The URL can be used to link to this page

04-1-92 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE — CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rezoning request from A2 to RSF and preliminary plat request for 141 single family lots and 8.2 acres of park area located north of Lyman and east of Galpin Boulevard, — just south of Timberwood Estates, Stone Creek, Hans Hagen Homes. 2. Preliminary plat request for 17 single family lots on 9 acres and a wetland alteration — permit for alteration, relocation and mitigation of a Class B wetland on property zoned RSF and located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Lilac Lane and Teton Lane, Ithilien Addition, Hilloway Corporation. — OLD BUSINESS 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Minimum Lot Size in the Rural Service Area. NEW BUSINESS * ITEM POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 15, 1992, MEETING * 4. Concept plan and rezoning for a conference/spa center on 19+ acres of property zoned A2, and located at 1350 Flying Cloud Drive (former Assumption Seminary _ property), Leland Gohlike. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE — ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT C 1 T Y 0 F PC DATE: April 1, 1992 — C U A CC DATE: April 27, 1992 — �-' CASE #: 92-1 SUB, 92-2 REZ 92-3 WAP STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Plat to subdivide 81 Acres into 141 Single Family Lots 2) Rezoning of property from A-2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, — Residential Single Family District Z Q 3) Wetland Alteration Permit — V LOCATION: Merle and Jane Volk Property located south of Timberwood Estates J Subdivision approximately 8500 south on Galpin Boulevard — a 0. APPLICANT: Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. • 4 941 N. E. Hillwind Road • _ Suite 300 • Fridely, MN 55432 PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate District ACREAGE: 81 acres (gross) acres (net) — DENSITY: 1.7 u/a (gross) 2 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND — LAND USE: N - RR; Rural Residential S - PUD; Chanhassen Business Center 4 A-2: Agricultural Estate District - E - A-2; Agricultural Estate District Q . W - A-2; Agricultural Estate District — W WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The area has rolling hills with half of the site being farmed and '� (f) the remaining portion of the site is heavily wooded. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 81 acre site into 141 single family lots. The property is bordered on the west by County Road 19, Galpin Boulevard. The main access, Timberwood Drive,will connect County Road 19 to the existing Timberwood Drive. A road is stubbed to the east to provide access to this area. The area to the east is guided for low density residential use by the Comprehensive plan. All proposed streets in the subdivision have a 60 foot right-of-way. This area was located outside of the MUSA line until the recent MUSA expansion that was approved by the Metropolitan Council in May of 1991. This area is in the Bluff Creek Sewer Feasibility Area currently being considered by the City Council. Sewer service to this area could be available at the earliest in the fall of 1992. The applicant, Hans Hagen, is proposed to develop this area is several phases. The first phase would include lots 1 through 7, Block 7 and Lots 26 through 37, Block 5. They would like to construct three model homes located on Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 7 for the Parade of Homes, which begins in the first week of September. Half of this site include a maturing sugar maple forest, the other half of the site is farmed. This is probably one of the nicer forested areas in the city in regards to the size and species of trees. Staff is recommending conservation easements to preserve these trees. The recently adopted Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ordinance states that it is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas. This ordinance also states that all arterial and collector streets are required to provide streetscape landscaping. This landscaping would be placed along County Roads 19 and 17. There is also a wetland on the site. The wetlands are not proposed to be altered, and are within a conservation easement, where staff is recommending no development or tree removal take place. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that land for a park be dedicated with this subdivision. Based on the number of lots, the acreage required would be 5.64. The applicant has proposed provision of a large 8 acre park and natural area to the north end of the property. This area contains a wooded natural area surrounding a stream bed that is quite attractive. The Park Commission has reviewed this proposal and has instead recommended the inclusion of a five acre park in a flat that can accommodate the usual assortment of facilities. Planning staff does not normally comment on Park Commission recommendations; however, in this case, we feel obliged to. We under the Park Commission's desire to provide what they consider a normal range of facilities, but unfortunately, this can only be done in this case with the loss of ability to obtain the natural area. Staff further notes that this natural area contains portions of lower quality vegetation and flat areas that can easily be cleared to accommodate most of the Park Commission's desires. However, under the Park Commission's proposal, this area will likely be platted as lots and will be privately held. In addition, changes to the plat to accommodate the Park - Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 3 Commission's request are substantial. Since the developer is likely to try to maximize the number of lots elsewhere on the site to compensate, we are likely to see more extensive grading that will result in tree loss over the entire property. We would therefore, ask that the park dedication requirements be reviewed in this light. Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and is generally consistent with guidelines established by the city Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A moderate amount of fine tuning is required to incorporate changes and conditions proprsed in this report. We have provided you with a list of conditions that should address these issue but believe these changes are significant enough that the Planning Commission may want to consider continuing this item to allow the developer to revise plans in response. A last issue must be touched on in reviewing this plat. This request is made as a standards RSF subdivision largely due to the continuing dialogue that staff has had with the Planning Commission concerning residential PUDs. The applicant's original desire was to come in with a 1-15D that had smaller lots, generally in the 10,000 square foot range or larger, in the cultivated area on the western portion of the site, with larger, generally, 20,000 square foot or better lots in the wooded area near Timberwood. Staff believed that this approach yielded many benefits. It allowed the developer to get the required density out of the site while enhancing tree preservation in the more sensitive eastern area. It also allowed for a better transition of lot sizes between Timberwood and this site. Lastly, the flexibility provided under the PUD could be actively use to modify building setbacks, street rights-of- - way and other development standards to greatly increase the sensitivity of design relative to wetland protection and tree preservation. We do not wish to infer that this plat is inadequate, we simply feel we could have done a better job with this area developed as a PUD. We would ask that in reading this report, the Planning Commission take a moment to evaluate their opinions concerning PUDs. Staff is generally comfortable with these requests subject to the conditions provided herein. We believe that if the Planning Commission desires, approval of the request can be granted. However, due to the magnitude of the changes requested, staff is recommending that action be contiraed to give the developer an opportunity to respond. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 81 acres into 141 single family lots The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.7 units per acre gross and 2 units per acre net after removing the wetland and roads. All the lots but 1 exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 18,395 square feet. Some of the lots do not meet the minimum frontage requirements of 90 feet. In addition, some lots look questionable as to whether they can be built on. These lots include Lot 8, Block 4, Lots 12 and 13, Block 1, and Lot 8, Block 3 (Attachment #1). Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 4 On the northern portion of the site, along County Road 19, Galpin Blvd is a outlot. This outlot is not a buildable lot. It should be combined with the lots adjacent to it. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has held several meetings with staff and the plat is reasonably well designed. However, it is a large and complex proposal that requires some fine tuning. Due to these concerns, as well as issues related to park dedication and wetland preservation, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider continuing this item to allow for the issues raised to adjusted on the plat. _ Streets/Access The subdivision is being serviced by an access off of Galpin Boulevard, County Road 19, with a connection to Timberwood Drive. Timberwood Drive was always intended to be extended onto this parcel. Without the connection, it is an extremely long deadend street. With the anticipated volume, of traffic, staff classifies Timberwood Drive as a minor collector-type street. The right-of-way is proposed to the city standard of 60 feet. Staff recommends that the street section be extended from the typical 31 foot wide street to 36 feet wide with gutter to gutter, similar to the Lake Susan Hills development. The remaining streets may be to the city's standard of 31 feet wide, back-to-back street section. Street grades are not provided on the plans. However, based on contours, it appears street grades will be under the 7% maximum grade per city ordinance. The Fire Marshal is recommending that the street names Forest Road and Forest Trail not be used because that city already has similar names. New names need to be submitted. This site abuts two minor arterial roads, according to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. County Road 19 (Galpin Blvd.) will have a 100 foot right-of-way, while Lyman Boulevard will have a 120 foot right-of-way. The applicant is proposing two curb cuts. The major entrance, Timberwood Drive, is to be located approximately 550 feet north of the first entrance. Right-of-way along County Road 19 currently is 66 feet wide, 33 on each side of the centerline. The preliminary plat proposes dedication of an additional 17 feet to arrive at one-half of the necessary recommended right-of-way width of 50 feet. Since County Road 19 is classified as a minor arterial street, according to city design standards, street access should be at intervals of not less than Vi mile from existing and established crossroads. Staff is recommending the elimination of the secondary access at Stone Creek. The County Engineer, Roger Gustafson, is also recommending that access be limited onto County 19 to Timberwood Drive only. Staff has shown how this plat could be redrawn with a cul-de-sac at the end of Stone Creek (Attachment #2). S'-)ne Creek April 1, 1992 Page 5 The plat also proposes a future street connection at the aasterly end of the plat. A temporary cul-de-sac should be constructed at this location t: .u. the road can be extended in the future. A sign should be placed on the barricades indicating the future connection. Notice of the ultimate street extension should be placed in the chain-of-title for the lots located in this vicinity. Staff is recommending that a 5 foot sidewalk be placed along the southern side of Timberwood and Forest Trail and the southern side of Forest Road. Landscaping and Tree Preservation The recently adopted Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements state that a landscape buffer is req. 'red when a subdivision plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree preservation area. The plan does show some landscaping along Galpin Boulevard, but this need to be carried down to Lyman Boulevard. Plant materials need to be classified and appropriate financial security will be required. Half of the site is heavily forested. The area is a maturing forest that consists largely of Sugar Maple There are also some older Ironwoods and some Red Oaks. In walking the site with Alan Olsen, DNR Forester, it was felt that this area was a desirable forest area, due to the fact it is a maturing forest as opposed to a dying one. There is a significant amount of dead wood and damaged trees in the area. The DNR is recommending that the diseased, dead trees, and those trees that may be a hazard should be cleared from the site. The applicant is proposing to preserve the remaining trees by limiting grading to streets. The Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements state that it is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city, and with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivision and site plans: 1. To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas. 2. Healthy shade trees of six inches or more caliper at four feet in height shall be saved unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site. 3. Replacement of the tree approved for removalthe city may be required on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 6 4. During the tree removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines. 5. The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be saved. 6. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground foot print of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity. 7. Trees designated for preservation that are lost due to construction activity — shall be replaced by new compatible trees approved by the city. The city will require the developer to replace these trees with the largest comparable trees that are commercially available for transportation. 8. At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect designated tree preservation area. The staff is recommending that a conservation easement be established for this area. This would be accomplished by designating the conservation area on the plat and through financial guarantees to ensure that the integrity of the easement is maintained. A 20 foot front yard setback should be used to preserve as many of the trees in the rear yard as possible. Since we are unable to design this plat as a PUD, we are recommending that variances be granted on the front yard setback on those lots where tree preservation will be established. In addition, individual lots will be required to show the conservation easement on the plat. Staff is also recommending that a tree survey be submitted so that even those tress outside the conservation easement may be saved as much as possible (Attachment #3). GRADING/DRAINAGE The site consists of approximately one-half wooded and the other portion of the site is — farmed. The grading plans propose to grade only the westerly half of the site at this time. The remaining easterly part would be selectively graded as each individual home is constructed. This is similar to previous developments such as Shadowmere or Lundgren's - Near Mountain development. Individual grading plans shall be required with the building permit application for those lots that contain heavily wooded areas. Along the northerly property line lies tributaries to the Bluff Creek Watershed. Adjacent to these tributary streams, the proposed house pads will require substantial grading. For example, Lots 12 and 13, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 3, and Lot 8, Block 4 are questionable as to whether they should be built upon due to the slope and vegetation loss. Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 7 The drainage plan is a highly complex one due to the water quality improvement goals that have been established by the city. A preliminary review of the plans indicates the proposed ponds should exceed all storm water retention requirements due to the need for increased retention time to improve water quality. Natural drainage flows will remain undisturbed. Since the site flows into two watersheds, both Riley Purgatory and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts, they should be formally required to review and/or approve permits for the project. The grading plan also proposes construction of earth berms partially into and adjacent to County Road 19 (Galpin Boulevard) right-of-way. A recreation trail is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for County Road 19. The berms should be either moved further back to the east or reduced in size to eliminate any possible impact with the future trail considerations. The grading plan also proposes construction of two retention ponds, one in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to County Road 19 and the other in Block 6. The side slopes of the first pond encroach into the future right-of-way for both County Roads 18 and 19. The pond size should either be reduced or the pond moved further east to avoid conflicts with future road expansion on both County Roads 18 and 19. The existing ditch along County Road 19 adjacent to the pond should be fil -d to allow for overland drainage in to the pond. The ditch system of the pond outlet shoula remain to convey runoff from the pond. Storm sewers should be included in Timberwood Drive at County Road 19 to convey runoff from the ditch (upstream) of Timberwood Drive to the proposed pond. The site drains in two different watersheds. Each half of the site is handled in a different manner. Preliminary plans propose a series of storm sewer catch basins and manholes to convey storm runoff to two proposed ponds over the westerly portions of the site. The easterly half of the site proposes to drain via overland and through storm sewer systems to the east for future ponding of which the City is exploring with its Surface Water Utility consultant, Bonestroo. The plat submittal did not include any storm sewer calculations or ponding data; therefore we are unable to determine if adequate ponding or storm sewer sizing is being provided at this time. However, this can be addressed prior to final platting. As previously indicated in this report, the most westerly pond is encroaching into the future road right-of-way along County Roads 18 and 19. It is recommended that, if possible, this pond be reduced in size or relocated easterly to avoid conflict with future road expansion projects. The pond is being designed with the outlet to be constructed at the southerly end of the pond and the inlet at the northerly end. Whereas, the second pond is proposed in the middle of Block 6, the storm inlets and outlet location is undesirable due to the close proximity to each other. It is desirable, from a water quality standpoint, to locate the inlet and outlet structures at the opposite ends of the pond if possible. This allows time for filtration of sediments and nutrients prior to discharging downstream. It is recommended Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 8 that the storm sewer system be modified or the pond relocated and developed to meet requirements of the Walker pond design. The second pond also proposes an emergency overflow through the rear yards of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 6, eventually draining out to Forest Road. Staff recommends that the emergency overflow be amended to overflow between Lots 13 and 14 out onto Forest Road. Plans also propose maintaining an existing drainageway that runs parallel and adjacent to the railroad tracks in Block 5. Staff is concerned with the volume of water, although may be reduced from predevelopment volumes; however, from previous experiences, this is ongoing maintenance and somewhat of a safety issue for the city and adjacent homeowners. It is recommended that this area be explored for the possibility of storm sewer or temporary ponding basin across the back of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. The city's storm water consultant, Bonestroo, has been asked to review the possibility of an - off-site retention pond east of the property to serve future developments upstream. In summary, based on proposed contours it appears the ponds will provide adequate storage and nutrient capacity for the contributing areas. However, additional catch basins will be needed throughout the street system. Exact placement of the catch basins will be determined when storm calculations are provided. An additional ponding site is also needed downstream east of the development to handle untreated runoff generated by the easterly portion of the site (approximately 14 acres). Due to the site characteristics, steep slopes, and woods, staff feels it would be inappropriate to require any additional ponds in the wooded portion of Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6 and would recommend off-site permanent ponding. If permanent ponding is not achievable at this time, one option would be to construct temporary on-site ponding by utilizing existing drainageways or lots at the east end of Forest Road. The applicant will be responsible for contributing their portion of the costs associated with the construction of the future retention pond east of the development. This money will be used for purchasing property, construction, and design of the future retention ponds. Blocks 3 and 4 also contain drainageways along the rear portion of the lots. Although these areas are wooded, they will convey neighborhood drainage through the system. Appropriate drainage easements should be provided on the final plat. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is not available to the site. However, the city is currently holding a public hearing to extend trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to the area. Depending on the project scope and time frame, this project may or may not be able to be operational by October, 1992. The applicant is proposing to construct a portion of the municipal trunk facilities in conjunction with the overall site improvements. Specifically, the trunk sewer and watermains which will follow Forest Trail to Timberwood Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 9 Drive and out to County Road 19. The applicant may be given credit on the future trunk assessment for the cost of the oversizing of these mains which he is proposing to construct. For example, the applicant would be credited for the cost difference between a 12-inch sewer and water line versus an 8-inch sewer and water line. Municipal watermain is proposed throughout development. Staff recommends that the proposed 6-inch watermain along Forest Road be increased to an 8-inch watermain along with the section of Timberwood Drive north of Forest Trail to ensure adequate sizing for future extension into Timberwood Estates,unless the applicant provides a hydraulic analysis demonstrating sufficient fire flow during peak demands. The plans did not propose hydrant locations at this time. The applicant should prepare final plans with hydrant spacing approximately 300 feet apart in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Easements On the final plat, the following easements and right-of-way shall be indicated: 1. Dedication of all street right-of-way. 2. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas. 3. Utility easements over all sewer, water, and storm sewer lines located outside public right-of-way. 4. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas. 5. Standard drainage and utility easements. 6. Provide a conservation easement over all established wetland buffer areas. Park and Recreation The applicant has proposed dedicating 8.2 acres of property on the most northerly part of the site. This area is west of Timberwood subdivision and includes a sloped area overlooking the creek. Staff feels that this site would make a desirable park site, not only for the views of the creek bed, but it could also include some of the more active elements the Park Commission would like to include in a park for this area. On March 24, 1992, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed plat. After discussion,the Commission recommended that the City Council accept land dedication and trail construction on County Road 19 and along the north side of Lyman Boulevard, County Road 17. The Park Commission is recommending that the area for ix_-k dedication Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 10 in this subdivision be an area where there is some wooded area and the majority flat. The Commission wants this to be an active park, including ballfields, tennis courts, etc. and recommended against the applicant's proposal. Land for park dedication is based on the number of lots. By moving the location of the park to a portion of Blocks 2 and 3 (the site desired by the Park Commission), 10 lots would be eliminated; thus, reducing the amount of acreage required. Staff has shown a rendering of the new park location and how it would effect the old park location. The site to the north along the bluff would be a steep grade 30 feet, and may not be able to get sewer service (Attachment #3). Staff has serious reservations with the Park Commission's recommendations. We do not normally comment on their review but in this case we believe their recommendations to relocate the park is ill advised. With the developer's proposal, we have an opportunity to obtain an unique natural area that can also provide for most of the requested recreational — activities. The only questionable one is the ability to contain a ballfield. Under the Park Commission proposal, the natural area would be privately held and be in part, at the least, developed with homesites. In addition, the applicant is likely to try to minimize loss of lots by tightening up on lot areas elsewhere. In general, this will result in increased loss of trees due to the more extensive grading that is required. A 20 foot access to the proposed park is shown along the south side of the Timberwood subdivision. Staff is recommending that this easement be eliminated. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from A-2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family. There are two large lot homes to the north of this area zoned A-2. Timberwood Subdivision to the north and east is zoned RR, Rural Residential. The property is bordered on the south by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. The site to the south was recently rezoned PUD by Ryan Construction for the Chanhassen Business Center. The 2000 Land Use Plan show this area designated for development as Low Density — Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.7 units per acre and 2 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. This area is in the new MUSA area. The sewer service will be from the new Bluff Creek service area system. The feasibility for this sewer and timing is currently being discussed by the City Council. At the earliest, sewer could be available to this site would be late in the fall. Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 11 The applicant originally submitted a plan that showed larger lots in the wooded area and smaller lots in the farmed area. The lots in the fanned area averaged around 12,000 square feet, and for this proposal it would have to be approved as a PUD. Originally, staff felt that the larger lots in the wooded area would help preserve trees. We could also have actively used the PUD to adjust building •tbacks and street right-of-way to increase tree preservation. Lastly, the use of the i D would have located larger lots near Timberwood where they would serve as a transition. We would ask that the Planning Commission use this proposal to re-examine the issue. In discussion, with the Planning Commission about the smaller than 15,000 square foot i the PUD submittal was eliminated. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 19,890 105 192 30 Lot 2 16,380 105 182 30 Lot 3 16,380 95 182 30 Lot 4 15,930 90 170 30 Lot 5 15,000 90 165 30 Lot 6 15,000 90 165 30 40 Lot 7 15,750 90 165 30 40 Lot 8 15,550 95 195 30 40 Lot 9 17,550 95 195 30 Lot 10 15,750 90 175 30 Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer Lot 11 15,400 90 160 30 Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 12 Lot 12 15,000 95 165 30 Lot 13 19,380 80' 187 30 BLOCK 2 — Lot 1 23,850 110 245 30 Lot 2 18,690 90 207 30 Lot 3 17,320 100 192 30 Lot 4 16,620 95 175 30 Lot 5 15,300 90 170 30 — Lot 6 15,300 90 172 30 Lot 7 15,750 95 175 30 Lot 8 15,750 95 175 30 Lot 9 16,430 100 192 30 Lot 10 16,430 95 182 30 — Lot 11 15,080 90 167 30 Lot 12 17,060 260 170 30 — Lot 13 15,190 120 177 30 Lot 14 17,750 85* 192 30 Lot 15 15,350 140/100 142 30 Lot 16 16,430 85* 162 30 Lot 17 15,810 85* 177 30 — Lot 18 17,350 80* 162 30 Lot 19 15,000 90 165 30 Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland _ Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer Lot 20 15,000 90 165 30 — Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 13 Lot 21 15,030 90 165 30 Lot 22 16,200 90 180 30 Lot 23 18,680 90 207 30 Lot 24 27,780 110 252 30 BLOCK 3 Lot 1 25,890 110 265 20 90 70 Lot 2 23,100 120 287 20 90 110 Lot 3 20,310 135 265 20 90 70 Lot 4 19,800 90 230 20 90 50 Lot 5 17,550 90 205 20 90 80 Lot 6 16,830 90 187 20 90 Lot 7 16,380 90 182 20 90 Lot 8 15,040 110 172 20 90 Lot 9 16,430 180 187 20 100 Lot 10 15,000 140/110 140 30 Lot 11 15,250 100 152 20 90 Lot 12 17,210 90 180 20 90 Lot 13 23,560 85' 220 20 90 Lot 14 32,240 80' 282 20 90 170 Lot 15 43,240 80' 365 20 90 200 Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 14 Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer BLOCK 4 Lot 1 19,530 125/190 197 20 90 Lot 2 16,740 90 197 20 90 Lot 3 17,210 90 170 20 90 Lot 4 15,750 90 175 20 90 Lot 5 19,580 110 207 20 90 Lot 6 23,850 65/65 250 20 90 Lot 7 20,480 100 227 20 90 Lot 8 18,000 90 200 20 90 BLOCK 5 Lot 1 17,360 145 160 20 90 Lot 2 18,300 90 200 20 90 Lot 3 17,330 95 192 20 90 Lot 4 15,530 95 172 20 90 Lot 5 15,000 90 165 20 90 Lot 6 15,000 90 165 20 90 Lot 7 15,300 90 170 20 90 Lot 8 16,430 90 182 20 90 Lot 9 17,550 90 192 20 90 Lot 10 17,550 90 192 20 90 Lot 11 16,650 90 185 20 90 — Lot 12 15,570 90 172 20 90 Lot 13 15,000 90 165 20 90 Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 15 Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland Area width Depth Setback Easement Buffer Lot 14 15,000 90 167 20 90 Lot 15 16,200 95 180 20 90 Lot 16 18,0C. 95 197 20 90 Lot 17 18,900 90 207 20 90 Lot 18 18,000 90 205 20 90 Lot 19 18,000 90 197 20 90 Lot 20 24,020 80* 195 25 110 Lot 21 19,060 80* 180 30 120 Lot 22 15,000 90 165 30 Lot 23 15,530 90 172 30 = Lot 24 16,110 95 179 30 Lot 25 16,560 100 184 30 Lot 26 19,800 95 220 30 Lot 27 24,490 70* 212 30 Lot 28 22,470 65 192 30 Lot 29 24,950 85* 235 30 Lot 30 24,300 100 270 30 Lot 31 27,230 105 302 30 Lot 32 27,235 95 341 30 Lot 33 15,210 90 169 30 Lot 34 15,080 90 167 30 Lot 35 15,000 105 165 30 Stone Creek April 1, 1992 - Page 16 Lot 36 21,500 90 240 30 _ Lot 37 23,250 100 232 30 BLOCK 6 Lot 1 19,070 185/135 310 30 90 Lot 2 15,500 120 130 20 90 Lot 3 15,000 100 150 20 90 Lot 4 15,000 90 165 20 90 Lot 5 15,180 95 165 20 90 - Lot 6 15,000 90 165 20 90 Lot 7 15,030 90 167 20 90 Lot 8 15,300 90 170 20 90 Lot 9 15,030 90 167 20 90 Lot l0 15,000 90 165 20 90 Lot 11 15,000 90 165 20 90 Lot 12 15,000 90 165 20 90 Lot 13 15,970 90 157 30 Lot 14 17,520 85* 167 30 Lot 15 15,300 95 170 20 90 — Lot 16 16,380 100 182 20 90 Lot 17 17,100 105 190 20 90 Lot 18 16,830 105 187 20 90 Lot 19 16,380 95 182 20 90 Lot 20 15,750 90 175 20 90 Lot 21 17,100 110 190 20 90 Lot 22 18,250 115 182 20 90 Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 17 Lot 23 15,000 100 155 20 90 Lot 24 17,830 170 127 20 90 BLOCK 7 Lot 1 19,530 170/120 167 30 Lot 2 14,850" 90 165 30 Lot 3 17,120 90 192 30 Lot 4 22,500 100 250 30 Lot 5 30,590 105 315 30 Lot 6 15,930 100 177 30 Lot 7 17,360 220 155 30 Lot 8 19,350 95 215 30 Lot 9 20,930 90 132 30 Lot 10 24,300 90 170 30 Lot 11 24,030 100 280 30 Lot 12 20,150 110 305 30 Lot 13 20,770 110 280 30 Lot 14 20,150 90 235 30 Lot 15 16,380 90 182 30 Lot 16 19,570 95 217 30 Lot 17 24,530 100 272 30 Lot 18 29,610 100 305 30 Lot 19 24,080 95 267 30 Lot 20 17,510 120 205 30 Does not meet the standards of the zone Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 18 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The site contains two Class A wetlands according to the Department of Interior Wetland Inventory Map. The first wetland is approximately 38,700 square feet and in located in the northern portion of Block 3. The other one is located in Lot 5 of Block 5 and is approximately 2,945 square feet. The City Code requires a wetland alteration permit for any alteration to a Class A or Class B wetland and for any development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. Development of the subdivision will be within 200 feet of these wetlands. If the park is moved to the Block 3, location it would include this wetland. The Park Commission is recommending that no development occur in the wooded area. A problem that the city has experienced in the past with the protection of our wetlands is that the Wetland Ordinance requires a 75 foot setback for all structures from the edge of a wetland but does not prevent alteration up to the edge of wetland. Therefore, although a structure may have to be 75 feet from the edge of a wetland, the area between the structure and the wetland could be sodded, seeded, rocked, etc. Without a buffer strip, the wetland is exposed to direct impact from fertilizers used on the lawn, infringement of the wetland vegetation from mowing and maintaining the adjacent lawns. Both of these wetlands would fall into the tree conservation easement area, where no development is to occur. The staff is recommending a buffer strip be placed around all of the wetlands which will allow them to be maintained in their natural state. The buffer strip ranges in depth from 20 feet on Lot 5, Block 5 and 50 in width on Block 3 and Block 5 of Lot 5. It is still questionable if the homes on Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 have enough buildable area with the 75 foot wetland setback. This area will not be permitted to be altered. This strip is provided in addition to wetland setbacks that are established on a lot by lot basis. The preservation strip will further protect the wetland from fertilizers off the adjoining lawn and shall provide a natural area for wildlife. The preservation strip should also help with maintaining the distinct look of a wetland and preventing removal of vegetation and alteration to the wetland by residents in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is has prepared the recommendations of approval for this subdivision, wetland alteration permit and rezoning although the Commission may want to table this item based on the number of issues being raised. Wetland Alteration Permit Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 19 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-3 with the following conditions: 1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are stabilized. 2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table for each lot will be recorded as part of the Development Contract. The buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be preserved by an easement. 3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to the wetland and not during breeding season. 4. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers. 5. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91-9 and Rezoning #91- 2." REZONING Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 'The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #92-1 property A-2 to RSF 1. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The Development Contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table. 3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91-2 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92-3." PRELIMINARY PLAT Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #92-1 as shown on the plans dated March 2, 1992 and subject to the following conditions: Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 20 1. A tree conservation and wetland buffer easement shall be placed on the plat. All building site in the tree conservation or wetland buffer shall be shown on the build permit. 2. The development shall follow the standards in Subdivision Regulations 18-61 regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation. 3. The name "Forest" shall not be used for any of the streets. 4. Park land shall be dedicated, 5.62 acres of property, as recommended by the Park, Commission. 5. Twenty (20) foot front yard variances shall be granted to all homes that fall into the tree conservation area. 6. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Forest Road. In addition, a sign shall be installed on the barricades stating that the street (Forest Road) will be extended in the future. 7. The final plat shall be amended to include the revised street alignment of Stone Creek by eliminating access onto Galpin Boulevard and provide a cul-de-sac with an interconnecting street between Stone Creek and Timberwood Drive. 8. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed with the final plat over all utilities located outside of the public right-of-ways, along with standard easements over each lot. Timberwood Drive shall be constructed 36 feet wide gutter to gutter. 9. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. _ Watershed Districts, Health Department, MPCA. 10. Storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 11. A deceleration and acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall be provided along with a bypass turn lane on southbound County Road 19 to improve turning movements into the development. 12. Watermain pipe sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in diameter on Forest Road and that part of Timberwood Drive lying north of Forest Trail. Stone Creek April 1, 1992 Page 21 13. The storm sewer inlets and outlets should be located at opposite ends of the ponds to promote water quality. The emergency overflow for the pond in Block 6 should be re-graded so as to provide emergency overflow between Lots 13 and 14, B:ack 6 out t':. Forest Drive. A permit from the railroad (Twin City Western) will be requir;;d for any grading or construction activity within the railroad right-of-way. 14. Eliminate the ditch section and relocate or reduce the pond size adjacent to Galpin Boulevard so it is completely outside of the future right-of-v ,nd roadway improvements along County Roads 18 and 19. 15. Fire hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout to subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 16. The proposed earth berms along County Road 19 shall be reduced or relocated easterly to provide adequate room for future trail considerations. 17. All areas disturbed during site gradin: _ll be immediately restored with seri and disc-mulche:? or wood-fiber blanket :iin two weeks of site grading or before November 15, 1992 except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. All areas disturbed with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or wood-fiber blanket. 18. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance purposes to the proposed retention ponds. 19. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the 1992 edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates and shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for City approval. 20. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health and street access permits from Carver County Public Works. 21. The final plat should be contingent upon the City authorizing a public improvement project for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to the site. 22. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee construction of the improvements and payment of any pending assessments. 23. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvements they may install as a part of their overall site improvements. The credit will be applied Stone Creek — April 1, 1992 Page 22 towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements. The credit amount will be determined as the difference between a standard lateral pipe size (8-inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvements which are 12 _ inches in diameter. 24. The applicant/builder shall provide at the time of building permit application a tree — removal and grading permit for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 1 through 15, Block 3, Lots 1 through 8, Block 4, Lots 1 through 20, Block 5, and Lots 1 through 12 and 15 through 24, Block 6. — 25. The applicant shall explore the possibility of conveying backyard drainage form Block 5 into the development storm sewer system.Drainage — 26. The outlot along County Road 19, Galpin Blvd needs to replatted with another lot." ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of Conservation and Wetland Easements. — 2. Map of revised street and park location. 3. Map of Non-Conforming Lots. 4. Letter from Dave Hempel dated March 26, 1992. — 5. Letter from Todd Hoffman dated March 27, 1992. 6. Letter from Mark Littfin dated March 4, 1992. 7. Letter from Steve Kirchman dated March 13, 1992. — 8. Preliminary plat. :! 44 W :r : "X .i. ,.. �/"Y, '? • 1 .Th` 4f �Y y O`Ili x•27.1, '1 F._ ..t, ,, ....4 ) `` .''-' 't i!i:i- i ' 'i 'yi ��1 ;<.i' s2$ 1 cW2 � l 'e qt ,,i� o''i a ki WZ St 41•t:... .?;., WQ //M' M rq+W3 E0t-1 F$ ai; t ii v.a rs y ` 1 It 3 w$illleAllt CYBtIe`w•i!ri SI is,,sa a _„ t o.ru--. •.ori j__ -4r rrr Ic... --\,,, -..‹'-- . ..1. ill ..-,.. 3 _ i ;d i s, -...--1 � F Y,• ‘ `Nip_ �; - 'ti % i rt ' t .?.i k �l . ri,:. N..,• r-. .... ' ..s t N.- tt,,,;•,...? 14 (-. . . _ ' - -1 ''1. ',.- iti4c* • ( ,,, .„, . 1 '. ... .4.-! C ..b s L- � ►� rs ‘• pti• t 3t .,-.:-.. ..t. ; i ,.„., ; \, c-,.. .. ,,,:...;‘,. .i......:.).....„ , ...s.„\::::.et. L___. . . ..____ ...., • 1.: 4 , , isc... . .. .....,, \\„, .. , ,_..: . , ..---\• a,. .:_, , h y � . X13 ,j'qi -si :- '; •: ',1- ' 2 . '":‘,-;.4';'.1.1 N‘,.. 1417' '.\-. Will.,.. oak v�f`y l `; _ .a !' to ILV'� '• ^z . _ •� , •---o,ttr•--- ! ---•\r asks -S'r..V. {�-.':, ' C" _ • ) .Y \ ' ' �"+;.. • C it ('l ri -:, _ _ ,..4A• .ay�� ', :I -Y --,,��\\ �VV�\/' ` U ` ��(� r j r L� - ��``1 _ tom' , =N = �tz ▪ • j- y�Y• i.••rc-P•!. -L- ,t',..._.,,_1,-'-(49'„/A--,-12:::-.. 'r r i �v .fes'rt..' � �`1i'// �6!" r •: ` lir.i ','' _ r'. -rr,,-,:k c '„t. ,•F�• -_��A 1t1.•\_1`_.r// 1b.1 C. Li rr- 0./1,-_-,-,-,,, /_ -1 ' t� . / \t., •\t•. V1 F .r . 1�,`V ;.;414*. , --1"." t L� J.. L. ..4 '/`\ L.__1 1— --- �� i Y Ps' / -- 'It `'` ` M+I ,r R•�:. �\ I � �? `tib � � L_ \ :/A. �- J L�, t ic.• ; \ :,� _>•- u, r - : r R •;: ,�'. �' Ali • ,. •r [ -x .• .ac rte. .. �:.. '`: -- a_,- 1,, �fir`;;;4-.VC- s- \ .� -s..`•.:_4!7 tj-i W }`,1, t1 1' - a `��"•: •k ��tr s.s� r , �+ ,, r ;J N J; I r` i1 �: 1- '.r��'i y t - :s f ; k;,• 2j '^.r / s i I ,; f 1'r*L i-'..�` I' *N.3 `-Ly- '- 1�::" ., �) I . I'' 1 2' 11. I r, F<' • + •- .,. x 7, it +�.. Vy_- .L.:-., fes ROTO . lL.' / r, - r •r �r'toc 31 / - �4 ( L i{vo t ��FhK r .S.17. ��Ly /• e:. i :/ -' �__•==-- .. '. :.I'1 tib'i---; 14 t% ., `1,'-� Vii. .., -T- -� `�,.•; CJ • ,- . - _ 10 ' r ;rl ,r .�,' /l'':_+�yhk'<i t' .� i .� r'.� w 1 y''' 6,rU /r U.;O of '*` '%r9 `�;.;'�.. arierr _.- -.� ♦,LK:'.J I'�i_rr^.: ?•.L�� r J� -••;`1�' • ' t i,�-"tY .Y .:•'i ?� .•�_.r„{. uo. �^i• %�' ."---...‘0„,.. Sl0 �4�»Lb rrlr°`�...�_' /'.'•: '/"., s • '�e�... ::.�=a;_ ,_r• =C(tUyCti �=��^scw� pt wlw '�, ;� ,•. ,t, t • • • .12 r••-•••-•-•\ .- a v .rY f s s I .j,.l_- Ts. Z.2 -i. 0 7.005 . d 7. • r, ['11 ••t'- a il � i i c 1; a W>i, ° ,i, � ' . `J •I ' thll Y 1 '�` • Cv V.7:-.-1.-- . ... 1_-;_?a F,, y'`'am D Wog • r.•r//4r :M 84,-,,,2 `f .�• �3 ; 3�I r♦.w • 2 3 �� ri ?a33mCFidpeh�� Clt��e k ).d. P...2 v ti Ciii Sf C Q'+ t. ii r YC� .k I Oa_____`�.•jV l .r`• ' ii .4 .t ri ▪ __ , ;y 1_ \J 1� %% wy ,•i •. 4: y V I �i 22.34 r: N ' r`ter\` ` '+ '•'\‘ C.•'I�i_ a±o V ........^.-' A d � 6 � • i• �.,•• ...,,,, ••• � y .„.____:,,,:,.,..z fs. a " 'r►\ ' ♦ o . ( ^ •T cz ,_.__,r--• Au., !i i ` '''''..:)*!Xe"-( N...."'\ <4,..„.00, - •-. 1 . ,. ..,.y ) \'\ \`Y\ ••\••,•." \ \.' 5 l- `- c• iqq ` .Lam. �'�\; r•-%+. ,',ak •y.\ , - „ 44 _ 6. 1 %�" \ r �3 .,.\ -os a/.-:.- • '�,\ ;/ v`•�ik:/j]� 1.y Z♦\ • •'''"••.) y-�.`{�i'."'• .--.. �`�� ` .•.may\ �. T ,, �11_� 1 - :;�� M\i�'i.•.�`�,:;- r • - •• fes - t ,�,/ � •� • • Y ' L ` a� �� \ ` _ � ..�...a nom, ,fir . /. 's,a=n j� • � I I -2._ '�\ .444 „`I \\\• \. .0,'"3"' r.. a :.--- 4y \ s L Y f . .o., Ai..7... � '`� JNW `�Z ± : _, _ .i 1.1 ,...z-.......:,,,, - `la •747:•:-T---..':'t.:1.7.-\! ..\'1.2...- • 'o+�_, 110 lig rig .. AOAO.. ��.V�L // / rt �',"K- b'::5_� a yI� lagit i - ` 'r ^`tea •` 1%.,. �� .s..- r/.' S�a "/%a_ • 4. r yG ~ ♦� ' 1 �.l '.,j 11`',-.:-"v � `� • ::: ' f.'` .J . ', ss rs \ ,/- 'a �• '../...„ 1... �tS!•- .:t'T �4▪ (\ � J• •11 a_e • ' ic 11. jv yy A s�� c'• +1\ - ?� .J (;UU\'l�`-�/'f �.)�. k'°'/ Pe o4\ Iv/J'(,;��: I`.�.':, t • ii i a \ \ ^ Di . t .&- et i '! 1,...• • ~ 1 ei bR itZx' l •{,+. ...•1 1 er , t � p `!,, Y -� ,� e ° i3 e -, •.:..11:semI+ -Al + I + A b• •iIj1°: .?11. z2� `st4"; • ><IS� r oaf iY t� h r l' cwry3 .N yarq �� Z *-+33�; ZC(2atie.•`, Z, t Wzy� • j-y• .,.w2 . it 3 A .i v -- �: r,K✓t , V..t, a ..scc--.+„ytM W '0 Fri ' ' 7_6')' �� `A s,. Ql ''t .' `1 4 '' .. z u c ,Q vw � C_tri '".� ` \+ '.^ 2 u y t� O 22Ji .tet t.'"� `\ .‘7..s., ,..,;.. ... ., ,,-, ,‘ 1 k 1 [ ... C . . 4, t, ..•‘...j. 1:,1.......1/4.._,...1.‹.\..,,,,. .s, .‹.,--. 2') . ..; f F .,:i„ ,/1 - - , [ . ,i i 3 \'yam”. ' :�' '=.\. •......' + s. /!�/ . j • a��l '� L��_1'=1.ki i • • .mss �C`1//° L--J r ..{ 'a_`,4� 1�1'L «' 1`. < •: ; . ssk .,• `�\•\1VC•t. - I�,+i citw. s;., n`J�', r -..,'I r(��` .1.,i••.-,,,/:�� '-\ L. �e \ I u+- j r',"'1' \ '4 `1 , t \ n�� 1 > ,.- '_! E- E� �-`-I SIJ y t _ l I - J)i 1g. \\ \�� +..�N.d'.:`-�• c, `•::y 1 •��,.(/ t- • 1,1 1 1-�•�i�• bti 1 / // �. \ .l 1 1 7 Y.i��+,� !� /� {� •,'`11 1.� •. -! s- .J'1 R 5 y: ['- e=" ?-I Imo; •, •t --.,_ �_.: :- - ! ��\_1- •� !U ... •1/4_:�. �;-�? .-1y N. t.•.`,C, 2,• . 7t 1; 1• •i!~,• •~• �/ N- )t� ;•,�� / �� Win. _� s. .... t•om.,/ 4 f • V I ('•ais _ i. '"- •••)• , r : _.`�[ �:' 1V T_-Nn�,��.- i. l i` - 'tial ' ,'.^� :'.21€2.-: -,�• ,_ ret. ;n..y.-r--,....s• ... i r_ �.._s ��...'% %v.•••'•, i - _1 ` -y- S: CUu`1� '4"i% � ; ! 7- r m =T''_ re— 1 CITY OF . ClIANBASSEN _ II*: Alltr, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II /dg FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician J DATE: March 26, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Stone Creek File No. 92-7 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. dated February 27 , 1992 , I offer the following comments: SITE GRADING The site consists of approximately 50% wooded areas and the other 50% agriculture use. The grading plans proposes to grade only the westerly half of the site at this time. The remaining easterly part would be selectively graded as each individual home is constructed. This is similar to previous developments such as Shadowmere or Lundgren' s Near Mountain developments. Individual grading plans should be required with the building permit application for those lots that contain heavily wooded areas. Along the northerly property line lies tributaries to the Bluff Creek watershed. Adjacent to these tributary streams, the proposed house pads will require substantial grading. For example, Lots 12 and 13 , Block 1 ; Lot 1, Block 3 ; and Lot 8, Block 4 . These lots are even questionable as to whether they should be built upon due to the slope characteristics and vegetation loss. The grading plan also proposes construction of earth berms partially into and adjacent to County Road 19 (Galpin Blvd. ) right- of-way. I believe the City is intending on constructing a trail system along the easterly side of County Road 19 in the future. It is recommended that these berms be either moved further back to the east or reduced in size to eliminate any possible impact with the future trail considerations. The grading plan also proposes constructing two retention ponds, one in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to County Road 19 Aft t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson March 26, 1992 Page 2 and the other in Block 6. The side slopes of the first pond encroach into the future right-of-way for both County Roads 18 and 19. The pond size should either be reduced or the pond moved further east to avoid conflicts with future road expansion on both County Roads 18 and 19 . The existing ditch along County Road 19 adjacent to the pond should be filled to allow for overland drainage into the pond. The ditch system south of the pond outlet should remain to convey runoff from the pond. Storm sewers should also be included in Timberwood Drive at County Road 19 to convey runoff from the ditch north (upstream) of Timberwood Drive to the proposed pond. STREETS The plat proposes construction and extension of Timberwood Drive from Timberwood Estates subdivision which lies directly north of the site to Galpin Boulevard. The street will be the main thoroughfare of the subdivision as well as a secondary street connection for Timberwood Estates which is built to rural road standards. With the anticipated volume of traffic, staff classifies Timberwood Drive as a residential collector-type street. The right-of-way is proposed at 60 feet which is the City standard. Staff recommends that the street section be extended from the typical 31-foot wide street to a 36-foot wide street (gutter to gutter) similar to the Lake Susan Hills development. The remaining streets may be the City' s standard 31-foot wide back-to-back street section. Street grades are not provided on the plans; however, based on contours, it appears street grades will be under the 7% maximum grade per City ordinance. The preliminary plat proposes two street access points onto County Road 19 . The major entrance, Timberwood Drive, is to be located approximately 650 feet north of County Road 18 and the second entrance, Stone Creek, approximately 550 feet north of the first entrance. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, County Road 19 is classified as a minor arterial Class II roadway which recommends a total of 100 feet of right-of-way. Right-of-way along County Road 19 currently is 66 fee wide, 33 on each side of the centerline. The preliminary plat proposes dedication of an additional 17 feet to arrive at one-half of the necessary recommended right-of-way width (50 ft) . Since County Road 19 is classified as a minor arterial street, according to City design standards street access should be at intervals of not less than 1/4 mile from existing and established crossroads. Staff recommends granting the main entrance (Timberwood Drive) to the development but recommends deletion of the northi ly entrance (Stone Creek) into the development. Comments received from Mr. Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer also concurred with staff ' s Kate Aanenson March 26, 1992 Page 3 recommendation on limiting access to Timberwood Drive onto County Road 19 and providing, at a minimum, acceleration and deceleration lanes on northbound Galpin Boulevard. Final roadway improvements along Galpin Boulevard will be addressed by Carver County Public Works with the access permit. The plat also proposes a future street connection at the easterly end of the plat. A temporary cul-de-sac should be constructed at this location until the road can be extended in the future. A sign should be placed on the barricades indicating the street will be extended in the future. DRAINAGE Preliminary plans propose a series of storm sewer catch basins and manholes to convey storm runoff to two proposed ponds over the westerly portions of the site. The easterly half of the site proposes to drain via overland and through storm sewer systems to the east for future ponding of which the City is exploring with its Surface Water Utility consultant, Bonestroo. The plat submittal did not include any storm sewer calculations or ponding data; therefore, we are unable to determine if adequate ponding or storm sewer sizing is being provided at this time. However, this can be addressed prior to final platting. As previously indicated in this report, the most westerly pond is encroaching into the future road right-of-way along County Roads 18 and 19 . It is recommended that, if possible, this pond be reduced insize or relocated easterly to avoid conflict with future road expansion projects. The pond is being designed with the outlet to be constructed at the southerly end of the pond and the inlet the northerly end. Whereas, the second pond proposed in the middle of Block 6, the storm inlets and outlet location is undesirable due to the close proximity to each other. It is desirable from a water quality standpoint to locate the inlet and outlet structures at the opposite ends of the pond if possible. This allows time for filtration of sediments and nutrients prior to discharging downstream. It is recommended that the storm sewer system be modified or the pond relocated and developed to meet requirements of the walker pond design. This second pond also proposes an emergency overflow through the rear yards of Lots 13 , 14 and 15, Block 6 eventually draining out to Forest Road. Staff recommends that the emergency overflow be amended to overflow between Lots 13 and 14 out onto Forest Road. Plans also propose maintaining an existing drainageway that runs parallel and adjacent to the railroad tracks in Block 5. Staff is Kate Aanenson March 26, 1992 Page 4 concerned with the volume of water although may be reduced from predevelopment volumes; however, from previous experiences, this is ongoing maintenance and somewhat of a safety issue for the City and adjacent homeowners. It is recommended that this area be explored for the possibility of storm sewer or temporary ponding basin across the back of Lots 4 , 5 a; .1 6, Block 5. The City 's storm water consultant, Bonestroo, has been asked to review the possibility of an off-site retention pond east of the property to serve future developments upstream. In summary, based on proposed contours it appears the ponds will provide adequate storage and nutrient capacity for the contributing areas. However, additional catch basins will be needed throughout the street system. Exact placement of the catch basins will be determined when storm calculations are provided. An additional ponding site is also needed downstream east of the development to handle untreated runoff generated by the easterly portion of the site (approximately 14 acres) . Due to the site characteristics, steep slopes and woods, staff feels it would be inappropriate to require any additional ponds in the wooded portion of Blocks 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 and would recommend off-site permanent ponding. If permanent ponding is not achievable at this time, one option would be to construct temporary on-site ponding by utilizing existing drainageways or lots at the east end of Forest Road. The applicant will be responsible for contributing their portion of the costs associated with the construction of the future retention pond east of the development. This money will be used for purchasing property, construction and design of the future retention ponds. Blocks 3 and 4 also contain drainageways along the rear portion of the lots. Although these areas are wooded, they will convey neighborhood drainage through the system. Appropriate drainage easements should be provided on the final plat. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service currently is not available to the site. However, the Ci` is currently holding a public hearing to extend trunk sanitary s_ .'er and water facilities to the area. Depending on the project scope and timeframe, this project may or may not be able to be operational by October, 1992 . The applicant is proposing to construct a portion of the municipal trunk facilities in conjunction with the overall site improvements. Specifically, the trunk sewer and watermains which will follow Forest Trail to Timberwood Drive and out to County Road 19 . The applicant may be given credit on the future trunk assessment for the cost of the oversizing of these mains of which he is proposing to construct. For example, the applicant would be credited for the Kate Aanenson March 26, 1992 Page 5 cost difference between a 12-inch sewer and water line versus an 8- inch sewer and water line. Municipal watermain is proposed throughout development. Staff recommends that the proposed 6-inch watermain along Forest Road be increased to an 8-inch watermain along with the section of Timberwood Drive north of Forest Trail to insure adequate sizing for future extension into Timberwood Estates unless the applicant provides a hydraulic analysis demonstrating sufficient fire flow during peak demands . The plans did not propose hydrant locations at this time. The applicant should prepare final plans with hydrant spacing approximately 300 feet apart in accordance with the Fire Marshal ' s recommendations. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Forest Road. In addition, a sign shall be installed on the barricades stating that the street (Forest Road) will be extended in the future. 2 . The final plat shall be amended to include the revised street alignment of Stone Creek by eliminating access onto Galpin Boulevard and provide a cul-de-sac with an interconnecting street between Stone Creek and Timberwood Drive. 3 . The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed with the final plat over all utilities located outside of the public right-of-ways. 4 . The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed, Health Department, MPCA and Carver County Highway Department. 5. Storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval . 6. A deceleration and acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall be provided to improve turning movements into the development. Roadway improvements along County Road 19 shall be constructed in accordance to Carver County Highway Department. Kate Aanenson March 26, 1992 Page 6 7 . Watermain pipe sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in diameter on Forest Road and that part of Timberwood Drive lying north of Forest Trail . 8 . The storm sewer inlets and outlets should be located at opposite erds of the ponds to promote water quality. 9. The emergency overflow for zhe pond in Block 6 should be re- graded so as to provide emergency overflow between Lots 13 and 14 , Block 6 out to Forest Drive. 10. A permit from the railroad (Twin City Western) will be required for any grading or construction activity within the railroad right-of-way. 11. Eliminate the ditch section and relocate or reduce the pond size adjacent to Galpin Boulevard so it is completely outside of the future right-of-way and roadway improvements along County Roads 18 and 19. 12 . Fir( hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart thrc _ghout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal ' s recommendations. 13 . The proposed earth berms along County Road 19 shall be reduced or relocated easterly to provide adequate room for future trail considerations. 14 . All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of site grading or before November 15, 1992 except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. All areas d; -turbed with a slope of 3 : 1 or greater must be restored wit.i sod or wood-fiber blanket. 15. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance purposes to the proposed retention ponds. 16. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the 1992 edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates and shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for City approval . 17 . The final plat should be contingent upon the City authorizing a public improvement project for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to the site. Kate Aanenson March 26, 1992 Page 7 18 . As a condition of final plat approval , the applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee construction of the improvements and payment of any pending assessments. 19. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvements they may install as a part of their overall site improvements. The credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements. The credit amount will be determined as the difference between a standard lateral pipe size (8-inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvements which are 12 inches in diameter. 20. The applicant/builder shall provide at the time of building permit application a tree removal and grading permit for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 1 through 15, Block 3 , Lots 1 through 8 , Block 4 , Lots 1 through 20, Block 5, and Lots 1 through 12 and 15 through 24 , Block 6. 21. Timberwood Drive shall be constructed 36 feet wide gutter to gutter. 22 . The applicant shall explore the possibility of conveying backyard drainage form Block 5 into the development storm sewer system. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 114 K ( t�/, Vilc C 1/ER CRL1 COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH SIRE ET • PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .PHASKA,MINNES TA 318 (612) 448 1213 ' v,Lso COUNTY OF CAQVEQ March 3 , 1992 To: Kate Aanenson, Chanhassen Planner From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer Subject : Preliminary Plat Stone Creek Comments regarding the Stone Creek Preliminary Plat dated 2-27-92 and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated 3-2-92 are: 1 . Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II ) are : Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100 ' 110 ' 120 ' 150 ' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100 ' 120 ' 140 ' 170 ' Both County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 and CSAH 19 are functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II ) roadways in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Preservatio- of adequate corridors for the future upgrading of both CSAH 18 anz 19 is an important consideration . The Year 2010 projected average daily traffic volumes for CSAH 18 and CSAH 19 are a: :roximately 14 , 000 and 8, 000 vehicles , respectively, adjacent to the proposed development site as documented in the Eastern Carver County — Transportation Study. This volume of traffic does not represent full development within the general service area of these county highways . Ultimate traffic volumes on CSAH 18 and CSAH 19 very probably will be in excess of the Year 2010 projections . Therefore, I recommend a minimum width of 120 feet .oe preserved for CSAH 18 to accommodate the construction of a 4-lane urban undivided highway, and a minimum width of 100 feet be preserved — for CSAH 19 to accommodate the construction of either a 2-lane or 4-lane urban undivided highway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridors along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additic - 1 width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and _ndscaping. Affinnatnr Actiin/Equal opporainir, &nploler Printed on Reared Paper Page 2 Stone Creek Preliminary Plat _ March 3 , 1992 2 . It is the preference of the county highway department that only Timberwood Drive intersect CSAH 19 . Desirable access control along CSAH 19 is to have "Collector" intersection spacing of 1/4 to 1/2 mile with no "Local" intersections . It appears that Timberwood Drive is a "Collector" roadway and Stone Creek Road is a "Local " roadway. The city and the developer are urged to — consider looping Stone Creek Road with a short cul-de-sac to the west or converting Stone Creek Road to a cul-de-sac . Discussion with the city and the developer about the Stone Creek Road intersection is requested. — 3 . Construction of the proposed street intersections with CSAH 19 is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. The county highway department will not consider approving the locations of the proposed intersections until detailed sight distance analyses have been prepared by the developer ' s traffic engineer for both proposed intersections and submitted to the — county for review. The engineer is directed to Section 5 . 2 of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Design Manual . Particular sight distance concerns are: * Left turn movements from the intersecting streets onto CSAH 19 * Left turn movements from a south-bound, stopped condition along CSAH 19 onto both of the intersecting streets . The city is asked to inform the developer that, most certainly, the county highway department will require the construction of — right-turn lanes along CSAH 19 at the proposed intersections . Further, the county highway department may deem it appropriate that the developer and/or the city invest additional dollars in _ any modifications determined to be needed to safely and adequately accommodate traffic at one or both of the proposed intersection locations . These modifications may include reconstructing a portion of CSAH 19 to improve sight distances and/or adding south- bound bypass lanes at one or both of the proposed intersections . 4 . It is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed — within the CSAH 18 and CSAR 19 rights-of-way. Any such installations ' are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 5 . Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the rights-of-way of CSAH 18 and CSAH 19 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. Page 3 Stone Creek Preliminary Plat March 3, 1992 6. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway rights-of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right- of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer ' s agreement that• requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway rights-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will, in my opinion, result in fewer project over- sight problems for both the county and the city. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for this proposed subdivision. highway. 103 CITY of _ CHANHASSEN _ 01141 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — • MEMORANDUM DATE (mm/dd/yy) : /: : .- 9 : — TO: atr: Ae:.c.._ _ .- TITLE/TO: );Tanner — THROUGH: TITLE/THROUGH: FROM: . .. ti: : :: c- .::.-,:-. I<- TITLE/FROM: Building Official _ , SUBJECT: : _ _..-.i: Case : Rezone & 92-1 SUE ( Stor.o Creek ) T": a • --:.'. :...00..._f indicate on the grading plan the types ) of dwelling per:,.: ::e ' ch each _ :_ . The deE ignated type of dwelling should conform to the :c :: :._ : _ ar-_ v€-.. grading plan . The lowest floor elevation and — t.. � - - _ . e: evat. icn for each d .€-l1 ing sh.c•1 d also be indicated on t-he ;r:-.f.2.: -n . : -2(lli : _ ty. F dezicnations should be : .. -Ra:^t.ier -z : ': d __ — t%: 4:.._ 0 LZ S::lit Entry :•E.w-: 'p1 :: Entry Walk Out — • ILO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY TF 111111rCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 4 , 1992 SUBJ: Planning Case #92-2 Rezone and 192-1 SUB (Hans Hagen) 1 . Fire hydrants shall be spaced at 300 ' intervals. Please indicate on utility plan for approval. 2 . 10 ' clear space around fire hydrants pursuant to city ordinance. 3 . The name "Forest Road" and " Forest Trail" cannot be used. We already have a "Forest Avenue" , "Forest Circle" and "Forest Ridge Circle" . Have developer submit new names for Public Safety approval. 4 . Have developer provide a fire department approved turn-around on the east end of Forest Road, pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.207 (h) . O PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY O F PC DATE: 4/1/92 csANHAssEN CC DATE: 4/27/92 CASE #: 92-4 SUB B Olsen:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: a) Preliminary plat to subdivide 9 Acres in 17 Single Family Lots - Ithilien b) Wetland Alteration Permit to Alter a Class B Wetland — LOCATION: Southwest corner of Lilac and Teton Lane V 7)u,A- J APPLICANT: Hilloway Corporation Q 16455 Ringer Road y_ / Wayzata, MN 55391 • ; PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 9 acres DENSITY: 2.7 units/acre (net-does not include street ROW or wetland) 1.9 units/acre (gross) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Shorewood; single family Q s _ RSF; single family E - RSF; single family W - RSF; single family NE Corner of Site - Existing single family W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a Class B wetland. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential l sc ) O O O 0 00 0 _ O 0 g o Uo o o 0 o$ Ie+ a ' • iIT �I 1 ' , , CHR/ TMA / • �: LAKE elepT II tiFivulirallillI71. �- `, crs. 'I II � ASNTO �' �lleali%----7-- glIPP � 11 -1410-40114 arla :cam 1i��eiv.aialri 0 a• gpokni,___KE liktra - mivirt, _---JP-111 1Wawfma IP it - -46. 1Ls ott ffi_r inky r a* gtga 4sititirigrrimiN) A • & i •ivrA Malt iiiblErt tiZeCtft7:4. - bilill ,rior.- Z 0/1111 Alf 7_ �Ws�r- .r I li � � .- 19 -'. - 1 144. -- /e; Ilk 1111 riPa ili 4CCIE C• .., 11.11. -, 011( rl tt ad, diklii ' :4‘''4141aa i 11-4 ' ...gf gt ! i i I i L •.. ). VAIRSTel millg Ma ._ cl ...11•,1111•■ .'.` -, 1311 'ima.al j, SMErEN00 Q my 1 :, C AVER 8 . Jc DSR PLAYGROUND i-mlg illIV,.. . 1%11.1,si KFgl. CS III L A . I ►-1�i tom- - � -�' ,imi C 11�_� . '�'( - FA% Km P' •It ed IC 4 MP • WA a% — \ ,7- „,s. 0, 1,-...... „. . G t a 1E---7 lel:* k'k. \ , , \) t 4 I i ., . a LAKE LUCY ��a" : sy,;• :; - x :IiiIrsap !-- _ w 4U1111IIp 0 __ .- C • --- i i �• •• '! • -.;* ! , 71W RE • • '!„+•, r SHORES 1:-, WI 711'111M NEV11111 xl 7 - -ARK cc- TIP;1"...-=1 7 7'di. , - . • *41 •1 E _ . _ 4 } • GRE§grC�o � y s� � ` LAKE ANNits irekNo RD , A ' ) i we -- \ , ........ 104" is Fe R4ll.ft-:,estighp ., I A ler - . ,ASS Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to divide a 9 acre parcel into 17 single family lots. The lots would each be serviced by a new public cul-de-sac that would extend west from Teton Lane. This site is zoned RSF, and the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Comprehensive Plan. While there is extensive history concerning this parcel and surrounding area, the platting that is currently proposed is relatively simple. Essentially, all lots meet or exceed ordinance and subdivision requirements, although minor alterations are required to three lots to correct small deviations from City Code. Staff believes these changes can be accommodated without the need to significantly revise the plat, and that no variances will be required to support the proposal. Utilities are available near the southwest corner of the property and can be extended to serve each of the home sites. A small poor quality Class B wetland is located in the southeast corner of the site near Teton Lane and Ashton Court. In addition to the platting request, a wetland alteration permit has also been offered for consideration. Plans for the wetland have been prepared by Barr Engineering and are very well developed. A portion of the wetland will be shifted further to the southeast; however, significant improvements in quality and function of the wetland are being offered. Plans call for converting the wetland from a poor quality wet meadow to a shallow water marsh, increasing the diversity of wildlife habitat. In addition, plans include provisions for a NURP pond that will pretreat water prior to entering into the wetland and remove nutrients and other sediment. Access to the site is likely to be the primary issue of concern. The background concerning this parcel is explained more fully in the text of the report. When Curry Farms to the south was approved, residents in the vicinity of Teton Lane objected to the use of Teton Lane to provide access to Curry Farms. Assertions were made regarding the fact that it was their belief this area would never develop and ultimately, the City Council approved provisions for a temporary barricade on Teton Lane. Residents from Curry Farms have appealed to the City Council in the past to have the barricade removed so that access into their neighborhood would be improved and school buses could service their homes, which are otherwise located on a deadend street. In addition, our Fire Department has had difficulty in responding to calls in the area, due to the location of the barricade. It is staffs belief that with this proposed plat, the questions of upgrading Teton Lane and the related question of removing the barricade must be again considered. The applicants have requested a feasibility study which is was approved by the Council and is currently in process and this document will ultimately allow for the determination of final design of Teton Lane. Staff continues to recommend that the Council consider removal of the barricade to improve access and safety in this area. Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 3 On Tuesday, March 26, 1992, the applicants held a meeting to describe the project to area — residents. Staff is recommending that the preliminary plat for Ithilien be approved without variances subject to appropriate conditions. Staff is also recommending that the related action for the wetland alteration permit be approved. BACKGROUND In 1987, the City Council reviewed and approved the subdivision for Curry Farms located south of the proposed site. One of the major issues of the subdivision was whether or not to improve Teton Lane to public street standards and to allow Curry Farms to connect to Teton Lane for secondary access. Teton Lane could provide an alternative access to Powers Boulevard via Lilac Lane. After much study, including a feasibility study and neighborhood meetings, the City Council decided to barricade Teton Lane to not allow flow through traffic to or from Curry Farms and to maintain Teton Lane for access only with two existing residences. One of the opponents to improving Teton Lane was James Donovan, who has now since sold the subject property to developers for development. Area residents, including Mr. Donovan, who protested against the Teton Lane connection, stated that they had no plans to develop their property. Also, since that time, several Curry Farm residents have indicated a desire to have the Teton Lane connection re-established (Attachment #1). On August 13, 1990, the City Council approved a metes and bounds subdivision request to subdivide the subject parcel (a 10 acre parcel) into two lots owned by James Donovan (Attachment #2). The metes and bounds subdivision split off a one acre parcel, now located in the northeast corner of the subject site, from the remaining 9 acre parcel. The metes and bounds subdivision was approved with the following conditions: 1. The City of Shorewood shall review the proposed subdivision. 2. The applicant shall provide right-of-way along Teton and Lilac Lane to maintain a full 50 foot street right-of-way. 3. If a future building permit is applied for Parcel B (the 9 acre parcel), it shall be contingent upon connecting into city sewer and water located on Lilac Lane. 4. The applicant shall provide typical drainage and utility easements along the external and internal lot lines of Parcel A and B. Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 4 5. The 1000 foot elevation located in the southeast corner of Parcel B will be protected by a drainage easement and designated as a protected wetland. 6. The shed and garage on Parcel B shall either be removed or relocated onto Parcel A where they meet the required setbacks. If relocation is not completed prior to requesting filing of the metes and bounds subdivision, a $1,000 financial guarantee should be provided to the city. 7. Park dedication fees shall be paid at the time a building permit application is requested for Parcel B. The following condition was recommended by staff and the Planning Commission to the City Council but was deleted as a condition of approval by the City Council: If further development or land division is proposed for these two newly created parcels, or if access is desired on Teton Lane, it is recommended that a full street and utility improvement project be conducted for Teton Lane and also the barricade to Teton Lane should be improved. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 9 acres into 17 single family lots. The 17 lots are proposed to be serviced by an internal cul-de-sac off of Teton Lane. There will be no direct access onto either Teton or Lilac Lane. The average lot area is 16,247 square feet (excluding the wetland area). The lot areas range from 22,800 square feet to 15,000 square feet (excluding the wetland area). All of the lots except Lots 4 and 6 meet the ordinance requirements. Lots 4 and 6 must have 90 feet of frontage at the 30 foot front yard setback. The preliminary plat should be adjusted to provide the required 90 foot frontage for Lots 4 and 6 at the 30 foot setback. We believe this change is minor and can be accommodated through shifting lot lines. Lot 10 is a neck lot and can meet the ordinance requirements, but the building pad is an odd shape (Attachment #3). Staff is recommending that the lot be adjusted to provide a better building pad area. Sewer and water are available to the site through connection of existing service at Ashton Court/Teton Lane. The water connection should be provided through the proposed road rather than at the back of Lots 14-17. Teton Lane will be required to be improved to urban street standards. Improvements to Lilac Lane will also be required. A feasibility study for these improvements has been initiated and should be presented for public hearing in the near future. Part of the proposed improvements includes removal of the barrier at Teton Lane. This barrier has been a hinderance to emergency access and cuts off an appropriate street connection for second access. The proposed wetland alteration Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 _ Page 5 meets the intent of the ordinance and will result in an improved wetland area. Staff is recommended approval with appropriate conditions. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home _ Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear — 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 17,000 95' 206' 30' front/rear — 10' sides Lot 2 15,900 93' 180' 30' front/rear — 10' sides Lot 3 15,200 100' 162' 30' front/rear — 10' sides Lot 4 15,000 86'* 166' 30' front/rear 10' sides Lot 5** 17,700 130' 133' 30' front/rear — 20' sides Lot 6 15,000 8T* 151' 30' front/rear 10' sides Lot 7 15,000 120' 155' 30' front/rear 10' sides Lot 8 15,000 110' 152' 30' front/rear 10' sides Lot 9 15,000 108' 148' 30' front/rear 10' sides Lot 10*** 16,200 122' 158' 30' front/rear 20' sides Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 6 Lot 11 15,000 115' 137' 30' front/rear 10' sides Lot 12** 22,800 145' 161' 30' front/rear 20' sides 75' wetland Lot 13 18,700 105' 198' 30' front/rear 10' sides 75' wetland Lot 14 15,100 226' 129' 30' front/rear 10' sides Lot 15 15,000 110' 142' 30' front/rear 10' sides 75' wetland Lot 16 17,100 110' 365' 30' front/rear 10' sides 75' wetland Lot 17 15,500 105' 362' 30' front/rear 10' sides 75' wetland s Lot on curve requires 90' at 30' setback - requires variance '' Flag/neck lots s: Lot 10 meets minimum requirements but will require special consideration with house design DRAINAGE/GRADING The development proposes to construct a two-pond system to provide water quality and storm retention requirements. The Walker pond design is estimated to be approximately 68% efficient in phosphorus removal which exceeds the NURP requirement of 60% phosphorus removal. The larger pond has been designed for a pair of 100-year back-to-back storm events as required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The calculated flood elevation is 1003.8 feet. In addition, an overflow swale has been constructed between Lots 14 and 15 and Lots 2 and 3 to provide a relief safety valve should storm ponding exceed the predicted levels. The outlet structure for the pond is recommended to be a 12-inch RCP pipe with a 4-inch restriction orifice plate located at the southeast corner of the pond which will connect into an existing storm sewer system at the intersection of Ashton Court and Teton Lane. It has also been recommended that the wetland pond bottom be constructed with a clay liner and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil to provide a medium for plant vegetation. Staff supports this proposal. Although the ponding area is designated as a wetland, it is of very poor quality. Staff believes that the proposal represents a significant Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 — Page 7 improvement in wetland function and value. Refer to the wetland alteration permit discussion for additional details. A storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion control plan should be submitted with the final plat. Slope grading on the site shall be limited to 3:1 slopes or less. An erosion control plan should be developed for approval with the final plat. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The applicant is proposing to alter the existing Class B wetland located in the southeast corner of the site. The existing Class B wetland is a Type II (wet meadow) dominated by _ golden rod and reed canary grass, and is approximately one acre in area (the 1,000' contour). The applicant is proposing to redesign the wetland to create a shallow water marsh using a two pond system and is proposing to shift the existing wetland area to the south and east. The applicant has hired Barr Engineering to review the existing wetland conditions and to propose the wetland alteration (Attachment #4). The existing wetland is a low quality Class B wetland and the applicant is proposing to improve the quality of the wetland to a Class A wetland by creating the shallow marsh. The applicant is using the two pond system so that drainage directed into the smaller shallow marsh area for pretreatment, prior to it entering the larger marsh area. The last page of the Barr Engineering memo illustrates the proposed alteration to the wetland. The smaller open water area located in the northwest corner of the wetland is designed to exceed NURP standards for removing nutrients from the storm water prior to it entering the larger open water area. The plan also provides for landscaping of the buffer area of the wetland with emergent plant species and wetland — shrubs. The actual size of the finished wetland is .9 acres. Although the completed wetland alteration is .1 acres smaller than what exists today, the applicant is greatly improving the wetland conditions of the site. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed replacement plan. The existing wetland ordinance requires a 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland. The edge of the wetland is proposed at the 1,000 foot contour, but the applicant is adding a buffer area around the existing wetland up to the 1,001 foot contour. The 75 foot setback will be taken from the 1,000 foot contour. The proposed plat shows that the 75 foot setback is being maintained. Staff is requiring that a conservation easement be granted over the wetland area to the 1,001 foot contour so that the buffer area is included and preserved from any future alteration. • Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 8 UTILITIES Watermain is proposed to be accessed from its existing stub at the intersection of Teton Lane and Ashton Court and extended north along Teton Lane and further extending west into the site through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17. For accessibility and maintenance purpo. _s staff recommends that the watermain be constructed within the right- of-way of the proposed new street. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the Fire Marshal. Lots 1 through 5 are proposed to gain water service from existing stubs located on Lilac Lane. The watermain along Teton Lane is the property of the City of Chanhassen and within the City's 17 feet of right-of-way. Staff recommends that the proposed watermain be looped back to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court to provide for better water quality, fire flow protection and a secondary source of water in case of a break. Sanitary sewer access is also proposed to be gained from the existing stub located at the intersection of Ashton Court and Teton Lane and extend north along Teton Lane and then = west into the subdivision through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17. Apparently a significant amount of fill would be required over a large portion of the southwest quarter of the subdivision in order to extend the sanitary sewer through the proposed road right-of- way and maintain gravity flow. Lots 1 through 5 are currently proposed to be served by sanitary sewer from Lilac Lane. The sanitary sewer main within Lilac Lane is the property of the City of Shorewood. At this time it is not known whether sanitary sewer stubs were extended to the south when the initial construction was undertaken. As-built information ori this sewer line is being acquired from the City of Shorewood. If flow is to be directed into Shorewood's sewage system, a cooperative agreement would have to be established between Chanhassen and Shorewood. Due to the length of the sewer line through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17, it is recommended that a manhole be added between Lots 15 and 16 and that vehicle accessibility be provided for on the common lot line between Lots 15 and 16. STREETS/TETON LANE ISSUES Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court is currently a substandard street lacking curb and gutter, storm sewer and sanitary sewer and watermain. Teton Lane is a city owned right-of-way and is maintained by the city. In addition, there currently exists in-place a barricade on Teton Lane immediately north of Ashton Court to prevent any through traffic movement from the south. The history behind the installation of the barricade is extensive. While this barrier may have had its place in time, this is no longer an acceptable situation given the imminent development local to the area. Full service is required to provide safety and effective street systems for not only this plat but also the overall neighborhood. The City Fire Marshal has indicated that the barricade hindered the department in responding Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 9 to a fire call. The City Council has already heard from Curry Farms residents concerned not only over the lack of access, but also the inability of school buses to pick up their children since the buses will not service a cul-de-sac. It is staffs recommendation that the current traffic needs compounded by development in this area warrant the upgrading of - Teton Lane from Lilac Lane to Ashton Court to the current City standard urban roadway section with curb and gutter, storm sewer and utilities and that the barricade be removed. At their regular meeting on Monday, February 10, 1992, the City Council authorized preparation of an update to the original feasibility study for street, utility and drainage improvements at Teton Lane, Project No. 91-4. This feasibility study update is currently being prepared by Bill Engelhardt. It is recommended that final plat for this subdivision shall not be granted until the results of the feasibility study update for improvements to _ Teton Lane are known, a public hearing is held and an improvement project is ordered. The subdivision proposes constructing a new road with a 60-foot wide right-of-way as currently required per City ordinance. The City currently owns 33 feet of right-of-way over Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court. It is recommended that Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the newly created street within the subdivision. Teton Lane south of Ashton Court has a 50-foot wide right-of-way platted with the Curry Farms development in accordance with City standards at that time. In addition, the large lot located in the southwest corner of Lilac Lane and Teton Lane granted an additional 17 feet at the time the lot split occurred to yield a 50-foot total right-of-way width on that segment of Teton Lane. Within the last two years the City has revised its ordinance to now require a 60-foot wide road right-of-way. However, considering the right-of-way conditions that — currently exist with Teton Lane to the north and south of this subdivision, it is recommended that 17 feet of road right-of-way be acquired along the east plat line to yield a total right-of-way of 50 feet consistent with the right-of-way north and south of the plat. EASEMENTS It is recommended that the following easements be provided for on the plat: 1. A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 and 3. 2. A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 14 and 15. _ 3. A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. 4. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14. Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 10 5. A 20-foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. 6. A drainage easement for the wetland pond boundary at the 1004' contour. 7. A conservation easement for the wetland over the 1,001' contour. 8. The existing drainage easement over the wetland must be vacated. PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the plat and determined that park and trail fees should be required in lieu of park land. Park facilities are available to Curry Farms to the south. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat #92-4, as shown on the plans dated March 14, 1992, and Wetland Alteration Permit #92-2, as shown on the plans submitted by Barr Engineering dated March 9, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following easements shall be added to the plat: a. A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 and 3. b. A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 14 and 15. c. A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. d. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14. e. A 20-foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. f. A drainage easement for the wetland pond for the boundary at the 1004' contour. Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 _ Page 11 g. A conservation easement for the wetland over the 1,001' contour. h. The existing drainage easement over the wetland must be vacated. 2. A 12-inch RCP storm sewer with a 4-inch orifice plate shall be constructed as the outlet structure for the wetland pond. The wetland pond bottom shall be lined with clay and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil. 3. Storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the final plat. Slopes shall not exceed 3:1. 4. The internal watermain system shall be installed within the proposed new street right-of-way and shall be looped to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court. 5. An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be located along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 and vehicle access shall be provided from the new street along the — common property line of Lots 15 and 16. 6. A 60-foot wide street right-of-way shall be provided for the new street proposed within the subdivision. 17 feet of right-of-way shall be granted along the east plat line to provide a 50-foot wide road right-of-way for Teton Lane as consistent with right-of-way dedications along Teton Lane north and south of the this area. — 7. Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the proposed new street. 8. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a public hearing is held and the improvement project is formally ordered including the removal of the barricade. 9. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the _ necessary securities associated with the development. 10. The preliminary plat should be adjusted to provide the required 90 foot frontage at _ the 30 foot setback for Lots 4 and 6, Block 1. Lot 10 be adjusted to provide a more suitable building pad area. 11. The applicant shall receive all required permits. 12. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land dedication. Ithilien Addition April 1, 1992 Page 12 13. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the sub-surface soil conditions on the proposed subdivision and recommend corrections at proposed house pads, if necessary. 14. The location of proposed house pads, the type of dwelling and the lowest floor and garage floor elevations should be indicated on the grading plan. Dwelling type designations should be: R Rambler TU Tuck under WO Walk out SE Split entry SEWO Split entry walk out 15. The wetland alteration shall be completed exactly as proposed in the Barr Engineering memo dated March 9, 1992, including the two pond system, interspersed with open water and submergent plant species, and landscaping of a mixture of emergent plant species and wetland shrubs. 16. Disposal of dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area. 17. The applicant shall notify staff within 48 hours prior to commencing the alteration to the wetland and shall again notify staff within 48 hours after completion of the wetland alteration for staff review and approval. 18. The letter of credit, as part of the development contract, shall include financial sureties to guarantee proper mitigation of the wetland, including landscaping and as- built plans." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from David Priem dated March 25, 1992. 2. Memo from Charles Folch dated March 24, 1992. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin dated March 26, 1992. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 9, 1992. 5. Lot 10 building pad. 6. Letters from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated March 24, 1992 and March 5, 1992. 7. Application and purchase agreement. 8. City Council minutes dated August 13, 1990. - 9. Proposed wetland design from Barr Engineering dated March 9, 1992. 10. Preliminary plat. March 25, 1992 City of Chanhassen ATTN' Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Jo Ann; I am not opposed to the development of the 10 acre parcel located directly north of Curry Farms by Hilloway Corporation, however; I have the following concerns, and request the Planning Commission accept or recommend approval of this proposal only if these issues are resolved. The first being past actions by the City Council regarding the extension and upgrading of Teton Lane, and removal of the temporary — barriers . When this property last was before the Planning Commission and City Council to subdivide the one acre parcel located in the Northeast corner on this site, no action was taken. The Council' s position was to defer any change to Teton Lane until such time as the balance of the property was to be developed. The situation car► no longer be put off . To upgrade Teton Lane makes sense from a traffic perspective to improve egress and from a safety stand point in that fire and police response/protection is improved. The second being the alteration of the Class B wetland area. - I ask that careful review be made of the grading/storm drainage plan to include surge protection at storm drain outlets, and that any grading alteration be minimal to insure preservation of all existing vegatation. Sincerly; vid . Priem 636 Teton Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF .1041CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineera(__ DATE: March 24 , 1992 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 9 Acres of Property into 17 Single-Family Lots Located in the Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Lilac Lane and Teton Lane; Ithilien Addition, Hilloway Corporation File No. 92-5 LUR Following review of the proposed Ithilien subdivision, I would like to offer the follow comments: DRAINAGE The development proposes to construct a two-pond system to provide water quality and storm retainage requirements. The walker pond design is estimated to be approximately 68% efficient in phosphorus removal which exceeds the NURP requirement of 60% phosphorus removal . The larger pond has been designed for a pair of 100-year back-to-back storm events as required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The calculated flood elevation is 1003 . 8 feet. In addition, an overflow swale has been constructed between Lots 14 and 15 and Lots 2 and 3 to provide a relief safety valve should storm ponding exceed the predicted levels. The outlet structure for the pond is recommended to be a 12-inch RCP pipe with a 4-inch restriction orifice plate located at the southeast corner of the pond which will connect into an existing storm sewer system at the intersection of Ashton Court and Teton Lane. It has also been recommended that the wetland pond bottom be constructed with a clay liner and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil to provide a medium for plant vegetation. A storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion control plan should be submitted with the final plat. Slope grading on the site shall be limited to 3 : 1 slopes or less. _ If to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Jo Ann Olsen March 24 , 1992 Page 2 UTILITIES Watermain is proposed to be accessed from its existing stub at the intersection of Teton Lane and Ashton Court and extended north along Teton Lane and further extending west into the site through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17 . For accessibility and maintenance purposes staff recommends that the watermain be constructed within the right-of-way of the proposed new street. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the Fire Marshal . Lots 1 through 5 are proposed to gain water service from existing stubs located on Lilac Lane. The watermain along Teton Lane is the property of the City of Chanhassen and within the City' s 17 feet of right-of-way. Staff recommends that the proposed watermain be looped back to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court to provide for better water quality, fire flow protection and a secondary source of water in case of a break. Sanitary sewer access is also proposed to be gained from the existing stub located at the intersection of Ashton Court and Teton Lane and extend north along Teton Lane and then west into the subdivision through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17 . Apparently a significant amount of fill would be required over a large portion of the southwest quarter of the subdivision in order to extend the sanitary sewer through the proposed road right-of-way and maintain gravity flow. Lots 1 through 5 are currently proposed to be served by sanitary sewer from Lilac Lane. The sanitary sewer main within Lilac Lane is the property of the City of Shorewood. At this time it is not known whether sanitary sewer stubs were extended to the south when the initial construction was undertaken. As-built information on this sewer line is being acquired from the City of Shorewood. If flow is to be directed into Shorewood ' s sewage system, a cooperative agreement would have to be established between Chanhassen and Shorewood. Due to the length of the sewer line through the rear yards of Lots 14 through 17, it is recommended that a manhole be added between Lots 15 and 16 and that vehicle accessibility be provided for on the common lot line between Lots 15 and 16 . STREETS • The subdivision proposes constructing a new road with a 60-foot wide right-of-way as currently required per City ordinance. The City currently owns 33 feet of right-of-way over Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court. It is recommended that Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the newly created street within the subdivision. Teton Lane south of Ashton Court has a 50-foot Jo Ann Olsen March 24 , 1992 Page 3 wide right-of-way platted with the Curry Farms development in accordance with City standards at that time. In addition, the large lot located in the southwest corner of Lilac Lane and Teton Lane granted an additional 17 feet at the time the lot split occurred to yield a 50-foot total right-of-way width on that segment of Teton Lane. Within the last two years the City has revised its ordinance to now require a 60-foot wide road right-of- way. However, considering the right-of-way conditions that currently exist with Teton Lane to the north and south of this subdivision, it is recommended that 17 feet of road right-of-way be acquired along the east plat line to yield a total right-of-way of 50 feet consistent with the right-of-way north and south of the plat. PLAT It is recommended that the following easements be provided for on the plat: 1 . A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 and 3 . 2 . A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 14 and 15. 3 . A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. 4 . A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14 . 5. A 20-foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. 6. A drainage easement for the wetland pond boundaried at the 1004 ' contour. TETON LANE ISSUES Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court is currently a substandard street lacking curb and gutter, storm sewer and sanitary sewer and watermain. In addition, there currently exists in-place a barricade on Teton Lane immediately north of Ashton Court to prevent any through traffic movement from the south. The history behind the installation of the barricade is very complicated and extensive. While this barrier may have. had its place in time, this is no longer an acceptable situation given the -- imminent development local to the area. It is staff's Jo Ann Olsen March 24 , 1992 Page 4 recommendation that the current traffic needs compounded by development in this area warrant the upgrading of Teton Lane from Lilac Lane to Ashton Court to the current City standard urban roadway section with curb and gutter, storm sewer and utilities and that the barricade be removed. At their regular meeting on Monday, February 10, 1992 , the City Council authorized preparation of an update to the original feasibility study for street, utility and drainage improvements at Teton Lane, Project No. 91-4 . This feasibility study update is currently being prepared by Bill Engelhardt. It is recommended that final plat for this subdivision shall not be granted until the results of the feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a public hearing is held and an improvement project is ordered. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The following easements shall be added to the plat: A. A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 and 3 . B. A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 14 and 15. C. A 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. D. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14 . E. A 20-foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. F. A drainage easement for the wetland pond for the boundary at the 1004 ' contour. 2 . A 12-inch RCP storm sewer with a 4-inch orifice plate shall be constructed as the outlet structure for the wetland pond. The wetland pond bottom shall be lined with clay and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil. 3 . Storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion control shall be submitted with the final plat. Slopes shall not exceed 3 : 1. Jo Ann Olsen March 24 , 1992 Page 5 4 . The internal watermain system shall be installed within the proposed new street right-of-way and shall be looped to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court. 5. An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be located along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 and vehicle access shall be provided from the new street along the common property line of Lots 15 and 16. 6. A 60-foot wide street right-of-way shall be provided for the new street proposed within the subdivision. 17 feet of right- of-way shall be granted along the east plat line to provide a 50-foot wide road right-of-way for Teton Lane as consistent with right-of-way dedications along Teton Lane north and south of the this area. 7 . Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the proposed new street. 8 . Final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a public hearing is held and the improvement project is formally ordered including the removal of the barricade. 9 . The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary securities associated with the development. ktm Attachment: Letter from Ismael Martinez r. — �+ 1 •-� t- 1 _ J .t V N . I K U U tSc H . 5 U U 1 F. I B. 5 P . 04 /� O'a G aaxsree PE Kee A GoA70n PE James R Nayri Pr w r r ruv,.rr• A IA 41/A Bo H les}`roo � C MCehk PE RCn41.7 W FosCer PE Kern',',a ArxY••r., P1 A;Y'•.M Ma•vt1 l SOYJL PE An A ac;naor PE Mmk P R.K P( !r y f• rs•r,ry f•F R,rrdrc.E TTrne. PE Marr A Mir:stm PE Thp'rts:E ANN. F'E Ce• gt rt Rosene Cs'r•tA P Coot PE Diva 0 unsly`•,j F4 Orli` : Eopertr, NP C sy W+.k.e fir. . • rf Aderlik & f�'*'If E ,•OyhA?D Pp en C IC,i::cM k A IA Ork A SAP►E r4r..., K'r�xv� r1 J F Ro.w,G sour.,..,: vF .,OW,tc A S+rP✓7 Pe Pr.K: Ca:AA.A rt Kn:r P r.yK. •F V1 4:u1 M C'.`e•.rl CPA DOrJ'0 C 9.rrpa•,t PF 1•rxr.VJe FCT PE A •... . ..,.• P! Associates Te1K P. PE Mark) WA.SS P( ,,•rvr, MrC++dlr Pau'.'ovi.pp Tr,prry%P mien°. A'A A, Engineers & Architects Ravi P Prefere.PE e.„', Py,^,er "+ • ',"L• .,':... Thop4as W Prtetien.PE Men 8 Jrnsen Pr MIC•.i.a.C ,y' PE CrtM.II PE MEMO To: Charles Folch, City of Chanhassen Fax No. 937-5739 FROM: Ismael Martinez DATE: March 23, 1992 Re: Ithilien Subdivision File no. : 393Gen BACKGROUND As per your request on March 10, 1992, we have performed a storm water and water quality review of the proposed development , Ithilien Subdivision. This analysis was performed based on the proposed development characteristics shown in the Grading Plan maps dated March 2, 1992 . The proposed development is located East of Teton Rd. in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 2, T 116 N, R 23 W, in the City of Chanhassen. The proposed development includes the construction of a Stormwater Retention pond in an existing natural depression between the proposed road and Ashton Court. The natural depression is landlocked and it receives runoff from a total direct drainage area of approximately 12 Acres . The proposed development will take place in approximately 60 percent of the drainage area . ASSUMPTIONS The proposed pond as shown in the plans consists of a very large area with an outlet structure at elevation 1002 . 62 . The storm sewer pipe outlet proposed is a 4 " PVC. The City's aerial photographs show the water level in this pond at elevation 999 . 4 RESULTS We performed an analysis considering the assumptions mentioned above. The proposed pond can work without any significant modifications . Special attention should be given to the outlet structure due to the size of the outlet pipe in order to avoid pluging and or clogging. MAR - 4 - 9 2 TUE 18 : 53 8 O N E S T R O O & ASSOCIATES P . 0 S COMMENTS It appears that the pond storage capacity exceeds the necessary storage to handle runoff resulting from a 100 year storm event (6 " of precipitation in 24 hours . ) The Outlet structure should have an oversized trash rack and have a submerge inlet to provide for protection against floating debris . For maintenance reasons the outlet should be a 12 " pipe controled by a self cleaning 4 " orifice located in a manhole at a location with easy access . If you have any questions or comments please give me a call at 636- 4600 . Have a nice day CITY TF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 11, MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 26, 1992 SUBJ: Teton Lane Barricade With the proposed development in the Teton Lane area, the Chanhassen Fire Department is recommending that the barricade located at Ashton and Teton Lane be removed. Last June, the Fire Department was responding to a "smell of smoke in the house" call, and was blocked by the barricade. Precious time would have been wasted if they had to go around. Fortunately, there was no fire this time. Therefore, in the Fire Department 's opinion, the barricade should be removed so as not delay any police, fire, or ambulance response times . cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Jim McMahon, Fire Chief If %Oil PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • CITYOF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — MEMORANDUM DATE (mm/dd/yy) : :;_/09/92 TO: _ o An:. TITLE/TO: Senior Planner _ THROUGH: TITLE/THROUGH: FROM: Jo-v-1 A. :. __ c}.*_=.. ' - TITLE/FROM: Building Official — SUBJECT: .:- :e : 5: 4 CJD & 92 -2 WAP ( Ithilien Addition ) - $ackground : Tho r::. :_:. low _vi. areas is quite often an indicator of soils that are : _ : _ . : _ _ buildings .. Curry Farms, the development to the s_ __.., _ _ _ -_ _ _ __ c: _recti _ns on a number of sites to correct soils p_'u_ _ . .'._ . _ : _ _ : :" _ _ v it is prudent to question the soils on this site at an ea_ __ _ _ _ _ .. zh __ . __ i:ment ;,:uluess . - ?':.t :=er ° en:e` prc_lem with the type of homes proposed for �_ _:. zit s propose to build homes which don ' t fit the co.... _ . _ _ :. _ _ _ _ and would necessitate alter the approved grading plan . :uturc homes are not indicated on the submitted plans . Analysis : Th- "' _ : _ _ _ urve; : __dilates two probable types of soil on the - subjet , loran: and Glencoe . The Hayden loam is present in vac:. _ i - .c:: v.-._ is indicated en the enclosure as ) aE, HaC and HaD2 . These soil_ are c- . :.erally suitable for buildings. Glencoe soils, indicated by Ge on — the enclosing, are generally classified as very poor building sites . Glencoe soils *r;sy be present on lots 7, 8, 9, 13 and under the proposed street . The preliminary gradinci and utility plan indicates these areas will be filled, but the un:: :rlling soils may have poor shear strength and may be highly susce_pti: : : to fre_t . Additionally, basements on these lots may experience watt_ and structural problems . Many h__.._ _ .... _. _ and builder_ are unaware that a subdivision is designed to ti._ :'_r in a predetermined fashion, and that altering the des_ dt: . men' a_ to the entire plan. A lot designed for a rambler may — not .a . _ -- _.. _ _.tbuilt on it without adversely affecting adjoining e aticr..f„ are also critical on lots where homes are t _ ret'.er . A home built higher than its neighbors ' will direct to the a - : sling homes . till PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • Jo Ann Olsen 03/09/92 Page 2 I have also received anonymous information that there is debris buried in the — northwest quadrant of the site . The debris may include car bodies and construction debris . The caller also indicated that underground petroleum storage tanks were located on the site at one time . I should emphasize that this information was relayed anonymously and has not been investigated . Recommendation : Based on the foregoing I recommend the following: — 1 . The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the sub-surface soil conditions on the proposed subdivision and recommend — corrections at proposed house pads, if necessary. 2 . The location of proposed house pads . the type of dwelling and the lowest floor and garage floor elevations should be indicated on the grading plan. Dwelling type designations should be : • •11 R - Rambler TU - Tuck Under WO - Walk Out — SE - Split Entry SEWO -Split Entry Walk Out enclosure o ..) s NS 0 S • Awls,. - - - KQo -j- 4245 re • Y _ ' -.. .f. - \: -E ---1 Ti‘gclIL-- - i*----r-- -1'''.i. n.1:‘ ciL ,, a /8 I / ' II a) tI YCt E •tea �� . ` . 9.1 ' )» 1 x ..�, , ' i ` �- �` iks .0 •8 , i r_ ' ' — ; o 1 . 7 1. • 4, 1 7eN,:i 1.t i is A n I i . ,. ,� • a° , �019 t. /`- / JE • ,r - ', K ` , a v a•x v ' `) SD 3 Ls `��...�.•_y C ‘ 1 - Y / 4,............„77 I .. Ile.eft. V . % ., , e ` ---4-—.ALA f i so / 0 _ ti r • 1 C,•••• '1� • ... i.4. Oi to-- I —ii r -7 h :) .1 7. ' t . • *22/ . , _ 6401(1) ;- I i ki . k":‘ kl -.7'f . e ::* . 1 * 1 , , _., • 7 . c--- • ti : .. 4 i i r tp i i 4 1 : ,0 4" ♦� ! � !% `� . $ $ -_ • / . a I f.r , a;444 "1 7 • T Cw 1 . I 7 1�, '" II� chi �` % • i ti 4 r� '`"+ It- ! ♦ �o 0. r-- , \ — I.2, : - • et 6.--e. , ft sy - j • / i t� ___J I I * ti k di . { , , ! .. , ,,:z 3 n .0.,. ... ....' 0 sip O. 0 • •- a871'IQ - - 421.7/I1, / ; U , 4 •, 8 .� w - - - N % / , —c —y N • , c 1195. ,, 1----i ( , $ P :, i .••• 4 1 is,o....ii,• - ) ..... z. i F Ii' -i II 7ot ... .N , �. IMO I I : I 1 ,1 '51• 1 ill10 - I t ; +I\Z° -C, 10 i. _ kive... 'r R ii I 14- • , ----- / /� /,• / 1 - - _ lam �� / / / e ' '04 1 I/ / • • - 1 / • ! ! • - - - .... i 1 1 ` / / I 1 / - - / I 1 - of 1 / / 1 I 11 — 1 - R-N 4. -36c. -U 3 or C!i Y OF CH.4NI'AESEN — h I N; C!-IANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. — DRAWN BY REVISION DATE Q ` DESCRIPTION an vie .7-v2-92- +/tEv/Iw iao/ �Rw>oJt 0 eo,vro..it I he b vlsa.1. ii . the taw DESIGNED BY I Mark ar8 S C1 . gbw i i a- # i 1 1 Hi .....,, — t ' _ II; 1� l i:pif! a 1] � ~ �V�' � s . ac W4 1 W a i!i � � _ _ �:11;11 O = ' l ' ; s 10 -it— J 6 ii, , . >.•iVIli fai - 1 h8i11LliI! 11s1fJ1IJI tali Mil i S _ _ II • 1 t _ .� ; ' � . sem.. . .0 � ,:��. � : -__ Iii . ` L — J . ...- -,irte- — 1 - 1'-' • 11 .,2:,".._•......L,,/, ._.-"./t.!./-,' ,'111 ,' ►. —�1 '.ts'--i �--L• ; ;:. ; . _,: ______ SI 11 tit k — :I , ' 1 • '‘ 1.4:s. ...p ,. ,, ,, ,,,. )— I. I, / iii .1 i. , . 7 • : ; , 74,-/, OBOOdOild t i f . . . .,. 1;4/4,1' ..0 • 11• , ''' r—rdi ) 1 ; . - 1 11,-----i r------:**\\ ‘ •1 - ----- }4 y\V`��\1 e • N�ERSMEU EUUROART Y / r a 7:4k. MIMb4,+ tW ED O\c) N •E et MINNEHAHA CREEK LAKE MIKRETDMKA WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MIRNESDTA KIVER BOARD OF MANAGERS:James R.Spensley.Pres.•John E Thomas•Richard R.Miller Robes!C Encksc-•C Woodrow Love•Clarkson Lindley•Thomas Maple.Jr Permit Application No. 92-40: March 24, 1992 Applicant: Hilloway Corp. 16455 Ringer Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Location: City of Chanhassen, Sec. 2BA, west of Teton Lane and south of Lilac Lane Purpose: Stormwater management plan for a 17 lot single family residential subdivision called "Ithilien." Dear Mr. Fenning: At the regularly scheduled March 19, 1992 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was tabled pending receipt of: 1. Delineation of all Type 1-8 wetlands in accordance with the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (January 1989). 2. Easements to provide access and to prevent future alteration or encroachment on stonnwater management facilities. 3. Erosion control plan including erosion control installation detail, a restoration note, a rock entrance berm installation detail, and specifying use of a rock entrance berm at all construction entrances. 4. Review and approval by the City of Chanhassen. These items should be received no later than April 6, 1992 to ensure your permit application will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Board of Managers scheduled for April 16, 1992. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 473-4224. Sincerely, JAMES M. MONGTOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Engineers for the District cc: Board file City of Chanhassen M. Gronberg Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E. bt •r 2 J 1'22 CITY 07 CH."r1►2 ,.`c 0AL: 1014 • . ee WATEPSHE: BOUNAAP• / e 0` 4; Mr ER [p c' (- t - MtN EH (/�aHA CREEK LAXEMINXETOXXA t ��/R� WIXTE : SHED DISTRICT _ P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 NN4c_rA .EF BOARD OF MANAGERS:James R Spensley.Pres.•John E.Thomas•Richard R.Miller Robert D.Erickson•C Woodrow Love•Clarkson Lindley•Thomas Maple.Jr. March 5, 1992 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen,MN 55317 Re: Hilloway Corporation Subdivision Dear Ms. Olson: We have received the information you forwarded concerning the Hilloway Corporation subdivision located west of Teton Lane and north of Ashton Court. The project appears feasible and will require permit review and approval by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Some of the District's concerns for a development of this type include : 1. The rate of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result of the proposed development. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with return frequencies of from 1 to 100 years. 2. The quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site after development shall be equivalent to runoff quality for the existing condition. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with return frequency of 1 year. 3. Appropriate erosion control methods are in place to prevent the transport of sediments off site during and after construction. 4. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area be completed with seed and mulch or sod. '- Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 473-4224. Sincerely, JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, _ CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Engineers for the District cc: Board.file 6-41/41. 4041°444Hilloway Corporation Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E. bt MAR 0 9 C!TY OF CHF,fvHA�SEr; CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: 1 k o w tx-A Coe . OWNER: 3-°`-''''`'<-5 D . Fe v. `g — ADDRESS: (6 {55 R Kger `Zo(5..ol ADDRESS: W - r w`,"-1 TELEPHONE (Day time) - I ct 9 9 TELEPHONE: R`c �' r0' t� . 6 tO o w• t'-t f'00 J o&..v',. E� Rd, , yds-qOo ►h-..1 S S 3'1 I 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11, X Subdivision 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. )( Wetland Alteration Permit 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment — 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost - (Collected after approval of item) 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review • 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME - LOCATION L \uc. -0.,^e. & Tt. c L LEGAL DESCRIPTION SGS v�, p v r oa) - PRESENT ZONING 5 �q�C `^^��l rOak REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION re-1S REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST p r d p os S i vc•I • Svbv‘.ty SQA v"y This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying - with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signa�Appli ant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on 00 iiir Cow I v a.••••••`•a.`•, t3REEN-Se1Vdi Copy ai°"`t Cosmiiht I.e. i PURCHASE AGREEMENT . '•iia >gay7n.ta Minnesota I}nrctmhPr 16 19 91_ 7 RECEIVED OF Hilloway Corporation - 3 the cum of Two Thousand Five Hundred potters Ic 2,500.00 by ChCCk as earnest money to be deposited the next business day after acceptance in trust amount_lar -. aliatatiVaiattkleiciesliMISIMPIetaINgend m part payment for the purchase of the premises legally described as See attached -. 7 R located at(Street Address) 9 City of Chanhassen county of Carver State of Minnesota. 10 including all plants,shrubs and trees,all storm windows and/or inserts.storm doors.screens.awnings,window shades.blinds,curtr- 1 1 traverse-drapery rods,attached lighting failures with bums,plumbing fixtures.weer heater,heating system.humidifier,central air oondhion i . 12 electronic air filter,automatic garage door opener with controls.water softener,cable television outlets and cabling,BUILT-INS to inckL . 13 dishwasher,garbage disposal,trash compactor,oven(sL cooktop stove,microwave oven,hood-fen,intercom,installed carpeting.W A 14 located on the premises which ere the property of Seller and Moo the following personal property 15 2/a _ 16 17 all of which property Seller has this day acid to Buyer for the sum of a 10.-000-00 18 Ten Thousand Dollars. 19 20 which Buyer egress to pay In the following manner Earnest matey of 6 2.500.00 and 21 a 7,500.00 eesh or or before 90 days from date of accept ale ofc .notoosoliti....a losing 22 NI by financing as follows' 23 - 24 - 25 2r, 17 - 28 - 29 30 — 31. Attached are addendum which are made a pen of this agreement. 3:: SUBJECT TO performance by Buyer,Seller agrees to execute and deliver a qui t claim_ WINWIty Di , 37 to be joined in by spouse,if any,conveying marketable title to the premises subject only to the following exceptions. (1) Building and zoning laws,ordinances,State and Federal regulations.(2) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of the premises with taut 3'' effective forfeiture provision.(3) Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota (4) Utility and drainage easements 36 which do riot interfere with present improvements.(6) Rights of tenants.rf any. _ 37 REAL ESTATE TAXES Seller agrees to pay_3._/12ths and Buyer egress to pay 9 /12ths of taxes due and payable in they r 31f 19 92 Seller agrees to pay 0 /12dx end Buyer egress to pay 12 /12ths of annual installment of special assessments t .h9 and payable In the year 19 92 Buyer. agrees to -. Simeon the date of dosing all special assessments levied and pending. 40 Buyer shall pay taxes due and payable in the year 19 and any unpaid Installments of special assessments payable therev ljr 41 and thereafter.Seller warrants that taxes due and payable In the year 19 92 will be DOD ••••-•-, -• `- homer f 42 classification.Nerther Seller nor Sellers Agent makes arty representation concerning the amount of future real estate taus. 43 WARRA ES Seller warra that buildings. If a are entirely it the bou Imes of the arses. Seller war ts that all 44 epplia ,heating and air ditioning,wiring and umbing used lee raises are in p working order to of closing( 45 Buys as right to inspec emises prior to dor fryer shall sati himself/ at his/her expe that all pplis heating end.pt 4r, co ioning.wiring a lumbirg are in pr rig order closing Sal warrants that emirs are con ed to:cityse r 47 es-0 no;city ter 0 yes-0 no. if t premises ere oyed or su ntially demeg fire or any o er cause before e 48 osing date,this reement shall become M and void at s option,a earnest hall be refu to Buyer. 49 POSSESSION Seller agrees to deliver possession not later than closing. 50 All interest chy ws,r end sewer charges,electricity and natural gas doges.fuel oil and liquid petroleum gas shall be pro-rated between the 51 parties as of Closing Seller agrees to rsmwe all debris and all personal property riot included herein from tote 62 premises before possession date. 53 TITLE& EXAMINATION Seller shall,within a reasonable time after aocaptanoe of this agement furnish an Abstract of Title.r t 54 Registered Property Abstract certified Iodate to include proper searches covering bankruptcies,State and Federal judgments and liens.Bi. 55 shall be allowed*business days after receipt for examination of**arid making any objections,which shift be made in writing or deemed 56 waived.If any objection Is so made,Seller shall be allowed 120 drys to make title marketable.Pending oorrtction of title.payments hereunder 57 required shalt be but upon correction of title and within 10 days after written notice to Buyer.the parties shall perform this S8 agreement ng to its terms.If title is not corrected within 120 days from the date of written objection,this agreement shall be null, I 59 void.at option of Buyer,neither party shall be liable for demag.e hereunder to the other,and earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer 60 DEFAULT if title is marketable or is correctedwthinsaidtime,andBuyerdefaultsinanydtheagreementsherein.Sellermayterminate' t 61 agreement and on such termination ell payments made hereunder shell be retained by Seller endnt as their respective interests may appear, essence as liquidated damages.time being of the ente hared.The prevision shall not deprive either pe ty ores right of enforcing the apace performance 63 of this so regiment provided this agreement is not terminated and action to enforce specific performance is commenced within six months attar 64 such right of action arises.In the event Buyer defaults in his performance of the terms of this Agreement,and Notice of Cancellatic s 65 served upon the Buyer pursuant to MSA 559.21,the termination period shall be thirty(30)days as permitted by Subdivision 4 of A I. 66 659 21 67 ACCEPTANCE Buyer understands and agrees that this sale is subject to acceptance by Seller in writing.Agent is not liable or responsible Iii, on amount of this agreement except to return or account for the eernst money. r,4 AGENCY DISCLOSURE _ r '.n 7ai,,t. *Rputates he er she is representing the - if, In this transaction.The listing agent or broker stipulates he or she Is representing the esker In this transection. 71 I, the owner of the premises. accept this agreement end 1 agree to purchase the premises for the price and on the terms arta 77 the sole here made Iuv"� r� conditions eat forth above. 73 SELLER ls;•-0 _+J 1 //1.GA — fl1fYER Hillo Corpo ion 74 SELLER 1 # 'aG�^'' �6 Sitv^4• BuyER BY. ,r • - Ismc 11c ?' 40‘,"' = • esident 7s Delivery of all papers and monies shot be • at office of: 741 Company Selling Agent 7; Address City rip - - rut.e Ie A I d( AI t V RI NnlNn t^ANTRACT.IF NOT UNDERSTOOD.SEEK COMPETENT ADVICE. — That part of the North 40 rods of the West 40 rods of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116), Mange Twenty Three (23) , Carver County, Minnesota described AeiaisiiMil41 eg4c4`P_ ' Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence easterly along the North line of said Norhteast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 476.89 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence Southerly deflecting to the right 90 degrees 44 minutes 10 seconds a distance of 237.77 feet; thence Easterly deflecting to the left 90 degrees 44 minutes 10 seconds a distance of 183.12 feet to the East line of said West 40 rods of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence Northerly along said East line to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence Westerly along said North line to the point of beginning, and except The West 485.0 feet of the North 40 rods of the West 40 rods of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section Two (2), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) , Range Twenty Three (23), according to the Government Survey thereof, in Carver County. City Council Meeting - Igust 13, 1990 1. The plat shall show the typical easements 10 foot south ( front ) and 5 feet on the north, east and west (sides) . The applicant shall show the 20 foot wide preservation easement . 2. Park and trail fees must be submitted to the City in lieu of parkland at the time building permit is requested. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City. and approval of Site Plan Request #90-6 as shown on the plans dated June 18, 1990 subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of trash storage enclosure for all outside trash storage. All trash will be stored internally. Plans for outdoor storage and rooftop screening shall be submitted to staff for approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with conditions of the Watershed District permit . 3. All disturbed areas should be seeded and Type III erosion control blanket installed. The detail should be incorporated into the new grading plan. The applicant must provide retaining walls to protect the existing tree as shown on Attachment *1. 4. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City at the time of building permit application. 5. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line. The applicant shall submit signage plans for City approval. 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the conservation easement located on the northerly 20 feet of the property. 7. All trees designated for preservation are to be marked at their dripline with a snow fence prior to any grading and approved by staff. All trees lost due to construction shall be replaced by suitably sized and located material approved by city staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 10 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS. 1375 LILAC LANE, JAMES DONOVAN. Jo Ann Olsen: This is a metes and bounds subdivision dividing 1 acre parcel separating off a 1 acre parcel from a 10 acre piece. The 1 acre parcel has an existing single family residence on it . We did find out that it is hooked up to sewer and water so one of our conditions that they have to hook up, condition number 7 can be removed. That parcel already is connected to the City sewer and water. Also in condition 8 where the second line, second from the end where it says improvement project be conducted for Lilac Lane, that should be Teton Lane. The subdivision is a simple one but one of the issues surrounding it is the 44 City Council Meeting - gust 13, 1990 improvement to Teton Lane. We are not recommending that Teton be improved at this time but what we do with any subdivision is if there is the need to acquire right-of-way, if that street ever had to be improved in the future, we'd do it as part of the subdivision which we are requiring as condition of approval for this subdivision. So not only along Parcel A but both Parcel A and B we would like to acquire that right-of-way. Again, not to pursue the improvements at this time but just so we have the right-of-way available. Mayor Chmiel: Is Mr . Donovan here? Jim Donovan: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything you'd like to add to what Jo Ann has said? Jim Donovan: Well on number 8 it says if further development or land division is proposed for these two newly created parcels or if access is desired on Teton, it is recommended that a full street and utility. I guess I don't understand what they're talking about . What they're saying there. In other words, if someone on Teton Lane decides to put their driveway from their house down onto Teton Lane, is that considered an improvement or are you just talking about my two parcels of property? Not anybody else's parcels of property there? Mayor Chmiel: Strictly your two parcels but I'd like to make sort of a clarification of this. I also sort of highlighted that particular one. From what 's here in the staff's report , what I have here, Teton remains as a private street at this particular time. We have not , nor will we accept Teton as a public road. Further subdivision may trigger upgrading Teton but not required now. We are asking for 14 right-of-way and only to protect future options for that additional and any home built on a new lot should, if possible, use Lilac. Jo Ann Olsen: One of the reasons that that was pointed out was also just with engineer was looking at that . It would be the preferable access. Don Ashworth: I think it 's 17. Mayor Chmiel : Yeah, I think it 's 17. I said 14 but it should be 17. Jo Ann Olsen: Right . It wasn't real clear on the half sections exactly what the amount is but it looks close to 17 feet . I think engineering can address whether or not . We felt that we did want to have some say in where access did actually occur, if it does, on Parcel B. That could possibly trigger improvement . Councilman Johnson: Jim, are you building another house? Jim Donovan: No. There's a residence on Parcel A. Councilman Johnson: What do you live on? Jim Donovan: I live on, well I don't live on, I live on Parcel C I guess. I live to the east of there. Councilman Johnson: Oh, okay. So nobody's living there now? 45 City Council Meeting - Aut. t 13, 1990 Jim Donovan: No. There's a farmhouse there now and these people who are proposing to buy it are from Connecticut and they want to restore it. It's been rented for years and years and years and I bought the property approximately 3 — years ago. Councilman Johnson: And you're doing this in order for the farmhouse to be sold? Jim Donovan: Yes. Councilman Johnson: That 's the purpose of this? Jim Donovan: That 's the whole thing, yes. Councilman Johnson: And they've already got access? Jim Donovan: They've already got a driveway there. They have city sewer and city water and it 's all connected already. Councilman Johnson: That 's where the deer hang out at night . And during the day actually in the tall weeds right behind there and they head over to your place in the evening. Jim Donovan: Because we feed them. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I was sitting out there with the radar, the City's radar one day on Teton radaring people and looked out and there were about 6 deer just stand up maybe 50 feet from me. Jim Donovan: If you're looking on Teton and you look straight west then, you'd — see my place there. I'm up on a hill there. Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann that parcel A, what is the total footage on that? It _ shows here 142.07 by 239. Is that correct? Jo Ann Olsen: It 's just over, it 's just an acre. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so a little over an acre. Okay. Councilman Workman: There's no future proposed use for the rest of it? Jim Donovan: No. Councilman Workman: And I know there's some people in here that are concerned about a barricade and I'm getting to know them as close friends. Jim Donovan: I want the barricade kept there because if that Teton Lane is made into a city street , I'm the person that 's going to suffer. When Centex was doing their development there, the City did an appraisal of the amount of money it would take for city sewer and water there and on my property alone would cost me over $33,000.00. 46 City Council Meeting - Auyust 13, 1990 Councilman Workman: Well somebody in those proceedings stated there's a 99 year ' covenant on this piece that can't be developed and that was a premise for barricading. That was part of the premise for barricading in that it wouldn't be developed. Do you remember that? Jo Ann Olsen: It was stated. I don't know if it was ever. Councilman Workman: I don't doubt that but I'm just saying. Councilman Johnson: They said they would put a 99 year, if we wanted to I think somebody said they would put a 99 year thing on their property. I don't think there was. Councilman Workman: That would be this gentleman. Councilman Johnson: Yes. Jim Donovan: There is not a trust on it . Councilman Johnson: We never asked him to. Councilman Workman: No, I'm not going to ask him to but I'm just saying, somebody used that in the argument that that 's why the barricade should be up because. Jim Donovan: . I 'm not proposing to develop anything here. Councilman Workman: I know that but anytime activity happens in this area, that barricade becomes. Jim Donovan: We're not really asking for any activity as such. I mean this property prior to this has been rented. It has not been improved by renters. These people are willing to upgrade this property and do a lot of things to make it more beautiful and to upgrade the whole thing. As some of the conditions for selling it , I've had to do some upgrading of the property itself in order to make it for the appraisals so overall it 's to benefit the entire piece of property there. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, that 's one of the reasons indicated before. Make sure everything is as is and we're not changing anything. Jim Donovan: I'd like to ask a question on number 5 there. The last part . Designated as a protected wetland part of my property there. That is not a wetland. I mean we've had a lot of rain this year, much more than usual, and it 's as dry as can be in there. I'm mowing in there and to arbitrarily designate part of my property as a wetland I don't feel is really fair. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any reason from staff? Jo Ann Olsen: We did go out when I had one of the Fish and Wildlife people out and we were looking at Curry Farms and we drove them up there. It 's another marginal wetland but it 's got wetland vegetation. One of the reasons we were looking, so we are protecting it as a wetland as it is now and also if that land 47 City Council Meeting - AL 3t 13, 1990 is ever developed, that 's where the water drains to and that should be protected. I'm learning from past experience, I just want to make it clear that those are wetlands and not necessarily completely be subdivided into lots. We want them to be protected. Councilman Johnson: A wetland does not have to have water on top of the surface. Jim Donovan: I understand. Councilman Johnson: If you've got within a few inches of the surface the water table, then your normal Bermudas, or not Bermudas. I'a back in Alabama. Kentucky's and whatever, cannot grow and you get wetland vegetation. That 's what you've got in that corner is wetland vegetation. Jim Donovan: Well you said that you at one time stopped on Teton there and looked across. Then you've seen how I've cleared off about 6 1/2-7 acres of that property. Mowed it off there. Councilman Johnson: At that time it wasn't . A year ago or something. At least not where I think they're talking about here in the southeast corner. Jim Donovan: That part is not yet . I mean but what I'm saying is that the part of Parcel B at one time was like this and that I've cleared it and made it the same way. Councilman Johnson: We have people that mow wetlands. Jim Donovan: Pardon me. I know, it looks like a lawn now. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That doesn't mean it 's not a wetland because it looks like a lawn. Jim Donovan: My contention is that there are other parts of the property where — the elevations are the same as what you're showing there in that wetland, or supposed wetland there and that part is. . . Councilman Johnson: Not by your survey. Jim Donovan: Toward the western part of the property there where it connects with my. . .property. Paul Krauss: That's about 8 feet higher. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, 6 to 8 feet. 4 feet . It 's going down. Everything else drains into this area. There is not outlet here is there? It 's almost been shown as a depression. That 's about where the deer came out of. There were tall weeds in there. Jim Donovan: Well I guess what I'■ asking is, is this approval by the Commission contingent upon this piece of property, this part of my property being designated as a wetland? I'm not clear from what it says. 48 City Council Meeting - ..ugust 13, 1990 Councilman Johnson: We could designate it as a wetland anyway. Without approval . If it 's got wetland, by our wetland ordinance, if there's wetland vegetation growing in it , it 's a wetland. No matter what you did with it , it 'd get designated, it 's a wetland. If you tried to develop it , i. would then. Jim Donovan: No, I'm not talking about developing it but what I'm saying is that part of my other property that I've mowed down had the same type as here and that could just as well have been, and still can be wetland. Jo Ann Olsen: There's definitely a low spot right there. Councilman Johnson: Explain to Jim what the impact of us designating this as a wetland, what does that do to him? What can he or can he not do now with that property. Jo Ann Olsen: If and when or if he ever does subdivide Parcel B, it 's just letting everyone know ahead of time that that is a wetland and it will have to be protected. Most likely if that property is developed into 15,000 square foot lots, we have to get a few of them in there so it would have to be used as a drainage pond similar to Curry Farms. Councilman Johnson: But at this time he can mow it? Jo Ann Olsen: He can't fill it in. Councilman Johnson: He can run horses on it . I mean Jensen ran horses on her wetlands. Jim Donovan: I rented to her. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. See designating this as a wetland at this time has almost no effect on you. Only when you subdivide it it has an impact . Jim Donovan: I got you. I'm planting trees and things like that in there. Jo Ann Olsen: Right . Councilman Johnson: Just make sure that they can live in wetlands or you're going to waste your money. Jim Donovan: Yeah. Okay, that 's, I didn't know what that meant . That 's fine then. — Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilman Johnson: There's a couple hands up in the audience. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have something? State your name and your address please. Randy Carl: I'm Randy Carl at 6391 Teton which is a public street as far as I know since you guys come up and plow it and maintain it and service it and all of that . The barricade was put into place and all of that a couple-3 years ago when you guys approved the new Curry Farms development and it looks like since 49 City Council Meeting - Au;,-st 13, 1990 there won't be any development on this, that there wouldn't be any reason to change that . I can understand that . But since there's been some talk about beautification and improvements and things have been done, since the City closed —. off that road here this year, all they've done is piled up concrete barricades, wooded barricades, hurricane fences and all kinds of stuff across there and it was supposed to be a barricade that would be able to be knocked down by fire _ trucks and emergency vehicles to provide proper access. As long as you're looking at that property and you're saying you're not going to do anything any different or change that road and that access, we ought to at least then go ahead and fulfill the requirement . In my discussions with some of the people at the City on this, the reason they weren't doing it is because they knew this issue was coming up and they thought that this road might be opened up and improved but if it 's not , then let 's get the proper barricade in there so if a fire truck or emergency vehicle comes up, happens to come up the wrong side, they don't have to spend a couple minutes going back around because that could be a potential hazard to both the people that live on the older side and the people that live on the new side so I think the City needs to follow through now — if they're going to leave this this way and fulfill that requirement . Mayor Chmiel : Thank you. Councilman Johnson: Good point . Marc Simcox: Marc Simcox. I live at 21600 Lilac Lane in Shorewood and I'm here representing two people that do live in Chanhassen. The Ware's and the Pickard's and the only concern that we had on this entire thing is something that the Mayor brought up earlier and it 's item 8. What it seems to do in item 8, and I think you reworded it and I didn't understand it completely but what this does is this said that if there is, or. It says if further development or land subdivision is proposed for these two newly created parcels, or if access is desired on Teton Lane then it opens it all up. The only thing that we would like to have that changed to read, if full development or land division or full land subdivision is proposed for these two newly created parcels and if access is desired on Teton Lane, rather than say or because the way it 's worded now, if the new property owner decides because of the lay of the land they're going to build a new garage and so forth and if they decide to move it around and come on Teton or if the Ware's decide that they don't want to continue to drive over the Pickard's property on that easement , they'd like to go out to Teton Lane. That opens it up and it just really takes off all the other original, I think the original intent that was put on this restriction for Teton Lane when it was first upgrading. And that 's the only concern that there is. If that could be clarified so that would state, and I mean we don't , you can't ever say never. We know that . We don't know, maybe Jim might develop it in a year but until that time, which I think was the original intent of the original proposal with Teton Lane, if we could just make sure that that 's echoed here. Mayor Chmiel : I think the clarifications that I had addressed that. Marc Simcox: Okay. Well if we could have that reread again so we understand that . Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Let me just go through it one more time. Teton remains as a private street . We have not nor will we accept Teton as a public road. I 50 City Council Meeting - A. ,ust 13, 1990 think that sort of spells that out right now. Paul Krauss: It is a public road now. • Marc Simcox: I think it is a public street , yeah. It is owned by the City. It was accepted when it was turned over to the City. Councilman Johnson: It 's city right-of-way but it's not necessarily a city street . Marc Simcox: Oh I see. Mayor Chmiel : What I'm saying here is still is true. Further subdivisions may trigger upgrading Teton not required now. We are asking for 17 foot of right-of-way only to protect the future options. And any home built on now, on new lots should, if possible, use Lilac. Marc Simcox: Is there a way to specify what kind of future development? The density or just to, I mean if you divide it in half that still leaves it open. Paul Krauss: If I ray, I'd strongly recommend against clarifying or limiting your future options. What we have in these situations is that sometimes somebody decides I'm going to develop all 10 acres I own in one fell swoop but typically what happens is individual property owners make decisions over a period of time. Right now we're creating a new homesite. Mr. Donovan is not intending to sell it right away but he could turn around and sell it tomorrow. _ That 's one new homesite. In the future the person who buys this home on the corner could theoretically subdivide that . It 's an acre lot . There are lots on the east side of the street that could be subdivided. I don't know where the magic point is that you decide that you need the street but I'd be very relunctant to say that the whole area has to be developed before you make that decision. I think that decision needs to be done by you at such time in the future that this comes up. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that 's right . Marc Simcox: The only thing is that we'd like to go back then and as part of this proposal kind of clarify because it does say substantial additional development and just exactly what is substantial? When does the red flag go up for us when we see a proposal? Is it dividing it into two 4 1/2 acre lots or we don't know. It really leaves it wide open and anybody can challenge anything virtually. Paul Krauss: To further clarify this, when this originally came up we were told by neighbors that development wouldn't occur. It's occurring. I've got to believe, and I don't want to dispute anything that Mr. Donovan or anybody else said but I've got to believe that sooner or later it's going to continue to occur again. This is the first of a long series of things that's going to take place, probably over a period of time but it's inevitable that it will probably take place and I think the City has to be in a position to handle that when it does occur. 51 City Council Meeting - dust 13, 1990 Marc Simcox: And we don't disagree with that . It probably will. The only thing is that we want to do is have that addressed at that time. If that can be addressed, there's nothing wrong with addressing it at that time. Absolutely nothing. To acquire the right-of-way is fine and to address thl rest of it when that happens. We don't want to put in some kind of conditions in what we expect or think might happen in the future because nobody knows and to go and open this up as soon as somebody hiccups, be able to open that road up, that 's what we're concerned with. Those are our concerns and that 's all. Dave Priest : It 's less than a year since the public hearing when nobody said nothing was going to be developed and here we are. The property's being split now. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to state your name and your address please. Dave Priest : Cave Priest , 6360 Teton Lane. Marc Simcox: If I could just like to address that . A lot of people have been here since long before Centex ever dug a first scoop of dirt out of there and the whole proposal for closing Teton Lane never came from that neighborhood. That came from Centex as an alternative to spending a hundred and some thousand dollars to putting another access out onto CR 17 over city property over by where the machine shops are and losing Lot 15 so whether or not Teton Lane was closed off has absolutely nothing to do. That was one of the parts was that that property wasn't going to be developed but the major part of that came from Centex when Centex wanted to save the money and it was their proposal that we _ close it off and we agreed to that and we just want to stick with that . Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any further discussion? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor , I'd like to clarify one of the conditions that 's in there. I think condition 1 is misleading. We wanted to voluntarily have Shorewood review this plat to know that we've taken sufficient right-of-way to expand. We've indicated in condition 1 that we'd like Shorewood to be made aware of the fact that we've got sufficient right-of-way on Lilac to improve this street but it 's misleading. We do not want nor do we think we need to have Shorewood approve this plat so I would ask you to delete the approval. Councilman Workman: Paul would it help us to somehow say, if further development , number 8. If further development or land division is proposed for these two newly created lots and if access is desired on Teton Lane by the City of Chanhassen? Why is it or? Jo Ann Olsen: We were leaving it so that even now if this Parcel B is developed into one lot and that they are proposing to use Teton. I mean the situation right now is that there should not be even one more access onto Teton Lane. We just want to leave it open that as each case comes in, we can look at it and review it . Councilman Johnson: So if somebody builds on that Lot B I guess they're calling it . 52 City Council Meeting - A. .st 13, 1990 Councilman Workman: One more driveway onto Teton on Lot B is going to overload Teton? Jo Ann Olsen: Right now it should be improved. Councilman Workman: If we deleted number 8, would that leave it wide open? Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, could I make a recommendation? That we pull 8 and substitute what I had for clarifications. Councilman Workman: I don't think we need the substitution either do we? Councilman Johnson: Just pull 8 altogether? Mayor Chmiel: Just pull 8 completely is what you're saying? Okay. Councilman Johnson: Handle it when it happens. Mayor Chmiel : Okay. I agree with that . Jo Ann Olsen: I guess one reason why we had that in there was because the building permit does not come in front of you. Councilman Johnson: So basically you want to say if a home is developed on Parcel B, it shall have access to Lilac versus Teton. That 's one thing we're trying to say. Right now there's basically only one person using Teton. Jo Ann Olsen: We're going to recommend that it 's improved it has to come back in front of you anyway so. Dave Hempel : Also if I just may comment . Sewer and water is only available on Lilac, not Teton to most likely building pad would be up off of Lilac versus Teton. Mayor Chmiel : Yeah. Councilman Workman: So we can take 8 out and we'll still be covered? Mayor Chmiel : I think we can drop 8. Yes sir. Jim Donovan: I'd like to address the question of the barricade from Mr. Carlisle here. I asked, I called the city and asked the city to put up the hurricane fence there because of people driving over my property and because they weren't able to get through the barricades there, they decided to drive over my property. Now that is my property and that 's my right to not have people drive over it . Now if we have, as Mr. Carlisle wants, if we have the break away ones or the knock down ones I'm sure, I mean it's nobody from our area that is going south on Teton over my property. It's the people coming from Centex development , from there coming onto my property and if we have that type of barricade, then they're going to just disregard where they shouldn't be going. They're just going to disregard the knock down barricades and go through 53 City Council Meeting - A�,ust 13, 1990 it anyway and not have it just be used for the emergency vehicles. I understand the importance of having something for the emergency vehicles but I also understand that I shouldn't be subjected to having people drive around and on my property just because the road is barricaded there. Mayor Chmiel: I think that 's something we can have staff look at to come up with what 's basically needed within that location. Making sure access isn't off to the sides of those. Councilman Johnson: I think what he's asking for is to have the proper barricade situation put up which means that people can't go across there and they can't go across your property either. You know a fire truck's got a bumper about yea big. That 's going to take out those barricades versus my Horizon. — Jim Donovan: I appreciate that , yeah. What I'm saying is that the people from Centex now have been disregarding the permanent barricades and going across my _ property. What 's to stop them from doing the same when you have the temporary, when you have the knock down. They have a fence there now because the City put it up for me. Resident : Why is the City providing fences for private citizens? Jim Donovan: Because you people are going over my property, that 's why. _ Resident : Can you prove it was somebody from Centex? Mayor Chmiel : I don't think that 's the point or the issue. — Resident : He's making that . Mayor Chmiel : That 's correct but I think we should bring this back to the Council and come up with a motion on this specific item. Councilman Workman: I would move approval of the metes and bounds subdivision for Mr. Donovan with staff's recommendations minus number 8. Mayor Chmiel: Ancl 1 . Councilman Workman: And 1. Councilman Johnson: Changing 1. Leave 1 in there but just remove the, words and approved. Mayor Chmiel : Yes. Jo Ann Olsen: And taking out number 7, right . Councilman Workman: And number 7. Jo Ann Olsen: They do have sewer and water. Mayor Chmiel : Is there a second? 1 54 • City Council Meeting .august 13, 1990 Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Metes and Bounds Subdivision '90-11 to create Parcels A and B as shown Jr, the plans dated July 16, 1990 with the following conditions: 1. The City of Shorewood shall review the proposed subdivision. 2. The applicant shall provide right-of-way along Teton and Lilac Lane to maintain full 50 foot street right-of-way. 3. If a future building permit is applied for Parcel B, it shall be contingent upon connecting into City sewer and water located on Lilac Lane. 4. The applicant shall provide typical drainage and utility easements along the external and internal lot lines of Parcel A and 8. 5. The 1 ,000 foot elevation located in the southeast corner of Parcel B will be protected by a drainage easement and designated as a protected wetland. 6. The shed and garage on Parcel B shall either be removed or relocated onto Parcel A where they meet the required setbacks. If relocation is not completed prior to requesting filing of the metes and bounds subdivision, a $1 ,000.00 financial guaratee should be provided to the City. • 7. Deleted. 8. Deleted. 9. Park dedication fees shall be paid at the time a building permit application is requested for Parcel B. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: The only thing that I'd like to bring up on the plastic situation. Jo Ann I'd like you to reiterate a little bit more what 's the potential about plastics being recycled within the City. Jo Ann Olsen: Well we had last Tuesday a recycling commission meeting which we invited haulers to come to discuss whether or not we should initiate curbside recycling of plastic and if we do, what the ramifications were. We had 3 of the major haulers, BFI and Waste Management and Aagard come and they could all accomodate curbside recycling but it's costly. It takes up a lot of space versus cans that can be crushed and that cost would be passed onto the resident . Our other concern was that the smaller haulers can't accommodate it . We're talking the 3 big ones that do have it and there's pilot programs going on with other cities and a lot of cities are doing just drop off centers for plastic. So we kind of left it at that to look into whether or not we could do a drop off center to start something or whether or not to push for curbside so we are pursuing it . There will be something. Exactly what form, we don't know yet . 55 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -,1* TO: Planning Commission `' -- FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II 3 `�- r- 52_ SUBJ: Minimum Lot Size in the Rural Service Area LUP 92-1, ZOA 92-1 DATE: March 20, 1992 Background This item was discussed before the Planning Commission on March 4, 1992. During the meeting, there appeared to be two major area of concern. The Commission and staff concurred that this item should be tabled. The first issue was the Planning Commission felt that there should be a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet in the rural area. The amendment as proposed stated that there was no minimum lot size. The only stipulation was that the lot had to be large enough to handle the required two drain field sites. This would be consistent with the city's minimum lot size. The other major issue was the impact of reducing the minimum lot on the existing rural lot subdivisions. Staff is recommending that the land use and code amendments apply to those lots created after the adoption the ordinance. The standards of those rural lots currently in place would remain the same. Analysis The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance need to be amended to reflect these changes. Staff would recommend the following changes to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Residential- Large Lot (R-LL) section, which states: -- "Large-Lot residential developments are subject to a nimum lot of 2.5 with an overall density limitation of one unit per ten acres... The only means by which new lots can be created is from clustering 2.5 acre lots at a gross density of 1 home per 10 acres." La PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission March 20, 1992 Page 2 The Zoning Ordinance should be amended in the following areas: 1. Article X. "A-2" Agricultural Estate District. — Sec. 20- 575, Lot Requirements and Setbacks The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "A-2" District subject — to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half acres, subject to Section 20-906. — (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be two hundred (200) feet at width at the building setback line. — (3) The minimum lot depth is two (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de- sac shall be two hundred feet at the building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent. — (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. — c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows : a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. — b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred (400) feet. — b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250). pot lots•+ rea€ed after June 9 tie fl e setback sh 1 1 ap l r mu t size 15,000... r. sit Ecient to eta to two :: :::90 ::f >:- a >::: :....,....:..,o;..:...:; :�::: �::: .. . ;. .;.� e :�.: iat .�.��:fit ..:��.:�:..�:t -de c' ubble pr alum ou i e curve or ea .ear sal be( 0)fee wig at the u ld setback line : '' '#1+ :; nm lot::d :>is-;on :.> �. , .:....:: �::2.. .;:. .-., :::::::::. • �> � . :.•.••.•::•::: :•.'?j.3. :v'•ii ii}';i .:+;:;:•.::4i:; `int ..::...{;;:n .:::Y.:..:..: :•i.... wid n:n ion and it ae000ed bit private drives shat be one -. undjred (1 )_ as measured at a nt building setback line, — (4) > <_T'he maximum lot coverr a for ail.stru es is twenty (25) percent. ( } The s tbacks 'e as f©Mows; dor front ds, hzrt (3#3) feet — b. For rear yards, thtr X30) t Planning Commission March 20, 1992 Page 3 c- For side yard, ten (10) feet (61 The maximum height is as follows a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) f b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet: Cry The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the drive-04 is on a collector street: four hundred (400) feet: b. If the driveway is on an arterial street:one thousand two.40.0e4ififty (1,250). ...... 2. Article XI "RR" Rural Residential District Sec. 20-595 Lot Requirements and Setbacks The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RR" District subject to additional requirements set forth in this chapter. (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half acres, subject to Section 20-906. (2) The minimus : iot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be two hundred (200) feet at width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de- sac shall be two hundred feet at the building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: _ a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows : a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250). For lots created after June 1, 1992 the following setback shall apply: (1) The minimum lot size is 15,000 or 'td t. n s xe to accommodate two septic site; (2) The minimuni lot frontage is (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de- sac"bubble' or along the outside curve„wmgyilirtear sections shall be (90) fee in with at the buclztxg'so** line. Planning Commission March 20, 1992 Page 4 The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location pq these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private drives shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. or The maximum lot coverage for all.structures istwenty (25) percent. The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards,.thirty (30) feet 6. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet c. For side yard, >ten (10) feet Or The maximum height is as follows a. For the principal structure, three"(3) stories/forty (40) feet.. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a, If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street:one thousand two hundred fifty 3. Article XXIII. General Supplemental Regulations Sec. 20-906, Rural lot buildings eligibilities (b)(8)Each site must have at east one acre (1) of area which can support two (2) septic system sites o a slope of less than twenty-five (25) percent. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission amend the Comprehensive plan and the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum lot size in the rural area as noted in the report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Original staff report Dated February 27, 1992. - CITY o -..._. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX -: • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II SUBJ: Minimum Lot Size in the Rural Service Area LUP 92-1, ZOA 92-1 DATE: February 27, 1992 Background The Metropolitan Council had previously mandated that all development in the rural service area have a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. In the case of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement, Chanhassen was required to comply with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The rural service area is that portion of the city that has on-site sewer. During a review of the Metropolitan Rural Policy in 1991, we realized that they had backed away from the 21 acre standard, and retained the 10 acre density requirement. Consequently, the City requested the Metropolitan Council to approve a contract amendment to the Lake Ann Agreement to eliminate the lot area standard while maintaining adherence to the density requirement. The Metropolitan Council unanimously approved this contract amendment. In December of 1991, the Metropolitan Council amended their policies for the Rural Service Area. The density will still remain at one unit per 10 acres but there will no longer be a minimum lot size. One of the major goals of this change, as stated in the policies, "encourages communities to implement the density standard through clustering where appropriate. Clustering may aid in adapting the density policy to the diverse character of the landscape. Some areas have lakes, wetlands, wildlife areas, or difficult soil conditions to make clustering more desirable." t4) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Chanhassen Planning Commission February 27, 1992 Page 2 The policies recommend that lot sizes should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they should ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield, and a replacement should the original fail. — Standards regulating minimum lot sizes are reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Any changes to the Comprehensive Plan will be submitted to the — Metropolitan Council for review. Analysis The City's Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for building in the rural service area. These standards are outlined in Article XXIII, General Supplemental Regulations, Sec. 20- 905, Rural Lot building eligibilities (Attachment #1). The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance need to be amended to reflect these changes. Staff would recommend the following changes to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Residential-Large Lot (R-LL) section, which states: _ "Large-Lot residential developments are subject to a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres with an overall density limitation of one unit per ten acres... The only means by which new lots can _ be created is from clustering 2.5 acre lots at a gross density of 1 home per 10 acres." The 2000 Land Use Map shall also be amended to reflect this same change. — The Zoning Ordinance should be amended in the following areas. 1. Article X. "A-2" Agricultural Estate District Sec. 20-575, Lot Requirements and Setbacks (1) The minimum lot area is two and one half(2'/) acres. The minimum — lot size shall be subject to Section 20-906 rural lot building eligibilities. 2. Article XI. "RR" Rural Residential District — Sec. 20-595, Lot Requirements and Setbacks (1) - --•-• . . ' : . - . - . The minimum lot size shall be subject to Section 20-906 rural lot building eligibilities. 3. Article XXIII. General Supplemental Regulations Sec. 20-906, Rural lot building eligibilities (b)(8) Each site must have at least one acre (1) of area which can support two (2) septic system sites a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five (25) percent of less. Chanhassen Planning Commission -- February 27, 1992 Page 3 (A) Common septic tanks may be used for adjoining lots where appropriate to support clustered development. Two septic sites must still be provided and protected by easement on a slope of twenty-five (25) percent of less. The applicant will be required to develop disposal system plans prepared by a qualified engineer for city approval. Such systems should be designed to promote future hookups into city sewer lines that may ultimately be made available. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum lot size in the rural area as noted in the report. § 20-906 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE • Sec. 20-906. Rural lot building eligibilities. (a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter. (b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an existing single-family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: (1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines: 0-19.99 acres equals one (1)single-family unit. 20-29.99 acres equals two(2)single-family units. 30-39.99 acres equals three(3)single-family units, etc. (2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1987, shall be deemed as buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by paragraph (10). (3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections 20-575 and 20-595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials,up to two (2)parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement. • • • • Supp.No.3 1230.8 ZONING § 20-907 (4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well. (5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in- stalled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (6) The one (1) unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one (1)of the parcels. Transfer of development rights from one (1)parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as permitted in paragraph (9)below. (7) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain- ing or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development rights from one (1)parcel of land to another is not allowed. (8) Each site must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five(25)percent or less. (9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer • building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does ha' Jublic street frontage and meets other provisions of this section. (10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area az identified in the compre- -/ hensive plan to contain a development density of one (1) unit per two and one-half (21) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the following information is submitted to the planning department: a. Completion of the application for subdivision. b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners. c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern. d. Submission of required application fees. Further, these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval by July 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table final action on the application until after July 1, 1987. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 7, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-907. Height regulations. (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one (1)story in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be permitted on the downhill side of any building. (b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the following: (1) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation 1231 AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (MEIF) POLICIES FOR THE RURAL SERVICE AREA Adopted December 5, 1991 Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Publication No. 640-92-012 AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (MDIF) INTRODUCTION On the pages that follow are amendments to the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) that were adopted by the Metropolitan Council on December 5, 1991. The amendments affect three sections of the MDIF. New language is indicated by underlining. Language that was deleted from the MDIF is stricken (sty«-:;en). Pages 1-9 of the amendments modify pages 22-25 of the MDIF, beginning with the section titled "Rural Service Area." This is part of the Geographic Policy Areas section of the MDIF, and contains the policy statements. Pages 10-14 are modifications to pages 33-35 of the MDIF section titled "Planning and Investment Procedures: the Council and Metropolitan Systems." This section gives direction for future revisions of other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; in this case, the Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan and the Transportation Policy Plan. A small change was also made to the section on parks which relates to the rural area. This change is being made now in order to incorporate policy direction from the recently adopted Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan. It is consistent with discussions of urban-generated uses, held in connection with the rural policy study. Pages 15-16 are two new appendices to the MDIF. The first is "Criteria for Council Approval of Local Plans That Are Inconsistent With MDIF Rural Area Policies." The second is "Land Uses in the Rural Area." This clarifies for the Council and local governments what land uses are appropriate for the commercial agricultural region as compared to the general rural use area. For additional copies of this document, for the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework itself, or for additional background information, contact the Metropolitan Council -- Data Center, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101; telephone 291-8140. The MDIF costs $5; the other documents are free. — Questions about the policy amendments should be directed to Anne Hurlburt of the Council staff, 291-6501. AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (MDIF) PART ONE MDIF, Page 22-25 RURAL SERVICE AREA The focus of the Council's growth-management strategy of encouraging growth within an urban service area requires an accompanying policy that limits growth in the rural area. Extensive development outside the metropolitan urban service area is not appropriate because it can lead to premature and costly demands to extend regional services such as sewers and highways, and does not take advantage of regional investments that have been made in the urban service area. J Development outside the urban service area contributes to urban sprawl and increases the costs of services. Some services that require higher concentrations of people to be cost-effective, such as transit, may become prohibitively expensive. Development in the rural area also results in demand for local services, and can change the `-,,racter of rural communities. While existing service levels may be low, new residents are likely to demand additional services. Development can result in erosion of the natural and man-made environment that attracted residents in the first place. Conflicts often develop between new exurban residents and residents who depend on agriculture for all or part of their livelihoods. Development in the rural area can have adverse impacts on the quality of the natural environment. Protecting and maintaining the quality of surface water and groundwater is a key concern of the Council. While technological advances have improved on-site sewage disposal — systems, their proper installation and maintenance is still a critical concern. A common misconception is that agriculture and other rural activities are only temporary land — uses, just waiting for the land to be developed. Most of the rural area will not be needed for urban development in the foreseeable future. Agriculture and rural land uses are legitimate and permanent land uses in these areas. As the region grows, there will be a need to expand the urban service area into some areas that are currently rural. There are potential regional, as well as local, impacts from inappropriate _ development of the rural areas that may be needed to expand the urban service area. If communities do not plan for their future urban service areas before development occurs, it is possible that land uses and development patterns may later block the contiguous, efficient and cost-effective extension of local and regional urban services. 1 The cumulative negative impacts of development that is inconsistent with the Council's rural area policies may have a substantial impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan transportation and wastewater treatment systems plans. Therefore. the Council may require communities to modify comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the policies. Some co;:.:nunities cannot comply with all of the Council's policies for the rural area because they have existing development patterns that are inconsistent with the policy. In the past, the Council has found these plans to be inconsistent with regional policies, but has not provided a pre for making exceptions to the policy where it may be warranted. Criteria for Council approval of inconsistent plans are provided in an appendix to this document. Commercial Agricultural Area The commercial agricultural area includes those lands certified by local governments as eligible for agricultural preserves under the 1980 Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. This approach places the responsibility for defining agricultural lands on local governments. With Council protection policies for commercial agriculture focused only in areas where there are local government plans and protections, local and regional policies support one another. The amount of land included in the commercial agricultural area is large, covering about 600,000 acres in 4851990. This constitutes over half the farmland in the seven-county area. The geographic area defined as the commercial agricultural area is subject to frequent change when tied to the Agricultural Preserves Act because land can go into and out of certification when local governments decide to alter its status. Local governments may replan and rezone certified areas if a change in policy is desired, but this change must occur as a public process. For the purposes of this document, the commercial agricultural area is defined as the area certified as _ of March 1 of each year. This date is the end of each Council reporting year required under the Agricultural Preserves Act. Under the Agricultural Preserves Act, a local government passes a resolution certifying land eligible for protections and benefits and limiting housing density to one unit per 40 acres. The certified area is then considered long-term agricultural land. The local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance must reflect this land use and zoning. Farmers owning land within the certified area may then enter the program. Land in the program is referred to as covenanted land. The Agriculture Preserves Act provides protection for the farmer from urban assessments, property taxes at development value and conflicting land uses in exchange for a legal commitment to continue farming for at least eight years. Within the commercial agricultural area, all land has been certified by local governments as eligible for the agriculture preserves program. However, the Council recognizes two levels of protection in the commercial agricultural area: primary and secondary protection areas. Primary protection areas are lands covenanted as agricultural preserves. They will receive the greatest protection possible from incompatible uses because the greatest level of commitment to farming has been established. 2 Secondary protection areas cover the farms in the area that have not yet for-Hied-been covenanted as agricultural preserves. The Council believes the commercial agriculture area is a place where agriculture is the best — permanent use of the land. Long-term investments in farm equipment and in land preservation can be made with the confidence that urban development is not going to destroy or limit these investments. — General Rural Use Area The general rural use area is the area outside the urban service area that is not designated for commercial agriculture. Over 40 percent of the land in the Metropolitan Area falls in this category. The area contains a wide variety of land uses, including agricultural, residential and urban-type facilities. There are sizable parts of the general rural use area that host no particular kind of land use--land that is often called unused. Most of the area looks rural, but many of its residents are tied economically to the urban area and many of its land uses provide services to people living in the urban service area. — General Farmland A large part of the general rural use area is devoted to agriculture. The Council supports the — continuation of agriculture and encourages local governments to support it by zoning agricultural land at one unit per 40 acres. For farms within an area so zoned that are subsequently certified eligible sign up for the agriculture preserves program, the Council will reclassify them as part of the commercial agricultural area. Rural Residential Development _ Rural residential development may be an appropriate land use in areas that are hilly, wooded or otherwise unsuited to agricultural production. The Council urbanization. The Council supports this type of use as long as the density does not exceed one housing unit per 10 acres of land. The Council will compute rural residential density on the basis of 640-acre parcels jone square mile or section based on the public land survevl. This will prevent excessive clustering of a large number of homes on small lots that sees, bul • • - _ - . _ . - ■- _ -t . _. ._._. .- - _ • • _. _._ ' could result in the need for urban services, such as package sewefage disposal systems. — Some communities in the rural area have significant land area in public parks and open space, or wetlands that are legally restricted from development. Others have protected large amounts of — agricultural land by designating it part of the commercial agricultural area. The Council will recognize this when it applies the density policy. Lower densities in areas restricted from development may be used to balance higher densities in sections without such limitations, _ provided it does not result in excessive clustering that would create demands for services (such as sewer and water systems, storm sewers, roads and other urban services) not typically needed in 3 rural developments. The only areas that will be excluded from this calculation are surface water and major metropolitan highway rights-of-way. The Council encourages communities to implement the density standard through clustering where appropriate and consistent with local planning objectives. Implementing the density standard as a 10-acre minimum lot size is simple to administer, but may result in an inefficient development pattern and in more land removed from agricultural production than if smaller lot sizes are used. Clustering may aid in adapting the densitvpolicy to the diverse character of the landscape. Some areas have lakes, wetlands, wildlife areas, large areas of public lands or difficult soil conditions that make clustering more desirable. Other areas have good agricultural land that can be protected through clustering, and used to balance the density of development on are:.. less to agriculture. The Council does not recommend a minimum lot size. Lot sizes in the general rural use area should he determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they shall ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, aprimary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. All residential development in the general rural use area must be subject to the standards for proper design, location, installation, maintenance and on-going monitoring provided by the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan to ensure against negative impacts on the environment and the metropolitan wastewater treatment system. _ Existing Urban-Density Development Residential subdivisions, mobile home parks and clusters of moderate-density residential development also exist in the general rural use area. They frequent'. demand urban services but are in locations where urban services are difficult or costly to provide. The Council's principal concern is the potential need for the costly extension of central sanitary sewer and particularly metropolitan sewer service. r-- -- - _ :2 .. - -. - - •- - • - - - . - . - -• - . .. _. . _ _ . . . . Local governments with existing urban- density development should address the operation and maintenance issues of on-site systems to avoid potential problems and the eventual need for costly local investments. Urban-Generated Uses Many facilities exist in the general rural use area that require isolated and spacious locations but may be intended to serve the urban or entire metropolitan area public. These facilities include campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks, regional parks, trails, waste disposal installations, racing facilities, gun clubs, festivals, mining sites and similar facilities, and are usually public or quasi-public in nature. The general rural use area is an appropriate location for these facilities. The Council's interest is that these facilities are provided with adequate public services adequately sued, consistent with local and regional plans, and to the extent possible, that they do not interfere with agricultural activities. Other Land Uses In addition to agriculture, single-family residential development, existing development and urban- generated uses, there are other land uses that may be appropriate in the general rural use area. Whether or not a land use is appropriate depends on whether it is consistent with local and 4 regional plans and if it meets all environmental quality standards. An appropriate land use would not require urban-level support services (such as highways, transit or sewers). Uses should he of a scale compatible with the services available and the need to serve local market demands. To the extent possible, they should not interfere with agricultural activities. — One category of land uses that may be appropriate in the rural area is neighborhood convenience retail, such as a grocery store or gasoline station. If it is of an appropriate scale to serve local residents and does not need urban sewers or highways, it may be appropriate in the general rural use area. _ Even though a particular land use may be acceptable from a regional perspective. the Council will not recommend that every community provide for every possible land use in its rural area if it would not be consistent with local plans. Each community must determine whether particular land uses would be compatible with existing uses, local standards and the goals of the community. All uses would be subject to any local, regional or state permitting or licensing requirements. Examples of uses that may be acceptable are included in an appendix to this document. Lot sizes for all land uses should he determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they should ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. All development in the general rural use area must be subject to the standards for proper design, location, installation, maintenance and on-going monitoring provided by the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan to ensure against negative impacts on the environment and the metropolitan wastewater treatment system. Rural Centers Rural centers historically have served as retail service centers and transportation centers for the surrounding rural area. However, changes in agriculture and rapid urban expansion have changed the traditional rural service roles of many of these small centers to residential areas for urban _ people and locations for industries with little tie to local agriculture. The latter make use of available labor in rural areas and, by their nature, tend not to be dependent on close contact with other firms for their supplies or critically dependent on transportation. The Council has identified 35 rural centers, with populations ranging from just over 100 to more than 5,000. Some rural centers, such as Norwood and Young America, encompass the entire corporate limits of the community. Others, such as Lake Elmo, are small enclaves within a larger — rural community. Services available within rural centers vary. Some have central sanitary sewer; others depend on on-site waste disposal systems. Some have central water systems. Some provide the full range of convenience retail stores, while others have only a bar or gas station. Some have small manufacturing or service businesses; others are almost exclusively residential. The Council does not support the extension of regional systems to rural centers because of the distance from the urban center and the small populations of rural centers. Rural locations in the past decade have been attractive and some, although not all, communities have experienced an upsurge in growth, principally residential development. Development trends are down from the highs noted in the early 1970s but continue at modest levels into the 1980s. 5 Several services are important in adequately serving additional rural center development, but sewage disposal is the most critical. Urban-density development in an unsewered rural center poses the risks of on-site sewage system failure, contamination of groundwater and eventually the expense of new on-site or central sewer system installation. The possibility also exists that remedying a pollution problem may require an extension of metropolitan sewer service through rural areas. Lack of sewer service is a serious constraint on the amount and type of development that rural centers can safely accommodate. Some parts of the rural Metropolitan Area, especially Anoka County, are receiving large amounts of scattered urban development. This scattered development poses service problems and may, at a later date, result in very high local service costs. The Council proposes a strategy that offers local government an alternative way to structure this development by designating and creating a "rural center." These new centers would be limited enclaves for urban-density land uses, facilities and services within the local governments' broader sore jurisdictional boundaries. They would not be coterminous with the entire corporate jurisdictional limits. Under this strategy, a local government would identify an area to receive urban-density residential, commercial and industrial development and the facilities, including local central sewer, where appropriate, needed to serve it. Financing of necessary support services would be a local responsibility. Areas of existing urban-density uses are likely candidates for selection as new rural centers. Rural centers should accommodate additional development consistent with their ability to finance and administer services, including sewer, roads, water and stormwater drainage. If additional land is needed to accommodate growth, rural centers should extend services in a staged, contiguous manner. Residential, commercial and industrial development at urban densities should be accommodated only in rural centers with central sanitary sewers that are meeting state and federal water quality standards. Larger projects should be located in freestanding growth centers that have a full range of services. Rural-to-Urban Transition Planning Rural-to-urban transition areas are areas that may eventually be needed for expansion of the urban service area but are currently part of the rural service area. While these areas will not be considered a separate regional policy area, the Council encourages local governments to plan for potential expansions of the urban service area in their comprehensive plans. Communities planning for transition areas should consider land characteristics (such as soils, wetlands, watershed boundaries, agricultural soil capability), existing land use and development patterns, the transportation system, and long-range plans for expansion of local and regional utility systems. Transition areas should generally be contiguous to the existing urban service area. In most cases, it would not include the entire jurisdictional limits of the local government, but might if the community wishes to plan for the eventual urbanization of the area. Land in a transition area should be protected from incompatible development patterns and land uses that may later obstruct the extension of urban services. The most effective strategy to protect the transition area is to restrict development to very low-density (one per 40 or less) residential development or agricultural uses, which preserves large parcels intact until they can be subdivided into small lots and provided with urban services. If residential subdivisions are permitted, clustering should be encouraged. The large parcels remaining may later be efficiently 6 resubdivided. and the smaller, clustered lots can be more economically provided with services or bypassed if necessary. Local governments should use caution in implementing "ghost platting" or similar methods for — subdividing land into large lots with the intention of resubdividing them when services are to be provided. Resubdivision and installing utilities in existing subdivisions can be a very difficult process and result in higher costs. The development pattern established may not be appropriate or desirable when the area is incorporated into the urban service area. Local governments may also want to consider whether the land uses permitted in transition areas — would discourage or prevent urbanization in the future. For example, a use that requires a spacious, isolated location should probably not be located where it is likely to be surrounded by incompatible urban development in the future. The Council will review local comprehensive plans that include plans for rural-to-urban transition areas, but will not commit to the future extension of metropolitan services to serve the area or to any time frame for expansion of services beyond the urban service area. The Council will continue to apply its policies and criteria for expansion of the urban service area when a regional need has been demonstrated. The Council will support local efforts to prevent development incompatible with future urbanization. — The Council will examine the need to plan for rural-to-urban transition areas in its metropolitan systems plans. Local plans will be considered but will not determine the transition areas — designated for regional purposes. RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES 17. The Metropolitan Council does not support extensive development outside the urban service area because it can lead to the premature expansion of local and regional - services. and fails to take advantage of regional investments that have been made in the urban service area. The cumulative negative impacts of development that is inconsistent with the Council's rural area policies may have a substantial impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan transportation and wastewater treatment systems plans. Therefore, the Council may require communities to modify comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the policies. The Council will consider exceptions to the policies for local governments that cannot meet the policies because of existing subdivisions or land development. Commercial Agricultural Area 178. The Metropolitan Council supports the long-term continuation of agriculture in the rural service area. The Council will use the following ranking in decisions to accommodate facilities serving urban residents. 1. Primary protection area: land covenanted in agriculture preserves will receive — primary protection. Urban facilities should be prohibited in this area unless there 7 is strong documentation that no other locations in the Metropolitan Area can adequately meet the siting and selection criteria. 2. Secondary protection area: lands certified but not presently in agricultural preserves will receive a level of protection secondary to agricultural preserves. Urban facilities should not be located in this area unless there is strong evidence that a proposed urban use cannot be located in the general rural use area. General Rural Use Area 4-819A. The Metropolitan Council supports long-term preservation of agricultural land in the general rural use area. However, the Council will also support residential development at densities of no more than one unit per 10 acres computed on a 640-acre basis (a maximum of sixty four units per 40-aeries square mile based on the public land survey). The Council will allow land area in public parks or open space, wetlands that are legally restricted from development, and agricultural land that has been designated as part of the commercial agricultural area to be used to balance higher densities in sections without such limitations, provided that it would not result in excessive clustering that would created demands for urban services. The on areas that will be excluded from this calculation are surface water and major metropolitan highway rights-of-way. 19B. The Council encourages clustering of residential development, which will result in a more efficient development pattern and help to protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands. Lot sizes in the general rural use area should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they shall ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. 19C. The Council will not extend metropolitan systems to serve urban-density residential development in the general rural use area. Where urban-density development already exists, a local government should address service issues in its plan, particularly on-site sewer system operation and maintenance. 19D. In addition to agriculture, single family residential development, existing development and urban-generated uses, the Council will support other land uses in the general rural use area, provided that they are consistent with local and regional plans. Appropriate rural land uses must meet all environmental quality standards, not require urban-level support services, and be of a scale compatible with the services available and the need to serve local market demands. To the extent possible they should not interfere with agricultural activities. Rural Centers 2049 The Metropolitan Council will support a rural center's plans to accommodate additional growth provided they are consistent with the center's ability to finance and administer services, particularly sewer service. The Council supports rural center service improvements but not at regional expense. 8 =10. The Council will support a local government's plan for a new rural center and its requests for state and federal grants, provided the local government restricts urban densities from surrounding rural areas and will support the new center with necessary service investments. — Rural-to-Urban Transition Planning 22. The Metropolitan Council will encourage local governments to plan for rural-to-urban transition areas in their comprehensive plans, and will support local efforts to prevent development incompatible with future urbanization. The Council will not commit to the future extension of metropolitan services to serve the area until such time as there is a demonstrated, regional need to expand the urban service area in accordance with established Council policies and criteria. Local plans will be considered but will not determine transition areas designated for regional purposes. 9 PART TWO MDIF, Page 33-35 PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: THE COUNCIL AND METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS The Metropolitan Council is concerned with managing metropolitan systems in ways that will help realize the objectives for long-term development of the region as reflected in this document's discussion of the geographic policy areas. The following metropolitan system guidelines provide direction to the Council's systems for developing the more detailed policies and programs contained in the individual system plans. The metro governance process, discussed later, explains the procedures for carrying out the guidelines through the actions of the metropolitan agencies. METROPOLITAN SYSTEM GUIDELINES The Council is committed to providing regional services and facilities within the urban service area. However, the Council will not support development of facilities substantially in excess of forecasted need. The challenge to the Council and commissions is to find the middle ground between overbuilding and undersizing essential facilities. Some facilities that deliver services to the urban service area will have to be physically located within the rural service area even though they primarily serve people living in the urban service area. This may result from land requirements, the location of natural resources or the need for interregional connections. For example, solid waste landfills with requirements for large acreages _ will likely be located in the rural service area; sand and gravel extraction and regional parks depend on the location of the resource and often occur in the rural service area; and highways, power lines and pipelines that tie this region to other parts of the state and nation will have to traverse the rural service area. When urban facilities must be located in the rural area, they will be located, developed and operated in a manner that minimizes interference with agriculture and the rural settlement pattern. Sewers Only land within the urban service area will receive regional sewer service. Service will be provided in accordance with regional and local staging of development as outlined in the Council's sewer policy plan and local comprehensive plans that are in conformity wit:. the Council's regional plan. The Council will take the necessary actions to provide metropolitan sewer interceptors and wastewater treatment plants adequate to transport sewage generated by users in the urban service area and to treat it to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the national pollution discharge elimination system permit for each treatment plant. Central sewer service currently provided in rural centers can continue at levels consistent with each center's ability to finance and operate systems locally. In rural centers or any other part of the rural area receiving regional sewer service, the Council will determine regional service allocations for sewer flow using the same procedures that are used for other communities located within the metropolitan urban service area. 10 The Council will assure the continuation of service adequate to meet the needs of development currently receiving regional sewer service. In order to meet this commitment, the Council emphasizes the need to monitor the condition of older sewers and sewers with a history of — problems, as well as the trends in sewage volume as opposed to design capacity. The Council will also work for increased coordination between the sewer and the solid waste system in the area of planning and project development of composting and co-composting. — Recycling residuals from the waste treatment process with municipal solid waste may help resolve disposal problems confronting both the sewer and the solid waste systems. The Council will establish standards for on-site sewage disposal systems in the rural area to protect the region's groundwater and the health of rural area residents, and to prevent the need for premature extensions of the regional sewer system. All elements of the Minnesota Pollution — Control Agency standards for on-site sewage disposal systems should he followed in all areas. All communities shall require at least two sewage-disposal drainfields to be located on each building, site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. Except in the — commercial agricultural area, all facets of the Council's standards for the proper design, location. installation, maintenance and on-going monitoring of on-site systems should also be adopted. The C)uncil will require all communities to certify that they have met these standards prior to — approval of local comprehensive plan amendments or making favorable recommendations in project reviews. The Council will review its existing policies concerning_community on-site sewne disposal systems and package treatment plants in the rural area in light of the Council's policy to encourage clustering in the rural area and the improved technology which is or may become available in the future. — The Council will also consider whether monitoring of rural water supplies may be necessary to detect pollution from on-site sewage disposal systems. — Planning for the metropolitan sewer system should address the impacts on the system from development outside the urban service area; specifically, impacts on the service availability charge — (SAC), and the underuse of metropolitan sewer facilities. Planning for the metropolitan sewer system should also consider how local comprehensive sewer plans should address the rural-to-urban transition areas, and protect them from incompatible development that may later block the efficient extension of the sewer system. Transportation Metropolitan highway improvements will be planned and developed to serve the needs of _ residents in the urban service area, including the freestanding growth centers. Highways will be provided in accordance with the Council's regional transportation policy plan and local comprehensive plans that are in conformity with the Council's regional plan. Varying levels of highway service will continue to exist in the urban service area due to travel behavior, development patterns and the nature of highways facilities, but efforts will be made to provide a reasonable level of metropolitan highway service throughout the urban service area. 11 The Council influences metropolitan highway development in a variety of ways. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) constructs and maintains most of the roads in the metropolitan system, and the ultimate authority for highway programming decisions rests with the state commissioner of transportation. However, Mn/DOT seriously considers the Council's highway policymaking and project planning in virtually all metropolitan area highway priorities. The Council approves construction on controlled-access highways and develops guidelines for setting highway priorities as well as guidelines for approval of interchange improvements. The Council is also responsible for endorsing Federal Aid Urban and Interstate Substitution funding priorities, which are set by local elected officials acting through the Council's Transportation Advisory Board. Highway planning is very important because the ability of people to take advantage of the opportunities the area offers and acquiring essential goods and services depend on having a good highway system and on keeping it operating well. This means roads on the existing system must be able to provide the type and level of service designated in the Council's transportation policy plan. Traffic management strategies or new construction will be necessary when traffic volumes approach design capacities, when road conditions pose hazards and slowdowns, and when new developments are proposed that differ substantially from assumptions made in the regional transportation plan. Implementing traffic management strategies for metropolitan highways is a state or regional responsibility that frequently has direct or indirect implications for local systems. Local governments will have primary responsibility for carrying out traffic management strategies on local systems. New sources may share the responsibility for funding new construction with the traditional county, state and federal sources. New sources may include the region, local governments and the private sector. With the potential for funding and operational limitations, denying access to the regional system may also be necessary for unanticipated new developments. Highway planning should also address air pollution caused by heavy concentrations of auto, truck and bus traffic. Although this problem has traditionally been associated with the two metro centers, it is a growing problem in the regional business concentrations where highways are reaching capacity. The relationship between metropolitan highways and outstate Minnesota is another consideration in highway planning. The Council recognizes the importance of outstate connections, particularly for economic development_, . • . . ._ ._ _. _ - _. . _ • . - . _ _ Metropolitan highways in the rural area will be planned to support a level of development consistent with the Council's rural density policies. The Council will not plan for a level of service that would support or encourage development greater than the policy except where an exception has been approved according to the guidelines of the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework. Highway planning must also consider the rural-to-urban transition areas, and how rights-of-way for the system of principal and minor arterials that will be needed in the future should be protected from incompatible development. 12 Buses operating on streets and highways will probably dominate public transit service through the remainder of the century. This does not preclude the introduction of some fixed-guideway facilities in heavily traveled corridors, but costs and time constraints work against a massive shift in form over the next 15 years. Nevertheless, the Council will continue to seek creative, forward- looking solutions to transit service problems. Locations with large numbers of households and/or high employment in relatively small areas — offer good potential for public transit service. It is also important to provide transit to the people who have no other way to travel. This generally means elderly, handicapped, low-income and young people. Providing service to these people will probably involve above-average subsidies. Some parts of the urban service area with low-density development may be served only by paratransit on a demand basis. This is also true for some of the transit-dependent people who live in low-density areas or cannot use the public system. Regularly scheduled regional transit service will not be provided to the rural service area, but residents of the area can arrange for and finance public transit or public paratransit on their own if they so desire. This does not preclude the Council or the Regional Transit Board from becoming involved in planning for the special mobility needs of elderly and handicapped people in the rural service area or for the use of public funds specially appropriated for this purpose. Transit planning will take into account the cost of providing transit services to low-density areas. and how that may change over time as transit-dependent populations increase in these areas. Planning for highways and transit should consider the relationships among transportation needs, population densities and the provision of human services including public schools, health and social services. employment opportunities and emergency services. — Parks The regional parks and open space system includes facilities in both the urban and rural service areas. Regional recreation open space will be acquired to serve the needs of today's urban population and to preserve outstanding natural and recreation resources for the area's future population. Facilities will be developed according to priorities in the Council's regional park plan, which will emphasize the needs of residents in the urban service area. The development of regional park facilities that attract large numbers of users will generally occur in the urban service area, unless the demands cannot be adequately met. If it is necessary to develop such facilities in the rural service area, adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided. Airports Every effort will be made to get the maximum use out of the existing airport system, consistent with the Council's airport policy plan. This is especially important for the "major" and "intermediate" airports, all of which are located in the urban service area. These facilities should — continue to operate and to operate safely even if it requires substantial upgrading of existing facilities and modifications or controls on nearby land uses and development proposals. Land use 13 compatibility is critical to ensure future as well as current adequate operations at the regional airports. If a new "minor" airport site is needed, lands in the commercial agricultural area as defined in this document should be avoided. In addition, the only facilities developed on or adjacent to the airport should be those directly involved with making it useable and safe. Other Area Systems This framework focuses on the four metropolitan systems of sewers, transportation, regional parks and airports because the Council has special obligations and responsibilities for them under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Under the Waste Management Act, the Council's solid waste program has the same status in rr .:iy respects as the four metropolitan systems and will receive the same level of protection as those systems. However. The Council also has planning responsibilities for several other systems that serve the residents of the Metropolitan Area. Currently, the Council has adopted plans dealing with housing, health, surface water management. juvenile justice and water resources, as well as major position papers on the aging, arts and development disabilities. All of these planning documents and the programs associated with them contribute to metropolitan resource management. The Counc. must direct attention to the impact of this framework and metropolitan system plans on these other area plans and programs, as well as the extent to which the other plans and programs modify the development and investment framework and metropolitan system plans. The Council also recognizes that numerous interrelationships exist among the other area system plans and the metropolitan system plans. Examples include aging and health, transportation and housing, and sewers, solid waste and water resources. For some of the other systems, the relationships are less obvious. However, all of the systems, whether designated as metropolitan or not, have the following in common: a) assumptions about future directions of area-wide growth and change and reliance on a uniform set of forecasts; b) accountability to Council legislative mandates; c) concern with orderly and economic development; d) adherence to the same process of regional planning and decision-making; and e) reliance on the area's population for most of their financial support. 14 PART THREE MDIF, Appendices Appendix: Criteria for Council Approval of Local Plans that are Inconsistent with MDIF Rural Area Policies Some communities in the rural area have existing development patterns that are inconsistent with Council policy. Specifically, some communities have already developed at-residential densities greater than one unit per 10 acres. This appendix provides criteria and procedures for review and — approval of local comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the density policy. Exceptions to the policies for the rural area will be considered only for communities that cannot meet the policy because of the existing subdivisions or land development. The Council may approve an exception as part of its review of a local comprehensive plan. The extent of the exception will be based upon how well the community will or has: — • protected good agricultural land; protected wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas; — • implemented performance standards for on-site sewage disposal systems that are consistent with the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan; and • adopted a comprehensive plan consistent with all Metropolitan Development Guide chapters, especially those for the metropolitan systems (sewers, transportation, aviation and parks.) In order for the Council to support an exception to the rural density policy, the community must provide the following as a part of its comprehensive plan amendment: 1. The total land area (acreage) of the community, adjusted for surface water and major highway rights-of-way. 2. The number of existing lots of record. 3. The amount and location of land owned by public agencies or occupied by institutional uses and restricted from development. 4. The amount and location of undeveloped land, with an analysis of its development potential based on current and proposed planning and zoning. — 5. The amount and location of land planned and zoned for uses other than agriculture and residential development, with a description of uses that will be permitted. 6. The amount and location of agricultural land uses, and any areas that will be certified eligible for the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program. 7. The amount and location of wetlands, with information demonstrating how such areas will be protected from development. 8. Copies of all local ordinances relating to adoption of performance standards for on-site sewage disposal systems. 9. The location of any proposed rural-to-urban transition areas, along with plans and policies to protect such areas from premature or incompatible development. 10. Additional information that may be necessary to bring the local comprehensive plan into compliance with metropolitan systems plans. 11. Schedule for implementing the plan amendment. 15 Appendix: Land Uses in the Rural Area This appendix helps clarify what land uses may be supported by Council policy for the rural service area, and provides guidance for both the Council and local governments. It is important to remember that even though a particular land use may be acceptable in the rural area from a regional perspective, the Council will not recommend that every community provide for every possible land use in its rural area if it would not be consistent with local plans. All uses would also be subject to any local, regional or state permitting or licensing requirements. Land Use Recommendations for the Rural Area Policy Area Examples of Consistent Land Uses Commercial Agricultural: broad range of agricultural land uses, including horse boarding and Agricultural Region training, kennels, sod farms, tree farms, fish production and processing, storage areas or buildings; for primary protection areas, uses consistent with 1980 Agricultural Preserves Act Residential: single family residences at a maximum density of 1/40 acres, accessory apartments Commercial/Industrial: small on-farm operations normally associated with farming Institutional: urban generated facilities, such as waste disposal facilities; prohibited from primary protection areas unless no other location available; prohibited from secondary protection area unless no site in general rural use area available General Rural Use Agricultural: all uses listed for commercial agricultural policy arca Area Residential: single family residences at a maximum density of 1/10 acres computed on the basis of 640 acre parcels (one square mile), twin homes/duplexes (meeting density standard), accessory apartments, group-living homes with shared cooking facilities Commercial/Recreational and Urban-Generated Uses: urban-generated uses, including recreational vehicle parks, racetracks, festival sites, campgrounds, gun clubs, private airports, solid waste facilities, auto salvage and recycling, other similar facilities, neighborhood convenience/service/retail uses, such as financial offices,video stores, gasoline, groceries, daycare centers, commercial/service/retail uses adjacent to or served by existing metro highways, agricultural products processing, home occupations, bed and breakfast lodging facilities, dentist and doctor offices, landing areas for ultralight and model airplanes, retreat facilities, golf courses Industrial: sand and gravel mining, urban-generated uses that require a spacious, isolated location, small manufacturing firms originating from home occupations, oil or gasoline storage tank farms, refineries, solid waste transfer/processing facilities Institutional: urban-generated uses, such as waste-disposal installations,jails, prisons, public airports, human service agency satellite offices, parks, trails, open space, other similar facilities, unique natural or conservation areas, schools, churches, cemeteries b:'Jibnry4upllib• copplan'. iddrapc 16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 4 , 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p .m.. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Steve Emmings , Ladd Conrad , Briar Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Kate Aanenson , Planner II and Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9 .99 ACRES INTO 1 SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND TWO OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD , EUGENE QUINN. Public Present: Name Address Gene & Therese Quinn 532 Lyman Blvd . Russell & Orletta Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd . Dixon & Diane Blosberg 530 Lyman Blvd . Diane Riegert 520 Lyman Blvd . Mary Lou Jansen 500 Lyman Blvd . Scott Harri Eden Prairie Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Scott Harri : Mr . Chairman , members of the Planning Commission . My name is Scott Harri . I 'm representing the Quinn 's , the applicant in this matter before you this evening . And I 'd like to introduce Therese and Gene Quinn , sitting in the second row and also their neighbors in here . The crux of the proposal that you have before you , I think Jo Ann covered most of the pertinent issues but again the main objective of this proposal is to create and divide the property so the Quinn 's can sell their single family lot and as a result of that retain a portion of the property which is identified as Outlot A , the parcel adjoining Lyman Blvd . for future development . And since about 10 years ago the Quinn 's have been , I don 't know if tormented is the correct word but have been confronted with the TH 212 and it 's location studies in what 's going to be the possible impact on the property . And as a result of the recent actions , it 's sitting right in their back _ yard right now . And in addition to that has been the land use changes to the parcel to the west from a residential land use for future land use to now mixed development allowing some commercial development which may have an impact on the property values as far as single family and then most recently what Jo Ann mentioned was in October the public hearings concerning improvements , utilities , sewer and water to Lyman Blvd . to serve the Lake Riley Hills subdivision and the impact of those assessments to the property kind of really changing the whole complexion of this part of town here . In looking at the staff report and some of the most recent trips that the staff made to the site to look at the right-of-way issue , the Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 2 Quinn 's feel that conditions 2 , 3 , and 4 in the staff report are totally — agreeable and that part of condition 1 relating to the right-of-way dedication of the change in the 27 feet to the 7 feet on Lyman Blvd . is also acceptable to them . We would however like to pursue a little bit of _ dialogue regarding the extension of Quinn Road from where we propose it to end and give some reasons why we think that it might be more prudent to look at the development or the actual amount of right-of-way given for Quinn Road at a time when the property to the east is developed . Right now the roadway and the gravel driveway that serves two houses to the east of Quinn 's , sits right on the top of a hill . Any further roadway extension to the north would be down in an approximate 4 : 1 or 3: 1 gradient . Therefore , — to make that a feasible road connection , a fair amount of earth work and cutting and filling and this sort of thing which would totally change the character and the heavily wooded area once you move north of this site so _ there are some physical constraints to the site both on the property to the east , which is identified as the Chadwick parcel and also the Quinn parcel as far as topographic features . And right now what the Quinn 's have put in place is an easement for roadway purposes . Driveway easement between the — Chadwick parcel and their parcel which would allow for a future access to the right-of-way on the Quinn parcel . And then a final right-of-way could be defined at that time which would then only reflect what is needed for a _ future connection going east over there . And it 's not that the Quinn 's are opposed to the right-of-way issue but it becomes more of a practical matter of the timing and their cooperation I guess would be best served if _ development plans to the east were more forth coming and then they would be I guess in a position to work with this group and the developers on the other side there . And just as I guess a footnote to this whole issue of the parcel , currently they have , and I ' ll just talk in very round numbers , _ 10 acres of property of which .2 of an acre is the right-of-way on Lyman Blvd . as it currently exists . The proposal submitted to you tonight without the conditions or the dedication requested in item number 1 would — result in the Quinn 's either dedicating or end up having to sell to MnDot 4 .8 acres of their 10 acre parcel or 48% which by most measures is extremely high and in fact those longer term members on the Commission probably have never seen a subdivision come in that was going to either dedicate or end up giving right-of-way to 48% . The conditions of item number 1 would add almost another half an acre of requirement to the amount of right-of-way pushing this to almost 54% of the site just consumed by - right-of-way . So we 're looking at hopefully some sympathy toward the Quinn 's . Not that they 're opposed to the right-of-way issue but to work with them on the timing issue of extending and actually platting right-of- _ way to the north on Quinn Road . One of the final things that we would like to have entered into the official Minutes here tonight also is that a lot of value of the property is in it 's wooded nature out there and right along Lyman Blvd . it 's fairly heavily treed with a large stand of mature trees . We would like , and we know that the City is very sensitive toward preserving trees and the reduction of right-of-way requirement from 27 to 7 is really a positive move . We would like that to continue to reflect a condition that as many of those existing trees be preserved because that truly does provide I guess a buffer to whatever development takes place in the future on Outlot A on the Quinn parcel . So we are here and available to answer any questions that either you have or that comes from the - audience . So with that I ' ll close my remarks . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 3 Batzli : Before I ask for other public comments , Jo Ann . Have we looked at the slope and whether that would even be a feasible roadway to put it in? Olsen: Right . If you look on the second page of the plans you can see that there is still some area even between where the slope and the trees - actually start beyond where they 're giving the 60 foot right-of-way . That area is potential for where the curve in the road could exist and until we know exactly where that 's going , we really want to have that right-of-way because now is when it can be dedicated . We 've explained to the applicant that once that road is determined , that right-of-way that is not necessary we can have vacated . If we do not get that right-of-way at this time , and the Chadwick property is developed in the future , then i - 's difficult to - obtain that right-of-way . We would have to possibly pa-; or it or condemn for it so right now it 's to the City 's benefit to retai- as much right-of way as they think is necessary . So yes it is possible s-. ill to have the - road actually go into beyond where they 're providing the right-of-way at this time . Batzli : If we didn 't do it at this time , what is the most likely way that you 'd be able to get access to Outlot B? Would it be over the Chadwick property here somehow? - Olsen: Outlot B will be Highway 212 . You ' ll never need access to that . If you can see where the driveway is sketched in , the dotted line . Batzli : Okay . Is there anyone else who would like to make corments? Can you give your name and address please? Gene Quinn : My name is Gene Quinn and that 's our property there that we 're - looking at . When I first looked at selling this parcel of land , okay first of all you 've got 4 acres that 's I guess legally mapped now for the freeway so I 'm really forced into subdividing this to ever sell it . Because the - Highway Department won 't buy it right now and who knows what it 's worth . And so I have to go through this whole process . You know basically all I want to do is put in about 6 property boundaries . I 'm not changing land _ use . I 'm not changing how many people live there . That road has been there for , I don 't know , 15 or 20 years at least . Everybody that 's lived around there , it 's been there for 15 years . I feel overall it 's , why are we looking at having to even look at that road at this time . You know I 'm - not looking to subdivide it . At the time that people want to subdivide that land , they can come in and look at the whole picture of it . - Batzli : Anything else? Gene Quinn: Especially the piece up to the north of that , I 've got an _ easement to Chadwick . In fact Dick Chadwick wrote it up himself . He 's an attorney and he owns the property up next to it . I guess I don 't feel that we really have any justification for taking all that right-of-way up there . I would leave it going up to the property line and maybe up 16 more feet to - get to Chadwicks but to take it , that 's 200 and some feet . From there up to the freeway line . Batzli : What is your easement with Chadwick 's say? Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 4 Gene Quinn: Well it 's a 60 foot by 60 foot easement that would extend just— north of where I 'm showing the road parcel . Batzli : But that 's just to get on Chadwick 's? - Gene Quinn: Would get onto his property . Right now the road goes from that corner . It goes along east . So there 's an existing gravel road there_ and all that serves them other two houses . Batzli : You don 't have an agreement with Chadwick regarding going over his property to get to what is going to be Outlot B? Gene Quinn: No , I don 't need it . Krauss: Unless Outlot B is not acquired for 212 for some reason , which is possible . Gene Quinn: I 'm going to keep an easement straight north up to where the land that the freeway 's going to take just so it 's not landlocked . And if you stand out there and look at that road , to ever get it down the hill , it makes no sense at all . It makes no economic sense . — Batzli : Okay , well thank you . Gene Quinn: Well thank you . Batzli : Anyone else? Al Klingelhutz : Al Klingelhutz . My land abuts Mr . Quinn 's . I 'm very familiar with the parcel of land . Mr . Quinn said the road was only there for 15 years . The private road or Quinn Road . Gus Grippendrof who lived — to be nearly 100 years old lived there for about 50 years . I think was one of the first houses , was the only house on that 40 acres at that time and that 's where he laid out the road because it was the most appropriate and — best place for a road to go into the property . When you look at the map there , just beyond where the road turns , there is a considerable steep slope . I 'm sure that those lines on there are 2 foot contours and you count those lines and there must be a drop from the space between the two — wider lines just north of the pink line there of about 18 to 20 feet . And I think that 's why Mr . Chadwick feels that 's where the road should have to turn because of the future possibility of even fitting a house into that — corner lot . If you went down the hill a little further , the house would more than likely sit down in the wetlands . But if he could keep enough land into the slope of a hill for a walkout home , and keep the road approximately where it shows on the line or just a little bit further to the north . It would make it much more feasible for Mr . Chadwick and to extend that 60 feet down to a new highway proposed 12 which really runs down into some pretty low land . In fact you try to walk out there in the — spring or right now , you 'd be walking in water . Thank you . Batzli : Anyone else like to address the Commission? — Al Klingelhutz: Oh , there was one other thing I was going to say . Those trees along Lyman Blvd . have sort of been a beautiful landmark , especially Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 5 in the fall of the year . They 're huge oak trees . The first time I can remember when I lived on that land 70 years now , and it 'd be almost a shame - to destroy any of them for right-of-way . I did talk to the Carver County engineer on this and he said there 's a good possibility when they would take a look at it if Lyman Blvd . ever became a county road , which is - proposed in the eastern Carver County transportation plan . That they would try to avoid as much of those trees as possible . Plus the fact that two houses adjacent to Lyman Blvd . just to the east and I think the City here is taking a good hard look at that because they did reduce the amount of right-of-way along there . It would almost bring that right-of-way up to their doorsteps . And just a little further east there 's about a 2 1/2-3 acre wetland which would be encroached upon too . Batzli : Thank you . Anyone else? Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Erhart : It 's shown on the plan here as a utility easement . Is there a need for a utility easement aside from the desire to have the street easement? - Olsen : We 're not exactly sure where the utilities will go once they 're brought to that site . Erhart : Would you bring it across the freeway? Krauss : Well from what we know on the current feasibility studies , no . There 's no utility crossing proposed over there . We didn 't sketch that - utility easement on in that area . Erhart : It was put in there by the developer? Olsen : Right . The utilities would come up from Lyman Blvd . . Krauss: Or come along this new road that may extend . Erhart : You mean that wasn 't put in at the same time the 60 foot dotted line was? Or they put that in afterwards? I don 't understand that . Krauss : Commissioner Erhart , what we 're saying is we requested a 60 foot right-of-way for what is now Quinn Road . The utility easement extending up to the highway is not something we requested . It was on a survey . Erhart : Oh , somebody just put that on there? - Olsen : So we 're requesting that that also be . Erhart : Alright . Then I guess for one thing , I guess tradition has it , if - you feel you have , well I ' ll just say I guess it would seem to me that going beyond what would be needed to curve the street there to the east would be unnecessary , particularly if we don 't feel that there 's ever a utility easement needed to go up to the freeway . If we did feel there 's a utility easement , it would be certainly less than 60 feet wide so I guess I Planning Commission Meeting — Ma-ch 4 , 1992 - Page 6 would have to , in this rare case agree with the developer that going beyond— some point where you would start to curve to the east and then add what it would take to complete the curve would be as much as you 'd need . Olsen: We might not necessarily need it all the way up to Outlot B but you do need it beyond what they 're giving . Erhart : Beyond because I 'm not sure where that it but it has to be enough — so you can make a nice curve to the east . I don't know exactly what that is . I kind of scratched something in here but the other thing is , where the current driveway goes over the Blosberg property , does that mean , I — assume that there 's no easement to start the curve further south or is there? Krauss: No . Erhart: No . So we really have to start the curve at that intersection of property line I 'm assuming . Then I guess my recommendation would be that — staff figure out how much more space you need to make a safe curve and stop the easement at that point . Other than that , it 's pretty simple . Batzli : Tim , so you don 't , you 're not uncomfortable at all that Outlot B may be landlocked even though that 's where the freeway 's going? If the freeway doesn 't go through , we 've created something that 's landlocked . Erhart : One thing , if that would be a concern , then the easement we ought to be requesting ought to be 30 feet , not 60 because tradition has that we take half from both property owners along a line if we consider that — someday that we would need a thru street . Is there some doubt about the freeway at this point? After all these years . That 's a real question . Oh boy . Let me think about that one . Can anybody respond? Your question is ,_ is there some doubt about . Batzli : I don 't know . It seems to me that 's why the condition is in there because it would be vacated if , there 'd be no reason to extend it if the — freeway goes in . Erhart: Then I misunderstood it . If that 's the purpose of asking for 60 — feet , in case the freeway doesn 't go in . Batzli : Is that right Jo Ann? Olsen: The main concern we had was to accommodate the road to service , that 's going to be servicing Chadwick was the main concern . To accommodate that curve . I think we have more confidence that 212 will go through . Batzli : So you just want to accommodate a curve into Chadwick? You think 212 is going to go in , that doesn 't matter? Olsen: That was our primary , but it 's a good point that Outlot B .would be landlocked . I mean that 's a good point . Krauss: Well , you can always resolve that and maybe Gene 's probably willing to consider taking a private easement over his property so he can Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 7 give himself access to there . - Emmings: Didn 't he say he 's already done that or he 's doing that? Gene Quinn: I 'm going to keep an easement to the north . IMM Emmings: How wide? Gene Quinn: How wide? I can keep 60 feet . I would keep that until you know , it would expire when the freeway land is purchased . Emmings: Yeah . Erhart: And we 'd put that into the conditions . Emmings: No , that 's private . He 's doing that for himself . Conrad: I have nothing to add . - Emmings: Just a comment I guess . If he 's going to keep a 60 foot easement to make sure that Outlot B isn 't landlocked in case 212 doesn 't go through , it doesn 't seem to me to be much of a burden for us to say that that 's a , - that we want to retain some options there and this is the time to do it . So I 'd concur with the staff report on this with the understanding that once we know that 212 is through and once we figure out how to get into the Chadwick property , that the rest would be vacated . That seems to me to be , that preserves the most options for the city `_., that 's what I like . The only other thing I 'd say is that the northern boundary of Lot 1 would come south . Are the plans on the highway final enough so we can say there 's no chance that that property line will change to accommodate the highway? Olsen: I just talked to them last week and there has been no changes . They 're still working on the EAW so there 's always still the potential but that they don 't see it changing here . But there 's no guarantee that they might acquire more land . Emmings: Okay . I don 't have any more . Farmakes: I have no further comments . Ahrens: Just one question for Mr . Quinn . You don 't have any objections to the long right-of-way the City wants north of , or south of the current driveway? That runs along the east side of your property . Gene Quinn: I have 60 feet . Ahrens: That driveway that runs along the property . You don 't have any objection to that right-of-way I take it? Gene Quinn: You mean this piece? Ahrens: Right . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 3 Gene Quinn: No , I didn't have any objection to here and I 'd go up even 60 — more feet . To me this , if you had to put a road here you could do it the same as the intersection in the city . I mean I don 't want a 30 mph curve . Ahrens: I understand the applicant 's concern . I think the City should only take as much land as is necessary to make the curve to Mr . Chadwick 's property . As long as there 's going to be a private easement . . . Batzli : Does that need to be a condition or do you feel comfortable that that 's a private matter between Lot 1 and Outlot B? Ahrens: I think that he 's going to have to do it because he doesn 't want to eliminate his options for any development of Outlot B if in fact . . . Batzli : I don 't have anything other than I guess what Joan and Steve and Tim 's comments . A motion? Erhart: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat #92-3 , dated February 3 , 1992 with changes to condition number 1 to read , that the applicant provide 7 feet of right-of-way along Lyman Blvd . and will dedicate a 60 foot wide right-of- — way over the existing driveway easement north to a point necessary for establishing a future street which will continue north , turning east at the northwest corner of the Blosberg property . That distance to be , that exact_ distance to be determined by staff . All the other conditions to remain the same . Conrad : I second that . Batzli : Discussion . Conrad: We didn 't talk about the trees and the concern for the trees and the 7 feet of right-of-way . Do we need any comments on that? Krauss: We really have no idea at this point what the impact , if any will be of the reconstruction of Lyman Blvd . . Only taking 7 feet of right-of- way at this point would tend to limit any intrusion . Ahrens : Are the trees located in that? I don 't have any idea if the trees would be located in that area . Krauss: I was out there today with Gene . I 'm not certain . Olsen: Some will be within there but the road will probably be centered within the right-of-way so what we 're doing is really pushing the right-of-- way ight-of--way to the south , which is farm field . It seems logical that that 's where they 'd go . Emmings: Any street , the fact that the trees are in the right-of-way doesn 't mean they 're automatically going to get knocked down I take it . Number 1 . Number 2 . The City of Chanhassen , what role does the City have _ if the County should upgrade and widen that road? Krauss: Well the fact of the matter is , it 's not a county road. Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 9 Emmings : Oh it 's not . What is it? Krauss : It 's a city street . It probably should become a county road at some point . Emmings : If it 's a city street then we have control over what trees get knocked down . If it 's a county road , do we have control? Olsen: We can still comment . Emmings: Okay . I don 't see we can impose any conditions on the subdivision that are going to affect those decisions later . Conrad : Basically what that does , this decision has put the right-of-way more to the other side of the road and that would be acceptable . Batzli : I have a comment on item 2 actually . I 'd like to propose that we amend that to read , applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to the City releasing the City from liability or maintenance responsibilities , etc . , etc . . In other words we 'd cross off the first words , the City Attorney 's office shall prepare and add , the _ applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to the City . Erhart : I so amend . Batzli : Do you agree with that , your second? Conrad: Oh sure . I so second . Batzli : Any more discussion? Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat #92-3 to create one single family lot and two outlots as shown on the plans dated February 3 , 1992 and subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall provide an additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Lyman Boulevard and shall dedicate a 60 foot wide right-of-way over the existing driveway easement north to a point necessary for establishing a future street which will continue north , turning east at the northwest corner of the Blosberg property , the exact distance to be determined by staff . 2 . The applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to the City releasing the City from liability or maintenance responsibilities over the private driveways until the street ( Quinn Road ) is constructed to city urban standards . 3 . Outlots A and B cannot be replatted or built upon until sewer and water are available to the site . 4 . The existing gravel drive will have to be upgraded to urban street standards once utilities are available and further lot subdivisions Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 10 occur which utilize Quinn Road . All voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1 . — Batzli : And your reasons for opposing . Emmings: I just go along with the staff report on this . PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE A-1 , A-2, AND RR DISTRICTS BY ELIMINATING THE 2.5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RURAL AREA. — Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . _ Aanenson: I did have a few phone calls on . . .concern was people who already had 2 acre lots , could they split their lots and that 's not the intent of this . This is for someone who has 10 acres . I think that 's where the — confusion came in because they thought they could split their lot and if they could still get the two septic sites on it . . . Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens: I have no comments . Farmakes: No comments on this either . Emmings: I can 't understand something that you 've written here . Number 3 says that each site must have at least 1 acre of area which can support 2 septic system sites . I suppose there should be a comma there. — Aanenson: We 're thinking one area . Instead of taking one acre , we want to take out the acre and saying one area . Emmings: Okay . It 's one area which can support two septic system sites , a building pad and a well . Aanenson: That 's what 's existing right now in the rural lot . Emmings: Okay , but the it says with a slope of 25% or less . Does the slope of 25% or less go with the area or does it go with the septic systems? Olsen: It goes with the area . — Emmings: Okay , this is real confusing . It needs punctuation real bad . Aanenson: What it is . . . Emmings: It 's what? Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 11 Aanenson: It 's just a portion of that section . I should have written out the whole . Emmings: Well but this sentence , I mean you can 't make sense of it if you just read it and it 's real simple to fix I think . If I know what slope goes with . Ahrens: I think the well is supposed to have the slope . Emmings: Well I thought maybe it was the septic . I thought maybe it was the septic . You had to have your septic sites in areas where you have 25% slope or less . I don 't know what that goes with . Batzli : I think it 's the whole area . Ahrens : That 's exactly the way it 's written . Olsen: We wrote it so it was wrong . The intention was the septic site area . Remember with the Bluff Greens? Emmings: What it should say is each site must have one area which can support two septic system sites on a slope of 25% or less , a building pad , - and a well . • Olsen: Right . That was the intention . Batzli : Can you put a building up on more than a 25% slope? Emmings: I can . Any engineer can . Olsen : Well they can grade it . You can 't grade septic sites but you can grade . . . I 'm just saying the building pad you can grade . The septic site you can 't . You can 't grade it . Emmings: Yeah . You 've got to stay completely off it . Okay . Now if it 's written that way , then I understand it and it 's fine with me . Krauss : Can we ask for you to respond on one aspect of this? This ordinance totally eliminates a minimum size criteria . Basically the - minimum size becomes defacto . Can you accommodate those features on the lot? We also , at the time this came up , in fact Tim will remember this . We discussed having a 1 acre minimum and if the 1 acre qualified for this , _ that 's fine . Otherwise it had to be bigger . Is there any perception as to whether you 'd be more comfortable with an acre minimum or without one? I mean we 're not sure what the bottom end will be . I mean effectively it 's probably going to be bigger than a 15 ,000 square foot lot . Conrad : It shouldn 't be a 10 ,000 foot lot . - Emmings : We 're not going to start this again are we? Conrad: But it leaves it open . Right? Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 12 Batzli : I though you were going to come back with an acre . That was going to be my only question was what happened to the acre . Aanenson: I met with the building department and calculated . . .figured a — minimum lot would be somewhere close to 3/4 of an acre . . . Maybe a half acre but that 's getting pretty tight . Batzli : But what 's the thought process for not putting the minimum in there? Emmings: What minimum? A minimum? Batzli : A minimum . Krauss: It 's a total reliance on a performance standard but I guess you know , and we wrangled with it a little bit . We would not be uncomfortable with establishing a bare minimum and if it 's 3/4 of an acre , an acre . _ Batzli : Tim 's our expert in lots here . Erhart : Yeah , it 's about 3/4 acre . The question then is , is staff — comfortable with , if somebody comes in with an unreasonable plan , do you feel you have the authority to say no? Krauss: People can be more creative than we can anticipate . The other side of this is we are allowing cluster development here where theoretically you peg a 5 acre outlot that 's going to have a drainfield for_ the entire community if it 's well designed . In that case you may want to allow down to a 15 ,000 square foot lot . Maybe the 15 ,000 square foot should be , I mean perceptively it seems wrong to theoretically allow something smaller than what you allowed in a sewered area . — Erhart : Well that was , I guess are we open to discussion? Batzli : Yeah . Erhart: That was my question is , are we then , because we haven 't dealt with items 2 , 3 , and 4 here which are the setbacks , lot depth and width , — which I think we need to , are we then assuming we 're adopting the RSF standard which is a 100 foot width to 150? Aanenson: No , we 're just talking about the lots that . . .still follow the same setbacks . . . Erhart: You 're still going to require a 200 foot wide lot? Why would you do that? Item number 2 , under 20-575 . Item number 2 says you have to 200 foot lot width. 200 foot lot depth . I assume that that was going to be , I 'm assuming we 'd look at that also . If you 're going to allow a one acre — lot , you really need to go . Because it was absent there , I assume you were going to use the RSF standards as you 're suggesting , the 15 ,000 square feet with the 100 foot width . I don 't know . I think we have to deal with those_ at the same time . Conrad: Why don 't we use 15,000 square feet? Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 13 Erhart : Yeah , the question is , if you 're going to allow a community system , then what you 're trying to drive towards is to get normal sized lots . So why not use the RSF standards then? _ Krauss : Well as a consistent factor to establish the bottom er«d , it seems like it makes some sense to do that . Erhart: Let me ask you . When the guy comes in with a septic design , doesn 't he have to follow some book or something? Krauss: There 's the WPC 40 which has been superseded . Erhart: And our ordinance requires them to follow that? They can 't come in with some , nobody can come in with some hair brain idea , it has to follow a clearly written standard? Emmings: Isn 't this just so remarkably different than what we 're dealing with in RSF that it doesn 't apply? Here you may have a lot , even if the - guy could get it all into a 10 ,000 square foot let 's say , which I don 't think you can . I don 't think it 's possible but let 's say somehow they design it in there . He 's still got , he 's on 10 acres . This one 10 ,000 square foot lot on 10 acres . Do you care? • Batzli : Yeah , actually you do don 't you? Emmings: I don 't know . • Krauss: I think you care because the reason we got into this in the first - place is what happens when the City comes out and grabs these things and how do you integrate it? I mean you can perceptually illustrate if you have 100 acres , a 10 homes on a street that would look like it 's a street just around the corner from City Hall . And it 's sitting on 90 acres of nothing and there 's a big outlot someplace out there that has the 'community system and when the city extends itself out to there , you just knock off that community system and hook it to the sewer . That 's the lowest common denominator . Erhart : That 's the whole point of this thing is so that we don 't end up - with a Timberwood island that 's there forever so that you can put in a small little group of lots so that down the road when city sewer comes in , and you 're doing this in an area where you think sewer is going to come in . In 30 years or something . That it integrates right in and I would surely think that we 'd want to use at a minimum our RSF standards of 15 ,000 square feet and clearly state that . - Emmings: I wouldn 't have trouble going along with that I guess . I just don 't think it can be done in less than that . Erhart: If you lay it out . . . Emmings: You might as well put a fire under it . Conrad: Is there any logic when people do this Paul? When they take 40 acres and they can put 1 per 10 on 40 . When they start laying their 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 14 houses out , what 's the thought process that they 're going through? Is there any , are they looking to the future at all or are just really trying to get the 4 houses out? Krauss: I think it 's pretty clear those pre- '87 plats didn 't think about much of anything except to get 2 1/2 acre lots . Conrad: Is there any logic to where they put those houses? Krauss: Well I know that in Timberwood , I don 't know if Al is still here but Al 's told me that the lots are all designed so they can be split in half theoretically if sewer and water came through . But realistically you 're not going to rezone the odd lot in the middle of Timberwood and run a utility system past 13 or 14 angry owners to get to that one lot . Conrad: The only thing I 'm thinking about is , you know if there was some logic for larger lots , that 1 acre would set a , would create an environment for larger lots in that area . But there 's probably , that 's probably folly — in thinking that it 's setting any kind of precedent for how a future developer 's going to go in . So realistically I think we should go back to the 15 ,000 square foot minimum and RSF type standards . They 're going to be— bigger but . Aanenson: I can change that . I mean . . .all of the vacant lots that are in place right now . Change the minimum standards until we talk about the 15 . . . Erhart: No , they 'd have to have 10 acres . — Aanenson: . . . I 'm talking if we change the front yard setback . . .so I 'm not sure. what the lots would be . — Krauss: Unless it 's just lots created after the date the ordinance becomes effective . You know realistically too , I don 't think in the next 10 years _ you 're going to see more than 3 or 4 subdivisions coming in under this . Erhart : I think that 's a good idea to add in there that , the fact that if a lot 's created afterwards because you don 't want to have a row of houses — at Timberwood that 's been set at a 50 foot setback and then all of a sudden one comes in with a 30 . It wouldn 't be right . Are you done? Conrad: Yeah , I think so . Erhart: On the statement there , right in the middle of the page 2 , where it says large lot residential developments . Just as a clarification . If — that would read rural residential and then in parenthesis , ( unsewered area developments ) because we don 't use the word large lot I don 't think . Krauss: Actually it 's in the comp plan . Erhart : It is? Okay . It would seem to me to read a little better . You can look at it . Secondly is , over on page 4 . Page 3 , item ( a ) . Where does that go? Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 15 Aanenson : That 's all new language . Erhart : Okay , where does it go in the ordinance? Does it go in the zoning ordinance or does it go in the? Aanenson: Zoning ordinance under , we have a section called rural lot standards . . . Erhart : Well again , my feeling is one of the worst things that ever happened to Chanhassen was for us to get in a situation where we encouraged the chopping up of farmland into these 2 1/2 acre lots . So if nothing else - accomplished in my 5 years here , this is a very good change . I would recommend one more thing , and this is a major thing . That is to encourage further that people don 't go out and ever do this again is that we change _ our street standards for all of Chanhassen now to require urban street standards . Eliminate once and for all rural street sections . All future subdivisions have to have curb and gutter and the purpose is one , I think the city is now ready for that . Essentially we are a growing community - that we expect some day to be pretty much urbanized . Secondly is that it will make it too expensive to go out and create a tract of 2 1/2 and 5 acre lots because the streets get more expensive . I think we ought to do that along with this change and do it simulataneously . I throw that out as an idea to again encourage people to cluster so these things fit in . Batzli : Does the rural versus urban , if you will , street standards , do they vary in the amount of easement that they take or anything else? Krauss : Well it used to . Olsen: It 's all 60 feet now . Krauss : Yeah , it 's all 60 feet now but the standard of pavement and the lack of curbs and storm sewer are the real difference . Batzli : But if you required that and you got curb and gutter in some of - these areas where they don 't have sewer or water out there , do they then end up ripping up the streets to put it in? - Krauss: Well , that 's a possibility but they 'd rip it up whether it was an urban standard street or rural standard street . Batzli : But it costs more to put it in . Krauss : They ' ll move it or run the utilities through an easement area on one side or the other . Erhart : That would have to be planned out when they put the development in hopefully . Your thinking is an urban street is not as wide as , total width of grading is less isn 't it than a rural? Krauss: Because you don 't have the ditches on the side . Erhart : So you 're talking , if you 're looking at trying to , most of the ones that are going to go in , if they 're going to go in wooded areas or Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 16 wetlands , it would seem to me they 'd have less , encourage less disturbance . — Batzli : Does that change have to be made parcel with what we 're doing tonight or is this just something we should consider and look at? _ Conrad: I guess my preference is not to consider it right now .or to consider it as part of this . I 'm not sure how it . Erhart : It doesn 't have to be simultaneous but I 'm just saying in conjunction with it somehow , I just think . Batzli : Is that something the rest of the Commission wants staff to take alook at? To basically amend the ordinances so that we 're looking at urban street standards throughout all of Chan? Pros/Cons . Aanenson: It 's the first time I 've heard of it . Batzli : I think it 's the first all of us except Tim have thought of it . I 'm not sure . Conrad: I 'm not sure where I 'm at on it . I don 't know . You think it 's a — high priority . Erhart : Well I don 't know . It 's an idea . It might be quacky . In fact _ Al 's here . I guess he knows more about subdivisions than anybody here . Maybe he 's probably appalled that I 'm proposing this because it 'd certainly make a development more expensive but I propose it because I think it makes sense for our future . Al Klingelhutz : Really though if you 're going to cut the lot sizes down from 2 1/2 to 1 acre . . .because the length of the road would be that much longer so if you had twice the length of road to cover the same amount of lots . So the difference in cost per lot would not be much different from a rural service road than an urban . Erhart: One thing you wouldn 't want to have is a bunch of 15 ,000 acre lots with a rural road . Batzli : Exactly . Krauss: I think it 's a real valid point to ask the City Engineer to respond to it . I think the whole idea of the rural roads stems from an error which wasn 't too long ago but where folks anticipated development in the rural area was somewhere over the horizon and nobody knew when . We 've just confronted a bunch of situations where it 's not over the horizon . It 's-- here . Batzli : What I 'd like to do I guess is have staff 's engineers come to a — meeting next couple of sessions that you have . Talk to us a little bit about what that entails and whether it 's something that we need to take a look at and modify our ordinances on that . My only comment is , I would prefer that we have a 20 ,000 or half acre minimum rather than a 15 ,000 minimum here . I think that at least 2 Council members here may support me that 15 ,000 is even a small sized lot and encourage it out in these areas Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 17 is I don 't think necessarily wise idea so I would prefer , and I may be out voted here that we look at a 20 ,000 square foot lot or something rather than 15 . Other than that , do I have a motion? Councilman Wing: . . . I clarify a question . . . If we 're talking 15 ,000 square feet and it requires 2 septic system sites , can that even be done on that small of a lot? Krauss: No , but that 's where it becomes a performance standard . The only way you could do a 15 ,000 square foot lot in all likelihood is to have it clustered community drainfield . If you don 't do that , your lot size may be 4 acres you know depending on the terrain . Councilman Wing: So that 's a big unknown at this time . Krauss: Right . It tells the applicant that they 've got to give us engineering that demonstrates they can qualify . Emmings: I think the thought is Dick , that someone sometime may be able to come up with a real tiny lot and be able to accomplish this and nobody up here wants to see them go below the minimum we allow in a regular subdivision . That 's the only reason for putting that number in . We sure don 't expect to see any . Conrad: What I don 't understand is our setback standards . Now if we put a minimum for lot size in , what are we doing? Are we changing all the other setbacks? Kate Aanenson made a comment that wasn't picked up on the tape . Conrad: But they would be different standards in the rural and the A-2 districts . So would we have two sets of standards? Aanenson: If that 's the direction you want to go . If we went with the 15 . . . Emmings: I thought what Tim is saying is that , Ladd is that as , the RSF standards will be a minimum . Conrad: But here we 're dealing , get me out of , maybe I 'm missing some piece of logic here but where we 're dealing in an agricultural estate district or an RR district where the setbacks , side yards , whatever , are a lot bigger typically and now all of a sudden we 're going to say across the board we 've just shrunk them to RSF standards . What we 're trying to accommodate these few situations where we 're subdividing 40 acres and giving them 4 lots and so for those 4 lots it may make sense to change , but I guess what I 'm not confident . I don 't want to change the standards for the balance of those areas . • Aanenson : . . .they 're going to have different standards . . . Erhart : If the lots 's under 1 acre you can do that but if it 's over 1 acre it has to be the standards that are now in there? Planning Commission Meeting — Marc - 4 , 1992 - Page 18 Aanenson: Right . Batzli : Would the Commission feel more comfortable taking a look at this at the next meeting with it all put together? — Conrad: Yeah . Aanenson: I would . Batzli : Okay , do I have a motion? Emmings : To look at this next time again? Batzli : I think we should bring it back . Emmings: I 'll move to table it . Batzli : Is there a second to table? Farmakes: Second . Erhart: That includes looking at the urban versus rural standards? Is that your motion? Emmings: Are you back to the roads? Erhart : Well , are we coming back just to talk or is that in your mind a separate , totally separate thing? Emmings: I 'm only talking about what 's in front of us . Erhart: Alright . Batzli : I think staff is already going to put together a presentation or — take a look at it for us on the road section . Erhart: Okay . Conrad: But just remember from what Tim 's suggesting may make some sense but really the people who don 't like that are the developers out there or the people that are subdividing and maybe they 're not ever developers at this time . They 're somebody that owns 40 acres and are just trying to , they 're going to give us the pitch that they don 't have a lot of money to do this . So I don 't know if staff , the engineer will represent one side of the coin . Batzli : I don 't think we 're going to make a decision based on the engineer 's report other than to figure out what are the changes . I mean they know how much it costs to build roads . We 're not looking I don 't think to make a decision other than perhaps to hold a public hearing to talk about changing it . I don 't see us doing anything more than that . I — don 't even understand what all the changes would be . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 19 Emmings moved , Farmakes seconded to table the amendment of the Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan and sections of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the A-1 , A-2 and RR District for further study . All voted in favor and the motion carried . - Batzli : Kate , do you have enough direction on where we want t;.. see it go? Okay . As far as direction to Kate on the size of the lots , I 'd like 20 ,000 . If everyone can just kind of , what would you like to see Tim? Erhart : I think that 's reasonable . Batzli : Ladd? Conrad : Why do you want 20? - Batzli : I want it bigger than 15 . Emmings : How about big enough so that there 's a chance for them to split it if it ever became a 15 ,000? What if it was 40? Erhart : That 's one acre . - Emmings: 45 . Or if it was 30 . Krauss : That really doesn 't work in practice . I mean they plop the home - right in the middle and there it goes . Batzli : I just think it 's rural . The question is whether you want to preserve any rural setting and 15 is , you 're plopping them in like back here . It 's just , I don 't get it . Emmings: But once there 's water and sewer there , they can do it . Batzli : Yeah , but the question is whether you want to preserve some of the character of the land . Conrad: But we 're preserving the other acres . Not the ones that the houses are going on . Batzli : That 's right . Conrad: So I don 't care . I can go along with 20 . It 's not practical - anyway to get this on 20 ,000 feet . Erhart : Well it only would be if you had a community sewer system . But _ again , I mean I 'd go along with 20 to be nice but I 'm not sure there 's a point . Conrad: If you want to make a power play Mr . Chairman . Batzli : I 'm not trying to make a power plan . That 's why I 'm asking you guys . Steve . 15 , 20 , different number? Emmings: I don 't care . I really don 't care . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 2, Farmakes: I would support 20 . And 3 trees . Batzli : Joan? And 3 trees . Did you hear that? Ahrens: I don 't really seethe point between 15 and 20 . I 'll go with 15 . I don 't see the point . . . Emmings: Well there isn 't any . You 're not preserving rural character because until water and sewer come , the guy 's sitting on 10 acres . After it comes , they can put in a 15,000 square foot subdivision . _ Batzli : The only time it 's going to happen is if they cluster and use some sort of community system . Ahrens: I 'm not sure that 20 ,000 square foot lots preserve rural character . Batzli : No , but it avoids downtown city square gridlock potentially . Or helps . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Krauss : I don 't know if this qualifies as moving right along . Batzli : Okay , let 's move right along and screech to a halt . Krauss: As before , we 're really not entirely certain where you 'd like us _ to go with this . Although I guess I 'm getting a better idea . We tried to give you the information that you requested . We did a survey of a number of third tier communities . It 's in your packet . To the extent they defined a PUD lot size , residential PUD lot size , we 've given you that - information . It goes down to some ordinances which don 't establish a minimum lot size for PUD . In fact in Eagan they just said well , the smallest we 'll ever accept is 8 ,700 . I think they pulled that out of a hat . But in Eden Prairie it 's the same , 13 ,500 . They require on normal single family lots . On some cities like Bloomington it went from 11 ,000 to 15 ,000 if you 're on a corner lot . And on but you can see that none of _ those communities has the 15 ,000 square foot standard that we have . Now whether that has any bearing on the discussion or not I don 't know . But that 's the information . Also in your packet , we got a letter from Peter Olin via Ladd where Peter suggests a rather simple approach is a better one for an ordinance . With a strong intent section . I don 't disagree with that . I mean we talked about a different approach of not being too specific and just establishing what kind of development you want to achieve . On the other hand , if you 're real sensitive to the minimum lot size criteria , that might be one of the standards you want to put in there . I also tried to focus a little bit on what exactly is the issue about lot size . The issue seems to be that you can 't get a desireable or a normal home on the lot and I think you can approach that from two perspectives . You can establish a requirement , and I think it should be universal frankly because we have equal problems in normal subdivisions , that there be a minimum buildable area . Well that you demonstrate that you can fit some sort of normative home , a reasonably sized deck and a back yard and if you can 't do it , and you may not be able to do it on a 3 acre lot if it 's got Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 21 bad topography or wetlands and it 's not a legitimate lot . That standard should apply universally . PUD 's , subdivisions , whatever . Emmings: Can I ask you a question right there? What stops a developer from coming in and saying , yeah I can put this house on this lot and I can - put a deck on it and I 've got a back yard and then he goes out and he builds a house that 's a whole lot bigger than that and just kind of destros the ability to put a deck on there because of the size of the house . How do you get around that? Krauss: Well I don 't know . Then you 're in the position of you took the moral high ground . You demonstrated that it could have been done . If - somebody somewhere made an independent decision to screw it up , that 's what they did . Emmings: Yeah , then that 's their problem . Krauss : The other aspect of it is the buildable area approach . I 've worked with ordinances that say that not only do you have a minimum lot size of x but a certain percentage of it has to be buildable . Has to be useable . Arid to get that you eliminate all the easements that conflict , all the wetlands , the setbacks and if you don 't achieve that buildable - area , again a 15 ,000 square foot lot may not be buildable . I mean we 've seen some that aren 't . Or we 've seen 30 ,000 square fbot lots that aren 't buildable . I think that if you establish criteria to meet those two guidelines , I don 't care if you 've got 10 ,000 , 15 ,000 or 30 ,000 square foot lots , it 's going to be a reality check . It 's going to get you lots that are much more consistently utilizeable without reliance on variances . - Batzli : Define utilizable . A deck , is that utilizable? Krauss : We actually did in an earlier draft of the ordinance , and I think it was a 60 x 40 house , a 10 x 12 deck and a 30 foot back yard area . Emmings : A 60 x 40 house and garage , is that what you 're talking about there? Batzli : Now we 've got a lot of information from the other communities here and clearly the other communities don 't seem to be as uptight with minimums - as I am and I maybe convinced the Commission to be . The question is , of course as always , where are we going to go from here? My concern was initially from concerns I had , problems in the PUD 's that currently existed . My understanding of the intent of the PUD was to be creative and to cluster and to provide open space and I don 't know that we got that in the past . I 'm not sure that the new ordinance is going to get that . From the sounds of it , there 's a new proposal in house that basically provides small clustered homes in a cornfield and then provides larger lots in the wooded area . Now it seems to me that the intent of the PUD would be to cluster even more tightly either in the cornfield and provide open space in - the trees and preserve all of them or to provide some sort of ballfield or something else in the cornfield . But I 'm not sure why clustering homes in the cornfield , in essence putting them on smaller sized lots than we would require than the rest of the city and then allowing the developer to charge a premium into the trees , meets what we really want to get out of the PUD , Planning Commission Meeting - March 4 , 1992 - Page 22 other than if we want to save some trees . That 's the only thing that I can see that 's beneficial to the city and once the developer sells those lots , the people can do whatever they want to the trees so I 'm not sure that. we 've gained anything . What I 'd like to see , and my only point in getting — on my high horse on this whole thing has been , how can we be proactive so that people are encouraged to use the PUD where we get a creative development and the city wins , the developer wins and the people moving _ into the development win . That 's what I 'm asking . I 'm asking for creativity . I 'm asking what is it that turns developers on that we can give them so that we get an above average development . We save open spaces and trees and wetlands and everybody who moves in is happy as well . You — know Ladd suggested last time , well let 's just put in a density and maybe that 's what we have to do . Maybe we just leave it wide open . Let them come in . We look at the density . See if we like it and as long as we warn — the people moving in that they 're in a PUD development . If you don 't understand what that means , then check with Paul Krauss . Maybe that 's what we do but I don 't know that we 're being proactive enough to say how are we _ going to encourage these people . You know the developers , because it seems in the past all we 've done is we 've given the developer a greater opportunity to charge a premium for some lots and probably not reduce the price on the homes that are on undersized lots . And. I use undersized lots -- euphamistically because they 're undersized compared to the rest of our standards . I mean it 's not necessarily that they 're undersized . They may be useable . They may be utilizeable . They may be fine to put the house on_ the pad , with the deck , 30 foot back yard but they are undersized compared with our other standards . I don 't know . I mean we 've heard a lot of people . I know you 're frustrated . Probably with me but I don 't know that this is going to work . I don 't know that there is a way to make it work . "- Krauss: I guess from a staff standpoint , I mean we do from a professional standpoint feel that these things have utility . But we 're not here to — twist your arm and keep coming back with something that 's not going to fly . I mean we 've been working on this one since last spring , and the trees are about to bud out again . I think that from a design standpoint it certainly_ has validity . We 're not in the business of manipulating the market . I mean the only influence we have over a developer is we say , here 's our ordinance . You can either develop that way or you can use this more creative approach that may make you a little more money but you 're going to give us what we 're looking for too . I mean that 's the only carrot and stick we have in this world . Now Brian talked about a plat , and I mentioned that I was going to bring a copy of it to you to look at . I 've — only got these two blue line prints . I can spread them out up there if you like and you can take a look . Batzli : You guys want to see it? — Emmings: Yeah . Batzli : Okay . ( Paul Krauss presented and explained the subdivision and PUD plan to the Planning Commission at this point . ) Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 23 Erhart : And what did we get? You say you think we can get open space - where? Krauss: Well we 've got a park , we are getting ultimately . You 've got park dedication here . Batzli : Do you get that anyway? - Krauss: What you get though is you draw boxes around these trees . Ahrens : Why couldn 't you get that . . . Krauss : Well ultimately we basically are getting it . Or getting something close . - Batzli : In the straight subdivision? Krauss : Yeah . It looks more like this but I 'm convinced that we could - have done a better job had we still had some flexibility . I mean these are what , these are executive home lots? I don 't know what the current vernacular is but these are going to be more expensive homes up in the _ hill . They ' ll bump up to the homes in Timberwood . If we had some flexibility on lot area , we could encourage that trend a little bit more . Erhart : And those are what , 20 ,000 square feet? Krauss: Yeah . And this is completely without any influence . Ahrens : The developer makes more money off those treed lots too . I mean I can 't believe they would come in and develop in a straight subdivision like that, lots that they wouldn 't make much money off of . Krauss: Oh I think that 's certainly true but I don 't want to sound patronizing but after doing this for 15 years I 've stopped fighting the free market impulse . I mean if we can come up with a scenario where they - make more money but we get something that we would prefer to have out of it anyway , that 's fine with me . Ahrens : Right , but if we can get it anyway . Emmings: I think Joan is saying , wouldn 't he do that anyway . Just because he 's going to get more money off of it . Krauss : Well as I say , this story has a fairly happy ending . We 're in the process of reviewing these plans and we ' ll see how , they look fairly good - at first blush . Batzli : But in general? I mean this example aside , wouldn 'tthis normal _ average developer want to put larger houses in a treed area like that in the hills against a larger subdivision? Krauss : This developer happens to be a fairly quality , fairly reputable - developer and the answer to your question in this case is yes . But developers run the garnet and we 've had our share of developers who come in Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 24 here and say the subdivision says this and I 'm not giving you once thing more . And from a legal standpoint that 's an appropriate response . Farmakes: What about from the legal standpoint if you don 't feel that the — developer 's providing for the intent , can you refuse it on that basis alone? Krauss: Sure . You can be fairly arbitrary on a rezoning action . Farmakes: Let 's say that we put black and white figures in here . Let 's — say we put specific figures about minimum square footage and some of the stuff that we 've been talking . We still don 't like the plan . Does that mean that legally the city can say then , we don 't think so? Krauss: I don 't know . Maybe we ought to have the City Attorney here to answer that specifically but Roger 's always told us that we have a great amount of latitude on a rezoning action , particularly when they have recourse to do a standard subdivision anyway . I mean we 're not taking away the use of their property . It clearly has a legitimate use . The developer is in a position of asking us for something above and beyond and you set out a district that says we have the expectation that we 'll get something better than normal . You have that latitude . • Farmakes: Peter Olin 's letter in here talks about focusing on intent rather than the specifics . That being the case , that response from the attorney then would be important . He apparently says , he 's talking about taking issues in court here but if they don 't meet the intent of the -' statement , it seems to be kind of subjective . The intent isn 't going to spelled out like square footage on a lot . Krauss: No . That 's why I indicated that I agreed with Peter 's approach but I think you have to .set some bare minimum criteria . And you have to be specific as to what you want to achieve . Now Peter had some very mom and apple pie language that sounds pretty . I 'm not certain that that alone is — enough . Farmakes: I think it 's reasonable to give a developer some specifics about what you feel the intent is going to be or what can sail through . It would seem to me that if you 're going to offer a developer at the same time a specific idea of what he 's going to gain from it so that he has the — motivation , as we said before , if there 's no motivation for them they 're not going to do it . I would leave it up to them to come up with a creative way to solve that and I guess I 'm not that uncomfortable with the minimums . I 'm not sure about the 10 that we were originally proposing but if we could — still refuse it by claiming that it doesn 't the intent and we 've specific with the intent , I 'm not that uncomfortable with it . I 'd rather see the creativity and the burden on them of solving our problems . If they do it , — fine . If they don 't . Krauss: We don 't want anything close to just opening the door to a blanket PUD without that intent . If we had a developer who 's still working with us come in on another property off Audubon Road who builds lower end housing in Chaska . That kind of thing and there 's a market for that but he came to us and the first question is well , he threw a plan on the table that had an— Planning Commission Meeting - March 4 , 1992 - Page 25 average 10 ,000 square foot lot size and said well , I 'm going to do a PUD . We said no you 're not . Well you just took away 40 lots . Our response was you never had them in the first place . So that kind of a dialogue happens all the time . But if you have something that says well if you Aant to do a - PUD , here 's how you earn one and read the intent section and a4'�:ouple of guidelines . Emmings : Maybe the best thing to do , it would be nice if we had some examples . Here are examples we 've approved in our town that we 're proud of . - Batzli : Do we have any of those? Emmings: Well , go take a look . Wouldn 't that be a way to show a developer - what we 've got in mind? Krauss : Yeah , but I think Brian 's question is accurate . Emmings : I don 't know . It would be good if we could get one here that we like so we could say this is the kind of thing . - Batzli : Well , we may be proud of the Ersbo one when that 's up . Krauss : Except it was different . I mean that one has a 30 ,000 square foot lot size . Batzli : But the effective lot size is much smaller given that most of it 's in the swamp . I would favor going with an intent statement and a density . A warning and basically a statement that indicates that lot sizes below 15 ,000 will be scrutinized carefully by the City and maybe rejected out of hand . Something like that . Basically kind of , it basically puts I think - something further in there that if you go below our minimum , we 're going to look at it carefully and we have the ability to reject it . That way they can go below but they 're still going to be looking at a density and I 'm more concerned about the people moving into the city in the end result . That they 're somehow put on notice so the developer should be required to during the sales process put them on notice that they 're buying a PUD so that they have the opportunity to talk to what they 're getting into . Conrad: The less we put down the more nervous the developer 's going to be . Is that a fair statement Paul? Krauss: Well , they might . . . _ Conrad: The more specific he sees stuff , the more he knows if we can match it and helps him in the design stage so the less we put down , is he less likely to take a crack at it? - Krauss : Until you get a track record of having said yes or no on some . Emmings: Well it may depend on the developer too . Conrad : Developers put a lot of money into design . Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 26 Emmings: We just had one come in and we approved a PUD and he not only didn 't have any standards , we didn 't have anything in our ordinance about residential PUD 's . And he got approved . Ahrens: You know I don 't think we have to be so worried about scaring away developers . I really don 't . I think that they 're going to come in here . They want the land . They want to develop . I think that if a developer — comes in for this specific piece of property and we said we have a minimum lot size of 15 ,000 square feet . He or she says I 'm not interested in developing as a PUD . Then I want to go with the straight subdivision and we say that 's fine but we have these stands of trees that you have to work — around . Wouldn 't we end up with just as good a product in the end because we 'd have 15 ,000 square foot lot minimums? Krauss: I think it gets to Brian 's question from last meeting . Can 't you achieve the same thing without it? Ahrens: Yeah , I guess I 'm not convinced that you can 't . Krauss: I tend not to believe that we can . I mean the flexibility to alter standards gives you tremendous room to innovate . We don 't have and — no community has a standard that says you just can 't cut down a significant stand of trees . Now we 're trying to develop an ordinpnce that would overlay the city that would get at that somehow . But the best way to avoid-- cutting a stand of trees is to allow the developer to build that house someplace else . I mean that 's the carrot and the stick . You can mandate you so much and beyond that you 've taken the person 's property or you 've damaged the land . If you allow that unit to be transferred to more appropriate site , everybody comes out better if it 's done right . Emmings : I kind of agree with what Brian said . I 'd go for an intent — statement . A density and maybe I first thought it was a bad idea to put in the warning but I don 't mind that the more I think about it . This plan over here which you 're calling a PUD is . — Batzli : This doesn 't look like a PUD to me . Emmings: No . This is almost no creativity whatsoever over here . And I — think that 's proven by the fact that there 's the same number of lots on each one somehow but still this is a better plan than this one , which as you say is an overstatement . This is still a better plan . And could this — plan be approved under our subdivision ordinance? Krauss: The better one? Emmings: The one he 's calling a PUD . It couldn 't because of the small lots . But still this is a better plan than a straight subdivision on that property I think . — Krauss: Yes it is . Emmings: So this , even though it doesn 't show much creativity or as much as you 'd like to see , if we don 't have a PUD ordinance we 're going to wind up with things that are , we wouldn't be able to approve something like this Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 27 which would probably be a better plan . So I think it 's important that we have a PUD alternative . I think it ought to be , I don 't think we should say anything about minimum lot size . Just talk about density . Maybe give the warning that the smaller the lots get , the harder we 're going to look at them . Especially if they go below 15 ,000 . I think that 's a good approach . Farmakes: Is there enough of an incentive with your experience with - developers between 15 and the 10 that we originally proposed? Krauss: It 's a 50% reduction . I_ mean that 's significant . Farmakes: What I 'm saying is there enough of an incentive there . If you put the warning at 15 , is there enough of an incentive there that they feel if they get 12 or they do 13 that they may have a chance? Krauss: I honestly don 't know Jeff . I mean it sounds reasonable . I guess we won 't know until we try it . Emmings: But they 're talking to you at the same time aren 't they? I mean they 're getting some direction from you too . - Krauss: Oh sure . I mean this developer frankly , I mean he wanted , he originally talked about wanting to come before you and exploring it on a concept basis . I think it was after I last brought this up in December I called him up and said forget it . Again I think he 's come up with a pretty reasonable subdivision but some of this stuff that was nice and kind of helped to define that PUD was dropped out . I mean he had boulevard landscaping . Well , he had a boulevarding of major streets and a couple of other features and they 're not being proposed right now . What we 're getting now is the landscaping along Lyman and Galpin that our new landscaping ordinance in the subdivision requires and the buffering and - that 's about it . It gives the capability to negotiate . There isn 't a whole lot of latitude to do that in a straight subdivision . Batzli : I 've said this facetiously before and I 've said it kind of half seriously and I 've said it seriously . I mean I still think that the best way to get them to go PUD , if that 's how we want to do it so that we have greater flexibility to protect some of these natural features , is to raise our other lot size , and I 'll say it one last time before I give up , a broken and defeated man on this issue . Go ahead . — Erhart : You mean raise our minimum lot size in the city? Batzli : Yeah . Erhart: That was my point at the last meeting and nobody talked about it so I almost wasn 't going to bring it up . I think the choices are one , forget the PUD and stick with what we 've got . Or two , if we really believe - that practically every major subdivision that we 're going to see has some unique characteristics about it that we would like , rather than us try to dictate what gets done to preserve it . To allow the developer to be creative in how to preserve some wooded land or some open area or whatever . The only way that it 's going to work , and three . Is that I personally Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 28 believe that 10 ,000 square foot lots are too small . I think that a 12 ,500 square foot lot for example , perhaps is what we ought to have as what we would consider a small lot . I 've always , on one hand I 've always said that we want to prevent urban sprawl . One of the ways to do it is to allow your average lot size to be small . On the other hand , I 've always 4g en a little concerned that 15 ,000 might be a little bit too small for a standard lot . When you tie all those together it tells me that the only way to do this — PUD is to raise the average , our standard lot size here to , I 'm going to say 17 ,500 . I have no magic number but I 'm just going to say that number . You make the increment to motivate him 500 square feet , or 5 ,000 square — feet allows him to go down to 12 ,500 . And so that gives him the incentive . It solves the problem of the concern of some of the Council members and I think myself below 12 ,500 is a little bit , it 's a pretty small lot . The second thing is that limits the number of lots that can be that small to — some percent of the lots in that development . At least 10% . Maybe it 's 30% . I don 't know . I didn 't look at examples but I think we 've got those two choices . Either we can forget the PUD or the other side is , you 're — going to make it work we 're going to have to raise our standard lot size so we can offer incentive . Ahrens: I agree that if we go with smaller lot sizes we should be more specific . I mean we seem to have a meeting of the minds here between the staff and the present Planning Commission what we mean when we say there shouldn 't be too many small lots and we 'll look closely at them and we 're giving you a warning that you 'd better come in with a proper sized development . But nobody else is going to understand after we 've moved on to greater things what we meant by that . — Emmings: But the density will prevent you from having too many small lots . If you have a density for the project of 1 .8 or whatever , you don 't have to- worry about it do you? Conrad: But you could still have some theoretically . I 'm comfortable with that . I always have been . Ever since we started talking about this but — everybody else is worried about minimum lot sizes and I 'm not . Emmings: No , I 'm not either . _ Erhart: But density is just another way of saying the same thing . I 'm comfortable with density . Conrad: No . Density will allow you to have a 5 ,000 square foot lot . Erhart : No , but you 've still got to have minimum lot sizes . -- Ahrens: Yeah if you have density , couldn 't you still end up with three huge lots and maybe two little tiny ones? Conrad: He 'd probably not want to do that . But in that situation , that 's so obvious we wouldn 't even consider that and I think Paul could reflect that pretty well . — Ahrens: But what about? Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 29 Conrad: Future generations? Ahrens: 10 years from now . Batzli : But see that may be , if they want that , then we should give them the flexibility . I mean this is a living , breathing statute . Why lock them in? Maybe that 's what they 're going to love in 10 years when we 've all moved on . I don 't know . Conrad: Absolutely . Emmings: I 'm not worried about 5 ,000 square foot lots. Conrad: I 'm not either . - Batzli : Does anybody other than Tim and I , would anyone like to see staff taking a look at raising the lot size in our other districts? Ladd? - Conrad: No . Batzli : Steve? Emmings: I don 't know . I haven 't really thought about it . Conrad: It 's a lousy way to back into a PUD ordinance . If we feel that we are crammed right now , then we should be looking . You know we don 't raise lot sizes so we can have a creative PUD . If we feel that we 're developing at a too dense a rate right now and people are , our decks are leaning over each other 's property lines , well then let 's take a look and let 's get the whole community back in here and start looking at what our zoning and our lotizes should be for every category . I can 't imagine the city wants to • do that right now . I haven 't heard one person , not one person other than you Brian talk about lot sizes . Really in the last so many years , nobody 's talking . Emmings: And we spent so much time arriving at the subdivision ordinance and it seems to be working . It seems to be working okay . _ Conrad: I love large lots . That 's why I 'm out here . It 's the only reason I 'm in Chanhassen is because we have some big areas . But I just , at this point in time this is , if people want smaller lots . Things are changing to say the smaller . The costs are getting greater . For us - philosophically to say to the developers we now want 17 ,000 square foot lots , that 's a different course for Chanhassen and I don 't think we should do it because of the PUD ordinance . We should do it because we feel as a - community that we want to send a signal to people that this is sort of an open space community . Batzli : Well , that 's the issue brought up by Olin in his memo and that 's why I guess I 'm wondering why you 're not talking about it and that is , he says the suggestion of the PUD is to preserve the physical and social character of Chanhassen . Well we aren 't going to preserve it by putting in 12 ,000 square foot lots . Planning Commission Meeting — March 1 , 1992 - Page 30 Conrad: Ah , but you can preserve . Emmings: Wait a minute . That 's not what we 're doing . Batzli : I know . But that 's the intent that he 's written and no one has said I disagree or that 's not what we 're here for . That 's just , I thought it was interesting . — Emmings: But you can't say that anybody 's proposing to put in 12 ,000 square foot lots . — Erhart : Steve , what 's your reaction to the plan where you have how many 10 ,000 square foot lots in that one area? Krauss: 10? I don 't know . Erhart : Just take a guess . 30? Krauss: It 's probably more like 40 or 50 . Erhart : And what is your reaction to that? Emmings: I haven 't looked at this . My reaction with, regard to what? Erhart : Just seeing forty 10 ,000 square foot lots all bunched together , what was your reaction or anybody 's reaction to that? Emmings: It 's 40 what on here? The density of this thing is 1 .9 . It 's a little bit above what a straight subdivision is . Erhart : But the concept that you could put in forty 10 ,000 square foot lots all together in one spot . How does that strike you? Emmings: Is that what 's on here? — Erhart: Yeah . Emmings: I don 't know . It doesn 't scare me . I mean I wouldn 't reject it — out of hand . Batzli : Jeff , do you want to look at raising the lot size in the rest of — the districts or no? Farmakes : I wouldn 't be adverse to do it . I guess I fall back that if we 're going to proceed with the PUD , there has to be an incentive for the builder or we shouldn 't do it period . If we can 't come up with an incentive , I don 't think we should waste our time with it . I think that there 's a reason to have a PUD . I think we should pursue that . If it 's a — warning , that seems reasonable to me . But there has to be a difference between 10 ,000 and 15,000 if that 's what we 're going to have as our base . If it 's going to be 20 ,000 and a 15 ,000 minimum , that 's an incentive . I think we 're just , to quote a phrase that you 've had in here 3 times , we 're just beating a dead horse . We 're talking about some different issues that converge at times but I still feel that if you 've got it within the 5 ,000 Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 31 square feet somewhere in there that the builder 's going to come in with - something there that he gets , the city gets , and leave it up to him to come in and show us what it is we 're getting . And that 's the incentive . Somewhere in what you 're talking about here is that 5 ,000 square feet . If it 's a difference between 15 and 20 or 10 and 15 . Leave it up ..to him to come in here and say that this is , I 'm meeting your requirements of a percentage for the amount of smaller lots with a cap and I 'm meeting your density requirements . Then we can argue about whether or not he 's met our - intent . Batzli : Okay . So you 'd like to see , and correct me when I go astray here . You 'd like to see an intent section and a density and potentially a cap on the percentage or a floor? Farmakes: I 'm not as worried about a cap on there . As long as we can pull - •the rug out on the intent statement that he 's not meeting it . And I think that somewhat that warning in there gives them your intent . If it 's 15 or it 's 20 or if it 's 10 , I do agree that the overall size of our lot is - something that 's probably a separate issue because that 's going to affect also considerably the difference in land cost to a potential home buyer . And I think that your , as we raise that up we should look at that very _ carefully because the cost of housing in this area is pretty steep and it leaves out certain groups of , economic groups of people purchasing into a home here . And when we start adding on 20% to the land cost we should look at that . Batzli : Joan? Ahrens: What was the question? Batzli : The question was , do you want the staff to look at raising the lot size in Chanhassen? And the second question is , are you comfortable proceeding on this so we can give some direction to staff so we can finally move it on? Putting in the density and an intent section . Ahrens: What 's the warning in there? Batzli : Well the warning would be , if they get too small we 're going to look at it very closely . I mean it 's basically part of the intent . Emmings: The smaller they get , the harder we look . - Batzli : Yeah . Ahrens: I also worry about pricing people out of the market here . I don 't like that idea either . Batzli : I don 't think we 're doing anything other than what . Ahrens: By raising the minimum lot size . Batzli : The density puts it at a regular subdivision . Planning Commission Meeting — March 4 , 1992 - Page 32 Ahrens: However , I 'm not opposed to looking at raising the minimum lot size . I guess I 'm not opposed to that but it seems like every time we take a look at this there 's , we throw a new curve into it . Batzli : I 'm not proposing to tie that into the PUD . I say we move the PUD along and if we decide to look at the minimum lot size in the other districts , we do that but that 's not part of what we 're doing tonight . — Ahrens: So you 're saying as a separate issue , let us examine raising the minimum lot sizes in Chanhassen which I 'm not opposed to looking at — something . At that . On the other hand , the other issue that you brought up of the PUD , I guess I 'm still not comfortable with the whole density idea . I mean I like the intent statement . I think the warning statement is okay but I don 't know . — Batzli : Just kind of a showing of hands here for direction to staff , who would like to see staff proceed with intent , density and warning? Okay . Go— for it guys . Conrad: There you go . It 's back to you Paul . What more can we do? Batzli : What else do you want to know? We 're out of time . Krauss: As far as that goes , that 's fine . But you 've raised the issue of — raising lot areas . I guess if I could , I 'd like to throw my two cents into it . Our minimum lot size is already substantially greater than most every community in the Twin Cities with a few exceptions . Those few exceptions — tend to be Minnetonka and Orono and communities of that , or if you 're going to go out further to Lake Elmo or places that have an intent of staying hobby farmish or quasi-rural . There is a direct translation between lot area- and cost and it 's a significant one . The process is escalating . The — land cost is escalating rapidly . Thirdly , our lot areas are not only one of the largest lot areas in the Twin Cities but our density is even lower than it would imply because we 've been a no net loss wetlands community and— we 've preserved other features . You have a very substantial park dedication . We 're on the outer fringes of both of those . So when we tell a developer yeah , we have a 15 ,000 square foot lot size , it actually takes _ them a lot more land to get to that 15 ,000 square foot than it does in most other communities . Now the new State wetlands law will tend to equalize that a little bit but our density , our average density of 1 .7-1 .8 units per acre , 1 .9 , in that range , is one of the lowest the Metro Council 's ever — seen . They had to develop a new standard for us because their usual rules of thumb didn 't apply in Chanhassen . The last aspect of it is , is we 've got 10-12 years of utility projects , assessed utility projects that are — based on a density of 15 ,000 square feet . All these projects were assessed on the presumption that there was x number of units on a piece of ground . If we changed the rules , I think we might owe a lot of people a lot of money . So I just throw that out for some thought . — Batzli : My personal feeling is by asking staff to look into this and I think that , I thought I heard the other night at the City Council that at — least the Mayor and Councilman Wing expressed that 15 ,000 might be too small . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 33 Emmings: I didn 't hear that . Batzli : I thought I heard that . Councilman Wing: Pretty loud and clear . One said 20 and one said 18 . Batzli : Yeah , so I thought that we had some people at the Council also interested in taking a look at it . Now the number on this group that wants to look at it appears to be maybe 3 or 4 and some people are comfortable with it . Ladd 's probably fought through the subdivision ordinance once . He doesn 't want to touch it again and that 's fine and he 's , I mean he 's got a large lot . He doesn 't need to look at it again . Me on the other hand , I 'm still looking for that large lot . Emmings: Couldn 't you buy the lot next door? Batzli : I think I 'm going to . Okay . What I 'd like to do is at least with , I don 't want a 3 week study on it . What I 'd like to know though is if you do have some information on you know, and I 'm sure you 've given this to us before , what are the neighboring community lot sizes and what are the issues . I don 't even want them discussed in depth other than so we can throw it around and see if we want to look at it more . Because I think we 've got at least 2 people on the Council who expresped that they 've felt that it may be a little low and I 'd like to know what goes into the decision to make it low or high and if we do change it , are we going to owe thousands of people so much money we can 't even take a look at it at this point . So that 's what I 'd like to see . If other people disagree with me , speak up . Emmings: If you decide to go back into the subdivision ordinance to look at lot size , Ladd and I have a mutual suicide pact . Conrad: I kill Steve first . Emmings: We won 't be here . I tell you , you think this is hard to do . This PUD . Batzli : Are you adverse to at least the staff bringing up the issues of what are the factors that go into deciding this? I mean obviously you two don 't want to get into it? Emmings: Go into deciding what? Batzli : What the minimum lot size is and if you raised it , what would the issues be that we 'd have to look at . What would be the process . I mean it 's clear that you two have no interest in raising it . Conrad: I have no interest so you do what you like . If there 's votes from , I think Tim would go along with you . Erhart : Well let me say , I guess after Paul 's comments , I guess I wasn 't , it was kind of surprising to me that our 's would already be larger . If you consider average around the western suburbs or any suburbs I guess of the metropolitan area . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 34 Krauss: Well again , you will find some that are as big , if not bigger and — you try to figure out what 's a comparable community and it 's always tough and we can give you , I think you 've got some statistics in here . Erhart : What 's Eden Prairie? Krauss: 13 ,500 . Erhart: For minimum lot size? Krauss: We can give you the Victoria 's and Chaska . Well I think Chaska is__ less but I 'm not sure of that . We can certainly give that to you . It 's not so hard . Emmings: Now excuse me but in the materials you gave us tonight , under PUD lot size survey , it says Eden Prairie 13 ,500 . Krauss: Yeah , it 's the same thing as their . Emmings: Same in the subdivision? Oh , okay . Ahrens: So what the incentive? Krauss: I don 't think there is one in Eden Prairie . ' Erhart: Well , if that 's the case and our two elder commissioners here don 't want to touch it . Conrad: No , no . Don 't use us because . . .maybe we 're out of touch . Batzli : But I would just like a 15-20 minute discussion and just some of — the basic issues that we 'd have to look at and . . . Conrad: I think Council is interested so I think from your standpoint Brian it 's probably not a bad thing and maybe that 's information that they 're going to ask Paul anyway . So your asking staff to generate it is probably a wise idea . Whether Steve and I are interested in it or not . I think Dick , Richard cares about it and other Council members do . — Emmings: And we 'll participate in the discussion . Batzli : Let 's do that at an upcoming meeting at some time . Put it on our list of things to do . Do you have enough direction on the PUD as to what the heck we 're trying to do now? Conrad: Let 's have Paul replay back what we might be asking him for . One thing just sort of intrigued me . Aren 't there , and I 'm a believer in PUD's and I 'm not sure that we 're ever going to find a perfect one but Paul you — never brought us an ordinance that may have come , been generated in an ivy tower environment out of American Planning Association or whatever . Aren 't there model PUD ordinances? Batzli : We got one . Didn 't that consultant guy give us one? Last summer . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 35 Krauss : Shardlow? Yeah he did and I don 't recall what it had for a lot size . Conrad: That would be interesting but I liked what Peter Olin talked about in terms of a little bit more vague ordinance but if you did what we just asked you to do , a very strong intent statement and I think you 've already got that from what I recall . We have an intent statement . We have , are we talking net density or are we talking gross density? - Batzli : Net . Krauss : . . .pretty consistent throughout as net . Conrad : So we 're talking net density , okay . Batzli : That takes out the . Conrad: That just takes out streets . - Krauss : And wetlands . Conrad: Does it take out wetlands? Okay . That 's good . Will our comprehensive plan drive the net density? Won 't the comprehensive plan place in the net density that we should be using here? Krauss : It does but the comprehensive plan may actually give more latitude than you want to . Conrad: As a range out there . Krauss : It goes 0 to 4 I believe and 4 is probably higher than you would prefer in these areas . Ahrens : Do you exclude easements? Krauss : No . For what? If it 's an easement over a wetland or a roadway , - yeah but otherwise not . If it 's a park dedication , I think parks are actually excluded . That 's a question that we had and it 's a matter of interpretation . I mean it 's not for this time and place but are parks - excluded from the net buildable? I would argue that they can 't be because we haven 't taken possession of the park . I mean that 's part of the dedication process . You have 10 acres of land , you owe us so many acres of park . Ahrens: It 's the chicken and the egg . . . - Krauss : Well but it 's a double hit to say give us your park and then we ' ll figure out your density of what you have entitled to on what 's left . Emmings: The park that 's up there on this plan , is that part of the 81 acres that 's here? Krauss : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 36 Batzli : That 's fair . That 's okay that you do that . Emmings: The only thing I don 't like there is it 's shoved off on the edge . Why the hell isn 't it in the middle somewhere? Krauss: Well there 's a reason for that . There 's a slope with a heavily forested ravine that 's really quite attractive in a natural area going back in there . They had talked about trying to shoehorn a few lots in there and in talking to our parks folks , we figured that it was better to do it this way . Batzli : I guess they do have a path back there . Conrad: So Brian , I 'm just trying to make sure staff or Paul 's going in — the right direction here . At least one that we 're all consistent with . Your comments on the warnings . So we 're talking about net density ; intent and then some warning statements . Is that what you said? Batzli : Yeah . Conrad: Saying if you go , now our past PUD ordinance did allow a minimum _ of 12 ,500 as a minimum lot size isn 't that right Paul and did we restrict the number of those units? • Krauss: I think there was an average as well . An average minimum . — Conrad: There was an average in there . Krauss: And it was like 13 ,500 so , I believe . Conrad: Yeah.. — Krauss: So you were sort of forcing that number up . It got at the issue a different way . So your warning is if you go under 15 we 're going to look real hard at what you 're doing? Batzli : Yeah . I think that just puts it on the table because that 's what we 're going to do anyway . - Conrad: But you 're not interested in going down to 10 . Batzli : I 'll be candid . If Lundgren came in and said they were going to develop some houses like they did up in Near Mountain and do a good job and the people knew what they were getting into, I might not have a problem with it . Those people appear to be happy . The houses don 't turn over — every 10 months or anything like that but it 's going to be a case by case basis and I don 't even know that the City Council has comfort that we even want to give developers an opportunity but I say let 's float it up there and let them shoot it down andtell us what they want at this point . Let 's get it up there so they can consider it and I think that it potentially could be done right . I haven 't seen necessarily a small lot development in this city done right yet but it could be done and I think it 's a case of the developer coming in and Paul dealing with the developer and basically we 've got to put our trust in the people in the planning department . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 37 Conrad: How do you get to small lots Paul? How do you get to higher density? How do you get to density transfer? How do you get more density on part of this property and less in another Paul? Krauss: That 's what your intent statement does . And you 're basically _ clarifying the issue . You 're saying there are things on properties that we find of value and we can list what those are . I mean the list is , mature stands of trees . Interesting terrain and to the extent that you can demonstrate that by the use of the PUD that you 've accomplished extra Vow ordinary preservation of these things , then the City will consider or may consider flexibility in other areas such as lot area . Conrad: Do you recommend that we have a minim_ set out there for developer purposes given the nature you feel? Krauss: I would say that you probably , just as a matter of comfort level I would think you would . I mean I don 't want , I continue to go back to , I need a bare minimum to tell the developer whether or not that lot that they proposed is a utilizeable lot . Now if we get at that by saying , I 'd rather , instead of maybe saying not saying 10 ,000 feet . I like the approach of saying you 'll have a useable lot area that can accommodate a home . Same thing as you just did with the on site sewer and those lots . Demonstrate this . • Batzli : So in addition to what we just told you to do , you would like something in there that talks about , you have enough , you can demonstrate that a house and the backyard and a deck can fit on there? Krauss: Right . Batzli : That 'd be fine with me . That 'd be fine with me to include that . Now the Council may look at it and say , I still hate it . You 've got to put a 13 ,000 square foot limit in there . That 's fine but let 's send it up there and let them do it . Conrad: But then we really haven 't done diddily with our PUD ordinance . The previous ordinance is probably better . Krauss: Well the previous ordinance allowed all the transgressions that occurred . Conrad: So are we going to net out anything? Are we going to net out _ someplace better with this ordinance? Krauss: I think if an ordinance comes together and it 's ultimately approved along the lines that we 're just mentioned , I think that 's yeah . That gives the creativity with the control . If we 're going to go back into the straight jacket that we had originally which doesn 't , seems to give a developer some latitude but doesn 't give the City anything , I 'd advised you to just drop it . Batzli : Any other discussion on this? Go for it Paul . • Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning ••••• Commission meeting dated February 19 , 1992 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: — Krauss : I 'll skip through that . The only thing of interest I think there was Commissioner Batzli was at it and Dick was at it , Councilman Wing . We had a Council goals setting meeting last Saturday? Last Saturday or the Saturday before . Last Saturday and we discussed a variety of things . They told me that I couldn 't have any more than 30 minutes because last year I hogged the floor I guess but we did talk a lot about TH 5 corridor in — particular and there is a lot of support for doing it . It 's still a matter of doing what exactly and how much is it going to cost . One of the things. we laid on the table is a relatively recent occurrence and it has to do — with the Federal Highway Act . The Federal Transportation Bill stands all previous highway funding bills on it 's head . Don Ashworth is amazed that the original highway bills go back to 1956 under the Eisenhower _ Administration and really have changed in any significant way since then . The new bill basically sets out not only funding for highways but for transit and pedestrian access and for building bridges and for projects that seek to tie a community together rather than having a highway split it— apart . That have specifically allocated funds for design amenities . There 's a specific provision in there to build wooden bridges . I mean there 's all kinds of things in there and the highway folks are amazed that it came down the way it did . Bill Morrish has been talking to me about it because he apparently had some input with Moyanhan 's committee in Washington where the bill was drafted . The long and the short of it is , we 'd like to think that we have some potential for making TH 5 a -. demonstration project and tapping into those sources of funds . So we 're going to try and figure out exactly what that entails . MnDot really doesn 't know yet . And put together a package to get going on the work . -• Batzli : Do you want to let the other commissioners know what happened on the TH 5 corridor study as far as the consulting and things like that? Do _. you want to touch on that as far as the presentation at the Council meeting last Monday . A week ago Monday . Whenever it was . Krauss : Oh , oh , oh . Yeah , well basically I forwarded your recommendation -' and the work that 's been done to date and again the Council was very supportive of doing it but balked or really had some trouble understanding where we 'd come up with the money to finance it . We were directed to -. clarify that a little bit . The Mayor asked that I get some more specific cost estimates . We also were asked to , you know Don Ashworth was asked to see if there 's anyplace in the budget to do that . Don is , for those of you who haven 't worked with him , he 's really a financial wizard . I mean it 's kind of amazing of his ability to pull stuff out of hats . Unfortunately he 's running out of hats and every time the State government looks to give somebody a knock on the head to make the budget balance , they look to local -• government and we 're expecting another pretty good hit shortly . So the well may be running somewhat dry but again if we use it , if we structure it that we 're tapping into another , working towards tapping into another source of funds , there may be some way of shaking something loose . One of the things I stressed to the Council is everybody on my staff is anxious to work on a TH 5 project . It 's one of those trend setting projects that are Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 39 a heck of a lot of fun and really a professional challenge but I 'm going to be real short handed this summer . Jo Ann , as you can see is only going to last another 5 , 6 , 7 weeks if we 're lucky and the amount of new development coming in the door is getting staggering . It 's getting frightening . Emmings: What kind of development? Krauss: Well I ran through a litany of some of it . Some of it you know of . You know Ryan 's obviously going to final plat their 's and get going . Hans Hagen Homes , this one that we talked about here has submitted and is on , not your next agenda . We don 't have anything on your next agenda for right now but your following agenda . That 's for 150 units . The Donovan property up on Teton where the barricade is . Donovan 's the fellow who told you he 'd never subdivide so you didn 't have to improve Teton . Well he lost his property in a Sheriff 's sale I believe and that 's being 'proposed for 17 units . That 's on your agenda . We are coming , the fellow we 've been telling you about for 2 years was trying to put together a proposal for the Assumption Seminary actually has submitted a PUD concept plan and it 's really kind of interesting . I think he 's probably going to try to touch base with all of you just to talk over some of the guidelines they 're working with you and I think they 're working towards setting up a bus trip to their , they have a convention hotel facility they built in Stillwater and they 'd like to show us how that place looks . It 's a historic rennovation and restaurant so if that comes together ,• if you 're willing to do that , that 's something that 's on the horizon . In addition Lundgren is cranking very hard on bringing in their subdivision north of TH 5 . The one that you saw a year ago in the Comp Plan . Emmings: By TH 41? Krauss: Yes . So we expect to have that shortly . On Rod Gram 's property , they 're supposed to be submitting in the next week another plat for about 150 homes . I got a call. this afternoon that Rottlund has purchased or has a purchase option on the Dolejsi property . A 55 acre piece off of Lyman and TH 101 . We also hear that SoftSoap is going to make a decision on a site in Chanhassen within the next 90 days for 350 ,000 square foot facility and the rumors are ripe as to which site Target 's actually going to go on . Batzli : When do we start seeing all the beachlots also? Emmings: What was that last one? Erhart: Yeah , slow down . Emmings: What was that last one on Target? Krauss: Target is looking at a number of sites in the city . We 've know this for a while but we don 't , I mean Target doesn 't talk to us . The brokers talk to us and they have looked at , sites that they 've looked at are , they looked at the Ward property and apparently that 's not going forward . They looked at the Eckankar site and haven 't been successful with that . They are currently looking at the Burdick piece . Emmings: They 've looked at that before . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 40 Krauss: Well they looked at that before 2 years ago when it looked like they could do that in lieu of Market Square . Oh , Market Square closed . Virtually . No , no , actually the ground breaking is supposed to be on St . Patrick 's Day . _. Emmings: We can go and buy some virtual groceries at the virtutsl grocery store . Krauss: No , it 's as good as a done deal . I mean it is a done deal for all intensive purposes so that 's happening . Erhart: Where is SoftSoap going? Krauss: Sof.tSoap is looking at the Redmond expansion piece that they never_, built on on that unbuilt section of Lake Drive . By the railway tracks . They 're looking at two , well the Ryan plat that you 're aware of and a potential site on a Ryan plat that really hasn 't come together yet by TH 5 . They 're looking at the land that McGlynn 's owns on the corner . And they 're-' looking at that project that Paul Steiner and the Opus Corporation are looking to do on that 190 acres out by TH 5 and TH 41 . Erhart : What 's the Dolejsi? Krauss: Dolejsi is a 55 acre chunk , well in fact whet you go home to your house , when you make that last turn . Erhart: The one that we were talking about? Krauss: Which one? Well just as you make that final 90 degree turn , it 's off to your left . North of Kevin Finger . Erhart : The one we were talking about the other day . Yeah . So there is something going on there? Krauss: Yeah , but the original developers for that are not , I mean this is now , I just forgot their name . Rottlund Homes . It wasn 't the original group . You go into your office and you get a stack of messages and you get another 150 unit plat . It 's kind of mind boggling . There 's going to -• probably be some difficulty in getting it all done frankly . The difficulty is the city only has so much bonding capacity to finance projects and the Upper Bluff Creek project alone I think is a 4 or 5 million dollar project . _, Erhart : -Oh the sewer and water? Krauss: So even if we have enough people on tap to pay for these things , -' we still have to go into a debt situation to get them going and we already have one of the highest per capita debts in the Twin Cities . I mean it 's fully financed . I mean it 's backed by development that 's on the ground but-. it doesn 't look great at the moment . Batzli : When do we start looking at beachlots? Aanenson: We 're shooting for April 15th . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 41 Batzli : So we 're going to have all those on our agendas also . - Aanenson: We 're going to try and take 2 or 3 a meeting . Batzli : We 're going to be busy . Okay , we don 't have anything on our agenda for next week at all yet? Do we want to have a little vacation , mini vacation here? Erhart : We have nothing on the agenda? Aanenson: Unless you want to follow up with that comp plan land use amendment . The one we just tabled tonight . awe Erhart: Oh the rural thing . _ Krauss: Can we play this by ear for a couple of days? We 've got a lot happening at the same time . If we can give you some structure , I mean get back to you on some of these things , then I 'll talk to Brian and we 'll go ahead . Otherwise we 'll let you know . Batzli : If your time would be better spent working on corridor study issues , I 'm just concerned that we 're going to make work for you to get something on our agenda for next week that 's taking away from something that needs to get more of your attention . • Krauss: Well it gets mind boggling all the stuff that 's happening right now . Some of it doesn 't involve you directly . It involves me . We 're going into construction hopefully in the next few weeks on the senior center behind th= t wall . I 've been involved with that intimately . As far as the TH 5 corridor study goes , one of the things we need to do is we need to , we 're getting into some more meetings with MnDot trying to define the study . We 've been working with the school district quite a bit . I was at _ the School District meeting on Monday night to try and figure out what their needs are . They just came back with demographic projections that projected a 50% increase in school population in a relatively short period of time and the weird thing is I think they significantly under estimated - what 's going to happen . And they 're shocked about dealing with what they think is going to happen . So there 's a lot of things swirling around . Emmings: Is this the Chaska School District you 're talking about? Farmakes: Has there been any discussion for the Middle School? Krauss: Yeah . That 's in fact the case in point . When Ryan was moving ahead , in fact Ryan did submit plans to us for that area north of Timberwood . Remember the concept is that it had to be office or walk like - it or look like it and basically of very high quality . One of the conditions was that the school site had to be locked up . Well that 's kind of our role in the public/private partnership . Well the school originally told us that that 40 acre site at the corner was plenty big . And now they 're telling us that it doesn 't meet their needs and their needs are truly astonishing . They wanted 4 baseball fields , 2 softball fields , 2 football fields , 4 tennis courts . Planning Commission Meeting March f 1992 - Page 42 Ahrens: They 're right across the street from a park . -• Krauss: Well to an extent we want to piggyback city recreational facilities onto this but we frankly don 't understand why a Middle School _. needs that much . Now we 've been told that the State is now mandating exactly what a school has to be outfitted with . In fact we called the State and we 're getting conflicting information . But they are looking at a _ bigger site . The School District really doesn 't have a handle on what 's happening to it . Farmakes: I had heard terms used as a high school . Then I heard middle - school then I heard high school again . I was just wondering in the interplay between the make-up of that committee . I know it 's oriented towards Chaska . There are more people on that committee that live in -. Chaska and I was wondering what that , how that played with the numbers that they 're talking about . Krauss: The numbers weren 't influenced by that . I mean the numbers were -. prepared by Barbara Lukerman who 's an old Metro Council and University of Minnesota . Farmakes: No , I didn 't mean it for that . What I was talking about where obviously the numbers projected are different for a high school than they are for a middle school . I just heard that flip flopfDing information about_ high school and then I heard middle school . Krauss: There is no definitive position . When we did the comp plan , we worked with a fellow who was then the , not the superintendent but the -. administrator for the school district and .he had told us that their most likely need is for a middle school . And in fact 2 years later we 're finding from the architectural force that the middle school is severely _. undersized and inadequate to meet their goals . The high school is equally undersized . What we 've .been told is there 's a possibility it could be a high school . It could be a middle school . The politics of the situation , if I could speculate on that is that there is a very high potential that there 'd be an extreme amount of relunctance on the part of Chaska to lose Chaska High School . So even if it makes sense to do it from an operational physical plan standpoint , and I 'm not sure it does at this point , I don 't -- know that there 's a great likelihood that that would happen . But this group that we 're working with is not only doing physical plans . They 're trying to figure out what their program needs are . How they want to break -, down classes . They 're in the process of changing athletic conferences to the Lake Conference and I think they need expanded facilities for that . So there 's a lot going on . Farmakes: That 's obviously something where the two communities are going to meet , run into each other in that area . I 'm just wondering if we 're anticipating that it eventually , if they look that far down the road that -- we have a high school , we have a middle school because right now we 're sort of dealing with that from a rural standpoint where all that education is centered in one area and we bus everybody from all the communities in . As _ we overtake them in population, which it seems to me . Krauss: We did . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 43 Farmakes: I mean even more so . 5 ,000 say . 10 ,000 . What that will incur and where we center our educational system within this city . OPEN DISCUSSION: GROUP HOMES. - Krauss: I don 't know what all I can say about it in the interest of being brief . I think we have , we need to clarify some stuff in our ordinance and I tried to tell you what our philosphical position is on these things . - That we believe we have an obligation to serve the needs of all our residents in a fair way but right now you 've got a problem waiting to occur . When one of the primary standards for siting a large group home in our community is that it has to have a good septic tank , we 're missing the point . Minnetonka , to give credit where it 's due . It wasn't me but it was the woman who 's the Planning Director still over there , took some real innovative steps with these things . Ann Perry worked on a Hennepin County - committee to help move these facilities around and came up with standards that were really tested under fire in Minnetonka in several situations . One was a group home for troubled teenagers going into an old school . Another - was a shelter for battered women . What I ask you to do is take a look at the standards in the Minnetonka ordinance . We can adopt something like that . We can work on something else but I threw that on the table because I think it does a fairly good job . Batzli : I liked the standards . It looked to me like it buffered it . It took into account size and impact on the neighboring properties so I - thought it was a real good , you know use that as a model . I guess that 's what I 'd like to see . What does everybody else say? Ahrens: I think it 's well written . Batzli : Yeah . So do we want staff to draw something like that up? Is that how we want to use up more of that time with? Krauss: I 'd also tell you too , I want to contact Chuck Gabrielson and get his input on it . Chuck is the program director of the only real group home - we have in the city right now . I think he 's a pretty decent fella who would give us his comments . Batzli : Straight scoop . Okay . Farmakes: Can I ask a question , since as I 'm not as experienced as some of the people on here . One of the definitions they had in here was mentally ill . Is there a definition for that? It 's kind of a broad range . Krauss: I don 't know . Emmings: I 'm sure there must be . I 'm sure there is . The State has to have one because they have MI programs and they 've got to have a definition . I don 't know what it is though . Farmakes: And there isn 't a definition in here for criminal group home or people who are coming out of prison. Emmings : Halfway house? Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 44 Farmakes: Halfway house . Does that come under that? -' Krauss: Well I don 't know . That 's the details you need to get into because a lot of those are not licensed specifically by the State . Judges _. can remand people to certain homes . Emmings: I wasn 't thinking we were talking about those when I was reading _ this . Batzli : No , I guess I wasn 't either . That 's an interesting point though Jeff . - Emmings: I think we 're talking about licenses . Farmakes : Well I was talking about some of the problems they 've had in Minnetonka in a group home there where people who are sexual offenders . Krauss : Oh , that was not actually a legal group home . That was a defacto -. one that was taken over by Reverend Ralph . I forget his full name but . . . Farmakes : But it was a group home? Krauss: It was not in compliance . The guy bought the home and he was , I don 't know if he was ordained but he was a minister of some sort and he started having services in his home for theoretically an outreach and he turned into a defacto group home . It didn 't meet the City 's criteria . I forget why but I know that the zoning administrator was after them to close the place down for a long period of time and it ultimately was . Farmakes: My only comment was , the intent I think in the Minnetonka ordinance is fine . I did have some questions in that regard and I also had a few questions in the issue of , I 'm assuming that this is for profit and not for profit in regards to these? Krauss: It could be either . -. Farmakes: Either . And the two instances I 've known in the southwest suburbs here where there 's been a problem like I just mentioned , neither -- one of those house residents were from the community . I refer back to the intent that you originally referred to in here and I 'm wondering how much of that if it is for profit , some of these homes primarily get their clients from out of the community . Krauss: The issue as to whether somebody 's remanded by a Judge or a court system probably needs to be addressed and frankly , part of the Minnetonka -' ordinance that I was less than comfortable with is the lack of assurances . I mean some of the stuff that Minnetonka did , there 's one for the teenagers that were remanded by a Judge was done fairly sensitively . They put City -. Planning Commissioners and City Council people on their Board and all that but this is a program where the kids are not locked in and have the ability to run . The question came up , what happens if they take off? The answer was , well then they 're out of the program . Well , that wasn 't a good enough response and I felt less than comfortable with that . But those were conditions that could be placed upon the permit . I ' ll try and get you more Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 45 information on that . There 's another one too I think Jeff that you 're mentioning that is a large group home where they did have a problem where somebody , I think was raped from somebody and that was up on Hwy 12 . I forget the details beyond that . Farmakes: How about the one in Chaska? Krauss: The one I 'm thinking of is just on Hwy 12 just before you get into Wayzata . But I 'll try and clarify that . You shouldn 't be buying something that you 're not , that opens up the door . But the ones in Minnetonka that were the more tragic situations I think were the home for battered women . And it was a neighborhood dispute that was , I mean this ordinance was developed basically in response to the situations that arose from that . There was a group home for mentally retarded kids suffering from a very exotic syndrome called Praderwilly Syndrome where they - literally will eat themselves to death . And they need to be in a full residential situation with full time guidance and they bought an old mansion over by Minnehaha Creek in Minnetonka Mills and it caused a big _ neighborhood uproar . Oddly enough though after they moved that program out of there , there were other groups homes that tried to get intothere because it was set up with dormintories and what not and they didn 't mcet the criteria . Primarily because they were at the end of a residential - cul-de-sac . It was just inappropriately placed and there wasn 't sufficient open space to justify that level of occupancy . And basically you had a white elephant and they couldn 't occupy it again with a group residence . I - think converted it back to a single family home . We can get into that a little more . Batzli : Okay , but you 're comfortable with at least the direction? Farmakes: Yeah , I just wanted to bring up those points because when I read through it , those really weren 't answered in there . DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT REGARDING SALES OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL. Krauss: First Amendment , Supreme Court , you can 't do it . There 's only two options for doing it . Roger 's told us this before and I guess it hasn 't changed substantially although I keep hearing of some new rulings that are coming down but chip away at the edges of it . You either can designate an area you want to give up on , the war zone concept or you can come up with standards that say things like it can 't be within 500 feet of a church or 1 ,000 feet of a daycare center but then you have to overlay all those — criteria on a map and if you don 't have a site that fits it , you 've just broken the law . I 'm not sure if there 's any good solution to this thing . It 's a little frustrating because clearly , I forget which town it was but up north where they had one that located next to a daycare center , it destroyed the daycare center . Batzli : I know in the past this group has said that they really don 't want to look at this and I think the Council has directed that we look at it . Emmings: Well I think we said , I think the decision here is an important one . I think trying to looking at the secondary effects of these places I think is real legitimate . Looking at what they 're doing or what they 're Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 46 selling or anything else you know to me is something I have no . . . — Ahrens: But it looks like we have only one option anyway . Batzli : We can only consider the secondary effects . Emmings: Yeah , and I think before we talk about it though I think we talk about whether you want to try and regulate the activity and I think that 's — what we were talking about . We weren 't really thinking about it in, terms of secondary effect . Batzli : Okay , so you don 't have a problem with this group looking at it as long as we limit ourselves to that? Secondary effects . Emmings: Right . Yeah . Krauss: Meaning we 're not trying to legislate what is or isn 't obscene . Ahrens: Nobody 's been able to do that yet . Krauss: No , that seems to be where some of the more recent rulings are _ coming down . I think the Supreme Court just accepted a case , and I 'm not sure what the implications are going to be but I think they define that community standard thing a little better . ' Batzli : I would like to try and avoid that . I 'm sure this is one of the biggest nimbe kind of issue ever invented . Farmakes: It would go on forever . There are people who think that dancing and bowling are obscene . Krauss: The best you might be able to do or the best we might be able to pull off is coming up with some criteria that it can 't be a near a church or can 't be near a daycare center . Emmings : And school . Batzli : And limit it to a certain district or two . Can we limit it to the-- central business? Can we do a war zone? Put it in the CBD but you can 't put it near a church . That kills half the CBD probably . Krauss: Sure . But then you have the problems that come up like we have that church that meets upstairs at the Frontier Building . Emmings: I think they ought to share space . Farmakes: This is material again and the piece that you handed out was talking about adult entertainment . We got into the discussion last time — about bars or what goes on in entertainment . You talked about the liquor license and then some people get around for that by not having liquor served . Krauss: Well that 's true . In fact Councilman Wing in fact , it 's too bad he 's left because he 's got a position paper he just wrote up on that very Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 47 issue . How do you deal with these things through liquor licenses and I 'm convinced we have a pretty good handle . I mean you just don 't have to give them a liquor license . Farmakes: Yeah , but I think there are other things too . There are other - businesses . I heard on the news the other day that they had car washes in the nude . I didn 't keep the coupon but it seems to me that . Ahrens: Not in this climate . Farmakes: From a practical standpoint it could get into everything . How are you going to legislate it? Emmings: We 'll say they have to stay open in the winter . If they 're open in the summer , they have to stay open in the winter . That will get them . Batzli : It 's interesting because for example like Tampa just outlawed the women selling hot dogs on the street corners in thong bikinis . And so you know , people there 's . Ahrens: But men can do it . - Batzli : No , all thong bikinis are illegal in public beaches and street corners or something . I don 't know . Krauss: You 've got to at some point define what this applies to . And does it apply to the video store next to the Chinese restaurant? Batzli : That 's the problem because that seems to me to get into the issues - that we don 't want to look at . And that 's going to be the biggest problem is how do we get this to apply to something without passing judgment on _ that and that 's always been my concern with doing this personally . Does - that mean that it applies to the video store or the grocery store selling Penthouse or Playboy or? Who does this apply to then? _ Krauss: And that 's where I don 't understand how to come up with something because ultimately you have to define why can the mini-mart over here sell Hustler from behind the counter but if some store were solely dedicated to merchandising that kind of stuff , it was treated differently and I don 't know . Farmakes: And what if they came in and they skid Faulkner 's obscene or To Kill a Mockingbird is obscene to me . Take it off the shelf . What criteria do you use? I mean because you get the majority on one side that says we feel that this is wrong . Emmings: I think the thing that I guess I 'd be concerned about is , are more , well I 'm not even going to say that . I thought I knew before I came in here but I don 't think I do . Krauss: Well if anybody 's got some constructive approaches to it , let me know because . Farmakes: Could the City Council , what are they worried about? Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 48 Krauss: I don 't know . I think that , I mean I understand their fear . Their fear is they 're going to be confronted with something like that town was up north that they can't deal with that 's very destructive and divisive . — Farmakes: Which town is this in? Emmings: And what is it? Batzli : What they opened was a . Krauss: It 's up around Champlain and that area'. Batzli : It was a bookstore , magazine store , which I think also had the — little , did it have the little movie booths in there too? Krauss: I think so . Batzli : It was a XXX kind of a place though and they put it in within 50 feet or 25 feet of a daycare facility and all the parents were dropping off their kids at the daycare facility went bonkers and they pulled their kids — out and it ruined the daycare facility . I mean that 's the issue is are you going to allow businesses to come into the community that have an adverse impact like that on certain types of businesses like potentially schools , — daycare and be able to do it without regulating content of everybody and that 's my concern . Farmakes: It seems to me it 's the price you pay for the freedom . — Batzli : Yeah . But is it fair to the existing stores? I mean you get into this kind of argument . — Farmakes: You could reverse the argument also . Batzli : Is it fair not to let them in? Farmakes: You 're a lawyer and all I can say is that it seems like it 's a merry-go-round and it would seem to me very difficult . You could reverse — the comment and have a store owner come in and say the daycare was built next to my place of business and ruined my business . It then becomes community judgment as to which one they wanted as far as content goes . _ Ahrens: But I think at some point communities are obliged to make decisions of who can locate where . Batzli : But we do that all the time . Farmakes: . . .used for zoning . — Emmings: We don 't really do it based on moral judgments though . Batzli : We should be doing it on kind of health and welfare kind of issues . I mean the gas station can't be within a certain distance because of the odors and the traffic and things like that . If in fact this would Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 49 generate some health or hazard to the stores next door , then I think it 's something we should be looking at . I don 't know that it would , although I think there have been areas in , war zone kind of areas where it does bring in in theory crime and prostitution and whatever to these districts that they set up . Ahrens: . . .on Lake Street where that 's been a real problem . Batzli : Yeah . And so the question is , do we try to regulate it in - advance? Keep them spread out but if we do that , how do we decide who has to be spread out? Farmakes: It 's still a valid , under 18? Is that the criteria that 's used? They didn 't elaborate that on here as far as age . Krauss: I don't know . Farmakes: Like for instance that next to a place where there are children concentrated or something of that nature . They do that say with liquor - don 't they? Krauss: Well frankly , some of the liquor reviews get kind of odd . I mean you 'll get a minister coming in saying , it 's within a mile of my church . You can 't do that . Or it 's 4 blocks from a high school so you can 't sell beer . I mean it 's a regulated industry you know . You 're breaking the law if you sell it but I guess I 'd have to ask Roger that if we really wanted - to establish criteria to make sure that the more abusive locations are avoided , and how do we define what we 're moving around? - Emmings : Right . That 's the problem . Can 't do it . Batzli : What do we need to either move this or kill this at this point then? Krauss: I guess I 'd really like to ask Roger that question specifically . I mean my discomfort is not being able to differentiate between Brooks . 41 Ahrens: We already know that we allow that : The community doesn 't have a real big problem with that . With the Brooks. market selling magazines right? We 're not worried about controlling that . Krauss: But the material , I mean some of the stuff Roger 's got in here is fairly graphic . Emmings: I read this several times . Slowly . - Farmakes: . . .and acceptable under the law? Krauss: Yeah . But I guess I just don 't know how you differentiate between the video store with the back room with the X rated movies . The Brooks with the stuff behind the counter from Ferris Alexander 's nephew opening up something you know downtown . If there 's a creative way of doing that , maybe it warrants making sure the worse abuses are at least taken care of . Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 50 Emmings: It 's a little different here than Minneapolis I think because if — people from the community don 't go in there , if people object to what 's in there , they don 't have to go in . And I have a hard time thinking that people are going to be driving . — Farmakes: . . .down south they can 't sell . Emmings: Right . Krauss: That 's true but I think that there 's , from us who live in suburban areas , I think there 's a fair amount of smugness that we live in an area — that wouldn 't support the business . Yet you go down to Lake Street and you figure out where everybody 's coming from . Ahrens: They 're all driving Jeeps . Emmings: I saw you down there last time didn 't I Paul? You were looking to see who was comeing down there . — Krauss: Yeah , I was doing a survey . Batzli : But you probably want to go outside ofthe community to purchase it so they wouldn 't be recognized . Krauss: Well there is that . But let me ask Roger that question and see what kind of response we can get . Batzli : Okay . Good way to handle that . Did everybody notice that we have— a schedule now for attendance at City Council meetings . Ahrens: Is there any purpose for us to be there if they 're not discussing _ thought any? Krauss : At the next Council meeting? No . Batzli : So you 're off the hook . Okay , so the only notice we get is , oh and it also states our terms on the back side . I didn't even notice that . Ahrens: Mine 's wrong on there . Batzli : Is it? What 's your term? Ahrens: Well I mean the beginning date for my term is wrong . Batzli : It says appointment date , '86 . Boy you have been on the commission a long time haven 't you? Krauss: Unless it was because of , did you fill a seat that was vacated by — a resignation? - Ahrens: Yes . Batzli : Dave 's? Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 51 • Krauss: No . Batzli : She 's sitting in Dave 's spot . Ahrens : Dave Wildermuth? Batzli : No , Jim Wildermuth . Dave Headla . So don 't tack Dave 's on there with her . That looks about when Dave would have been appointed to me . Emmings: Yeah . Batzli : Okay , anyway . The only notice that you get of your turn in the barrel attending the Council meeting is you get the packet a couple days in advance . Krauss: Friday the cops will show up at your door . Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director-PK(4x-- DATE: March 27, 1992 SUBJ: Report from the Director At the City Council meeting of March 9, 1992, the following items were discussed: 1. The subdivision of 2.1 acres into two lots, 915 Pleasant View Road, Edwards/Vogel Subdivision was approved on the consent agenda. 2. The site plan/preliminary plat for Americana Bank at the northeast corner of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street was reviewed by the City Council. The Council approved the project consistent with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. At the City Council of March 23, 1992, the following items were discussed: 1. Preliminary and final plat approval to subdivide 9.99 acres into one lot and two outlots for Gene Quinn on Lyman Boulevard was reviewed on the consent agenda. The item was removed from the consent agenda for discussion. Mr. Quinn and his engineer requested that the Council grant setback variance for such future lots that might be created along Quinn Road. Their contention was that Mr. Quinn is being required to accept the full 60 ft. right-of-way for the future road although it benefits adjoining properties. Staff pointed out that pre-granting variances for undeveloped lots is a questionable practice, and that in any case, a variance is only good for one year before it is voided. The Council approved this request with conditions consistent to those recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Final Plat Approval, Willow Ridge Addition (Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren Brothers Construction): The Planning Commission will remember that this plat was Is t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission — March 27, 1992 Page 2 recommended for approval by them last October. The Council approved platting for Phase I of the project which includes the western half of the development. 3. Final Plat Approval, Summit at Near Mountain for Lundgren Brothers Construction: In the past, the Planning Commission has acted upon preliminary platting for the various phases of Near Mountain PUD. Final plat approval for the first phase of this _ project has been extended on several occasions due to market conditions. This represents the hill top and is the final phase of the plat. Approximately 30 lots will be brought on line with this final plat approval. 4. Discussion of Water Surface Usage Ordinance: The Planning Commission will recall discussions concerning the Water Surface Usage Ordinance. In particular, revised — standards related to prohibitions against placement of docks or mooring of watercraft in the extended 10 ft. side setback of various properties along the lake. When this was approved by the City Council, they also made a change to the ordinance that — affected the number and ownership of boats allowed on riparian lots. Prior to their activity, ownership of watercraft on the lake was limited to those individuals who owned property. A change incorporated by the City Council would have opened the — door to boats owned by other parties so long as written approval was granted by the homeowner. Councilman Wing has asked that this section of the ordinance be reconsidered with an eye towards reincorporating the original language limiting boat — dockage to those watercraft owned by the property owner. The concern is that unrestricted use of the lake in the manner allowed by the current wording of the ordinance could add to excessive numbers of watercraft on individual lakes. The following items were discussed at the City Council worksession held on March 19, 1992: 1. The Planning Commission should be aware that growing out of our February goals setting meeting, it was agreed that the Council would meet monthly in an informal worksession. Staff supports this type of meeting since we believe it gives us an opportunity to discuss a variety of issues and gain some understanding and input prior to coming before the Planning Commission and Council with a formal action. _ This worksession was to discuss the variety of projects that are being considered by the city and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and around the downtown. Issues regarding the future of Highway 5 and of the Corridor Study were also -- supposed to be discussed. Most of the meeting turned out to be taken up by discussions concerning streetscape improvements with the current construction phase of Highway 5. Unfortunately, sufficient time was not available to ,discuss the — Highway 5 program in detail. Highway 5 Corridor Study: The City Manager and I have held a series of meetings relative to Highway 5 over the last month. These meetings were designed to gain a better understanding of what we can accomplish on the Highway 5 Construction Program relative to the new Highway Funding Bill. We have mixed results to report. Don Ashworth had an — excellent meeting with Bill Crawford,who is the District Engineer,who indicated his support of proposals as outlined by Bill Morrish and the University in their Corridor Concept Plan. Planning Commission March 27, 1992 Page 3 Unfortunately, middle level staff at MnDOT has not yet been as receptive to some of these ideas. This is not to say that we will not be open and able to work these items out, however, our most recent meeting with MnDOT was frustrating nonetheless. We are continuing to pursue this matter actively and will report additional information to you as it becomes available. After discussing the matter with the City Engineer, I have asked Barton-Aschman and the planning firm of Camiros to jointly put together a proposal to work with the city on issues related to the Highway 5 Corridor. I hope to have some formal response from them in the next few weeks. At a staff level, I have developed a concept for a Highway 5 overlay district. I believe that it at least gets our foot in the door so that concepts embodied to date in the Comprehensive Plan and in the University's study can be accurately incorporated into development proposals as they occur. Additionally, the overlay district would be the legal framework for legitimizing plans and ordinances that are developed as a part of the formal Highway 5 Corridor Study. I had hoped to bounce the idea for this off the City Council at the worksession, but as I indicated above, time did not permit. I will be discussing the matter further with several members of the City Council, but would anticipate bringing it to the Planning Commission at your next meeting. REVISED FEBRUARY 27, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) U of M Program to wrap up by January 1. and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study PC recommended to proceed with study. Currently being evaluated by CC. Staff meeting with MnDOT with goal of — incorporating corridor design elements into highway construction program. 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. _ 3.* Tree Protection Ordinance Inventory in progress. Mapping of significant vegetative areas 4.* Wetland Ordinance/Surface Main group establishing public — Water Management Program information and erosion control program Task Force established. along with other work. Special wetlands subcommittee working to fast track — development of new ordinance. 5.* Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on a draft of the ordinance. 6.* Group home ordinance PC review on 3/4/92. 7. Rural Lot Area Policies PC review in March, 1992. 8. PUD Ordinance Future meetings required. 9. PC input in Downtown Ongoing Planning and Traffic Study 10. Review of Architectural 1992 Standards to Promote High Quality Design 11. 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. 12. Ordinance amendment to Non- PC approved. City Attorney to redraft. conforming use section to clarify ordinance. 13. Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance revisions to follow. 14. Truck and trailer rental standards. Request by PC. 15.* Sexually oriented businesses PC review on 3/4/92. * Change in status since last report CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 March 24, 1992 Mr. Richard Warren, Director United Mailing, Inc. 1001 Park Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Warren: — I am writing as a follow up to our meeting which took place on March 16, 1992, at the United Mailing, Inc. site. Our goal is to achieve acceptable screening by using landscaping materials along the most northerly boundary of the parking lot located south of Park Road. — This parking lot is to be used for parking 36 tractor trailers during the time period of approximately December 1, to January 31 of each year. The following was agreed upon during our meeting: 1. Landscaping materials consistent with the landscaping plan dated February, 1992, with changes as noted below: 20 Spruce, Colorado (Blue Green) (Increased from 11 trees) 3 Maple, Amur Clump 3 Crab, Red Splendor 2 Ash, Summit 2. Tractor trailers shall be parked to the rear of the north parking lot, along the southern edge of the lot. Should the rear area be full, trailers may be parked along the west and center of the parking lot. 3. The easterly parking lot located along County Road 17 shall be used for employee parking only. The only exception will be trailers parked at the docks. _ e PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Richard Warren _ March 24, 1992 Page 2 The landscaping materials are to be installed during the time period between September 1-15, 1992. No parking of tractor trailers shall take place until the landscaping has been completed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner I c: Paul Krauss, Planning Director r — - 9eh Pre_i3-(0tIA- AIA MINNEAPOLIS 1992 DESIGN in the SUBURBS "To develop a forum for dialog among architects, planners, clients, city officials and the public about design issues in the suburbs." 9 April 1992: Design in the Suburbs: Living Places at CENTENNIAL LAKES CENTER CENTRUM BUILDING(lower level near Odegaard Books) 7499 France Avenue South,Edina 4:00 Registration- Refreshments 4:30 Panel Discussion of Trends,Planning Issues, Challenges and Architecture in suburban Living Places. Moderated by: Roger Kipp AIA Federated Department Stores,Inc. formerly Project Manager for The Andersen Group Architects,Ltd.and Hodne/Kipp Architects Planners. Panelists: Lee Maxfield "Multi-family: Existing to New" President of The Maxfield Group,a full service market research ruin Bill Schatzlein "Rehabilitation of Existing Suburban Housing Stock" President: Schatzlein Associates Executive Director.Affordable Suburban Apartment Partnership Larry Laukka "Suburban Mixed Use Housing" President:Laukka Development Company Active in residential development since 1962 completing 6,000 dwelling units and homesites including Edinborough,Edina and Riverhills, Burnsville Arvid Elness FAIA "Seniors Housing in the Suburbs" President: Arvid Elness Architects,Inc. Regional Vice President:National Association for Senior Living Industry President: AIA Minnesota DESIGN in the SUBURBS: LIVING PLACES Sponsored by AIA Minneapolis,a chapter of The American Institute of Architects. Cost$5.00(make checks payable to AIA Minneapolis) Please return this portion of form by 1 April 1992 to: Gina Sekelsky, MA Minnesota, 275 Market Street,Minneapolis MN 55405 Name Firm THE SECOND COMING OF THE AMERICAN SMALL TOWN giur ' 1.1y by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk Until very recently, there were fic engineers. These experts only two views of the American molded suburbs for cars, not suburb: You either loved it or people, a catastrophic mistake hated it. In the first camp were whose costs we can measure to- most suburbanites; in the second day in traffic congestion, in air were most writers, planners, and pollution, and in the vast sums of architects. Now a public money lay- .,group of crit- ished on roads ■ ics has launched , and infrastruc- a searching yet 't ture. But nothing binders sympathetic reap- ' 1 compares to the ,rotect praisal of the sub- 11. damage done by k ilson urb, i, and the hus- ; _ ;$0 the fragmentation tea' from ��,_ w �� durable band-wife arch- �� . i-- 4444'41'4 ' - of civic life and h gold itectural team of ii I :r'-fr the radical eco- Mr easy Andres Duany nomic segrega- cial spring and Elizabeth tion that have ac- a which Plater-Zyberk are companied sub- is..tolds 2 ouarterly. at the forefront. They see the urban sprawl. Americans long 539.95 postwar suburbs as a grand ex- for community, the authors say, 6—$52.95 periment gone awry, ruined less and they could have it. The fu- -——— by consumers and developers ture, they suggest,. does not have than by the ignorance of local to be imagined so much as re- 15 —; planners, zoning boards, and traf membered. es,and ,r stage& e x case/ hree years ago, Dade County, Florida, sen- eitt5 add 6% tenced itself to the absurd fate of perpetual ur- ban adolescence. Responding to a state man- - date, the county government adopted a package of"balanced growth" measures, con- . ceding that traffic congestion and growing de- - mands on the public purse for roads and other infrastructure MEX,VISA, had made it impossible for the city of Miami to grow any fur- me,account ther in the old way. Most citizens were pleased. The reaction against growth has become a national phenomenon, although ut_ WQ WINTER 1992 R VTEED 19 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN elsewhere it is often much less organized and much more — emotional. In California, that harbinger of everything to come in this country, it has reached near-suicidal proportions. In Santa Cruz County, restrictions on growth have crimped the — tax base: Three bridges have been closed for lack of funds to pay for repairs. But the people of Santa Cruz apparently would rather endure such difficulties than grow. This is unprecedented. Never before in American history — has growth been so unwelcome. After all, growth signifies more people, more commerce, more prosperity, more culture. It is in the nature of cities and towns to grow, and when they — grow no further, like all organisms, they begin to die. What is responsible for this bizarre antipathy is not growth itself but the particular kind of growth we have in the United States. Suburban sprawl is cancerous growth rather than healthy growth, and it is destroying our civic life. Americans are only beginning to understand that this is so. _ Many Californians are no longer interested in building more highways to make traffic flow more smoothly; not unreason- ably, they now simply want less traffic. The credit for this change belongs partly to the environmental movement, which has persuaded most Americans of the need to stop ravaging the landscape and polluting the atmosphere with ever more roads and cars. But Americans are also beginning to recognize — an important fact. It is not only the atmosphere or the animal habitat that is endangered on this continent. The human habi- tat is threatened as well. _ Growth gone awry can be seen anywhere in suburbia but nowhere more clearly than in the "planned communities," based on derivative versions of the planning ideals embodied in Reston,Virginia, or Irvine, California, that have proliferated on the suburban fringes since the I960s. Examined piece by Andres Duany is an adjunct professor and Elizabeth Plater-Zvberk is — a professor at the University of Miami School of Architecture.In addi- tion to an architecture practice, they maintain a town planning prac- tice in Miami with an outpost in Washington, D.C. They have coin- . pleted plans for more than 40 new towns, of which six are currently — under construction, including Seaside,Florida. This essay is based on a lecture delivered by Andres Duany at the Harvard Graduate School of Design in November 1990. Copyright© 1992 by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. — ',\p WINTER 1992 20 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN piece, these planned corn _ ►�.r. muriities do seem to offer • , ' �', - •Cf. •�-s - mane of •the things that _ - • -_' Americans say they want: • convenient workplaces, - „,�„ ,,.. • well-managed shopping cen- �s ''A`' + ters, and spacious, air-condi- A 11111 f; .• •r boned houses full of the rat e' er est appliances. But why, f t. when they get all of this, do i-, 1-44-! . . =+� Americans hate it so much y '; - - that they want to stop more . • ' • of it from being created? - • "No more of this!” they say. IL*so -.r "It is ugly and it increases !(Iris. 1 traffic." They are happy with the private realm they have won for themselves, but desper- ately anxious about the public realm around them. Because of the radical malfunctioning of the growth mechanism, the late- 20th-century suburbanite's chief ideology is not conservatism or liberalism but NIMBYism: Not In My Back Yard. Suburbanites sense what is wrong with the places they in- habit. Traffic, commuting time, and the great distances from shopping, work, and entertainment all rank high among their complaints. But all such inconveniences might be more bear- able were suburbs not so largely devoid of most signs of"com- munity." The classic suburb is less a community than an agglomeration of houses, shops, and offices connected to one another by cars, not by the fabric of human life. The only public space is the shopping mall, which in reality is only qua- sipublic, given over almost entirely to commercial ends. The structure of the suburb tends to confine people to their houses and cars; it discourages strolling, walking, mingling with neighbors.The suburb is the last word in privatization,perhaps even its lethal consummation, and it spells the end of authen- tic civic life. Is there an alternative? There is, and it is close at hand: the traditional American town. This is not a radical idea—far from it. When the Gallup Organization asked Americans in 1989 what kind of place they would like to live in, 34 percent chose WQ WINTER 1992 21 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN L L a small town. Only 24 percent chose a suburb, 22 percent a L farm, and 19 percent a city. One hardly needs an opinion poll to discover the allure of towns. The market reveals it. Ameri- cans have shown over and over again that they will pay pre- L mium prices to live in the relatively few traditional towns that remain, places such as Marblehead, Massachusetts, Princeton, New Jersey, and Oak Park, Illinois. L All of the elements of towns already exist in the modern American suburb. For various historical reasons, though, they have been improperly assembled, artificially separated into "pods" strung along "collector roads" intended to speed the _ flow of traffic. The pods are specialized: There are housing "clusters" (illustration 1), office "parks," and shopping "cen- ters." These elements are the makings of a great cuisine, but _ they have never been properly combined. It is as if we were expected to eat, rather than a completed omelet, first the eggs, then the cheese, and then the green peppers. The omelet has not been allowed to become the sum of its parts. The tragedy is that we could have been building towns dur- ing the 1970s and '80s. But all of that wonderful growth has been wasted, and it is doubtful that we will ever see anything — like it again in our lifetimes. Misguided planning, not rapa- cious real-estate developers, is chiefly to blame for this gross miscarriage of growth. Left to their own devices, developers — would have every incentive to build towns. Because towns are more compact than sprawl, the cost of land, streets, water and sewer lines, and other infrastructure is lower. And they can be built at lower risk, in small increments. The town is a model of development well-suited to times of economic adversity, and it dominated American thinking until World War II. But postwar developers were guided by a new model that emerged out of government economic policy and planning legislation. Matters were complicated by the fact that each of the elements of the town emigrated to the suburbs at different times. First there was the great decanting of the ur- ban population after World War II, encouraged by such well- - meaning government programs as Federal Housing Adminis- tration and Veterans Administration mortgages and the construction of interstate highways. The supermarkets, small shops, and department stores followed, filling up the new WO WINTER 1992 22 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN shopping centers and malls. More recently, the office and in- dustrial parks have followed. As early as 1980, 38 percent of the nation's workers were commuting from suburb to suburb, and only half as many were travelling from suburb to city cen- ter. Meanwhile, the poor never joined the suburban migration, - becoming ever more isolated in the city core, which has be- come their specialized habitat. All of this suburban development occurred under the do- - minion of Euclidian zoning—zoning that requires the rigid segregation of housing, commerce, and industry. That ap- proach to zoning is a residue of the Industrial Revolution, which made it seem desir-- _- able to move people's - 1» homes away from the dark --~ "'. _ satanic mills. Such distant --- +� `�: ing is no longer necessary, :�-^�,,' ~ s fi '` 'r` of course, since most con- �j ~� `'.40?" . •. temporary office parks and • - +! , .' - , electronics plants make ex `"'. = i " , ; traordinarily benign neigh- �' + - ‘441. } bors. Nevertheless, every -: r, _ r - generation of planners at- tempts to relive that last - ' --• - • great victory of the planning ;-4 l - ' • ' , profession by separating ' -_ • 4111P-ot• • more and more elements, r !- • • Ete more and more functions: `' - ' %��" • r Even doctors' offices today Illus. 2 are kept strictly isolated from the people who use them. We believe, quite simply, that all of these elements should once again be assembled into traditional towns. But what goes into the design of a town? This one (illus. 2) happens to be Alexandria, Virginia, but - American towns share so many attributes that it could just as well be Manchester, New Hampshire, or Key West, Florida, or any number of other places. It contains neighborhoods of fi- _ nite size and definite character which people can easily traverse on foot. Residential areas are seamlessly connected to the rest of the town,and they are not even exclusively residen- WQ WINTER 1992 23 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN tial. They boast corner stores, attorneys' offices, coffee shops, and other small establishments. — In the traditional American town, what is important is not what buildings are used for but the buildings' size and dispo- sition toward the street. Buildings of similar size and charac- _ teristics tend to be compatible regardless of their use. Success- ful towns can be composed of little buildings, like Alexandria, or of relatively big ones, like Washington, D.C., whose build- ings are all roughly the same, size (thanks to strict height restrictions) though they serve a variety of functions. — Some are civic buildings ='�` _ others house offices, and =Y'' • -•..,.r,,,.,.�,• --- •.��.... ._,�`�__:. ----4 ��r� t others contain apartments. — �.. �� _ ' In the typical planned corn- _ ' `� � munity (illus. 3), the for- • - ;/ mula is completely re- _ • �fF r. P versed: The building sizes ,. vary, but the building uses M` • ''�" i' are completely homoge- • neous. Offices go with of- lllus. 3 fices, for example, never with houses. Likewise, the streets in the two kinds of communities are - conceived in completely different ways. In the planned com- munity there are "collector streets," which are only for cars, and cul-de-sacs,which are hard to describe because while they are supposedly designed for people they are rarely used. In the traditional town, streets are complex things, usually laid out in grids, with lanes for cars to travel and lanes for cars to park; _ they are lined with sidewalks, trees, and buildings. This seems like a perfectly obvious description of a street, but the fact is that we no longer design such streets. Traffic engineers now' refer to trees as FHOs: Fixed Hazardous Objects. Trees, side- walks,and buildings impede the flow'of traffic; if there must be houses nearby, they are walled off by "sound barriers." Planned communities suffer from being too diagrammati- cally. planned, and at the heart of their plans is the collector street. In the traditional town's network of streets, there are \'Q WINTER 199'_ 24 -1 , - REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN • • :-.. �� • •. • •. • 4' . 41 •.• '• ,• •3' '':J ' 1 • J. l g a . )., t. °�•� lap SCRIM 0r '11 ay.',----:. O ' �.. •7,:::...-.• •° < • q: ..-• ,,,, ,.. ..4. \4. Ilk J , O •c O' IF lir� isifr 1 • J 1® i 7 V o 9 Illus. 4 _ many ways to get from one place to another. In the planned community,there is only one way: A driver must make his way from his pod onto the collector, and from the collector onto the highway. Then he can go places. The difference is perfectly shown in illus. 4, with a traditional community (at the bottom) set off from pods (at the top) by a collector. All of this becomes clearer when towns are viewed from the air. The town of Virginia Beach, Virginia, for example, ap- parently takes pride in what it has achieved through its plan- ning code: "Becoming a showcase, Virginia Beach Boulevard -- Phase One celebrated its opening," says the caption of this picture (illus. 5)from the town's promotional brochure.This is a typical product of postwar American planning as expressed through hundreds of local planning, zoning, and public-works codes. In every community, the code is a kind of constitution that lays out the rules that will order the life of the city, the rules that describe the form of urbanism that will emerge,just as the American Constitution contains within it the lineaments of American society. In Virginia Beach, as in most American communities, it is quite easy to conclude that the single most — important constitutional principle is that cars must be happy. There are to be many, many lanes of traffic so that cars can WQ WINTER 1992 25 • a ?'! C`'o"i REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN • move with ease and speed and negotiate turns with extraordi- nary grace and quickness, sparing the brakes and steering mechanism excessive wear. There is to be no on-street parking that would impede the progress of the blessed auto. The right to park is the First Amendment in this scheme of — things. Every American believes he has a constitutional right to a parking spot, even on those hectic days between Thanksgiv- ing and Christmas. If he cannot get that parking spot, he con- — cludes that something is dreadfully wrong and converts to NIMBYism. So there must be vast parking lots (illus. 6). Local planning codes describe with loving precision what the park- _ ing lots are to be like: the number of cars,the type of drainage, the kind of lights that go on them,the size of the parking space, even the paint. Our codes are extraordinarily precise about the needs of the car. But the needs of the human are another mat- — ter. The code reflects no understanding of what being in a parking lot feels like for a human being. Everything in the Virginia Beach scheme of things is — monofunctional: All of the buildings shown in the photograph house commercial enterprises—branch banks, food empori- ums, discount stores—with housing and other functions care- — fully excluded.This is an ecological system.When all commer- cial activities are grouped together, the multilane roads and vast expanses of asphalt parking lot become a necessity. Attempts have been made to repair the excesses of subur- ban development, and Virginia Beach illustrates some of them. There are ordinances that eliminate ugly signs, that re- quire the preservation of trees or the planting of new ones, or that mandate the construction of sidewalks. But these efforts are largely cosmetic. Sidewalks are good for the conscience of planners, but they turn out to be so uninviting when dropped -- into landscapes like this that to be a pedestrian is to be consid- ered a pariah. Driving by in a car, one might charitably offer a ride to a well-dressed person who had wandered onto this side- walk; otherwise one would assume that a person on foot was indigent, mad, or both. The token sidewalk reveals its absurd and perilous charac- — ter most dramatically in the suburban office park (illus. 7), where the pedestrian is exposed to double jeopardy. On one side is roaring traffic, on the other a sea of cars. The traffic WO WINTER 1992 26 . :1, REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN I r roars because the code forbids on-street ^.A -— w parking. A line of parked cars would slow :.;•; :'_"moi:: "". : f-� traffic and serve as a buffer of metal between _ • "s .': ' • J"J P the pedestrian and the moving car,providing - - ; • �) an indispensable element of psychological _ • comfort. Without it, the pedestrian feels too � �� •- - - ' exposed. He will not use the sidewalk. Even `a- -'•t • in Pans, the great city of walkers, stores be- ' - `� , gan to fail when certain avenues were stripped of their parking during the presi- .�.�' `�1., �;` 3� �► dency of Georges Pompidou (1969-74). The hapless pedestrian is confronted by another Mo. barrier on his other side: the parking lot. It is there because the code requires it. The code requires that the building be set back a great distance from the street, and that means that the parking lot has to be placed in front. The poor pedestrian is thus deprived even of the potential interest of the building which, however miserable a structure it might be, is more interesting - than the hood ornaments of cars. 4.1 ry r _ here are people alive today who have - never even laid eyes on the alterna- tive to suburbia, people, in other ;.: words, who have never seen a real town. - - - Fortunately, the American film and televi- llII4s. 6 sion myth-machine continues to do its part by churning out various simulacra of the American small town. So at least the image survives. Authentic urban experience has become such a rarity that many places have become tourist attractions simply by virtue of being real towns. Visitors drive hundreds of miles to spend a weekend in places like Sonoma, California (illus. 8), sllO` just for the sake of experiencing the plea- t" • sures of small-town living. ; ' .: Pondering the case of world-famous ; : 'r Sonoma, one realizes how pathetically easy 'r - -t 1 :, — it is to make such a place. What, after all, is ^� Sonoma? A few very basic buildings attrac- Illus. 7 WQ WINTER 1992 27 gip_ yr REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN • •� tivel ' arranged. Yet tourists _ s•" ":ei ,► 1 `'' �` flock to Sonoma and places . - • • _ , - like it all over the country. s_. c . I Mount Dora, Florida, an- -:•------ s" `�,• " . ..., 4 / other tourist attraction, has — tr, ° ,, two good blocks. Winter • • �'.�• �S 4 t -- Park has four. Yet they are '� r .':tlw�-iii t_ is-•• !► ••f' • like magic. People come . °' __ '94."‘ -may :i and wander around, en- .1&":-.— 4 tranced by the magic of ur- -. - � banism that is denied them in the conventional suburb. — ,.;,..L _ "" -• . _ This also explains the suc- cess of Disneyland and Dis- Illus. 8 nev World. Visitors do not spend as much time on the rides as they do wandering along Main Street, USA, and through the multinational urban constructions of Epcot, get- ting the civic kicks that they cannot get at home. Most critics of suburbia dwell on its ugliness, yet the chief defect of the suburbs is not so much aesthetic as the fact that as civic environments they simply do not work. Some of the newer and more attractive develop- ments, such as this one in � - � : ' '�-+ i�V 0.41•.. T! . Palm Beach, Florida (illus. .t �-14 ' 6," 9), may appear beautiful, .+''' �'•'.54:....` __- „� . `�- `- -�.'4 but they have insidious so- — "'. - - ♦, cial effects. In this typical x ra . i--. .. . ,./ # ,, ,4� version of residential plan- ''�'_•l's. 41'.•• ° °�> �� • ping, all of the housing in — `= • -- .' iJ' - each pod is virtually identi- i d - ;,, , Jr.�„L - cal.The houses in the pod in �,:� '. ` • '`' " the background sell for �'��Y* / about $350,000. Everybody 'r-, • :jib, j '. , who lives in those houses - ' •_` • , . belongs to an economic — Iclass distinct from the one ,� • • , s ' 1 l`' of people who live in the Illus. 9 pod of$200,000 houses and WQ WINTER 1992 28 I ate. ---- REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN Ti ,- -:'). ,,;.„..,-. .1,,4,r,i,.,.., -. T 1 40 1, OR'-. 1. 1 .,, :,.... ' from the one of the people who live _,��„ • � � ��;.,.,, .��•t•,,� �• � �'• �• .1 in the pod of $100,000 apartments. ,...'-‘4,:y.: .� e ` '. I .'...IF'{•'� j The development's layout makes _ ' T random personal contact among ' ' H�7L/� �r.•-.-T.tiC; ,:� people from different economic ; R`,`� groups highly unlikely. No longer do .0.,1- •',a -•-• . • `1 . ++e openly sanction the good old � ligk _".�� ., ..,• { •ham. •,�,o" t • American segregation by race and O!: P,y 1 _ . • ry �• �7 _ ti ethnic group; now we have segrega- t: � ." :- ;, -,�.A s...: �� `l•-� Ttion by income level. It is minutely =�h,''.7 executed in the suburb,and it is con- `:a.' .�:•.�;C-" 4 scioush' promoted through snob-ap- it, ' ; ,� '_", , . , . - '2-- ', peal advertising. It is so extreme that �"'.; - ° T the people in the $350,000 houses . ../%‘•. � • i ...;$'1.4:!..."41. would rise up in arms if somebody •.. -S. int, '' •:' " -c F ,.s T proposed to build a $200,000 house _ 1e ' ='� . in their pod. • '� ! 'L�`';. " " 1. 1. t Such economic segregation has ; •, •_.._ �,`�ri far-reaching effects. A whole genera- �.. �') �' t " ' • ` . Ttion of Americans has now reached -a" ` ` 'I 'iii adulthood cut off from direct con- i' /0 tact with people from other social Tclasses. It is now entirely possible for a child of affluence to grow up in such a class ghetto, attend an Ivy League university and perhaps a top law school, and enter the working world T without acquiring any firsthand knowledge of people unlike himself or herself. As a result more and more Americans re- gard one another with mutual incomprehension and fear, and T that accounts for no small share of the tension in our national political life. Economic segregation is not the American way. The more traditional arrangement, shown here in Georgetown, in Wash- ington, D.C. (illus. 10), allows people of different economic levels to live together. (It should be noted, however, that in • Georgetown the variety is now reduced, for the simple reason that this sort of neighborhood is such a rarity and in such high demand that the poor, the elderly, and most young families have been priced out of the market.) There are small apart- ment buildings, relatively more expensive town houses, and I single-family houses that are substantially more expensive. T WQ WINTER 1992 29 yk REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN • .a '1�v:-ems — —--- - - – ..r -I,""T --- A- I/ al • 1 III •.■ l ''-` ` • • MOO Big n - 1. . r; problem, because the less !.,_. ._ - well-off are forced to travel !� • great distances to work or �`: I• �� A - �'�` shop. Requiring developers II`.. 1 ,dlril T Li,, to build housing above the — IQ "fts , 19 �� shops would by itself put a +41 II -- _ m.. .� large dent in the affordable- ® - 0 t housing problem. _ r- • i Another source of land is 111145. 13 the vast buffer strip so characteristic of suburban _ development. It is a reflex of modern planners to separate anything "undesirable"—office buildings, high-traffic streets, parking lots—from the rest of the landscape with a broad swath of green buffer. Why not fill in these spaces with small — places (illus. 15) designed for people who cannot afford the s t . _ ,... .-..÷..t.4- •'•. ___:.- , *an In -larMin. ,. i ' • • ad• I_ .1 A Vi _ . ....) - "--7.i -11• .` - 'affisit. ,,.....i4" a,— . Prti .lagt . — Illus. 14 WQ WINTER 1992 32 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN BUILDING NEOTRADITIONAL TOWNS — The first step in creating a new town is to borhood District ordinance) can be adapted find a developer who is willing to think of to local conditions. During the charrette, the himself as a town founder rather than a streets are carefully laid out,the lot sizes are builder of houses. When they designed their specified, and even permissible building — first town in the late 1970s Andres Duany heights and materials are spelled out (i.e. no and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk were fortunate vinyl siding) to reflect local styles. But the to find one who went considerably beyond design of individual houses is left to local that requirement. Robert Davis today serves builders and architects in order to encour- - as de facto mayor of the town built on his age diversity. land, Seaside, Florida, now about half corn- At the end of the charrette (sometimes pleted on 80 acres of Gulf beachfront on the two are required), one of the pair makes a Florida Panhandle. Seaside won Duany and public presentation of the detailed plan and Plater-Zyberk national acclaim, as well as dozens of drawings. Then begins the long high praise from Britain's Prince Charles, a and often painful process of winning various prominent and outspoken campaigner official permits to build what has become a against the dominion of sterile modernist ar- very unconventional idea—a small town. — chitecture. Over the years, their creations have Some 40 town designs later—six of ranged from Tannin, on 70 acres in Ala- which are under construction—Duany and bama, to 3,050-acre Nance Canyon in Cali- Plater-Zyberk, who are husband and wife, fornia. A few years ago, in Mashpee, Massa- - have developed a trademark working style. chusetts, they even helped create a new A team of well-briefed designers, planners, downtown core built around a "retrofitted" draftsmen,and engineers from the Miami of- strip shopping center. At Kentlands, on a fice of their firm (DPZ, for short) descends 352-acre tract in the Washington, D.C., sub- - upon the site for an intensive, nearly week- urb of Gaithersburg,Maryland,the two plan- long charrette—literally meaning "cart- nen designed a new community around a load," an apt word for their unique ap- group of 19th-century farm buildings but proach, which brings the planners and their also incorporated a new 1.2-million-square- materials directly to the site. The charrette foot shopping mall. From the highway, it begins with a tour of the surrounding area will look like any other suburban mall; to for clues to regional history, architectural the town, it will present a more civic- styles, and living patterns, as well as for a minded face. There are to be offices and study of the site. As the team sets to work 1,600 houses for some 4,500 people, mostly (often on computers) there are rounds and built close to the street on lots that are 44 or rounds of intensive meetings with the devel- 66 feet wide, quite narrow by suburban oper, officials of local government, inter- standards. The codes encourage construc- ested citizens, local architects, environmen- tion in the prevailing local Georgian and • talists, real-estate agents, and many others. Federal styles. The team divides into smaller groups that Duany and Plater-Zyberk are unusually work on the plan sequentially, adding fresh pragmatic by the standards of their profes- ideas as they go. sion. They "operate best in the trenches, The idea is not to plan a new town down admonishing, cajoling, occasionally sham- to the last detail—Duany and Plater-Zyberk ing those most responsible for producing rarely design houses or other structures for the suburban landscape," writes a sympa- - their towns—but to create a template from thetic architect. Developers may be won which it can grow. The secret is in the over by their sensitivity to market forces,yet codes. If suburban sprawl is chiefly the the Duany-Plater-Zyberk pitch for the small- , product of ill-conceived planning, zoning, town idea seems to appeal to something un- _ and public-works codes, Duany and Plater- usual in their field as well: idealism and ro- Zyberk reason, then the solution is a better manticism.That partial reversal of roles may code. Since Seaside, they have developed a help Duany and Plater-Zyberk escape from simple code and regulations governing ev- being two more "interesting theoreticians," erything from architecture to landscaping. the fate that has befallen many town plan- The so-called TND (for Traditional Neigh- Hers before them. WQ WINTER 1992 33 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN • /I 71; n .. ' ‘ i%-- A F' G 11 i I - I 1 t` y — tl 1 E. • . American Dream? � y-= One of the oldest and most powerful 1l1tns. 15 tools for integrating affordable housing into communities is the humble outbuilding. In colonial Williamsburg (illus. 16), the house of the master sat on the front of the lot, and behind it might be a smaller house for his children and a little bit farther back the servants' quar- ters: all on the same piece of real estate. Residential outbuild- ings (illus. 17), such as backyard cottages and garage apart- — ments, remained a standard feature of residential neighborhoods well into the 20th century. An outbuilding is really a bedroom pulled out of the house - - and equipped with a small kitchen and bath. Because children grow up and leave home, America has millions of empty bed- rooms. Had some of them been built as outbuildings, they _ would now be available for elderly relatives,nannies, students, and many others. But suburban zoning codes completely for- bid occupied outbuildings. A homeowner who submits a plan for an outbuilding will find it very thoroughly scrutinized to make sure that he cannot somehow covertly slip in a kitchen and bath. Planning authorities in other countries take precisely the opposite approach. In Canada and Australia, outbuildings — are called "granny flats," and government encourages home- owners to build them by offering tax breaks and even grants. . �. . , . But here we ban them. — 'r `il�. . 1 II- All of this economic seg- + •L.:., - , A . regation has not even al- . .' -r \---. 1, ,-ti'' • ' !�!-.. lowed us to create an Eden _ r `. - ;E � '! for those who can afford the ' .:= ,1 - - 11' `• "' s' j American Dream. The mod- , ,,� � ✓, ; �::: r • ' • ' ` `S j. . 1-_-F .y.Z -.4. r�i ' , ern version of the American — t _ >'•.. = Ma : .•-t '" Dream is a McMansion, •� .f .is ,t• ' 1'. .1 I i which may have a well-con- ?'� +..'' i ceived and appointed inte- _ '' • '_. _:1- nor yet almost always lacks �_ _ r_ :-,-=- - -- the advantages of a neigh- ' y, �• . _' - borhood. The McMansion is "` -- both pretentious and iso- — lated, an island in a sea of /i/u'. 16 strangers and cars. Even the WQ WINTER 1992 34 11 _ 1 r REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN i I r much-cherished suburban yard offers no more than a cartoon version of country living, utterly lacking the privacy that it promises, in part because planners have been deprived of the tools to create it. Americans do not deserve to be treated this badly. They work very hard to achieve the American Dream. Yet in other countries with more sophisticated notions of urban design, people with incomes much lower than those of most Ameri- cans enjoy a significantly higher quality of life—not the pseudo-quality of life measured in appliances and cars but quality of life understood in terms of privacy and community. — There is a renewed appreciation of these values in America, but the very tools that would allow designers to help revive them have been sacrificed to suburban sprawl. 0 ne of the great mysteries of the American suburb is this: How with such low-density development have we produced such extraordinarily high traffic? How have we achieved the traffic of a metropolis and the culture of a cow town? That, too, has been accomplished by the miracu- lous postwar planning device of the collector street, festooned - with its variety of pods: shopping centers, office parks, schools, and residential areas, each with an independent connection to the collector. This arrangement guarantees that nobody can go to lunch, go shopping,or get ....--••• to work or school without �� ', . driving. -.t. '�• - In Orlando, Florida, it " �"_ �� has been estimated that ." T `' JP.. ,j. each single-family house ~F ,. ,�0 generates an average of 13 a car trips a day and thus vast A , ,, WiIIK amounts of pollution. Enor- 1 . mous concern about air pol- - 94,:, ., it:1i - lution has prompted Califor- �--, - ' •'„ nia authorities to ban • - • • `1 ir tip charcoal lighter fluid for - home barbecues. But we - I 4. keep driving. Still, it is not the 13 car trips a day that Illus. 17 • WO WINTER 1992 35 • REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN J A IP 11 ••(\\ -..- 01 101/0$11. tiwlry sn • � ,t, OPS .e - , 1 ''a! .p. ' r - } { _a — - Illzis. 18 congest the streets. Asphalt abounds in the suburbs. The prob- - lem is that most of it is barely used. Instead, the suburbanite who wants to get anywhere has to make a beeline for the col- lector. It is on the collectors that the clogging occurs. In fact, _ in downtown Los Angeles, Washington, D-C., and other cities that still have 19th-century grid systems of streets, the best way to shave time off a trip is to get off the collector and use the _ sidestreets. Why? Because traffic is diffused through capillar- ies, rather than confined to arteries. Compare a recent collector plan (illus. 18) to the develop- ment strategies of the 1920s, exemplified here by Coral Gables, — Florida (illus. 19). In Coral Gables, the closely interspersed shadings show different uses: residential, commercial, and so on. The roadways form an extraordinary capillary system that — allows residents to get around easily, even on foot if they choose. Today, Coral Gables has no traffic problems to speak of, while late-vintage developments to the west of Miami, such as Kendall, are so choked with traffic that real-estate values were dropping even before the current recession. And the ex- traordinary thing is that the traffic from Kendall must flow _ through Coral Gables to get to downtown Miami. Although some are beginning to alter their views(and their computer software), many traffic engineers refuse to believe that the old street-grid model works better.* When they feed data on grid networks into their computers, the results almost always predict overloading at the intersections. In reality, the intersections are not congested at all. — An intelligently designed street system is only the first step in the creation of a workable town. The next is to figure out 'Two engineers.Chester Chellman of Ossippec,New Hampshire,and Walter Kulasch of _ Orlando,Florida,arc completing studies of traditional towns that demonstrate the su• penonts of networks. And the Institute of Traffic Engineers is soon to issue a supple- mentary manual on designing streets for traditional neighborhoods. — WO WINTER 1'19'- 36 . REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN • what it takes to get humans out on the streets, participating in the public realm. Many learned books have been written on civic life, but it is doubtful that many thinkers have greater insight into this aspect of the subject than American shopping- center developers. Understanding the factors that can influ- ence a shopper's decision to walk from one end of a shopping mall to the other—the uses of light, the size and the propor- tions of spaces, the focusing distance of the human eye—is a — matter of life and death to them, because consumers will take their business elsewhere if the mall does not reflect an under- standing of human nature. Some years ago, for example, we proposed putting a post office in a shopping center we were working on,but the devel- oper vetoed it when we told him that it would have to be about 30 feet wide. He explained that people would not walk past a boring 30-foot wall; they would simply turn around without r I . • " i -' ., :74 • 041 I 1 l'i i . r i � ` a !•y, .a. .� r : •t. i • .. 0• 1 -ro t •— t,.....4 • _ 1 I __ 6.., _ - . • d • 7' .. '•4 0• • • 1 •;:r1 •• ✓• .a►A-J `e..u.r 4 ._. saJ 1 L ILI ..i.tj tiLAI litrdi lilts tLL • t' if71 if! • . :t flllllhi; 1 WW1IiNUll1fl1Ur -'it_1; dr mg illus. 19 WQ WINTER 1992 37 I .7:774F.:..:4,. ...,::7 :7 +aR - _.. • a ' .. REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN 1 X II + 1 III'Iilllililllllllllllllii! ...... Illtr.. 20 Illus. 21 going to the stores on the other side. Design decisions are just that delicate. — Designers need to gain the same kind of insight into the design of housing in order to encourage pedestrian traffic on the streets. We believe that houses like this (illus. 20) generate pedestrian traffic. They do so because they project the human presence withit: the house to those passing on the street.There is, after all, nothing more interesting to humans than other humans. While suburban developments often have a variety of pleasant features (illus. 21)—attractive landscaping, tidiness, compatible colors—they still fail miserably at the vital task of being interesting. The reason, in this case, is that the only in- formation these two houses put forth to passersby is that cars live there. That may give passing cars a nice feeling,but it does not do much for people. It does not encourage them to get out — and walk. At bottom, this a problem of urban design: When housing achieves a certain density but parking remains a necessity, the car's house (the garage) overwhelms the human's house. No architect is skillful enough to make human life project itself on the facade of a house when 60 percent of it is given over to garage doors. Without them, even a mediocre architect can create a satisfactory design. The way to banish the garage from the facade is to create an alley behind the house. This humble invention of the 19th century (illus. 22) has completely disappeared from the lexi- con of planning codes. (We once designed alleys in a Florida project but had to label them jogging "tracts" to get them ac- cepted.) Alleys also yield an important fringe benefit: They al- low residents to take their trash off the street. The decline of the alley was completed when the plastic bag was invented. Once Americans no longer had to worry about the stink of garbage, they could put it in front of their homes, which has w'0 WINTER 1992 38 - t REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN greatly contributed to the decay of urbanism. Alleys address another problem: where to put the "ser- vices," the gas, electric, water, sewer, and telephone lines. Merely sinking such things underground in the street in front of the house does not solve the problem, in part because utility companies require easements that are two to 10 feet wide. Add that requirement to others—traffic lanes, sidewalks, planters for trees—and the streets become so wide that they destroy the feeling of neighborhood intimacy. At stake in the design of streets, alleys, and other facets of the suburb, some writers say, is something they call "sense of place." Planners are in hot pursuit of this elusive commodity,yet they seldom manage to achieve it.They seem to think that sense of place can be created by a combina- tion of decorative landscaping, exciting architecture, varied pavement textures, elegant street lights, and colorful banners. We think that achieving a "sense of place" is a much simpler — matter, better thought of in terms of sense of space. The de- signer's chief task is the making of space that draws people out from their private realms to stroll and loiter with their neigh- bors: public space. The ubiquitous "California-style" townhouse development (illus. 23) is a classic case of the search for sense of place gone . awry. The architect wiggles ,Rie. .�,..w,.., ,,� • -,r••,v- ,,,� the units back and forth as •lb • 0 . _�- `�;'= • ' �. much as the budget ++ill al- `� ;l .",t '!`.n-;, •,�''k - ', i'+'� k�vA �,.:.. u* lo++• to individualize each • • ' • _ �•_ � _ . ' - • ��.,Y-.r � z one, but the result is that ..•:/....:%,,,r_ yi._ �1. .� . each unit becomes an ob .. .1';',..„,.-=...!;=--. -' ect. They do not form a • • + , i'' ....!1,4,1•,-.. . v — wall, and without a wall no - -f. + ..Z.:: c ik space can be defined or de- -•i ce; .�i. " ''ti `^��, s t, marcated. Here there is no ' t ' -'' r :7 •• ) = — public space; there is only a - -• -. ....�. • z parking lot. And it should •. "� ' `-` 4j-,• _ not be surprising that peo �T._E•, + - ,.. , --.---'4...„-",::-.:,. i, E — pie flee such spaces for their _ •_:V. -.4-:47.: " ` f� • homes as soon as they park - - .::‘-' -',4';: "..1.W1-; their cars. Illus. 22 — WQ WINTER 192 39 I REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN I 1 1 I Long ago in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia, the - same elements—town- house, asphalt, cars—were t put together in a much — '-� - � more sensible fashion (illus. ,- .' 24). The buildings were ;; in ^ : _ ! + 1' 4 : ' -,� lined up to forma wall, - - l C which defines the street as — ,i space. Each unit is distin- ` 1� t, "ae► guished by slightly varying ,� • :';;t - r.. :-_ a•-,ethe heights—a far more eco- — "-` `"' nomical form of articula- tion. This is very simple, yet it is very rare in suburbia. — Illtis. 23 The superiority of the Al- exandria model is not purely theoretical; the market shows that people are willing to pay several times as much to live in _ Old Town Alexandria as they are to live in a modern town- house in a typical development, several times as much for ter- mite-ridden beams and parking that on a good day is two — blocks away. That shows how strong is the human appetite for sense of space. Any architect or planner who does not deliver such good public spaces, easy as they are to create, is not only F� , -,.s ti , ,�;M, doing our society a grievous _ .44,...:- .7.04`..� t• " disservice. He is doing the - • ,- `r' r, 44 developer he works for a fi- ` 4 • nancial disservice. — n _ , Aligning buildings will • ' 0 not by itself yield sense of + `.-- .'•� fir. t ' MEI la r -•, • S;; •.�� I� ' �1 I space. It is also important to _ _--- - -- I� .i'' ��, maintain a certain ratio of !' y 1 j.��a1 �• lilaheight-to-width. From clas- - sic texts and our own direct - - _ studies of places that seem " - to possess this ineffable , - --22...."'"•-•-.. quality, we have derived a ~ ,--"f--,. ' good operational rule for -- - - - '° creating sense of space: For Illus. 24 every foot of vertical space, wQ WINTER 1992 40 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN I I rthere ought to be no more than six feet of horizontal space. In • other words, the street width as measured from building front I to building front should not exceed six times the height of the buildings. One reason a sense of space is so rarely achieved in this country is that Americans like their houses low and their front F yards deep—a formula for exceeding the ratio. But even this can be mitigated, as it is in many older suburbs, by the use of trees to humanize the height-to-width ratio. The woman riding her bicycle in this picture (illus. 25) is having a more pleasant day because somebody long ago had the good sense to plant rows of trees. That underscores the fact that in the suburbs, F landscaping is not just a form of decoration; it is a so- '%teA;.,.•'.f •.1'.4.i.."; . ' tial necessity. In traditional - at • -le ...r • �*. : 1- . ' town planning, landscape :•.''.•� ip, 'tib;, �'• may: architects first correct the t ,, *, 4%. . r .• ' spatial problems created by t. ;!;�:� �' !� -;5 • the planners and architects ' •. , k 4r i f.._. t. ,, ' , rand only then make pretty . . 3; •. -� �,. �� " scenes. Yet today most of _ -----. - them would rather die than - - -.fa-- '--- - •..� . _- - Tline up trees in a row. It is '< t - ., - _ V -..--._. �,� considered uncreative. They �;' ---- - - - om`' would rather design beauti- 4-...4- 111111E10.••• ' '4 - "-2 r ful naturalistic clusters, hop .- ' t � -� ing to foster the illusion that Illus. 25 a forest had somehow sprouted in the middle of the city. Another obstacle to a sense of space is the curvilinear street, perhaps the most common feature of the suburban sub- { division. On a perfectly flat piece of land, the roads twist madly, as if they were hugging the side of a mountain. Streets ought to be laid out largely in straight segments, as they were until the 1940s. After all, the vast majority of our successful towns and cities, from Cambridge to Portland, were laid out this way. Yet we have twice been summarily fired by develop- ers when we submitted plans that included grids. Upon reflec- t tion, we realized that the developers had a valid concern, one I related to the shopping-center developers' understanding that 1 WQ WINTER 1992 41 1 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN I human beings do not like -- endless vistas. People do not I D like to look down a street — wvithout being able to focus _. . _ on its end. The curvilinear street - - seems a natural solution, since it constantly closes the vista. But it has unfortunate — side-effects. A landscape of llhic. 26 curvilinear streets is disori- enting (which is why the vis- itor to the suburbs constantly has the feeling of being lost). Curvilinear streets also prevent the eye from focusing on any- thing for longer than a fraction of a second. And since the human eye needs at least two or three seconds to perceive ` architectural gestures—the memorable pediment or facade, the steeple—architects do not bother to provide them. With- out such landmarks, the neighborhood becomes a featureless — mass of buildings. Again, it requires no great creative gift to discover alterna- tives that work with grids. One notable town-planning manual — published in 1909, Raymond Unwin's Town Planning in Prac- tice,contains page after page of illustrations showing the many ways that intersections can be cleverly used to terminate vistas — (illus. 26). In the memorable American cities, such as Charles- ton, South Carolina (illus. 27), our ancestors even used inter- sections as sites for churches, civic buildings,and other special structures, and these are the very sites that have become fam- — ous and that draw tourists from all over. Today, it would be impossible to build such intersections, because they have been outlawed as threats to public safety at the behest of the traffic — engineers. In fact, it is often the odd intersections that produce the • fewest accidents. When we drew up a master plan for Stuart, — Florida, the authorities immediately proposed straightening out the town's "confusion corner," an intersection so tangled that a picture of it graces a postcard. But our research showed _ that "confusion corner" ranked only 20th for traffic accidents in Stuart. The 19 more dangerous intersections were built to 1SQ \'.1\TER 1992 42 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN contemporary engineering standards. In Washington, D.C.,ac- cording to one local architect, 11 of the 12 most dangerous - intersections conformed to such modern standards. It is not hard to guess the explanation. A driver on the enormous streets that are now mandatory is more likely to be bored and Inattentive (and possibly speeding) than is a driver on a "dan- gerous" older street. Grids, intersections, and - other devices are important, but other details must be at- tended to in order to bring people out into the civic . realm. One of the most im- portant is the curb radius at intersections. At the now -. ' ,? - standard 25-40 feet (illus. /' 28), the curb radius allows . the driver of a car travelling • - 35 miles per hour to negoti- • • • • ate the corner without hav- . -Zi ' . � ing to slow down much. ;>! •V` - That poses an intimidating ;It " + MEP challenge for a pedestrian SIM& :, attempting to cross the street. Moreover, the gentle t curve of the sidewalk, so • �' j,' a►f, C.. kind to Ithe car, nearly dou- •■ _ _ bles the pedestrian's cross- - • —- , ing distance. A 24-foot-wide . road widens to 40 feet gar>.:- • where pedestrians cross. Pri- ority has been given to the •` , . - . • • car, not the pedestrian. ` Pedestrians count in •- - - places like Boca Raton, • 1 where a typical curb radius is eight feet (illus. 29). In Boston, radii of eight or six or even three feet are very common. A typical traffic I11is. 27 WQ WINTER 1992 43 i - iS^ ate~yam REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN engineer will swear that such a thing is no longer possible,that it will cause accidents. But it does not. — Common sense has evaporated from the traffic-engineering profession, and the huge costs of its absence are measured in economic as well as aesthetic terms. In America, thanks to the — traffic engineers, we push highways right through the middle of cities, as this cover of Florida's Department of Transporta- tion annual report proudly demonstrates(illus. 30). By giving a little four-lane road in Orlando the characteristics.of a high- way, the state turned it into a monster. Highways destroy cities. When it enters a town or city, a highway should become a boulevard. A typical French boulevard (illus. 31) actually has more lanes than the Orlando highway (this one has 12), but an entirely different effect. The elements and engineering "geom- etries" of the boulevard are completely different. Buildings — and trees line the boulevard and cars park along its length, inviting pedestrians to stroll along its sidewalks. American taxpayers would be astounded if they realized the — true costs of their highways, costs that far exceed the price of construction. Avenues help pay for themselves by enhancing the value of buildings in the vicinity and thus enlarging the tax — base. But highways destroy market value and shrink the tax base, forcing local authorities to raise tax rates. Their hidden costs probably run into billions of dollars. _ In the United States, we invest too much in "horizontal infrastructure" and not enough in "vertical infrastructure," too much in asphalt on the ground for cars and not enough in buildings — ir�� for people. Our planning codes and regula- -...11 ` ^ _� tions demand a gold-plated asphalt infra- 11 structure, leaving little money for the human — ;,,"-� s:,, infrastructure. The unhappy results are all . •,: . around us. Some of us have become quite C .� accustomed, for example, to sending our _ . V,4101. children to schools that are nothing more ~ -•: 4. ...ir-:— - than trailer parks with fences around them. i „c-- }: \ ,' But the highways are built to ever higher __ � � - standards; they are wider, the curbs are ' ' "i"' j` N. - softer, the concrete more elaborate. Every- Illus. 28 thing gets better for the cars; we do not WQ WINTER 1992 44 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN . d. 7 F1S - , vir — , 1••.� 1 4 , t •.' -.� 1:•-. w '1 .11.k lb 4 t_ t• ,. 401.7 . , . , ., .4, • . :vir 52... ' '�s„d' _ .x d Ate' Al • f ._, • i . - -- _s - Illus. 29 dream of denying our automobiles anything. uilding more highways to reduce traffic congestion is an exercise in futility. Whenever it is done, more peo- ple are encouraged to take to their cars, and before long the roads are as clogged as ever. We cannot continue to — spend as extravagantly on roads as we did during the postwar decades of affluence. We must revert to planning approaches from the days when America was a poorer but smarter nation. The only permanent solution to the traffic problem is to bring • housing, shopping, and workplaces into closer proximity. Reining in the auto would also help solve the problem of _ affordable housing. At MIT, architects are going to great lengths to find ways to make housing cheaper, developing pre- fabricated components, spacing wall studs further apart, and using rubber hoses for plumbing. In the end,all of these efforts do not add up to very much—perhaps a $10,000 or $20,000 savings. Nothing can be done that rivals making it possible for a family to get by with one less car.That extra car,so necessary in today's suburb, costs about $5,000 annually to operate.That is a highly leveraged sum, large enough to supply the pay- ments on a $50,000 mortgage at 10 percent interest. The tyranny of the auto reaches into every corner of Ameri- can life. Why is the U.S. Postal Service perennially bankrupt? WQ WINTER 1992 45 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN • •■ ■■ 11Yl • •_ . 7, ■ •r ■I ►[ ■ II ■i Bi 1[BO i V "� ' M . + r• �� r•. • ' �, 4` i-,. •- • ,h. 'r I• X One reason surely is that it has to deliver .111 �c, -„1 ; ,�• ....ANC ..,r.• •• mail all over the continent in broken down _ '`_.•.i,- ,-' jeeps. The auto's worst victims, however, are • r. the very young and the very old. Every year,4. rs► hundreds of thousands of people move to h. -4N4:44k - -,� ._�. P P 0sk. �'�I ''i.,_.;.."•..... - Florida and many thousands move out. — R 4. -.. lt Many of those emigrants are people who ,;:-'" >r ' moved to Florida to retire but found after a '' P.;;;; ' S few good years that they had to. go else- _ where. The suburb, they discovered, is - j poorly suited to the elderly. A suburbanite " � who loses his or her driver's license—per-•` ' d !' , haps because of failing eyesight—ceases to - be a viable citizen. That person cannot go _ shopping, visit friends, or get to the doctor's _ office. He cannot take care of himself. In a — " =--i town,he can. He may be too old to drive,but !lits. 30 he is not too old to walk. Unfortunately, only a few senior citizens are wealthy enough to — afford to live in the rare towns that exist—some of these have been dubbed Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities, or NORCs, by demographers. For the less-fortunate majority, _ nursing homes are frequently the only alternative. Children are the other great victims of the suburbs. Fam- ilies move to the suburbs precisely because they are supposed _ to be "good for the kids." And the fresh air and open spaces are good for them. Suburban sprawl is not. Children in the postwar suburbs are kept in an unnaturally extended state of isolation and dependence because they live in places designed for cars rather than people. The school is the social center of the child's life, but the routine of the typical suburban school is governed by the — school bus. The children are bused in at eight o'clock in the morning and most of them are bused home at three o'clock, regardless of what they are doing, warehoused in front of tele- _ vision sets until their parents come home from work. If the parents do not want their children to lead that kind of life, one of them (almost always the mother) has to stay home to take _ care of them. And that often amounts to little more than ex- changing a career for a new job as an unpaid chauffeur. Imag- WQ WI\TER 1992 46 V —— ............ REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN I 1 ine how the lives of children would change if the suburban house and yard were assembled in the form of a traditional neighborhood so that kids could visit friends, go out for a ham- burger, or walk to a library on their own. All of us suffer. The eight-hour workday was the great vic- tory of the past century, but we have squandered our gains by expanding our commuting time. Instead of spending two more hours a day with our families and friends, or forging bonds of community over the backyard fence or at the town - hall,we have chosen to spend them competing with our fellow citizens for that scarce commodity called asphalt. That is yet another example of how the public realm has been trans- - formed into an arena of hostility and competition. Americans are ready for the return of the town. The signs of a revival of interest in community on a smaller scale are everywhere. In major cities, policemen are deserting their pa- trol cars and walking the sidewalks, not just responding to crises but actually getting to know the people on their beats. The experts have dressed this up by calling it "community policing." New York City is studying the possibility of decen- tralizing its courthouse system, creating 75 precinct court- houses so that the legal system is brought closer to all citizens. - Corporations are moving to small towns; Los Angeles yuppies by the thousands are leaving the city's sprawl for the more traditional neighborhoods of - Portland and Seattle. f�• ' .• ' , Developers are starting .�i, t to catch on to this reality. t ; . — During the 1960s, most of •., - • ti, their advertising appealed to 0 kit snobbism; during the '70s it - , • �, '0�'. t i , %N�' emphasized security; now _,,, . -;•,; !; � "community" sells. The . - .;,r'. - `�"'"' '•0 _-f ' r�s-.tr•. . sie4 marketing experts at Arvida, ~»• •-- • L t _ ,,• - r... ; •try ' the largest and probably the • ,�>I- �r�,, most sophisticated devel- .' 'ji1, . te r'. oper in Florida, have pro- r `'- f - , moted one of their new "- = _ — developments, Weston, by - calling it a "hometown" and Illus. 31 WQ WINTER 1992 47 REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN _. advertising various "lifestyle attractions." But developers are cautious because Americans seem to have been so happy buy- ing houses strewn amid suburban sprawl. Arvida, like other developers that have taken this tack, did not actually build a town. Weston is much the same as any other suburban planned community, with the usual shopping and housing pods connected to collector streets. Building real towns will require changing master plans, • codes, and road-building standards, and, above all, attitudes. The mindless administration of rules enshrining the unwisdom of the past half century must cease; the reign of the traffic engineers must end. Americans need to be reacquainted with their small-town heritage and to be persuaded of the impor- tance of protecting the human habitat even bit as rigorously as the natural habitat. Architects and planners and developers can be leaders and educators,but ordinary citizens will have to insist that the happiness of people finally takes precedence over the happiness of cars, that the health of communities takes precedence over the unimpeded flow of traffic. As the great architect Louis Sullivan wrote in 1906: If you seek to express the best that is in yourself, you must search out the best that is in your people, for they are your _ problem,and you are indissolubly a part of them. It is for you to affirm that which they really wish to affirm. Namely the best that is in them. If the people seem to have but little faith, it is because they have been tricked so long. They are weary of dis- honesty, more weary than they know, much more weary than you know. The American people are now in a stupor. Be on hand at the awakening. These were hopeful words in 1906. Nearly a century later, they are urgent. WQ WINTER 1992 48 I ..................... BACKGROUND BOOKS F THE SECOND COMING OF THE AMERICAN SMALL TOWN City and town planning is not a profession that was to prevail through much of American his- many parents would encourage their children tory. One 19th-century European writer, to enter. Especially since the disillusionments though finding much to commend in the "per- of the 1960s, the profession has fallen into pop- fect regularity" of the ubiquitous grid, never- ular and intellectual disfavor. One recent his- theless concluded that the Americans had tory, Diane Ghirardo's Building New Commu- made a fetish of it,sacrificing "beauty to preju- - nities: New Deal America and Fascist Italy dice." (Princeton, 1989), even suggests that the inten- The grid, like virtually all other design ideas tions of New Deal town builders were little dif- of the time,was a purely European import. The — ferent from those of their fascist counterparts. first major American contribution to city de- In Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual sign came with the 1893 World's Columbian History of Urban Planning and Design in the Exposition in Chicago. Architects Daniel Twentieth Century (Basil Blackwell, 1988), Burnham and Charles F. McKim and landscape Berkeley's Peter Hall offers a more generous architect Frederick Law Olmsted married yet still discouraging summary of the influence Beaux Arts architecture to the monumental de- of the great modern planners, from Ebenezer sign principles of Georges-Eugene Haussmann, Howard in the last century to Clarence Stein in who had laid out the grand boulevards of Paris — this one: in the mid-19th century.Their design expressed in its sweeping power America's arrival on the Most of them were visionaries,but [many world stage—America's imperialism, many of] their visions long lay fallow, because critics would say—yet also made a grab for Old — the time was not ripe. The visions them World respectability through the architectural selves were often utopian, even millenar- ian: they resembled nothing so much as classicism of its civic buildings. The episode is secular versions of the 17th-century Pun- recalled by Mario Manieri Elia in The Amen- - tans'Celestial City set on Mount Zion.... can City: From the Civil War to the New Deal When at last the-visions were discovered (MIT, 1979). and resuscitated, their implementation The Exposition gave birth to the City Beauti- came often in very different places, in ful movement, which stressed the creation of very different circumstances, and often boulevards, public spaces, and civic buildings. . through very different mechanisms, from Burnham,propelled to national prominence by those their inventors had originally envis- aged.... It is small wonder that the re- the success of the Exposition, chaired a federal sults were often bizarre, sometimes cata- commission in 1901 that oversaw the restora- f — strophic. tion of L'Enfant's plan for Washington. Grand schemes for the revamping of Chicago and San Today, town planning seems positively un- Francisco followed, but little came of them, — American to many, even though history shows thanks in part to the sense of financial reality that Americans have had long experience with bred by the panic of 1907. The movement also it. That history is explored in Town Planning had more profound difficulties. The City Beau- in Frontier America (1965, reissued by Univ. tiful was a place of public spaces; it could ac- - of Mo., 1980)by John Reps,a Cornell architect. commodate neither the automobile nor the George Washington,after all, helped survey the skyscrapers made possible by, among other grid street system of Alexandria, Virginia, in things, the invention of the elevator. Still, the 1749 and was the prime mover behind the new movement left a legacy of parks and regal civic — national capital. Washington, D.C., designed by structures. Pierre L'Enfant, was unusual in that it departed Even these were not always appreciated. In in various ways from the utilitarian grid that Sticks and Stones (1924), Lewis Mumford at- wQ wThTER 1992 49 • - - _ REVIVING THE SMALL TOWN tacked the whole movement, contrasting the the auto and the creation of suburban sprawl. "sedulously classic" new Lincoln Memorial of In The Death and Life of Great American — Burnham's Washington with "the America that Cities (1961), Jane Jacobs lumped them to- Lincoln was bred in, the homespun and hu- gether with the imperious modernists inspired mane and humorous America that he wished to by the Swiss-born architect Le Corbusier, who preserve." championed a Radiant City of monumental — Mumford represents a more powerful cur- towers strung along superhighways.But histori- rent of thought in American planning, one that ans tell somewhat different stories. traces its origins to England's Ebenezer How- In Crabgrass Frontier. The Suburbanize- _ ard. Reacting to the squalor of the industrial tion of.the United States (Oxford, 1985), cities, Howard sketched in Garden Cities of widely regarded as the definitive work on its Tomorrow (1902) a compelling vision of self- subject, Kenneth T. Jackson argues that the sufficient new towns scattered across the coun- flight to suburbia began before there was any _ trvside. His Garden City Association sponsored thought of a Garden City. (Brooklyn Heights, the construction of the first Garden City in New York, linked to Manhattan by a ferry in •Letchworth, England, and spread his ideas to 1814,was the first suburb,he says.) It was moti- the Continent and across the Atlantic. (One of vated by a peculiarly American desire among — Letchworth's designers was Raymond Unwin, this country's rich to separate themselves from whose 1909 book,Town Planning in Practice, the rest of society. Robert Fishman takes issue is now enjoying a revival.) with Jackson in Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise In the United States, writes Jonathan and Fall of Suburbia (Basic, 1987), arguing — Barnett in The Elusive City:Five Centuries of that the exodus began somewhat later, inspired Design, Ambition and Miscalculation by Victorian ideas about home and family that (Harper, 1986),the Garden City idea influenced made it seem imperative to flee urban vices. — a number of planners, including Clarence Stein In any event, there is general agreement and Henry Wright. American versions of the that the suburban future was not sealed until Garden City include Lake Forest,Illinois(1916) after World War II, when the federal govern- and a number of company towns,such as Koh- ment built the interstate highway system and — ler, Wisconsin (1913). Among the innovations provided low-interest mortgages for new of the era was the curving "bucolic" street. homes but nothing for the renovation of city Stein later wrote in Toward New Towns for dwellings. America (1957) that the planner must think of — himself as creating"a theater for the good life." here are we now, nearly half a century The most ambitious efforts to fulfill the Garden later? Beyond central cities, beyond sub- City ideal were in Radburn, New Jersey, which urbs, and largely beyond planning, argues Joel foundered during the Great Depression, and in Garreau in Edge City: Life on the New Fron- the town-building program of the New Deal's tier (Doubleday, 1991). Along with Fishman Resettlement Administration, which was killed (see "America's New City," WQ, Winter 1990), by Congress. he believes that the suburb is being trans- — All of these Garden Cities failed in many formed into a new kind of city: unfamiliar, de- ways to live up to the ideal—none remained centralized, and based on the auto, but a city self-sufficient, for example—and for many rea- nevertheless. The two part company over the sons. But the coming of the auto must top any issue of planning. Garreau regards the rebirth — list of explanations. of planning as unlikely; Fishman sees it as es- Because they promoted the idea of decen- sential. But they are united in their optimism tralization, the Garden City advocates are often about the possibilities of the new frontier that __ blamed for paving the way for the dominion of lies before us. WQ WINTER 1992 - 50