct . The intent was that there be , are you talking about the pylon? Oh no , that 's correct . I 'm sorry . Batzli : What 's a site? Krauss: Each parcel . Aanenson: Yeah , I think parcel would be a better way . Batzli : So currently there 's one outlot . Aanenson: We 're not talking about the outlot . We 're calling the individuals parcels within . The four , if it 's four . Farmakes: Okay , it says each site and in the same sentence it says , into the private site . Is that delineating that there 's a difference between a private site and a site? Aanenson: No . Same thing . Batzli : I 'm confused . What four sites are you talking about? Krauss: The conceptually illustrated ones on the outlot . Batzli : So we 're approving those today? We 're not approving those? Aanenson: No , no , no . Krauss : You 've approving the development concept , the layout of how that thing 's supposed to work . Batzli : I thought you told us we didn 't have to worry about that Paul . Krauss: Well what I told you is that , if the roadway changes , we have to bring that back to you . As each development comes in , you will be looking to review the site plan on each individual one . But we need a framework to hang it on and that framework is where should the road go , Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 54 MEMO and that may be modified . And what kind of , architectually what kind of context it is and lighting scheme and that kind of stuff . Batzli : The road into the outlot we 're approving tonight . We 're approving the concept that there 's four sites within the outlot . Is that_ all we 're approving? Krauss: That 's right . That 's it . Batzli : Is there a condition that says that somewhere? Krauss: It 's on the plan . — Aanenson: We 've approving the plans , as they 're shown . Batzli : Well on the plans there 's buildings . Proposed building pads for christ sake . Krauss : That you 're not but the basic layout , yes . Batzli : I hear a lot of , don 't worry about it but I 'm worried . Farmakes: Does this signage that 's worked out , four pylon signs . Four wall signs . Krauss : Two pylon signs . Farmakes: Two pylon signs . Okay , so the site refers to Outlot A and B? Krauss: No . Farmakes: What? You 've got me totally confused . _ Aanenson : 18 says , Target gets a free standing sign and the Outlot B gets a free standing sign . What 17 says is , each site , if there 's four , they each get a monument . If it 's five , they each get a monument . What — we 've approving tonight is four . They 're showing four proposed . Farmakes : Okay , so there 's two pylon , four monuments and eight wall _ signs . Is that correct? Aanenson: Correct . MEN Farmakes: Excuse me , I 'm leaving out the monument sign on Target and their wall sign . So add one to each on those . That 's five and nine and two pylon signs . Emmings : I don 't know that we 're , we 're approving two pylon signs . We 're approving a monument sign for each site and then the rest of says , signs — are subject to standards of the sign ordinance . So whatever . Farmakes: I was just confused on the total . Batzli : Is there any other discussion? _ Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 55 Conrad: We spent 2 1/2 hours on this and the one change , what change did you make? Erhart : Item ( e ) . Conrad: We 've essentially done , okay . Everybody 's comfortable with the _ traffic issue? And we haven 't really told staff or anybody to do anything in terms of the 78th Street elevation . Batzli : I quite honestly don 't think that staff knows what to do with it . Conrad: I just want to make sure everybody knows that we haven 't said , with the motion that 's there , we haven 't said anything about traffic . Everybody 's comfortable with traffic . Erhart : I don 't think so but I don 't think this motion has anything to do with traffic . Batzli : Traffic is going to be the site plan review . The next motion isn 't it? Conrad: You 're rezoning which means that you 're rezoning it to a use that generates traffic . I don 't know if the site plan . Batzli : I don 't know either . Erhart: We want Target here . We like the site and we 're going to have to deal with the street design and I agree . Maybe this traffic study needs to be reviewed . I 'm not going to change the site plan for that . Emmings: They 're telling us they 've done the traffic study and that it works and I sure don 't have any way to . . .with that . Erhart : All we can do is review it . Folch: Basically you 're going to have both these projects tracking simultaneously . Outside of the grading work , which is proposed to be done this year , both projects are going to be occurring simultaneously for the most part next spring and summer . Aanenson: I think Brian may have a good point though . I think you could make a condition on number 8 that they , that under the site plan that , we added one already about a crosswalk but you wanted , so under site plan . 7 would be a crosswalk with stop signs in front of Target . Number 8 may be that these projects track together as Charles just mentioned . The West 78th detachment study and Target proceed together . Emmings : And that 'd probably be the place too to Ladd , to talk about that north elevation . Because that site plan deals strictly with the Target . Conrad: Right . Absolutely , that is the plan . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 56 Batzli : The condition I guess I 'd like to see added to this particular motion is that , condition 23 . That our approval tonight is not an — approval of Outlot B as depicted or development of Outlot B as depicted on the site plan other than to locate the road and the number of sites , limiting the number of sites to four . — Aanenson: Do you want to add each site must come througth site plan review? Batzli : Yeah . Who seconded the motion? Emmings: Well , you 're amending it . — Erhart: Yeah , I agree with that . Emmings: You 're going to amend your motion , I 'll second that . Batzli : It was a friendly amendment . Do you want us to actually vote on it? — Emmings: You 're the chair . Batzli : Okay , it was a friendly amendment and you guys both agree . Okay , any more discussion? Erhart moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend preliminary approval to rezone 22.03 acres of BG , General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat approval as shown in PUD #92-5, subject to the following conditions= — 1 . Plat easements needed: a . 20 foot wide utility easement over Lot 1 for public portion of proposed watermain . b . 20 foot wide utility easement over existing 18 inch watermain -' through Outlot B . c . 30 foot wide utility easement over proposed sanitary sewer — through Lot 1 . d . 30 foot wide utility easement over existing 8 inch sanitary sewer through Lot 1 and Outlot B . e . Cross easements for ingress and egress between the Target site and Outlot B to the east and between the Target site and the Burdick site to the west . 2 . The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen 's Standard Specifications — for Construction shall govern construction of all public improvements . 3 . The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required agency — permits such as PCA , Health Department , Watershed District , etc . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 57 4 . The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved in constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard ( appropriate cost-sharing formula has yet to be determined . ) 5 . If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 is to be shifted south , approvals will also be needed from MnDot and Carver County and the applicant would be responsible for performing all necessary soil corrections within the new roadway alignment . 6 . Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B . 7 . Vacation of the existing West 78th Street . 8 . Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees . 9 . Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the staff report . Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development . Compatibility with all signage , lighting , and landscaping . 10 . 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 . 11 . Submittal of all required site utility improvements including store sewer , water and sanitary sewer . 12 . Only two fast food restaurants are permitted . 13 . Approval from MnDot , Carver County Traffic Engineer and the City shall be secured to relocate West 78th Street . 14 . All site plan shall be consistent with the overall impervious surface coverage . 15 . All materials shall be of high quality and durable . Masonry material shall be used . Color shall be introduced through color block or panels . Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only . 16 . All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces/outlots shall be landscaped or covered with planting and/or lawn material . 17 . Each site shall be allowed one monument sign near the driveway into the private site , walls signs on not more than 2 street frontages . The signs are subject to the standards of the sign ordinance . 18 . Target and Outlot B are each allowed one free standing pylon sign . 19 . Lights shall be a shoe box fixture and light levels shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property line . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 58 20 . A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the entire length of West 78th Street . An 8 foot bituminous trail shall run the entire length of Powers Boulevard . 21 . All development in this zone is subject to all the standards of the _ PUD zone . 22 . If the revised alignment for West 78th Street is not selected , a revised concept plan must be submitted for Outlot B for city approval— within 30 days of the City Council 's action on this request . 23 . This approval is not an approval of the development of Outlot B as — depicted on the site plan other than to locate the road and the number of sites to four and each site must come througth site plan review. All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1 . Conrad: I don 't believe the traffic issue on West 78th Street to the east of Target has been resolved . Batzli : I 'm sorry , on West 78th and to the east? Conrad: To the east of Target . Batzli : On Monterey? Conrad: On West 78th . _ Batzli : Moving on we have a site plan review motion . Somebody want to take a crack at that one? I think we 've perhaps got a condition 7 . I _ don 't remember , what was your condition 7? Aanenson: Crosswalk with stop signs in front of the store . Number 8 was , just track the completion of the West 78th detachment project . Batzli : So that would tie in with making sure there 's access to the James property? Erhart : 8 was what? Aanenson: Tracking this with the completion of West 78th , the street . So Target doesn 't open before the street 's there . Emmings: Well , should we also be tracking it with development of the James property at least insofar as we 're sure we 're not giving him , or don 't we have to consider this? At least in terms of access points . Krauss: That 's going to have been resolved by the 28th . Batzli : Trust me . Krauss : Trust Charles on this one . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 59 Folch: Yeah , if we get all the parties together on this , I think we can . Emmings: And then 9 was going to be , well whatever , the wall . The great wall of Chanhassen . Batzli : Number 9 is going to be the wall . Emmings: You 've got to do this one Ladd . Batzli : He 's going to oppose it again . He wants to get his little points on record . I can see it coming a mile away . Okay , anybody want to make a motion? Please . Conrad: Just a quick comment . On 5 , the wall sign shall not exceed 15% of the wall face . Why do we have that in there? That 's our standard anyway . Aanenson: Do you have the dimensions on that wall sign? We can just plug those in if they have them already . Krauss: That would be preferable . Emmings: Well , shouldn 't we be saying the wall signs won 't be anything different than they appear on the plan? Aanenson: They 're 6 foot x 34 . We can put that number in . Emmings: Wall signage shall , well we should just take that out . The wall signs are on the plan . Erhart : I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #92-2 as shown on the plans dated September 9 , 1992 with the 6 conditions as outlined in the staff report , with deletion of the last sentence in paragraph 5 . And add condition number 7 . That a crosswalk with stop signs will be added . Is that enough? Emmings: In front of the entrance? Erhart : In front of the entrance , yeah . Okay . Condition number 8 . Tracking this with the Charlie James property . Is that? Aanenson: With the West 78th . _ Erhart: With the West 78th as Kate has worded . And number 9 is to review to improve the appearance of the north wall consistent with the comments and discussion at the meeting tonight . Emmings: I 'll second that . Batzli : Any discussion? Do we want them to review their or control the lighting policy of the parking lot? Or improve condition number 4 . Is anybody else interested in doing that? Emmings: I guess not . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 60 — Batzli : Nope? Okay . It will be raised at Council again I guess . — That 's okay . It 's kind of late in the game to raise it . I thought since one of the Council persons got up and spoke on it , we might want to at least take a look at it . Okay . Seeing no further discussion , I 'll call — the question . Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #92-2 as shown on the plans dated September — 9, 1992 , and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Subject to compliance with the conditions of the PUD #92-5 . 2 . Pedestrian access be provided between Target parking lot and Outlot B . A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the length of West 78th Street . — 3 . The three facades shown on West 78th Street shall have back lighting . 4 . Lighting shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property line . — 5 . Signage for the monument sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height with a 6 ' x 6 ' foot sign area and for the pylon sign , 36 feet in height _ and not exceed 144 square feet in sign area . The monument sign and free standing sign shall be consistent with the plans submitted in the September 9 , 1992 site plan . AmMI 6 . The development shall comply with all development standards of this PUD zone . 7. A crosswalk with stop signs on either end will be added in front of the Target entrance. 8. The Target and the West 78th Street Detachment project shall track together through the process so they are built simultaneously. 9. Review the site to improve the appearance of the north wall facing — West 78th Street consistent with the comments and discussion of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1 . MUM Batzli : I 'd take a look at the lighting of the parking lot . I don 't want them turned on full blast all night . The next we need to pass a motion on the interim use permit to get the grading done . Does anyone have a motion here? — Ledvina : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9 , — 1992 and subject to the staff conditions 1 thru 8 . Emmings: Second . _ Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 61 Batzli : On condition 5 , is there a typo? Is the word and , should that be an? I was just confused . I mean it 's a small point . Aanenson: Submit a? An administrative fee . Batzli : Okay , so they 're submitting an administrative fee and letter of credit , okay . What 's the difference between an administrative , so the fee is the city fee? Aanenson: Correct . Erhart : Number 8 . It says the City shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of trees and location of snow fences . What does that mean? Krauss: Well , it 's kind of a standard condition we have . Erhart : What is location of snow fences? Aanenson: Defining the lines of grading . Krauss: We require that they be marked . The no cut area . Erhart: Alright , so you 're going to define the line by the installation , okay and location of snow fences . Okay , that assumes you understand that we 're putting in snow fences to delineate that . Krauss: They 're putting them in , yeah . Batzli : Do we normally have a little condition that talks about erosion control . Is that in here? Aanenson: It 's part of the Watershed approval too . Batzli : That 's Watershed? Krauss: Well no , we normally have our own condition . What 's unusual in this case is the Watershed District reviewed it before we did and had the same conditions we would have supplied . Folch: Actually , the erosion control that was shown on the plan , we didn 't require any additional erosion control be placed on so if you 're approving the grading plan with this , that erosion control is sufficient . Batzli : Okay . Any further discussion? Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9, 1992 , and subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds and/or drainage systems for the site given that storm sewer systems will not be constructed until next spring . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 62 — 2 . The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor soil stockpiles . — 3 . The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17 . Construction trucks and vehicles_ shall access the site at approved rock construction entrance only . The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud , etc . — 4 . Working hours for the grading operation will be limtied to 7:00 a .m . to 6:00 p .m . , Monday thru Saturday with no work occurring on holidays . — 5 . The applicant shall submit an administrative fee and letter of credit prior to commencement of grading operations . 6 . The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits such as Watershed District . 7 . The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15 , 1992 . — 8 . The City shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of the trees and location of snow fences . All voted in favor and the motion carried. — ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1023, HEIGHT OF FENCES AND— SECTION 20-1019, LOCATION OF FENCES. Conrad : Mr . Chairman , I 've got to bring Steve home . Emmings: You know , we could make a motion on this next one . Aanenson: We 've got a big agenda next week too so tabling 's not going to" help . Farmakes: Let 's get it done . — Erhart: I move it . Krauss: Could you also open and close the public hearing . — Batzli : This is a public hearing? I open the public hearing . I 'd like the record to show that there 's no one here from the public that wants to— comment on our Zoning Ordinance Amendment . Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in.... favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Does anyone have any comments on this? — Ledvina : No . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 63 Batzli : I have comments on this . I hate this . I don 't think iths necessary . I don 't know why we 're doing it . I 'm going to vote against it . Anybody else have any comments? Erhart : Why did we start this? Emmings: You hate this? Batzli : I live on a corner lot . I don 't like it . Emmings: You want people to build 6 foot fences in their front yards? Batzli : I don 't care if they do . Erhart : What initiated this ordinance review? Aanenson: We 've had people request to do that . Krauss: Over the years it 's caused us problems . People have blocked sight lines . We never had any regulations about it . People have asked questions about it . Batzli : Look at the guy across the street from me in a PUD that has about a 10 foot , you know he 's as close to the road as he can be . He needs a fence and this wouldn 't allow him to do it and you 're asking him to sit in the middle of the road on corner lots in a PUD when they 've got a small lot . Erhart : He bought the lot . Batzli : Well yeah . Mr . Liberal . I think this is totally unnecessary . If they 're going to do it , they 're gonna do it on a case by case basis . If you want a personal attack . I think this is intrusive . It 's unnecessary . If we 're going to do it , we should limit it a little bit more to close to the intersection or whatever you 're really trying to protect here . The sideyard of a corner lot in a PUD , well what in essence would be a sideyard but it 's sometimes a front yard , I think this is too intrusive into that . If you guys want to go look at a fence before we act on this , I would encourage it . To go look at the fence right across from me on Fox Hollow Drive and take a look . See if you hate that fence . It 's more than 3 feet . And it 's necessary for him to use his back yard at all . He has no back yard other than the area that 's protected by the fence . Otherwise he 's minimum distance away from the other house . Minimum distance . Emmings: This doesn 't prevent him from building in his back yard . . . Batzli : It would be along what 's considered the front yard because it 's a front yard on a corner lot is on too many sides . Aanenson: You have two fronts , yeah . Batzli : He 's got two fronts . He would not have any area of his yard that I think would , he would have any privacy in under this ordinance . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 64 Farmakes: Would that be an exception to the rule? Could he ask for a variance? Conrad: I think you should tell the home audience that it 's Steve 's anniversary tonight . — Batzli : It 's Steve 's 25th anniversary and we aren 't going to let him go . Conrad: It 's 5 minutes to 11 :00 and he 's dead . Erhart: Well what do you want to do here? I mean do you want to delay it? -- Conrad: Let 's table it . Aanenson: We 've tabled it three times and the next agenda will be just as crowded . Batzli : Well but you never got my comments until now . Now you have my — comments . Now you know what you have to take care of . Go look at Chip Brown 's house , right across from me . I don 't know what it is . 151 Fox Hollow . Whatever it is . Look at his yard and you tell me how he could — have any privacy without building the big fence? Ledvina : That 's an existing? Batzli : But you 're putting PUD 's in all over the place with the minimum of 10 ,000 square feet . We have to cover this issue . On a small lot where the guy 's got a house right on his side . He 's got two front yards .— The only thing he 's got is this little piece of back yard that needs to be fenced . Erhart : Okay , I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend . Emmings: Did he build this fence after you moved in? That 's all . Erhart : Could you get some control over the audience? I more that the Planning Commission . . . Batzli : All because it 's along the front yard that 's built along the road . Erhart : Section 20-1019 , location of fences as noted above . Ledvina : I 'll second that . Aanenson: This area right in here , as long as they stay on that triangle . Batzli : Any fence on the front yard setback shall not exceed 3 feet in height . That 's the ordinance . That 's the wording . Emmings: This is a corner lot right here . Here 's the example . This is his rear yard . This is his front yard . This is his side yard . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 65 Batzli : No , his rear yard is to the back projection of the picture . All the way up . Yeah , that 's his back yard . He has 10 feet on the side . 15 feet on the back where you 're saying his back yard is . Aanenson: He 's got the side yard . This is his back . Batzli : That 's his side yard . The way you 've got it drawn because the road is going on the right and on the left in that V . Aanenson: What that reflects is the sight distance so you can see . — That 's what that line is . Batzli : Isn 't that where the road is? Aanenson: Yeah . Batzli : Okay , then I 'm saying is , is the only part of his yard that you can do anything in is part of the front yard? Aanenson: Outside of the sigfit triangle . Batzli : This is front yard and that 's front yard . His only part that he has that he can do anything in is back here . There 's a house on this side . So if he , his fence sits right here . That 's what he 's got fenced 6 feet so that he 's got a deck in his back yard so he doesn 't sit on his deck and watch all the cars go by all day long . And this would be considered front yard . He could not put the fence up . That 's the 3 foot fence that he 's got that he needs in this configuration . Krauss: I think we 've got to continue it now . Well , you still have a quorum . Batzli : I 'm just going to vote against it . You guys can vote . You 'll have a majority . — Erhart : Do you have an understanding . Does Brian understand what you 're proposing? Krauss: I don 't know but if you want to continue it . — Batzli : The ordinance clearly says , in a corner lot you can 't have anything higher than 3 feet in height if opaque . He 's got an opaque fence . He needs it . — Erhart : Are we doing something here we don 't want to do? Batzli : No , I 'm saying that if we 've got small corner lots , and you 're — tucked up against the house on one side , which you 're going to do in a 10 ,000 square foot lot , you 're going to have one area that 's useable as a yard in those situations . And this will not allow those people to have any privacy in their one little part of their yard . Aanenson: So you 're asking us to look at those small lots and come up with some different language? Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 66 Batzli : I don 't know . Aanenson: Or not use it at all? Batzli : I don 't know . _ Erhart: I guess I don 't understand . I mean this guy 's got his , he 's set back 30 feet and he 's got a whole back yard there . Aanenson: He 's saying in those instances where people don 't have that . Batzli : Well I don 't know . Erhart: If you have a specfic example . Batzli : He can 't be pulled 30 feet back to have the 6 1/2 foot , I know he can 't get that . But anyway . Maybe I 'm wrong . Go look at this lot and tell me that this meets the ordinance , because I think something like that 's reasonable . If we 're going to allow real small , dinky lots like — that . Anybody have any changes to the Minutes? Aanenson: So it was tabled? _ Batzli : Yeah , we 're tabling it unless somebody wants to bring up a motion? Erhart : You didn 't hear a motion did you? Batzli : Okay , we closed the public hearing . All in favor of tabling say— aye? Batzli moved , Erhart seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to _ amend Sections 20-1023 and 10-1019. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning — Commission meeting dated September 2 , 1992 . ONGOING ITEMS. — Batzli : Are there any items that we need to be looking at? Krauss: Oh yeah , we do have probably our biggest development the city ever had . 190 acre office/industrial park at the corner of TH 5 and TH 41 . PUD concept plan is on your next agenda . Farmakes: Which corner? Krauss: Southeast . _ Farmakes: Any major tenants we should about? Krauss: I don 't know of any yet . It 's a concept . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 67 Ledvina: TH 41 and 5 did you say? Krauss: Yes . Ledvina : Across the street from Fleet Farm? Batzli : How is this coming in in relation to our corridor study? Krauss: Well , they 're both ongoing at the same time . Batzli : Is there any problem between the two . . . Krauss: I keep stressing to the folks at the corridor study that you 're hitting a moving target . That there 's things happening all the time and to the best of our ability , we 're going to give people the opportunity to preview them and have some input . The question of a moratorium was _ discussed with the Council a couple times and they did not want to pursue one . So we 're going to have to try to make sure that things don 't happen so rapidly that the Highway 5 corridor study ceases to be as functional as it could be because a lot of things are already developed . Farmakes: If the sign ordinance , when are we going to get that? Krauss: Well Kate 's going to be wrapping that up probably in the next month or so . We had just got so busy over the summer . _ Farmakes: I understand . I was wondering how that 's going to apply to some of the stuff that we 're talking about . For instance , the 15% of the cap . Whichever one is the least . That type of stuff . I mean we seem to get into that a lot and waste a lot of . . . One thing of interest . The Lundgren house on the development up here . On the Lake Lucy Road . The model house is the short little lot . Remember that lot we were arguing about . They answered all the questions right . The salesman answered everything truthfully and when it got to the issue of the setback from the wetlands , he said go ask the City . We don't want to get into telling you specifically . He didn 't know who I was and he answered all the questions correctly . On the setback and the tree preservation area and so on , which in point of fact made it kind of a not too good sale . I mean when you were looking at it , because when he answered the questions , they were actually to his detriment in trying to sell the house . I was surprised however , the pricing on the homes is higher than some of the general discussion that we had heard . It 's in the mid 200 's . _ Krauss: Yeah , that 's the price range that staff kind of expected it was going to wind up . I don 't know if it 's because Lundgren kept on telling us that every time we improved the site , it was goign to cost more money but . Farmakes : I think if we get a radio in , it will be up to closer to $275 ,000 .00 but it was a nice house . Ledvina : Where was this? Batzli : The Ersbo property . Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 68 Farmakes: The Lundgren development and that was the one that we figured had about 10 ,000 square feet . Krauss: Useable on that lot . Farmakes: Right . And that 's where they put the model home . It 's in that Parade of Homes . Krauss: Now it was actually an 18 ,000 square foot lot but when you knocked out the wetland and . Farmakes: Right . Yeah , and they got to bulldoze right to the 60 foot — mark . Or 80 feet or whatever it is . It 's like whacked down . ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS: Batzli : Administrative Approvals? Krauss: We have one that we 're working on right now for Lyman Lumber is — expanding one of their office buildings on site . Kind of back in there they want to double the size of it but it 's , when you take cumlatively all the square footage in that complex , it 's a very small increment . I — think you probably won 't be able to see very much , if any of it from the highway . Batzli : Just out of curiosity , can you give us a 30 second update on what 's happening with the mining permit to mine the north part of Moon Valley? I read your letter or memo or whatever it was to the City Council and I didn 't understand what . They 're going to be able to get — less clay out of there? Was that the upshot? Krauss: Yeah , it was supposed to be on last Monday night . One of the — big questions has always been , because they 're using the infiltration basins instead of normal ponds , where 's the sand layer because they 've got to get into the sand . And we had conditions in there to demonstrate it . Well the only information we had was antidotal that Tom Zwiers had — his cousin Jerry who works for him go out with a backhoe and he said the clay 's down 12 feet . Well , it turned out that there were soil borings and it came out at the previous City Council meeting . They weren 't in — Zwiers ' possession . They were paid for and taken by the firm that 's contracting to take the stuff off and haul it to Eden Prairie . Zwiers and his engineer found out about it . Apparently they knew about it for a_ while but they were not able to get access to it until last week . Late last week and showed the sand was closer to the surface than had been represented so there 's no question the ponds will work but there 's less clay to remove so , on the basis of the fact that they need a revised grading plan , I yanked it from the agenda . Now the thing that 's causing the most confusion on this is the thing that caused some confusion here was that third pond that 's kind of straddling the old pit and new pit . — And what does it do to views and how many trees do you lose? I was goinc to recommend and will be recommending to Council that they just ax that . I mean it 's not technically part of the clay project . It 's still confusing to people . I thought the trade-off was a good one for getting reforested the bluff face but if it 's causing too much grief , let 's not — Planning Commission Meeting September 16 , 1992 - Page 69 go with it . As to what 's happening on the gravel pit , I 'm supposed to be in Court tomorrow on the gravel pit . They still have not complied with the conditions of approval and we 're going back to the Judge and asking him to shut them down . Batzli : Do we want to talk about our tree conservation easement? Krauss: Not me . Batzli : Kate want to talk about it? — Aanenson: No , I don 't want to . Krauss: This is our perpetual eleven o 'clocker . Target went longer than I expected . Do we have a motion to table our tree conservation easement? — Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded to table the tree conservation easement discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. _ Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :10 p.m . . — Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 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: October 1, 1992 SUBJ: Report from the Director At the September 14, 1992, City Council meeting, the following items were discussed: 1. Subdivision request for David Teich, 10151 Great Plains Blvd. was approved on the consent agenda. 2. The City Council approved phase I of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utilities Project. This is of significance to the Planning Commission since it is the first phase of the major program to expand city services into the MUSA line expansion area located south of Hwy. 5. Under phase I, sewer and water services will be provided to the entire area located south of Timberwood and north of Lyman Blvd. Phase II includes extensions northwest towards the direction of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and 41. 3. Conceptual PUD approval for single family development on a 63 acre site on Hwy. 41, for Lundgren Bros. on the Dolejsilfurner/Johnson property. The City Council reviewed the proposal and agreed with the Planning Commission that it is a well designed and environmentally sensitive project. The City Council unanimously voted to give the project concept approval and directed the applicant to respond to issues that were raised by staff and the Planning Commission. As a side note, the City Council has yet to take action on the draft residential PUD ordinance and whenever the discussion turns on this issue, several members continue to voice concerns over reduced lot sizes. However, the Council wholeheartedly embraced the Lundgren proposal which does utilize some degree of lot area flexibility. 4. Conceptual PUD approval for the Target Store located on West 78th Street. The Council reviewed the development concept plan for the Target Store and previewed t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission October 1, 1992 Page 2 improved site and building design plan that were to be presented at the Planning Commission two days later. As the Planning Commission is aware the item was _ approved unanimously. At the City Council meeting of September 28, 1992, the following actions were taken: - 1. Metes and bounds division of a 1.5 acre parcel into two lots on 8412 Great Plains Blvd. for Eugene Klein was approved on the consent agenda. 2. Interim use permit for earth work/mining of clay for Moon Valley Aggregate. The Council reviewed this proposal for the third time. Previously, the item had been — continued to ask for more detailed information to respond to concerns that were raised by residents and the Council. Soil boring information, that had been developed by a subcontractor, was finally obtained by the applicant. The soil borings indicated the — presence of the sand layer to be closer to the surface than originally believed. This resulted in the need to have a revised grading plan and a reduction in the amount of mining that was being requested from 250,000 to 200,000 cubic yards. Additionally, in view of continued concerns over proposed gravel mining in the southwest corner of the property, staff had modified original recommendations to the effect that this proposed activity be deleted from the request. The Planning Commission may recall _ that excavation in this area was designed to provide an infiltration basin to intercept water before it flows through the Moon Valley gravel pit. The Moon Valley operator would get the chance to mine additional aggregate in this area and in exchange for this we were going to leverage reforestation of the denuded Minnesota River bluff line. A series of questions were raised by nearby residents concerning alterations of views in the area. Staff concluded that these could not be adequately responded to and that this operation was in no way related to the clay mining request at the top of the hill. The City Council approved the interim use permit with the deletion of the southwest pond as recommended by staff. Additionally, the potential to work at the site on Saturdays was deleted. Several residents who spoke indicated that they believe this to be a reasonable compromise. 3. Final Plat for Washta Bay Court, Minnewashta Parkway and Linden Circle, Dana Johnson. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this plat last year. You may recall it splits a parcel on Lake Minnewashta into two lots. There was a very marginal lot area variance involved which the Planning Commission recommended against approving but the City Council ultimately supported. During City Council discussions on this item, Mr. Johnson indicated that he would be satisfied to have one dock for the two lots. It has taken him some time to clarify title issues on the property and he is now requesting final plat approval. He also rethought his — position on the docks and requested that he be allowed to have two docks consistent with city ordinances. Staff recommended approval of the request which we believe to Planning Commission October 1, 1992 Page 3 be consistent with the policy of one dock per lot. The City Council approved the final plat as proposed with little discussion. 4. Appeal decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for bluff line preservation setback variance request, 9981 Deerbrook Drive, James Stellick. Mr. Stellick had requested a variance from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals from the bluff line setback standards. Staff recommended denial believing that the house was inappropriately designed and actually had a zero setback from the bluff line. The Board of Adjustments denied the request and Mr. Stellick appealed it to the City Council. The City Council reviewed the request and indicated that they would not be comfortable with it unless it were modified in some way. Mr. Stellick was directed to work with staff on this and the item was continued. 5. Items associated with the Target request. The City Council reviewed final plans for the Target Store and ultimately approved them consistent with recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission. Additional landscaping will be installed at the request of the City Council. Peter Olin from the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum had an opportunity to review the proposal and suggested some changes to the landscaping type and number. His memo was available to the City Council and comments were incorporated into the final site plan. In a related request, the final configuration of West 78th Street improvements remains undetermined. Issues between adjoining land owners and the city need to be worked out before final approval can be given to authorize the construction contract. That portion of the request was continued to the next meeting. REVISED OCTOBER 1, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS — Comprehensive Plan Issues 1. 1995 Study Area (North) Public Information meeting on Issues and and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study Opportunities held on September 10. 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. Advisory Tree Board established by City Council. PC — representative required. 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 completed. SWMP to review in full — committee on September 30. Ordinance to PC by October. 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. Item has been continued or deleted from City Council agendas since July due to lack of time for considerations. 8.* PC input in Downtown Ongoing - Review ongoing projects Planning and Traffic Study discussed at September 2, 1992 meeting. 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. Requested 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.* Tree conservation easements. To be reviewed by PC in October. 16.* Fence Requirements. To be reviewed by PC in October. 17. Open Space Zoning. Requested by PC. * Change in status since last report REVISED OCTOBER 1, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1. 1995 Study Area (North) Public Information meeting on Issues and and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study Opportunities held on September 10. 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. Advisory Tree Board established by City Council. PC representative required. 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 completed. SWMP to review in full committee on September 30. Ordinance to PC by October. 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. Item has been continued or deleted from City Council — agendas since July due to lack of time for considerations. 8.* PC input in Downtown Ongoing - Review ongoing projects Planning and Traffic Study discussed at September 2, 1992 meeting. 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 ofUofM. — 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. Requested 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.* Tree conservation easements. To be reviewed by PC in October. — 16.* Fence Requirements. To be reviewed by PC in October. 17. Open Space Zoning. Requested by PC. * Change in status since last report — — MFTROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 777'612 291-0904 September 15, 1992 Paul Krauss City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Krauss: On behalf of the Metropolitan Council and the staff forecast team, I am writing to thank you for serving on the regional forecast review group. You and other members of the group made a number of suggestions and offered alternative ideas which really improved the forecast mailings and the review process. Your assistance also helped to assure that the forecast materials we sent out were more understandable to local officials. As you are aware, the Council mailed the revised forecasts and the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) allocation package on August 28, 1992. We are now in the final process where local government units, with Council staff advice and assistance, assign these municipal forecast allocations to local TAZs. We expect to complete this process by the end of October. Thank you again for contributing your ideas and your time. _ Sincerely, Lya Schwarzkopf, Director Research and Long Range Planning LAS/kp cc: Don Ashworth, Chanhassen City Manager RECEIVED SEP 171992 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Buckhout FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director, AICP, City of Chanhassen g[,,- DATE: September 15, 1992 SUBJ: Final Comments on Final Draft Rules Prepared by the Wetland Rule Working _ Committee of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Background I have been asked to comment on Alternative 2 of the draft rules dated August 24, 1992. The — alternative (underlined below) would serve to modify a paragraph outlining the responsibilities of the "Technical Panel." The paragraph would read as follows: "The panel shall make determinations of public values, location, size, and type for all wetlands for which an application for replacement plan approval has been submitted to the LGU. The Panel shall review replacement plans and recommend to the LGU either approval, approval with changes or conditions, or rejection. The panel shall make no determinations or recommendations without at least one member having made an on-site inspection. Panel determinations and recommendations must be endorsed by at least two of the three members. If the LGU has a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan approved by the Technical Panel, and subsequently incorporated into local ordinance, then the LGU can make determinations in place of the Technical Panel." Rationale Behind Modification I was asked to serve on the Wetland Rule Working Committee on behalf of the Minnesota League of Cities. Thus, it was my responsibility to represent what I considered to be the best interests of local units of government throughout the state. In addition, I represented what I believed to be the best interests of my community. Chanhassen is generally acknowledged as a leader in the areas of wetland preservation. The city had its own no-net-loss wetlands _ regulations in place approximately eight years prior to those which were enacted by the state. We have actively worked to preserve, and where possible, improve wetland resources in our community, often working hand-in-hand with other agencies such as the Minnesota DNR, U.S. «, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Don Buckout September 16, 1992 Page 2 Fish and Wildlife Service, and others who are interested in the same goals. Not wishing to rest on our laurels, approximately two years ago the city approved undertaking a comprehensive Surface Water Management Program which is being financed with funds provided by a storm water utility fee. The program is designed to yield a Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan, a Water Quality Protection Program, and improved wetland protection provisions. The new wetlands protection format recognizes the current state of technology and understanding concerning wetlands, and is resulting not only in the adoption of an improved ordinance, but also in the official mapping of wetland resources in our community. While Chanhassen has been a leader in the area of wetland protection, we do not believe we are alone. Many other communities that we are aware of have either already put into place wetland protection measures, or are actively considering do so at this time. Communities such as Minnetonka, Eagan, and Maple Grove as well as many others come readily to mind. Regulatory Confusion and Need for Local Government Self-Determination The regulation of wetlands was always a fairly complex process. Even before the adoption of the new state regulations, permitting of activities in and around wetlands often required the review and approval by the Minnesota DNR, local watershed district, and Army Corps of Engineers. Under the new state law, it appears as though other agencies will be empowered to become part of the review and approval process. Among these are the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Board of Soil and Water Resources, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, counties, and potentially the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, although their authority to review comes from other sources. While the goal of wetland preservation is certainly one that we can all agree on, I am at a loss as to why we seem to believe that wetland protection will be improved if we have more cooks stirring the pot. I believe that instead of achieving the goal with relatively little pain, we are creating a bureaucratic morass from which it will be extremely difficult to extricate ourselves. There are already numerous instances of agencies responding differently on an identical permit request because of different regulatory or philosophical orientation. The time required for regulatory approvals is climbing through the roof. State agencies may have the best of intent, but are often notoriously unresponsive to real world time constraints, or the fact that delays in decisions significantly increase costs. When a development proposed is reviewed by a community, it has generally taken months of meetings, many dollars of design fees, large amounts of public input, and a large amount of review and comment to gain approval. If, at that point, the fundamental decisions are deferred to outside bodies, the request will be taken out of context and the entire program may well have to return to square one. Minnesota's construction season mandates a relatively quick turn around, or the risk of losing an entire year is very real. It is my firm belief that all of these problems result without one bit of improved protection being offered for our wetland resources in exchange for all the delays, confusion, and downright hostility that is likely to result. Mr. Don Buckout September 16, 1992 Page 3 — It has long been our view that local units of government, typically cities but in various circumstances townships or counties, are the proper authority in which to vest wetlands protection responsibilities. We are the agencies having the most intimate knowledge of our environmental resources and of the issues related to the alteration or mitigation request. We are also the only agencies having first hand knowledge of the development proposal, citizen concerns, and of the best interests of our communities. We generally seek to resolve problems in the shortest possible time frame, and are here to live with the results of our decisions. Local government has demonstrated an ability to positively respond to environmental issues in a responsible manner and should be given the opportunity to do so in this case. It must be remembered that under this proposal, the LGUs must earn the right for local administration. They must, at considerable expense, prepare local plans and ordinances, and provide staff resources to administer the program. These plans must be approved by BOWSR and/or the Technical Panel for compliance with state law. Some communities may conclude the effort is not worth it and defer to the normal state imposed program. There is no question that the law provides ample opportunities for oversight to ensure that the goal is being attained. Local units of government will be subject to reviews before BOWSR which could be lodged by anyone aggrieved by any action. We also believe it would be prudent for BOWSR or the technical panel to ask for annual reports, or have some other mechanisms to ensure that performance can regularly be reviewed. In so doing, we believe that we can offer the most responsive and effective means of protecting our wetland resources while avoiding the time delays, confusion, and increased costs and loss of effectiveness that are bound to result when review responsibilities are lodged in multiple large bureaucracies. As to the question of the Technical Panel itself, the law provides that this is to be staffed by a representative of BOWSR, a representative of the Soil Water Conservation District, and by the City Engineer of the LGU. The Technical Panel, under the draft rules, would be given responsibility to define wetland areas and to make recommendations on mitigation plans. The staffing of the Technical Panel is problematic. It is not at all clear that BOWSR has the ability to staff the literally hundreds of Technical Panels that would result. It is also not clear that the SWCDs would bring useful technical expertise to this process or that they have an ability to staff the Technical Panels either. From a metro standpoint, the SWCDs are, frankly, irrelevant. In many communities in the Twin Cities they are non-functional. These Technical Panels would not have the resources to map wetlands as we have proposed LGUs do. Rather, they would take on a case by case basis the definition of wetland boundaries. This constitutes a time consuming and inconsistent means of identifying wetland resources. We also find fault with the idea that a panel which is two-thirds non-local should have the ability to authorize or deny a wetland mitigation plan that takes place within a community, and then insist that this community take responsibility for enforcing this plan. This notion as outlined in the rules is not only confusing, but verges on being offensive since the LGU (local government) is to be held liable for the success or failure of mitigation plans. Lastly, the Technical Panel would tend to take the project Mr. Don Buckout September 16, 1992 Page 4 out of context since they would only focus on the wetland action. Their suggestion to modify a plan would invalidate months of sincere effort, the expenditure of a large amount of funds, and any kind of community/neighborhood consensus that has been achieved on the proposal. Summary — In summary, the wetland protection goals inherent in the state act are honorable and widely supported. There is no dispute over the fundamental purpose and intent of the legislation. However, the bureaucratic and confusing procedures that are attached to the law and contained in the rules can only lead to extensive delays, greatly increased costs, a decline in the ability of Minnesota to retain and attract businesses and quality residential developments; and fundamentally, a decline in the effectiveness of wetland protection efforts. We believe there is a very simple solution to most of these concerns, and that is empowering the LGUs to adequately plan and put into effect wetland protection measures with regular oversight by state authorities. Lastly, we note that this philosophical approach was supported by the overwhelming majority of representatives at the Wetland Rule Working Committee meetings held during the past summer. In fact, it is my recollection along with the recollection of many of the members, that we had agreed by consensus that the rules should be changed to reflect these sentiments at an earlier meeting. Confirmation of this agreement does not appear in available minutes, and when the item was brought up for discussion at a later meeting, it was not possible to attain full consensus, although it was clear that the overwhelming majority agreed with this approach. In the interests of achieving the highest possible levels of wetland protection in the most reasonable and effective manner, we ask that you seriously consider this approach. pc: SWMP Committee Mayor and City Council Planning Commission GG G'c-cl :. Elaine PLANNING Cogan on ... ... why eren the COMMISSIONERS shape of your meeting table is I Ourna important. 3 ' Sharing the Map What happens when sixty people sit down to prepare "concept"maps_ , 6 For America's Municipal&County Planning Boards "Growing" Volunteers Planning I Law Primer Mo►c on the basics by M. Eileen Hennessy of subdivision I,olunteers are perhaps the most commission chairs,and elective officials regulation.Plus information on critical, yet neglected, resource in all need to be able to realize the potential impact fees and communities—but especially in those and appreciate the gifts that community antiquated" I with little or no professional staff.Staff, continued on page 4 subdivisions. _ — _-= 1J /_- 111-I 10 .\\ ir _- 1 ._� - ,J 11 �J� _ ___- :_ Ethics ' /� Do you have a F`-3 . ���� _: 1.���r A s ," / �/J� `-ice='` -- . _\ • - - = -J \ - '..4 / . r- -_ ghost commis1 a i O_ �. -+_ —� / 7 F __ - stoner haunting �� �� 8 __L-__ \S '; --:_-7=. your planning '\�+. `�' A � )11 t /� x board' 12 I 1 / �,� -7, / (f I "T \\ �,' _ Geographic - ��b„._,...-,��� 1 • \YP � = Information — \\,,,. I 1. t \V/. \__ - !!a • Systems I An ovemew of —_ _ /� \\\ \) \\.1, f= what GIS is all — � - "\� t ,� 1 J� __ _� about- 7 13 . .r-, „..,'" z, r__--Ne...0://„..-}.., =- = Q� �: �; ���i � �� _�_ Insights 1 ---r_=_-73 �, ==_ `, i FROM THE EDITOR FEATURES I PLANNING COM M i S S I O N E R S Looking Back -ung-Volunteers ournaby M.Eileen Henness Looking Ahead Do volunteers assist your planning commission + with any of its work?Eileen Hennessy discusses how you can best utilize the talents of people This issue marks the completion of in your community. Champlain Planning Press the Planning Commissioners Journal's 1 t P.O. Box 4295 first year. Let me thank each of you for Burlington,VT 05406 your support of our new publication. Sharing the Map: Public Involvement in Tel: 802-864-9083 CDuring our first year,we've grown from Planning Fax: 802-862-1882 about 200 initial subscribers to close to by Robert L.Potter&Evelyn F Swimmer The citizens of Bristol,Pennsylvania,dove right into Compuserve: 72570,450 600 today. Many of you have also in- a mapping exercise that helped lead to a strategy for creased the number of copies you're revitalizing the city's waterfront and downtown. Editor ordering — a vote of confidence we 6 Wayne M. Senville appreciate. We've Med to cover a wide range Geographic Information Systems Assistant Editor of important planning issues. If you by Thomas L.Millette skim through the annual index in this Tom Millette concludes his introduction to mapping Kenneth Inter by explaining what"GiS"is and what it can do. issue I think you'll agree. We've also 13 Design put effort into providing you with ar- ticles written in clear and understand- Quad Left Graphics able language, and presented in a DEPARTMENTS Burlington, Vermont visually attractive manner. Our basic goal remains the same as Cover Illustration when we staved:to provide sound,use- The Effective Planning Commissioner I Paul Hoffman Do citizens feel welcome at your planning h ful information on many of the issues commission meetings from the moment they enter Woodbury, CT you deal with as a planning commis- the meeting room door?Elaine Cogan discusses sioner. steps you can take to make sure you're providing `- In telephone conversations,a num- a welcoming environment. E Subscription Information ber of you have given very positive feed- 3 Published times/year,with an index included ? in the September issue. Standard Rate: S45/ back about Elaine Cogan's and Greg g Redder R year.Additional Copies: $6 tach. Small com- Dale's columns. I'm glad to be able to m 1 ',wales(populations under 25,000),and small Reaction to Elaine Cogan's column [ counties or regions(populations under 75,000) say that they both will be continuing to on media relations. receive 40%off the standard rate.ISSN 1058- write for the Journal. Greg will be alter- 7 R. 5605. Postmaster and Subscribers: Send ad- *nating his ethics column with one of- - dress changes to Planning Commissioners fering an introduction to transportation Annual Index to the Journal t Journal,P.O.Box 4295,Burlington,VT 05406. planning. I'm also pleased to announce 8 1 that Michael Chandler,who works for [ Editorial Policy the Virginia Cooperative Extension Ser- Planning Law Primer . We strongly encourage subscribers to contrib- vice and has an excellent reputation for More on the basics of subdivision regulation from we news, information,and ideas. A standard attorneys Martin L.Leitner and Elizabeth A.Garvin form for submissions to the News&Notes sec- the planning commissioner training 10 - programs he runs,will also be writing a don is available. Articles and columns con tinned in the Journal do not necessarily reflect regular column for the Journal. Mike's Ethics&The Planning Commission the views of the journal. The Journal is copy- column will complement Elaine's by Greg Dale discusses the dilemma facing planning . right protected by Champlain Planning Press covering topics aimed at helping your commissions when they have ghost commissioners. 1992.For permission to reproduce ordistribute board become even more productive. 12 any portion of the Journal,contact the Editor. We're looking ahead to our next This publication is designed to provide accurate six issues—and hope you'll be with us. 'misfits and authoritative information on the subject -Journalist and publications specialist Dan Hamilton meatier covered-h is sold with the understand- ' offers his`insights'on the most effective techniques frig that publisher is not engaged in raider- planning boards can use when dealing with the legal, accounting or other professional ‘6124741- press. services. If legal or other expert assistance is «'a}ne M. Senville 16 - required, the services of a competent profes- Editor i sional should be sought. - E PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTE #i•BER / OCTOBER 1992 1 THE EFFECTIVE PLANNING COMMISSIONER = Welcoming the Public by Elaine Cogan — ie each one feel comfortable at our meet- or slides, make sure that everyone in the chuckle when �e read yat diplomats who spend ings.• audience can see them.Too often these are The welcoming environment begins oriented only to the planning commission- — hours or days arguing about the with the treatment citizens receive at the ers. If necessary, rearrange the chairs or shape of the negotiating table, but we door.Always have handouts to help them the screen.If everything is fixed,invite the might be more sympathetic if we realized keep track of what is happening, prefer- audience to move to the side where there is — how even the smallest details contribute to ably on a convenient table nearby the en- the best view. If none of this is possible, the success of public meetings. trance. At the least, have sufficient copies consider duplicating the visuals on hand- Most planning commissions hold of the agenda; but be sure it is written in outs.The goal again-is to be as inclusive as their meetings in rooms that are designed possible. An audience that can follow the —purposefully or not—to intimidate the procedures is less likely to disrupt them. public.Commissioners sit on a raised dais, " DO YOU AND THE If you are the chair of the meeting. _ often built of fine, imported wood, high OTHER COMMISSIONERS remember to continually paraphrase what above and yards away from anyone who is going on or being said. This not only might want to approach them. Even in SINCERELY WELCOME keeps the commissioners on track, but is those communities where the planning AND ENCOURAGE invaluable to members of the public. commissioners sit at a table on the same CITIZEN INPUT .. . OR The welcoming environment is rein- level as the public, they usually huddle DO YOU REALLY WISH forced if you treat everyone courteously, together in an unmistakable "we/hey-at- no matter how provoked you may be by — titude. Often, the room is barely large THEY WOULD ALL JUST hostile or uninformed remarks. We have enough for commissioners and staff: the GO AWAY AND LET YOU all attended public meetings — for plan- public,standing uncomfortably against the TEND TO THE BUSINESS ning or other purposes — where a dis- — wall or sitting on unmatched chairs, is TO WHICH YOU WERE gruntled or unhappy citizen has been treated like intruders. )f insulted or maligned by representatives of Even the most sanguine of citizens can APPOINTED? the public body holding the meeting. — become upset and cranky when con- Avoid this at all times. You may disagree fronted with such unwelcoming environ- with what is being said but you must show ments. Short of knocking out walls or respect to the person who says it. — tearing down the building and starting Another important indication of a re- anew, there are many things that can be plain English,not the legalese your attor- spectful and courteous attitude toward the done to create an atmosphere in which ney or staff planners insist upon for formal public is to schedule controversial matters — citizens feel welcome. commission action. For example,in addi- first,or near the top of the agenda,not last, But first, examine your own motive tion to referring to ordinances or motions when citizens are worn out and grumpy honestly. Do you and the other commis- by number or code, include a simple ex- about having to sit through hours of dis- _ sioners sincerely welcome and encourage planation, such as "proposal to approve cussion on other matters that do not inter- citizen input and participation or do you building an apartment house at 123 East est them. It is perfectly all right to limit really wish they would all just go away and Main, a single family zone." If you know discussion, but keep the ground rules _ let you tend to the business to which you there will be a crowd of citizens assembled simple and announce them at the begin- were appointed? If you answer yes to the for a particular issue, ask the staff to in- ning,repeating as often as necessary.Never latter, it would be a charade to try to hold dude in the handouts other explanatory change the procedure in mid-stream. For your meetings in a more hospitable en i- information such as a map or fact sheet. your own sanity,and as a means of giving ronment; your body language and other Reader-friendly material should become citizens their due,try to schedule only one ways of conveying attitudes would give routine and give the citizen a positive feel- controversial issue a meeting. away your true feelings. ing of inclusiveness. When you want to settle particularly If, however, you are at least tolerant Next, be sensitive to sight lines and thorny difficulties with citizens, ask staff toward the average citizen's comments, other impediments. If the staff is using vi- to set up a less formal structure such as there are many things you can do to make sual aids such as charts,graphs,overheads continued on page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 3 t )1 T.„T. �` ?f, � ) "Growing"Volunteers should be other committees engaged in s �' continued from cover ¢ / research work,surveys,and so on—work /. J that needs to be done. Planningboards r ;� E a� members bring to the process and the =` 7�.- ------÷761rcannot do it all. Your planningcommis- ''.:•.1\:/),/ 4 outcome of any planning endeavor. • 1* \ sion should keep a list of projects on which / 11\ \� Commissions and boards numerically f d t! I 1; t vl make up a very small rcenta e of the you could use additional help,and make it / + ` / g available to others, includingelected offi- / 3. people in a community,yet theymake de- i \! p! rials and community leaders. Tips ..,p.5 / = j\\ cisions and recommendations that affect/ everyone. Strongand successfulIt has been my experience that people 1 1` ,� r} commu will help if asked. Volunteers do not need �V \ nities provide opportunities to increase ' r to be interested in becoming future plan- s ��' and nurture the number and caliber of \ ning commissioners. In fact, some might r ``\1 /1 people involved. The key question is how not have the qualifications to serve in the 1 \\ -I \ ,�r J . do you use volunteers wisely?How do you position you do.But that doesn't mean they ���' _ "� prevent or alleviate burnout,create a ro- PP cant provide useful assistance.When ask- - priate niches, increase their effectiveness, mg for help,however,limit your expecta- fibEditor's Note and be able to say your community was tions to what can realistically be expected. Volunteers: proudly served by itself Perhaps one day of giving a field walk Young & Old around their neighborhood to those work- If your planning commission is "SOME ing on developing a plan for that pan of thinking about increased utilization of SO!11 C OF TODAY'S the community.Or perhaps someone loves volunteers,think about working with MOST VALUED genealogical research;their skills might be your local high school and with your COMMUNITY LEADERS transferable to historical research or data area's"RSVP" (Retired Seniors Volunteer collection. Program) coordinator.Supervised high 'NEW WERE ONCE THOSE Ad hoc committees are valuable as school students can help distribute and FACES WHO WERE training grounds for strong community tally surveys,gather information,and JUST W G volunteers. Make a habit of asking new or — conduct interviews—to name a few TO BE 2, different people to help on something possibilities.They may be especiallyshort-term before they are asked to sit on a helpful if you are working on an update commission or board for a multi-year term. to your municipal plan—and while Some of today's most valued community - they are helping you,you will be helping leaders were once those "new faces" who them become more active and involved were just waiting to be asked. in their community. Having spent a number of years in Find out a person's full-range of inter- ' The RSVP program can help you find counties and small towns — where cre- ests—not just what they do for a living.A retired individuals willing to volunteer alive use of volunteers is essential to stretch volunteer in one community where I their talents. RSVP volunteers in Bay limited resources — I have found some worked suffered terrible burnout and County,Florida,for example,recently simple, but highly effective, ways to en- swore she would never get involved in her surveyed passengers on twelve courage and enhance the use of volunteers. community again because she had partici- paratransit routes,obtaining important ted on a committee in her field of rofes _ - information for the County's transit 1. INCREASE YOUR Pa P VOLUNTEER POOL. sional expertise. So she felt like she was development plan. Information on the working day and night! The key would RSVP program is available by calling Bill We have all lived in communities have been to use her strongorganizational *— Barrett at 202-606-5108. where most of the work is done by the few Of course,don't forget those between skills in a different volunteer setting. g mainstays of the community. They sit on high school and retirement.Over twenty all the committees,and seem always will- 2. TRAIN VOLUNTEERS. — states have offices that can help commu- ing to help.When they finally leave,either whether a person is going to sit on an nities set up volunteer programs. There because of burnout, retirement or reloca- ad hoc committee, or on an established are also consultants(such as Susan Ellis tion,the community finds it has lost much —see her sidebar, "Tips on Planning for commission or board, it can take months of its "institutional memory." Assuring to become well in the ordinances, Volunteers")who specialize in helping continuity is one important reason to in regulations, plans develop volunteer programs. There's no plans or circumstances that volve more people in local planning. you have asked them to review,administer reason planning commissions shouldn't Although most planning commissions tap into the excellent resource volunteers or develop.Don't make assumptions about can beare appointed by the elected body, there your volunteers' level of knowledge. Pro- - PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 3 vide materials that help new volunteers you. The mileage of good will and good 'Tips on learn more quickly:checklists,summaries, feeling from that small gesture was im- 0 Planning for and training/orientation materials.A well- measurable. Once a year send thank you Volunteer's organized three-ring binder,stocked with notes to each of the members of your corn- useful information, can work remarkably mittee or commission,even if their term is by Susan J.Ellis well. not up. They will stay energized and will- The best way to involve volunteers is One good method of adapting new Ing to do other projects if they know they to plan in advance just as for new em- _ volunteers is to pair them off with estab- are appreciated while they are serving,not ployees.Determine exactly what job lished members so there is someone for after they have finished or left the board. descriptions volunteers can fill,and then them to ask or learn from without their There are lots of other ways to moti- be proactive in recruiting to fill those having to take up an entire meeting asking vate, keep, and "grow" new volunteers. positions. basic questions. Even more importantly, Just remember that most every member of Consider the following questions: this ensures that new members do not feel your community has something to give •What would we like to do more of, _ disenfranchised from the decision making back. It is up to us to figure out how it can if we had the extra help? they are supposed to be a part of. be used wisely. Protect and nurture your •What might we like to not have to 3. MAKE YOUR ENEMIES volunteer resource—it makes a commu- do ourselves,if someone else liked YOUR FRIENDS. nity what it is and what it will be. doing it? •What might we do a bit differently This is perhaps the most rewarding or to a targeted audience (in Spanish, but difficult adage to aspire to in creatively cc in sign language),if someone with using volunteers.There always seem to be • • .BY CI IOOSING THEIR necessary ckills were available? several members of the community who TASK OR ASSIGNMENT i The best volunteer assignments are are distrustful,or interested in derailing a CAREFULLY, YOU MAY € those that have clear goals,visibly ac- -- project or process most of the community complish something,and car,be done in wants. Take them off the sidelines and in- GET A WEALTH OF t. discrete time periods—say,three hours volve them. This is difficult. It requires INFORMATION AND at a time. patience and creativity on the part of theBRING MUCH MORE V t Recruitment is easiest if volunteer chair and other committee members. L job descriptions are product oriented Many will fear that involving"critics"will DIVERSITY INTO YOUR rater than schedule oriented.This _ make it even easier for them to derail a PLANNING PROCESS. F means asking people to commit to fin- project. But, by choosing their task or as- • ishing a project by a certain dead-line, signment carefully, you may get a wealth i- rather than having to appear on site of information and bring much more di- 1 -every Tuesday morning. On the other versity into your planning process. If youhand,knowing in advance that you need choose just to ignore the naysayers, you Eileen Hennessy is a consultant in environ- - coverage of the reception desk during may actually be strengthening their hand. mental planning, community affairs, and toner- staff meetings allows you to do active vation issues based in Stokes County, North 1 recruitment for volunteers available,say, 4. SAY "THANK YOU." Carolina,near Winston-Salem.Eileen has consid- every Friday from 2:00 to 4:00. I know this sounds mundane, but I erable experience working with town and county cannot stress it more emphatically as a way planning boards, having served as planning and Susan J.Ellis is President of ENERGIZE, to keep good people involved and corn- Pelham, om community development director for the Town of = >°consulting training,and publishingfirm mitred.Make sure committees,elected of Pelham,New Hampshire and Stokes County,North i � gin'vo��m-She is also au- Carolina,as a city planner for Seneca,South Caro- t thorn with Katherine Noyes,of By the People: — ficials, ad hoc committees, and boards all ii A N' lina, and as a planner working with towns and MoD'of Americans as Volunteers(/ossey- take time out to somehow,some way,say regional planning commissions across Vermont. Bass 1990). For a free catalog of books and "thank you." Who should be thanking • videos on volunteer management, call Susan _ whom? Who cares! The point is we all [Editor's Note: Has your communityF .•800-395-9800, or write to her at:EVER_ thrive on appreciation. The more creative made use of volunteers in a way not touched GIZE.,5450 Wissahickon Ave.,Philndrlphia, and the more often it is given,the better.If on by Eileen Hennessy?Or do you have some t PA 19144. you wait for the"appropriate"body or per- other point about the use of volunteers you'd son to come forth to do this you may be like to add? Please take a few minutes to i waiting a very long time. write us a note that they can be shared with I I once surprised a commission with a other readers]. — party instead of the assumed work session = for absolutely no reason but to say thank 1 t t PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 FEATURE Sharing the Map: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN he concept plan is an old CONCEPT PLANNING Speakers discussed their similar an - reliable tool of e landsca projects in waterfront planning, trail P by Robert L. Potter&Evelyn F. Swimmer sys- tems, Main Street programs and the like. architects and planners. It is Learning about the successes of other com- basically a site map with key areas identi- mutinies is often both informative and en- fled showing spatial relationships of pro- 111 ' - •,z, couraging. posed land uses and circulation patterns. •-----" " Its chief purpose is to graphically commu- C ID - ! II ' 1• THE MAPPING EXERCISE nicate concepts to people who are involved { _ �� Alp � For the mapping exercise,we divided in one way or another in the lannin r I �' P g P o !__ ���.._ � � the group into four smaller working cess. R groups. Symbols were provided for each The concept plan is normally prepared • I -� • -• groupoutof various• coloredPe P a rs reP re by a professional and then presented to the _ , - - • senting elements on the action list, such community for discussion.Our experience ��-•--- as: commercial sites, wildlife areas, boat has indicated that there is another way to Main Street in Bristol connects with the water- facilities, trails, recreation areas, historic do this. By asking local citizens to share front.A key goal was to draw people from the sites, parking areas, street lighting, and their ideas during the creation of these downtown to the waterfront,and vice-versa. signs. plans.a more productive two-way Each group gathered around communication is established be- • •- __ _ a table with a large map.We then tween professionals and partici- Am O• . - instructed the groups to arrange pants. Instead of reacting to the !.• their symbols on the map in ways plan,the community pro-actively --- ! L_._. " that would make sense to them creates the plan. The results are "'`' .___.. and meet their community's more meaningful to the commu- �• , is : :( goals. They were encouraged to nity. Most importantly, people T l t -:::._•---t' t _1 e be imaginative and to try out new will support their own ideas. •__ ea, ideas. THE BRISTOL EXAMPLE CONCEPT FLAN 'b-,=R'' • . The groups were given about '_- two hours to work. We,as facili- Recently, we were asked to _:= ' "" t ••• -- i •• \ - tators, then stepped back to see facilitate a community revitaliza - "'"- �' --N\�% a PP Bristol-Delaware Myer Strategy la --T - ; i' what would happen. People tion and waterfront improvement � , showed no reticence; they dove project in Bristol, Pennsylvania, "'• - - -•^'a ...,•, >l= into the work with great enthusi- on the banks of the Delaware asm.At the end of two hours each River.Bristol is an older city,with a popu- The concept plan that emerged following the group selected"reporters" to present their lation of about 10,000,just north of Phila- workshops. Note the "walkways"linking the delphia. We immediately set out to get as downtown and waterfront areas. work. many local residents involved as we could. THE RESULTS - We met with the Borough Council, the public participation we arranged a"vision" The resulting maps were illuminating. mayor and other community and business workshop. Each group had thoughtfully organized its leaders. A project task force was estab- colored symbols into a concrete vision of lished, and a town meeting called. Over THE WORKSHOP the future. Trail systems rimmed a future 250 people attended, including represen- More than sixty citizens, including nature preserve and continued along side- tadves from all of the major community community leaders and task force mem- walks through the historic district; boat organizations. bers, turned out for a full day of activities. ramps,boat piers,bulkheads,rip-rap,fish- It became clear to us that a concept The workshop was structured so that the ing sites and other waterfront access points plan would be needed to graphically por- morning consisted of guest speakers and were seriously considered and placed ap- tray the community's vision. In keeping presentations,and the afternoon involved propriately as pan of a shoreline improve- with our commitment to include strong a hands-on mapping exercise. ment strategy; a city "gateway," parking PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 NEWS & NOTES >i< Reader 1- Response c (Editor's Note: Elaine Cogan's column Few officials try to do this—they areas and traffic patterns were sited to in our last issue on dealing with the media are usually too wrapped up in bureau- - achieve both beauty and efficiency; park 1, led to two responses. The first,by Garry acetic processes.They will issue news facilities were enhanced and expanded r Fairbairn, is printed below. The second, releases, for example,about how the with plantings, seating and lighting. i from Dam Hamilton,can be found on the multi-county water quality review task = We did not attempt to synthesize the B back cave'.as this issue's `Insights"col- force has successfully completed phase four maps into one at the workshop.It was � twin. Elaine Cogan's brief reply follows Mr. three of a comprehensive public consul- enough to have everyone feel good about i Fairbairn's comments. If you have anything tation process(yawn),instead of saying their contributions. Later, the task forceto add to this " l ,"puce let us that civic officials are trying to find ways deliberated and merged the concepts. I "dialogue,""dialogue,"know. It is an important topic,and one on to keep your water safe to drink Although the mapping exercise was t which we can learn from each others'e ie- onlyone part of the overall Bristol project, riertces]. Garry Fairbairn is editor of The Western =. Producer,a 110,000-circulation newspaper for it was a time of decision-making. It was a t western Canadian farm families,and served 11 time when communication flowed easilyt 1 read Elaine Cogan's artide,and take years with the Canadian Press wire service,in- _ and productively among citizens and corn- - exception to the following statement chiding a posting as correspondent in Washing- "With leaders. As the remainder of the "Wim the exception of public television ton,D.C. project unfolded and culminated in a final #- and radio,all media are businesses town meeting,the task force. the planning whose owners expect them to make a commission and the borough council had Elaprofit Self-serving declarations to the Cogan Replies: confidence in the existence of a consensus. L contrary, their primary mission is not to The writers of these letters [Garry This consensus would support them as �� your message except as it gets them Fairbairn and Dan Hamilton) seem to they implemented the plan. Everyone more readers,listeners,or viewers." assume that myaccurate t depiction of knew the plan was created by the citizens s The need to make a profit does con the media as a "business"somehow themselves, not by professionals or com- available space. But the goal of denigrates their roles as purveyors of munity leaders alone. ` most newspapers is to make a profit by information to the public. I do not be Communities will meet the challenge performing a needed public service.The heve this is so.To the contrary,the need of designing their towns if provided some statement above is more suited to super- to make a profit gives them a sharper and guidance and facilitation.The use of work- market tabloids. Perhaps most important peps more critical focus on what shops can be enjoyable,as well as produc- is the fact that these allegedly profit may be newsworthy.This may not tive. for the participants. They bring obsessed publishers do not personally trickle down to reporters,but it is the solutions that are responsive to needs and write and edit news copy.They hire editors who make the print/no print produce results that can be embraced by lets for that.As a general rule, decisions.This does not have to result in everyone. i journalists do their best,within space or biased coverage.We who are I and budget limits,to provide the public in the business of Both Evelyn Swimmer and Robert Potter work with what in their best judgment is the tryingueevents to or a interest the Jor the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of the Na- media in covering our or aetivi- tional Park Service, Evelyn as a landscapeimportant news of the day. y archi- if public officials believe the quoted ties need to work with them on their tett and Robert as a planner. Evelyn and Robert terms.The best advice is still to know sta have co-authored (along with several other indi- tement,they will do themselves and what that requires in each of our corn- their• viduals)the Riverwork Book,an excellent manual citizens a disservice,because the manicies. on how local communities can develop effective a statement implies there is little hope of strategies for protecting their river-related re- r getting newspaper space unless the story sources. The Riverwork Booh was prepared under 1 is sensational. On the contrary,I think the National Park Service's Rivers & Trails e the large majority of journalists will be Conservation Assistance Program,and is available i sympathetic to giving coverage to any at no charge by writing to Evelyn or Robert do topic where a public official clearly and NPS-MARO, Customs House-Room. 25I,2nd& honestly communicates why that topic is - Chestnut,Philadelphia, PA 19106. important to ordinary people. i PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 i 7 Index to Columbus, Indiana Impact Fees Issues - 6 News&Notes.Scouting for Planners, Subdivision regs &impact fees.6:11. s 5:9. Kids and Planning . Comprehensive Plans Note: Issue number pre- p News&Notes.Box City.5:9. ' O Cable television used in Pawtucket, News&NotesScouting for Planners, cedes colon;page number 5:9. p g Rhode Island.2:9. follows colon. For example, Commissioner involvement in prepare- News&Notes:7th Graders Learn tion of Arlington,Texas plan.4:5. About Planning. 1:4. r _ tomos ite�T 3:9 refers to page 9 of issue 3. toning the Asa+••^' Trees as part of comprehensive plan, ii-s,:.• All article titles appear in 2:4. Knoxville/Knox County, _ Tennessee italics,followed by the author's Concept Planning News&Notes:Awards Program for r-�_ �w name in brackets. In Bristol.Pennsylvania,6:6. Well-Planned Development,2:9 __ News&Nota Box City,5.9. �[�» ^ Accessory Apartments Conditional Use Permits [see Special Permits) • i.... ..� fr: • Accessory Apartments for Today's Land Use Findings r_� � • Communities(Patrick Hare].1:14. Drafting Land Use Findings(Gary /.). Conflicts of Interest '_� • • __ Installation rates,1-14. Kovacic&Mary McMaster].4 12 ,-7-,i�� .~ Barriers to conversion,1:15. [see Ethics&The Planning ^ Commission] Land Use Pattern " 5 • . ._ _ Aesthetics As fostering dependence on automo- Customer Service L Aesthetics&urban design.5:16. biles.1:12 ••••� ... Customer Service What It Is...(Ray ••• Trees&beauty,2:1. Quay),1:5. Harmony of town&its natural setting. 3:15. Visual impact of street lighting,4:6. Good Communications .. (Ray Quay). Open space zoning&rural character, 4:4. Albuquerque,New Mexico 5:5,5:6 Street standards.1:9. Day Care Trees as making urban centers more e ` s Child care system&day care,3:11. desirable.2:8. - Arlington,Texas 0 n� Zoning for Family Day Care._(Abby Light Pollution s Development services desk,4:4. Cohen].3:10. Billboards&light pollution.4:10. Neighborhood refeml program,4:4. State licensing requirements.3:10. le- _ Comprehensive plan&commissioner Death of the Night(E Annie Proulx), r�,,�for Wes involvement,4:5. Electronic Communications 4:11. Funning Light pollution codes.4:10. News&Notes:'On-Line•Planners.. ,St-C.17-Vv: �,,�;rw Bath,Maine 1 4. Nature of the problem,4:9. �.+:r• , '.-.' _` - News&Notes:7th Graders Learn Understanding Light Pollution(David ���".._ About Planning.1:4. Ethics Crawford).4:10. r- y Kentucky6T The Planning Commission i - Boone County, Lighting 1 _ (columns by Greg Dale; n -~- , 1 - Local street standards.1.8 Are Your Procedures Fair',4:14. Glare,4.6. Braintree,Vermont Choice&Opportunity (about affordable Holiday decorations in Hagerstown, tr._ ,,,.....--- - housing].3:13. Maryland,5:9. --- -:::-.....-::•_ y �� GIS&build-out traps.6 15. Lighting Our Streets(Robert?rouse!. ConflicsoJ(ntncs[.16 g g _ " Bristol,Pennsylvania Ex-Parte Contacts,2:10. 4 1. +i ` `• Lighting patterns.4.6. -,-;-...--t 1 1 _ Public involvement&concept maps, Revisiting Conflicts of Interest,5:12. 1 _ 1 • 6:6. Statement of Ethical Principles,1:7. Planning for lights.4:6 Build-Out Maps The Ghost Commissioner.6:12 Safety concerns.4 8. Build-out maps&open space zoning, Family Issues Livingston County,Michigan 5:6. Open space preferences survey.5:7. r , .• GIS&build-out maps.6:15. Accessory units as helping families. 1:14 Street standards. 1.10. Cable Television 'Family'Definitions&Shared Housing McHenry County,Illinois ... (Pat Pollak].2:13. - ' � News&Notes Co2 9hrnsivc Plan zNonconformingicode, : use provision in O Airs on Local Cable,2:9. Zoning for Family Day Care...(Abby zoning code,2:11 Cohen],3:10. Calais,Vermont Mapping Fort Worth,Texas I GIS mapping&town land use.6.14. Base maps,3 4. Use Nie Trendicator newsletter.4:4. � _ Chester,New Hampshire Build out maps,5:6 ..-.,- -- Geographic Computer mapping v.GIS,6:15. •r- "�" Bntion v.Town of Chester.3:13. Information Systems Concept plans,6:6. . Citizen Citizen Participation Geographic Information Systems !Tom Geographic information Systems(Torn e and Feedback Milleue],6:13. Millettel.6.13 . ►tidV Cable television as means of mousing. Spatial analysis&G15.6:14. Map Compilation iTom Millertel.5.13. m �" 2 9. Maps for Planning[Tom Millettel.3:4 u� Gilbert,Arizona ' t Feedback in evaluating planning Scale of maps.3:5.3.6. performance,4 4,4:5. Planning commission survey..of clients, `r g 4:4. Spatial bases for mapping.3:5. C. In the development review process, ,fl.- Ilk 'i. '+?' 314 Hagerstown,Maryland Media 3 Sharing the Map Public Involvement in Reader Response Street lighting ideas, [see Planning Commission- . Concept Planning[Evelyn Swimmer& 5.9. Media Relations] 7.4 Robert Potter),6:11. '_ When They Speak,Do You Listen? Housing Mediation v (Elaine Cogan].2:3 Affordable housing&planning Land Use Mediation... (Edith Netter]. commissions.3:13. 3.1 Clallam County,Washington Planningcommissions&mediation. 'Family'Definitions&Shared Housing Open space zoning provisions.5:5. ...(Pat Pollak),2:13. 3:8 Cluster Development Shared residences defined.2:14. State mediation programs.3:7. [see Open Space Zoning] PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 Montpelier,Vermont Manning Lommission transportation GiS mapping for fire stanon.6 14. 1 -Roles& Responsibilities Taming the Automobile...(Richard Attending commission meetings,6:12. Untermann),1:1. `-" -`. ----. Newspaper Coverage -. " -• I Improving customer service.1:5,4:4. Trees ' [see Planning Commission- • Insights:Lessons from Nine Years on a Media Relations] Zoning Board'Douglas Hagemanl, Benefits of street trees,2:1,2:8. ourna NIMBY Issues 3:16. City Trees[poem by Vert Dargan],2:8. Accessory apartments.1:15. Insights'Remembering the Big Picture Comprehensive plan&trees,2:4. - [Perry Norton[.1:16. Design criteria.2:5. �►eig Our stns Afiordable housing,3:13. Insights:Why Plan... [Bruce Bender], Global warming&trees,2:1. ���� Family day care.3:10,3:11. 2:16. " ---' Historical loss of sweet trees,2:6. �,, Shared housing.2:14. Planning boards&changing land use Planning for Trees[Henry Arnold],2:1. :-'11 a i i .i needs.3:12. r �' 'I- Noltan v. California Sidewalks&trees,1:12,2:4. tk 4 4 - Providing fair procedu es for reviewing a ._ ` Coastal Commission Species diversity,2:6. applications,4:14. Relevance to drafting land use findings Utility companies&trees.2:5- .y0 - 4:13. PlanningCommission :-.,1� - Urban&Community Forestry Pro- -Staff Relations gram,2:9. `d Nonconforming Uses/Strut- In staffing comprehensive plan meet- Urban heat islands&trees.2:8. a 't t Lilies ings in Arlington,Texas,4:5. �= )! - Amortization provisions.2.12. Urban Design -'t. . s9-.'4 I Staff Needs a Little TLC,Tool[Elaine Repair&replacement.2:12. j Cogan],3:3. Insights•Urban Design... [Brenda ' '1/41 Nonconforming L'ses&Structures. Lightner].5:16. .. , - (Susan Connelly].2:11. Sewerage Systems Trees&Urban Design.2:8. ', .. •"' Historical origins of nonconformittes, Open space development&sewerage/ '' .` 2:12. septic.5:8. Visual Aids in Planning ,;.` ^" -...• - ---- Using Visual Aids[Elaine Cogan],4:3. 4 +byy; Open Space Zoning Southington, Connecticut - G , ,y n - �=s. Volunteers in Planning Maintenance of open space,5:7. Insights:Lessons from Nine Years on a ' ,, 1. ' ` s ',C N r s s Open space preferences survey,5:7. Zoning Board(Douglass Hageman], "Growing'Volunteers[Eileen - 0��� 3:16 Hennessy[,6.1. a Open Space'Zoning What h is. r' [Randall Arendt].5:4 Special Permits Planning for volunteers.6:5. Property values&open space zoning Family day care as conditional use, RSVP volunteer program.6 4. 5:6. 3:11. Westchester County, - �� � .Z �- Requinng open space design,5 5,5:6. Planning commissions&special New York permits.3:15. -,_ Orientation Manuals Accessory units&zoning amend- - Special Permits.What They Are...(Neil menu,1.15. News&Notes CommissionersOrienta- ! - - ; + '' ` Lindbcrg.314. 1 /M tion Manual,2 9. c -•1 3 - Variances versus special permits,3:15. West Manchester Township, «s.� Pawtucket, Rhode Island Pennsylvania ';:r`Cosi, ,_ Streets and Sidewalks ',:4.---, S it News&Notes Comprehensive Plan Open space zoning provisions.5:5 �'t-� Airs on Local Cable.2 9 Cluster development&street sten- t-! dards,5:8. White Bear Lake,Minnesota r Pedestrians Fire fighting equipment&street News&Nota-Commissioners Orienta- - Taming the Automobile. 'Richard width.1:9. tion Manual,2:9. ��� i , Untermann].1:1. Lighting Our Streets[Robert Prouse], 4:1. Zoning Issues Phoenix,Arizona Rethinking Residential Streets(Joseph Accessory apartments&zoning codes. •'' • .. Staff performance surveys.4 5 Molinaro].1:8. 1:14. Ph s1C11 Fitness and Plannin Sidewalks&crosswalks,1:11. Drafting Land Use Findings[Gary - y $ Street design principles,1:8. Kovacic 6 Mary McMaster),4:12 Insights:Walking Into Trouble Uohn Street hierarchy,1:9. Enforcement of family zoning regula- o^a t s N N t N G Stilgoe[.4:16. tions,2.14. ^' ' s s �- Streets in American history.1:11. ' c ^' E R S Pima County, Arizona Family day care,3:12. 0urn Street lighting[see Lighting, Light pollution code.4.10 Traffic circles,1:12. Family definitions&zoning codes. Z.-.213 to 2:15. Traffic volume&street environment, Planning Awards Programs � insights:Lessons from Nine Years on a �t,,l"�-•._4- - 1 12 Zoning Board[Douglas Hageman], _meg "�"�'� News&Notes:Awards Program for 4!-�,r.."�-- -`.... Trees&sidewalks,2:4. 3:16. ---L...77Z" :�"-.,'? Well-Planned Dnelopment,2:9. �. ,--."; - .-....Z.:::::'-"* Woonerfs,1:12. Large lot zoning versus open space - ~ ._---- PlanningCommission zoning.5:5 '" j`• w -` - Subdivision Regulation " � , i b Ethical issues [see Ethics & Nonconforming Uses b Structures I •5 1 e The Planning Commission] Antiquated subdivisions,6:10 [Susan Connelly],2:11. • ,,i s`0- . f-T `;-.2-$ Application&approval process,5:10. 'Open Space'Zoning:What It Is... C•sC% ••a ''; . Planning Commission • An Introduction to Subdivision Regula- 'Randall Arendt]-5:4. -1.!,2.,.., - '• _ -Media Relations nous[Martin Lamer&Elizabeth Relationship between subdivision& `` •- 'i ` Insights.Dealing With the Press[Dan Garvin].5.10. zoning regulations,6:11. -�..= '-k ti Hamilton].6 16 An Introduction to Subdivision Regula- Residential densities&pedestrian gi . 4,, Positive Media Relations Requires Special tions.Part II ILeitner&Garvin].6:10. activity,1:12. Effort[Elaine Cogan].5.3 Design standards,6.10. Special permits'sac Special Permits] -- �•� Planning Commission Growth management.6:11. �--._ ' _J ' .- -Meetings Historical evolution of subdivision Insights:Remembering the Big Picture regulations.5.11. (Pym Norton),1:16 Land speculation by Charles Dickens, 5:11. Using Visual Aids[Elaine Cogan].4.3. Maintenance of improvements.5:10. Welcoming the Public [Elaine Cogan]. 6:3. Public facility/impact fees,6 10. Relationship between subdivision& When They Speak.Do You Ltsirn [Elaine Cogan],2:3 zoning regulations,6.11 ' Street standards. 1:10. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / CTOBER 1992 Jill. _ _ _ t - PLANNING LAW PRIMER An Introduction to Subdivision Regulations Part es the first part of our article opment, or the extension of a sewer inter- - (se the journal's July/August by.Martin L. Leitner, Esq., ceptor line to the property proposed for and Elizabeth A. Ganin, Esq. subdivision. Many municipalities now re- issue) we discussed the applica- quire as a condition of subdivision ap- tion and approval process, as well as how proval that new development pay its pro most communities deal with the comple- views. Some communities, not leaving rata share of the cost of the new off-site don and maintenance of improvements in anything to chance,specify the exact type capital improvements necessitated by the approved subdivisions.In this second part, of tree or shrub which will be required on development. Public facility—or impact — we will focus first on design requirements a given site or project,often providing lists —fees should rely upon a capital improve- in subdivision regulations, and then pro- of native plants and acceptable vegetation. ments plan which details the necessary vide you with an introduction to public Other communities take more of a wait- public improvements; the drawing of ap- facility fees and "antiquated" subdivisions and-see approach; they require some type propriate service areas;and the calculation —topics that may come up in your area. of landscaping or buffer,but wait until the of fees based on the number of dwelling DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS developer presents a site plan to deal with units or square feet in the proposed the specifics. development.Vjkimpact Fees,p.11 Design and development standards Impact fee revenues collected from de- are incorporated into subdivision regula- velopers must be "earmarked" or placed in dons to assure that developers comply with "...IMPACT FEES segregated fund accounts and expended a wide assortment of local requirements, SHOULD RELY UPON A only in the benefit area from which they including items such as: lot arrangement were collected. The fees may' then be used and dimensions, landscaping, soil preser- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS vation, road design, road dedication and PLAN WHICH DETAILS to fund the construction, engineering and land acquisition costs of public facilities reservation, drainage and storm sewers, THE NECESSARY PUBLIC needed to serve the new development — water facilities, sewerage facilities, side- IMPROVEMENTS... V/ they cannot be used to correct existing defi walks, utilities, parks. playgrounds, and ciencies in facilities or to pay for operating preservation of natural features . costs. Finally,impact fees are refundable if The criteria utilized in design star- not spent within a reasonable period of time. - dards are intended to reflect community values,goals and objectives;to harmonize ANTIQUATED SUBDIVISIONS J Differences in subdivision design re- the development with surrounding areas; quirements do not always reflect just the In many communities throughout the — and to implement the local plan. needs of the community;on occasion,they United States,land was platted before local Design and improvement standards mirror the response of an entire region to governments adopted subdivision con- vary considerably in their level of specific- a problem.Example of this are energy con- trols. While this practice benefited devel- - ity to reflect the divergent needs of com- servation standards(which are most com- opers — who were able to divide their munities. For example, one local mon in the Northeast), water supply and property and sell lots without incurring government's subdivision regulations may drainage requirements (common in the any capital improvement costs — the re- establish specific criteria for roads, cover- West and Southwest), and the timing of sult has often been disastrous for local gov- ing grading,topography and arrangement, construction of public facilities (often ernments, which later found themselves block size,access between and among road found in states having experienced rapid with thousands of developed,partially de- _ types, road names, design standards, lay- growth, such as Florida and Califor- veloped, or undeveloped lots in separate out of intersections, and dedications and nia). Timing...,p. 11 ownership in subdivisions that did not reservations. Another community, how- meet even minimal regulatory standards. _ ever,may choose to set road requirements how- PUBLIC FACILITY OR "IMPACT" FEES Local governments then have the through a subdivision improvement agree- In addition to necessary "on-site" fa- unenviable choice of either limiting devel- ment reached with the developer. cilities, a proposed subdivision may trig- opment rights in the subdivision — cer- Landscaping requirements are an- ger a need for "off-site" facilities, such as tain to be anathema to individual other area of subdivision regulation which an arterial road to accommodate traffic landowners who intended to retire in frequently expose an entire spectrum of anticipated to be generated by the devel- homes on these lots—or allowing devel- PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 10 ` .MThe Relationship act Fees - E Mg Between VjkAn impact fee is a charge i .Subdivision alevied by a local governing ZoniRegulat ng ions body against developers for their pro-rata andshare of the capital costs of public facili- Communities use a variety of planning ties necessitated by the new development. and implementation tools to regulate land opment pursuant to the subdivision plan Properly designed,impact fees allow - and providing all of the necessary internal use and development These tools include: communities to pass an appropriate por- F the comprehensive/master plan,future land subdivision facilities and services at public tion of the cost back to the development expense. use APs,zoning regulations,zoning maps' which generated the need. Facilities coin- _ Some modern subdivision regulations official maps,and subdivision regulations. monly funded by impact fees include Each of these tools serves a different pur- employ techniques to minimize this prob- p but the two which are most fre- ids, transportation facilities,schools, lem in the future. One method used is to parks,water and sewer improvements, quently confused are the subdivision and libraries,and police,fire and ambulance require that developers reapply for subdi- zoning regulations.Although parts of these vision approval whenever they request any docuents occasionally overlap and stanons/cquipment m material changes to their approved plats. in many instances cross-reference each Editor's Now Impact fees area complex _ This helps ensure that the subdivisions other,they have different functions,and topic,only briefly touched on in this article. comply with current regulations.A second serve different There is also an ongoing debate over the Purposes. technique available to local governments Subdivision regulations are designed ees. I —and fairness—of using impact is "plat vacation." This is a process by primarily to regulate the division of land fees. mpact fee systems can also involve which the governing body approves the into parcels and to ensure that the layout of administer, considerable COQ 1a properly.to smaldevelopler and elimination of a plat, in whole or in part. - the subsequently-created parcels or lots will communities. °f of concern t°snwller When the entire subdivision is still in be appropriately configured and properly CO"'rnan We hope to have more uture - single ownership, plat vacation may be served by public facilities.In contrast,the Journal article providing a in-depth initiated by either the property owner or F purpose of zoning regulations is to imple- bole at tntpact fees. the governing body; however, when the ! ment the comprehensive plan by specifying lots are owned by individual property own- ` permitted uses and densities of develop- f Resources ers, the vacation must be initiated pri- ment,height,setback,open space and -4L-7116'-=._ good sources are vote] and must have the consent of all of related requirements. One should note, . available for those interested - the owners—a solution that, in practice, however,that there has been a recent trend in acquiring a more detailed understand- is quite difficult to achieve. towards the adoption of unified" develop- is of various aspects of subdivision ment codes,which consolidate zoning and regulation. These include David Listoken SUMMING UP: subdivision regulations in a single docu- and Carole Walker's The Subdivision and Modern subdivision regulations can ment. Site Plan Handbook (Rutgers Center for deal with a wide range of land develop- Urban Policy Research 1989),available _ ment issues tailored to specific local poll- Timing & Phasing from the APA Planners Press,312-955- cies, goals and needs. Combined with a of Development 9100,and James Kushner's Subdivision comprehensive plan and zoning regula- Law and Growth Management (Clark tions, subdivision regulations are an ex Modern growth management and coor- Boardman Callaghan 1991,800-221- - •tremely useful planning tool to guide dtnation techniques originated in the subdi- 9428) (dealing primarily with legal is- vision process,and were upheld in the sues) Also scheduled to be published by growth and development Relationship... landmark New York court decision of - the American Planning Association later Martin L. Lehner is a partner with Freilich, Golden v. Planning Board of Town of this year is the second edition of Model Lehner,Carlisle&Shortlia a in Cu). ich, dna°. in Ramapo,the court allowed g timing and sequential control of residential Subdivision Regulations: t and Carmen- ' souri,specializing in land use lax.He is currently and tory,by Robert Freilich and Michael working on projects in Monroe County, Florida; subdivision activity for periods of up to Shultz(a complete revision of the popu- Pierce County, Washington; and Hilton Head Is- eighteen years. Growth management as it lar 1975 publication). land,South Carolina. has evolved in the twenty years since the - i Ramapo decision,emphasizes the impor- Elizabeth A. Gamin is an associate attorney tance of timing and phasing new develop- with the same firm. She is assisting several local vent.This enables communities to ensure governments with the revision of their land devel- that their public facilities and services are T opment ordinances. Elizabeth is also completing capable of adequately serving the increased her master's degree in urban planning at the Uni- i versity of Kansas. population resulting from the new develop- ment. — PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 11 ETHICS & THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Ghost Commissioner By C. Gregory Dale,AICP Like any volunteer board, a Like and procedures for defining and and establishing the procedures for han pa g commission often has dealing with a chronically absent or un- dling removalof a commissioner. Your prepared commissioner. commission might also want to call a spe- to cope with the unpleasant First, in terms of preventing such cial meeting each year to discuss schedul- problem of having a member who is either problems, commissions should review ing of meetings, procedures for absent on a regular basis or regularly un- their process of selecting new commission- distributing information,and expectations prepared. Many of us have experienced ers. Recognizing that new commissioners for the upcoming year.Another useful idea the frustration of arriving at a meeting only is to have your Chair and/or your Planning to find that once again the ghost commis- Director brief newly appointed commis- sioner is not present. It is just as frustrat- "IT MAY ALSO REFLECT sioners about their responsibilities. ing to realize that a particular New commissioners,as well as expe- commissioner is totally unprepared for a THAT THE ORIGINAL rienced commissioners, should be re- meeting because of not having read the MOTIVES FOR minded that the American Planning material,not being familiar with the regu- ACCEPTING THE Association's Statement of Ethical Principles — lations, or not having visited the site. POSITION CENTERED provides that planning officials"must ren- This is a difficult issue because no one der thorough and diligent planning ser- wants to have to confront a peer with the ON SELF—INTEREST OR vice." If this is not possible, the Statement issue of unacceptable performance.On the THE PERCEIVED calls on the planning official to resign. other hand, if this situation is left PRESTIGE OF BEING A [Copies of the Statement of Ethical Principles unchecked. it can result in a number of11 can be obtained by writing the American problems. It can create poor morale on COMMISSIONER. Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St.,Chi- both the part of staff and fellow commis- cago, IL 60637]. sioners. It can make decisions more diffi- The unfortunate reality is that once — cult to reach—and can,at times,make it you have a ghost commissioner on board, harder to obtain a quorum for doing busi- are generally not appointed by the com- there is no easy solution. The key is to ness. This is a disservice to applicants, as mission,but rather by the legislative body have practices in place to try to prevent well as to members of the public,who are or chief executive officer,steps should be this from happening,and—failing that— entitled to action on a project request. Fi- taken to ensure that: to have written procedures for dealing with nally, it can cause resentment on the part • The level of commitment required it. of those commissioners who are doing to serve as a planning commissioner is rec- their job,and create a poor public image of ognized; C.Gregory Dale,AICD, � is a planner with the plan- the commission. •The time demands,in terms of meet- ning and engineering firm of Of course,the causes for this problem ings and "homework," is understood; Pflum, Klausmeier & may be wide ranging. Many absences are • The candidate's intentions and mo- Gehrum,and works in their obviously legitimate,and scheduling con- tives are explored;and Cincinnati,Ohio office.Greg straints often make it difficult to both pre- •There is some indication of commit- is also a past president of the pare for and attend meetings. But often ment on the part of the candidate. Ohio Chapter of the Ameri- times the problem is more a reflection of In addition, procedures for handling can Planning Association, the low priority that the ghost commis- such problems should be set out in ad- and frequent speaker at planning and zoning work- sioner places on serving on the commis- vance,at a time when personalities are not shops.If you have any ethical questions you would sion. It may also reflect that the original an issue and emotions are not running like Greg to address, please write to him do the motives for accepting the position cen- high. Journal,P.O. Box 4295,Burlington, VT 05406. g tered on self-interest or the perceived pres- The best mechanism for establishing lige of being a commissioner. procedures for resolving this kind of prob- The real "solution" for this type of lem is through your bylaws. For example, - problem is to take steps to avoid it in the bylaws can include provisions specifying first place,and,failing that,to have in place the number of absences permitted per year PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 FEATURE Geographic Information Systems by Thomas L. Millette, Ph.D. [Editor's Note:This is the final article in Software. GIS software consists of spe- puter. A scanner is a device that can be Tom Millette's three-part introduction to cialized computer programs that read, used as an alternative to a digitizer.A scan- maps and the use of geographic information manipulate, analyze and display spatial ner reads the lines and features on a paper __ systems.In his first two articles,Tom focused data. Geographic information systems map with some type of light sensitive head on how maps are used in planning, and on typically integrate two separate software and converts it to a computer readable the map compilation process. In this article tools in order to manipulate the map and map. Tom will fill you in on some of the basics of non-map data used by the system.The first Just as GIS requires specialized input geographic information systems—probably devices, it also needs specialized output the fastest growing new technology in land devices. Frequently used devices for gen- use planning). " IT IS NOT UNCOMMON erating paper copies of maps from a GIS FOR COMPUTERare large format "plotters." Pen plotters <H, eographic information s)rs- are capable of producing maps as large as SOFTWARE VENDORS TO 36 inches by 42 inches with multiple col- tennis, commonly referred to as MISREPRESENT MAPPING ored pens.However,since plotters are rela- "GIS," is a rapidly expanding SYSTEMS AS GIS. tively slow,large or complex plots can take technology that has become an important several hours to complete. If large plots planning tool with numerous applications. THE LARGEST are not necessary, smaller format inkjet GIS is useful for planners because it in- MISCONCEPTION and laserjet devices produce high quality creases their productivity by allowing them SURROUNDING output quickly and inexpensively. to spend less time processing data and con- GEOGRAPHIC Database. The "guts" of a GIS is its venting it into information, so that more INFORMATION SYSTEMS database. Without it, spatial analysis time is available to analyze the informa- would not be possible. A GIS database - don and assess its planning implications. IS THAT THEY AREl.) consists of two distinctly different com- Unfortunately, there is no shortage of COMPUTER SOFTWARE. ponents: "spatial" data and "attribute" confusion as to what constitutes GIS—as data. The spatial data shows the location distinct from computer mapping and corn- of features such as roads, parcel bound- puter aided drafting systems. It is not un- aries and zoning districts. The attribute common for computer software vendors data consists of the descriptive elements ._ to misrepresent mapping systems as tool is an automated mapping program for associated with particular locational fea- GIS.„0 Com purer Mapping...,p 15 The largest managing computer maps.The second is a tures. The GIS software maintains these misconception surrounding geographic database management system ("DBMS") two kinds of data separately: the spatial information systems is that they are corn- used for managing descriptive information data by the system's automated mapping puter software. Actually a GIS consists of linked to specific features in a computer component, and the attribute data by the three individual components of which soft- mall system's data base management compo- ware is only one. The other two compo- Hardware. GIS hardware begins with nent. nents are computer hardware and the the central processing unit that is housed In GIS vernacular,the combination of database.The relationship among the three in a mainframe,mini,or micro computer. a computer map and its associated at components is straightforward: the soft- Recent developments in both software and tributes is termed a GIS "layer." For ex ware is used to instruct the hardware to hardware have allowed microcomputers to ample, a parcel layer would include a manipulate the database for some desired become both a powerful and popular plat computer map that shows a town's parcel result. Before explaining how GIS can be form for GIS. In addition to the central boundaries. Linked to the parcel map, used in spatial analysis, and providing processing unit, specialized devices, such through the data base management sys- some examples of how planning programs as digitizers or scanners, are needed for tem,would be an set of descriptive infor- are coming to use GIS, let me give you a data input.A digitizer is an electronic tab oration for each parcel. Such information quick "tour" of the software, hardware, let that is used to trace paper maps in order might include the name of the owner, the and database aspects of geographic infor- to convert them into machine readable for parcel size, its tax rate, the number and oration systems. mat so that they can be used by the corn- continued on page 14 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 Lances and response times to different parts f / RESPONSE STATION of the city. The city's GIS system enabled /- / this kind of analysis to be done.In order to / • / ; ., l' , measure travel distance,a town-wide road J , J IIDEt 3 '�IOT(3 / / T N centerline layer was used and each road / N VIDEO S !VICES J• / . no[s r ninrts /,.. / ` ; j VIDE , a�urE: / : segment leading to the existing and pro- - ACu'T ' / / posed sites was coded in one mile inter- : ( c .mss vals. To project response times, the same // !` �.� // ';. �� road centerline layer was used together ,. k-‘/:Y ; / , t� f with weighting factors such as speed lim- ( = / . . its, traffic time studies, turn times and in- /.i "�''s • : ,. �) / ,�__��..--. .' tersections inaccessible to fire equipment i i p / J • �„ \�. :j "6- J • �. ,r \` due to narrow turning radii.The net result `.rte;;= _ was a sophisticated analysis showing pro- #_ N': >......;;;;/ jetted response times from each location I:,:.t.. ' `.. '., (the existing station and the proposed site) 1..., t'lt:..;., ......,...E •..,,,ya 1..1 C.,.,...E„I,,, j I across all town roads. See Figure 1. .a , tC/IIII.EEt..I...tlEE 1 U 0 e000' '2000' I A second,and more typical,planning — i NI ..,w.,I,gn„i, 111.,m1.01{/ii,. I I I I i II. application is the use of GIS to inventory Figure 1. and analyze a town's land base. Calais is a Geographic Information Systems est route between any two locations. Fur- small town in the north-central part of continued from page 13 thermore,because the individual roads and Vermont. The Central Vermont Regional type of buildings on the parcel, any vari- road segments are linked to descriptive at- Planning Commission — which serves ances granted—to name just some of the tributes in the data base, it is possible to Calais —used its geographic information possible attributes. identify which parts of the route are di- system to prepare a map that combined vided interstate highway's and which parts the town's parcel layer with data on land GIS AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS enrolled in the state's "current use” pro- are unpaved town roads. The real power of GIS lies in its ability The use of GIS in spatial analysis is gram (a tax abatement program intended to perform various types of spatial analy- often best understood by seeing how it can to support agriculture and forestry). By sis. Within the context of GIS, spatial be used.While I can't take you to an oper combining the town parcel layer with the analysis means the ability to manipulate acing GIS system, I can try to do the next current use program areas,it was possible GIS data layers for the purposes of mea- best thing by describing how some local to get a much better picture of the town's surement and modeling. For example, a communities are beginning to use GIS. land base. For example, through this – GIS road layer is made up of a connected The City of Montpelier, Vermont re- simple analysis it could be seen that about network of lines or arcs. Because the con- cently used GIS to study' the impact of percent of the town's land was ac nections are recorded in the database,it is moving its only fire station from a small lively managed for agriculture or forestry, possible to identify and measure the short- downtown site,to a larger,but less central and that the managed areas were fairly uni 0 0 D H L R location that formly distributed throughout the town. 1 .- 21 would allow con- See Figure 2. ' 4-'u --- # CALAIS, VERMONT — I NI •2,. v.,* solidation of the SUMMING UP: PARCELS IN CURRENT %y � `• fire, ambulance GIS is an ideal tool for planningbe- ��t ii rg1 .1 USE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Z p� imp .,....,„,„..-�,�z and police de- cause of its usefulness in doing a wide va- w _ ,. F d urA .,, 9"- , partments in a nett' of complex spatial analysis. Once U *.. 4 - ,� th LEGEND single facility.Be- P P y �"1 „ � ter. g �' appropriate databases are developed, GIS c i -f NNW-W-W .�„, ? ”""'.."'" fore deciding a __ I — «,l... can significantly improve the productivity 3 1 ` - -- whether to pro- mo= of a planning organization.Town planning . 1."1= ceed, however, Om � �_ and zoning boards that have become fa- .;N , .•►: Z - the community miliar with the ca abilities of GIS often _ = ; wanted to know P at become the most creative users and vocal -S = how this change supporters of such sYs tems.C of location might I r . =: . 0NT ✓F_�rz.r Figure 2. affect travel dis- PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 Braintree's Build- Welcoming = jOlit Analysis The Public • continued from page 3 — GIS can also be used to con- mg at the potential effects of develop around a table in a conference room, or duct a"build-out"analysis.For example, ment,as well as a means of seeing how even the lunchroom. You will be pleas the Town of Braintree,Vermont,recently changes in their own local regulations aptly relieved to find how tensions lessen — wanted to examine the potential impact of could affect the development potential of development based on its current plan and their town. when strong-minded people can relate eye - ordinances,taking into account various to eye. You may have to "agree to dis (Editor's Note: Randall Arendt also agree,"butyou are more likely to be friends environmental and other constraints.The discussed the value of conducting a build- Sr — basic process for the build-out analysis was afterwards. If the formidable dais/distance organized into the following steps: (1)A out analysts m his article `open Space from the public environment cannot be town-wide GIS layer was created to reflect Zoning"in our July/August 1992 issue,at altered or replaced, try harder. Lean for- _ the currently allowed density of develop page 6). ward attentively when the public speaks, ment(for example, 1 acre,5 acre and 10 listen intently, refer to individuals by acre lots); (2) "Development exclusion"and name, and shorten the perception of dis- development discouragement"GIS layers • C0IT1tet . Mapping versus tance between you and the citizen every — were prepared;the exclusion layer,for • IS way you can. example,included floodplain and land Unfortunately, the environment least with slopessteeper than 25%;(3)The GIS While all geographic information e systems include a computer mapping conducive to constructive give-and-take — ers were combined in an overlay in order component,not all computer mapping with the public is probably the one you use to identify the developable portions of the systems. els geographic informationatI sys- tems. ys now. Level with the audience as much as town; (4)Calculations were prepared itadi you can and theymost often will level with — cating the total number of parcels ' The distinction is that GIS Y "avail- able" for development,their median size, integrates computer mapping with a you. database management system,allowing Elaine Cogan is a rt- and their mean distance from town roads; for detailed spatial anal In contrast, g — and (5)Alternative scenarios were prepared, ner with the firm of Cogan Sharpe most computer or automated mapping ShCo an,Plannin and adjusting development densities in differentPe 8 g parts of town.The GIS analysis gave systems are designed for map design and Communications Consult- f production,and not for spatial analysis ants,Portland,Oregon.Her Braintree residents a valuable tool for look- (some uses of spatial analysis in planning column appears in each is- are described later in this article).Auto- sue of the Planning Commis- 4 r mated mapping systems have more tools sinners Journal.Among the _ Thomas L. E !._ for designing visually attractive maps topics Elaine will be discuss- Millette, Ph.D. Y with a wide selection of map presentation ing in future columns are: was just ap- i formats and symbols,but have fewer • The politics of being an effective commis- pointed Director tools for measurement and modeling. sioner. — of the Geoproces- A i •How to chair a meeting effectively,and how sing Laboratory tf=:. 1 so■ rRece to best participate if you are not the chair. and Program atx�J� •Dealing with difficult people at public meet- Mt.Holyoke Col- The best introductory text on ings. lege in Massa- :-GIS is Geographic Information • How to make written materials clear and chusetts. Previously, he served as Systems:An Introduction,by Jeffrey Star comprehensible to the public. Director of the Laboratory for Spatial and John Estes(Prentice Hall 1990).If Analysis in the Department of Geogra- you would like more detailed information phy,University of Maryland,Baltimore F about any of the projects described in the County, Maryland. Tom has worked F article,contact Tom Millette at: (413) with numerous state and regional plan- tf 566-5552. ping agencies in setting up GIS pro- i grams.He wishes to thank Sara Moulton of the Montpelier Planning Department, Jonathan Croft of the Central Vermont Regional Commission, and Eric 1 Edelstein of the Two Rivers- , t. Ottauquechee Regional Commission for i< their generous assistance and the use of I their graphics for this article. t — t PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 — 15 INSIGHTS Dealing With the Press By Dan Hamilton he best way to prevent"bad story. Usually it is ignorance or laziness fending" story as a constructive example. that produces one. •Alert the press to good stories.Do this press" is to take steps to avoid it • Cultivate a good source relationship well before they break,and supply lots of in the first place. This requires with reporters who "get it right."They like facts. carefully defining what is bad press and to be rewarded for their work, just as you • Write letters to the editor. Rebut fac- examining why it happens. Bad press is do. tual errors or an unfavorable slant.But it's rarely due to the media's profit motive.The •Alert the media to favorable stories. If important not to adopt a defensive or corn- - business side usually does not — and you never call them in advance, then all plaining tone. Why not use the letter to should not — interfere with the news quickly set the record straight and then room. add some good news about your commis- There are four general types of bad "LUCKILY, IGNORANCE sion? press. First is reporting which is factually CAN BE DEALT WITH IN A By knowing in advance what message accurate, but has a tone unfavorable to VARIETY OF NON- you wish to convey,and supplying it in a - your agency. The second is inaccurate re- concise form to the media,you can make a porting, with facts wrong, or with incor- CONFRONTATIONAL WAYS reporter's job easier and yours less stress- rect conclusions drawn from correct facts. ...WHICH—COMPLEMENT ful. The third is overly selective or unbalanced THE MISSION OF YOUR Dan Hamilton is Publications Specialist for reporting. The fourth is reporting that AGENCY IN the Cape Cod Commission, a regional land use strays over the line between news and planning and regulatory agency serving the 15 - opinion. DISSEMINATING towns of Barnstable County,Massachusetts.He is In most of the above cases.the cause is INFORMATION TO THE former Managing Editor of The Register, a Cape ignorance,not bias.Luckily,ignorance can PUBLIC." Cod weekly newspaper published continuously since be dealt with in a variety of non-confronta- 1836. tional ways — ways which, incidentally, complement the mission of your agency in PLANNING disseminating information to the public. C O M M I s s / 0 N E K The most effective techniques are they will cover is meetings,not all of which those used before the fact: go smoothly. Contrary to popular percep ' ourna •Return phone calls.Leaving questions tion, good news goes in the paper too. unanswered invites errors and uninten- When things go wrong, these tech- tional bias. niques work after the fact: In Caning issues,,, • Be prepared. This means creating in •Promptly ash for the correction offac- advance of meetings a very succinct writ- tual inaccuracies.But be brief and specific, ' Regulating aesthetics—what to watch out for. ten summary of the issues to hand to the and don't get into a debate over the tone of • Planning for our aging society. media.Make sure it explains acronyms and the article:it will cloud your request. • Design guidelines that help people. - jargon. Be sure to include a thumbnail • Ash for an appointment with the re- • Leadership development sketch of the legal basis for your decision porter. Discuss the issue and explain the and planning boards. — the most commonly misunderstood overall function of your agency. Do not •Updates on the Supreme Court's - aspect of planning and regulatory actions. use this session to achieve corrections to a Lucas decision and the new federal surface •Do not duck controversy.You have to story. Instead,use it as a way to repair the transportation law. conduct your business in public, and at- source relationship the reporter has with • Planning for bicycles. - tempting to shy away from controversy you. •And more from our regular columnists! will only whet a reporter's appetite. • Ash for an appointment with the edi- • Do not try to dictate a story's content for/news director. Discuss a future opinion or tone. Instead provide enough informa- piece on the issue,and discuss suggestions tion so that the story tells itself. Very few for future coverage of your agency.Now is reporters set out to write an unfavorable the time to talk about tone,using the "of- PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 6 SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 1992 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS I ourna NEWS & Please use this form in sending in any informaton about NOTES activities, ideas, or news that your Planning Commission or Board would be willing to share with readers of the Journal. If possible, we will include your summary, and the name and phone number of your contact person, in Information Sheet the Journal's "News & Notes" section. Summary: Use Additional Sheet if Necessary Name/Address/Phone of Contact Person Please mail your Information Sheet to: for this information: Wayne Senville, Editor Planning Commissioners Journal P.O. Box 4295 Burlington, VT 05406 Again, thanks for helping make the Journal a more valuable resource for all readers!