Loading...
02-3-93 Agenda and Packet FILE 5:30 P.M. JOINT MEETING WITH PARK AND RECREATION COMMLSSIUri AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1993, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Subdivision of 36 acres of property into 33 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway, north of Hwy. 5 and south of Lake St. Joe, Boley Property, Lundgren Brothers Construction. OLD BUSINESS 2. Preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 60 acres into 4 lots on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, located south of Hwy. 5 and east of Dell Road, Sunlink Addition, Sunlink Corporation. _ 3. Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment regarding requirements of cul-de-sac lengths. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 4. Planning Commission Goals ADJOURNMENT CITY OF , ‘ CHANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: January 27, 1993 SUBJ: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Recreation Section As you are aware, the Park and Recreation Commission will be amending the Recreation Section of the City's Comprehensive Plan over the next six months. The major impetus for this action is the desire to adopt a Comprehensive Park Plan. Numerous general housekeeping items will also be completed in this process. Attached you find a report presented to the Park and Recreation Commission on January 26 in this regard. An article which will appear in the city's spring newsletter is also attached. Please inform me of the Planning Commission's desires in becoming involved in this process and appropriate measures to accommodate them will be taken. This may include, but is not limited to, a joint meeting of the two commissions and/or the assignment of a Planning Department staff member to attend Park and Recreation Commission discussions in this regard. pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager �4.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN -- 390 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 !% MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: January 20, 1993 SUBJ: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Recreation Section The Recreation Section of the City's Comprehensive Plan is in need of updating and revision. To accomplish this, will require a great deal of effort by both the commission and staff, with assistance from the consulting firm of Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. The driving force behind this update is the desire to add a Comprehensive Park Plan to the Recreation Section. Upon doing so, it is also necessary to amend the park and trail dedication section of the City Code. This amendment would require that when a proposed park,playground,recreational area, or other public ground has been indicated on the city's official map or Comprehensive Plan, and is located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision, it shall be designated as such on the plat and shall be conveyed to the city. This work effort affords us the opportunity to do much more as well (see letter from Mark Koegler dated January 18, 1993). At this time, it is my desire to provide the commission with the materials needed to begin this process. Attached you will find a copy of the Recreation Section of the City's Comprehensive Plan, a copy of the city's zoning and land use maps, and a letter from Mark Koegler of Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc., concerning an initial meeting we had in this regard. If you desire a complete copy of the City's Comprehensive Plan to assist you in this process, please advise me and a copy will be made available to you. Upon setting the stage for this process, I have invited Mr. Koegler to attend your February 23 Park and Recreation Commission meeting. At that time the commission, staff, and our consultant(s) will move forward in a more definitive manner ensuring that this update be successfully completed. Mr. Koegler will be introducing other members of the staff at Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc., who will be working on this project either in person or by name on the 23rd. pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Mark Koegler, Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. �4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. HB g January 18, 1993 Mr. Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Coordinator City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Todd: As a follow-up to our recent meeting, I have reviewed the existing Recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan. It is my understanding that you and the Park and Recreation Commission are interested in updating the existing plan with the intent of adding material specifically recommending locations for future park sites. This information would clearly portray the City's park needs and plans. As such, it would simplify the park review process since developers and land owners would know the City's intent in advance of initiating their own site planning activities. In order to accurately reflect future park needs, the Recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan needs to be coordinated closely with the Plan's Land Use section. In Chanhassen's case, planned land use is fairly well defined within the current MUSA line and less defined outside of the urban service area. In the General Rural Use Area (outside existing MUSA), a number of large scale uses exist such as the Arboretum and Bluff Creek Golf Course. These uses significantly reduce the amount of "urban" development likely to occur in these areas thereby making the task of projecting future uses somewhat easier. The following is a list of initial comments pertaining to the plan update: • The existing plan's text and graphics should be reviewed and updated as necessary. Specifically, have any changes in goals and policies occurred? The narrative on existing parks should be amended to show improvements that have occurred over the past three years. Park standards should also be critiqued. Do the population ratio and facility standards identified in the plan need any modification? • Proposed land uses within the existing MUSA line need to be analyzed. The development pattern shown on the future land use plan needs to be combined with the densities projected in the plan to project the number of anticipated park users within areas that are presently undeveloped. Population ratio standards and facility standards land Use/Environmental • Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 • (612)835-9960 • Fax:(612)835-3160 Mr. Todd Hoffman January 18, 1993 Page Two can be applied to this projected park user base to determine the amount of future park land that will be needed as well as its preferred geographic location. This analysis effort should also include anticipated expansions of the City's commercial and industrial uses to accurately account for their future recreational needs. • If Chanhassen desires to examine detailed future park needs on a city-wide basis, it will be necessary to review future land use in the General Rural Use Area. In order to accomplish this task, it will be necessary to project future land uses. This effort will require the involvement of the City's planning department and Planning Commission. Any decisions pertaining to future land uses in this area would have no formal status in the eyes of the Metropolitan Council. As such, these projections may at best serve as an indicator of possible uses rather than a definitive statement of future policy. Therefore, park recommendations for this area would be considered preliminary and would need to be further refined in the future as the MUSA line is extended. • Expanding the scope of the current Recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan to include specific park site recommendations sets the stage for subsequent modifications of the City's park dedication ordinance. The ordinance could be structured to specifically recognize the sites identified in the Comprehensive Plan, thereby providing a clear indication of the properties that Chanhassen intends to acquire through the land dedication process. The material presented herein is intended only as a general framework for the updating of the Recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Park and Recreation Commission concurs with the need to identify future specific park sites, a more detailed program outlining the specific tasks that need to be accomplished can be easily developed. It will also be necessary at the initiation of the updating process to decide whether or not to include the General Rural Use Area in preliminary form or to exclude this area at the present time and defer all park decisions until such time as the MUSA line is amended. If I can answer any questions on this material or if you have any additional comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 1 -te- c� R. Mark Koegler, RLA Vice President RMK:dbm UPDATE OF THE RECREATION SECTION OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE UNDERTAKEN Parks—a vital component of all communities. How should their acquisition be planned for? The city's current Comprehensive Plan identifies "park deficiency" areas. When a proposal for land development is submitted, and that land lies within a park deficient area, the task of negotiating either the acquisition of parkland, or in lieu of this, the acceptance of cash in the form of park dedication fees is begun. Difficulties in this process often arise since the precise parcels of land which will satisfy the park deficiency were not previously identified. Thus, the primary focus, along with the some general housekeeping, of this update will be the development of a Comprehensive Park Plan—that is, specific parcels of land in park deficient areas (primarily undeveloped areas of the city) will be identified and mapped for the purpose of communicating the city's intention of acquiring those parcels as development progresses. Upon doing so, land which has been identified on this official Comprehensive Park Plan map and is located within a proposed subdivision, shall be designated as park on any future plats and shall be conveyed to the city. Landowner concerns and curiosities over this process are natural. Designation of a portion of your land as future park is not a detriment in the eyes of a prospective developer, but an asset. Homeowners wishing to reside adjacent to parks and open spaces will pay a premium for lots which afford this luxury. Thus, in addition to being compensated by the city for the designated parkland, developers/landowners also realize higher profits on lots adjacent to parks and open spaces. The Comprehensive Plan update will take approximately six months to complete. The Park and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, their staff representatives, and the consulting firm of Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc., will be administrating this process. As a resident and/or landowner, you are encouraged to participate in this process. Public input is vital and will be accepted throughout this process. It is anticipated that final public meetings will be held by the City Council this coming summer, concluding with the City Council taking action on this item. If you have questions in this regard, please contact Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director at 937-1900. C I TY O F PC DATE: 2/3/93 , C fl A fl A E CC DATE: 2/22/93 ` • SSN � CASE #: 93-1 SUB — By: Aanenson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivide 36 Acres into 33 Single Family Lots with 3 Outlots (Boley Property) Z Q LOCATION: 7340 Minnewashta Parkway V _ 0. APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction Q 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 36 acres DENSITY: gross .91 u/a net 1.37 u/a ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family S - Victoria - residential E - RSF; single family Q W - Victoria - residential QWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Rolling terrain, Lake St. Joe is in the northern portion of the subdivision. There is a wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe and another wetland found in the southwest corner of the site am= 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Brothers Development, is requesting subdivision approval for 33 single family homes. This property is 36 acres and is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. This property is a part of a larger piece of property owned by Howard Boley. The southern portion of Mr. Boley's property is located in Victoria. The applicant has ghost platted this property to show how this property could be developed. Approval of this subdivision is required by the City of Victoria. — This proposal has a gross density of .91 units an acre and 1.37 units an acre net, this includes 11.54 acres of wetland and .4 acres of road. Lake St. Joe borders the northern portion of the — subdivision, this lake has a substantial wetland area around it. The city has classified this wetland as a natural wetland. The other wetland on the property was not reviewed as a part of the city's wetland inventory. The analysis of this wetland needs to occur before the plat receives — final approval. This property is being proposed for development under the standard subdivision review process; the property is currently zoned RSF. Lake St. Joe, which is on the northern portion of the subdivision, calls for compliance with the shoreland regulations. There is a wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe which is in the southwest corner of the site. Compliance with the wetland regulations is also required. Assess to this site is from Minnewashta Parkway. The orientation of the subdivision is towards — Chanhassen, mainly because access is gained only through Chanhassen. At this time, access to Victoria is proposed via a stub street to the south. The westerly edge of this subdivision is in the city of Victoria. The city limit is located at the most westerly 90 feet of the subdivision — running the length of the plat of 1315 feet Approval of the subdivision is therefore required by the City of Victoria, before the city can grant final approval. The staff feels that this subdivision is well conceived, but the issue of Victoria's jurisdiction over part of the site raises some concern if they are unwilling to approve it. The subdivision as — proposed meets all of the standards of the RSF zone. The applicants are requesting variances from the lot width requirements of the Shoreland Regulations. SITE ANALYSIS There is an existing home on the property, the Howard Boley residence. This home will have — to be removed with the development of the subdivision. There are three existing homes just to south of the subdivision. The homes are exempted from the subdivision. Further south along Minnewashta Parkway is the Alt property which has horses and a stable on it. This property is also an exemption. All of these properties are in the city of Victoria. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 3 This site has a rolling topography, the high point is over 1000 feet, where you can see all the way to Lake Minnetonka. The lowest elevation is the ordinary high water mark at 945.2'. The site has three areas of trees. It appears that the trees are on Lots 4, 5, and part of 6, Block 1 which will be lost due to grading of the site. The other groups of trees on the site including Lots 1, 12, 13, and 10-25, Block 1 should submit a home placement plans showing the existing trees and how they will be saved. Staff believes that except for Lots 12 and 13 there should be minimal tree loss. This proposal calls for grading the high point of the Block 2 area and placing this fill in the Block 1 area of Lots 2-9. At first blush, staff had some concern about fill being placed so close to the edge of the wetland at the 950' elevation. Upon further investigation is was determined that the site has been farmed right up to the edge of the wetland. In order for the home along the north portion of the site adjacent to the wetland to remain above the grade of the street, fill is required in this area. The developer has shown a cross section of how this lot would look, and this proposal shows an approximate 1% grade from the home to the street (see Attachment #4). Staff believes that it is desirable to have the homes above the street grade to provide lot drainage to the street so storm water can be pre-treated before entering the wetlands. Outlot C is not being platted at this time. The ghost plat for the southern portion of the site shows Outlot C being platted via a road from the city of Victoria. Staff believes that this makes good planning sense because this area is the high point of the property and access from the south will minimize grading and tree loss. There are four storm water retention ponds proposed for the subdivision. They are located on Outlots A and B and on Lots 12, 13, 22, and 23 of Block 1. Access to the ponds will be gained from the road on Outlots A and B but an easement will be required for access for the other two ponds. A stone wall is shown between the ponds on Outlots A and B. More design details about the wall are required before it can be built. Streetscape is also required along Minnewashta Parkway as per the Landscaping Ordinance. Victoria City Line The westerly 90 feet of this subdivision is in the city of Victoria. Prior to final approval of this subdivision, approval by the city of Victoria is required. The property in Victoria is a strip of 90 feet wide and 1315.16 feet long. The Boley property is also divided north and south between the city of Victoria and Chanhassen. A ghost plat was shown as to how this property in Victoria _ could be developed. Topography, access and availability of utilities dictate that this area be serviced by Chanhassen. The applicant would like the city to consider annexation of this area. City staff believes this is a reasonable outcome. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. — February 3, 1993 Page 4 On Friday, January 22, 1993, Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson and myself met with the Victoria City Manager Miriam Porter and City Planner Bill Thilbalt regarding the development of the Boley property. Victoria's preference is to have the subdivision moved to the east so that the — city lines do not dissect the lots. While the city lines divide Lots 13 through 21, Block 1, the homes as proposed on the home placement are shown in the City of Chanhassen. Leaving this narrow strip would provide an unbuildable lot with no access to it. Providing a stub street to the — west from this subdivision should be considered. Victoria needs to make comprehensive study as to how this area can be served. Chanhassen will be working with Victoria to resolve this issue. Currently, there are four homes and a church on the east side of Minnewashta Parkway that are _ in the city of Victoria but have Chanhassen services. These homes are part of the Trolls Glen 3rd Addition and the church is part of the Cedar Crest Subdivision. Circumstances like this where properties are in other cities and yet serviced by Chanhassen exist elsewhere through the _ city. In similar circumstances, the city has worked on a service agreement with the appropriate jurisdiction. However, no such agreement exists for these parcels and they too have no physical connection to Victoria in any substantive manner. Staff is recommending that the portion of this _ subdivision that is in Victoria be platted and not left as a lot remanent. Shoreland Regulations _ Lake St. Joe is classified by the DNR as a Natural Environment Lake. Compliance with the shoreland regulations includes all property within 1000 feet of the shoreline. In the case the _ entire this subdivision, falls within 1000 feet of the lake. The minimum standards are as follows: LAKESHORE NON-LAKESHORE LOT WIDTH LOT AREA STRUCTURE IMPACT LOT WIDTH LOT _ (sq. ft.) ZONE AREA 125 feet 40,000 150 feet 75 feet 125 feet 20,000 All of the lots abutting the lake meet the 40,000 square foot minimum requirement. The remaining lots meet the 20,000 square foot minimum. Not all of the lots meet the 125 foot lot _ width requirement. Staff has measured the setback from 30 feet back line and found that the total number of lots that are under the 125 minimum is 16. Staff is recommending that variances be given on these lots (Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block — 1). The intent of the shoreland regulations is to minimize the shoreland impact. Staff is of the opinion that making the lots conform to the 125 foot lot width will not affect the density of the project. In addition, 12 of the lots that do not meet the lot width requirements are not adjacent — to the lake. We note that this is a problem that directly stems from the MnDNR's Shoreland Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 5 Regulations that we intend to rectify with a revised ordinance. It was drafted to cover the entire state and is very inappropriate in the metro area. For example, much of south Minneapolis is located within the shoreland districts surrounding Lakes Calhoun, Harriet, Isles and Nokomis. Obviously, this is inconsistent with the state guidelines. In past discussions with the DNR, they have agreed that the manner in which we propose to regulate the shoreland on the Boley parcel is acceptable. Wetland Regulations There are two wetlands on the property. One wetland is adjacent to Lake St. Joe and the other is in the southwest corner of the proposed plat. The Lake St. Joe wetland was inventoried this summer and was determined to have a natural classification as per the city's new Wetland Ordinance (see attachment #3). This development proposes 13 lots adjacent to the Lake St. Joe wetland. The setback requirement for a natural classification wetland is 40 feet plus an additional 10 to 30 feet (20' average) native vegetation strip. Lots 1-13 in Block 1 all meet the wetland setback requirement (see attached compliance table). The Wetland Ordinance also states that a monument is required for each 300 feet of wetland edge. One concern of the staff is the amount of fill being proposed adjacent to the wetland. Fill is proposed at a 3:1 slope which is fairly steep immediately adjacent to the wetland. The area adjacent to the wetland has been farmed in the past so there is no native vegetation established, staff's main concern is erosion control. Staff is recommending that the Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook be used to ensure erosion control measures are taken. Also see the grading section for more discussion of this issue. The second wetland is found in the northwest corner of the property. This is a very small part of a very large wetland that is adjacent to Tamarack Lake. This wetland was not identified during the inventory this past summer. Ron Peterson, a wetland specialist working for Lundgren Brothers, felt that although this wetland has been altered, the property to the west is used for cattle grazing and a road has been built through the wetland, it could be improved. Regardless of the function at this point the homes on Lots 20 and 21, Block 1 propose a 120 foot and 80 foot setback from the edge of the wetland. Even if this wetland is determined to be classified as a natural or ag/urban, adequate buffering is being provided. An inventory of this wetland is necessary to determine the amount of buffer strip and native vegetation required before this plat is given final approval. The city has not yet established a species list for the re-establishment of native vegetation but will have to do so before this plat can be given final approval. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 6 GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of trees/wooded areas except for a few areas along Lake St. Joe. The property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The preliminary grading plan proposes extensive site grading to accommodate proposed building house pads and maintaining street grades within the City's guidelines (0.50% to 7.0%). According to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan, the 100-year flood elevation for Lake St. Joe is at 949.5'. Fill placement proposed along Lots 6 through 9, Block 1, appears to be encroaching into the Watershed District's 100-year flood boundary. Placement of fill material on these lots should be limited to areas outside the 100-year flood boundary. Side slopes adjacent to Lake St. Joe are proposed at 3:1 which are fairly steep but not excessive. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts should follow the City's recently adopted Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fence should be employed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In some instances where side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed 200 feet upstream of the toe of slope. All access points from the construction site should be surfaced and maintained with a crushed rock base in accordance with the City's BMPH (Attachment No. 1). Storm water runoff from the development is proposed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. The majority of the overall site drains towards Lake St. Joe. The southwesterly corner of the property drains westerly towards a wetland basin in Victoria. The majority of the storm water generated from the development is proposed to be carried via storm sewer system and discharged into water treatment/retention ponds prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe or the wetlands in — Victoria. Mr. Ismael Martinez with the City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo and Associates, has reviewed this development proposal and has recommended minimum ponding capacities and characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds (Attachment No. 2). In an effort to help reduce future City maintenance of these water quality ponds, staff recommends the applicant look at consolidating the ponds proposed on Outlots A and B; either on one of the outlots or on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, outside the wetlands. Prior to final plat approval, detailed storm sewer and ponding design calculations shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. The ponding areas shall meet or exceed the City's water quality standards (NURP) and retention requirements for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Discharge from the site shall be maintained at predeveloped runoff conditions. Access to the water quality/retention ponds for maintenance purposes shall be provided by an easement dedicated on the final plat. All easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Side slopes on the maintenance access routes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slope. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. Upon final construction plan submittal, a development plan shall be included on the final grading plan denoting the house type and proposed lowest floor and garage slab elevations. In addition, all Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 7 proposed lot corner elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. UTILITIES The plans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site. Municipal sanitary sewer and water lines in Minnewashta Parkway are adequately sized to accommodate this development proposal. The applicant's engineer has also designed the utilities to serve a future phase to the south which is in the City of Victoria. Final placement of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Construction of all municipal utilities shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and final approval by the City Council. STREETS The street plans propose on extending a public street westerly from Minnewashta Parkway just south of Minnewashta Court. A public street extension is also proposed to the south for future service to Victoria which will eventually loop back into Minnewashta Parkway. Sight lines at the proposed intersection is fairly good considering the speed limit on Minnewashta Parkway. _ Although a future or concept looped street to the south through Victoria and back out to Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully studied. Sight lines are poor due to roadway geometries on Minnewashta Parkway. Ideally, future street extensions through Victoria should line up perpendicular to Minnewashta Parkway preferably across from one of the existing intersections at either Hawthorne Circle or 77th Street. A sign indicating "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" should be placed on one of the barricades at the end of the proposed south street. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for a future street extension to the west to Victoria through this phase or the next phase. With the topographic constraints around this parcel, it may not be feasible; however, it should still be reviewed. Street grades proposed are between 0.75% and 6.0% which are within the City's current standards. The applicant has proposed a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 31-foot wide street (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) which is also within the City's guidelines. All street intersections should be perpendicular to each other. The second intersection in from Minnewashta Parkway, at the loop, needs some minor adjusting to accomplish this. Construction of the public street improvements shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. As you are aware, the City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade Minnewashta Parkway (Project No. 90-15). The Minnewashta Parkway project proposes to assess Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 8 _ this parcel a portion of the project costs. The feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway project estimated 39 assessable units for this parcel. The City Council approved a rate per unit _ of $760 and equates to a pending assessment of $29,640. The assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Parkway project is not proposed until early fall of 1993. COMPLIANCE TABLE See Attachment # 1 PARK AND RECREATION — The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the application by Lundgren Brothers Construction to subdivide the aforementioned property on January 26, 1993. The staff report — presented to the commission that evening is attached. Ms. Brenda Roy, a resident adjoining the proposed subdivision, addressed the commission that evening asking that she be designated as the owner of the property listed under the name Richard Fedtke. Mr. Terry Forbord, representing the applicant, was present at the meeting as well. Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendations: Parkland: It is recommended that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. Home placement plans shall be required to ensure the preservation of the trees on the site. Streetscape landscaping is required along Minnewashta Parkway. Plans should be submitted for staff review prior to submittal of the final plat. A requirement of one tree per lot will also be enforced as part of the building permit process. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #93-1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be _ established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. — February 3, 1993 Page 10 surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20- foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over — all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension — indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. — 8. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases — of development. 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements(Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation _ staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. — 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1. — 15. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot." — ATTACHMENTS 1. Compliance table. 2. Application. 3. Lake St. Joe Wetland Classification. _ 4. Typical cross section of adjacent to the wetland from Sathre-Bergquist. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 11 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated January 26, 1993. 6. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated January 28, 1993. 7. Letter from DNR dated January 15, 1993. 8. Letter from Soil and Water Conservation District dated January 12, 1993. 9. Memo from Mark Littfin dated January 8, 1993. _ 10 Public hearing notice. 11. Plat dated January 5, 1992. 74.4CleheXtrk4 I - LOT STANDARDS SUMMARY TABLE f ,� BLOCK 1 LOT AREA LOT WIDTH AT BLDG LOT RIPARIAN NON-RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL AREA ABOVE RDWIERED ACTUAL WETLAND NO. LOT LOT AREA AREA WETLANDS WIDTH WIDTH SETBACK -- 1 1 YES --- 40,000 SF 57,500 SF 31,000 125' 152' 100' 2 YES --- 40,000 SF 51,300 SF 30,000 125' 140' 70' - 3 --- YES 20,000 SF 30,500 SF 22,000 125' 160' 55' 4 YES --- 40,000 SF 49,400 SF 20,000 125' 135' 60' 5 --- YES 20,000 SF 31,300 SF 20,600 125' 140' 80' 6 --- YES 20,000 SF 28,200 SF 21,400 125' 150' 75' 7 YES --- 40,000 SF 50,500 SF 20,600 125' 125' 85' -- 8 8 YES --- 40,000 SF 103,100 SF 25,700 125' 125' 85' 9 YES --- 40,000 SF 121,800 SF 25,100 125' 125' 100' 10 YES --- 40,000 SF 96,600 SF 24,600 125' 125' 90' 11 YES --- 40,000 SF 67,300 SF 23,600 125' 125' 90' 12 YES --- 40,000 SF 61,000 SF 31,000 125' 125' 80' 13 --- YES 20,000 SF 59,900 SF 44,800 125' (1) 125@90' 80' 14 -- YES 20,000 SF 28,700 SF 125' (2) 100' - 15 --- YES 20,000 SF 22,600 SF 125' (2) 100' 16 --- YES 20,000 SF 21,300 SF 125' (2) 100' -- 17 17 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,400 SF 125' (2) 100' 18 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' (2) 100' 19 -- YES 20,000 SF 21,900 SF 125' (2) 100' 20 -- YES 15,000 SF 34,100 SF 30,600 90' 100' 120' 21 --- YES 15,000 SF 42,500 SF 23,900 90' 100' ' 80' 22 --- YES 15,000 SF 20,000 SF 90' 100' 23 --- YES 20,000 SF 21,700 SF 125' (2) 100' _ 24 --- YES 20,000 SF 29,100 SF 125' 148' 25 --- YES 20,000 SF 22,700 SF 125' (2).100' 26 --- YES 20,000 SF 22,000 SF 125' 130' --- YES 20,006 SF 20,010 SF '1'.7' (21 10)0' LOT STANDARDS SUMMARY TABLE ,LOCK 2 LOT AREA LOT WIDTH AT BLDG LOT RIPARIAN NON-RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED ACTUAL NO. LOT LOT AREA AREA WIDTH WIDTH 1 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,500 SF 125' 125' 2 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' 140' 3 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 170' 4 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 175' 5 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 180' 6 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 128' AVERAGE LOT AREA: 38,670 SQUARE FEET VERAGE LOT WIDTH: 125.7 1 E1 (AT PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK) (1) PROPOSED HOUSE SETBACK FOR NECK LOT IS 90 1.E i' MINIMUM WHERE LOT WIDTH IS 125 }En . LOT WIDTH AT 30 ri::Ei SETBACK IS 38 1r.r:i . VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR LOT WIDTH AT MINIMUM SETBACK, FROM ZONING AND SHORELAND ORDINANCES. _ (2) VARIANCE REQUIRED FROM SHORELAND ORDINANCE 125 1k_Er WIDTH STANDARD. NO VARIANCE NEEDED FROM RSF ZONING DISTRICT 90 FEET WIDTH STANDARD. trevirk0.53 SATHRE - BERGQUIST , INC . p 150 SOUTH BROADWAY (612) 476 6000 WAYZATA, MN 55391 �s �QFAX 476-0104 ctiFAs ? - January 4, 1993 Mr. Paul Krauss CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box #147 Chanhassen Minnesota 55317 Subject: BOLEY Property Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Dear Mr. Krauss: This letter is intended as supporting documentation to the Preliminary Plat and Variance request of Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. for the BOLEY Property on Minnewashta Parkway. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. has agreed to purchase the Howard Boley property, in both Chanhassen and Victoria, in its entirely. The Bouncb ry Survey includes land in the City of Chanhassen, (currently zoned RSF, and proposed for platting) and land in the City of Victoria over which we have "ghost platted" a possible subdivision. The subdivision requested will create 33 single family lots and 3 outlots served by public street and utility extensions from Minnewashta Parkway. The Chanhassen portion of the Boley property has been zoned RSF for many years. Public utilities have been available to service the property for years as well. The Preliminary Plat lists the proposed lot areas. All of the subdivided lots will be at least 20,000 square feet in area. Riparian lots, those with Lake St. Joe shoreline, are a minimum of 49,400 square feet. F ZCEI VED _ JAz' 1 I. 19:3 CITY OFC:--WhASSE"J Lake St. Joe has been classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural resources as a Natural Environment Lake. The City of Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance establishes a 1000 foot zone adjacent to Lake St. Joe's ordinary high water line (OHW) called the Shoreland Area. Within this zone riparian (lakeshore lots) are required to be 40,000 square feet and non-riparian lots must be 20,000 square feet. Normal RSF zoning district standards are a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet with minimum lot width of 90 at the building sethark. In the Lake St. Joe Shoreland Area the ordinance requires 125 foot lot width at the lakeshore and at the building line. The riparian lots (and the other lots along the lake side of the proposed street) meet the 125' width at proposed setback standards. Lots across the street or farther from the lake are proposed to be 100 feet wide at the building line. While this 100 foot width is 10 feet wider than the Zoning Ordinance requires it is 25 feet less than the Shoreland Ordinance requires. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. requests variances be granted to allow these reduced lot widths. The table attached presents the statistical lot by lot data for your review. The table shows that 10 lots are in need of variances. We believe the variances are justified for the following reasons: 1 . The average lot width for all lots in the "Shoreland District" is 125.7 feet. This exceeds the 125 feet requirement. "Extra" lots are not being forced. 2. One purpose of the 125 foot width standard is to lessen the pollution impacts of property development. The Preliminary Plans show four NURP ponds which are proposed to pre-treat the storm water from the storm sewer system. The NURP ponds are more beneficial to the Lake and wetlands than adding 25 feet to the width of the lots proposed for variances. 3. The variances sought are dictated by the physical constraints of the site. Strict adherence to the Shoreland Ordinance provision of 125 feet width would necessitate realignment of the streets proposed thus increasing the degree of site alteration. This hardship on the land is not warranted. The westerly portions of Lots 13 thru 21, Block 1, actually lie in the City of Victoria. The houses which will occupy these lots will be entirely built within Chanhassen. We intend to seek the necessary City of Victoria approvals to plat these lots as shown concurrently with the Chanhassen review process. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. seeks Preliminary stage approvals at this time. They intend to proceed with actual site development in the late spring and summer of 1993, following Final Stage Approval. Sincerely, SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. &/1 Richard W. Sathre, P.E. RWS/dm Attachment Fav o, City of Chanhassen Wetland Observation Records Wetland No.: 3 (Field Review): /_`.r1— C , (Official Map) Location ►\v,til T; Z v.) R; 1 Section On USGS NWI: ✓ Y N Observer Initials: Date Visited: o / / 12. Picture Number(s)/Roll #: / Picture Nos.: I — /9L') Classification Wetland Type: F W.-W. 1 L.11. (Cowardin); 3/5 /(0/7 (Circular 39) Wetland Location: Lakeside Streamside Headwaters ✓ Isolated (upland) Edge of Wetland Contour 1,4-7. S ;varies City Class: (P)ristine ; (N)atural ; (A)g/Urban ; (U)tilized Watershed Characteristics Wetland Size: acres Direct drainage area: acres Total drainage area: acres Open water area: acres Vegetation .e,L.{ Dominant Plant Species: , • •S J Reed canary grass Cattail 5 - n Z Gj . lc►:• . • . 4 Via-' Purple Loosestrife: (D)ominant; (A)bundant; (Sme; (I)ndividuals; (N)one Plant Diversity: No. Species Dominant- 1; 2; 3-0 Percent open water: 70°ip Land Use Influences Surrounding Land Use (Percent): 5'i„ Residenti4)M, D,Rur. Commercial/Industrial _ °t Agricultural '-to i, Open Water 5 0. Wooded Institutional Vacant Field (describe below) Hydrology • Water Source: 1/ Natural; _ Stormwater; Unknown — Inflow: Stream; Ditch; Stormsewer, t----- Surface Outflow: ✓ Natural; Ditch; Culvert; - None Sedimentation/Siltation: Y L.---N Flooded-dead or dying trees: v Y N — Drains to L) -• 54- J-at. ; (Direction;Wetland No.) (C)ontinuouslye`. onally; (I)ntermittently; (R)arely — Soil Classification - Soil Type Abbv.: Soil Name: Other _ Wildlife Observations: Pr nP '/..)•- • , General Notes/Comments: ► „t;,,,, e, e-fl- - • ! 'i Le P%n• .I r-,C? c S ) V-11 4 11 U/P 1-1 lira e-,,....td - 1-114-4-4-0- — 'C-V F ✓(1 (X1' !i? QM--Q/1� 't—, i.L ,V)• ?/)' !- CYrtY., rte.. ,4`r t+tlwnwl1 4.wP f h.•-el ...1`-.0 . Section No. 1 Wetland Sketch;Photo • ,.t'�4 1 ___.2.1.., I. ;.i. 0 \ T ) ' ,,,..,L t` e cr I 5 crit,vcia-- \ .^..r.,,.... ?‘f.;..: _ AC.:.,,.._.,--d I . c d) \ 9 12 )/ "- *)/ — 13 16 Qb\, --- J / Not to Scale Nix LOt 7. BLOCK i. 1.4,/'idvn-e A.{ ` 9- _ 11. /7 ,--.:- 4 = -E - • W 114.14,=tNf Cuapir. 4(v:112 A PROPOSED GRADE MAXIMUM 3:1 SLOPE G3 - ----_- - `_ __J EXISTING GRADE 7 `o1 • I3 i:I 0 r _ — '' illSECTION AA 9 " SCAIE: t Y =10 Feel vi — Ill) 1- - =g _. .SCALF:1 =t00 Feet \ 1� c ,s ;JIla11P► M 1rillik , 0). .-.\ 'V fs\ 2( Pi ;• 11111111 17 , c_--,,. ',..,.,"PP, ' # 1 RE LINT _ ‘, 1 %/u 4 I yrs. 5 24 1231 \ -- CITY OF 1 ‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 r • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 26, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property/Lundgren Development File No. 93-4 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat dated December 28, 1992 and preliminary grading and utility plans dated December 28, 1992, prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of trees/wooded areas except for a few areas along Lake St. Joe. The property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The preliminary grading plan proposes extensive site grading to accommodate proposed building house pads and maintaining street grades within the City's guidelines (0.50% to 7.0%). According to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan, the 100-year flood elevation for Lake St. Joe is at 949.5. Fill placement proposed along Lots 6 through 9, Block 1, appears to be encroaching into the Watershed District's 100-year flood boundary. Placement of fill material on these lots should be limited to areas outside the 100-year flood boundary. Side slopes adjacent to Lake St. Joe are proposed at 3:1 which are fairly steep but not excessive. Site restoration,vegetative cover and erosion control efforts should follow the City's recently adopted Best Management Practice for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fence should be employed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In some instances where side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed 200 feet upstream of the toe of slope. All access points from the construction site should be surfaced and maintained with a crushed rock base in accordance with the City's BMPH (Attachment No. 1). Storm water runoff from the development is proposed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. The majority of the overall site drains towards Lake St. Joe. The southwesterly S�«• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 2 corner of the property drains westerly towards a wetland basin in Victoria. The majority of the storm water generated from the development is proposed to be carried via storm sewer system and discharged into water treatment/retention ponds prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe or the wetlands in Victoria. Mr. Ismael Martinez with the City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo and Associates, has reviewed this development proposal and has recommended minimum ponding capacities and characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds (Attachment No. 2). In an effort to help reduce future City maintenance of these water quality ponds, staff recommends the applicant look at consolidating the ponds proposed on Outlots A and B; either on one of the outlots or on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, outside the wetlands. Prior to final plat approval, detailed storm sewer and ponding design calculations shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. The ponding areas shall meet or exceed the City's water quality standards (NURP) and retention requirements for a 100-year, 24- hour storm event. Discharge from the site shall be maintained at predeveloped runoff conditions. Access to the water quality/retention ponds for maintenance purposes shall be provided by an easement dedicated on the final plat. All easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Side slopes on the maintenance access routes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slope. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. Upon final construction plan submittal, a development plan shall be included on the final grading plan denoting the house type and proposed lowest floor and garage slab elevations. In addition, all proposed lot corner elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. UTILITIES The plans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site. Municipal sanitary sewer and water lines in Minnewashta Parkway are adequately sized to accommodate this development proposal. The applicant's engineer has also designed the utilities to serve a future phase to the south which is in the City of Victoria. Final placement of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Construction of all municipal utilities shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and final approval by the City Council. STREETS Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 3 _ The street plans propose on extending a public street westerly from Minnewashta Parkway _ just south of Minnewashta Court. A public street extension is also proposed to the south for future service to Victoria which will eventually loop back into Minnewashta Parkway. Sight lines at the proposed intersection is fairly good considering the speed limit on _ Minnewashta Parkway. Although a future or concept looped street to the south through Victoria and back out to Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully studied. Sight lines are poor due to roadway geometries on Minnewashta Parkway. Ideally, _ future street extensions through Victoria should line up perpendicular to Minnewashta Parkway preferably across from one of the existing intersections at either Hawthorne Circle or 77th Street. A sign indicating 'THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE — FUTURE" should be placed on one of the barricades at the end of the proposed south street. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for a future street extension to the west to Victoria through this phase or the next — phase. With the topographic constraints around this parcel, it may not be feasible;however, it should still be reviewed. Street grades proposed are between 0.75% and 6.0% which are within the City's current standards. The applicant has proposed a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 31-foot wide street (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) which is also within the City's guidelines. All street — intersections should be perpendicular to each other. The second intersection in from Minnewashta Parkway, at the loop, needs some minor adjusting to accomplish this. Construction of the public street improvements shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 — Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. — As you are aware, the City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade _ Minnewashta Parkway (Project No. 90-15). The Minnewashta Parkway project proposes to assess this parcel a portion of the project costs. The feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway project estimated 39 assessable units for this parcel. The City Council approved _ a rate per unit of $760 and equates to a pending assessment of $29,640. The assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Parkway project is not proposed until early fall of 1993. — MISCELLANEOUS An existing house currently exists on proposed Lot 1, Block 1. It is assumed the applicant — is proposing to remove the house with the subdivision construction. The applicant should be aware they will need to apply and comply with all the local building and demolition codes. The sanitary sewer and water service to the residence shall be abandoned and — disconnected at the property line along Minnewashta Parkway. Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 4 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. 5. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. 6. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. 7. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 8. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 5 _ 9. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat _ as 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. 10. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 11. The applicant shall place a sign at the end of the southerly street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". 12. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. 13. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the — potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases of development. 14. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant,Mr. Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. _ 15. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the -- development. ktm Attachments: 1. Detail on temporary rock construction entrance. _ 2. Letter from Ismael Martinez dated January 15, 1993. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer _ convenient and effective. The wash rack would consist of a heavy grating over a lowered area in the construction entrance. The grating may be a prefabricated rack such as a cattle guard, or it may be constructed on-site of structural steel. In any case, the wash rack must be strong enough to support the vehicles that will cross it. Figure 15.2 shows a typical wash rack installation. MAINTENANCE The rock pad needs occasional maintenance to prevent tracking of mud onto paved roads. This may require periodic top dressing with additional rock or removal and reinstallation of the pad. Hard surface public road •-•• 50' minimum 111100 6" minimum -::r•�!;16.��:• ;01.0:. 1'-2'washed rock FIGURE 15.1: Rock Construction Entrance. Source: MPCA's BMP Handbook 39304pt3 ATTACHMENT 1 01-16-1993 09:19 612 636 1311 BONESTROO & ASSC. P.01 Oen G Ionadoca PEMOward 114 MR A Unto. 044,P au.PE MRS I Jensen Fl Bonestroo "°°M W Rosana PE. Kerr A.Goroan PE AQ'+et M Ea A.ICI L.Pti4 Grave iv.Pl. JohC.Anomic.P1. tart R.Pfeffer* PE Tec nas W Pte.PE. Oren L Wert 11. Mann L Sorw4.PE, PIM W Fetter,PI. M .C LyneA,P.E. Gary 0.Kn>aore PE ROsene RKPtard E Tony,►E. Deed O.Lamm.PE. /met R Maar PE F.Toa!Four PE CM^^R.Cook.P.E. bbeR C.Bullet ALA. Jerry O.PeruKn.PE Keit+R I'M PE Andertlk & Thorne,E.ND/et AE Jerry A.buroor.PE. Kervner•.P.Andersen.PE. Shawn D Gularson,PE �} B `-r oDert Q k -tM PF MPk A.Manson..PE. Mark R Ron FE, CecLlo Dimer FE. Associates Suss,.M Ebe^,n.CPA Mor/Nae T Rausmann.PJ:. Mark A.Sec PE Chanel A.Erickson *Sew Cantatanr Teo K.Feld PE. Gary W Morten.FE. Leo M P.*taEy Thprrtat R Madan A.!A Dank1 J Evertor,P.E. Harlin M.canon Engineers & Architects Donab C Roark►.E Day!K Kaschenman,PL, AIMS P EnQe1tarde Thenyl E ANA P.E. PhMO1 CaSwt.PE. %rn/er U1 rrEL FE Met D Wiad,FE. MEMO TO: David Hampel, City of Chanhassen Fax No. 937-5739 FROM: Ismael Martinez DATE: January 15, 1993 RE: Boley Property Development FILE NO.: 3930en Stormwater Review Hi Dave ! INTRODUCTION We have performed a stormwater and water quality review of the proposed development, Boley Property Development. Our review was based on the proposed development characteristics shown in the Preliminary Grading Plan dated December 28, 1992. As a result of our review we recommend the following capacities and characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds: Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D Wet Volume AT 0.3 0 .17 *0 .24 0.16 Mean Depth Ft 2 . 7 2 . 0 2 .2 2 . 0 * This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream. OBSERVATIONS The proposed development is located in the Southwest corner of Lake St. Joe West of Minnewa,shta Parkway in the NE 1/4 of Section 7, T 116 N, R 23 W, in the City of Chanhassen. - ATTACHMENT 2 01-18-1993 09:19 612 636 1311 BONESTROO & ASSC. P.02 The proposed development drains naturally to two existing natural wetlands, Lake St Joe to the north and a southerly wetland. Lake St Joe is classified as a Palustrine Lake, with Emergent Vegetation in the surroundings•tlassified as a natural+ wetland in the City's wetland inventory. The stormsewer system for the proposed development contains four water quality treatment ponds. We have assigned names to these ponds as follows: Pond A - Located in lot 11, drains directly into Lk, St Joe Pond B - Located in lot 21, drains into a wetland in the City of Victoria Pond C - Located in outlot A, drains into Pond D Pond D • Located at the corner of Minnewashta Pkwy and the entrance of the proposed development, drains into Lake St Joe The drainage system shown in sheet 2 of 4 follows the natural topography and most of it drains directly into the wetlands. RESULTS The proposed development will have to meet basic water quality treatment of the runoff collected by the stormsewers. Special considerations were made regarding this development as part of our modeling to estimate practical pollutant concentrations due to the low traffic volume anticipated and the local topography. As a result of our review we recommend the following improvements: Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D Wet Volume AF 0.3 0 .17 *0 .24 0 . 16 Mean Depth Ft 2 . 7 2 . 0 2 .2 2 . 0 * This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream. COMMENTS The proposed water quality ponds should meet or exceed the wet volume and the mean depth. The mean depth is particularly important due to the size of the ponds. Pond A should be protected against the erosion that can result from overtoping. Special attention should be paid to the erosion control measures and best management practices for this development. The topography and the grading proposed in the plans can result in impacts to the wetlands that could exceed the performance of the ponds in many years. If you have any comments please call me at 636-4600. Have a nice day 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN\ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: January 28, 1993 SUBJ: Boley Property Preliminary Plat The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the application by Lundgren Brothers Construction to subdivide the aforementioned property on January 26, 1993. The staff report presented to the commission that evening is attached. Ms. Brenda Roy, a resident adjoining the proposed subdivision, addressed the commission that evening asking that she be designated as the owner of the property listed under the name Richard Fedtke. Mr. Terry Forbord, representing the applicant, was present at the meeting as well. Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendations: Parkland: It is recommended that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid _ on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building — permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. I'f t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PRC DATE: Jan. 26, 1993 CITY OF CIIAA! E CC DATE: HOFFMAN:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to subdivide 36 acres into 33 single family homes on property zoned RSF LOCATION: Located southeast of Lake St. Joe, east of Minnewashta Parkway, and north of Z Highway 5 (see attached location map--Attachment A) 1J APPLICANT: Lundgren Brothers Construction 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - City of Victoria E - RSF, Residential Single Family W - City of Victoria < COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Recreation Section of the City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the area of the city which this proposed plat lies in as park deficient. This is no surprise to the commission, 1.4 . staff, the applicant, and the residents of Chanhassen living west of Lake Minnewashta. There is no park of any kind, public open space, playground, or other recreation area located west of Lake Minnewashta between Highway 5 and Highway 7. The Minnewashta Parkway "neighborhoods" represent a large and ww increasing population of the city. The city has initiated steps to eliminate this park deficiency. First, a park acquisition and development fund reserve specifically for the purchase of land west of Lake (n Minnewashta was established. Secondly, contacts inquiring about the purchase of property in this area have been made. Some commissioners may recall that Mr. Terry Forbord of Lundgren Brothers Construction spoke to the commission in September of 1990 during the review of a separate issue; however, he referenced the possible development of the Boley property. A great deal of discussion that Park and Recreation Commission January 21, 1993 Page 2 evening centered upon the designation of the land around Lake St. Joe with the exception of the Malinowski property as park/open space on the city's land use plan (Attachment B). This designation will be honored under this current proposal. This is not due to any effort by the developer as the property is a designated wetland and is protected as such. This designated open space, although of tremendous value, does not lessen the need for a park in this region of the city, however. The question then remains, is the Boley property the appropriate site for a park of at least ten acres in size west of Lake Minnewashta? I do not believe so for three reasons: 1. The topographic constraints confronted on this site would make development of a park, even one with a high percentage of passive area, difficult. 2. The site is removed from the center of the west Lake Minnewashta region. Property north of this site would be more appropriate for use as a park. 3. The site borders the City of Victoria on two sides. As you can see from the preliminary plat, the entirety of this proposed development includes some 20 lots in Victoria in addition to the 33 proposed in Chanhassen. Recent negotiations over ownership and operation responsibilities of Cathcart Park with the City of Shorewood exemplify the difficulties which can arise from the acquisition of a second "border" park. RECOMMENDATION Upon consideration of these findings, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500 per unit. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies two trail segments on or adjacent to this proposed development. I will address them separately. Minnewashta Parkway: An 8-ft. bituminous trail is being constructed along Minnewashta Parkway in conjunction with the upgrade of the parkway itself. In the area of this development, the trail is on the east side of the parkway. The construction of this trail satisfies the designation on the Comprehensive Plan for a trail adjacent to the easterly border of the applicant's property. Park and Recreation Commission January 21, 1993 Page 3 Nature Trail Around Lake St. Joe: The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a nature trail around Lake St. Joe. A discussion with Mr. Mark Koegler of Hoisington-Koegler Group confirmed my assumption that the purpose of this designation was to provide public access to the unique open space around Lake St. Joe, particularly to its west. Unfortunately, this designation was made without close consideration being given to the difficulty of traversing this area. A trail around Lake St. Joe would require the dedication of a rear yard easements above the edge of the wetland on Lots 1-13, Block 1. The fact that this designation would not be favored by the applicant is of no concern to me. What does concern me is the lack of justification for the investment which would be necessary to construct and maintain a boardwalk leading north of the proposed development. If this trail was to be located in a large city or regional park, the unique experience offered by a boardwalk entering such an area would be welcomed. In a neighborhood setting, however, this type of trail is not justifiable. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. As explained, this recommendation is in direct conflict with the city's Comprehensive Plan. If the commission is uncomfortable with this recommendation, a recommendation should be given to the city council requiring a trail easement be granted by the applicant on Lots 1-13, Block 1. 1 0009-9LP (Z l9) • L 6£SS 'NV4 'YIYZAYM • AVMCNON— ' 3NI ` LIS Inb.D2Iaa- aai ammoommiiii .,----------------------------a , , -6.,...,-,.. -,-,,, __:1) , . I I\\. II ""*", L.:(3:1: a I. .\ .:4::...%. i___, ,`'tiy • • v• ,' t.... .! - i .0, _ q . is ! (4.,:i: a �• . ' 1jci Icy ft'�" *4.. ••�+a S 4-' 1' $... ....‘ "*. ' • C4 76, . - _ - -_ ____ .......... °All t•Wit' ... s, I : • �,} s �i! -". --T-- --- — ewe+ i t I OW .. < — ' 1 rte . '+r...., • t .A1� 4111 2tM '� r Cl., _I �I _ * • 4. :iu:E V Z -(.I 1 _...:ate t ,1� W ( • 1 - W ........ I. n • •eee •r'• , II Q OL .... mama . (l) I E� t I .Ln,moi.Ins- ' .4 Z - I:• ` - --�-- •,— lb al maw se O - iv.•n.•.rt _; .. t ,� co '' t 73 1 t '* a � . 1 N, I ▪.. s - ; — `. �{ E I. woe N a -may s • V Q I. /1_ . .T J , 41 - fv .j. ' 1 a r.-:\• 1 1 -J i•f"► O 1 1 / f N,N. ,may �.ri.-- €I a _- -- -n---r, --�_'-- - _— x .:.,7_1---_ / - g ur e. .! 4. fj�a �... Or jI i` }' fir i I ' f f 1 a > r. `i.6.4t j: 11 1.. '�-.� ar • I �. \ •Cela.' u l,e .141i f 1• / / d ELMER CARLSON ix aa,P Ms j z •.,Mil AYLrnN Ilk I1 byfC fu ROBERT C. WILSON . f • Er GO, P 1!r •• q z e ,.; 0.. r c :,.1R1. c P ,. • 1 c rtP �,.rw1 b .• . _ J en •0.w .. t ,'t i. e o • .ll. • morale* I IC »»•r» , • a 1 r.,4,14•1 J/ --L:::::.... I Vf \ TIDY* EMILIE W11/4444 PDC laa•f poN owes e,0CPLtY eec .o 181.1 \ .." „ - • I co - O..,, _ '1 P • . • • Q •1 en . f JOYCE • Eu11•U HOWARD 5. SOLEY 1 I JOANNE ►410 CTT 40.411 - r • • 4 • / 11. 13411" V/ �/ 1 1 -• • — . ,..e '/-L)'5. - �1 t EDWARD PINK ]T / Cllr Of r••.,1•0I1M `•.•••Mr CITY M 11C10•1• • .r-. «... 7 '1/ 1Il • I r•.••ry r -• 4 f MST J s4, Z•4.* a • ANTON KEROER 111 HOWARD a lOLEY r �` AP eKw,►1:4 �® a, • r *r4# • - - ~ t� ...___000JJJrrI AITLOT E f G 11 w0.» .».•••••• ••••MM.1 a.. 0..81.•.1 • . ,, ,,f Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 8 Hoffman: Only a portion of that $18 ,000 .00 is coming from this block grant . Another half or two-thirds of that funding for that pier is comirg from another sourcec hrough Paul and the Planning Department • . Erhart : Do we lose t at then? Hoffman: Yeah , we 'd to a that . . . • Schroers: Actually what e 'd be losing is a tota fishing pier at Lake Susan . Just because it 's esignated handicap, ' 's for everyone . Mady: So we 're losing $9 ,00 .da is what we e losing . We 're ultimately going to be putting in a fish • pier in our own expense then. Hoffman: Not the City . . . Mady: Bottom line . Schroers: Alright , if x.hat 's he caste would we like to. Lash: I 'd like to make a otion on this •ne . I would move that we recommend to City Counc' that the City Ce -ter Park be the site for the funding for the handi - p accessible playgro d in the amount of $5 ,898..00 . Is that all I need • do? _ Mady: I 'll seco • . . Lash moved , =dy seconded that the Park and Recrea on Commission recommend to the Cit Council that the City Center Park be th- site for the funding for the - ndicap accessible playground equipment in t •e amount of $5,898 . .0c All voted in favor and the motion carried . nanimously. REVIEW SECTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFYING PARKLAND NEAR LAKE ST . JOE . Public Present: } Name Address Mark Malinowski 7250 Minnewashta Parkway Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros . , 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. , Wayzata Richard Wing 3481 Shore Drive Hoffman: Mark was unable to attend tonight. . . As you can see , the . . . comprehensive plan folks came in and said look at the area around Lake St . - Joe that is designated as park or open space , had concern with how that would affect their . . .property in that area . Mark Malinowski is in the audience here tonight . He is the particular property owner that contacted the city in this regard . As you can see by Mark 's report , the property , the Malinowski property is east of Lake St . Joe . . . The upcoming look at Minnewashta Parkway , it will be upgrading that road and the addition of a trail in that area . There is supposed to be a trail in that area along Minnewashta Parkway whether it be on the east side of the road or the west Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 9 side of the road , is not known at this time . But that as well . . .taking not designating the Malinowski property as open space and designated parkland for future use or something of that nature . As it states in Mark 's report , it still would be possible . . .trail loop around Lake St . Joe and . . . Schroers: So that would be kind of just a horseshoe shaped loop around the lake? Hoffman: Correct . I believe Larry . . . , and you 're probably the person most familiar with that area . . .nature trail back in that area . And again , the comprehensive plan is just a tool . We 're not talking about particular trail segments in this area . . . Mady: I guess I 'd prefer the Comprehensive Plan being more of a verbal document stating that we need property , open space property in an area . Until we actually we do site plans and go out and walk spaces and have an opportunity to obtain specific sites , it 's very difficult for us to designate some individual 's property as a site . By the same token , I hate to rule somebody else 's site out because we 're not in the position now to buy anything or to get anything but if we open right now and say okay , because this individual doesn 't want his site to be part of the selection process , that 's fine for him but then what do we do with the other 11 .000 people in this city who own property and come in front of us and say , I don 't want you to take my property. All of a sudden we have 12, 25 , 150 different sites that we 're not supposed to look at . I think what happens is we all of a sudden have a problem . Right now we don 't have a problem . The situation is we 're probably never going to take this site . Although we need an area in Minnewashta Parkway badly, we need an open ballfield . Your site isn 't probably conducive to doing that . By stepping in now with the very first one saying this site we 're not going to ever take and we 're going to say that right on the plan , we 're going to have more and more people coming in here saying I want you to take my property off the plan . Then all of a sudden we do have a problem I think . I would rather us not get site specific , either pro or con in the plan if we can help it . Hoffman: To address your first comment about just being verbage and not being a piece of paper . As you may recall , in looking different segments of the comprehensive plan as Mark is doing , he has . . .visual aid more or less than the last comprehensive plan was developed in 1980 and prior to that time . . .just use those as visual aids in that document and realize that . . . They 're trying to look into the future but the comments are very valid . We don 't want to start picking apart the comprehensive plan . . . Schroers: I agree with that statement Todd and also with what Jim has said . Setting a precedent could cause acquisition problems for us down the road . What I see here with the 6 .5 acres that Mr . Malinowski 's property , the portion of it that we could acquire for park dedication wouldn't help us in that area anyway . It 's not large enough. So I think in that , Mr . Malinowski could have some reassurance that we wouldn 't be considering his property for parkland . Erhart : Is there also mature woods on that site Todd? Hoffman: On this site? Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 10 Erhart : Yeah , on the 6 .5 acres of your property . Is it very wooded? ( The answer could not be heard on the tape . Hoffman: As stated in Mark 's report , the house on that would be real close to the lake . . . I guess Mark 's interpretation is the original intent of acquiring some parkland in this area . . .natural setting that was there . . . Mady: We did about a year and a half ago or there abouts , Carol Watson was still on the panel at that time , look at the area on the back side of Lake St . Joe . There was someone who was looking to subdivide and at that time we looked real closely and determined that the marsh area was simply too dense and too wet . Too soft to even really consider putting a nature trail- in at that time so if I remember correctly , we were thinking more on the nature of Lake St . Joe 's a nice item and these would be wonderful in the future but we 're not going to be able to go in some areas real close to it anyL..ay so it 's just more when it gets developed , maybe we can put a path around the outside edge of it possibly but an active use through the area is going to be very difficult anyway so it probably wasn 't smart so I don 't know . Unless something changes drastically between now and then , I don 't know how that 's going to happen . I just don 't foresee anything if it happens . Hoffman: . . .Mark to look at the natural area in there . More so it 'd be the acquisition of some land . . .taking a look at the parkland and distribution . . .there 's a real void there . The only think we could come up ) with is a small neighborhood park on the south side . . .real small area . Schroers: If we decide not to designate this property as single family residential , will that impair Mr . Malinowski 's ability to obtain a buildinc— permit? Hoffman: That 's currently what it is . It 's just a single family residFntial that 's unplatted . Schroers: Oh , it 's unplatted . I thought reading this it seemed to me like it indicated that it was designated park and open space . Hoffman: It 's designated as a potential site on the comprehensive plan for . Schroers: Oh , but it 's not zoned that way? Hoffman: If Mr . Malinowski decided to subdivide , at that time you 'd take it with the tools that we use in our department , we take a look at comprehensive plan to see , is there anything designated in this area which we could take a look at . And yes , there is , under the current plan, that - is park and open space . Then it would come back to the commission and start taking a look at . . .area similar to what we were doing tonight and really all we 're doing this evening is pre-determining that even if that area is subdivided . . . Schroers: Are you looking for some kind of a motion on this? Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 11 Hoffman: Correct . A motion to approve Mark 's recommendations . . .that that property be dropped from the comprehensive plan . Andrews : Could I ask an odd question? Is the reason why we 're dropping this from the Plan because it 's not suitable to be• developed as an active park? Is that why we 're making this request or decision? Hoffman : That would be one of the main . . . Andrews: My point would be , why is that every park that we look at has to be considered as an active park . Currently we do not have any , or very little wild , natural areas in the city and I have been to one park where an elevated wood walkway was built over a marshy area and it 's a very beautiful way to walk through a marshy area . I guess I 'm hesitant to say that this is unuseable land . Maybe unuseable as a ballfield or a tennis court but I Guess I look at natural wild spaces as having a value on their own . Schroers: I don 't think that this is too much of a , I agree with what you say Jim but I think this particular property is not a real natural area and wild spaces . He stated there 's already a house sitting on it and there 's neighborhoods . It 's all residential in that area . Andrews: How many acres is Lake St . Joe? ( Hoffman: 33 . Andrews: 33? Lash: I think this is kind of a , this is more of a two fold item in the fact that Mr . Malinowski brought it to our attention but then Mark gave it his attention and I think from his , looking at his opinion , it isn't something that would suit our needs in that particular area and then the ether half , I mean although I agree that you don't like to set a precedent on these kinds of things and I also agree that maybe instead of being so specific we should just sort of in the plan say in a certain area , you know near Lake St . Joe we 're looking for park property or something instead of designating . If I looked at a map and on top of my house I saw that the city had stamped it park/open space , it would make me real nervous that something was going on that I didn't know about so I think this is kind of two fold . I wasn 't aware of the fact that there was a home there and I can 't imagine that we 'd ever go in and bulldoze down somebody 's house and condemn their property and take it for a natural park . That just doesn 't even make sense so you know Mark is recommending it 's not , it doesn 't fill our needs out there . There 's a home there . It 's creating anxiety for the property owner and you put it altogether and I guess I just think we need to reword or redesignate our site and maybe just put it in , like Jim said , in the verbage that in the Lake St . Joe area and then any time something comes , a large scale development or something in that area , we 'd be able to . Can we do that or not? Do we have to pick a specific site? Hoffman : Again , we can put in the verbage but then the map or the diagram is juFt put in there as an aid . If the comprehensive plan was all words , it 's fairly dry so . . .show the intent . • Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 12 lash: Or are you going to be specific , as specific as Mark was in saying that the northwest area or the southern area didn 't he , would be the two prime? I can 't remember where he had that now . Mady: I think you 've missed the point though . Lake St . Joe area was put in the map as a possible open space area by the Park Commission long before - I was here , back when they were very natural area oriented . The reason was Lake St . Joe was a very natural type of setting , especially the back side of it . This area is no different than what we 're trying to do , like putting in the comp plan that we 'd like to gain all the property around Lake Ann . There 's absolutely no difference between this and that . And we all know that with Prince living there , it 's probably going to be , that might be a pipe dream but it 's still nice to leave it in the plan , in the comp plan as a potential so it 's always there . So we always know about it . Whether it happens or not in 20 years , we won 't know that but at least we hc.ve designated the areas as natural areas that should be looked at and reviewed and this is an area that should be looked at and reviewed . There 's no one saying we 're going to bulldoze the house and buy the Property but it 's still , an opportunity comes in that we should be aware of_ it and future commissions should be aware of it and future staff should be aware of it because as we 've seen , commission changes from year to year . Staff changes and we 're not going to be here maybe 10 years from now to ' remember that maybe that was the way it should have been . Lash: So you 're saying that you think our goal would be to someday eventually acquire all of the property . I mean all of this area that 's sh-'nwn around here on the map? Mady: I don 't know if it 's a goal . I think it 's just something that we should , it 's been designated as something we should be looking at if an opportunity presents itself . That 's all it is . I guess I 'm on the nature • that we haven 't done anything at this point in time . Taken no steps to doing anything and until the owner or a developer comes in and does somFthing , we 're not going to be taking steps on it because we just simply don 't do it that way . Hoffman: we have somebody here that would like to give us an insight on that issue . Terry Forbord: I think I can answer a lot of your questions or at least give you some insight . My name is Terry Forbord . I 'm Vice President of Lundgren Bros . and this is kind of a hasty appearance for me because I just found out you were meeting today when I met with Mr . Koegler . We own about 100 acres of land around Lake St . Joe , or we have the option to secure the property for 3 years . We have met informally with city staff oh , probably 2-3 times about properties that we do control in the area . We began the assembly of some of these parcels about 2 years ago . We tend to try to work as quietly as possible for a number of reasons but for those of you who are familiar with the area , this is really one of the toughest areas that I 've ever , ever tried to assemble land because from a land use standpoint , there 's really a mish mash of development and small , really oddly configured parcels and physical constraints that are very difficult to work with from purely just a planning perspective . By physical constraints I mean topography , wetlands . Now our company , maybe we 're masticistic but we tend to look for sites like that . The workload is twice • Park and Pec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 13 as much , sometimes 3 or 4 times as much because of all the governmental agencies you need to work with but we find that it 's a successful formula for us in what we try to do so we look for sites like that . The problem in _ this area with trying to make all this work from a master planning standpoint , is the economics . Because there are so many small little parcels and structures on them , the economics become almost impossible from a development standpoint . Remember structures are a liability when it comes to land development from an economic standpoint . Raw land is much more easy to deal with but when somebody 's home in on there , they have a value in that home whether it be emotional or physical or whatever and so when you try to master plan an area , 100 , 200 acres or whatever , obviously we 're trying to make it make economic sense first to determine if it 's even workable . Then try to work with the city to meet the city 's goals and objectives as well . Now I 've been following the Comp Plan process . It 's been underway off and on for 3 years , or even longer than that I guess but we 've been following it and watching and in the last year it 's really stepped up and I 've been in contact with the consultants and city staff and to let them know informally because we haven 't made a formal application . But informally that we will be making a formal application for this area for part of it in the very , very near future . But because it 's a shoreland district and there are certain guidelines that one has to operate in that , it affects property within 1 ,000 feet of an environmental lake which Lake St . Joe is and we 're totally cognizant of the fact that the consultant and the City would like to see some type of park , active in that area . What = I 'd ask you to do tonight , being that all of this is kind of in the process and it has been in the process for some time . We haven't completed the land assembly . We 're attempting to and we don't know if we will be able to . As I said , because of the configuration of the parcels and the value that. some of the parcels have affixed to them from a sale standpoint , it really makes it . When you add all these things together and you figure can I subdivide and can anybody even afford to buy the lots because the raw land price was so high , and that 's what we 're working on now . If a particular parcel or a certain acreage was designated well this is where the park 's going to be , that could skew the master planning for that whole area . what we 're trying to do , like I say, is master plan the entire area which is a benefit to the City . Benefit to the County . Benefit for what you 're attempting to do and it 's certainly a benefit for the people who end - up living there and building their homes there . So if we could just kind of , we know there needs to be a park there . We won 't know where it best works until we 're done doing what needs to be done there . And hopefully that sheds a little bit of light on what you 're trying to do. The way we envision it . I 've walked every inch of the land there so I 'm real familiar with it . The physical constraints there with the wetland areas is a real sensitive area and it needs to be dealt with accordingly . I guess what we envision ideally , and unfortunately it never works out that way but ideally where you could have a passive and an active area somewhat hopefully contiguous with one another so maybe you have some of your active areas over here or maybe you have some soccer fields or whatever and then you have some nature trails that you could walk off into. Now that 's ideal and all of that obviously is dictated by how you 're able to put the correct Parcels together . So maybe that will give you a little insight of what 's - occurring in the area . There will be some type of park in the area and where exactly it ends up , we don't know yet . But hopefully within the next 6 months I 'll have a much , much clearer idea of what 's occuring . we - probably will be submitting a conceptual plat to staff for at least part of Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 14 the area oh I would imagine for sure within the next 3 months or so but we have the property on the south side and some property on the north side . So there 's about 100 acres total . — Hoffman: Could you expand just a little bit, or explain to us on the south side of the area? Terry Forbord: Well it used to be referred to as the Bollie property for those of you who are familiar with the city. If you look at your map , all of the land that 's on the very south side of Lake St. Joe, all the way dowi to TH 5 and part of that land is in the city of Victoria. Schroers: It 's a low area in the corner there right? — Terry Forbord: In the northwest corner of the property, I can't remember rr;r>e of it . Mrs . Brickley told me the name of that lake. It escapes — m.-, but there 's . Schroers: No, right down by TH 5. Terry Forbord: Oh , correct . That 's correct. Right down by TH 5 there is a wetland area that goes northwest over towards Lake, is it Wasserman? Over in Victoria , is that the name of it? — Hc;ffman: Not this particular one. Schroers: No , that would be Steiger but there's another little lake back —1 behind St . Joe called Tamarack and it would be going up to the farm. TowarelsI think that was. Terry Forbord: Mr . Thomas' farm. It goes all the way up towards Mr . Thomas ' farm . That little lake behind it. Some people call it the Swiss Mountain Farm on 13 there. — Schroers: Yeah . Terry Forbord: Yeah, that wetland you 're correct, it does go northwesterlj all the way up to that lake . I guess is that Tamarack? Schroers: Tamarack. The railroad tracks run along the side of it. — Terry Forbord: But it's just a very, very special area and we've spent a lot of time . Schroers: How much of that property are you looking at now? From TH 5, how far west do you go? Terry Forbord: To the city limits. Schroers: Isn 't that Victoria right there? — Terry Forbord: That 's correct. To the city limits. • Hoffman: Do you have your map. . .? Park and Rec Commission Meeting Septc , '_,er 25 , 1990 - Page 15 Schroers: Yeah . Lash: Put TH 5 is below that . Is that what you 're thinking Larry? — r Schroers : Well there 's quite a bit of agricultural land up in there isn 't there? Terry Forbord: In which part? Schroers: It would be in the south part from TH 5 . Hoffman: This area contains agricultural , wooded and lowland wetlands . Terry Forbord: Yeah . It 's a real mix of different vegetation types . There 's a lot of Army Corps , DNR regulated wetlands in there . That 's abundant with it . And I 've already met with both agencies or we deal with thcni � 11 the time anyway so they know us real well but , they 're all aware of what we 're doing . But like I say , the only reason I wanted to get UP and jest let you know , because I could tell it was a concern for you and it should be . I mean that 's what your charge is and it 's certainly a concern to us because we want to make any neighborhood , community that we create we want the people who live there to be able to have access to all the things thAt anybody that lives in the city should and that area is in need of some t•'-•oe of area because they have to go up to Minnewashta Shores I believe now is th? closest park . The difficulty with this is trying to make it work economically because the land value that the people have set on their properties in that area , and I don't know if any of you have looked, is just phenomenal . It almost is to the point where that even if one was able to subdivide , even if we are able to pull this off and who knows . Maybe we won 't be able to , that who 'd be able to buy homes in there? I mean the lots may end up being $75 ,000 .00-680 ,000 .00 lots and that certainly isn't the real world for everybody . What we 're trying to do is make some sense out of it so that 's where , we 're fully cognizant of the fact that a park is guided to be in that area . -h: Can you provide Todd with a map or a little more defined area of the property that you are working with? Terry Forbord: . . .going to develop within 12 months. The earliest we 'd be in there on the first phase would be probably the spring of 1991 . Hoffman: 1992 . _ Terry Forbord: My , it 's going by awfully fast isn 't it? But and that would be for , or we tend to do small phases . We don 't just go in and blow everything . We 're not like that so. Lash: There 's no sewer and water out there is there? Terry Forbord: There is sewer and water in Minnewashta Parkway. And there is enough capacity , the preliminary estimates and until you actually get into the hard , hard , hard work , the technical detail , the preliminary estimates are there 's plenty of capacity there to service the area but I mean I ray be speaking a little too soon to guarantee that . Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 16 Lash: Do you have any idea on how many homes you 're thinking of? Terry Forbord: No . Lash: Or is this hard ;to say? Terry Forbord: We tend to be a very low density builder . We 're probably the least dense developer in the city . At least that 's what they tell us . Pemrick: What would the approximate size of the lot be? Terry Forbord: That 's too early to say . It 's real tough . The Shoreland District has certain requirements and the City's adopted the DNR regs for that area . The DNR regulations but the DNR 's in the process of changing that because it was , what happens a lot of times is they pass regulations and they find out the regulations don 't work so they end up taking a look atit again and that 's what they 're doing now . It 's too early to say . Mady: Are you looking at any property north of King 's Road? You don 't have to tell me if you 're not , if you 're in the middle of something I can understand your situation but . Terry Forbord: We do own property , we have an option on property north of King 's Road . Mady: I just wanted to get a feel for how far north we 're looking . Terry Forbord: Yeah it goes , like I say , I think there 's 40 acres north of King 's Road and there 's 67 acres south and around Lake St . Joe . Schroers: From what we 've looked at before as a commission . the area nort-f of King 's Road would probably lend itself better as an active park area . Terry Forbord: From a physical standpoint , I mean a site standpoint , that 's correct . From an economic standpoint , I don't know if it does and so what we 're trying , and we 're cognizant of that . What we 're trying to figure out is how do we deliver to the City and the future neighborhood that will exist there and the residents that live there , how do we deliver to them what they need and still make it affordable . That's always the biggest challenge on our park. I mean how do you do it? When you 're paying , I mean if the people realize what the raw land prices were , I mean it 's impossible to just give land away for parks . It just doesn 't work . No matter would it be Lundgren Bros . or anybody else . They'd walk away just because the numbers don 't work so we 're trying to figure out a way anc we 're not quite there yet , to try to make this all work . But we 've done it before . Hopefully it will work . Hoffman: The commission did take a look at -that piece north of King 's Roa: so they are aware of it . . . Mady: Yeah , and the price . Schroers: From our point of view what you're telling us tonight , or what I 'm reading into it anyway , is that now there is at least a glimmer of hop!! of acquiring some parkland in that area . You know we know that there is a • Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 17 large chunk proposed to be developed and we should be able to get some parkland . Before tonight the way it was looking , there were so many smaller parcels owners that wanted to subdivide and these properties just did not , according to the formula that we used to acquire parkland , we just wouldn 't be able to get enough parkland to accommodate our needs out there so it 's definitely some encouragement and we hope that you find a way to make it work . Terry Forbord: There are two things that , we're basically , what we 're going to be doing as a city , we want to provide that too . I mean it helps us . I mean the parks , we don't look at them as a negative . The key driving force though is the economics . I mean if the numbers don't work , it doesn 't work for you or us or the future people that live there so what we 're going to be trying to do , there 's a couple sites that it would be ideal for . If you 're familiar with the topography in the area , one of the things that 's sensitive about this area , you don 't want to just go in and pick any site and then just grade it flat like a pancake because then you 're wrecking the land and the land 's beautiful just the way it is . You try to leave it as much as possible just the way it is but there is a couple specific sites where a 3 acre play area would work just perfectly . Just perfectly and then there 's some passive area adjacent to it that would accommodate what you were talking about Jim , the type of trails where one can just walk through and enjoy it the way it is . Our studies , we find that there 's more people that prefer that than people would realize . A lot of people just like parks , just the raw land the way it is so what we 're going to be doing is bringing something forward to the city and to you folks and trying to get your help in helping us solve this problem as well because we 're trying to deliver what the city needs at the same time . So if you could just bear with us here for the next few months and just realize that there will be a park . That we 're trying to figure the best place to put it and we 're trying to accommodate all those needs . We just don 't have our homework all done yet . Thank you . Schroers: Thank you for your information . Okay , we need to get back to Mr . Malinowski here . On his property and from what Todd said , that this is going to have to come back to us again in the future at the time of development , I don 't really see that we 're gaining anything at this point in time to designate it as the park and open space or single family because we 're going to have to address the whole issue again . Andrews: I guess I feel that the appropriate thing to do would be to defer any action whatsoever until Lundgren Bros . has a chance to be successful or unsuccessful in their whole planning. This present parkland may be totally , could be totally released if Lundgren were to provide us with what we needed but their plan could still totally collapse if the economics aren 't there and I would hate to take an action based on a possible outcome rather than , and I 'd prefer to wait on something that was definite. Mady: Todd , we obviously have a lot of work to do on the Comp Plan so this maybe is more appropriately dealt with in a final form with the whole comp plan instead of doing it on a hodge podge style. This little site now and then do the rest of it later . Mark Malinowski : My concern initially when I called the city because I read in the paper , there was need for parkland west of Lake Minnewashta . Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 18 I looked at myself and said , my land sits right in there . I wonder what 's on their mind and I called and I asked if there was any parklands anywhere I was told no . They really didn 't have much. They might like to buy soRe - land around Lake St . Joe but that 's no big deal to them . Then I came into the planning meeting and looked at the land use plan and my God, I see all of my land is in green . I said what does that mean? Mark Koegler who sat _ over there at the time , well he explained that means parks and open space . That 's when my concern became real . What I would like to see I guess is with the new comprehensive land use plan comes out , that my property be shown like it is which is single family residential . The rest of the property around the lake , in the colored portion of the map , it shows it t4 be like blue trees or whatever , around the perimeter of the lake . Then where the actual lot is where the house would sit , would be yellow . That 'F- where I have a concern . Something like this could affect the property value . Very real concern. My personal intention is I love open space . My intention , I don 't have any plans right now other than to live comfortably _ on that property just as it is . I might want to add on to my house or maybe build a new house there but my intention is not to cut down all the timber or bulldoze the land flat . I have a real love for open space and that 's why I bought that property . • Schroers: You don 't have plans to develop it at some point in time? Mark Malinowski : No . I don 't have any plans like that . I can't say they 're not going to change at some point . I 'm very happy in Chanhassen and I 'm not a developer . I came from a farm background and when I looked around at the city and all the small lots , I finally found a place where really and truly could live in and that 's what the 6 1/2 acres around Lake St . Joe , I 'm very comfortable there . I might want to add one thing . Have any of walked down by Lake St . Joe? What you 're going to do if you put a trail through there , you 're going to move that wildlife right out of that area . Right now there is deer around . I have deer tracks in my yard . There are green herons that rest on my pier . There 's a wonderful natural area . If you put a trail through that marshland , you 're going to move that wildlife right . I guess I have no other comments other than that . Mady: I guess no one else has maybe been through it but I 'll disagree witt you a little bit there . If your comment were true then the DNR would have a real problem . Nature trails do impact a nature area . Obviously they do that but they don 't become super highways in any stretch of the imagination . Those deer are going to be there until something drastically happens to the deer population in the whole state or until Victoria develops to the extent of what is now an Edina . You 're still going to have a large deer population there. Schroers: I work for Hennepin Parks and we have an extensive trail system . It 's very common to see a deer on the trail . There are times when the geese and other wildlife on the trail are almost a hazard to the people that are using the trail so it 's hard to say that it 's going to displace the wildlife if you build a proper nature trail . Mark Malinowski : I agree the deer can live anywhere . Deer is easily adaptable . There 's no more loons on Lake St . Joe and if you talk to Mr . Bollie , there used to be . The wildlife 's moving out . . .and I 'm sure that - everybody . . .no more green herons . Rest assured . I really don 't have a Park and Rec Commissi Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 19 problem with a trail . That 's not a problem . That 's what I 'm saying because . . . All I 'm saying is I would prefer to see my property as it really is , it 's single family residential shown on the comprehensive plan . Lash: I think the information we got tonight sheds some new light on this whole thing and if we 've got all the area around Lake St . Joe designated as park property , the way I understand it , if anything happens there . Anyone comes in and chooses to develop it , at that point in time we have the option to buy it . Is that right? No? Hoffman: No . We would just . Lash: I thought we had first crack at it but if we couldn't afford it , then they could do it . Schroers: That was just on that one particular parcel that was for sale at that time . That 8 . whatever acres . The people wanted to give us first option on purchase of that particular property and to be perfectly honest , I don 't remember exactly what happened with that . I think we just decided that we couldn 't afford to outright purchase that property . But it wasn 't all the way around Lake St . Joe . I think that that would be just part of the normal dedication process like anything else . Lash: I mean anything on the comprehensive plan . I 'm sure that Lori tried to explain to me one time when something is designated, it gives us first dibs at it doesn 't it? Hoffman: No . It 's designated an area , we 'd have to be heads up enough to catch wind that the area is for sale for a developer to come in here and develop it and take a look at outright acquisition as well . Of if a large development were to take place in this area , we would just have the right to require as much land as we can by city code under that current ordinance . . .Klingelhutz addition and then after that we would have to look at outright purchase of the land for the value. That type of thing . If it 's designated and the Commission and the Council feels strongly enough that land was up for development and we wanted it as parkland and we weren't willing to purchase it , we wouldn 't have any specific right to it . We 'd have to go through condemnation proceedings. It really doesn't give us any special , what it is is it 's a planning tool and as eluded to earlier . . . use that comprehensive plan in planning for future parks and open spaces in the city . Schroers: It just says that that's a potential place for a park but it 's not designated as park property . Andrews: I think we need to make a motion to go one way or the other here although I don 't have that motion . Schroers: I think that what we should do is vote on the recommendation as stated here by staff and if that passes , so be it and if it doesn 't pass , then we 're going to have to, we 'll make a different recommendation. Robinson: Yeah , by staff it 's Mark 's recommendation and I just wanted to say , based on what I heard here tonight and the respect I have for Mark 's recommendation , I would support Mark 's recommendation. Park and Rec Commissiun Meeting September 25 , 1990 - Page 20 Schroers: I do too . I don 't think that Mark has shown us anything in the past that would make me want to question his judgment . He 's been very thorough . Lash: So is that a motion Curt? Robinson: Sure . I ' ll recommend that the Malinowski property be designates as single family residential rather than park/open space and that the remainder of Lake St . Joe area now shown as park/open space remain as park/ open space . Erhart: I 'll second that . Robinson moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the Malinowski property be designated as single family residential rather than park/open space and the remainder of the Lake St . Joe area remain as park/open space on the Comprehensive Plan. All voted in favor except Jim Mady and Jim Andrews who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Hoffman: Larry , Richard Wing is in the audience . He's a resident of this area . He just happens to also be a person running for Council who has one comment to make on the Lake St . Joe area . Richard Wing: I was just really here to learn tonight but being a resident of Lake Minnewashta for a quarter of a century and being real familiar with this area , I really appreciated your comments about why do parks always have to be active . I think my use of them probably is more the nature pari or the passive parks . I was sitting listening to this this evening and my heart kind of stopped because I use that area so much, whether it 's cross country skiing or it 's biking or it 's jogging . Whatever the case was and in our home we have a large picture in our den with our family on our bikes with Lake St . Joe in the background with a sunset . I just would urge you , as you look at this particular parcel , when you think of Lake St. Joe , think of the boundary waters or think of Christmas Lake . I guess all I really intended to say standing here is that that 's a real jewel . That is, just a one time jewel . It 's a deep lake . Very heavily , it 's not the type - of lake you walk around . The topography of the land is low and it 's very weedy and so on and so forth and I 've been around it. It's certainly not accessible to the public but I just want to leave that one word with you . If your future thoughts , that 's really a jewel . Schroers: Thank you . ti4 RICE MARSH LAKE PARK PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS. Hoffman: Basically this item was generated from the engineering depar - They took at look at what was occurring n our cul-de-sacs an: some of the si .e - - s with the basketball ho.- - . . .just left and right with the new subdivisions - ere co so they cut that sort of activity off . Since that ti - - had some problems . . .shall remain . That was the positio . - is somewhat di • t to enforce . . .feedback froff. the commissio -nyway that 's the way this one - - - about because there i:: a back. : _ . and a pole in the cul-de-sac and this neighborhood. . .said if I have to pull it out , can we have it installed in the park. . .for that type I IT 6200 I // — — I 1, /fimill ;, W .i i 0 ST LAK -- >•.k�� .� �� 6300__ E — Ilk"'All r FA. illiti* Plitil ' 6400 Afi`.....„‘ pw -g Iiii AST EC RCL /' / �`�A 6500 � 7 7kA,�� -.7-- ' WA. IF t 4-7 ,,,.,„4,„„,,„,,,,A, .._ . :,....-, ,,, kw vy , oirmireakt: it ... ..... ... , : ,_. ..:6600 k \ 3 . Ati tv."/Aeolirer.. If%Ill .) ! \..; ; 14 r I lit a eWeei i-. 1 rj.71 i erd i • 2 .,\ 6700 •- pr ��' 1 �A 1 ■ ,;, rl'ill; taw6800 .1 IA �" -Imp or • LAKE COUNTRY ' gT-./ !VOW' STRAIT.-./SOB lital e. i'' M / N N E W A S 6900 Bou LE STRATF. L-•1 LANE 7000 KINGS ROAD iiiii - Q s 1 lion —0 4 C. . t R : t: •.4'dir;\ ST RI � ' ili ( • I Virif . t. lir OM,I lb II IIII60. ..j,' 1 ----0 7200 _ .:: �t _ �����``�' 7300 ).-- ° -• '- • c'eacadikliv.,;" :"" ipp-dk1/1.41 -- I 0 V MINNE �$HTA 111COUR ALM ( . ,/ •7400 ♦! �� 4 CIA Th Or7500 — • • 43�� \ ems' r**77600— — OM • � 1 ' 44tiztk 7 700 --— 78CC -- ! e CITY TF CHANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 January 22, 1993 Dear Resident: The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing a proposed residential plat for the Boley property next Tuesday evening, January 26, 1993, at City Hall. The proposed plat would subdivide 36 acres into 33 single family homes on property zoned RSF (Residential Single Family), and is being submitted by Lundgren Brothers Construction, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391. The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this proposed plat only in the context of the city's park and trail needs. The city's Planning Commission will review this proposal on Wednesday, February 3, 1993 (a subsequent mailing will follow). The City Council will tentatively hold its first review of this proposal on Monday, February 22, 1993. A copy of next Tuesday's agenda, the proposed plat, the city's Comprehensive Trail Plan, and my report to the Park and Recreation Commission are attached for your information. Again, next Tuesday's meeting will only address the park and trail issues presented in the attached report. If you have comments in this regard, but are unable to attend next Tuesday's meeting, please feel free to submit them in writing, or you may contact me by phone or in person at Chanhassen City Hall. Sincerely, (17.;77A44:4:- Todd Hoffman. ` Park and Recreation Director TH:k P.S. You will notice on the proposed plat that in addition to the 36 homes being proposed in Chanhassen, this development would also include homes in the City of Victoria. pc: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner Don Ashworth, City Manager Terry Forbord, Lundgren Brothers Construction n t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5519 No 772-7910 January 15, 1993 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: LUNDGREN BROS. , BOLEY PROPERTY, CITY #93-1 SUB, LAKE ST. JOE (10-11P) , CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms. Olsen: We have reviewed the site plans dated December 28, 1992 (received January 6, 1993) for the above-referenced project (S. 7, T. 116N, R. 23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Public water Lake St. Joe (#10-11P) is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of public waters or public waters wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. 2 . The OHW for Lake St. Joe is correctly shown as 945.2 ' on the site plans. 3 . Portions of the site are within the Lake St. Joe Shoreland District. The project must be consistent with the city' s current shoreland ordinance standards. Lake St. Joe has a Natural Environment shoreland classification. Current City and state shoreland standards require minimum lot sizes of 40, 000 square feet for riparian lots, and 20, 000 square feet for non-riparian lots, with minimum lot widths of 125 feet. It appears that several of the proposed lots would not meet either the area (lots 3 , 5, & 6) , or the width (lots 15-19) standards. 4 . It appears that the intent is to route most of the stormwater through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to Lake St. Joe. 5. It appears that there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these RECERIED JAN 1 1993 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY tjt Ms. Jo Ann Olsen (Lundgren Bros. /Boley Property) January 15, 1993 Page 2 wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. 6. There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that various agencies (including the city, watershed district, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 7 . Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 8 . If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Caj Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD Gary Elftmann, USCOE City of Chanhassen shoreland file CARVER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 219 East Frontage Road Waconia,Minnesota 55387-1862 Telephone(612)442-5101 FAX(612)442-5102 in&MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS �A;.; 1 4 199: CITY OF �;►ht�n;��:.=_. TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Chip Hentges, District Technician DATE: January 12, 1993 RE: Review of proposed land development by Lundgren Bros. , for Ecley Properties . Staff from the Carver SWCD has reviewed the above referenced project . The following comments and recommendations to control erosion and water quality are offered for your consideration. 1 . One cf cur main concerns is the question of the wetland boundaries tnat were celineatec cy tr:e staff from Sathre - Bergquist , Inc . It appears the boundaries cf the wetland were identified cn_y by the hydric vegetation and did not take in account the other parameters of Delineating a wetlanc , which irciude hycrclocy and soils . The fact that when you look a: the gracing plan ane follow the orisir.al contour of elevatior 950, which almost keeps in line with the edge of the wetland as marred on the map , you have tc wonder what factors ha'e chanced the characteristics in lot E,7 and B to be acle to fill down to elevation 948, is hydric vegetatio. _ soils ant hydrology all missing an that area to be defined as upland , and not a wetland? 2. As proposed in this preliminary review, fill is going to be placeo along the north east wetland , in some places as steep as 3: 1 , which in case of a storm event , silt fences would not be adecuate for erosion control . Either mulch netting or straw mulch , anchored by a mulching cis :: should be required on a majority of the steep grades surrcuncing the s+etlanc . Is runoff going to increase after development? will it meet the cities policy? AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4 . Are the ponds that are being proposed for storm water detention meet the requirements of the cities policy of _ a storm event? Any questions or comments regarding this plat review, please - feel free to call me. • 4 CITY OF • C II AN HASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �-r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: January 8, 1993 SUBJ: Planning Case # 93-1 SUB. Preliminary plat to subdivide 36 acres into 33 single family homes on property zoned RSF and located southeast of Lake St. Joe, east of Minnewashta Parkway and north of Highway 5. I have reviewed the site plan and have made the following requirements: 1 . Developer must submit street names for Fire Department approval. 2 . 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, (i.e. street lamps, NSP, telephone cable boxes, trees, plantings, etc. ) . Pursuant to City Ordinance. 3 . Add one additional fire hydrant at the corner of Lot 1 (one) and Minnewashta Parkway. 4 . No housing construction beyond Lot 1 may start until fire apparatus access roads are provided. These access roads shall be designed to the City of Chanhassen Engineering Standards and meet the approval of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Pursuant to UFC 1988 Sec. 10.207 (f) . t«, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _ "......._ i 4 --illieZ.4 i :A 11:,...r 1A r \ �" 4.raLm p --- ---- -,- _ ,,.... .,,,....,„.„.,. . ..„,,,... ,..,(,.,. ....e,,,,„&,,, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING l5••o° /���t�,���_cs�zz.M��: si 'Air o = �' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING _. �� LAKE — Wednesday, February 3, 1993 �" '1.0,.. , "") r Mir 6meac.' N / N N E W A S N T �I 7:30 P.M. «ao _ CityHall Council Chambers goo° 690 Coulter Drive o�i�� '�+\ �t�l Project: Boley Property i %'1 k �'' r Ai noo .,.'t ``. r�-Woa r\\\\��\\\\ Developer: Lundgren Bros. Construction ��- �� — Pr ,1 Are Location: West of Minnewashta 1,00 ; �`�,, II �� — Parkway, south of Lake St. „°° Orli 1;1 ✓^l =� ! Joe and north of Hwy. 5 -, �' ANN.`' T.._ FO 'AIN lif_ a J _ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Lundgren Bros. Construction proposes to subdivide 36 acres of property into 33 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located on _ the west side of Minnewashta Parkway, north of Hwy. 5 and south of Lake St. Joe. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform — you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: — 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. — 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The _ Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please — stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in — advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 21, — 1993. Daniel and Brenda Roy Timothy and Lisa Braff 7400 Minnewashta Pk-w . 7410 Minnewashta Pkwy. Lynn&Kae Hall — Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 3980 Hawthorne Circle Excelsior,MN 55331 - Jerry and K. Kortgard Terrance W.Rixe David&Lori Free 3901 Glendale Drive 7456 Minnewashta Pkwy. 3921 Maple Shores Excelsior. MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 _ Mark and Donna Malinowski Jerome Tschimperle Timothy,&Laurie Jenzer 7250 Minnewashta Pkwy. 8121 Bavaria Road 3920 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior,MN 55331 Victoria, MN 55386 Excelsior,MN 55331 Stephen& Sandra Bainbridge David and M. Boorsma Thomas&Sandra Giessen – 7351 Minnewashta Pkwy. 185 Arboretum Boulevard 3930 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior,MN 55331 Chaska,MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 James and Frances Borchart Bryan&Melia Pike Propertele, Inc. 7331 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7411 Minnewashta Pkwy. c/o Ellie Schwaba - Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 3603 Red Cedar Point Exzcelsior,MN 55331 Susan L. Jasin Oscar Anderson Robert&Shelly Lenzen 7301 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7115 Kings Road 24.63 Minnewashta Pkwy. Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 • Alec D. Wilson Leo Janus Mark C. Robinson 4030 Kings Road 3980 Hawthorne Circle 7371 Minnewashta Pkwy. Excelsior. M\-, 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mitchell&Brenda Miller Edward&Judith Oathout Kenneth&K. Steinmetz - 7200 Kings Road 3940 Hawthorne Circle 3931 Minnewashta Ct. Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Jerold&Jeanette Boley John&Marianne Merz David&M.A.Tester 7414 Minnewashta Pkwy. 3900 Lone Cedar Circle 3897 Lone Cedar Lane - Excelsior, MN 55331 Chaska,MN 55318 Chaska,MN 55318 Joyce A Burau and David& Sally Peterjohn Michael Cornelison Joanne M. Lano 3921 Hawthorne Circle 7512 77th Street W 1225 78th Street Excelsior,MN 55331 Clatiltas7d Victoria,MN 55386 Li ho-SLS &4 0 5531 Witmer &M. Larson Craig&Pamela Lamb 7380 Minnewashta Pkwy. 7514 77th Street Excelsior,MN 55331 Chaska,MN 55318 Levin Seacer John& Verna Peterjohn 3510 77th Street 3892 Lone Cedar Lane C Chaska, 11,LN 55318 SS3g Joseph&Paula Epping Nelson & Susan Odt 7508 77th Street W 7518 77th Street Chaska,MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Robert&Faye Corson Peter&Linda Fichuk 7504 77th Strete W 7513 77th Street Chaska MN 55318 Chaska,MN 55318 Verona C. Gordon Dennis&Ronda Zattera 7511 77th Street 7515 77th Street W Chaska,MN 55318 P. O. Box 190 Victoria,MN 55386 David& Amy Busch Geoffrey& S. Schiefelbein 7509 77th Street 3920 Hawthorne Circle Chaska, MN 55318 Excelsior,MN 55331 Craig& Vicky Anderson David& Diane Zamjahn 7507 77th Street 7506 77th Street Chaska,MN 55318 Chaska,MN 55318 Don and Bonnie Holman 3887 Forest Ridge Circle Chaska,MN 55318 Willard&Rhoda Anenson 3885 Forest Ridge Circle Chaska,MN 55318 Gregory W. Bernhardt 3883 Forest Ridge Circle Chaska. MN 55318 C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: 2/3/93 C.C. DATE: 2/22/93 I • CHANHASSEN CASE: 92-14 SUB 92-8 Vacation Bv: Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 63.560 Acres into 4 Industrial lots 2) Vacation of Utility Easement and Previous Alignment of Lake Drive East QV LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5, east of Dell Road APPLICANT : Mr. Randy Cadenhead 0. Sunlink Corporation 1100 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-4599 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 63.560 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 5 and IOP S - Eden Prairie and RSF E - Eden Prairie/Dell Road/RSF W - BH and RSF QQ r SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site has been extensively altered with the construction W of Lake Drive East and the widening of Hwy. 5. Portions of the site are covered with natural vegetation. The Datasery building occupies the southwest portion of the site (f) and a concrete pad occupies the northwestern portion of the site. The concrete pad is the remains of a farm house. The southeast corner of the site is occupied by 2 baseball fields. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial Sunlink Subdivision February 3, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 63.560 acre site into 4 industrial lots. The site is located south of Highway 5 and east of Dell Road. Access to the subdivision will be provided by the existing Lake Drive East. Lot 1, Block 1 is proposed to be the future site for a park and ride lot to be constructed by Southwest Metro Transit. Lot 2, Block 1 contains the concrete pad from the farm house that used to occupy the northerly portion of the site and will be reserved for future development. Lot 1, Block 2 contains an existing one story building (Dataserv) and Lot 2, Block 2 will be reserved for future development. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. No development is being proposed at this time, although staff is aware that Southwest Metro Transit is considering locating a park and ride facility on one of the lots. Any development proposals will be brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council for site plan approval. The majority of the site has been farmed or altered through construction of Lake Drive East and widening of Hwy. 5 and is covered with natural vegetation. There is an existing retention pond located to the southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 2. Staff believes this plat request is a reasonable one and is generally consistent with the guidelines established by the city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff finds it to be well designed and is recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the report. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 63.560 acre site into 4 industrial lots. All of the lots meet or exceed the minimum of l acre in area. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. UTILITIES — The parcel was recently divided with the extension of Lake Drive East from Dakota Avenue to Dell Road. In conjunction with the street construction, municipal utilities were also extended. Each proposed parcel has the ability to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water lines. The property also contains existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer easements which were previously dedicated. It is recommended that these easements be dedicated on the final plat as drainage and utility easements. The easements shall be 20 feet wide over each individual utility line to provide adequate room for maintenance. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The parcel conveys storm water runoff overland through a couple of the proposed lots (Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2). Both drainage areas may involve alteration when the individual lot is developed. On Lot 2, Block 1, the northwesterly corner of the parcel receives storm water _ Sunlink Subdivision February 3, 1993 Page 3 runoff from Trunk Highway 5. The drainage follows the old roadway alignment thus, when the roadway right-of-way is vacated, a drainage easement should be reserved. If in the future this parcel is developed, alternative drainage modifications may be employed. At that time, the appropriate drainage utility easements may be conveyed and the existing ones vacated. On Lot 2, Block 2 an existing drainage ditch conveys storm water runoff from Lake Drive East = to the wetland/retention pond on the east side of Dell Road (City of Eden Prairie). In an effort to improve water quality from this development consistent with the City of Chanhassen's standards, the applicant shall design and construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm drainage prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm pond shall be designed to NURP standards. According to the City of Eden Prairie, the treated runoff can be discharged into the Dell Road storm sewer system at a peak rate of 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. The applicant shall be required to build the NURP pond at this time to accommodate the future predicted runoff conditions based on land use. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final plat should dedicate the appropriate drainage and utility easement over the proposed ponding areas including access routes for maintenance. STREETS The site is serviced by Lake Drive East and Dell Road. Dell Road south of Lake Drive East, however, is only partially constructed. The City of Eden Prairie has constructed their half of the street this past year. As with other typical developments, the applicant is responsible for constructing the public improvements associated with the overall plat development. Besides the storm drainage retention pond, the applicant should be responsible for their share of the cost to improve the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. It is estimated their share of the project costs would be 20% of the total. The applicant should be required to petition the City of Chanhassen to construct the Dell Road street improvements associated with this subdivision. The appropriate project cost (20%) would be assessed back to the applicant. The City will require the applicant to enter into a development contract waiving their rights to an assessment hearing and the appeal process. In conjunction with the platting of this development, we recommend that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way and temporary easements for the construction of Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. According to street construction plans prepared by the City of Eden Prairie, the applicant should dedicate the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for right-of-way. This would = also facilitate construction of a sidewalk/trail element along the west side of Dell Road to connect with the existing sidewalk along Dell Road north of Lake Drive East. Since this development will require public improvements (storm water pond), it is recommended that a development contract be prepared in conjunction with this development and the applicant provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. Sunlink Subdivision February 3, 1993 Page 4 PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this application on January 26, 1993. The Park and Recreation Coordinator has forwarded his comments in regard to this application request, and they are as follows: Parks: This site is on the fringe of the park service areas for South Lotus Lake Park and Rice Marsh Lake Park. Although much of the site is park deficient, the desirability of pursuing acquisition of a park as a part of this subdivision is not great. It should be noted, however, that the city maintained and scheduled two ball fields on the DataSery property, now Lot 2, Block 2, for a period of years. If during the development of Lot 2 this use could be retained, it would be of benefit to the city's park and recreation system. If the preservation of one or both of these ball fields was realized, an appropriate reduction in park fees would be credited. If not, Lot 2, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, would be subject to full park fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. Currently the park fee for commercial/industrial development is $2,500 per acre. Trails: Concrete sidewalks currently exist along the north side of Lake Drive East and on the west side of the north half of the segment of Dell Road located in Chanhassen south of Highway — 5. An easement for trail purposes shall be obtained along the easterly border of Lot 2, Block 2 of sufficient width to allow continuation of this pedestrian route to the south, allowing for connection to the Eden Prairie trail system. This trail segment would most likely be completed with the construction of the Chanhassen segment of Dell Road and represents an important inter- community connection. It will also provide direct access from the large residential area being developed south of this site to the proposed park and ride facility at the corner of TH 5 and Dell — Road. All vacant lots in the SunLink Addition will be subject to trail fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. Currently the trail fee for commercial/industrial development is $833.00 per acre. Compliance Table Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Setback — Ordinance 1 acre 150' 200' N-30' S-50' E-50' W-10' Block 1 Lot 1 4.1 acres 395' 470' Lot 2 15.788 acres 2,000' 470' Sunlink Subdivision February 3, 1993 Page 5 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Setback Block 2 21.279 acres 1,200' 850' N-110' Lot 1 S-350' E-450' W-360' Lot 2 18.789 acres 1,300' 620' VACATION OF OLD UTILITY EASEMENT AND PREVIOUS ALIGNMENT OF LAKE DRIVE EAST The Planning Commission does not have to vote on the vacation, however, we are including it as an informational item. The applicant is requesting the vacation of the old utility easements and previous alignment of Lake Drive East. The old alignment is reflected on proposed Lot 2, Block 1. On Lot 2, Block 1, the northwesterly corner of the parcel receives storm water runoff from Hwy. 5. The drainage follows the old roadway alignment. Thus, a drainage easement should be reserved. If in the future this parcel is developed, alternative drainage modifications may be employed. At that time, the appropriate drainage utility easements may be conveyed and the existing ones vacated. In conjunction with the city's Lake Drive East improvement project, utility lines were relocated from the previous roadway alignment. These easements and right-of-way will be vacated in conjunction with the final plat, with the exception of the drainage easement located within the old 40 foot wide roadway alignment. PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat#92-14 creating 4 industrial lots, Sunlink Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on the final plat over all utility lines and ponding areas outside the road right-of-way. The minimum width of the utility easements shall be 20 feet wide. 2. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for Dell Road right-of-way and grant the City at no cost temporary construction easements as necessary for the construction of Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. Sunlink Subdivision February 3, 1993 Page 6 3. The applicant shall enter a development contract and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. The applicant shall construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm runoff from the development prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm — retention pond shall be constructed to NURP standards. Discharge into the Dell Road storm sewer system shall be limited to 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. Detailed storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and — approval. A storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 shall be constructed to accommodate the development at "built out" conditions. 5. The applicant shall petition the city of Chanhassen to construct the western half of Dell Road Street improvements, south of Lake Drive East to the southerly property line of Lot 2, Block 2. The applicant shall be assessed 20% of the project costs." — ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated January 29, 1993. 2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated December 22, 1992. 3. Letter from MnDOT dated December 30, 1992. — 4. Memo from City of Eden Prairie dated December 22, 1992. 5. Hearing notice. 01111' • CITY a CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician X_*74--- DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Sunlink Addition LUR File No. 93-2 UTILITIES The parcel was recently intersected with the extension of Lake Drive East from Dakota Avenue to Dell Road. In conjunction with the street construction, municipal utilities were also extended. Each proposed parcel has the ability to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water lines. The property also contains existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer easements which were previously dedicated. It is recommended that these easements be dedicated on the final plat as drainage and utility easements. The easements shall be 20 feet wide over each individual utility line to provide adequate room for maintenance. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The parcel conveys storm water runoff overland through a couple of the proposed lots (Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2). Both drainage areas may involve alteration when the individual lot is developed. On Lot 2, Block 1, the northwesterly corner of the parcel receives storm water runoff from Trunk Highway 5. The drainage follows the old roadway alignment thus, if the roadway right-of-way is vacated, a drainage easement should be reserved. If in the future this parcel is developed, alternative drainage modifications may be employed. At that time, the appropriate drainage utility easements may be conveyed and the existing ones vacated. On Lot 2, Block 2 an existing drainage ditch conveys storm water runoff from Lake Drive East to the wetland/retention pond on the east side of Dell Road (City of Eden Prairie). In an effort to improve water quality from this development consistent with the City of t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Sharmin Al-Jaff January 29, 1993 Page 2 Chanhassen's standards, the applicant shall design and construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm drainage prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm pond shall be designed to NURP standards. According to the City of Eden Prairie, the treated runoff can be discharged into the Dell Road storm sewer system at a peak rate of 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. The applicant shall be required to build the NURP pond at this time to accommodate the future predicted runoff conditions based on land use. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final plat should dedicate the appropriate drainage and utility easement over the proposed ponding areas including access routes for maintenance. STREETS The site is serviced by Lake Drive East and Dell Road. Dell Road south of Lake Drive East, however, is only partially constructed. The City of Eden Prairie has constructed their half of the street this past year. As with other typical developments, the applicant is responsible for constructing the public improvements associated with the overall plat development. Besides the storm drainage retention pond, the applicant should be responsible for their share of the cost to improve the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. It is estimated their share of the project costs would be 20% of the project total. The applicant should petition the City of Chanhassen to construct the Dell Road street improvements associated with this subdivision. The appropriate project cost (20%) would be assessed back to the applicant. The City will require the applicant to enter into a development contract waiving their rights to an assessment hearing and the appeal process. In conjunction with the platting of this development, we recommend that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way and temporary easements for the construction of Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. According to street construction plans prepared by the City of Eden Prairie, the applicant should dedicate the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for right-of-way. This would also facilitate construction of a sidewalk/trail element along the west side of Dell Road to connect with the existing sidewalk along Dell Road north of Lake Drive East. Since this development will require public improvements (storm water pond), it is recommended that a development contract be prepared in conjunction with this development and the applicant provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff January 29, 1993 Page 3 • RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on the final plat over all utility lines and ponding areas outside the road right-of-way. The minimum width of the utility easements shall be 20 feet wide. 2. The Applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for Dell Road right-of-way and grant the City at no cost temporary construction easements as necessary for the construction Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. 3. The applicant shall enter a development contract and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. The applicant shall construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm runoff from the development prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm retention pond shall be constructed to NURP standards. Discharge into the _ Dell Road storm sewer system shall be limited to 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. Detailed storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. A storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 shall be constructed to accommodate the development at "built out" conditions. 5. The applicant shall petition the City of Chanhassen to construct the westerly half of Dell Road street improvements south of Lake Drive East to the southerly property line of Lot 2, Block 2. The applicant shall be assessed 20% of the project costs. jms/ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITY OF i ‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 , (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: December 22, 1992 SUBJ: Sun Link Addition The preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 60 acres into the Sun Link Addition will be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on January 26, 1993. However, to accommodate your review schedule, I am forwarding the following comments in regard to parks, trails, and recreation. Parks: This site is on the fringe of the park service areas for South Lotus Lake Park and Rice Marsh Lake Park. Although much of the site is park deficient, the desirability of pursuing acquisition of a park as a part of this subdivision is not great. It should be noted, however, that the city maintained and scheduled two ballfields on the DataSery property, now Lot 2, Block 2, for a period of years. If during the development of Lot 2 this use could be retained, it would be of benefit to the city's park and recreation system. If the preservation of one or both of these ballfields was realized, an appropriate reduction in park fees would be credited. If not, Lot 2, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, would be subject to full park fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. Currently the park fee for commercial/industrial development is $2,500 per acre. Trails: Concrete sidewalks currently exist along the north side of Lake Drive East and on the west side of the north half of the segment of Dell Road located in Chanhassen south of Highway 5. An easement for trail purposes shall be obtained along the easterly border of Lot 2, Block 2 of sufficient width to allow continuation of this pedestrian route to the south, allowing for connection to the Eden Prairie trail system. This trail segment would most likely be completed with the construction of the Chanhassen segment of Dell Road and represents an important inter- community connection. It will also provide direct access from the large residential area being developed south of this site to the proposed park and ride facility at the corner of TH 5 and Dell Road. All vacant lots in the SunLink Addition will be subject to trail fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. Currently the trail fee for commercial/industrial development is $833.00 per acre. •Or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 11,,\NNES07:1 Minnesota Department of Transportation — Metropolitan Division Transportation Building 5Q° St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 OF TRPC� Oakdale Office,3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office,2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to Telephone No. 593-8533 December 30, 1992 Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 In Reply refer to: TH 5 C.S. 2701 Sunlink Addition Lake Dr./Dell Rd. Chanhassen Dear Ms. Olsen: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find this plat acceptable for development with consideration of the following comments: • No direct access to TH 5 will be allowed. TH 5 has been upgraded in this area and Mn/DOT has no plans for further improvements to accomodate additional direct access at this time. • Current drainage patterns and rates of runoff should be maintained. If you have any other questions please feel free to call me at 593-8533. Sincerely, 1464%01-‘ OS(AtK4' William A. Sirois Senior Transportation Planner cc: Dotty Rietow, Metropolitan Council RECEIVED — Roger Gustafson, Carver Co. Engineer John Freemyer, Carver Co. Surveyor DEC 3 1 1992 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Au Equal Opportunity Employer DEC 22 '92 11:06 TO:9-9375739 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-226 P. 01 Post-It"'brand fax transmittal memo 7671 'of payee - MEMORA igatasirsffea Ear . ue FELe asAas � co.0/. a tee, rrtiri Dem. Phone g TO: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Assistant City Engineer GtJ DATE: December 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Comments on City of Chanhassen's Sunlink Addition The following are our comments regarding the preliminary plat of the Sunlink Addition in the City of Chanhassen. • We recognize that the City of Chanhassen has an excellent water quality program that we are confident will provide the necessary facilities to ensure quality storm water entering Eden Prairie. However, we should remind them about a couple of items that were discussed at the time of the Multi-Site Drainage Study (Jamestown, Shores of Mitchell. Lake and Windfield); 1. All drainage from this site needs to be directed and routed through a pond designed to NURP standards (as required by the City of Chanhassen). 2. This treated water can be discharged into the Dell Road storm sewer system at a peak rate of 38.4 CFS for a 100-year storm. This rate is equivalent to the pre- development runoff rate. (See attachments from Multi-Site Drainage Study, including letter from OSM) • We would encourage that the proposed pond near Dell Road be constructed as soon as possible. This would provide both a quantity and quality control system during development of this 60 acre site. We would request that grading and ponding plans adjacent to Dell Road be forwarded to the Engineering Division for review and comment. • This plat needs to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for Dell Road together with a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along Dell Road between Lake Drive East and Chanhassen's southern border. Temporary easements will also be needed on this property in order to complete the construction of Dell Road and the appropriate storm sewer improvements. • With the dedicated right-of-way as proposed, the City of Chanhassen needs to commit to building the western half of Dell Road (between Lake Drive East and Chanhassen's southern border) in 1993 in order to provide a complete road section through this area. RWR:ssa Dsk:RR.SUNI_rNK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ,10 006 /, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , ��►• t ;�► 4115,/ •/ Wednesday, January6, 1993 - 7:30 „TA ••••/. _ , 111 s ti PP P.M. :�►�� Q' ?/ Q �� City Hall Council Chambers ' 77►h ST•EET 2 690 Coulter Drive 1 W :TH ST Project: Sunlink Addition Developer: Sunlink Corporationr , •,. A: Location: South of Hwy. 5 and East of or Nr HANHASS N " / Dell Road .� w�W4 RENr f NA AR / Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Sunlink Corporation proposes to subdivide approximately 60 acres into 4 lots on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, located south of Hwy. 5 and east of Dell Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 24, 1992. P/.23/f: , . Chanhassen Holding Company McDonald's Corp (22-146) Systems Control, Inc. 14201 Excelsior Blvd. AMF O'Hare 755 Mary Avenue No. Minnetonka, MN 55343 P. O. Box 66207 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Chicago, IL 60666 Walter & Kathleen Schollman Ramond & Mary Ann Jezierski Eugene & N. L. Gagner 8011 Dakota Avenue 8013 Dakota Circle 8025 Dakota Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard & Mary Dorfner Michael W. Farrell Robert & Barbara Armbrust 8026 Cheyenne Avenue 8024 Cheyenne Avenue 8022 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Douglas & Kathleen Bagley George & A. Jennings N. Einar & Valborg Swedberg _ 8020 Cheyenne Avenue 8018 Cheyenne Avenue Co-Trustees Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 8016 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel & Linda Robinson Mitchell T. Lebens Richard & B. Frasch 8014 Cheyenne Avenue 8012 Cheyenne Avenue 8010 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael & Cynthia Koenig Gerard & Lindsay Amadeo Alex & Marilyn Krengel 8005 Cheyenne Avenue 8007 Cheyenne Avenue 8009 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Alice L. Sieren Stephen & Joann MacDonald Russell & V. Hamilton 8011 Cheyenne Avenue 8017 Cheyenne Spur 8019 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Glenn & Bonnie Hageman Thomas & Joy Eastman Craig & Kathryn Humason 8021 Cheyenne Spur 8023 Cheyenne Spur 8025 Cheyenne Spur Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Alois & M. Stumpfl George & Theresa Thomas Robert Seward 8027 Cheyenne Avenue 8029 Cheyenne Avenue 8031 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Conrad & L. Fiskness Mary Ann Wallin Michael & Marie Kraus 8033 Cheyenne Avenue 8035 Cheyenne Avenue 8037 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (18210 W. 78th Street Lotus Lake Garden Center, Inc. Frank Beddor, Jr.) 78 West 78th Street 5317 Eden Prairie Assembly God Church Chanhassen, MN 16591 Duck Lake Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55346-1298 Terry & Margaret Lewis 8013 Cheyenne Avenue (18556 Wynnfield Rd.) Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Vernon & Barbara Husemoen 8015 Cheyenne Avenue Thomas & Patricia Redmond Chanhassen, MN 55317 c/c Redmond Products, Inc. 18930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lyman Lumber P 0 Box 40 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen Center Partners c/o Builders Development Randal & Cynthia Bottelson P 0 Box 637 8084 Crescent Court Wayzata, MN 55391 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 T & P. Redmond Tandem Properties c/o Pat Webber 2765 Casco Point Road 17429 Valley Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Windfield Ltd. Partnership c/o Pemtom Land Co. 8200 Humboldt Avenue S. Bloomington, MN 55431 The Press, Inc. 18780 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner .) DATE: January 12, 1993 SUBJ: City Code Amendment to the Subdivision and PUD Ordinance Regarding Cul-de-sac Lengths Background Currently, the Subdivision Ordinance (Article III, Section 18-57 [k)) states that "the maximum length of a street terminating in a cul-de-sac shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street, measured from the centerline of the street of origin to the end of the right-of-way." This design standard is vague at best, has been very difficult to interpret, and has been difficult to enforce to require connection of cul-de-sacs where staff felt appropriate. There have been proposals in the past where an applicant provided cul-de-sacs instead of through streets. In many of these cases, the cul-de-sacs could easily be connected to provide a through street, which are preferred by the Planning, Engineering and Public Safety Staff. Staff does not deny the attractiveness of cul-de-sacs for a homeowner. Unlike several other communities, we are not proposing to ban them or place some sort of cap on the number within a plat. Rather we are proposing to place limits on their connection when appropriate for public safety and reasonable access. The Planning Commission directed Planning Staff to review the standards for cul-de-sacs and to provide a maximum distance permitted for a cul-de-sac. On November 18, 1992, the Planning Commission discussed standards for cul-de-sacs and recommended that a maximum length of 600 feet be enforced unless there were some unusual circumstances which warranted a longer cul-de- - sac (such as topography, wetlands, etc.). Staff is recommending that the attached ordinance be adopted. These standards are taken from the Minnetonka code and provides what the Planning Commission requested (a maximum length and exceptions). 7.0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission January 12, 1993 Page 2 — PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On January 20, 1993,the Planning Commission tabled action on the cul-de-sac amendments until staff could prepare an intent statement and make some changes proposed by the Planning Commission. Staff has added an intent statement to the proposed amendment and has made changes suggested by the Planning Commission (see attached ordinance). — RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached ordinance amending Section 18-57(k) concerning lengths of cul-de-sacs. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance Amendment. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated November 18, 1992. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated January 20, 1993. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES. MINNESOTA • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING CUL-DE-SAC LENGTHS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Article III, Design Standards, Section 18-57(k) of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended to read: 18-57(k) Although cul-de-sacs may provide a more private setting and feeling of security, if they exceed a certain length, the resulting issues outweigh the aesthetics. Excessively long cul- - de-sacs can result in a community isolated into pockets rather than one of neighborhoods in the traditional sense. They make the provision of emergency services more difficult and have a higher probability of loss of access due to emergencies such as water main breaks and storm damage. They also increase the length of trips and reliance on the automobile, while making use of transit, bike trails and sidewalks more difficult. Long cul-de-sacs create problems and excess costs for the provision of services such as school buses, sewer and water, etc. Therefore, the city will allow the construction of cul-de-sacs only if they do not exceed a certain length as determined by the city. 1. Cul-de-sac streets shall be measured along the center line of the street from the intersection of origin to the end of the cul-de-sac right-of-way. For cul-de-sacs that terminate in loop streets as opposed to cul-de-sac bubbles, the length shall be measured from the intersection of origin to the point on the loop located farthest from the point of origin. The design standard for cul-de-sac streets are as follows: a. Each cul-de-sac shall have a terminus in the form of a street loop or of a bubble of nearly circular shape unless modified by the City with a minimum right-of-way diameter of 120 feet and a minimum pavement diameter of 91 feet to the back of curb for an urban residential street; 96 feet to the back of curb for commercial/industrial streets; and for a rural cul-de-sac, 120 diameter right-of- _ way, an 85 foot diameter pavement section with a 6 foot wide gravel shoulder b. The property line at the intersection of the bubble and the straight portion of the street shall be rounded at a radius of not less than 30 feet. c. Center islands, within cul-de-sac bubbles shall be prohibited unless they meet the following standards: 1) The center island is intended for residential application. 2) The center island will preserve natural features. 3) The urban design shall consist of a minimum 48 foot diameter island with an outside curb diameter of 91 feet. 4) The center islands shall be privately maintained by a homeowner's association. Responsibility for maintenance would be clearly established _ in the chain-of-title. d. Cul-de-sac streets may not be longer than 600' unless a majority of the City _ Council permits a longer length based upon the following conditions: 1) Severe topography: The cul-de-sac would preserve the physical character _ of the property or adjacent properties, whereas, an extension of the street would severely impact the site due to excessive grading. 2) Significant vegetation and sensitive features: The cul-de-sac would preserve mature trees and sensitive features on the property that will not otherwise be removed due to development, whereas an extension of _ through street would cause their destruction. 3) Existing development: The pattern of existing development requires that — the only practical public access is a long cul-de-sac. 4) Temporary cul-de-sac: The cul-de-sac is temporary and designed to be — extended to provide access to an adjacent property that has not undergone development. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of — 1993. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor _ 2 — CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts , Ladd Conrad , Joe Scott , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes , Nancy Mancino , and Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson , Planner II PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING REQUIREMENTS OF CUL-DE-SAC LENGTHS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : The record should show that there 's no one in the crowd really . Normally , for those of you who are new to the Planning Commission , after we close the public hearing , go around. Get comments from the individual commissioners and we 'll do that in order , normally starting from one side or the other . Tonight I 'm going to start with Ladd , just so that I don't have to put anybody on the spot . But don 't be bashful about asking questions or raising issues or asking why we 're even doing this. So having said that , Ladd . Do you have any comments on this? Conrad: I like cul-de-sacs . I like islands in cul-de-sacs . Cul-de-sacs can be a real benefit and amenity . I don 't have a problem with the ordinance but I just want everybody to think . One thing , did we rob this literally word for word from Minnetonka? Did we add anything other than 600 feet? Aanenson: Yeah , because they have 500 feet. So yeah. Conrad: Okay , so we said 600 but the rest is their 's . It 's a real technical type of ordinance . It really doesn 't talk to you about the purposes and why we 're doing it . It says , here 's the technical stuff so I don 't like how it is but I 'm not going to belabor it . It doesn't say , you know the big deal about a cul-de-sac is the situation case of emergency . So we haven 't changed any specs . -In terms of a wider street or whatever . We 're just saying emergency vehicles . There 's only 12 houses down there so no big deal . I guess again , we 've put the technical things down and I think 600 feet is okay . That 's going to solve my ideal . I just want everybody to know that when the wording says center islands within cul-de-sacs shall be prohibited , that 's basically what it means . It says unless , but basically we 're , the engineer 's going to recommend against them all the time . Nothing more . • Batzli : Would you prefer to see ( a ) an intent section, and ( b ) , that we define what sort of center islands would be appropriate? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 2 Conrad: Brian , I just don 't like the ordinance because of all the technical stuff . Do I want that? Do I want it to have an intent? Cul-de-sac intent? We haven 't given any , you know if we 're going to have , unless a design is approved by the City Engineer , it basically takes us out . You know point number 3 , we are not part of the decision making process . You should know that based on the . . . It 's not allowed . The Cit Engineer could allow it . If we think it 's a valid use , and there are problems with center islands . You 've got maintenance problems and you 've got snow plowing problems and there 's no doubt . They just happen, when they 're done right and somebody maintains them , they 're really pretty and they really make that cul-de-sac in that neighborhood a real nice area . So it 's a compromise between making it a nice little community , a nice little area street versus allowing for emergency vehicles to go all the way through . I 'm not going to make an issue . No , I don 't like what I see here . I 'm not making an issue out of it . Batzli : Well see , we scheduled the discussion , just a little bit of history . I think you probably , the new people got a flavor of why we 're looking at this but with a recent proposal of the Lundgren development ove at TH 5 and TH 41 . The Planning Commission reversed itself at the last minute by putting through what had been two cul-de-sacs and requesting that it be changed into a thru street . Based on that , I requested that staff - bring it up as an item for discussion as to whether or not we like cul-de-sacs and to look at it from a planning perspective as opposed to a safety perspective because I thought we weren't getting the complete picture of what and why we were recommending for or against these cul-de-sacs . We 've heard and the staff report makes it very ,clear that a litany is becoming somewhat repetitious . Well that 's putting it nicely . We 've heard repeatedly that these are safety concerns , safety issues for fire trucks going down cul-de-sacs . Turning onto a wrong one . Not being able to turn around . If for example the entrance gets flooded , which is what happened down in Fox Hollow several years ago when we had the 13 incl rain , can you get out a separate way . We 've heard the safety concerns an: what I wanted to hear last time was , that 's fine but from a , not from a safety standard but from a neighborhood development , sense of community , those types of issues , what are we doing by constructing a lot of cul-de-sacs . And we addressed that a little bit last time . I was kind of disappointed . I think we ended up talking about it late at night so those concerns were sort of glossed over . But what I 'm hearing tonight from La(: i at least initially is that he likes them . He thinks they 're valuable in certain aspects . A feeling of security. Crime . Those kinds of issues that weren 't really , I don 't think fully flushed out the first time , the last time that we talked about it . And if other commissioners have those concerns , I don 't want to blindly adopt the ordinance if we 're not really sure why we 're doing it or maybe we should adopt it from the standpoint of_ safety and then re-evaluate it if it is a concern that there 's going to be a lot of development coming in and we want to limit it . We would rather limit it and then go back and look at it as opposed to not having any limitations on it , or very few limitations on it , while we 're studying it .- I mean we can look at it one of two ways but , said that . Matt , do you ha% , comments? Ledvina: Just a couple of things again that , the topic of discussion that was batted around last time was the length and we talked about 500 feet at Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 3 750 feet and the 600 foot distance is fine . I guess I would , I think that some of the things that you said Brian could be flushed out in an intent statement , which could b2 you know a header to this thing and discussing some of the safety concerns in the community , etc . I think we could change item 3 to read , taking into consideration what Ladd said . Center islands with cul-de-sac bubbles shall be allowed subject to design approval by the City Engineer , Fire Department , etc , etc . I think that accomplishes the same thing and it 's not a negative thing. It 's a more positive thing . And it 's just saying we want to make sure they 're done right . I guess I think we can cover that by just changing that to the positive . But other than that , it would be good for the developer to have some guidance on this thing and we kicked it around and I kind of felt sorry for Lundgren , the way they had to work through this thing . If they would have had this ordinance , I think it would have been a little smoother process for them . So I 'm in favor of the ordinance I guess , and I don 't know if we can just direct staff to include an intent statement and then send it off , you know with this other change , or if we need to see it again . I don 't know about that . Aanenson: I think we 're clear as to what you 're looking for . The community issues . Crime . Ledvina: I think the verbage that would go in there is all contained it Paul 's report here . It would just have to be distilled and just hit the right spots I think and I think it's ready to go . Batzli : So you would propose that we just proceed by giving it to staff to draft an intent section? Ledvina : I think that would be appropriate . I 'm comfortable with that . I think they understand what the issues are and if they review the Minutes and include some of your discussion , I think as it relates to the cul-de-sac as part of the community and how it effects the community . I think developers will get the idea that they 'll touch on it . They 'll think about it , maybe if they hadn't before and as they see necessary , they 'll incorporate that criteria into their decision on whether they will develop with them or not . Batzli : I guess I 'm not sure what my goals are in putting in cul-de-sacs or not putting them in . So I don't know that I 'm comfortable letting staff do that . I 'm not sure what my goals are yet . For example , it 's a dumb example but my particular development , Fox Hollow , could be considered a huge cul-de-sac if you chopped off the emergency exit which is now becoming a regular thoroughfare through North Lotus Park . Huge cul-de-sac with many different little cul-de-sacs in the interior . However it has a main loop . And in the summer it 's quite an extraordinary event that everyone in the neighborhood walks around the block with their little kids , and it 's fun and it brings you closer to everyone in your neighborhood . And the issue in my mind is , if you have a cul-de-sac , that 's a long cul-de-sac , you probably , you may get some movement up and down that but it 's kind of a phenomenon in some of these newer developments that you see people walking around . Now if you promote something like we did in the Lundgren development where you have cul-de-sacs and there is no promenade , are you eliminating this sense of small little communities within a bigger Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 4 community? And I don 't know that staff has answers to that and I don 't - know whether we want to encourage that or not , but it seems to me that kir I of discussion , you know should we be promoting these or shouldn 't we be , 1 think maybe we want to think about it . But I don 't know if we should or not . I don 't know . Conrad: There 's not a real clear answer . We 're weighing safety versus some neighborhood thing . Continuity so it 's , I think the 600 foot is reasonable . What we want to do is give a developer the opportunity to us( their land and not abuse the land and cul-de-sacs many times can do that . I really didn 't like changing the Lundgren thing . I wasn 't here for that decision . But I didn 't like that . I thought the cul-de-sacs . Batzli : I was the only one that voted against it by the way . Conrad: My congratulations Brian . Ledvina : It 's not like we trashed all the cul-de-sacs . We just . . .that or -3 street . There was 4 other cul-de-sacs I believe so they had both things that development . Conrad: Well they really give the developer some opportunities to do different things that are just not a grid street system and they can incorporate the lay of the land a little bit . I 'm not uncomfortable with what the wording of our point number 4 . And we don 't want to encourage long cul-de-sacs . There 's just no point . I think some of them have been huge , and I don 't think we need that . So again my comment is , I like them but we don 't need excessive cul-de-sacs . I think some of it 's just the mechanics of how we want to express ourselves in an ordinance . Ledvina: Well I live on a 900 foot cul-de-sac and I 've never seen a police car in my cul-de-sac so that concerns me . Batzli : Well I don 't know , I grew up in Tonka Bay where it seems every road is a cul-de-sac . Long cul-de-sac going out on little isthmus or penninsulas or what have you and there was never any problem so I don 't understand . Ledvina: Not that that is a problem but you know, in 5 years you 'd like see one police car . Batzli : When they deliver your packet . Mancino : I have a question . Matthew , you said that you lived on a 900 foot cul-de-sac? Ledvina: Right . Mancino: Did it help give you a sense of intimacy , neighborhood? Ledvina: Well , I like it alot . We see our neighbors a lot and I don 't know , there 's just a , it 's true. I don't interact with the neighbors behind me because they never come around so I think it does tend to isola' people into smaller groups . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 5 Farmakes: So if the road was connected 9 houses down , do you feel that you would be any less intimate with your neighbors next door? Ledvina : Yeah I would . Actually I 'm right at the end of the cul-de-sac so they would connect that around but those other people that live in back of me would most likely use my street mo e . I don 't know . They wouldn 't necessarily have a reason to but they might walk around the block a little more . I don 't know. Conrad: The people who live in cul-de-sacs love them . Everybody in this Council chamber . . .they love cul-de-sacs . Batzli : I bought my house because I thought I was on a cul-de-sac . Farmakes : You thought you were? Batzli : Well yeah , they put it through with the park but I bought it because I thought I was on a cul-de-sac. Mancino: I have another question . I don 't live on a cul-de-sac but I live at the end of a private road and I like it for the safety purposes . The other thing is , if you also like it because of the privacy it gives you , do you feel that it gives you more privacy than you normally would get with a thru street? Conrad: People who live on them like that aspect , yeah . Mancino: Okay. So we have privacy and we have security , safe . Batzli : I think they like it if they have children as well because they feel it gets much less traffic . So their kids can play in the road and they don 't have to be worried that they're going to have cars zipping through the neighborhood using it as a thoroughfare . Scott: But unless a developer has a long recentangular property , they're probably not going to have one cul-de-sac with stuff on the side . I mean - they tend to have , at least in our neighborhood, we have the promenade situation with cul-de-sacs off the outside and then kind of a , not a common area but where all the lots come together and I think the intent is just to minimize the length of the cul-de-sac and what ultimately determines how somebody determines how something develops is the shape of the land . I mean they 're going to try to maximize the number of lots that they can get on the property and depending on the topography and the shape of the property , is probably the major determining factor . Batzli : Matt , did you have anything else? Ledvina: No . Batzli : Okay . Joe , why don 't you go ahead and complete your comment there . Scott: My soliloquy . My personal opinion is , I tend to agree with. I mean you talked about safety and so forth but the sense of , one of my priorities Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 6 is the sense of community and having the ability for people in a particular neighborhood , not only to interact with themselves but other neighbors bum then also with adjacent neighborhoods . And obviously because of the climate we have here , that that 's going to happen more often at certain times of the year . But from reading through this and talking to neighbcrs and people on cul-de-sacs and not on cul-de-sacs , and in talking to a couple of developers , this is really not onerous . I don 't think it reall•, compromises a developer 's ability to get their job done to make the kind of return they need . But the thing I keep coming back to is the safety issu . The time you need an emergency vehicle and they can 't get down there , that 's part of it too . But I 'm primarily concerned about the community aspect of it and I think it's a Lundgren development where there 's , I believe it 's a connection between Timberwood and the Lundgren development You know what I 'm talking about . I think that sort of thing should be encouraged because when you think about the traffic . I mean it 's one thing when you talk about Frontier Trail connecting through Novak-Fleck and coming back in that way . That 's a thoroughfare situation but I think because of the railroad tracks and because of the way those two adjacent developments were set up , I don 't really see that being a thoroughfare because I think both , going through Timberwood , if you 're coming off Galp i and you would go through Timberwood south and then you 'd come back out on Galpin again . So in that particular situation , I don 't think you 'd have A- thoroughfare there . That would just be something that would be utilized I the residents . But I 'm also familiar with , Brian with your area where that 's a neat way to get from CR 17 to TH 101 is to go Pleasant View and go right through your neighborhood . So I think it 's important to determine , is it going to become a thoroughfare or is it just something that 's going to be utilized by the residents . Batzli : Well staff assured us when they connected the road that it would never be used as a thoroughfare . Not this particular staff . Scott : Alright , I have no more comment on that. Batzli : Okay , Jeff . Farmakes: I have no problems against cul-de-sacs . I think our discussio may be discussing the merits of cul-de-sacs . I think what we're discussing here is a reasonable solution to a conflict , different conflicts of interest . We have one that's profit motivated . We have one where it 's consumer driven and we have others such as Fed Ex or Hanus Bus Company or police , a whole slew of issues that service a community that are hampered by not having a connection from neighborhood to neighborhood . What this s asking for and suggesting to a developer , as far as I can -see , is a reasonable amount of length going to a cul-de-sac . We don 't have a long cul-de-sac and I would like to see an intent statement where , or reason f, this because it seems like in the past we did have this ordinance and it sort of got fuzzy . And some of that was our interpretation and also I think some of these larger developments that meander over large , difficult type topography , seem to lend themselves to these 18 houses down on a private road turning into a cul-de-sac and coming back . I 'm not sure abok1:. 4 . When your comments on 4 Ladd , did you . You know on 4 . Did you feel that that was necessary or omit it? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 7 Conrad: No . I think it make sense so you can have a cul-de-sac . You can 't go longer than 600 feet but if you have to hear the criteria , I like that . Farmakes: So you like them listed out rather than just ask for a variance? Conrad: It tells a developer exactly what they can and can 't do . Why they can propose something longer . That 's exactly what we want . We didn 't do that very well in point number 3 . It just says it 's prohibited period . And point number 3 is saying , if we like them , and there are real problems with islands . There really are but . Ledvina: But the main two issues are safety and maintenance . Farmakes: It still doesn 't stop them from coming forward with PUD and asking for a long cul-de-sac correct? Aanenson: Right , that 's correct . And as a staff we may encourage in some situations that we 'd want them longer to save vegetation or . Farmakes : Okay , so that opening is there . I 'm going back to some of the , we 're cutting down on some of the discussion on some of these site plan reviews . This would go a long way in doing that . It gives a reasonable intent of what the design is . Telling developers , hey if you 're going to design this , design this knowing that we would like a modification of a reasonable cul-de-sac arrangement so we don 't have these long extensive private roads . And it seems , not reinventing the wheel but the rest of the communities around who are older , as far as cosmopolitan age , are following a standard anywhere from 500 to 1 ,000 . So it seems like 600 or , 600 is what it used to be correct? Ledvina: No , 500 . Farmakes: It used to be 500? Okay , so we came up with 600 for whatever reason . It seems like that would be a reasonable amount of homes I guess to the access road . And I would support that . As to the actual numbers that are up on the top there , I 'm going to trust our engineer on that and my comments on the island I still , aesthetically , I have no problems with islands . As I have no problems with cul-de-sacs . Just again , that they 're not over used . Conrad: Right . Right , but you know staff 's point and it 's real valid , is maintenance . It 's real valid . There's no doubt about that but boy are they pretty and do they take a circular area that 's bigger . You 've got this big circular area that 's kind of ugly and you put an island in it , all of a sudden it 's pretty . So it 's a real neat amenity if we can justify the maintenance and stuff . If we can 't justify it . Mancino: I saw one last Sunday night in an Edina . . .Edina suburb and it was an island which I hadn 't seen too many of them . I don 't think , are there any in Chanhassen right now? Scott : Is it Hesse Farms or Hesse Farms? I know the large lot on the bluff , there 's a couple of them up there that look kind of tear dropped Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 8 shape but it 's like , they 're not standard width streets . I think actually it 's a private road . Batzli : There 's one on the end of , going into Lotus off of TH 101 . The whatever Estates there . The big huge houses out on the point of Lotus . There 's a tear dropped shape one there . I mean that thing is probably older than the hills . Mancino: Well this one was round and there are oaks in the neighborhood and then they had 2 or 3 oaks and that was about it. I mean it wasn 't really landscaped . There were 3 just very natural big , huge oak trees that were in the center island . Visually it was very nice and it broke up aga. the pavement that was in the circular area . Scott: I wonder if that 's something , because we 're talking about an exception to cul-de-sac length . Talking about significant vegetation . :I mean perhaps if there is significant vegetation , i .e . mature trees that could be saved by using a bubble or whatever , an island . Maybe that 's one_ of the things that if you 're talking about Ladd , if you 're talking about adding ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) and ( d ) to number 3 , perhaps some of these may apply . Points for 4 it might apply and 3 as well . Ledvina : You might even adjust the alignment your street to center those or 3 oaks in that one spot . Scott: It 's certainly not being lost on the commercial side of it . Then that would be an enhancement to the lots . The value of the lots that would be on that particular cul-de-sac as well so I would think the developer would keep them in . . . Farmakes: I 'd just sum up my comments in saying that again , I support limiting this and I would support the 600 square feet . And I 'm open to modifications but I think that the intent that we 're talking about here I think is important . Batzli : Okay . Nancy . Mancino: Well , I don 't think I have anything new to add to what Jeff just said . An intent statement I think would be helpful . I am very much pro cul-de-sacs for the security , the privacy , the environmental rasons that we 've stated . The feeling of intimacy of neighborhoods that one can gain . And I don 't think it necessarily has to detract from a sense of community I don 't think that your intimacy in your neighborhood takes away from you) feeling of a larger thought of community. In fact I think it can add to instead of detract . So I don 't think it 's one thing or another . I think it 's part of the whole sense of community . Having neighborhoods and havii ) them very intimate and people being close with each other and then bringikj that into a bigger picture . I support the guidelines for developers for 600 feet and would like to see , as Matthew brought up , the center islands - changed to a more positive statement that center islands shall be allowed subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Department . And maybe we can add to that also . Batzli : Okay , is that it? Diane . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 9 Harberts: I guess I 'm just going to add that I just had difficulty with cul-de-sacs with regard to the center landscaping because it 's purely from the cost factor of streets , maintenance , snow removal . So I guess I can support the ordinance but I have trouble with allowing any type of center but I guess I appreciate the significant vegetation , trees , etc that would be saved as a result of allowing such . From a cost perspective , from safety , from getting the vehicles in there to do their job , especially from a safety issue , it 's usually very time related . You don 't want to be caught going down the wrong street . That 's what it gets down to when it comes down to safety . That 's all I have to add . Batzli : Okay . Kate , I 've got a couple of questions on the wording . On paragraph 3 where we talk about center islands shall be prohibited , blah , blah , blah and privately maintained . I assume we 're talking about the center islands shall be privately maintained . Aanenson: Correct . Batzli : I think we need to add the words , and shall be privately maintained to there . But more troublesome in that sentence is the , we can change it but regardless of how we change it , they may be allowed you know if the design is approved by the City Engineering and Fire Departments . We don 't really give them any guidance and I guess this is where the intent comes in maybe as to why we 're trying to allow them , or what types of designs might be found allowable . I think you 're setting yourself up to be arbitrary and capricious and all those other good things by just saying , we might allow it . We might not . If we don't want them , clearly if we 're trying to discourage them , we should clearly leave it prohibited . If we 're trying to get them , maybe we soften it . We 're going to allow a couple . It will be interesting to see how they work out . By encouraging them , we may get a lot of them and find out that they 're a problem . I don 't know . I 'd rather almost do a test pilot and discourage them unless we get positive results . But the other question I had was in 4( a ). Where it says the resulting street grade would be more than 7% or the connecting segment or substantial grading is required. What does that mean? Aanenson: What we 're trying to say is you may need to go longer in order to reduce the severe slope . If you can make it go longer and balance the grade , maybe that will reduce the slope . So maybe it needs to go to 700 feet to make the grade . Batzli : Oh, is that what that means? Well , connecting segment . I thought that meant , if you were going to connect it and that would require substantial grading . Aanenson: It should be additional length or something . Maybe that would be worded better . Batzli : But the resulting street grade would be more than 7% of the connecting segment? Aanenson: I would say , yeah . Batzli : Is that what that means? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 10 Aanenson: Yeah . The additional segment . The additional length , maybe is more clear . Batzli : I understood the substantial grading part but I didn't understand whether we were talking about additional length , like you just said , or wE are talking about if we connected it somewhere else , that would be severe For example , look at up on the Summit . There were some real severe grades up there and we ended up putting in an emergency access road but we didn 't- put in something else because I think in part because of the severe slope coming back down that and we didn 't want to have people going up and down that in the winter . So I guess what I would prefer to see on this particular ordinance is staff to take another whack at it . By putting in an intent section , maybe clarifying what 4( a ) means for us and we should , if we decide to do something like that , give them some guidance on whether we want them to change paragraph 3 . Harberts: I have a question with regard to paragraph 3 . It talks about establishing the chain of title . How is that exactly done? You know I 'm sure it 's something within the . Aanenson: It 's recorded with the plat . Harberts: But what 's the mechanism to force them to maintain it? You kn( j if you have 12 houses and number 9 and 8 does not want to participate , I mean are they going to be in front of the Council? Scott : Or does that set up a neighborhood association type situation? Batzli : You could either make that lot part of another lot I suppose , so that one person has responsibility , or require that they have a homeowners association that owns it jointly . Harberts: Well that 's what I 'm wondering . Aanenson: Right . Well I guess that 's the intent is that there will be some , either be assigned to a lot or these total lots abutting that . But you 're right though, there still could be a problem with that . Farmakes : Are you saying to reword 3 to the extent that that 's achieved c do you get rid of it and deal with it in the intent statement? I 'm not following you on 3 . What you 're suggesting for 3 other than the shall be . Batzli : I wasn 't suggesting that we do anything . I would like to leave : this way until we find out how they work in the Lundgren development . I would prefer that we prohibit them and if we decide that we like them and they work out , then we encourage them . Personally . Harberts: Who 's responsible for any liability that occurs? Mancino: So there are going to be some in the Lundgren development? Batzli : Yeah , they passed didn 't they in the Lundgren development? Aanenson: I believe so . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 11 Conrad : I didn 't see any . Aanenson: The two that they had them on we connected. Batzli : Did they get knocked out? Conrad: I thought they got cut but I don 't know . Matt was there . I would swear they were taken out but I don 't know . I guess reinforcing what Brian just said . I think there 's some valid issues on both sides of the islands . I think they should be not allowed unless they meet certain standards . So I guess I 'm comfortable being negative on this one . Saying they are not allowed unless they protect trees . Unless there is a clear way for somebody to maintain them . Unless they meet certain specifications . Maybe they have to be 20 feet in width or circumferenc or diameter . Maybe they have to have certain vegetation on them . I don 't want a little mound out there . So again , I 'd say don 't allow them unless the developer can show us they 're really an amenity and then so , if we have the standards , then we can say yeah , that meets the standards and yeah you can have them . So that 's my . Ledvina: So take number 3 and flush it out with those . . .? Conrad: Right . Scott: And also , the responsibility for maintenance and liability insurance would really be a standard . Conrad: Yeah , absolutely. Because we don 't want to maintain it . The point is , if a developer thinks it 's an amenity , then he has to figure out or she has to figure out how to . Batzli : Well I would discourage us putting liability insurance in there only from the standpoint that we have many , many outlots in cities that are the responsibility of homeowners associations to maintain and we 've never required them to purchase liability insurance for those outlots . Scott : So that could be a precedent . Batzli : That would be huge . Farmakes: But if that 's part of the purchase , when you purchase your property and it 's required that you 're part of this homeowners association , how does the city deal with that then if they 're not taking care of the lot? Do they , does the City then proceed to maintain the lot? Send the bill to the homeowners? Aanenson : It 's a possibility . Scott: Kind of like weed ordinance approach . Aanenson: The City could pass an ordinance to do that . Batzli : Okay . Is there any other discussion? Does anyone have a motion on this issue? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 12 I Conrad: I would move that we table this until staff can put an intent - statement in and revise points number 3 , that based on our comments . Anything else? Batzli : I 'd like 4( a ) clarified . Conrad: And with 4( a ) reworded . Batzli : Is there a second to the motion? Ledvina: Second . Batzli : Is there discussion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission table the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment regarding requirements of cul-de-sac lengths for staff to include an intent statement , revise number 3 and clarify number 4(a). All voted in favor area the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A SALES TRAILER FOR THE OAK PONDS/OAK HILL PROJECT _ LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARDS. LOTUS REALTY . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson: Mr . Chairman , members of the Commission . The purpose of this , as Kate has stated , is that in order to get financing on a multiple family project today , you have to have significant pre-sales . And this is about 109 units so we 're going to need at least probably somewhere betwee' 8 and 16 pre-sold before the first building can be constructed based upon the requirements of the financial institutions . So we really have no choice in the case of this type of unit but to request the temporary sale! trailer . I think the layout is there . The lighting question , I doubt if this would be open at night but if it is , I 'm sure there 'd be lighting so J think that would be reasonable . It 's more of a daytime sort of an activity . There will be electricity to it and there will be a Satellite . We don 't have that in there but most of these don 't have Satellites so we have an exterior Satellite . And if you remember when Rottlund was buildii some units over here , that 's kind of what they operated out of for a year was about , I think it was a sales trailer . It will be skirted . I don 't know if there 's enough time to do any landscaping because we 'll hopefully - be out of this by June or July . Although we 've asked for a full year , th4 hope is that we could start construction and be into the models by mid- summer so I don 't know if the landscaping thing is there . I think on the _ other hand , they want it to look as pleasant as possible on a temporary basis to attract people to come in and do it . It is , it 's not a metal sided trailer . It 's wood sided and we don 't have a picture of exactly what it would look like but you can envision a - wood , sort of small mobile home - Very small . That 's about what it is , with a skirt on it . It 's temporary Probably looks a little better than our construction trailers that you have CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7 :40 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts , Ladd Conrad , Joe Scott , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes , Nancy Mancino , and Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson , Planner II PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING REQUIREMENTS OF CUL-DE-SAC LENGTHS . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : The record should show that there 's no one in the crowd really . Normally , for those of you who are new to the Planning Commission , after we close the public hearing , go around . Get comments from the individual commissioners and we 'll do that in order , normally starting from one side or the other . Tonight I 'm going to start with Ladd , just so that I don 't have to put anybody on the spot . But don 't be bashful about asking questions or raising issues or asking why we 're even doing this . So having said that , Ladd . Do you have any comments on this? Conrad: I like cul-de-sacs . I like islands in cul-de-sacs . Cul-de-sacs can be a real benefit and amenity . I don 't have a problem with the ordinance but I just want everybody to think . One thing , did we rob this literally word for word from Minnetonka? Did we add anything other than 600 feet? Aanenson: Yeah , because they have 500 feet . So yeah . Conrad : Okay , so we said 600 but the rest is their 's . It 's a real technical type of ordinance . It really doesn 't talk to you about the purposes and why we 're doing it . It says , here 's the technical stuff so I don 't like how it is but I 'm not going to belabor it . It doesn 't say , you know the big deal about a cul-de-sac is the situation case of emergency . So we haven 't changed any specs . In terms of a wider street or whatever . We 're just saying emergency vehicles . There 's only 12 houses down there so no big deal . I guess again , we 've put the technical things down and I think 600 feet is okay . That 's going to solve my ideal . I just want everybody to know that when the wording says center islands within cul-de-sacs shall be prohibited , that 's basically what it means . It says unless , but basically we 're , the engineer 's going to recommend against them all the time . Nothing more . Batzli : Would you prefer to see ( a ) an intent section , and ( b ) , that we define what sort of center islands would be appropriate? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 2 Conrad: Brian , I just don 't like the ordinance because of all the - technical stuff . Do I want that? Do I want it to have an intent? Cul-de-sac intent? We haven 't given any , you know if we 're going to have , unless a design is approved by the City Engineer , it basically takes us out . You know point number 3 , we are not part of the decision making process . You should know that based on the . . . It 's not allowed . The Cit, Engineer could allow it . If we think it 's a valid use , and there are problems with center islands . You 've got maintenance problems and you 've - got snow plowing problems and there 's no doubt . They just happen , when they 're done right and somebody maintains them , they 're really pretty and they really make that cul-de-sac in that neighborhood a real nice area . So it 's a compromise between making it a nice little community , a nice little area street versus allowing for emergency vehicles to go all the way through . I 'm not going to make an issue . No , I don 't like what I see here . I 'm not making an issue out of it . Batzli : Well see , we scheduled the discussion , just a little bit of history . I think you probably , the new people got a flavor of why we 're looking at this but with a recent proposal of the Lundgren development ove at TH 5 and TH 41 . The Planning Commission reversed itself at the last minute by putting through what had been two cul-de-sacs and requesting that it be changed into a thru street . Based on that , I requested that staff bring it up as an item for discussion as to whether or not we like cul-de-sacs and to look at it from a planning perspective as opposed to a safety perspective because I thought we weren 't getting the complete picture of what and why we were recommending for or against these cul-de-sacs . We 've heard and the staff report makes it very clear that a litany is becoming somewhat repetitious . Well that 's putting it nicely . We 've heard repeatedly that these are safety concerns , safety issues for fire trucks going down cul-de-sacs . Turning onto a wrong one . Not being able to turn around . If for example the entrance gets flooded , which is what happened down in Fox Hollow several years ago when we had the 13 incl. rain , can you get out a separate way . We 've heard the safety concerns anc what I wanted to hear last time was , that 's fine but from a , not from a safety standard but from a neighborhood development , sense of community , - those types of issues , what are we doing by constructing a lot of cul-de-sacs . And we addressed that a little bit last time . I was kind of disappointed . I think we ended up talking about it late at night so those concerns were sort of glossed over . But what I 'm hearing tonight from Lac at least initially is that he likes them . He thinks they 're valuable in certain aspects . A feeling of security . Crime . Those kinds of issues that weren 't really , I don 't think fully flushed out the first time , the last time that we talked about it . And if other commissioners have those concerns , I don 't want to blindly adopt the ordinance if we 're not really sure why we 're doing it or maybe we should adopt it from the standpoint of- safety and then re-evaluate it if it is a concern that there 's going to be a lot of development coming in and we want to limit it . We would rather limit it and then go back and look at it as opposed to not having any limitations on it , or very few limitations on it , while we 're studying it . I mean we can look at it one of two ways but , said that . Matt , do you ha\ comments? Ledvina: Just a couple of things again that , the topic of discussion that was batted around last time was the length and we talked about 500 feet and Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 3 750 feet and the 600 foot distance is fine . I guess I would , I think that some of the things that you said Brian could be flushed out in an intent statement , which could be you know a header to this thing and discussing some of the safety concerns in the community , etc . I think we could change item 3 to read , taking into consideration what Ladd said . Center islands with cul-de-sac bubbles shall be allowed subject to design approval by the City Engineer , Fire Department , etc , etc . I think that accomplishes the same thing and it 's not a negative thing . It 's a more positive thing . And it 's just saying we want to make sure they 're done right . I guess I think - we can cover that by just changing that to the positive . But other than that , it would be good for the developer to have some guidance on this thing and we kicked it around and I kind of felt sorry for Lundgren , the way they had to work through this thing . If they would have had this ordinance , I think it would have been a little smoother process for them . So I 'm in favor of the ordinance I guess , and I don 't know if we can just direct staff to include an intent statement and then send it off , you know with this other change , or if we need to see it again . I don 't know about that . Aanenson: I think we 're clear as to what you 're looking for . The community issues . Crime . Ledvina : I think the verbage that would go in there is all contained in Paul 's report here . It would just have to be distilled and just hit the right spots I think and I think it 's ready to go . Batzli : So you would propose that we just proceed by giving it to staff to draft an intent section? Ledvina : I think that would be appropriate . I 'm comfortable with that . I think they understand what the issues are and if they review the Minutes and include some of your discussion , I think as it relates to the cul-de-sac as part of the community and how it effects the community . I think developers will get the idea that they 'll touch on it . They 'll think about it , maybe if they hadn 't before and as they see necessary , they 'll incorporate that criteria into their decision on whether they will develop with them or not . Batzli : I guess I 'm not sure what my goals are in putting in cul-de-sacs or not putting them in . So I don 't know that I 'm comfortable letting staff do that . I 'm not sure what my goals are yet . For example , it 's a dumb example but my particular development , Fox Hollow , could be considered a huge cul-de-sac if you chopped off the emergency exit which is now becoming a regular thoroughfare through North Lotus Park . Huge cul-de-sac with many different little cul-de-sacs in the interior . However it has a main loop . And in the summer it 's quite an extraordinary event that everyone in the neighborhood walks around the block with their little kids , and it 's fun and it brings you closer to everyone in your neighborhood . And the issue in my mind is , if you have a cul-de-sac , that 's a long cul-de-sac , you probably , you may get some movement up and down that but it 's kind of a phenomenon in some of these newer developments that you see people walking around . Now if you promote something like we did in the Lundgren development where you have cul-de-sacs and there is no promenade , are you eliminating this sense of small little communities within a bigger Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 4 community? And I don 't know that staff has answers to that and I don 't _ know whether we want to encourage that or not , but it seems to me that kir I of discussion , you know should we be promoting these or shouldn 't we be , think maybe we want to think about it . But I don 't know if we should or not . I don 't know . Conrad: There 's not a real clear answer . We 're weighing safety versus some neighborhood thing . Continuity so it 's , I think the 600 foot is - reasonable . What we want to do is give a developer the opportunity to us( their land and not abuse the land and cul-de-sacs many times can do that . really didn 't like changing the Lundgren thing . I wasn 't here for that decision . But I didn 't like that . I thought the cul-de-sacs . Batzli : I was the only one that voted against it by the way . Conrad: My congratulations Brian . Ledvina: It 's not like we trashed all the cul-de-sacs . We just . . .that one street . There was 4 other cul-de-sacs I believe so they had both things : that development . Conrad: Well they really give the developer some opportunities to do different things that are just not a grid street system and they can incorporate the lay of the land a little bit . I 'm not uncomfortable with what the wording of our point number 4 . And we don 't want to encourage long cul-de-sacs . There 's just no point . I think some of them have been huge , and I don 't think we need that . So again my comment is , I like them but we don 't need excessive cul-de-sacs . I think some of it 's just the mechanics of how we want to express ourselves in an ordinance . Ledvina : Well I live on a 900 foot cul-de-sac and I 've never seen a police car in my cul-de-sac so that concerns me . Batzli : Well I don 't know , I grew up in Tonka Bay where it seems every road is a cul-de-sac . Long cul-de-sac going out on little isthmus or penninsulas or what have you and there was never any problem so I don 't understand . Ledvina: Not that that is a problem but you know , in 5 years you 'd like I ) see one police car . Batzli : When they deliver your packet . Mancino : I have a question . Matthew , you said that you lived on a 900 foot cul-de-sac? Ledvina: Right . Mancino: Did it help give you a sense of intimacy , neighborhood? Ledvina : Well , I like it alot . We see our neighbors a lot and I don 't know , there 's just a , it 's true . I don 't interact with the neighbors behind me because they never come around so I think it does tend to isola• people into smaller groups . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 5 Farmakes: So if the road was connected 9 houses down , do you feel that you would be any less intimate with your neighbors next door? Ledvina : Yeah I would . Actually I 'm right at the end of the cul-de-sac so they would connect that around but those other people that live in back of me would most likely use my street more . I don 't know . They wouldn 't necessarily have a reason to but they might walk around the block a little more . I don 't know . Conrad: The people who live in cul-de-sacs love them . Everybody in this Council chamber . . .they love cul-de-sacs . Batzli : I bought my house because I thought I was on a cul-de-sac . Farmakes: You thought you were? Batzli : Well yeah , they put it through with the park but I bought it because I thought I was on a cul-de-sac . Mancino: I have another question . I don't live on a cul-de-sac but I live at the end of a private road and I like it for the safety purposes . The other thing is , if you also like it because of the privacy it gives you , do you feel that it gives you more privacy than you normally would get with a thru street? Conrad: People who live on them like that aspect , yeah . Mancino: Okay . So we have privacy and we have security , safe . Batzli : I think they like it if they have children as well because they feel it gets much less traffic . So their kids can play in the road and they don 't have to be worried that they 're going to have cars zipping through the neighborhood using it as a thoroughfare . Scott: But unless a developer has a long recentangular property , they 're probably not going to have one cul-de-sac with stuff on the side . I mean they tend to have , at least in our neighborhood , we have the promenade situation with cul-de-sacs off the outside and then kind of a , not a common area but where all the lots come together and I think the intent is just to minimize the length of the cul-de-sac and what ultimately determines how somebody determines how something develops is the shape of the land . I mean they 're going to try to maximize the number of lots that they can get on the property and depending on the topography and the shape of the property , is probably the major determining factor . Batzli : Matt , did you have anything else? Ledvina: No . Batzli : Okay . Joe , why don 't you go ahead and complete your comment there . Scott : My soliloquy . My personal opinion is , I tend to agree with , I mean you talked about safety and so forth but the sense of , one of my priorities Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 6 is the sense of community and having the ability for people in a particular neighborhood , not only to interact with themselves but other neighbors but then also with adjacent neighborhoods . And obviously because of the climate we have here , that that 's going to happen more often at certain times of the year . But from reading through this and talking to neighbors and people on cul-de-sacs and not on cul-de-sacs , and in talking to a couple of developers , this is really not onerous . I don 't think it really compromises a developer 's ability to get their job done to make the kind c- return they need . But the thing I keep coming back to is the safety issuE The time you need an emergency vehicle and they can 't get down there , that 's part of it too . But I 'm primarily concerned about the community aspect of it and I think it 's a Lundgren development where there 's , I believe it 's a connection between Timberwood and the Lundgren development . You know what I 'm talking about . I think that sort of thing should be encouraged because when you think about the traffic . I mean it 's one thir- when you talk about Frontier Trail connecting through Novak-Fleck and coming back in that way . That 's a thoroughfare situation but I think because of the railroad tracks and because of the way those two adjacent - developments were set up , I don 't really see that being a thoroughfare because I think both , going through Timberwood , if you 're coming off Galpin and you would go through Timberwood south and then you 'd come back out on - Galpin again . So in that particular situation , I don 't think you 'd have a thoroughfare there . That would just be something that would be utilized k . the residents . But I 'm also familiar with , Brian with your area where that 's a neat way to get from CR 17 to TH 101 is to go Pleasant View and c right through your neighborhood . So I think it 's important to determine , is it going to become a thoroughfare or is it just something that 's going to be utilized by the residents . Batzli : Well staff assured us when they connected the road that it would never be used as a thoroughfare . Not this particular staff . Scott: Alright , I have no more comment on that . Batzli : Okay , Jeff . Farmakes: I have no problems against cul-de-sacs . I think our discussion may be discussing the merits of cul-de-sacs . I think what we 're discussing here is a reasonable solution to a conflict , different conflicts of interest . We have one that 's profit motivated . We have one where it 's consumer driven and we have others such as Fed Ex or Hanus Bus Company or police , a whole slew of issues that service a community that are hampered - by not having a connection from neighborhood to neighborhood . What this i asking for and suggesting to a developer , as far as I can see , is a reasonable amount of length going to a cul-de-sac . We don ''_ have a long - cul-de-sac and I would like to see an intent statement where , or reason fc this because it seems like in the past we did have this ordinance and it sort of got fuzzy . And some of that was our interpretation and also I think some of these larger developments that meander over large , difficult type topography , seem to lend themselves to these 18 houses down on a private road turning into a cul-de-sac and coming back . I 'm not sure about 4 . When your comments on 4 Ladd , did you . You know on 4 . Did you feel - that that was necessary or omit it? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 7 Conrad: No . I think it make sense so you can have a cul-de-sac . You can 't go longer than 600 feet but if you have to hear the criteria , I like that . Farmakes : So you like them listed out rather than just ask for a variance? Conrad: It tells a developer exactly what they can and can 't do . Why they can propose something longer . That 's exactly what we want . We didn 't do that very well in point number 3 . It just says it 's prohibited period . And point number 3 is saying , if we like them , and there are real problems with islands . There really are but . Ledvina: But the main two issues are safety and maintenance . Farmakes : It still doesn 't stop them from coming forward with PUD and asking for a long cul-de-sac correct? Aanenson : Right , that 's correct . And as a staff we may encourage in some situations that we 'd want them longer to save vegetation or . Farmakes : Okay , so that opening is there . I 'm going back to some of the , we 're cutting down on some of the discussion on some of these site plan reviews . This would go a long way in doing that . It gives a reasonable intent of what the design is . Telling developers , hey if you 're going to design this , design this knowing that we would like a modification of a reasonable cul-de-sac arrangement so we don 't have these long extensive private roads . And it seems , not reinventing the wheel but the rest of the communities around who are older , as far as cosmopolitan age , are following a standard anywhere from 500 to 1 ,000 . So it seems like 600 or , 600 is what it used to be correct? Ledvina: No , 500 . Farmakes: It used to be 500? Okay , so we came up with 600 for whatever reason . It seems like that would be a reasonable amount of homes I guess to the access road . And I would support that . As to the actual numbers that are up on the top there , I 'm going to trust our engineer on that and my comments on the island I still , aesthetically , I have no problems with islands . As I have no problems with cul-de-sacs . Just again , that they 're not over used . Conrad: Right . Right , but you know staff 's point and it 's real valid , is maintenance . It 's real valid . There 's no doubt about that but boy are they pretty and do they take a circular area that 's bigger . You 've got this big circular area that 's kind of ugly and you put an island in it , all of a sudden it 's pretty . So it 's a real neat amenity if we can justify the maintenance and stuff . If we can 't justify it . Mancino: I saw one last Sunday night in an Edina . . .Edina suburb and it was an island which I hadn 't seen too many of them . I don 't think , are there any in Chanhassen right now? Scott : Is it Hesse Farms or Hesse Farms? I know the large lot on the bluff , there 's a couple of them up there that look kind of tear dropped Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 8 shape but it 's like , they 're not standard width streets . I think actually_ it 's a private road . Batzli : There 's one on the end of , going into Lotus off of TH 101 . The whatever Estates there . The big huge houses out on the pcint of Lotus . There 's a tear dropped shape one there . I mean that thine is probably older than the hills . Mancino: Well this one was round and there are oaks in the neighborhood and then they had 2 or 3 oaks and that was about it . I mean it wasn 't really landscaped . There were 3 just very natural big , huge oak trees that were in the center island . Visually it was very nice and it broke up agai the pavement that was in the circular area . Scott: I wonder if that 's something , because we 're talking about an exception to cul-de-sac length . Talking about significant vegetation . I mean perhaps if there is significant vegetation , i .e . mature trees that could be saved by using a bubble or whatever , an island . Maybe that 's one_ of the things that if you 're talking about Ladd , if you 're talking about adding ( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) and ( d ) to number 3 , perhaps some of these may apply . Points for 4 it might apply and 3 as well . Ledvina : You might even adjust the alignment your street to center those or 3 oaks in that one spot . Scott: It 's certainly not being lost on the commercial side of it . Then that would be an enhancement to the lots . The value of the lots that would be on that particular cul-de-sac as well so I would think the developer would keep them in . . . Farmakes: I 'd just sum up my comments in saying that again , I support limiting this and I would support the 600 square feet . And I 'm open to modifications but I think that the intent that we 're talking about here I think is important . Batzli : Okay . Nancy . Mancino: Well , I don 't think I have anything new to add to what Jeff just_ said . An intent statement I think would be helpful . I am very much pro cul-de-sacs for the security , the privacy , the environmental rasons that we 've stated . The feeling of intimacy of neighborhoods that one can gain . And I don 't think it necessarily has to detract from a sense of community ,- I don 't think that your intimacy in your neighborhood takes away from your feeling of a larger thought of community . In fact I think it can add to instead of detract . So I don 't think it 's one thing or another . I think it 's part of the whole sense of community . Having neighborhoods and haviri them very intimate and people being close with each other and then bringing that into a bigger picture . I support the guidelines for developers for 600 feet and would like to see , as Matthew brought up , the center islands - changed to a more positive statement that center islands shall be allowed subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Department . And maybe we can add to that also . Batzli : Okay , is that it? Diane . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 9 Harberts : I guess I 'm just going to add that I just had difficulty with cul-de-sacs with regard to the center landscaping because it 's purely from the cost factor of streets , maintenance , snow removal . So I guess I can support the ordinance but I have trouble with allowing any type of center but I guess I appreciate the significant vegetation , trees , etc that would be saved as a result of allowing such . From a cost perspective , from safety , from getting the vehicles in there to do their job , especially from a safety issue , it 's usually very time related . You don 't want to be caught going down the wrong street . That 's what it gets down to when it comes down to safety . That 's all I have to add . Batzli : Okay . Kate , I 've got a couple of questions on the wording . On paragraph 3 where we talk about center islands shall be prohibited , blah , blah , blah and privately maintained . I assume we 're talking about the center islands shall be privately maintained . Aanenson: Correct . Batzli : I think we need to add the words , and shall be privately maintained to there . But more troublesome in that sentence is the , we can change it but regardless of how we change it , they may be allowed you know if the design is approved by the City Engineering and Fire Departments . We don 't really give them any guidance and I guess this is where the intent comes in maybe as to why we 're trying to allow them , or what types of designs might be found allowable . I think you 're setting yourself up to be arbitrary and capricious and all those other good things by just saying , we might allow it . We might not . If we don 't want them , clearly if we 're trying to discourage them , we should clearly leave it prohibited . If we 're trying to get them , maybe we soften it . We 're going to allow a couple . It will be interesting to see how they work out . By encouraging them , we may get a lot of them and find out that they 're a problem . I don 't know . I 'd rather almost do a test pilot and discourage them unless we get positive results . But the other question I had was in 4( a ) . Where it says the resulting street grade would be more than 7% or the connecting segment or substantial grading is required . What does that mean? Aanenson: What we 're trying to say is you may need to go longer in order to reduce the severe slope . If you can make it go longer and balance the grade , maybe that will reduce the slope . So maybe it needs to go to 700 feet to make the grade . Batzli : Oh , is that what that means? Well , connecting segment . I thought that meant , if you were going to connect it and that would require substantial grading . Aanenson: It should be additional length or something . Maybe that would be worded better . Batzli : But the resulting street grade would be more than 7% of the connecting segment? Aanenson: I would say , yeah . Batzli : Is that what that means? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 10 - Aanenson: Yeah . The additional segment . The additional length , maybe is_ more clear . Batzli : I understood the substantial grading part but I didn 't understand whether we were talking about additional length , like you just said , or we-- are talking about if we connected it somewhere else , that would be severe . For example , look at up on the Summit . There were some real severe grades up there and we ended up putting in an emergency access road but we didn 't put in something else because I think in part because of the severe slope coming back down that and we didn 't want to have people going up and down that in the winter . So I guess what I would prefer to see on this particular ordinance is staff to take another whack at it . By putting in - an intent section , maybe clarifying what 4( a ) means for us and we should , if we decide to do something like that , give them some guidance on whether we want them to change paragraph 3 . Harberts: I have a question with regard to paragraph 3 . It talks about establishing the chain of title . How is that exactly done? You know I 'm sure it 's something within the . Aanenson : It 's recorded with the plat . Harberts: But what 's the mechanism to force them to maintain it? You knc if you have 12 houses and number 9 and 8 does not want to participate , I mean are they going to be in front of the Council? Scott : Or does that set up a neighborhood association type situation? Batzli : You could either make that lot part of another lot I suppose , so that one person has responsibility , or require that they have a homeowners association that owns it jointly . Harberts: Well that 's what I 'm wondering . Aanenson: Right . Well I guess that 's the intent is that there will be some , either be assigned to a lot or these total lots abutting that . But you 're right though, there still could be a problem with that . Farmakes: Are you saying to reword 3 to the extent that that 's achieved c do you get rid of it and deal with it in the intent statement? I 'm not following you on 3 . What you 're suggesting for 3 other than the shall be . Batzli : I wasn 't suggesting that we do anything . I would like to leave i this way until we find out how they work in the Lundgren development . I would prefer that we prohibit them and if we decide that we like them and _ they work out , then we encourage them . Personally . Harberts: Who 's responsible for any liability that occurs? Mancino: So there are going to be some in the Lundgren development? Batzli : Yeah , they passed didn 't they in the Lundgren development? Aanenson: I believe so . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 11 Conrad : I didn 't see any . Aanenson: The two that they had them on we connected . Batzli : Did they get knocked out? Conrad: I thought they got cut but I don 't know . Matt was there . I would swear they were taken out but I don 't know . I guess reinforcing what Brian just said . I think there 's some valid issues on both sides of the islands . I think they should be not allowed unless they meet certain standards . So I guess I 'm comfortable being negative on this one . Saying they are not allowed unless they protect trees . Unless there is a clear way for somebody to maintain them . Unless they meet certain specifications . Maybe they have to be 20 feet in width or circumferenc or diameter . Maybe they have to have certain vegetation on them . I don 't want a little mound out there . So again , I 'd say don 't allow them unless the developer can show us they 're really an amenity and then so , if we have the standards , then we can say yeah , that meets the standards and yeah you can have them . So that 's my . Ledvina : So take number 3 and flush it out with those . . .? Conrad : Right . Scott : And also , the responsibility for maintenance and liability insurance would really be a standard . Conrad: Yeah , absolutely . Because we don 't want to maintain it . The point is , if a developer thinks it 's an amenity , then he has to figure out or she has to figure out how to . Batzli : Well I would discourage us putting liability insurance in there only from the standpoint that we have many , many outlots in cities that are the responsibility of homeowners associations to maintain and we 've never required them to purchase liability insurance for those outlots . Scott : So that could be a precedent . Batzli : That would be huge . Farmakes : But if that 's part of the purchase , when you purchase your property and it 's required that you 're part of this homeowners association , how does the city deal with that then if they 're not taking care of the lot? Do they , does the City then proceed to maintain the lot? Send the bill to the homeowners? Aanenson: It 's a possibility . Scott : Kind of like weed ordinance approach . Aanenson: The City could pass an ordinance to do that . Batzli : Okay . Is there any other discussion? Does anyone have a motion on this issue? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 12 - Conrad: I would move that we table this until staff can put an intent statement in and revise points number 3 , that based on our comments . Anything else? Batzli : I 'd like 4( a ) clarified . Conrad: And with 4( a ) reworded . Batzli : Is there a second to the motion? Ledvina : Second . Batzli : Is there discussion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission table the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment regarding requirements of cul-de-sac lengths for staff to include an intent statement , revise number 3 and clarify number 4(a ). All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A SALES TRAILER FOR THE OAK PONDS/OAK HILL PROJECT LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARDS , LOTUS REALTY . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson: Mr . Chairman , members of the Commission . The purpose of this , as Kate has stated , is that in order to get financing on a multiple family project today , you have to have significant pre-sales . And this iE about 109 units so we 're going to need at least probably somewhere betweer 8 and 16 pre-sold before the first building can be constructed based upon the requirements of the financial institutions . So we really have no choice in the case of this type of unit but to request the temporary saleE trailer . I think the layout is there . The lighting question , I doubt if this would be open at night but if it is , I 'm sure there 'd be lighting so I think that would be reasonable . It 's more of a daytime sort of an activity . There will be electricity to it and there will be a Satellite . We don 't have that in there but most of these don 't have Satellites so we have an exterior Satellite . And if you remember when Rottlund was buildir some units over here , that 's kind of what they operated out of for a year was about , I think it was a sales trailer . It will be skirted . I don 't know if there 's enough time to do any landscaping because we 'll hopefully be out of this by June or July . Although we 've asked for a full year , the hope is that we could start construction and be into the models by mid- summer so I don 't know if the landscaping thing is there . I think on the other hand , they want it to look as pleasant as possible on a temporary basis to attract people to come in and do it . It is , it 's not a metal sided trailer . It 's wood sided and we don 't have a picture of exactly what it would look like but you can envision a wood , sort of small mobile home - Very small . That 's about what it is , with a skirt on it . It 's temporary Probably looks a little better than our construction trailers that you have Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 13 around here . I have some pictures of some but I don 't think . . . As far as the $1 ,000 .00 . I think all of us in the development business , we 'd just as soon not have money sitting here at the City if we can use it someplace else . In addition to that , this is a rented trailer so it costs so much per month to have it there so there 's sort of an encouragement to get it out of there if you 're not using it . And also , as part of the site permit , the grading permit , we were required to put $250 .00 sort of as a , to assure us that we 'd return the site to it 's previous type . So there 's already $250 .00 on deposit here in the city for that . There was a $400 .00 application fee to just process this and so we 's really like to have a significant reduction on the $1 ,000 .00 or have it just go away . The ordinance does not require anything like that . As I said , we 're already paying money for the trailer , and that 's fine with that . If you 've got any questions , it 's something we have to go through in order to accomplish anything over there . Do you have any questions of me? Ledvina: How are you going to excavate the frozen soils? Brad Johnson: With a large backhoe . Ledvina : Okay , so you 're going to break through the frost? Brad Johnson: Yes . Ledvina: And what are you going to be doing with the soils that are taken out of here? Brad Johnson: I imagine they 'll be moved to the side or put in some place . . . The process we 're going through this will probably be in place sometime in March so the weather will be warmer . Ledvina: I 'm sorry . Brad Johnson: We 'll be into this in March probably by the time the backhoe is in place . So there will probably be a couple of weeks where you will have some things piled up but we ' ll take care of it . Again , it 's our intent , the site has to look good or we 're not going to attract anybody . The backhoes can go through just about anything so . Mancino: What year is the trailer? Is it a new one? Brad Johnson: It 's relatively brand new . It 's a trailer and it looks a little bit like a house but it 's not a true house . Batzli : We might have some more questions as we go here . Thank you . This is a public hearing . Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? If not , is there a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Nancy , we 're going to start on your end . Brad Johnson: I might mention also it does have a deck . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 14 Batzli : With decorative rope around the deck . Go ahead . _ Mancino: Gosh , I don 't have too many questions . What are the business hours that are permitted when you have something like that going on? Aanenson: As far as a residential zone? Mancino: Yeah . Aanenson: It would fall under the conditional use that 's normally associated with that . I would think in other models . Now if there was something in a building itself where it 's lit and there 's restroom facilities . Under this circumstance , like Brad mentioned , I don 't see people going there when there 's not a lot of facility space past 9:00 at night but I think that 's something if you have concerns about , that you ma want to attach . The reason why I didn 't specifically address it in the report is that I felt it 's topographic and kind of isolated from everything else in that area . I 'm not sure how much of an intrusion it would be but if that is a concern . Mancino: . . .concern at all? Aanenson: No , they felt it was far enough away . There really isn 't anything else right there . I mean it 's mostly commercial that you can see but if that 's something that you 're concerned about , you may want to put x- 9:00 , 10:00 . Batzli : Don 't we have limitations in our ordinances as to the amount of light spilling off of a? Aanenson: Correct . Half a candle at the property line . Batzli : Right , and so what would we be limiting? Aanenson: The hours . Batzli : The noise? I mean this thing isn 't going to make noise . Aanenson: That 's why I 'm saying . That 's why I didn 't specifically addreE it but if the lighting is a concern . Batzli : Well they 're going to want some security lighting there on all night . Aanenson: Right . Mancino: So there will be some lighting probably attached to the outside of the trailer? Brad Johnson: Or a pole at the corner . . .the only neighbor that can see u= is Eckankar across the street . . . Mancino: Those are the only questions I have . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 15 Batzli : Okay , Jeff . Farmakes: I have a few questions in regard to staff . Temporary signs with a temporary building , how is that effected with the signage permit? Are we talking about signs on the building or would they be off the building? Aanenson: Well the project itself would be allowed two development signs identifying the project . Up to 64 square feet . I 'm assuming that they 'd put one on Kerber and one on Powers . Then there 's distances that they can be to houses but again , this is such a large area that there 's significant area to work with that . And then a directional sign that would be allowed . Farmakes: Brad , do you intend on lighting these signs for night display? Brad Johnson : Yeah . I don 't think that you have . . . Farmakes: Banners , that sort of thing? Brad Johnson: This whole project falls under the sign ordinance and I think there 's just called temporary sign and we follow those regulations . . . Farmakes: So that 's how you envision it? Okay . Brad Johnson: . . .without a permit . Correct? Aanenson : Correct . Batzli : Banners were for temporary . Farmakes: Yeah , but they 're a temporary useage . I 'm just wondering , that would not last out the year so . Brad Johnson: Everything we 're doing is temporary . I know banners are permitted but I think you have to . . . Farmakes: As they stand right now in the ordinance , I think they 're limited to , as far as days , there 's a time . Aanenson : Right . Ten consecutive days , 3 times a year and I think that 's a little bit different circumstances . There 's specific ones for , this is under residential development and this is different . I think the other 's more geared towards commercial . Grand openings . Those sort of things . Farmakes: I want to comment the developer on working with the neighborhood on this development . It seems to me you really bent over backwards to make that work . When you were discussing that with the neighbors , considering where the ordinance sat and what your property was zoned , I 'm really glad to see that . I thought in some cases they were being , pushing the envelope and I thought that it was good to see that type of problem worked out before it got to Council . The other issue that I want to touch on . For more than decade I 've been driving down CR 17 . The deer in our area use that ravine for a crossing between Kerber and the wild land , or the wetland area on the other side and cutting across CR 17 . They constantly come up and go across into the Eckankar property from there . When we develop this Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 16 property , the ridge up there and so on , it will confine them even more into that crossing area and I 'm wondering , has DNR made any comments of our wildlife? As we develop further and continue to expand , we will confine more and more the wildlife transportation corridors into narrower and _ narrower bands . Do we have warning signs at all anticipated for these types of problems or do you wait until you 've hit so many deer? Aanenson: Frankly I haven 't thought about that . That 's something we can -- look into . What their policy is on that . I can give you a report back . Farmakes : Because I can tell you from experience that that 's where they _ cross . And they go through there every day as a part of their route , or rounds or whatever they do to make a living . Batzli : Having just hit one on Thanksgiving Day I can tell you , you don 't- want to do that . Farmakes: So you had venison . Batzli : No . It was too late at night . I didn 't go back . I let the Sheriff pick him up . Farmakes: That 's the extent of my comments . Batzli : Okay . Joe . Scott: Brad , what is that just roughly? What does a trailer go for every month? What 's the rental on that trailer every month? Brad Johnson: About $250 .00 . Scott : $250 .00 a month . On the $1 ,000 .00 surety , just my personal experience with Brad and some of the projects he 's involved with . I third there 's plenty of motivation to have that trailer out of there as soon as possible and I just don 't see that baby sitting around . So my personal — opinion is that that should be significantly reduced or eliminated but yo. guys can sanity test it because I 'm not an expert on this stuff . Batzli : Well my initial sentiment is , this is a big project worth a lot c money . This is $1 ,000 .00 they 're going to get back . I don 't , I mean that was my initial reaction . Now Brad made me think about it again but that was my initial reaction . Scott : Okay . I don 't have any further comments . Batzli : Matt . Ledvina : Just initially had a couple of questions for staff . One of the things that I looked back in some of the attachments to this . It says , ar I think this is the grading permit . It relates to the , in the conditions is the final plat approval for the Oaks shall be granted by the City Council . When does staff anticipate that final plat approval to be gainec"' Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 17 Aanenson : Well it 's our understanding , as soon as he has some pre-sold units that he wants to final it out . Ledvina: I 'm sorry . Aanenson: That as soon as he gets some pre-sold units , then he will be finaling out the project . I think that 's probably better directed towards Brad but , he only has one year . That 's the ordinance . He has one year . The preliminary plat approval is good for one year . It 's our understanding that he 's shooting to do that in June . Ledvina: So it 'd be the end of June . That 's when you anticipate that final plat approval will be received? Brad Johnson: At the present time , the process of getting plat approval is hung up in trying to decide whether it should be public road or a private road . . .the final plat would be filed . . . Normally they 're filed formally at the time you get your final . You kind of wait until then . Part of the financing . Ledvina : Well okay . If that 's the case , we 've got the cart before the horse a little bit here . That doesn 't jive with the timing that 's discussed in the grading permit , which is attached here . If you look at item 12( c ) , it says no sales trailer shall be placed on the site until final plat approval for the Oaks has been granted by the City Council . Aanenson: Let me give some clarification on that . Because this doesn 't require , the grading permit is not before you tonight and except for the fact that he needs a trailer . The reason why the trailer , the grading permit wasn 't issued is the staff didn 't want to issue the grading permit until we knew that we at least had preliminary approval by the Council . He came in on December 2nd , before the date the Council approved it . The staff wouldn 't sign off on it . Engineering was ready to give it to them but we felt , we didn 't want to give him a grading permit . Have him go up there and disturb the site unless we knew the project was at least a go on a preliminary basis . Ledvina: Okay , so this grading permit is not valid? Aanenson: No it is . But it 's got a date that 's significantly ahead of the , a good month ahead of what he applied for the trailer permit . Again , because he 's just working under one acre , the grading permit 's administratively . He comes in , posts the surety . He signs a letter agreeing to the conditions that the engineering lays out . But when the engineering department reviewed it with myself , I felt uncomfortable allowing them to grade when we didn 't know for sure the project , just the sensitivity to the neighbors and we didn 't want to go in there and have them disturb the soil and say , you 're letting them go ahead and we don 't even know if this project 's been approved . So we asked them to wait until we knew the project had been approved . As you recall , we only had one Planning Commission meeting in December and then to get this into the next docket . So it was more administrative . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 18 Batzli : Sorry to interrupt . Brad raised a point that he 's posting money — under that permit to restore apparently , getting rid of the gravel or whatever . Aanenson : Right . Batzli : Will it really cost $1 ,000 .00 to , if we have money to restore the site , meaning get rid of the gravel and that kind of crud already under a - different permit , why is it going to cost $1 ,000 .00 to haul the trailer off? Who 's going to collect it? Aanenson: I 'm just trying to , engineering gave me these dollar figures . Now again , the $250 .00 is just for the grading itself , and the grading includes , as you brought up , how were they going to grade and where is that excess soil going to be? That $250 .00 includes erosion control measures and the like , okay . Just the strict grading , okay . Now when he asks for the trailer permit , that 's when he comes and says , okay now I want to put gravel on there and now I want to put the trailer on there . Batzli : This doesn 't get rid of the gravel? Aanenson: We haul the gravel off . Restore the site . Reseed it . Some of this may , I 'm uncomfortable telling you that that 's a $1 ,000 .00 . If you want the staff to look at that and then have engineering comment on it , I 'm just going by the figures they gave me . I think I concur with what you 're- saying . That $250 .00 , if he 's paying that a month rent , there is some incentive for him to return the trailer and maybe that 's too high but I think that 's something we may want to have engineering comment on . Scott: . . .part of that $1 ,000 .00 is also site restoration? Aanenson: I think part of it is , yes . Some of it 's just , they do overlaF a little bit but I 'm not sure what . It may be can be reduced . I think that 's something we can look at . Ledvina : And the other thing I wanted to find out this , you indicated thz it 's less than 1 ,000 cubic yards . Has the staff calculated , done the calculations? Aanenson: Yes . Engineering has . Ledvina : Okay . Because I look at this grading plan and first of all , the grading plan is not complete in terms of the contours on the cut along the east side . There 's another 8 feet of cut that should be shown if you 're going to maintain that slope that 's indicated on that plan . Which shows , - which would result in about an 18 foot cut . And if you have a 30 x 50 foc area at 18 feet , you have 1 ,000 yards . So I don 't know , I 'm uncomfortable with that . Just looking at the grading plan right now and saying that that 's less than 1 ,000 yards . Will there be a culvert at the driveway for Powers Blvd . there? Aanenson: For the storm drain later? — Ledvina : Well for this entrance off of Powers . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 19 Aanenson: You mean the curb cut? Ledvina : No , a culvert for the ditch there . Batzli : A culvert under the temporary gravel road or something . Aanenson: I 'm not sure on that . I don 't believe so . Dave didn 't put it in his . . .application . Oh , it did say that under the Carver County . It says a culvert is required , 15 inch minimum . That 's a requirement of the County then . Do you want to turn to the last page of the report . Two conditions by the County . One is a culvert . It 's just a catch all that says they 're required , they 're bound by all of our conditions . Ledvina: And then I guess the silt fence , there 's no indication on the map as a part of this report that there 's a silt fence to be placed and where it 's going to be placed and if there 's going to be stockpile . Soil stockpile . I definitely want to see a silt fence around that . I know these are . Aanenson: There is one on this , they 've indicated Type I . We can certainly have engineering look at it again . I 'm just going by Dave 's recommendation on this . Batzli : You mean you didn 't double check Dave 's calculations? Okay . Ledvina : There 's more cut to the east here than what 's indicated and if that slope is maintained . Aanenson: Just for clarification . I didn't look at this as far as the specific engineering . I relied on our engineering department but I 'm assuming that this is a representation of the final grading and the trailer , how they 're throwing the trailer on there . I 'm not sure they 're grading . You know Dave sat down and met with them and reviewed exactly the portion so I 'm assuming that it 's under the 1 ,000 square feet but I understand what the concerns are . Ledvina: Okay . Aanenson: This is a representation of the final grading plan so it 's larger . But it was helpful to show exactly , shading exactly would have been a better representation . Ledvina : Yeah , which area is actually disturbed . Aanenson: Right , and maybe we should do that when we issue the permit . Ledvina : The timing . So they 're looking at actually doing this grading in March , is that correct? Brad Johnson: Well the permit will not be granted until . . . Aanenson: Well it has to go to Council . The grading for this? Ledvina: Yes . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 20 Brad Johnson: February-March , somewhere in there . Ledvina : Okay . That 's all I have . Batzli : Thanks . Ladd . Conrad: I don 't have any problems with this . I guess I 'd like to see point number 4 . If we can change a few words in point number 4 , I could - reduce the surety amount . You know if we said the rental trailer will be skirted , wood sided and well maintained , that would give me the feeling that it is a rental trailer and there 's motivation to get it off site . So I could reduce the $1 ,000 .00 by whatever staff would recommend . I don 't have any other concerns . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Diane . Harberts: I really don 't have any additional comments . I guess I appreciate the last comments added . I guess I would support just a $1 ,000 .00 surety bond just in the sense of it covers the city in case something does happen that hasn 't been planned for . Batzli : Okay . I don 't have any additional comments . I appreciate Matt ': comments regarding the grading . That your review went above and beyond tt call of duty on that . Seriously . I appreciate that . Does someone have a motion? Conrad: Is 1 ,000 yards a key part of this? Batzli : It 's just going to be handled administratively . Aanenson: If it 's under 1 ,000 it can be handled administratively . . .and I trust Dave 's judgment that it 's under 1 ,000 . I think it would have beet- helpful , as Matt pointed out , to shade exactly what that area was because we show . . . I will certainly , when it goes to Council , we will clarify that and shade that area . I think that 's helpful . Conrad : See under the recommendations Kate , we haven 't said we recommend approval for grading under 1 ,000 yards . That 's not a part of what we 're saying . Aanenson: What you said is your number 3 , it says they 're complying with the city grading permit and we can only administer those if they are under 1 ,000 square yards . I think that 's what we were trying to say . Conrad: Ah okay . Batzli : Is there a motion? Would someone like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #93-1 for a temporary sales trailer for the Oaks Development with the conditions liste7 in the staff report and number 4 modified to read , the rental trailer will be skirted , wood sided and well maintained . I would welcome such a motion . Conrad : So moved . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 21 Batzli : Is there a second? Farmakes: I 'll second it . Batzli : It 's been moved and seconded . Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit *93-1 for a temporary sales trailer at the Oaks Development with the following conditions: 1 . Any proposed signs will require a separate permit . 2 . Surety of $1 ,000 .00 for removal of the trailer and restoration of the site . 3 . Compliance with the grading permit and Carver County Temporary Access Permit and the city grading permit . 4 . The rental trailer will be skirted , wood sided and well maintained. 5 . The sales trailer will be allowed for one year from the date of issuance or until the first 8 unit townhouse is built , which ever comes first . All voted in favor , except Matt Ledvina who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1 . Batzli : And your reasons? Ledvina: I 'm not comfortable that this represents a detailed enough site plan for the staff to take it from here . I think there 's probably more than 1 ,000 cubic yards of grading involved and I 'd like to see the silt fence shown around stockpiling and such . I 'm sure there 's , you know these things you 're going to take care of but just in the future , if it could be a little more detailed and have a little more review of something like this . I 'd appreciate it . Batzli : I think with your objections to the motion and those comments , I 'm sure that staff will take a look at that now . Thank you . And this goes to City Council when? Aanenson : First meeting in February . The 8th . Batzli : Okay , thank you for coming in . Old business . Is this another , is this a continued public hearing? Aanenson: Deleted . It 's been deleted for tonight . Harberts: Did they say why they pulled it? Aanenson: No . Sharmin may know . I 'm not aware of it . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 22 ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS . Batzli : In particular the things we need to do are elect a Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission . Adopt our By-laws and appoint several liason members . Normally , for the purpose of voting Chair and Vice Chair well we 've done it several different ways . We 've done it by secret ballot and by show of hands . Conrad: Darts was the best time though . Batzli : Unless people are uncomfortable , I would prefer to just do it by - show of hands . Unless someone has an objection to that , so that we can move along more rapidly . Conrad: So we should make some motions for nominations . Batzli : I think we should nominate and then if the person wants to do it , he or she should appropriately respond . Like no way , or okay I 'll think - about it . Conrad: Brian , I know you 've chaired this for a year and you 've done a terrific job . I think you 've done , I 've seen you grow in this and I 'd lil , you to consider taking it for another year . With a relatively new commission and I think we need your leadership and I think you 've handled the public hearings very well and organized things very well . So I would nominate you for Chairman for one more year . Farmakes : Second . Batzli : Well thank you and I will accept your nomination . Kind of hesitantly in that I have a 7 week old son but I 'd like to try it for one more year . Is there anyone else who either would like to be nominated or are there other nominations? Conrad: I guess it 's by decree then . Batzli : Well , I won 't even call for a vote unless we 're forced to do so . Vice Chair . Since we have so many new members , I know it 's difficult to _._ nominate someone so I guess , and I realize that as Ladd kind of nominated me , if you would like to be Vice Chair . I don 't want to have to put somebody on the spot . Nominate me . Would someone like to be Vice Chair , is the issue . I guess if you would let me know , otherwise Ladd has chair(-1 the Commission in the past . For years and if he would agree to do that , someone else does not want to be the Vice Chair , I would nominate Ladd . Farmakes : Second . Mancino: Third . Batzli : Is there someone that would like to be Vice Chair? I don 't know if Ladd is sold on wanting to be Vice Chair . Conrad: Well it 's real clear that I don 't need to do this stuff anymore but I will . But normally we like the Vice Chair to move up to Chairman and Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 23 it 's real clear that I don 't want to do that . I think it 's real , one of the things that 's neat about being on the Planning Commission is that different people have the opportunity to lead it and you kind of want to wait until those people have a little bit of experience to do that . So the only reason I would be Vice Chair is really to substitute . Simply that . I 've run a fair number of meetings so I can do that and I wouldn 't mind doing that . It 's okay but just so everybody 's clear . The intent is not to move up . I think there 's other people here that will do that . Farmakes: So don 't miss any meetings Brian . Conrad: Please don 't miss any . Batzli : Also in the past , if there 's no other nominations I guess we 'll elect Ladd as Vice Chair for the upcoming year . Okay . But I would like to express that when Ladd was Chair , it was much more democratic than my autocratic reign and he encouraged me to chair a meeting . I don 't know that I ever did take up his offer but if there is someone who , after a certain number of months would like to try it and get a little bit of experience under their belt and see whether it 's something they want to do , and want to do on a continuing basis , let me know and I 'd be more than happy to let him or her chair a meeting . Preferably , you probably don 't want to take one , your first one with irrate groups in here but from time to time we get a little bit lighter load and that might be a good one to try . Okay , moving right along then . By-laws need to be approved . Is there a motion? Well , are there any changes and if not , is there a motion to approve the By-laws? Mancino: I just had a question when I read them . It 's 6( h ) . The Chairman shall have the responsibility to inform all the parties of their rights of appeal . What do they do if someone wants to appeal what we are recommending to the City Council? What 's the process? Batzli : Well I have taken that , and the reason that I always give my speech up front is to let people know that what we are doing is recommending and that the City Council makes the final decisions . And so they need to go to the City Council to make sure that , if we reject it , the appeal is to the City Council but the City Council 's the one making the final decision . On the other hand , if we table things , I assume that the City Council could suesponte if you will , determine that they will consider it . Although I don 't know that that 's ever been done . Scott: What is suesponte? Batzli : On their own volition . They can just do it . So what I have normally done is , when there are groups in here , tell them , you know be sure to follow it to the City Council . Another thing that the Chair needs to do is tell these people when it 's going to be on the City Council agenda , and we do try to do that . That 's the rationale that I 've read into that particular clause . Aanenson: Also sign appeals or variances come before the Planning Commission . I think that 's the only appeal that you , so you do hear those . Variances for signs . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 24 - Batzli : See I tried to do it in the earth work permit and I think I got that passed . I think we 're the initial body that hears that as well . Mancino: Thank you . Conrad: That 's interesting that Mr . Chairman , under Section 2-1 . We have a curfew of 11 :00 . I just want to underscore that . We should underscore that for staff also . Scott: The Chairman can waive it though right? Batzli : Yeah . I 've also requested for the past several years running that this be reviewed to become gender neutral and I still know that in 2 .2 there is an occurrence of the word his . So I would appreciate staff going through this and doing that . Okay , is there a motion to approve the By-laws . Conrad : So moved . Mancino: Second . Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission approve their By-laws for 1993 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Batzli : Attendance at City Council meetings . We 've tried to do this one of two ways in the past . We developed a scheduled over the course of the year where we rotate it so that you in essence attend one out of every 7 City Council meetings , or attempt . And we 've tried to do it 'where someone has volunteered or the Chair has volunteered to attend as many as possible What we 've done in the past 2 years , I think Steve when he was Chair 2 years ago , Steve Emmings . One of the former Chairs of the Commission . He attended just virtually every meeting . City Council meeting . I don 't knc- that we had a rotation schedule that year . But that can become a large burden on the chair and although I try to attend the meetings where we have a big controversial issue , or other things , I don 't think I 'll be able to make all of them . So what I would like to do , and especially with newer people on the Commission , is get them to attend some Council meetings . Although in this case the 3 new people probably have attended more than their fair share of Council meetings already . But it is interesting to see how the Council reacts to our suggestions and input or how they don 't reac to our suggestions and input , and get a flavor for how , what our role is and I guess I 'd encourage that . Councilman Wing : Brian , I 'd like to give my personal opinion is , when I was on Public Safety and we researched and I felt confident . . .and felt we _ had done the best job . Then the Council would get into their 10 minute spiel and start tearing it to shreds and coming up with all sorts of diverse directions that we had already put together and come up with a decisive answer . I attended those meetings and I held my ground and I mac' it clear that we had discussed that . I made it clear that that 's old business and I think it 's one thing , it 's nice to have you show up but when these issues come up , I 'd like that representative to stand up and hold the Planning Commission 's ground because I think you have an impact and I thir it might be very helpful to the Council in making these decisions . So if Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 25 you 're in the audience , it 's nice to see you but to actually stand up and say , here 's where we went and why and this is our opinion . I think you should represent the Commission . . .and I would urge you to be vocal . Batzli : I would agree . Councilman Wing: I would really welcome your comments . I think they have a significant impact in helping us . . . Scott : I like the idea of rotating because that gives everybody , I mean we have two new Council people and I think we all need to , I 'd like to see a schedule where you know far in advance when you 're supposed to be there and then of course you 'd want to go to other ones if it 's particularly controversial . But that 's what I 'd like to see personally . Batzli : Okay . Why don 't we set up a schedule like that Kate . Aanenson: Okay . We ' ll put it in your packet for next time . - Batzli : Put it in the packet and then you can take a look at when , and generally what happens is it 's just an additional packet that Public Safety or the Sheriff drops off at your door several days before the Council meeting . Aanenson: What I would suggest too is we 'll just go ahead and put everybody down and just rotate it around . If you do have a conflict for that meeting , if you 'd just ask someone to switch with you or work it out . Batzli : Can you make sure that I get a copy of the agenda and not the packet on those weeks that I 'm not scheduled to go though . Mancino : I 'd also like to add that those of us that are new , may want to not only go when we 're supposed to on the rotating schedule but maybe add a few more into that to get the flavor and to learn as part of the process . Conrad: Richard , just out of curiousity . The reason a lot of us stopped going was because , and this is years back . This is not recent but this is a while back . We weren 't called upon for our input . It was uncomfortable . So your comments tonight are , whether we 're called on or not , if we hear the drift going the wrong way , and I 'm kind of verbalizing this for those , for all of us I guess . But if we 're call on or not , if we see it going a different direction than what we felt , that we should be aggressive and stand up . Councilman Wing: Oh I think so . Ladd I don 't know if it 's appropriate to call on you or not . I guess if I was the Mayor and Chairman , I would probably specifically do that because we ask Scott Harr for his input . And staff . I think if someone from the Commission was there , I would clearly recognize them and as a matter of fact , I ' ll mention that to the Mayor . I think that would be significant . Conrad : I think when an issue is confusing , and we 've gone through it and dissected it , and geez you know , we take hours to dissect this stuff . Sometimes we can actually minimize the amount of time you have to go Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 26 through the issue again . But that 's I think , the Mayor would have to feel- comfortable calling on somebody . If you 're representing the Planning Commission , say what were your insights and again , the tough part is , we all have our own opinion . But you 've got to represent 7 folks and sometimes , typically we 've been able to send pretty clear direction here . We negotiate . It 's not 4 to 3 votes . We 're trying to get clear directior if possible . If not , if it 's a split issue , then that 's the way it is but when it 's real clear , then I think City Council knows exactly where we stand . But sometimes it 's not that way so a person standing up can represent their own opinion but they also have to represent the balance . Aanenson: I think some of that job is the burden of the staff too . We always try to put a Planning Commission update and try to , if there 's different opinions , try to shake out what those major issues were and I think as a staff we always try to represent what the views of the Planninc Commission were too and I think that 's some of our job . Make sure those are carried forward . Farmakes : I do think though that we should be aware that we 're a part of the process and not the process . Nobody voted for us . We 're appointed . So when they sit on the Council that 's a different realm of accountability and even though we may all follow through and give our input , we shouldn 't be disappointed sometimes when the Council may decide to go another way . And we have to realize that . And I think in the past , on other Commissions and I don 't think this Commission is guilty . I think some people have gorm off sometimes on their own agendas when they have come to a commission or got onto a commission . They have an agenda that they want to follow and they sort of go off ad hoc Council , or try to create that . Where they 're _ initiating developments on their own . I think we have to be careful of that . Harberts : I 'd like to inquire that staff , when you put that schedule together , if you could contact me when you put that together because I hay conflicts . Other meetings that I 'd like to maybe just take a look at the schedule and see if I can work out a couple meetings that will work withir- my professional schedule . Batzli : Okay . Very good . Liason attendance at Housing and Redevelopment_ Authority meetings . Ledvina : Paul got this one wrong . Batzli : Pardon me . Ledvina: Paul got this one wrong because I have been going to the HRA - meetings . Conrad: We 've got a guy . Batzli : We 've got a guy? Do you want to continue going to those meetings Ledvina: Sure . I 'm getting a lot out of it . - Batzli : Okay . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 27 Conrad: Matt 's one of the best ones we 've ever had . Batzli : Well I have an inkled feeling that Joe may also wish to attend some of those meetings so if you do , obviously the more the merrier from the Planning Commission there . If you do want to trade off or could do something . Feel free . Scott : Yeah , if you have a conflict or something but yeah . I 'd be moderately interested in that sort of a thing . Councilman Wing: Can I just interject on that? Batzli : Sure . Councilman Wing: If you 're going to attend those meetings , could I just recommend that you vocalize and be aggressive because if I had my choice of attending HRA meeting or Council meeting that would be scheduled . . .HRA has more power than I 've got on the City Council . Be more effective there than any place else . If you 've got good ideas and I think you ought to be . . . there because they 're making major , major decisions . Way over my head . So if you want to have impact , be at that meeting and speak up . Batzli : We 've attempted in the past to get a liason to the Park and Rec Commission . If anyone 's interested in that , I think it would be interesting to at least have someone visit them from time to time . We make a lot of decisions that are based on what they 're deciding and I think it would be good from time to time to get a flavor of why they 're deciding things . I know everytime I say this people look at me and say , okay . Fine . Go ahead and do it Brian , so I ' ll just leave it at that for right now before I rope myself into going to another meeting . But I think we should consider that because we our zoning and land use issues regarding parks and open space I think is directly impacted by these decisions they 're making and sometimes we look at what they 've decided , we don 't need a park here . We don 't want this . We don 't want that . And we look at it and we blankly say , well that 's not our problem so we can 't consider it . Well , true and not true . I 've always had a problem with that and I would like to get a - better feel for why they 're making some of these decisions . Aanenson: Can I just add to that Brian . They 're also undertaking doing a comprehensive park plan and I think what you say is really true . We may want to get someone involved in that process right now because they 're looking at doing that . Scott : I know in the Sunlink proposal , that we 're not going to be looking at , I know there were a number of references to park space and how it connected up with the trail system and that sort of thing so that was , I was pleasantly surprised to see that so I can see where you 're coming from on that . Batzli : Okay . That takes care of our organizational items . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 28 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli : We used to do this real formally , for those of you new to the Commission , and we somehow or another decided that all we 've got to do is say something like , does anybody have any changes and that 's the end of - that . So does anyone have any changes? I would just like to once again make of record that Ladd 's comment at the parting of Joan and Steve . And I quote , "Well , good things to Joan . I think Steve deserves what he gets . " I liked that . I missed that last time actually so thank you . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli : Do you have an update Kate? Aanenson: Sure . I could just go , at the last Planning Commission meetinc- where Goodyear was on , we had a very lengthy discussion . And what it results is the possibility of maybe putting into place a moratorium along the Highway 5 corridor . So we 're in the process , and Council hasn 't decided that 's the option but we 're going ahead and noticing and looking a that issue . Again , it came back to do we have the design guidelines in place to guarantee what 's going to happen along that corridor . So that item was tabled for a month and we 're working on going ahead and noticing the moratorium issue . The Gateway concept plan was also up for conceptual approval before the City Council . It was a lengthy discussion , as it was here at the Planning Commission . The moratorium issue came up again on that and again , because it 's a concept . There 's so many issues that need to be resolved from the staff level , that we 're kind of tracking along witil the Highway 5 study . What the staff recommended and the Council went along with , which I think makes a lot of sense , is that we said they cannot comE back for preliminary approval for at least 8 months , which we feel gives time to get the Highway 5 corridor study behind us , or at least into the adoption process and give us some time to resolve some of those other issues . At that point we feel like they 'll have alot more information the we can do to look at how it should be designed . Batzli : Speaking of Highway 5 team , people , project . I can 't think of tf committee 's name . Aanenson: Corridor study . Highway 5 corridor study . Batzli : Okay , but who is the committee that 's looking at it? Aanenson: Well Nancy is on the committee and Jeff 's on that . Mancino: I 'm also on the subcommittee . Aanenson: Yeah , and Nancy 's on the subcommittee too . Batzli : How many people is the Planning Commission entitled to have on that committee? Or don 't we know? Did the Mayor appoint them? Does Council appoint them? Are we still okay , because Steve was on that committee . Is he still going? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 29 Aanenson: No , but then Nancy was appointed as a citizen and now she 's on as Planning Commissioner too so it 's kind of two fold . If Steve wants to still come as a resident , great . We were going to put that on but we felt we had two . If more of you would like to come , certainly I think that 's another interesting . A lot of work needs to be done on that . Long range comprehensive planning issues . Batzli : Okay . Thank you . Aanenson: So anyway , those two issues are very timely and you 'll be seeing a lot more on those two issues . We had the amendment on that you recommended approval on as far as the metes and bounds . Approving those . Actually Don Ashworth had a lot of concerns about that so we went back and rethought that . Originally we felt it was a cost kind of issue and the Council was kind of relunctant . They felt that maybe some more thought should go into that . Maybe we should require platting and if we did , maybe it could only be 25 words or less . So we 're rethinking that and doing some more research on that issue . That 's it . DISCUSSION OF SEPTIC ORDINANCE . Batzli : Do you want to give us a little blurb on what this is about? Aanenson: Sure . If you recall , we amended the ordinance to say , we had the 2 1/2 acre minimum when we 're outside the MUSA and we went ahead and amended that and we kind of bounced around , what should be the minimum . We went with the 15 ,000 because that 's our existing minimum lot size . As long as you could get the two septic sites on there . At that time we didn 't put in a collective system and there was some issues . I know Tim had looked at that . Maybe a collective septic site would work . I know that the nursery , Halla Nursery is also looking at , they 're doing some platting and using a collective sewage system where you had the 15 ,000 square foot lots and at such time that sewer becomes availabe , you could vacate that system and go ahead and plat the rest of those lots out . We had some concerns about that . Paul was on one side of this issue and he felt maybe it could work so we brought in some experts . Namely Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson sat down with the staff and went through that and they really strongly advised against doing a collective system . There 's just a lot of headaches as far as the staff 's concerned . Liabilities if the system fails and so I think we 're going to stick with what we originally proposed . Is that the 15 ,000 square foot lots is the minimum as long as you can provide the two septic sites on site , and not go with the collective system . Batzli : Okay but , help me out here . We 're allowing 15 ,000 square foot lots then as long as you can provide a well and two septic sites . Aanenson: Right . Batzli : And most of the area of the city is heavy clay so that isn 't possible . Aanenson: Well no . What we 're talking about as far as the , what you 'd need for the collective system is what we 're talking about . The poor soils because you need a longer , linear , as it explains in engineering terms . You Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 30 need a much longer dispersion and it doesn 't work under a collective - system . I think you 're right though . I don 't think we will see a lot of 15 ,000 square foot lots . I think it 'd probably be more closer to maybe 20 to 25 to get both thcse on there . But again , we still have the one unit _ per 10 acre density still falls into place . Okay , you still have to have that density but what we 're saying , if you want to split off and plat the rest of the outlot , you can chop off a smaller , half acre lot . Again , what we 're trying to do is provide in such a way that sewer , when that does become available , we haven 't got a large subdivision of 2 or 3 acre lots that we 're trying to now assess for sewer and water . Batzli : Let me ask the question again . Maybe I 'm really slow on this issue . Collector systems were discussed because a 15 ,000 square foot lot is not large enough to contain a building site , a well and two septic sites . Does that mean that the two septic sites are collector systems or - two regular septic sites? Aanenson: That 's not why it was discussed . No , that 's not why it was discussed . I did the original report . I 'm just reading off of Jo Ann 's . That 's really not where it came from . It came from trying to be more efficient in land use . I think there are some situations where the 15 ,00Q, and Tim had looked at that in looking at some of his property and again , like I said , Halla Nursery had looked at doing some of that . Just trying to be more efficient in some of the land use . I think there are some circumstances where the 15 ,000 square foot lots will accommodate . Again , it 'd probably be more like 20 . The reason we were looking at it is just t be more efficient . Maybe it makes sense , maybe every other lot . The two lots together would use a common lot inbetween . At such time sewer become available , you vacate the middle lot but again , the mechanics of the engineering doesn 't pan out to make that work . That 's what the experts have told us so , is that clear? Batzli : So for now , what do we need to do with this? Aanenson: Nothing . We just wanted to let you know . This really came frc-1 Tim unfortunately . Tim was the one that really wanted us to investigate this , and unfortunately it got bogged down and so it 's really driven because he had requested staff to investigate the possibility of using collector system . Because we never put in the original ordinance when I wrote it , because my original review and information I got said it doesn 't work and Tim said , can we revisit that issue . So what we did is we hired the consultants to revisit it and so they recommended no . It 's really not feasible . Conrad: But you 're still looking at it? Aanenson: Well we 've adopted the ordinance that says , if you can get down to 15 ,000 square feet and put two septic sites and a well , great . If you can 't , then maybe you need a half acre , maybe you need an acre . Maybe yoi. still need two but we will allow you to go to our minimum if you can meet those qualifiers . That ordinance is in place . Ledvina : Mr . Chairman , I guess I looked at this specific item and the whole discussion centers around mound systems . And that is in truth , most Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 31 of the mound systems , or most of the septic systems that are going to be placed in this area , are going to be mound systems . That might be guessing 60% to 70% , but the other 30% are not mound systems and the discussion that 's contained , you know as the attachment here doesn 't really apply . So just for the record , and I don 't know . Aanenson : Are you talking about pumping or something? Ledvina: Well no . Just the standard type of septic system . Granted there are a lot of clay soils in Chanhassen but there are areas where there are sandy silts and sands , and those areas are maybe , I don 't know what the percentage but I 'd be guessing as to maybe 40% or 25% . So the discussions is very one sided and I still don 't know how this all relates . I would agree with the points that are made within this staff report regarding mound systems but again , we don 't have the whole story . Batzli : Would you like to see staff continue to investigate this? Ledvina: I don 't know . I guess if there was a reason to believe that collector systems are a viable alternative for development within our borders then , you know you 've got the situation regarding mound systems covered but are we saying that standard type collector systems are okay , or what are we saying regarding that? Aanenson: I 'm sorry , I didn 't follow what you were asking . Ledvina: Well , we have the situation regarding mound systems and in the engineering limitations of those types of things , maintenance , etc but what about a standard type of collector system? Aanenson : Well what we did is we looked at the general , we had the Building Department and then we looked at what 's below the MUSA line in those areas that we believe have a possibility of developing and we looked at the soils and you 're right . Ledvina : So you actually looked at the soils . . . Aanenson: Of the areas we believe potentially , already . Exactly Halla . If he could go forward with this system , he would be in here probably within the next few months . So we looked at where those potentials . You 're right . There may be some other ones but we believe that those probably aren 't ready to develop in the immediate future and at such time that we may be inside the MUSA anyway . So I understand what your viewpoint is . Batzli : I 'm still struggling to know where , if we want to do something with this . It looks like we spent some money on a consultant . Aanenson: This was directed because again , Tim Erhart asked the staff to revisit that issue and make sure that when we adopt the ordinance , we left collective systems out . He wanted to revisit to see , does it make sense? Can we do collective systems? We 're saying no , we can 't . We 're going to leave it the way it is . We 're not going to make any modifications to the ordinance . Right now we 're saying , they have to be on site . You cannot have a collective system . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 32 Batzli : Okay . I guess I would prefer then that the City not spend more money on a consultant unless the Commission has a burning desire to revisi this issue for one reason or another . Mancino: I just want to make sure I understand this . You feel that you have researched the universe of collective systems that would work in this area? Aanenson: No . No . Mancino: But you 've given it a pretty good shot? Aanenson: Yes . And I think the areas we feel that could develop , it 's not going to be economically feasible . The risks as far as if it fails . The _ City 's risk . We feel at this time it 's not a prudent decision to go forward with it and we 'd recommend that they be on site . Scott: So this basically confirms the way the ordinance is? - Aanenson: Exactly . Scott: So this is informational and it 's not anything we really have to . Aanenson: Act upon , right . And again , it was driven from Tim and I apologize that Tim didn 't have the chance to respond . We 'd certainly let him know . Conrad: But staff is still working on the off site collector? The off - site septic site , or are you not? Batzli : I think they 're done . Kate? Aanenson : Right . Conrad: You 're done . Batzli : Unless we want them to investigate further . Conrad: Well no , Jo Ann 's note says in the last paragraph , staff is now reviewing the possibility of allowing individual septic sites to be located on adjacent property of that 15 ,000 square foot lot is possible . Aanenson: They would just go with the bigger lot . I 'm sorry , where that came from because what we said , if it needed to be bigger , then you need to be bigger . Batzli : See I would be totally against allowing a 15 ,000 square foot lot and then locating the septic systems off the site . That 's totally against- what we were trying to do. Aanenson: That 's exactly right . That was not our intent . We said , if _ you 've got sand and it works , great . If not , then maybe you have to be a half acre , maybe 3/4 . Whatever it takes . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 33 Batzli : And that 's why I thought this sentence from Jo Ann that said , the problem is you can 't fit all these things on there , my big comment was going to be , then we raise the size of the lot because then the wool was pulled over our eyes . The whole process that these things could fit on there . Aanenson: Right . And that was not the way it 's read . And I 'm sorry , but this went through Paul . I didn 't have a chance to read it but I did work on that ordinance and you 're right . That 's not what the intent was . That was just , we said do we want a minimum . Because remember we talked about , I think a half acre and we said well , first of all we never had a minimum if you recall . We never even put a minimum in there . We said if you can even go smaller and we thought well geez , we don 't want them to go smaller than our minimum lot size . So we said , okay . Let 's make it our minimum lot size but the qualifier is , you had to be able to get those three things on there . And that 's specifically written that way . Batzli : Okay . So you 're not working on that , good . DISCUSSION OF 1993 GOALS . Batzli : You have in here the Planning Department goals and budget request as always . Do you need to cover that in 30 seconds or? Aanenson: No , and I also passed out some ongoing issues too . I guess if you had any more direction . Paul did want me to mention to you that City Council will be having a joint staff meeting , Council meeting , and you may want to attend . Batzli : I attended that last year . Aanenson: Yeah , normally the Chairman may attend that and if you can 't be there , you might want to delegate that somebody else but I believe it 's February 6th and that will be a City Council goal session . Batzli : February 6th? Saturday , yeah . Normally over at the Fire Station . The size of the staff remains the same? Aanenson: Yep . Batzli : No more people for your department or anything else? Aanenson: Planning staff , yeah . Just so everybody 's clear . I 'm not sure everybody realizes but Jo Ann 's here 4 days and I 'm here 4 days so that 's how we set it budget wise . Conrad: What do you do the other day? Aanenson: Actually I do 5 days and 4 days . I rest . Scott: I noticed in here that it 'd like to be considered that you go from 4 days to 5 days . Aanenson: Yeah . I had mentioned that yes . Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 34 Scott : Okay . So it 's nothing that 's going to be included in the '93 budget but that 's something that would be considered for '94? Is that kiii of what? Okay . Batzli : Normally what we do at this time of year is look at what we 've done and what we have ongoing to determine whether there 's something that we want to be looking at that we 're not . Or that needs to be revisited . Kate passed out before the meeting ongoing issues and what we 've been i trying to do by using this vehicle is to make sure that things eventually get taken care of or that we recognize that we 're not working on something . Kind of give ourselves a lack of progress report . And the issue , what we 've done in the past and I don 't know if it was helpful or not . Maybe some other commissioners want to comment on it , is to kind of force everyone to bring to the next meeting , after this organizational one , things that they would like to see happen in the next year . Kind of a wi! t list or how they would rank or prioritize the items on the ongoing issues sheet that looks like either they 're not already taken care of or they 're languishing . Generally over the past 2 years I think the items have slow.'-- been getting worked on and they 've been taken care of . We haven 't added whole lot of new stuff to it I don 't think . Aanenson: Except for the Highway 5 which kind of has a lot of sub things underneath . Batzli : Yeah . Ladd , do you think it 's useful to try and force people to - bring their wish list in and talk about it next time? Conrad : Probably should . You 've got to collect our input . You 've got to - collect City Council 's input . See what they 're thinking . Batzli : Yeah , because generally I think what Ladd is getting at , if we _ choose our wish list and what we 've done in the past is talked about it at i come up with the priority of items and then sent it up to City Council so that we weren 't wasting our time . If we 've determined that for example the open space zoning is the most highly sought after thing that we can - possibly think of , and they come back and say , why waste your time . We 'r( not interested . We don 't care . If you pass it , we 'll just let it die . Then why should we do that? That 's why I think it 's somewhat important that we determine some sort of ranking of these things are items that we ') � interested in trying to get accomplished in this next year and at least send it up to them so they know what we 're trying to accomplish . Conrad: And it forces them to think a little bit too . Like they 're managing what we do and it 's a good exercise . Jeff , are you going to propose review of architectural standards? Farmakes: Be the architectural police of Chanhassen? No . Conrad : Well it 's an interesting . I just wanted to plant that seed . We talk about it all the time . Farmakes: That 's been incorporated in the Highway 5 study but I think we - have to do an educational thing to define what that is and I think some people are confusing it with looking at a style of architecture rather than Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 35 principles of architecture . And that 's therein the difference . And that 's going to take some education . The staff has a consultant and a planner and they 're working with those issues and we 're dealing with that now in the subcommittee of the Highway 5 corridor that is dealing with standards and I 'm not sure how that will translate into city ordinance in general . But it 's a good start . Conrad: Well I know you care , that 's why I bring it up . Yeah I think we should . I don 't know what the agenda is for next . This is nice . Aanenson: You 're going to have another Lundgren subdivision on . You 're going to be seeing a lot of subdivisions . The next every one . Every meeting now . Harberts: I 'd like to bring up a point of reference too on that . I 'm just wondering if there 's some type of protocol with regard to one of us that may have conflict or potential conflict of interest in projects that come before the Commission , what the protocol is . Does that include , do we sit through the public hearings? Do we remove ourselves entirely from the room? What 's the protocol? Batzli : When I 've had to remove myself on a conflict of interest , I 've tried to announce early on in the , not the discussion but around , right away prior to the public hearing that . I 've sat up here and just not discussed it or voted on the issue . Other people have gotten up and gone and sat out in the crowd so as to further distance themselves from the decision making process . Harberts: Has there been a legal perspective on that from the City? Aanenson : I know the Council they have to declare that they usually do . I can check on that for you . Harberts: Because there 's one pending with that Sunlink property because I ' ll be involved on that . Batzli : I think at a minimum you need to disclose it and not participate in the discussion or decision . So what I would like everyone to do . Mancino: A real quick question on prioritizing when I look at the issues and other items and I see the 1995 study area I say , oh . Let 's look at that in 1994 . Tell me something a little bit about how long it takes to look at an area and come up with land use , zoning , etc . Aanenson: This one is tied into the Highway 5 corridor study . This is also known as the Fleet Farm kind of area . It 's the northeast corner of Highway 5 and 41 . Batzli : We 're actually looking at that . Farmakes: That was part of the . . .to be determined later . Mancino : But when is later? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 36 Farmakes: '95 . Mancino: '95 , okay . That 's what I wanted to know . Scott : Then the '95 study area south , is that the elementary school site' Batzli : That 's north of there isn 't it? North and west of that . Harberts: It 's just below , isn 't it below that Lake Susan? No Timberwooc Batzli : Yeah , but it was also down south . Do you guys have a copy of yoL comprehensive plan? It 's designated in there . It 's not in there? Aanenson : We got the maps a couple weeks ago . Batzli : Oh , so you don 't have a little reproduced map in there? Harberts: I thought it was just under Timberwood . Aanenson: I do not know where the other one is . Batzli : Well we should know that . Okay . Aanenson: I believe that one 's not in the MUSA area , is really what I _ believe . I think it 's south . I don 't know . I 'll check on that for you . Farmakes : Well there was an additional study area to the south . Not on TH 5 . I believe the school was south , there 's so many proposals but I belieN all the school proposals were south of TH 5 . The study area , I didn 't think . . . Scott : I think this was , the map that originally came along with this comprehensive plan had a study area south . Batzli : Yeah it does but it 's south of this proposed school area . The school is in the MUSA line . Mancino: Fleet Farm is right here and the school is right here . Batzli : But it 's all north of TH 5 in that area . There 's another one to the south where 169 and 212 . Conrad: What 's that study area for? Batzli : Which? Conrad : The one to the south . Batzli : Because we didn 't know where the road was going to go exactly . Fi. the time we passed the comprehensive plan . Aanenson: And what zoning we wanted around it . Scott : Is that the proposed TH 101/212 interchange area? Planning Commission Meeting January 20 , 1993 - Page 37 Batzli : No . We zoned that land as I recall . Harberts: Industrial . ' Batzli : Well it was commercial around the intersection . Harberts: Yeah , because we 're looking to map a park and ride there . Batzli : So for next meeting , if people can take a look at the ongoing items . Issues . Come up with a priority and also bring in those things that you think we should be looking at that we may not be . That would be helpful . And does anybody else have any discussion items? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim it i° 11'1 . - 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 DATE: January 28, 1993 SUBJ: Report from Director At the January 25, 1993, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: 1. Preliminary plat to replat a lot into two lots and one outlot, south of Pleasant View Road, north of Nez Perce Drive, Stuart Hoarn, Vinewood Addition, was pulled from the consent agenda by Councilwoman Dockendorf. Apparently, she had been contacted by some of the same residents who raised issues at the Planning Commission meeting and the Council had received a letter from them. The issues are virtually the same with residents being concerned regarding the value of homes that would be built on these lots and other issues such as tree preservation. When it was clear that these issues had been explored in-depth, Councilwoman Dockendorf moved that the item be approved and the Council so voted. 2. Lakeview Hills Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot located on the north side of Lake Riley was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Sign Variance request to locate a monument sign within the required setback located at 600 West 79th Street, Americana Community Bank. The dialogue that the City Council - had on this item was really quite interesting. There was a very strong feeling that the number of tenant signs should be regulated. Councilman Senn indicated a belief that office buildings should not be allowed to have exterior signs for each tenant. The - Council also was not terribly excited with the proposed new design of the monument that had been provided by the applicant. Ultimately, the Council voted to go along with the compromise that had been developed by the Planning Commission. Thus, the sign would be allowed to intrude into the setback, the number of tenant name plates that would be allowed would not be regulated, and the sign design must utilize the original drawings that have been approved with the site plan. The Council did ask however, that the Planning Commission consider limiting the number of tenant sign boards allowed on building exteriors for office uses. is t . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission January 28, 1993 Page 2 — 4. Final plat approval and PUD amendment for a church located south of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Pacific Railroad and west of Audubon Road, Chanhassen Business — Center, Ryan Construction. As the Planning Commission is aware, these proposed changes to the Ryan industrial park are to accommodate a Jehovah Witness Church. The City Council discussed this item at length with concerns raised regarding the -- appropriateness of churches in an industrial park and the tax impact that might result. Action on this item was continued to the following City Council meeting. Staff was directed to make an analysis of tax impacts and the applicant, who indicated that they — reviewed and dismissed 30 other sites in Chanhassen before settling on the Ryan parcel, was asked to provide information regarding which sites had been reviewed. 5. Zoning ordinance amendment to amend Section 20-1023, height of fences and Section 20- 109, location of fences, first reading. This item was continued because Councilman Senn had some questions on the ordinance that he believed could be better addressed directly — through staff. Response to State Wetland Law and Rules — As the Planning Commission is aware, staff has been very active in the drafting of the rules that are going to be used to administer the new State Wetlands Protection Law. We have related to — you in the past that we have very significant reservations with aspects of the law and the rules and have been actively working to make changes to both. I have spoken at a number of meetings — and conferences in an attempt to get people energized and made aware of this issue. I have also worked with the State Chapter of the Minnesota Planning Association to prepare a response. Perhaps the most productive approach is a joint public/private partnership that we have been involved with from the start. Utilizing the law firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, and Lindgren to serve as a catalyst, we have put together a group of cities, townships, watershed districts and developers who have a common understanding and belief as to what must be done. The premise of this group is that the no-net-loss goal of the state law is supported without question. We simply believe the administrative procedures and guidelines of the rules and the law are inequitable and unwieldy to the point of becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. The point is — consistently made that communities like Chanhassen have demonstrated leadership in this area and are examples of how wetland protection should be managed. We prepared testimony which was submitted to the Administrative Law Judge who is hearing testimony on the rules. A copy of this testimony is provided for your review. We are now working to expand the group and refocus our efforts towards working with legislators in the current session to obtain changes in the law that are required if we are to reach our goals. — Chanhassen Best Management Practices Handbook - Published I am attaching for your review a copy of the recently adopted Best Management Practices Handbook for the City of Chanhassen. This document has become the blue print against which Planning Commission January 28, 1993 Page 3 all development, grading and erosion control activities will be measured. We are quite proud of the document and note that it would not have been possible to complete this without the city's innovative Surface Water Management Program. Since copies of the manual are fairly expensive to print and will be made available at cost to developers, I am asking that you review the handbook but ultimately return it to the Planning Department so that we may put it back into circulation. ONGOING ISSUES REVISED FEBRUARY 3, 1993 ISSUES STATUS 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. 5 On-going work with Task Force. Public Corridor Study Hearing to CC on 2/8/93. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow — OTHER ITEMS Staff update and review of issues due for the March 3, 1993, Planning Commission Meeting -` 1.* Sign Ordinance Work is continuing to progress with task _ force. Program expected to be completed shortly. CC asked that the committee look at limiting the number of sign boards on building exteriors for office buildings. 2. Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Inventory is completed. Over view of — of significant vegetative areas existing tree protection regulations requested by Commissioner Erhart. Advisory Tree Board established by City Council. First — meeting on 1/28/93. 3. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the — ordinance. Initial comments delivered to MnDNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. — 4. PC input in Downtown Planning and Ongoing - Review ongoing projects Traffic Study discussed at 9/2/92 meeting. 5. Review of Architectural Standards to 1992/may be combined in part with Hwy. 5 Promote High Quality Design work. 1 — 6. Bluff Creek Corridor Greenway Park and Recreation Commission is undertaking update of the recreational element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bluff Creek issues to be dealt with in this format. 7. Temporary uses, sales - new Staff to bring back to Planning Commission ordinance at a March meeting. 8. Sexually oriented businesses PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Sent to Public Safety Commission. Reviewed on 7/8/92. To be forwarded to CC. 9. Tree Conservation Easements Reviewed by PC in November. 10.* Fence Requirements To be reviewed by CC 2/8/93. 11. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC. 12. Upgrade landscaping ordinance To PC in March standards to meet criteria established during Target Review. * Change in status since last report. 2 p bii% s memo . •\ ri , . p b NN ASSOCIATION 'x•; JANUARY 1993 , _- Survey of What Projects are Subject to Design Review Design Review All 1 over Practices special Districts Subject to Design Review By Brenda Case Lightner Historic districts 60% 79% Waterfront or other scenic areas 17 21 The practice of design review is expanding at a rate comparable to Environmentally sensitive areas 19 14 the adoption of zoning ordinances in the 1920s and'30s.It has Downtown or center 31 46 lilF — been fueled by ever-greater acceptance by the courts of a local government's interest in controlling aesthetic quality.Design review Residential neighborhoods 19 19 is the local government practice of scrutinizing private and public Neighborhood commercial districts 22 25 projects for their design,aesthetic or urban design quality,or fitness. _rte It includes historic district review,but not subdivision controls or review by a client of an architect's work. special Cases Subject to Design Review . This report describes the results of a survey of design review Zoning variances 19% 19% practice conducted in April 1992.Surveys were mailed to 700 city PUD Approvals 56 49 and county planning departments that subscribe to the Planning Very large projects 28 24 Advisory Service,plus all nonsubscribing planning departments in cities of greater than 100,000 population.The rate of return was Public buildings 24 44 — exceptional:371 responses,369 of which proved usable(a return Public infrastructure 18 26 rate of about 52 percent). The survey was designed to find out what kinds of projects are In those jurisdictions where design review varies, respondents subject to review and the scope of design review across the country; were asked what areas of the city or what types of projects are - to discover who participates in design review decisions;to describe subject to review.Multiple answers were allowed.As shown above, and categorize standard review processes;and to determine what the most prevalent use of design review reported was in historic -` principles of design were being used to evaluate projects.The latter districts,followed closely by planned unit development(PUD) proved to be the most elusive. approval.Further analysis revealed that very few jurisdictions(three One of the most interesting findings is the rate of growth at percent)limited design review to historic districts.Most which design review has been adopted.Sixty percent of jurisdictions respondents said that they applied design review in more than one with design review have adopted it since 1980,and only three type of circumstance(often with separate criteria for each).This - percent had some form of design review prior to 1960. suggests a fragmented series of design review systems rather than an Furthermore,one-fourth of the 22 percent of jurisdictions that do across-the-board mechanism.I arge cities were more likely to have _ not have design review are currendy considering adopting it. many different review systems. - - The survey sample was limited to cities and counties of greater When asked to categorize their reviews as voluntary or • - - than 10,000 population.Because the PAS list was augmented with mandatory,60 percent of the respondents using design review 46- large cities,the sample is more likely to reflect the activities of the claimed that it is mandatory and said the recommendations must be _ large cities and towns.Selective analysis has revealed few differences followed for zoning or subdivision approval or building permits. �= - between the responses of large cities and responses of cities under Only four percent of the respondents with design review use a A A. - - 100.000 population.Where they are significant,they arc noted. voluntary pros cc,in which review is not a requirement but a show r''--- More than 100 respondents also sent copies of their design of good faith by a developer.Some 21 percent use an"advisory" guidelines,providing a tremendous resource for further research. process that,upon closer examination,is nearly mandatory. ter: The Scope of Design Review Design Guidelines ; Of the 369 respondents,78 percent claimed to be using some form Design guidelines are often mentioned in the same breath as design -• of design review.When counties were eliminated,this increased to review.Indeed,written guidelines do accompany the majority of 83 percent.Large cities(more than 100,000)were even more likely review processes.However,22 percent of the respondents with to use design review,with 93 percent using some form of it. design review do not publish guidelines,relying instead on a general ' 4 The 285 jurisdictions with design review were asked whether consensus of the reviewers.For another 15 percent,guidelines are review was consistent for all projects or if it varied with just that:recommendations,not mandatory rules. For 48 percent of - circumstances.Of these,only 18 percent of jurisdictions subjected the respondents with design review,guidelines arc mandatory or :-.7:1- all projects to the same design review process;while 82 percent regulatory,making them more precisely"design laws"or standards, _ noted that the process they applied varies with the circumstances, rather than guides.Another five percent develop guidelines on a for example,the location or type of project. project-by-project basis. There is no consensus on the form written guidelines should Who Writes Design Guidelines? take.Twenty percent use quantifiable rules(such as limiting sign areas or stating specific amounts of landscaping), 13 percent use Agency staff with planning background 73% drawings and diagrams to illustrate what is desirable rather than providing quantifiable language,21 percent are general(describing principles and goals and giving examples rather than specifics),and Agency staff with design background 55% 36 percent fall between or combine two or more of these forms. Design guidelines generally were composed by agency staff with Community residents,leaders 32% help from community residents or attorneys(see table at right). Most of the guidelines were assembled from several sources(52 percent)or created new(16 percent).Very few were modeled on Attorneys,on staff or consultant 24% another jurisdiction's guidelines(five percent),suggesting that guidelines usually are specifically tailored by local agency planners. Elected officials 22% This specificity of place is probably related to the use of context as a - measure of design quality,which will be discussed later. Planning consultant 21% Who Reviews Projects? The survey indicated that planning agency staff(with and without design backgrounds)and planning commissions and zoning boards Architect consultant 16% were the most likely to review projects.Design review boards were - present in only 36 percent of places with review.Where they do Other 14% exist,they are highly influential in the outcome of the review.J arge cities were more likely than small cities to have design review boards Numbers arra pem*tasr of those rr,pondn,n who said they we dada'mat, (47 percent).In places without design review boards,the review outcome was influenced primarily by agency staff(especially those Who Participates in Design Review? with design background)rather than any other participating body. Who Is Most Influential? Remarkably,citizen participation in design review is relatively Who partirare:this occurs in only 18 percent of places and only two in> cipainfluencd ces ! most respondents claimed that citizen groups exerted the primary Agency staff with design background 71% 36% influence on the outcome of the review.This suggests two distinct patterns of review:review by agency staff,with the imprimatur,but Plan Commission/zoning board/ little influence,of the zoning board or commission;and review by board of appeal 60 16 design review boards,which are more likely to make judgments Agency staff without without being influenced by agency staff specific design background 57 14 Given the two patterns of review and the range of possible Special design review panel or board 36 26 outcomes,and given the diversity of individuals who approve and disapprove of design,the author thought it would be interesting to Elected officials 28 4 discover what architects think of the design decisions being made. Volunteer citizens/residents In a recent survey(separate from this design review study)that through public process 18 1 Wolfgang Preiser and I conducted in cooperation with the Professional consultant 10 2 American Institute of Architects Memo,architects declared Other 5 2 themselves fairly unsatisfied with design review.Twenty-five percent of the respondents found it"petty,meddling,and useless," What is Being Reviewed? and 50 percent said it was"a good idea with serious flaws."The In this section of the survey,respondents using design review were biggest complaint of the architect-respondents was the lack of qualified professional reviewers—in other words,the lack of asked to detail which project elements are reviewed.Respondents Fere asked to check one of three options for 39 elements under two architects on review boards and staffs.Thus the composition of review bodies or staff may become the critical issue in architects' categories:site planning and building design.Respondents checked acceptance of design review.Indeed,the controversy often revolves whether.a)the dement was covered by a guideline,b)the dement around the question of whose tastes will prevail,who has the right wasnot covered by a guideline,but was reviewed anyway,or c)the to determine"good design." element was not mewed Although architectsare more likely than any other professional There was a lot of consensus among respondents in the site annin to be found on a review board,44 percent of all review boards do Pg category.More than 90 percent of all jurisdictions said they not have a single architect.Community representatives were the review parking lot landscaping,fences and buffers,setbacks, screening trash areas,and parking configuration.Fifty percent of next most likely to be found on a board.Lawyers were the least likely to have a seat at the design review table.Not surprisingly, jurisdictions have written guidelines covering these five elements. Environmental issues ranked lowest on the list,with fewer than 30 reviewing bodies are dominated by white males.Statistically,the average board of 7.1 people includes only 1.8 females and.6 percent of the jurisdictions claiming to review sunlight and shadows persons of color. or response to microclimaric issues.Perhaps this is because these are not strictly"aesthetic"issues. There was less consensus among respondents on the building design elements reviewed"Building height"and Brenda Lightner is an assistant professor at the School of Planning at "on-premise signs"were the two most common elements the University of Cincinnati. scrutinized.In both cases,written design guidelines were present 2 in more than 70 percent of all jurisdictions. one-fourth regularly use context. For large cities,the percentage Overall,most of the elements of building design that were listed increases significantly. were reviewed by more than half of the jurisdictions.Only four of Respondents who claimed to use context as a guiding principle the 19 elements were reviewed by fewer than 60 percent of the were asked to agree or disagree with statements about jurisdictions with design review.This suggests that building design, contextualism.The greatest level of agreement(82 percent) in all its pieces and parts,is thoroughly reviewed in most places. followed two statements:"new buildings should respect the existing The discrepancy between site planning and building design urban pattern of buildings and open space,"and"designs which elements covered by guidelines and those that are reviewed without diverge widely from the surroundings should not be allowed."Next _ guidelines is interesting.Every respondent routinely reviews items most common (73 percent agreed)was"new and rehabbed for which there are no guidelines,suggesting that guidelines do not buildings should not stand out noticeably."Statements drawing the significantly limit the scope of design review.This was especially lowest level of agreement were those that queried about using true for building design,where written guidelines were common for stylistic resemblances or similar derails.This suggests that cities are — only the four most prevalent elements.Perhaps this is because of the looking for buildings that are imitative of existing urban patterns difficulty of writing objective guidelines for building design issues. and sit quietly in their places,but need not always look like the buildings next door. Context and Design Review It should be noted that there was not a significant level of In this section and the next,the common principles that underlie disagreement with any statement except on the issue of style(38 design review decisions will be described.The author assumed that percent disagree),and respondents were likely to answer"not most review systems depended primarily on context to guide the applicable"instead of actually disagreeing.The suspicion is that review process.That is,most review decisions and changes are based respondents were reluctant CO actually disagree with a reasonable on making a project fit into the"context"of its surroundings.Since sounding principle,a phenomenon also encountered in the context is a word with multiple meanings for planners and archi- responses in the section on design principles discussed below. teas,it was necessary to delve a little deeper into what"fit with the context"means to agencies that use it as a principle of urban design. Principles of Good Design The assumption that the notion of context is widely applied in Respondents using design review were asked to agree or disagree design review decision-making is based on a study conducted 10 with several"principles"of good architectural design and urban years ago by Wolfgang Preiser.Every city surveyed for that study design.These principles were really restatements of common design claimed to be using context as the primary urban design guide. guidelines.They cannot be described precisely as principles in the In 1992,the picture is different.Twenty-three percent of the sense of Virruvius's"firmness,commodity,and delight."Rather, respondents with design review claim nor to use"fit with context"as they represent the usually banal but occasionally profound rules that a principle.About half use context"sometimes,"and more than are being promoted as good design in cities.In general,these are Specific Site Plpn Elements Reviewed Building Design Elements Reviewed Covered by Not Coveted by Not Guidelines Reviewed Both Reviewed Guidelines Reviewed Both Reviewed Fences and buffers 68% 27% 95% 3% Building height 72% 22% 94% 4% Parking lot landscaping 67 27 94 4 On-premise signs 74 18 92 6 Screening of loading,trash 59 34 93 5 Building bulk 49 38 87 10 Distance from the street 67 26 93 5 Mechanical equipment Location of parking lots 52 40 92 6 screening 50 36 86 12 Exterior lighting 51 37 88 9 Materials 41 43 84 15 Disturbance of Building dimensions 40 42 82 15 natural landscape 37 42 79 17 Service areas 39 42 81 15 Pedestrian amenities 34 42 76 21 Facade articulation 39 37 76 21 Conservation of vegetation 35 40 75 20 Location of entrances 22 49 71 25 Utilities 39 35 74 20 Color of materials 25 46 71 26 Public open spaces 28 43 71 24 Roof profile 23 47 70 27 Off-premise signs 56 15 71 20 Details 26 41 67 30 Obstruction of views 20 43 63 32 Horizontal or Visual privacy 22 40 62 34 vertical proportions 23 41 64 31 Street furniture 19 34 53 42 Window size,shape 23 39 62 35 Security 9 38 47 47 Style or character 23 37 60 36 Outdoor an or fountains 13 30 43 51 Ground floor activities 14 32 46 49 Generation of pollution 17 26 43 50 Maintenance 16 27 43 52 Sunlight,shadows 10 18 28 66 Energy efficiency 12 18 30 64 Response to microclimate 7 17 24 70 Interior lobbies 7 17 24 71 3 operational and direct,("reduce the variety of signs"),rather than mentioned by one-third who had one or more improvements to aesthetic or design-oriented("use harmonious proportion from one suggest,was to make existing guidelines more explicit,dearer,or , ._ part to another").Aesthetic principles were left out of this survey stronger.The second most common suggestion (18 percent)was to because they are generally missing from design guidelines,and,in create design guidelines or standards,apparently in places that have any case,there is very little agreement over such principles in today's none.Other suggestions for improvement mentioned by more than _ pluralistic architectural world. 10 percent of those responding were:CO broaden the review process • " We have already noted how little agreement there is that"fit by including more types,uses,areas,or sizes of projects(12 with context"means"stylistic similarity."Planners,like architects, percent);and to consolidate the process,reduce delay,or reduce steer cleanly away from making rules about style or aesthetic issues overlapping jurisdictions(10 percent).Other improvements that whenever possible.However,this does not mean planners have no received 10 or more mentions were to give staff(as opposed to opinions about style or aesthetic issues,or that they refrain from boards)more control,to use more professionals on review boards, - reviewing these issues in a normal design review process,as we have and to give design review more authority or"teeth." f"--.. seen in our discussion of the dements reviewed.It does mean that these principles are seldom explicitly stated.To be fair,it is Conclusions extremely difficult if not impossible to devise principles of good One of my hypotheses about design review is that it is being applied design and aesthetics.Most people rightly evaluate works of art and somewhat universally across the country,since so many guidelines architecture on their singular response to an individual project seem to be similar from place to place.I feared the coming of a day :- rather than measuring it against universal principles.This is why the when all cities would be modeled on quaint townscape ideas or issue of who reviews projects alwayswill be critical. other EuroDisneyideas of urbanism.The data fortunatelydo not :xiHaving said that,we can offer what may be the"top nine" support such fears,although the universal themes they do suggest design guidelines explicitly stated by localities("fit and context" arc somewhat disturbing.There is a huge agreement about the use 1' makes it 10).The top nine on this list were named by more than 63 of certain guidelines,none of which are very profound or constitute .., percent of the localities,with the non-glamorous"screen service and what might be thought of as an urban design theory or a set of utility activities and uses"coming in at a whopping 92 percent. consistent principles.Most of these have to do with hiding or • 2 Roughly three-quarters of respondents listed"encourage signs tidying up the most blatant environmental offenses:screening integrated with building facades,""encourage retention of existing equipment,landscaping parking lots,and regularizing signs. vegetation,""reduce the variety of signs,""minimize disturbance of Compared to a real urban design idea such as those represented by environmentally sensitive land,""favor site-specific response to London's Regent Street or Sixtus V's plan for Rome or even Seaside — "' topography,""limit the visibility of parking from the street,"and (distant cousins though they arc),these guidelines cannot be said to 4. "discourage boxy,unadorned buildings."A majority(63 percent) constitute urban design at all. ..*.. also chose"encourage facade offsets to break up the mass of large or More interesting are the cities that use context as a principle of continuous buildings." good urban design.Here,the ideas that draw greatest agreement As in the statements about context,respondents were reluctant actually do begin to suggest a kind of universal idea about good to actually disagree with any principle.One exception is the urban design:let new buildings augment the existing pattern -t' principle,associated with Traditional Neighborhood Design wherever possible,let them be quiet and noncontroversial,let them . (TND),of favoring narrow lots and grid street arrangements over be similar to their neighbors without actually copying them. wide lots and cul de sacs.Planners rejected this principle Disquieting as this vision of urban conformity is perhaps the resoundingly(40 percent disagreed;41 percent said not applicable) greatest disappointment in this universal theme is the newly limited which may be interesting to those who believe TND is a significant definition of context,that is,context as the man-built environment - influence in planning today.Another principle that drew in the immediate vicinity of the site to be built upon.Context dicagreement was"favoring traditional over modern styles"(31 might be used to mean the whole array of ideas of a place:its ....# percent disagreed;38 percent said not applicable).Again,planners history,its culture,its politics,its weather,its ecology.Without this are reluctant to say that they prefer certain styles. perspective of context,the universal theme of conformity promotes a simplistic and one-dimensional interpretation in new design. Improving the Process Although the theme of urban conformity is widely embraced,it ``2') - In an open-ended question,respondents were asked to suggest is not universal in the sense of yielding similar environments across x�c-• revisions in their design review process.A little more than 50 the country.Because places are essentially different,the same .:.'x,'- percent of those with design review responded,suggesting a general guidelines about urban conformity can lead to broad variations level of satisfaction with the status quo.The most popular revision, from place to place. Perhaps the idea of context will even be . - reopened and expanded in planning at some moment,as it has been • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• in architecture through the ideas of critical regionalism.At that The PAS Memo is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory point,of course,simplistic and rigid guidelines will have to be Service,a subscription research service of the American Planning Association: Israel Stollman,Executive Director;Frank S.So,Deputy Executive Director. dictcarded and reviewers will need an ever-increasing degree of The PAS Me-mo is produced by APA staff in Chicago.Research and writing by Research sophistication. Department staff.Marys Morris,Editor.Production by Publications Department staff: In any case,what is demonstrated through the principles widely Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor;Dennis McClendon,Design Director. used by design reviewers is that design review is not overwhelmingly Copyright C1993 by American Planning Association,1313 E.60th St., Chicago,IL 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters supportive of or helpful to urban design,per se.Design review,offices at at 1776 Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. while essentially harmless in its principles of tidying and hiding, All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any does not speak to urban form or the importance of streets or axes or form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording, fomlal arrangements.In its theme of conformity,design review u I or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing from the American Planning Association, moreinfluential and perhaps damaging.It is not nonetmed with s. Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%receded fiber ® urban design,but a kind of automatic,replicating urban non- - and 10%postconsumer waste. 4 C--(1 DECEMBER 1992 '- EEONM / , , • Existing-Use Zoning and there is open countryside in between.There is,however, no way to retain open lands and natural areas between By John A. Humbach developed urban centers without directing new construction — away from the countryside and into,or near, the places where Decisions that permanently change land use affect us all and development exists already. Sprawl and scatter-site building may have a greater impact on the lives of future Americans than patterns will inevitably expand if we continue to designate any other choices we are making today.There are many possible every piece of land in every rural community for one form of ways to manage development of the land resources we all must development or another. share.To man)people,the present system does not work very In much of western Europe and some parts of the United well,especially in relatively fast-growth rural areas. States(most notably in Oregon,though Washington has also _ Builders complain that land-use regulatory programs are recently gone this route),a different approach has been taken filled with pointless risks,conflicts,and delays,all of which to zoning for nonurbanized areas.The basic idea is to add substantially to the cost that consumers must pay.Yet manage growth under truly comprehensive plans—plans that environmentalists and persons concerned to protect their prescribe areas for both developed and for open land uses. .• . community's character often find these same"safeguards" Such"true"comprehensive plans: hopelessly inadequate. Despite the uncertainties and battles, regulatory procedures still do not prevent patterns of suburban a Designate some community areas for near-term growth sprawl and strip development that consume open space at rates and development; often greatly exceeding the rate of population growth. a Designate other areas as a reserve for future development In the 1920s,the concept of zoning swept the country. needs; and The key strategy of traditional zoning was to consolidate like _ uses and separate incompatible uses. Traditional zoning was, ■ Designate still other areas,perhaps most of the zoned however,conceived as a management tool for cities and community's land base,for no foreseeable developed uses . other areas expected to be built up, not for the open whatsoever.countryside. Being designed for urbanized areas,the — presumption of traditional zoning has been that every piece Lands in the last category can be specifically zoned for of privately owned land should be designated for some kind various particular open land uses, such as exclusive agricul- of developed use or another. The still dominant Standard tural use zoning or forestry zoning. (This is what is done in .it, Zoning Enabling Act pays no attention,for example,to the Oregon.)But an even more direct and straightforward zoning need to zone for such economically vital and socially crucial strategy for lands outside the designated growth areas is open-land uses as agriculture and forestry,not to mention simply to zone them for their existing uses. zoning to retain the overall character of nonurban areas. Existing-use zoning is,in essence,a zoning designation under which the permitted uses of each parcel are defined as Urban Zoning,Rural Sprawl any uses to which the parcel is already reasonably adapted, Following World War II,the advent of almost universal but parcels may not,in general,be modified for new uses. automobile transportation led to unprecedented development The function of existing-use zoning is to implement a pressures on rural lands,especially those near urban fringes. community's advance planning for an open-land/developed- When there was a planning response to these new pressures, use mix. Existing-use zoning applied to rural areas would _' it was typically to extend traditional urban-style zoning into have essentially the same general effect as traditional zoning nonurban municipalities, designating every piece of land for applied in already-developed urban areas: a tendency to one form of development or another.When there were stabilize neighborhood land-use patterns and character by concerns about preserving rural character and open space,the establishing a legal presumption that people cannot typical approach was simply to zone for larger and larger necessarily change the uses of their land just because they minimum lot sizes and to confine commercial uses mostly to might profit by doing so.Existing-use zoning is not, main thoroughfares. As many communities learned,however, therefore,a departure from familiar zoning strategy. Rather, this "sprawl and strip" strategy does not preserve rural it is a logical adaptation of urban zoning to the rural context character and open space but actually hastens its loss.The where(as in most already-built urban areas) the presumption ruralization of urban zoning makes it practically illegal to is against substantial land-use change. �Y build anything but strips and sprawl. Even within an existing-use zone,it may be occasionally '- Predictions have been made that America will eventually desirable to modify the uses to which some lands are adapted(to evolve into a series of megalopolises,with suburbs provide for public utilities,for example).Special permit prose- expanding in concentric rings that stretch end-to-end for dures can be provided for this purpose based on a showing of - .4 hundreds of miles. But this does not have to be America's public need and the absence of suitable alternatives. destiny.We still have the option to retain the patterns of land In addition,an existing-use zoning program must provide ;r. development that have predominated since the dawn of variances for individual cases of extreme hardship so that the civilization, in which cities are cities,villages are villages, community does not incur the compensation liabilities for "total takings"of all value under recent Supreme Court 1992 Lucas case. With hardship variances to prevent total cases, such as the 1992 case.Lucas v. South Carolina takings,backed up by subdivision regulations as earlier Coastal Council. Most lands,however, are potentially described,existing-use zoning that implements a sound productive enough that the variances for rare circumstances comprehensive plan should entail no takings problems. of total taking usually will not seriously impair the goals of A model existing-use zoning ordinance,with some the comprehensive plan. The need for such variances can be explanatory comments,is set in the sidebar. A copy with full even further reduced by judicious use of subdivision comments is available from the author. — regulations to back up the existing-use zoning: takings law looks at zoning's effect on each property"as a whole."Thus, John Humbach is professor of law at Pace University School of Law in White a key component of an existing-use program is adoption of Plains.New.York. subdivision rules that do not allow larger parcels having — present value"as a whole"to be carved into little new parcels having no economic value in their present uses. Electrical Catch-22 Even allowing for some modifications of use under special permits and hardship variances,existing-use zoning By Debra A. Schwartz . avoids the critical deficiency of past attempts to simply transport urban-type zoning to nonurban settings: Existing- A woman in Petersfield. South Carolina, is wondering if use zoning does not presuppose that every parcel should be today's the day her mobile home will catch fire when she — built upon in some way or another. It puts the burden of turns on the space heater. Her fears are well grounded. On justifying change on those who stand to profit from change, this beat-up pelt of land 18 miles west of Charleston, about - not on those who prefer to retain the character and qualities 30 houses and trailers are wired for electricity by connecting of the area in which they live, extension cords strung from a juicy outlet in one house to the — , trailer next door. Urban Growth Boundaries About 200 families live in Petersfield. Some are heirs to •- Restricting near-term development to designated urban the land. Others just dropped by 25 years ago and stayed,one growth boundaries(as they are known in Oregon)offers a by one adding meager shelters to the property. __- further important opportunity: It makes feasible a high level The fire hazard jeopardizes the health,safety,and welfare of community and environmental sensitivity in developments of many residents. Charleston's public works department is while simultaneously ensuring that building permits are sure it is losing money to squatters illegally tapped into the issued quickly. When designated growth areas are city's water and sewer system.The Charleston County established to cover only part of the community and existing- planning department knows people are living on the land in use zoning covers the rest, it also becomes feasible to do the violation of zoning regulations. Many of the trailers and ; environmental reviews and set performance standards in stick-built houses are not up to building codes,but officials — • • advance—so that all (or at least most)of the development say no quick fix is in sight. within the urban growth boundary can be"as of right."This The county planning department is trying to determine is in sharp contrast to the presently predominant system of how it can "provide an immediate solution to a definite ,. - zoning, which tells developers they can theoretically build problem created by individuals who didn't know what Q anywhere and then relies on expensive, confrontational. and requirements they had to comply with," says planning :k often repetitive ad hoc reviews as each new development director Bill Miller. project is proposed. The people living on the land want appropriate electrical _ Elimination of present,inefficient multiple-approval service,and they want to fix their leaking faucets and processes never will be acceptable to those concerned about termite-weakened building supports,but they don't have the adverse effects of development unless the present adversarial money. County officials do not want to force them out of approach is replaced with effective substantive development their homes for noncompliance with building and zoning criteria. However,by comprehensively planning in advance codes,Miller says.The issue,he says,is to provide some sort ._: ; for both developed and open-land uses,and implementing the of assistance to improve the conditions. Exactly what is latter with a form of existing-use zoning,communities can available has not been determined. eliminate most of the occasions for battle that are now such "Petersfield is not even in a position right now to get a — frequent features of the land-use planning process. In short,if community block grant because,in order to use funds,they environmental and community protection are adequately have to meet zoning requirements,and they don't," says provided by advance planning,it becomes possible to say to Linetta Jacob-Simmons,Charleston County's community opponents of particular applications: "If you didn't show up development director. - on the plan.don't show up on the project." The first step toward fixing the fire hazard is determining Existing-use zoning sets aside open land for exclusively who owns which piece of land. That has been nearly `' open-space uses. The most commonly voiced objection to impossible,officials say. "You go in,try to identify a parcel open-space zoning is the spurious constitutional argument: of land.and the person who lives there says, 'I've been living You can't take away development rights without here for 30 years and my cousin Joe handles that. I don't compensation. This article is not the place for a detailed know anything about that.' And then you write cousin Joe review of the constitutional law on property rights. Suffice to and you get no response from cousin Joe. There's nothing — say,quoting the Supreme Court, it is"a reality we nowadays you can do," Simmons says. .- acknowledge"that "government may . . . affect property The county first realized the problem in Petersfield, • values by regulation without incurring an obligation to Simmons says, when it was trying to help people devastated compensate."The Supreme Court wrote these words in the by Hurricane Hugo in September 1989. "You can't make T MODEL EXISTING-USE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR A RURAL TOWNSHIP Findings and Declarations It is in the public interest(i)to avoid excessively ordinance)the[zoning]board may upon appeal authorize variances to permit dispersed development within the non u rbanized portions of the township and additional uses,or greater intensities or densities of use,of particular parcels strip development along its primary and secondary highways and roads,(ii) within the existing-use district, provided that such variance will not be to avoid unnecessary and scattered conversion of open space land to contrary to the public interest and,owing to special conditions unique to the =• developed uses,(iii)to inhibit urban sprawl,and(iv)to prevent or mitigate the parcel,a literal enforcement of the use limitations applicable to the parcel . resultant adverse impacts of such development,conversion, and sprawl, would cause extreme hardship to the owner. Any such variance which is including: granted shall thereafter expire unless the additional use,or greater intensity (a)despoliation of the township's natural environmental quality by air,water, or density of use,permitted thereby is substantially commenced within one .,.. - and noise pollution, year of the granting of the variance. . :.;!A of township's nonurban character and the quality of life Extreme hardship shall be found to exist only if the permitted uses leave the (b)impairmentthe enjoyed y its residents, owner with no worthwhile use, no means of obtaining an appreciable economic return,and only a bare residuum of value under applicable market — (c) destruction of its scenic beauty, conditions. Hardship shall not include owner-created hardship, nor shall (d)disturbance of the ecology and natural habitat, hardship include any condition that results from prior use or abuse of the land by any current or prior owner of an interest in it,including prior extraction or . (e)traffic congestion, destruction of the land's natural resources.Hardship resulting from voluntary (f) hazards related to geology,fire,and flood, subdivisions may be considered only(a)to the extent that the subdivisions were approved and completed prior to(the date of adoption of this ordinance) (g) loss of lands suitable for agriculture and forestry,and or (b) if a finding is made that the original subdivided tract cannot be (h) excessive costs of providing the necessary public services and infra- reconsolidated,in whole or in parton an economically viable basis. structure to accommodate isolated and dispersed pockets of denser No variance shall be authorized merely because the permitted uses, or development. intensities or densities of use,(i)result in practical difficulty,(ii)provide less _ -4 ft is therefore declared to be the policy and objective of this township to than the highest or best return to the owner, or (iii) prevent a return • prevent or mitigate such adverse impacts by directing new construction and proportionate to the current owners investment in the parcel it, under - development projects away from the remaining open space lands of the applicable market conditions,the amount of such investment exceeds the fair township and to consolidate such new construction and projects either in market value which the parcel had in light of its use,adaptations for use, compact new settlements or on lands that are adjacent to or within the intensity or density of use or surface features at the time that the investment "- portions of this township that have already undergone significant develop- was made. ment through the formation of cities,villages,hamlets,and other settlements. Except as provided in this section,no variance shall be authorized from the per- ._ miffed uses,or intensities or densities of use,within the existing-use district. COMMENT:Language drawn from the City of Tiburon ordnance,which the COMMENT• Ceearly, so long as the variance provision is in effect its V.S. Supreme Court quoted with approval In Aglrts v. 77buron447 US presence should insulate the existing-tree zoning ordinance from any 255,261 n.8(1980). Further tailoring should be considered to conform facial`takings"challenge.See MacDonald,Sommer&Frates v. ."..,;,,,;- successful findings and declarations to the specific conditions that apply within the County of Yoh:),477 US 340,349-52(1986);Williamson v.Hamilton Bank,473 enacting municipality. US 172, 186-94(1985).This variance provision is written as a transitional - _ measure,designed to provide"a reasonable grade period in which owners THEREFORE,the zoning ordinance of the Township of is hereby could protect their rights."Texaco,inc.v.Short,454 US516,527n21(1982). amended by adding a new article_entitled `Existing-Use Zoning'and -':y reading as follows: 4.Special Permits—The[zoning]board may,upon application by the owner, . ibited additional uses,or t.Designation of Existing-Use Districts—[Define areas of the existing- great nt shin ensial esordensitiesormits 'fuse of particotherwise ularhparcels within thee sting- .--4, greater use districts.] use district,including neW construction,residential strictures,grading,fill, improvements,road-cutting,clear-cutting,draining.dredging,or other modi- COMMENT::The place for existing-use districts would be primarily those fications of the existing surface features of the parcel,if the applicant makes ' portions of the community that have not already undergone substantial an affirmative showing that -- 4 development or urbanization.Established cities and other developed areas a.In view of the available alternatives within the township,the public interest ' are more appropriately regulated by conventional zoning categories(i.e., would be best served by permitting such additional use,or greater intensity residential. commercial, light industrial). To accommodate anticipated or density of use,at the proposed location;and growth,the existing-use district cannot encompass the entire municipality. Growth districts should be sufficiently extensive to meet the needs for b.the same public interest cannot be reasonably served by the currently anticipated growth without revision for at least five to 10 years. lawful use of other lands within or outside the existing-use district _ 2.Permitted Uses Within Existing Use Districts—For each parcel within 5. Conditions on Variances and Special Permits—Every variance and an existing-use district, the following uses are permitted to the extent special permit shall include such conditions as the [zoning] board shall determine to be necessary to ensure that any additional use, or greater otherwise permitted by law or ordinance: intensity or density of use,authorized thereunder will be accomplished with a. Continuation of the existing uses actually being made of each such parcel the minimum possible modification of and impact on the existing surface as of(date of adoption of this ordinance),as well as any uses made of features of the particular parcel,and without impairment of the uses for which "^- such parcel on a substantial basis during the immediately preceding the neighboring lands are reasonably adapted. period of five years,at the same general level of intensity and density of 6.Takings—If,upon the petition of any aggrieved owner of an interest in land .... such uses. within the existing-use district,the court finds that the denial,suspension,or - b. Forestry,silviculture,and tree farming. revocation of any permit pursuant to this article constitutes the equivalent of c. Crops,grazing,and other agricultural uses. a taking without compensation,the court may,at the election of the township, Y either(a)set aside the order of denial,suspension,or revocation and remand d. Management for watershed,and for fish and wildlife habitat,hunting.and for further proceedings,or(b)require the township to acquire such owner's fishing. interest in the affected land under the power of eminent domain. e. Accessory uses that are customarily incidental and subordinate to,or are COMMENT:By including an integral compensation procedure for pos- „...-..,...4 reasonably necessary in order to continue and maintain, any of the sible"as applied"takings, this provision gives still further insulation foregoing principal uses that are actually being made. from successful facial challenge. f. Any other uses,including recreational uses,that(i)are compatible with one or more of the foregoing uses actually being made or to which the 7.Severability—The provisions of this article shall be severable,and if any - . parcel is suited, and (ii) do not require substantial new construction, clause,sentence,paragraph,subdivision,section,or part of this article shall grading.fill,improvements.road-cutting.clear-cutting,draining,dredg- be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such ing,or other modifications of the existing surface features of the parcel. judgment shall not affect,impair,or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall -'.- g. No use. be confined in its operation to the clause,sentence,paragraph,subdivision, section, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such -- 3.Variances—For a period of five years from(the date of adoption of this judgment shall have been rendered. - 3 improvements to the property without the owner's approval," `�-�' she notes. 1992 Zoning News Index '' •_• The planning department is surveying residents to learn - how many units are properly permitted and whether they Accessibility meet electrical, building,and plumbing code requirements. Zoning and the Americans with Disabilities Act February Miller expects results by the first of the year, and says the Administration questions are basic: "How many (units)can we authorize _ Public Outreach on Zoning and Land Use May - today?How many require an expenditure by the owners to upgrade for building. plumbing. zoning. or structural codes? Annexation How many would require being relocated or reestablished in Swallowing an Elephant(Laytonsville,Maryland) April order to meet density requirements?" Commercial Development Th• e questions have persisted since 1971 when Charleston North Carolina Backs Corridor Zoning March - County adopted its first zoning laws,Miller says. "Part of Fairfax Downzoning Revisited March what we are trying to determine is how many (units) were L.A.Loses Major Zoning Case May - -- established prior to the adoption of the zoning requirement," he adds. Once an inventory is taken,Miller plans to tell Enabling Legislation residents what they need to do to connect legally to sewer, Kansas Modernizes Planning and Zoning Laws January water, and electrical systems. Supercolliding with Growth(Texas) June - If most tenants can afford the fees,the county Enforcement immediately will grant a permit, he says. If not, "the county Electrical Catch-22(Petersfield,S.C.) December would be obligated from a health-safety standpoint to take some kind of legal action," which could take the form of Environmental Protection - changing the zoning code to allow existing units to remain Land Use and Electromagnetic Fields January " ' Regulating Hillside Development March under a "grandfather"clause,Miller says. Meanwhile, the county and South Carolina Electric and First Amendment _ -x• Gas are working together to pull the plug on hazardous Hasidic Jews Charge Discrimination July - conditions stemming from illegal tap-ins to the power supply Controlling Newsracks October in Petersfield. Simmons says there are no community development block grants available for electrical work. To Historic Preservation attract funds, her department is identifying aspects of the Conservation Districts:Latest Zoning Tool to Preserve health and welfare question, she says. "It might even be a Neighborhood Character November long shot to go for something directed at improving the Housing quality of life for children." she says. Accessory Units:The Back-Door Approach to Determining the scope of health, safety, and welfare Affordable Housing April ` issues in Petersfield has frustrated Miller for years. "It may Tables Turned in Trumbull(Connecticut) April "' not be a zoning issue. It may be a code issue. It may be that Student Housing:Home Is Where the Futon Is September they cannot upgrade the structures to meet building and Long Beach Reviews Homeless Provisions November • electrical requirements. If they can't, it's not a zoning issue. Ohana Comeback in Oahu November It'san issue that they can't meet safety and health requirements.Then we would have to relocate them to Neighborhood Planning someplace that meets housing requirements,"he says. Neighborhood Planning and Its Cousins July ; "There's not a lot that can be done at this point in the Permit Processing game," Simmons says."The ideal would be to build Permits:You Can't Keep Score Without a Program June multifamily dwellings out there. Have Charleston County do Planning Commissions ' -a4 it,or individual property owners.' Des Moines Revamps Commission August .. Debra A.Schwartz is a free-lance writer in Highland Park,Illinois. Decision Day for Dade October - Residential Zoning 3 Denser Zoning in Charlotte January Y "Not Lot"Hot in Rocky Hill(Connecticut) September Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Rezoning - Association.Subscriptions are available for$32(U.S.)and 53t(foreign). Victory for Budget(Atlanta Airport) July =v Israel Stollman.Executive Director:Frank S.So.Deputy Executive Director. Rural Character Makes Way for Amway(Ada,Michigan) October Zoning Nevis is produced at APA.Jim Schwab,Editor;Fay Dolnick,Sarah Dunn, . --1 Michele Gregor.Chris Harris.Marya Moms.Amy Van Doren.Reporters;Cynthia Supreme Court Decisions Cheski.Assistant Editor.Lisa Barton.Production. Highest Court Rejects Mobile Home Park Owners'Plea June Copyright C1992 by American Planning Association,1313 E.60th St.,Chicago,IL Lucas:Will the Line in the Sand Wash Away? August 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave..N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. Transportation and Traffic All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any Rethinking the Drive-Through August form or by any means,electronic or mechanical.including photocopying.recording. or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing Zoning Ordinances from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber N.C.County Faces Zoning Music June ..,� and 10%postconsumer waste. ® Existing-Use Zoning December = _: - 4