The URL can be used to link to this page

05-19-93 Agenda and Packet AGENDA FILE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISS WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1993, 7:30 P CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTEI CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Chanhassen Venture, Inc. who proposes to construct an 18,522 square foot building, an upper air inflation building for launching balloons, and a future nexrad radar tower for the National Weather Service on property zoned PUD-IOP, Planned Unit Development- - Industrial Office Park located east of Audubon Road and south of Hwy. 5 in the Chanhassen Business Center. *Item Deleted 2. Rezone 31.83 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development; a preliminary plat to subdivide the parcel into 48 single family lots; and a wetland alteration permit to alter and mitigate wetlands. The property is located west of Galpin Boulevard and south of Hwy. 5, Trotters Ridge, Tandem Properties. *Item Deleted 3. Doug Hanson, West One Properties for a PUD to rezone the property from BG, General Business to Planned Unit Development, a preliminary plat to replat Lots 1, 2, and 3, Burdick Park into one lot and site plan review for a 48,025 square foot expansion of an office and manufacturing facility located at 7900 Monterey Drive, West One Expansion. 4. U. S. West for a Site Plan Review for a 16' x 19' addition to the existing City of Chanhassen Pump House No. 6, on property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and _ located just east of Chan View and West 77th Street and north of Hwy. 101. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 5. Auto Related Uses. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. _ C I T Y 0 F PC DATE: May 19, 1993 \\ C 11 A N IIA S S E N CC DATE: May 24, 1992 CASE #: SPR# 93-4 by: Aanenson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan for the National Weather Service Forecast Office, Lot 1, Block 2 Chanhassen Business Center z — V LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 2 of the Chanhassen Business Center. West of Audubon Road and Lake Susan Hills Subdivision and north of Bluff Creek Subdivision 0. APPLICANT: John Kretchmar Wayne Perlenfein Q" Chanhassen Venture, Ltd 403 Center Avenue, Suite 408 400 East Randolph, Suite 500 Moorhead, MN Chicago, IL 60614 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-IOP, Planned Unit Development - Industrial Office Park. ACREAGE: 9.92 Acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD-IOP Vacant - Q S - RSF Bluff Creek Estates Subdivision E - PUD-Residential Lake Susan Hills d W - PUD-IOP Office — WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site W — .— PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The subject site is located in the Chanhassen Business Center. This site is vacant and is most recently cultivated fields. The site drops in elevation from Audubon Road to the West. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial Office Park Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The National Weather Service is seeking site plan approval for a single story office building. The building will include three forecasting offices; Weather Forecasting Office (WFO), River Forecasting Office (RFO), and the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center — (NOHRSC). Approximately 50 employees will operate out of this facility when it is completely operational. The office building is 17,500 square feet and has two other components; an upper air inflation building and a NEXRAD radar. The inflation building — which is 36 feet high, will be used to launch weather balloons. The radar will be used in forecasting weather. This proposed building is located within the Chanhassen Business Center. This lot is located in the southeast corner of the CBC. The CBC does not have a recorded PUD and development contract. Staff is working simultaneously with the developer of the CBC and the NWS to coordinate grading and site preparation. Staff will be authorizing a grading only permit at the May 24, 1993, City Council meeting. The NWS is proceeding with the _ understanding that until a recorded PUD and development contract are in place, no building permits will be issued. Numerous concerns from surrounding residents were raised regarding health issues. The NWS has met with the neighborhood at a meeting in April to specifically address these concerns. Staff is confident that all concerns have been addressed. Staff feels that except for the landscaping which needs to be increased, the site plan is well conceived. This is a 10 acre site that has only 2 acres of development and the remainder of the site will be open space. In addition, the topography allows for the building to be set several feet below the — street grade of Audubon Road. BACKGROUND — Ryan Construction Company recently gained final approval for 94 acres for an office/industrial park. The City initiated review of the project in September of 1991. The — development standards for the Chanhassen Business Park, as well as the final plat, were approved in February, 1993. Two lots were approved with the final plat; one lot for the proposed use by the National Weather Service and the other lot for a Jehovah Witness — Church. To date, the development contract and the PUD agreement have not been recorded. The final plat was contingent upon approval of the street and utility construction plans and specifications and the developer entering into a development contract with the City. Preliminary construction plans for the CBC have been reviewed by staff with some concerns regarding sewer, grading and drainage. Grading and site preparation will only be allowed for the Weather Service will only be allowed after the underlying PUD and development contract have been recorded. Surety will be in place for the grading of both sites. Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 3 As a part of the approval of the CBC, a 50 foot landscaping buffer was required along Audubon Road and a 100 foot buffer along the southern property line abutting the Buff Creek Estates Subdivision. A loop trail was also required. This trail will tie into the Stone Creek subdivision to the northwest. The landscaping buffer strip was required to provide a buffer between the office/industrial park and the surrounding residential uses. This landscaped area was proposed to be bermed and landscaped as a part of the cohesive elements of the entire = CBC PUD. Since the earliest reviews of the CBC, the National Weather Service (NWS) was shown as one of the proposed tenants for the site. Staff has always supported this use for several reasons. The site is almost 10 acres in size while the building and parking will occupy only 2 acres with the balance of the site being open space. The building is a single story. This building has a very low profile and will be several feet below grade at Audubon Road. The size of the building makes the intensity of the site very low. There will be no noise _ associated with the site or truck traffic. These factors make for a good use next to the neighboring residential subdivisions. Specific development standards were approved for the CBC PUD. In addition to the standards of the PUD zone, the standards for individual sites in the Business Center shall be as follows: 1. Building materials and designs shall be: a. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block. b. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. c. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. d. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. e. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components, or as trim, or as HVAC screen. f. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. g. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 4 — appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible — materials. h. Large unadorned walls shall be prohibited. All walls shall be given — added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. i. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures for all developments in the Business Center. 2. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. — a. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. — b. All signs require a separate permit. 3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. a. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. — b. The applicant shall provide staff with an acceptable sign package for incorporation into the PUD agreement.(with the development of Phase _ I.) 4. The street lights should be designed consistent with the existing lighting along — Audubon Road. a. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with — a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. b. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right- of-ways shall be used in the private areas. c. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level should be no more than 2 candle at the property line. Street lighting is excluded from this Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 5 requirement. 5. Each lot shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of site plan review. In addition, all site landscaping and screening shall: a. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. b. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or landscaping. c. The master landscape plan for the CBC PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. d. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive along Audubon Road shall be sodded at the conclusion of Phase I grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. e. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. The NWS site plan has been developed in compliance with these standards. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The NWS site plan has three main components; a single story office building and two support structures. The office building is 17,518 square feet; an Upper Air Inflation Building (approximately 498 s.f.) for the monitoring, forecasting, surveying and reporting of general weather information, river levels and national snow surveying. The other support structure the NEXRAD Radar will be located on the site in July of 1994, and not constructed in the first phase. The height of the NEXRAD radar will be 127 feet plus an additional 7 feet for a = lighting rod. Based on the grade of the site, the height of the radar above Audubon Road will be 107 feet. By way of comparison, the cellular telephone tower constructed near Lyman Boulevard at Galpin Boulevard a few years ago is 140 feet high. The Upper Air Inflation Building is shown located on the southeast portion of the site plan. An access drive is shown from the entrance driveway to the Inflation Building. The building is brick 19 feet high with a 16' high dome on top. The dome will be 36 feet in diameter. Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 6 — The purpose of this building is to inflate hydrogen balloons 6 feet in height that will monitor general weather information. A 300 foot clear zone is required to launch the balloons. The — building housing the balloons consists of an air inflation room and hydrogen storage area. The balloons are removed from the building through a fiberglass overhead door located on the north side of the building. Balloons are normally launched twice a day. Access to the dome is via stairs located on the south side of the building. The Upper Air Inflation Building will be constructed of two types of bricks; smooth and split face. The storage portion of the building will have a standing seam metal roof. The color of the brick has not been identified. — Staff is recommending that the color be consistent with the NWS building which is tan and brown. The roof over the storage area of the building is standing seam metal and should be a similar color. The color of the dome should be white. The NEXRAD Radar will be located in the southwest portion of the site. The height of the tower is 127 feet with an additional 7 foot lighting rod. The Radar itself is 34 feet high and — has a diameter of 38 feet. It is housed at the top of a tower in a nearly spherical, mostly plastic enclosure (a radome) to protect it from wind, dirt and weather. The tower itself will _ be similar in size to a 150,000 gallon water tower. There will be stairs inside the tower framing structure to access to radar. There will be a chain fence around the base of the tower for security. Staff is recommending that the fence be green vinyl to blend into the — landscaping. The main building will include three forecasting offices; Weather Forecasting Office (WFO), — River Forecasting Office (RFO), and the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (NOHRSC). Approximately 50 employees will operate out of this facility when it is completely operational, the NEXRAD Radar will not be installed until July of 1994. — The building is approximately 17,518 sq. ft. and is a single story building. The front of the building faces north, which is Lake Drive West. Access to the site is from Lake Drive — West. There are two entrances to the building from this direction. The rear of the building faces to the south, so it can be seen from Audubon. Staff is recommending that the back of the building have the same facade treatment as the front of the building. The building itself has a brick face with a decorative 8" x 8" brick used predominately as an accent on the columns and bans. The color of the bricks have not been specified and staff is recommending that tan and brown be used. All sides of the building are broken up with windows and — columns. There is a soffit around the entire building that provides shade and provides passive solar screening. Over the main entrance on the front of the building is a hipped roof entrance canopy and over the other entrance is a parapet wall or a false front. The site plan shows roof top screening around the roof top equipment. Because the top of the building ranges from 3 to 14 feet below grade on Audubon Road, any roof top screening would not screen the roof top equipment views would be on top of the building. Staff is recommending instead of the roof _ Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 7 top screening, that the hipped roof entrance canopy be placed over the two entrances and be aligned on the rear of the building to screen the roof top equipment. The proposed roof top equipment is low profile, 3 feet high. The color of the roof top equipment shall be the same as the roof itself to aid in blending or screening. = There is some outdoor storage, including fuel tanks and a trash compactor, south of the building. All outdoor storage shall be screened with similar building material. The plan shows 36 parking stalls. The applicants have revised this to show 47 parking stalls in front of the building. Originally there were 31 stalls at this location, but this has been revised with double fronted parking. The parking standard for office buildings is 4.5 stalls per 1000 square feet, which would mean 80 stalls would be required. Because this site employs shift workers there is generally 35 people in the building at a time. Although there are visitors to the site 80 stall is excessive. Under section 20-1124 (1)(e) proof of parking may allow for reduction of the parking requirement by the city. Staff is recommending that the parking provided on this site shall be 52 spaces as proposed by the applicant. This should provide sufficient employee and visitor parking. The building is setback 200 feet from Lake Drive West, 180 feet from the eastern property line, 160 feet from the western property line and over 300 feet from the rear property. The parking lot is setback 90 feet from the front property line and 250 from the rear property line. The setbacks meet all the standards of the zone. LANDSCAPING Landscaping for the site is partially fulfilled by the CBC PUD, with the remaining being the responsibility of the individual tenant. The PUD plans call for a 100 foot landscaped berm along with a trail along the southern property line. A 50 foot landscaped berm was required along Audubon Road and street scape along Lake Drive West. This landscaping included _ Austrian Pins. Linden, Rose and Cherry shrubs, Potentilla, Black Hills Spruce, Norway Maple, Ash Maple and Oak Trees. The landscaping shown on the NWS site is minimal. The only additional landscaping is adjacent to the building, this including Green Spruce and Junipers. The majority of the site will have a grass cover. Staff is recommending that additional landscaping be placed adjacent to the required streetscape and between the building/parking and Lake Drive West. The landscaping between Lake Drive and the NWS building should be a combination of deciduous and conifer trees, with some ornamental placed in a informal setting. Additional landscaping for the buffer strips should be deciduous trees including more Sugar Maples, Lindens, Marshall Ash and Conifers should include more Austrian Pines and Spruces. It appears that existing trees along the southern porperty line will be removed. Staff is recommending these trees remain. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 8 — Street Lighting along Lake Drive West shall be installed by the PUD developer as a part of the CBC PUD/Development contract with the CBC. The interior parking lot lighting — proposed for the site is 6 shoebox fixture lights on a 26' straight square steel pole. Parking lot and building lighting is limited to security lighting during evening hours. There will be a light on the top of the NEXRAD Radar but it will not be a strobe. All lighting is in — compliance with the PUD standards for this development. There is a monument sign proposed for the site located adjacent to Lake Drive West and the — entrance drive. The sign is 4' x 10' for a total of 40 square feet. The sign has a brick face with individual channel lettering and is architecturally compatible with the building. Staff would recommend the brick color be the same as those used for the building. There are two — wall signs over the entrances facing Lake Street West. These signs are 1 1/2' x 12' . There is a logo 5' in diameter over each entrance door. All wall signs are not to exceed 15 percent of the total wall area. All proposed for this development including design and size of the — signs are in compliance with the Development Standards for this PUD. No shall signs will be visible from Audubon road. RADAR ISSUES Back in February the Chanhassen Villager printer a article about the future NWS building . This article stirred a lot of public interest and even some concern. A flyer was circulated in the adjoining neighborhoods warning about the health dangers of the Weather Service Radar. _ (See attached Flyer). Staff received several calls from very concern residents regarding the effects of the radar. Staff informed the NWS that a neighborhood meeting was appropriate to address these concerns. Notices, 186, were sent to adjoining property owners for a meeting _ held by the NWS on April 28, 1993. There were 29 people in attendance at this meeting. About half of the group were Chanhassen residents and the half were employees of the NWS project. _ The NEXRAD Radar technology as was the potential health concerns were addressed. (See Attachments) The NEXRAD Radar will gather information about the location, intensity, and _ movement of severe weather, namely tornadoes, thunderstorms, heavy rain and snow, hurricanes and cyclones, hail, high winds and intense turbulence. The radar is located so that it covers severe water areas, major waterways, offshore water flight routes, airports and air — bases. The radar requires no staff. The signal transmitted consists of short pulses formed in a — narrow beam by the antenna. In normal surveillance operation, the antenna and, therefore the beam moves continuously, according to a prescribed scanning program.. In all such programs, the antenna rotates continuously around its vertical axis (making a complete circle). — At the same time, the elevation of the beam is held constant within the range from 0.5 degrees above the horizontal to a maximum of 19.5 degrees above horizontal. The beam Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 9 may be changed at the end of each revolution. The radar detects the motion of weather as far as 145 miles and the presence of weather as far as about 290 miles from the site. The NEXRAD radar radiates at a maximum power of 475 kilowatts (kW) or less. The pulse duration and repetition rate are chosen so that the average radiated power is 1KW of less. The general public is exposed to electromatic radiation from other common sources around it. Broadcast radio stations radiate at powers ranging from 1 to 50 kW in the AM frequency band of 535-1605 kilohertz (k/Hz) and the FM frequency band of 88-108 Mhz. Broadcast TV stations may radiate at powers from under 100 kW up to #MW at frequencies between 55 and 88 MHz and 174 and 890 MHz. Microwave ovens operate at 2450 MHz and 1 kW of power, but virtually all the energy is contained with in the oven. Cellular telephones radiate 1-5 W of power in frequency bands located between 825 and 890 MHz. The experts from the NWS at the neighborhood meeting provided documentation as to the levels a radiation predicted. They stated that the NEXRAD radar threshold of hazard is 6,000 times lower than that identified by the occupation hazard threshold. It appeared that the residents' concerns with health hazards were addressed. ACCESS The plans propose on a permanent driveway access from proposed Lake Drive West and a temporary construction access from Audubon Road. The temporary access will be used during site grading and building construction only for approximately 60 to 90 days until Lake Drive West is constructed with the first lift of bituminous. Again, if CBC has not received approval of the construction plans for site improvements and record the plat with the County, this site will not have an acceptable access, and no building permits will be allowed.. UTILITIES The plans propose on connecting to a proposed sanitary sewer and water service from Lake Drive West. The developer has petitioned the City for a §429 improvement project where the City would install the public improvements in Lake Drive West, i.e. sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, etc. and assess the cost back to the benefitting property owners. The City Council may consider the petition; however, staff will be recommending against the project at this time due to the heavy debt load created with the other City projects currently underway. In addition, typically in a development such as this where the project does not serve a city- wide benefit such as installation of trunk utility improvements or a collector street, the developer would be responsible for the public utility and street installation within their development. The City has already installed a trunk sanitary sewer and water line along Audubon Road and trunk watermain along proposed Lake Drive West through this development in conjunction with the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk project. These trunk improvements will be assessed back to this development on both a lateral and trunk benefit. Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 10 Assessments for the recently installed trunk sewer and water improvements will be spread accordingly over the newly created lots in CBC - Phase I. Two options are possible for providing sanitary sewer service to this lot. One would be if the developer installs the sanitary sewer in Lake Drive West or the other would be for the building pad to be raised approximately four feet and a service extended from Audubon Road. Without the developer receiving City approval for construction plans and specifications for the public street and utility improvements and entering into a development contract for Phase I of CBC, this site plan review is premature. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control fence is proposed along the west and northwest perimeter of the site. Both driveway access points propose temporary lock entrances to minimize transporting of sediments by runoff or vehicle tracking onto the pave streets. GRADING/DRAINAGE The site consists of rolling terrain and has been employed in the past as agricultural. The entire site is proposed to be graded in conjunction with the overall site improvements proposed with the plat of CBC - Phase I. There is an existing tree stand or row along the southerly property line which is proposed to be partially removed with the site grading. Staff feels that the grades could and should be amended to preserve the existing tree row along the south property line. Staff anticipates that the final grading plan from CBC will differ slightly from this site grading plan. Some of the adjustments such as trail placement and building elevation may need to be revised accordingly. The building pad elevation could be raised approximately four feet to facilitate sanitary sewer service from Audubon Road as originally designed and requested in lieu of Lake Drive West as the plans propose. In addition, there currently is no sanitary sewer in Lake Drive West nor is the City intending on extending sewer service along this street at this time. It would be the developer's responsibility to extend the sanitary sewer from the recently installed Upper Bluff Creek interceptor from the west along Lake Drive West. The plans propose on extending a storm sewer line from Lake Drive West which is proposed to be provided by the developer with Phase I improvements. The exact location of the storm sewer stub is undetermined at this time but staff recommends the storm sewer line follows the proposed driveway access and intercept runoff prior to discharging into Lake Drive West. Staff is unable to verify if the proper number of catch basins or pipe size is adequate on the site without site drainage calculations. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 11 event should be submitted for staff to review and approve. This may result in requiring additional catch basins or realigning the proposed storm sewer system on the site. Erosion control fence is proposed along the west and northwest perimeter of the site. Both driveway access points propose temporary lock entrances to minimize transporting of sediments by runoff or vehicle tracking onto the paved streets. COMPLIANCE TABLE Setbacks Building/ Parking Required Provided Front 50' Building and Parking 200' Building 90 'Parking Rear 150 'Building and Parking 300' Building 200 Parking Side 10 feet 160' Building 100' Parking Parking 80 stalls 52* stalls Impervious Surface 70 Percent 19 Percent `Recommended parking variance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #93-4 for the National Weather Service subject to the following conditions: _ 1. The final plat of CBC - Phase I shall be recorded with Carver County. 2. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Depending on the storm sewer calculations, the City may require additional catch basins and/or pipe. 3. A revised site grading plan incorporating the final approved grading plan for CBC - Phase I, including the trail location through the site, shall be resubmitted to the City for review and approval. 4. The proposed site grading along the south property line shall be revised to save the existing stand of trees. Nat'l Weather Service May 19, 1993 Page 12 — 5. All landscaping materials, i.e. trees and shrubs, shall be planted outside the proposed street right-of-way and not over any public utility lines, i.e. sanitary sewer lines and — watermains. 6. The site plan shall be amended to show the additional right-of-way and drainage and — utility easements that will be conveyed to the City with the final plat of CBC - Phase I (17 feet of right-of-way and 25 feet of drainage and utility easement). 7. The property will be responsible for its share of the pending Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvement costs (Project No. 91-17A). 8. Grading and site preparation will only be allowed for the Weather Service will only be allowed after the underlying PUD and development contract have been recorded. Surety will be in place for the grading of both sites — 9. The landscaping between Lake Drive and the NWS building should be a combination of deciduous and conifer trees, with some ornamental placed in a informal setting. Additional landscaping for the buffer strips should be deciduous trees including more Sugar Maples, Lindens, Marshall Ash and Conifers should include more Austrian _ Pines and Spruces. 10. Signs require a separate permit and shall be consistent as shown on the site plan dated — April 16, 1993. 11. Conditions as stated in the memo from Fire Marshal dated May 12, 1993. — 12. Compliance with conditions in the memo from the Building Official dated May 10, 1993." — ATTACHMENTS 1. Flyer information. 2. NWS informational packet. 3. Letter from Dave Hempel date May 11, 1993 — 4. Letter from Mark Littfin dated May 12, 1993 5. Letter from Steve Kirchman dated May 10, 1993. 6. Site plan dated April 16, 1993. — CITY OF i :11CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer &et DATE: May 11, 1993 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for National Weather Forecast Office _ Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen Business Center File No. 91-9 Land Use Review Upon review of the site plan submitted for the National Weather Forecast Office prepared by Rogers, Perlenfein & Associates and Jones, Haugh & Smith, Inc. dated Apl-il 16, 1993, I offer the following comments and recommendations: BACKGROUND This site plan proposal is being considered prior to the City approving the final grading, drainage, utility and street construction plans for Chanhassen Business Center (CBC) - Phase I. The final plat was recently approved contingent upon approval of the street and utility construction plans and specifications and the developer entering into a development contract with the City. Preliminary construction plans for CBC have been reviewed by staff with some concerns such as sanitary sewer service and overall grading and drainage improvements. Staff is reasonably comfortable that once we receive the final grading and drainage plans for Phase I of CBC we will be able to satisfy the previous concerns. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of rolling terrain and has been employed in the past as agricultural. The entire site is proposed to be graded in conjunction with the overall site improvements proposed with the plat of CBC - Phase I. There is an existing tree stand or row along the southerly property line which is proposed to be partially removed with the site grading. Staff feels that the grades could and should be amended to preserve the existing tree row along the south property line. tilt PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson May 11, 1993 Page 2 — Staff anticipates that the final grading plan from CBC will differ slightly from this site — grading plan. Some of the adjustments such as trail placement and building elevation may need to be revised accordingly. The building pad elevation could be raised approximately four feet to facilitate sanitary sewer service from Audubon Road as originally designed and requested in lieu of Lake Drive West as the plans propose. In addition, there currently is no sanitary sewer in Lake Drive West nor is the City intending on extending sewer service along this street at this time. It would be the developer's responsibility to extend the — sanitary sewer from the recently installed Upper Bluff Creek interceptor from the west along Lake Drive West. The plans propose on extending a storm sewer line from Lake Drive West which is proposed to be provided by the developer with Phase I improvements. The exact location of the _ storm sewer stub is undetermined at this time but staff recommends the storm sewer line follows the proposed driveway access and intercept runoff prior to discharging into Lake Drive West. Staff is unable to verify if the proper number of catch basins or pipe size is adequate on the site without site drainage calculations. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event should be submitted for staff to review and approve. This may result in requiring additional catch basins or realigning the proposed storm sewer system on — the site. UTILITIES — The plans propose on connecting to a proposed sanitary sewer and water service from Lake Drive West. The developer has petitioned the City for a §429 improvement project where the City would install the public improvements in Lake Drive West, i.e. sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, etc. and assess the cost back to the benefitting property owners. The City Council may consider the petition; however, staff will be recommending against the — project at this time due to the heavy debt load created with the other City projects currently underway. In addition, typically in a development such as this where the project does not serve a city-wide benefit such as installation of trunk utility improvements or a collector — street, the developer would be responsible for the public utility and street installation within their development. The City has already installed a trunk sanitary sewer and water line along Audubon Road and trunk watermain along proposed Lake Drive West through this — development in conjunction with the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk project. These trunk improvements will be assessed back to this development on both a lateral and trunk benefit. Assessments for the recently installed trunk sewer and water improvements will be spread accordingly over the newly created lots in CBC - Phase I. Two options are possible for providing sanitary sewer service to this lot. One would be if the developer installs the sanitary sewer in Lake Drive West or the other would be for the Kate Aanenson — May 11, 1993 Page 3 building pad to be raised approximately four feet and a service extended from Audubon Road. Without the developer receiving City approval for construction plans and specifications for the public street and utility improvements and entering into a development contract for Phase I of CBC, this site plan review is premature. ACCESS The plans propose on a permanent driveway access from proposed Lake Drive West and a temporary construction access from Audubon Road. The temporary access will be used — during site grading and building construction for approximately 60 to 90 days until Lake Drive West is constructed with the first lift of bituminous. Again, if CBC has not received approval of the construction plans for site improvements and record the plat at the County, this site will not have an acceptable access. _ EROSION CONTROL Erosion control fence is proposed along the west and northwest perimeter of the site. Both driveway access points propose temporary lock entrances to minimize transporting of sediments by runoff or vehicle tracking onto the pave streets. MISCELLANEOUS An additional 17 feet of right-of-way along with a 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement — will be dedicated along Audubon Road with the final plat of CBC-Phase I. The applicant's site plan should be revised to show these anticipated modifications to the lot configuration. — The City is considering allowing site grading contingent upon the developer of CBC meeting certain conditions of approval; however, no building permits will be issued until the final plat of CBC - Phase I is recorded with the County. In addition, no certificate of occupancy — will be issued without Lake Drive West first being constructed and formally accepted by the City. — RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The final plat of CBC - Phase I shall be recorded with the County. 2. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Depending on the storm sewer calculations, the City may require additional catch basins and/or pipe. Kate Aanenson May 11, 1993 Page 4 — 3. A revised site grading plan incorporating the final approved grading plan for CBC - — Phase I, including the trail location through the site, shall be resubmitted to the City for review and approval. 4. The proposed site grading along the south property line shall be revised to save the existing stand of trees. 5. All landscaping materials,i.e. trees and shrubs, shall be planted outside the proposed street right-of-way and not over any public utility lines, i.e. sanitary sewer lines and watermains. — 6. The site plan shall be amended to show the additional right-of-way and drainage and — utility easements that will be conveyed to the City with the final plat of CBC - Phase I (17 feet of right-of-way and 25 feet of drainage and utility easement). 7. The property will be responsible for its share of the pending Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvement costs (Project No. 91-17A). ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer — CITY TF CH AN EA SSEN 044 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: May 12, 1993 SUBJ: Weather Station Site Plan _ I have reviewed the proposed site plan for the National Weather Service building and have made the following requirements: 1) Submit a reduce set of plans - 11" x 17". 2) Install fire hydrants as shown on utility plan. 3) A 10 (ten) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 4) Hydrogen storage or use in excess of the amounts listed in UBC Table 9-A will cause the upper air inflation building to be classified as an H-2 occupancy. All requirements of the 1988 UBC Chapter 9 and the 1988 Uniform Fire Code must be met if the building is classified as an H-2 occupancy. 5) Additional information is needed on the fuel storage for the auxiliary emergency generator. 6) Install P.I.V. per Chanhassen Fire Marshal's approved location. t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 —�7C • u 11 ca _I \.7 . I9 '+ ! I 5 L Z\ E'- mitrt +tl r -- sa7 M t 37-v. = tI {I , 1# , ga sa 1 9i3_1:11-4, — — _17 0 I' . s I I 1� I'i1 I 0 61 _...1 I /Ilk a° i \ ( \ \ 6 %‘,. 1. #® i4dI � , :IIS I . "‘ '4 \ \ �+ ! t! . 1!(Oo:i f\\\T' .0o\ \\r lig' \\ I! !III }� Z. \- a� 01 '+ cg f 1 N!1 , `I jf a. I til1 l\ \ r dp :././ I .��, II ill •j b ia \ / NVIZLII V1110. Qo i 1 r ' /• x �,_ - _- nu I d i�d S u i f4 egg la `I 3 1 i I Q /:'¢ 14 ai ai fis i1 a I p a S ��'o EI /i ! 1 1 ! ; _fpI f i�ti; ///� 9 1 1 5 CJ i /-' j /!�€ le ! I 1` 1 i -amu 111117L = J .4. --0 h. i. I : ==III p. 1`v� °''1'4 ` • '0 .-Po/' q I.: all ' 1f ^�.,;. �' !..i g __IHII I Ii o I i .' "'4••••\ 'Q.: ali lh 1 0 1 _ s f4 i nAAA__ I t o e ii iiil tg,a O I IFI -�1 ( isf ?III Ipl, ild I i,li I R a b I I i I n F'} I A.- SS ,1 a i 1 @ a ..gret `., 11 ri/ 4 f i`i ",i4 ifs ji L I 1¢, #b; ' ' i I,1�I , a - =i II a s f:ia "# m� ` l Z X03 b if ��e i' IS °°Mi i ¢ i, ! IN ,ti t e ; • c ) ,..f, CITY OF -i 1 CHANHASSEN . . - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 1r"T (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -MEMORANDUM TO: Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official . `-tet f DATE: 05/10/93 SUBJECT: 93-4 Site Plan Review (National Weather Forecast Office) Background: I have reviewed the National Weather Forecast Office plans dated 04/16/93 . -Plans included title page, LO1, A01-03 , AU01, C01-05 and ELO1. A total of 12 pages. This is not a building permit plan review. -Analysis: rhe City of Chanhassen adopted UBC appendix Chapter 38 as amended by the State of Minnesota. This required B-2 office occupancies greater than 8500 square (feet to be fire sprinklered. This requirement is of concern to occupants with extensive computer systems. Fire sprinkler systems can be designed to provide additional safeguards for computers in fire sprinklered buildings. Recommendations: The building owner and\or contractor should consult with Public Safety staff about required fire sprinkler system before submitting plans for permit review. " Asir PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER --- • ik• `'='~``` '` • THE NATIONAL 4EATHER SERVICE WANTS TO •�xq= BUILD Tim WSR-88D RADAR IN YOUR BACKYARD! ! - _-: --� JUST SAY, N0000000000000000000000 .#.� 7 ;:� .- .. • `: �Ll � • � TO THE NWS RADAR .:_t y is _ '' • `., -.--•:4' .'. 714, _ CALL CHANHASSEI1 CITY HALL. 1 _.e••'Z":'4"-;'•--- N .- i -III _f�; °__ 937-1900 : w�•'- . '1:7 •••?' • ' - • :, _ �i�,`'t!•_' 1 .-z.....15•1•-:- • . • --•►i=` f' _Ei:..i.:v r.7.4r.: 1.. 2: ` 'fes ~ {- •1;ii4 -', -.Mfg .{ l / ; -: ` 06111 it) + Irif 1.,--e .- - • _ - -- - • _ ' Rr�`' � -- ' - - ' - :7 .-im":--_-= O Ai Q" � 1- Y G .1 8 �� w n < 5 0 m ? _ 7— h t C Zoo� =W = to W c).-. ¢ a o moo V NL: 0o w z = Z .. w 2 0 -• z Lo .-I F tip+ - 0 11 .• Z z ¢ az Q 2 8 LLI _ .-L- W zwi .11 J xz N cr ZZ vi w ¢ oR : iHF 1 INL :: I - / CO0 ,i1-.ff a IL-7,1,„ _ Elm° 43.:11-tii, Cifil) oirlavoi, ‘."II fot:10 0 g o 4:111C F-- CCSL----, Z W 2 c) 4,...4.5 LL Z LL 7 CL W0 LYd k• 1,.•'.�:.. i ^ Q Luh_ Z Fa (�wv"'-;� Li LL >2 LLIW0 Zz -�. O = Z JN V wZ 0�p Z fit : UJB 0, CLL1C E Z yin c` " �� J Hu)z°z W p « Q Uaz Cr O t <. , W W In a4_ W o CC Q 0 ..., ; O Z Z gC) U LL z � � - i i Aiolas Al W U p <o CC o ZLJJ \AI,'".klk ". ./ _ \ '». ' as Iii____7_. ... , .. Q 71 1 = y____--------- .,,,, ,._ I 4 '"..1 ''''..,. \ . H -:4,1„___;''',Ill ST *1).:i..,,,'11.0.'',...10 I: iliCt 1 •=. .. • ILI 0 Z _,..,e,......... RAM TIOH L \--:''' oi `` • 0O ---- ---...,_.•.-4k, Z \ '------4.--*L.' Q -t >- _ ZZ ..... � , /0//t/0v > w 0 .y, 7..: 0Lu otiJp. o - n . - cc 7YNo11dN/ ia N� : Lu2 — 1.11:1C z — P s 1 7 ek s ° ` x? s I I i i ;'Ft -- it iYpg + I , .frwZ� HI t L T T7 C fO. es_..% v�.L• 3331tb �:r f a 111 O Qs �aI Iiii:11 ia1a :, ,,.,7o ,i te,,,,;.7 « Iti IE g , 3 I ; ; ., - ),1 ', P4,1_, 11 .. .• f o ' n -5IiiT ��ii1 r i „II) C O Ij�, ,. r D 1 1M1 P a i'l3 3i- p T e i t = : i � 4 i, ., I '' C.r.1 ;T�� xlIh111101111 ct iiii III=e . : ;I i , .,1:-; _ °�Q�. ' =@11 1 'd D\N1 Ari ,� _ -�1f� .=;� _:=1I0Mil %4 �` ~ -• = 111 111 fi4� t ° ,_ ' -_ o= ..�_ T •=11.111111= • oo° Fl v 17 °. )i 6 IY ,t;'.....2�/ \ I CPI ! ' r I f i' r 6 I i T ` a lig It - •: ..... a 1!ii i5 ,, ,i f .\ .�� JS •••• SIi=.° �� \ J } OJ 4 I o T La ,' II J y-)_ 0 3 ! T y kq t r: "tt�, f: l ,, VAtkifl ese., -..., ,. 0 k' t i r .ta. 1 1 ! ... 1 il NI if if.' \ \\ v zi se, \ ,.....:....-.. . , i r 1 i i�:5, p a .No- 1 .illi __IIq . _aV.,. \ \ rb 'I° ' 11( \_ A i i1, �� } ` x `-64 i_+ --- - - - rte i 3 ,�E i➢ _ { .cC4C 1 N il*ws -- -' I: f 1,,Iv, p o F1 _ ; , I M:] © r 1 .. -* U - f L.4- — Adi - - licu �, pa. �� 777 L j le 8� `g . j t 0 r •....iiiiir— — -----— g 40 — ---,1 , 0. —T , 1 mummummo .4;4)' .0 1 • 0 fl 0.11. - ii Q ' t *IN O L i 3l; • 5s ;[ I II - . ■■r, I: r li1 - 1 3; ;�' • T t :' %aisi,lo O q = t" r �emq c Dj B' i _) r = � , Oo a enstallonil 1114; !I 1" T cti) 1 4 ,,:-. • ._ •. ,,, „ . . , p.,m •�ll 'i = •I o o t 0 M e I _. . I - 0.E i`rwraii�nr■iiiiim■N EZ o o• _ y . 0 4 - •?■■■tea ■r m___ ... 1 M - - _-- s :.1 MI , -- '�■.■�.1E1•■1�I■■■-mm rA I', ___ 1. _17-- 1 T.'••7■..■..■[■■■■■.m. �I ` I`s ■m■m■■■■■■■sai o I�Iro v _-: 'mwi�■■■■ _■■■■■ m ! I t �a` '_1 i il� 1 114 ;s ; ! AI) i ' o O O O Q 0 O 00 , r .. It ell .. i ^-- -----i'''--- --'.. I L .... i .. .. 4 y. l J . , I I I a —tcs �' a c II, ' t,� 9 � I I I I I I I CL al 4D O Ib r , . 41 . 1 I D 1 , ! 1 1 t t i o . 4a _ ++'' i � � I I i l S _� . ki i 0 ll . i s ill MI l o z 9F I I I i ° -0 �Iwt;l _ �, ill 11o- ' R -E-1- -0: 1- -- M 1 0 M �■ w i' o. o f o ' I I I I . . 01111 tr.I ii o t. E I ■ '�'j 1' ! I '0 f I I I I h 1: 1 I�'_�1 NEM MIi�'o I y j: b q' I I I- E '� 0 jr9s ot >;f i ItP; z ori ' 0 z ie c ; i fl zl` ` I,1_�_ ill -- -- - R ..., it 0 . 0 Ili: I—t. LLL 0 Ir `ice / �" • r,. ati -0 1 �_ ■■ 1111■I■ 0 L�Ji �' OtopI� —�u'0. L I 1 I 2 pm mom 141 0 ■ ®,—:gip_ Ii -I- 0 I ' " 0f 0 - --0 F. _ I ° 1i e 'O 'O g O ` I I I I i.w..o In w„..,.30 MO hi ➢°vg obi g i 11,0 3 145 f a pail 1 Ii e II 3 _ i i � ` -I - i zee _ ig 111 ® 0 0 0 --n1 i : --- 11111 f 1 0 0 I f 1 I i ,(0 1 i i Y 1q is 9s i Y t�I a i I • 1 •: I[ [5 6 •U ��, 1 li :; Irl isms �L v� 3pp 3 2 d i 1'i f I j,j j I t!;3,, I' ,M� I _ I —. � << � O g O =. IIi i6 it O hl 'li ° — 11 i ETI =:1 -- t /I.-:,,,,, ,p___,::,,-., 11::',i11,7,1,q. .9I — I ii7 SIE = '�`..lj.I:$E ==uIukI 1,1„.„,.h. pi.i. i ' is air 15- >. ■ a'------- . O 'ill, is,: i-lt o I I� I Bill '''.�Ili e II FYY r IL._,is .11, ;� — Q Is o o- a%. a t i. i. o I I_; ;T� Bh °r . Atimi t 1 + -..:dit,'IM 1 0-4 I ;1„,____.,. ,,T.„.„ „, ISM I 951ii.;. ti t . f4 ttI 1= i ;� i.a II it t ]t I3I'�� z " , =V � 111/ °D = [ d a '1-;m i II I= ws is a r It Q ' 1= 1 q£ 11 ni —I I� Li — 1 I = = .411;. '.1111111111.111111•11�1fI ` - 1) 1_� � p CI Z=0 a- 'mm E ---=s a Lit! I 111 ii RI. ,f�1 MI. e !!I ' ink c)__L__*___ 5{ c7ar: , Iligin so o .,-.7.1 , , , 11 Ill 41, Me i p ww++ p I � r Ii► j•�' ;l BI 1 i 1 !: !,Il€ i,.•`: ; Y6 Y Iii�o { ,.I. I ft 1 I • 1 9I i.. Y 6 9 i I e i N — E ` e II� . Ili Il Ili I r sol i 11'.cPci : ■■f•�°• ..... I } Si IJjh # _€�4�� i�37� l�It}�I i ° �1 8 1�:, i �<� ��,�Q ti:fIpr �. ° i p- Z i � I ; �� f ii,ii� f�ii 'a �i��EI:E�gtf� i � �i �s i ! ! �:: ... E. f =E. ,f0!1 !ff ee 1 qq1 t I 2 Noon 9 i i� ii ilitit litioi fliIifil9i{ii a ��3 i 1 kpliI =1 : g g f , 'a i , Ei I n ll : If f Fi i3 i _ ; .Y.O/.fl rt, 391 ��1 . i--- .- �If` - 1�� SII ...mail i • i , AL ,•: 1111111111•fr.. E -.: _ 1 .jii1;-,--Air "I'''. 1 (_;],i-ilk iiii‘ i .___.; — 11 �__ — :". I. f 4f8 � , do :I .�If Lit 3 el 11. i� 91 a ! rs ani S(2'sn (f 10 4II:i. — 721177 !i� Iit� Yi i ,I l. f� ih !l{ it './ I«, iiiii:zi 2 11i! IV ; .. i, — klii 1r i �`1F 'I i f f c E 11 �--.. 11:13...•Q 2 -- c if 6f . L }P A t: Ii 16 mil . ll'e . )II k :s 1 i 111E1 - ii k 111 �Jtiliilil1 k a . 22 N�.�e. Y Y I4 — /14:=:::=1:1 - lain o 2 NMI ww._.�:.. , „el a ,. l, ,,_ici, _,_ ..g. ______G - i iiii::�,Qi..■.I �/ 2 ! of ■ uY ■ L�V'li t .il:l i . . I. kg} Oii.,;„ 1. _ . __ II i� �i� k (� ,, .. - - 1119 • ( > ! j . f Ill I 1 _ �.� .� I f41 §� F 1 -- tiii I 1111 fig i IP$$ €! t EE 1 i It I� s �ises4�i r I� : it n Ntinth 1 id lui i6LMS, 34' DIAMETER Ala114Sk AND-- m.a-lehik 11111111110) 411111wiro •Aleg iroJ two_ ...to( \glint/ tAsolitep fir 36' DIAMETER ~ `•�r'� 134'± 127'± - 1111111111011°1 9 fan* 15Q000 GALLON NEXRAD RADAR TOWER WATER TOWER N° nOAR \ a�,` FACT SHEET National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service Office of Public Affairs Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-713-0622 NOAA NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MODERNIZATION A complete modernization of the United States weather system promises to greatly improve forecast and warning capabilities of the National Weather Service (NWS), the largest component of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Based on new technology and a greater emphasis on training and education in the sciences of meteorology and hydrology, the program is designed to provide more timely and precise severe weather and flood warning and forecasts for the nation--a move that will save lives and help minimize property damage. Key industrial sectors of the nation will also be able to make cost-saving adjustments based upon more reliable weather forecasts. As the modernization program progresses, underlying assumptions about the capabilities and range of new weather radars are being verified each day. The United States has the greatest variety of severe weather of any country in the world. Severe winters, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes are not uncommon. In an average year, weather-related events claim the lives of several hundred Americans, and damage runs in the billions of dollars. Obsolete technologies, however, have hindered the rapid observation, analysis and communication of information on fast-breaking, smaller-scale events that produce severe thunderstorms, tornadoes and flash floods. With our outdated technology, too often warnings are issued only after the storm or flood has developed. Major advances in satellites, radar, information processing and communications systems, automated remote sensors, and superspeed computers are the tools of tomorrow's warnings and forecasts. It will be a new Weather Service, staffed by more highly trained and skilled people, with a versatile array of advanced technologies at their fingertips. By the end of this decade, the National Weather Service will operate the most adQanced weather and flood warning and forecast system in the world. Benefits of Modernization When the new technology is in place, Americans will receive the following: * Better warnings and forecasts of hurricanes and winter storms that claim a major toll of life and property. - more 2 * Earlier, more reliable and site-specific warnings of flash floods, the number-one cause of weather deaths. * Earlier, more reliable and accurate warnings of thunderstorms and tornadoes. With the new technologies, as much as 30 minutes' warning of major tornadoes may be possible. This would significantly improve protection for millions of people. Currently, warnings of less than ten minutes are typical. * Improved warnings of general flooding for the increasing numbers of people living in cities, river valleys, and coastal areas. * Fewer false alarms of severe weather, resulting in heightened public confidence in NOAA's weather warning services. * Improved long-range routine forecasts, out to ten days, better serving the general population and America's agricultural, transportation and other economic interests. Background As organized and equipped today, the National Weather Service provides excellent service, especially in observing and forecasting large-scale events occurring over several days. Today's three-to-five-day forecasts are as good as one-to-two-day forecasts of a decade ago. But meteorologists and hydrologists need more and higher-quality observations of the atmosphere if they are to improve warnings of such highly localized and often deadly events as — severe thunderstorms, tornadoes and flash floods. Many of the current observational techniques are labor intensive and based on the use of — obsolete equipment. Today's weather radars, for example, are based on 1940s technology stemming from World War II. Advanced Technological Systems New National Radar System — Weather radar is vital for detecting and monitoring the movement and development of severe storms. But the radar units in today's national network are obsolete and difficult to — service. They are so old that some of the parts are no longer manufactured. The Weather Service is the only government agency that still trains people in vacuum tube technology. The explosive growth of technology has led to development of a new Doppler radar, model WSR-88D. This development is a joint project of the Departments of Commerce, - more - 3 Transportation (FAA) and Defense to meet their common weather radar needs. The new radar will incorporate state-of-the-art technology allowing improved reflectivity measurements to produce a menu of computer products never before available to the forecaster, including one hour, three hour, and storm total precipitation over the radar's entire coverage area. By layering individual radar displays, the flood forecaster will be able to more quickly and accurately analyze rainfall coverage over entire basins. Application of the Doppler Effect in these new radars will allow forecasters to "see" inside storms and detect wind-driven rain that is carried toward or away from the radar. This gives a clear indication of storm rotation and of many severe storms in their early stages. Ultimately, more than 150 units will be produced for use in this country and at military bases overseas. The automated radars will acquire, process and distribute high-resolution data which provide valuable clues about the development of events such as tornadoes, flash floods, — squall lines, wind and wind shear, and precipitation. The radar sites were selected to provide maximum coverage for severe weather and floods for this country. Overlapping coverage will permit the continuous tracking of moving storms. Data from the radars at Norman, Oklahoma, Melbourne, Florida, and Sterling, Virginia, have been available for Weather Service forecasters for over a year. Verification statistics from — each of these offices show this new technology has significantly aided the forecasters in a dramatic improvement in severe weather warning services. In Norman, Oklahoma, the radar has increased lead time for tornado warnings from 0-4 minutes to as many as 20 minutes. Central Florida had an unprecedented 40-minute lead time of an approaching severe thunder and hail storm in March. In a five-hour period, the Melbourne office issued 25 warnings and bulletins. In the Washington, D.C., area, a decision by the Office of Personnel Management not to release federal workers during a February snowstorm was based on a Sterling forecast using new radar data. This decision saved the government $43 million. New Satellite System New NOAA weather satellites will provide forecasters with more detailed imagery and with a new instrument for atmospheric soundings. These data may provide critical advance information about hurricanes, thunderstorms, flash floods, and other severe weather. Two geostationary (GOES) weather satellites normally are positioned over the equator at 75W and 135W to provide a broad view of the United States, its coastal waters and the Pacific and Atlantic breeding grounds for winter storms and hurricanes. Due to loss of a spacecraft in a 1986 launch explosion and subsequent failure of an orbiting satellite, only one GOES is now fully operational. But dual-satellite coverage will be assured during the remainder of this century with the procurement of five new-design, geostationary weather satellites. The - more - 4 first is scheduled for delivery late in 1993. Four improved NOAA polar orbiting satellites will be available during the 1990s, with the first to be launched in 1995. These satellites collect weather information over the world's oceans and polar regions and are an important source of operational information for forecasting weather for several days to a week or more. Information Processing and Communications System Today's weather offices communicate among themselves and process information on site with a computer network known as the Automation of Field Operations and Services (AFOS), — which was installed in the late 1970s. It uses data bases supported by mini-computers at each weather office, and forecasters use it to manipulate screen-displayed data in preparing forecasts and warnings. The AFOS is obsolete and does not have the capacity or capability to process the extensive, fine-scale observations which will become available with the new systems. AFOS — will be replaced with a new computer system called the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS). This advanced workstation will permit forecasters to extract, assimilate, and quickly display the most meaningful information from a diverse set of — observations. As part of the AWIPS development, NOAA will establish communications links between — its national meteorological center and the warning and forecast offices to ensure the transmission of near real-time data. As a part of this communications network, one-way broadcast of NOAA environmental data and information will be available in near real-time to NOAA users and to private meteorological and hydrological services nationwide. Automated Surface Observing Systems Today, routine surface weather observations are collected manually at 260 Weather Service facilities, a task involving 1500 people full- and part-time. The effort intensifies greatly during severe weather, when rapidly changing conditions require frequent updates to surface observations. It is during this same period that NWS personnel need additional time to prepare and disseminate warnings and special weather statements. Implementing a new Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) at up to 1700 airports and other locations nationwide will help provide this vital time. A joint effort of NOAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the U.S. Navy, the — ASOS program is procuring as many as 1,700 units, most of which are planned for installation at U.S. airports. They will operate automatically, 24 hours a day, continuously alerting forecasters and users to significant weather changes. — The ASOS units will acquire, process, store, format and distribute temperature, - more - 5 atmospheric pressure, wind speed and direction, cloud cover and other data. This information will flow directly to the weather offices as well as to local airport control towers. Computer- generated voice will broadcast weather information automatically to pilots near the airports. Automated Upper-Air Observations Upper-air observations are collected twice daily from about 100 U.S. and Caribbean sites with balloon-flown sensors, many of which are recovered, refurbished and reused. Eventually these observations may be collected by a ground-based network of atmospheric sensing radars. A network of 29 ground-based microwave sounders--called Wind Profilers--has been installed on a test basis in 15 central states. The wind profilers acquire wind speed and direction information at 72 different levels in a column of air up to an altitude of 10 miles. Each station is automatically sending wind information to a quality control hub in Boulder, Colo., every six minutes. Hourly averaged wind data are then transmitted to National Weather Service offices — throughout the United States for use in making local forecasts. The data are also sent to the National Meteorological Center outside Washington, D.C., where they are integrated into computer numerical models used in preparing mid-range forecasts. 1rr July 1992 Charts 1, 2, and 3 show warning accuracy and false alarm rate for the WSR-88D versus the three prior years with old radar. The chart for Norman, Oklahoma, also shows intervening years between the old radar and the new radar when research versions of Doppler radar were in use. Chart 4 shows warning accuracy and false alarm rate out to 150 statute miles from the radar. The performance is evenly distributed throughout that range. Chart 5 shows lead time for severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings out to 150 statute miles from the radar. �' ..:, .. .r..,;..;64• Sri.w:•}:.;x".,':.,;:. ...,y.:F: f 7� :- ,.-� k. {',•-•r.-. � {;: �r�57:: arr:3 :'�?t';•y'°cywi:3�c<��:.. }.F/.:+d>4 { 9 ,.l ,j,�v o::$:;;Y4;x};±.xa:r:.�::?`?' is>'v+,.r ;�%xk.�'�'`•<a,"..+,•�G`< 9.,+ ...x. -Kiff.<•,-'s.1c,.•'•'x` ° .`:'>F::' :±:.-Y:•::A'::f x} "tt--g .s:aj:+6,;r , .y;.0wgf.;t 12:: / ^' \ W .}-. as E L Q (/) . c ,:. LL T <F3:" .r:. ,:.::v: my . //�}{( >:is 45..x':•'{ t{J ..... F ..3 ' .:.:�.�::::'m:-:... ...... ...........................:._._ice: v:3.... •:lF:Vii:±:?v: v::r, N; ':^' .... ... '•,: w r. / 4 { fJF lrsr=avf::C<!Frr,:/f.3.:±U±v'9rr ' J3i^r.•+r F� •} . G :�� hihxr•:::• :.,a:.rirf±�• :fr:£i1Ja%�±-.. So ........«.Y•:.'.....,.: ��'?. .��.r '4.r: 'r./..,Yom ':?K*Kg•;fm,r�:s :§K:K:'7;'JrffT 0 .Cl O ': .�:t'.?xi.:i}i :�:L`:rr o x;3.:- F::f:::•KT,"'"x>..•'•+'r''-�1k f;.1'. J .Gr..,y {?::;SFr` :w:;7':::f:<r+::ir?:=F{¢:•,...,,:. ., - >:•—••Y••••,,}y,}"� o. ,:%: t'•i.Gf}r F>::}?or:. >Yff>/F.:.,. :x:•:,.: :.y.•:•,/r j1}r�r.'6F. w- F S:f'jx ..f. m•-:fir-- .�' .f ..Jf?:"?:::r: of- t+A :f :x4f - M4' f f- }rc /r.. ryry :±•4i.J->+ii::SY}iiia: ...... ........: {>� /.+r� vf+v+�, fH: } ��r.`<+4_ :.c;�.i,F.3...FF;;.;rn f.;.r3yn.�ty;r.ff . r-:- „: .L rr f.,,,,: rr f t*,,,,: ,wy3 F�: T "ter;ff•F-i rFx J r }" r v YfF,.� 1f-, f'Frry:'-fes,-": fix... .:rr 3: .F r F o r f, l: .i?.::Yr 4 r migi::.r :f}f::3i:3 r-r;,_ as f �:•r:.>:7`xr%Yki !'i{.,: +r- ./.�o�{r r. /.,cY: !„c, J,wi :%..!' 'k". I}: �� I jj .;:.;f fr:......:.3- :..��+..�l�t`.�Q{ ?YyY�•'s�f'�:> i'-..:{:.::»r.xsfk:::f,G�3`-�:. :rN+ta's�:rr/„ �,/� �'�i I T. ]6 t` „cam{a k2"+mr7w"".-.�+A.t�.`Yo' 1— I / r:rftsxvav/ r+f} f,%1F YJ i F f"f F" 4' .0::: , fr '17 'ff '-•�1 J +C'fil r s�/}f�+Y �r• �>�f i 4 'f f jlj � r (� +.....„,::::::„:„.„.k.,:::::::„„,..": � :.F¢0 :/5.:r..,rr J<S} Fr .f f : `` 1 1 ,y!, T r 1 f?.:r}:.-,rf :,,,.. :r. F.,.r J h1v +lr: .'..S 'n F :r. :i 9f r >"r Y: ::tG-k�r • i:�:v.q lr:.; i ---. 'fri. .oto-: . .:f.. Grr .vf•• _ o .r x.•..Sfr'" •.S ilkr: y'•}'f, '? v4ri%-v F{.i:: 'i:J.f: :4Y.i. ,,,,,,,r,:,,,.:::,„.,-.,,,,..:4,0., d.7.,4.,.,..0.:::,... ,Ary A y 4>'f: f%,k..:. "rr" L ) :::::,4,...,„„,::::,,,....,„:„.....: ;,..:„„,,;:,•":„2,.: .„.. .. . >r - V J r.'. r -r;Q:Yrr. ::*,-:�":•"::'.:.�:: ery.:f.. :.4Y i:.r.. ' 5G.J"-;�•:{};'.r F:U•r:{W +r :::? ;i.,>:............`tr.S-.y-+ {F.:::...F i.:Y .F. � ..:,iY:'r"r,.:..^. :fty.�� :{>F: t' fys,:YfY, r F - r`hFff_Sf. }r{/J r,fr-._-f.}r�=.^'+ ,r r ,o-r.FJr:F•-iLny"`Y;+ri: xJ�` Y?rr.rpF}4: r:.e:•Fr:: :.rir/:i`:<1'n:(v'ri+':-'.f}r.-:-: •ifrr:r::l'C3i:. ;{. >`• ,,,,,,, J y r} Y/f ly ff r FQ i s r.+:{,:m , .-kxH±:i{rte'-f ,, ;.f.♦.. Jtr:v{.Y;x..,r •:p>.'>.< r ;3{.. . ..,; -"l r v,..130} :`f;. :.o IFF v:•:4:-f.'.:.,,,':.yy9.:4,:•:.:•:•::-':.:}.:u y F.Z: ......xix.rn kJ x-.i J'F/.-::r.%:{F.F/.S Y xy.,, - ?y y • '�'r r ~.Y. i+*W.,%,%:K::. lF F•�f/ J :K $: .,Y.,vjr { O yy F 4^.•�.X xvr C4,:} F 5?0,4 -1,�. fi .... ...,. :\ '-W.:xf.'Wk%»l^�•r.3M.3:-..G::f...h!�:%K.v.Y.::.>iF.�{ .�M�i}/:v}l+�:i�% ' T CO CDN 0 0 0 0 Q �yYr r {n 4J v y:: .0 n��i $-r<.. \ i.ti h -4,. :•Nr•••0•••,. 4'♦ J 'M'{rs}fi, __ r u ¢4 '.f,.��,.�,}r.. l..,;., ...„. • rri ,,s, S :.\4n.- ; •,4:,itt:, 4L..rti >;L:r..:'r !iA rut?:::':•iiia . .ir.r. J:a:'A !� / c r,;. rxtq'//. a — .- .c :E.a�;..-5//r r n}x.};:, r.3 ;,,:: ;:,•::: '''W' ;✓ . / f:;.\ti:::x w / .- r -giS✓S // Fr.4.'i:a '" '3:i?. S:;:?ti: :"':;`,:::„.:„.::::i::i is:�::: MYrrr..,f/� s: f//F rail% ffb,3' •< a '3' •�''�'.+. rc.;4a° :�` ,n 'v< IG:Q•:A`:x... ro✓ r-.;' }^?'i: ''<:}:ya:;/?;+:`• ,?':v =14>S.✓%r v rr•-'?tr, ; r:�:rvr:n•Lcc}}:ic}}i?!?:r::::_:?.a:iy.;..v:r-.,:: ......... .............. .... .. .. - - -• ..... �.. .. � ,x<i:;::.:i:�::�::}�}:o .a. 9 .. l/.rrr .......... .... ..r.:. ..r.. ...............::: ....... ....... ......: .::a:,.': .rr ..:.::::n.:::::r..r..::..::::::.;::::-;:}}:.; i}}>:�}:.}}:.;�.;,,<.;�:::::.�::.�:.�:.;;;• ...,:r.nr.. ..,r:.:::::.�..:........::4:i!!.?......rr:.-:.:r-..../Li ..::.�f� •,.;/ ... ..,....... ....F.. ... ..r.:..n .:r:4::: :::'i:l:y.:•.::: :.:::::::::�.v:v: ::n�:::::::::::.:..............:.:..................:: . :�::::.::.:.:...............�:'�i'?}}:}:.:.}.:�::::: :v v:::!�/.::�:.�.yr. .}l;r:}} }�:::::r::.r..:.nv::::v:r:. :.i... :v............ r ..n....n.. . .:.::.... n.: v:}::,..:. 0„.:::::. . ..:..:..g..?.,: ...;-,:m...:: :...:::g,.v:. : .:.:::.rf:rlM n.::.:v:n.: ........:.: :::::: J v?nn•:,; ..�.n.:rv}}:.......:,...u.......,.. .:+.l}::}rrw:r•r:v:?:;!..r...:: .:•.v:r., r.:-,.nu. �.v v: :: :::::.:ter::: :::?!!?.h;:,_!..v^:::�:::::!:�:: }:?::./!. :::�::::::::::::......::.�::.. .:. ::.:...... . ........... .-...... :. h.a::::•.: /. ..:•:r:., ...:•• •. .:::r.::.::.:..... :J.:<-::.... i:.r:..r..:::ri.....r...... ........ ............. .. :..:.........,............................ .. ....r.r/� ,..:... .I:?fin>!r}:?La:.v.:r.....:: .l .;..r:r:•.,r:r:.n.:r. ., ::::....: .......,�r/:l::::........: -:..,.:ri,:::�:.,r....r.rr :::........... ... r..... rr:..........rr ./�r'.r:}:i::i;..:.:.• .rrrr ........r:?+.. .r..:.a. .. ,......... ra . ... r: r/..r..rJ........:........... : ...r...... .......rrr..r:.r.rrn:i::.,•.: :��.:r:�:::::: ....... .....::.::,::::::::: ::.::::::::.�::.�:::::::::::::::..:::.:::,:..:.. :::.:�::i::!::::};>- .. r F F. ...vw.v/r/ .... ...::..r1.r::r•?:<v::Jv:':::: � }}:4:.:.:�:.�:: 4:Y!:::::::::: :::r::.:.....::.:::•::...... .....:................. ..... ..................... ' •.v. r..,rr-. .:..isa}::/?•:,}. ::}�lv:::...:;:{r"x::r....r.r..:v: f!w: � ...u.r..:l.::.:v:.:v :...........::::.�.:�:: ::.u::::::.:: ::i.v:}::r: .. .r F.a+l:!v:::;.../•.ri.:::..: ''nn :..../.r..... r....n.:x.n:.. f/.}..::..u.r..x. .. .... ..............::::::: .::::::: :::::::::.:.:::::ii:iii:i:.v:.�:•' `T�ir+r ,.r... rifer..1./.. ....r.... ....-...::r:::}w.'.•.rf. r:.:x:::,..:..y/! x..;a:.:.:;:..y,r::}:!v} } >?.v::.r..:r:r:............................�::.:....:................ . ..v::::::...:v.: ...........: .........r:i: L. :.Jr/rr::r::..r.Jr:.::,.r. r......:rfr..... .....:r. rr. ,.r.........+.:.r.!i//r;•:::i r Ri:...:•:• ::.::N.,..........:::::::::::.,:::::. ::.::.......::::::::.:::.: ::.�:...„........:.. ... : .::::::::�::...:: : fi...rl f/..::. :ir .-/I.Lw::,,.y.,.,,:,..r r?Fr. 4:{.:......rr ... ......................... r a S:H.?rrf.. .�'`.:&,`''''''.,.%.:' ..( :gni/..-::::;ri:.r::::r' ....:.... /J. J ./S",:.r4£:.r rr.......,.. r..�...r:..na:r........,,/,r r.:.�r.,.r l� r,.,!r.::r, ............. JF ..a}f:La•fJY.4l4}}<v.:}?::r!:: ^�"F�/.i'rri}w'r:.:i:.ii,'F,.:h4J it r:.}'-:r:'?v'•i:J�: ... ..S O:v:4irii�:w}:i}:v::::r. f/ n./r :.rte.. .:: :3?xv:.n.r i.::!:•:::•i ............. : / ... ...n n • .......}}}:!.r}ir}}i:iii:•-::-:::::::nv:}:iir:vr:•Ya:^ir}}}}Y::��i::�: ,};F..•v:.f :r:v::rv..;.:i.,.,r.,.?.fLr:?•n..v:.vl:.. J <S.. n �... .....rn..... ............. }rpt ':::.:i...::::w;::.;� ../r.,.. .r.. f:. //.f:•v.}:r.:'}':i•.:. r Y/�Y'i...:./..,n.: .....viii.n ......:.......................................:..........:::::::1..:::::::::::.v:....:: .:. /./r :r:19r....;!r qy..vv:.n.% 1r:::::�: r'f of r:• .:/. ,.J.! r.r.:.r„r :.. rJ .. .r ..:.J-.:. .s, •.arn.:. r...r.... . ...... !.,.?::.::.::::::::::::..:........................................... r r�i.'r ..i..r... /r r.. ,. ,. r. ..r.. r. ....: .-...,r:-}:-:-:::�>::................... ......... ... ...... ... ::�:� ::.}' .r: .rrr:..r/r b % :: ..r :.v...r xrr..1......r.., lrr..: r....f. l+r:::nr r , r .f,..J.j:.::n....v::........ r..:.1.. viii...r..r........:..:.:.............. ..... .r......... ..�. . .. :. :',: r, . ....r... rr.... :. . 'S .k•-:•. rej.:i :: .....h.:....r. rJ:: ,..-:: ......i.O.r..... :::::.n .. :.a.:. ,i,..'',.• r..// :y./�'r.r..:r.:rr.. rr,.,.:/rnrF.... ..4f ??” , / i^ :..fA:n::::::,f,.{n............. ... .................. . ....:::1,•: :::.:�:..., .r.. . 2:.aar•,:vr..:!.'•: •:r F r rd •NC•.:. ../. ..fir •../... .:., ..r :r.;/rr,;ifr .:::::: �:;:}�}:.�}:;:.i;:.iii;;•;;.:?.;:.;:.;:r:3r •.wt ..r l x� ....... ...fr: .rr.. .r. .::::�:. ri irr.�r:/ ti .r. ,. ................ f .r� Fr/.: ./..�^ a _ ..+:.,...r.:/:....:..Jn. .:::-:. : r. r. 1 v , ....: rr ..:.�: .r..:..n•:.u.......... lri.... ,................... .r.,.....::.. ..................:... ...................r.......... .. .... .............. .....;:'. .,� ., /..nrr.�:�::.r::...r...r..............:...:n,.r,................, 4::::r..:::.r?.r. ,.?�.i5'al.. ........s..,..r...... ,... r•.a. ::::� ...... r......r......::::. ........ r...... ........ ........ ..__.... ..... . .... . �. U . . I Ct3 03 .• .• . 0 .• • • Sir:;r/ , • 'ter-,-(....",...•••••,::::•:•:....,:......•. •:( • \r�U /- CD :v, .. n..n! a) 0 >< •ffr¢<`' C . . ( .0) . p•r r y wr q /ry: .. • } CO • CP CC `� ,.t • • •ray • E • CO g . . . — • - r';iu? n::Fiv • I Chi: CD • • • !▪ :' } a :: � �'. }%t.: +v}y- r;t^T.t'•,' vryy;..}w:... ,Y.N.-.... '}"$"J$.'.v. /-'T".::.:7?�/':rnA//'+.Y•.".::`.,'f.-. ryr/ , :.:.: l., :-Y.!}i:%i r :y}:•y.,v—. ry-•{";f�^. , x.r/.:'r'i!t wT -$`h;.h'$i%��'',P � '.u;}:i��. rJ;A.'}$:-.?J-;r �'�i,c t {}�' .w••C!cf.Q%$�Sx�::.: ti?'`t/u/:.::}:.}yt:>�'r,�:'```,..�'�,' ^rf,/ }f:fi' '��w::' .'i't's>':�: .... :,..../"7/ ,rC, :.00.1;r:�-W.t'?/•}'..�_x{-4. . 2 :.*-0,'�r:,,::"<:'.,;:i' ':::!�3:J_c .,i•.o,• ,G -fe:i.t ..v.y,:.t. a}s::�:;•`,,••:�` ':C{• .}u- �-.t tf:t ..r3r f J l:rY?:y::-:.v..........:::::.......... n•..h i} .4 : S.., . .vf:1�hr :,: : . *,:.'T�l`::A }}\ ;Ci}4:v� •r •Y. �:1r..: .. :::..... .:.... .: .:: ::. ........ :::v:.... y .. ::•r•,:f::.Y:. t..-v-::r:."::::ry-a \:4\v}}} .Jn,.....::. .J ........:::.:;;:...: .. .. ." .:..x:,::.:::::.im-:::,..... R., s.: .s •:}:::.w..fn...: :: ........ ... ::::...n ..... ::v:.v::+..nt:.:.....i.:::r.}:a^:: v:..v ....i...... .r•,..•-:refit}:y ...::r..: :hy.: ..:::::::........... :vv-}:ryJ,'.,..x.;!:.::..v::nv::.v::�:..... ........,......::........... ...v::.;...:/l...r..:v.4.\:}}::':�.v::�.:...:.v.............. .... .........................: .....+.. .. :.vv-..-..:•... v:::l..;..:}:-/::ii"!:�'':::::.:%%:f%i}}:i:�%:-i}%.;n::.,.......... :..,..�..f........ ../.r.,... .:f.f.r.. ..............::::::::�:�:::.,..............................................v:;....... .. :. .. r....:::4:.�..........:.:x:..:.:::.:::.�:...................:.:.:.:vrr:h:h:r:.J-.,.,J.J..........Yf..r F: ,::..::::.y.:...r.................. .................::::::....................r......:::::-..:-fv:}'{.}}}::.}+,{n}j;*'$$.: „r... r..... ... ......:...........:..,;,.rJ}:J.h.;..; ,..t . ♦n•:. •:,r ..,:r-�:::..:..>::.i;:;:g>'..;i:-}f}-.i::�%'�.::!p:�»%:%;:t::.� :::-:.::::•:::•.• :r...: .:. .. .}:,:. .., ,: :x...: :+.r ,: ::.............................:.-::::::::........... f.;.r.rr ...,:....... . . .....r n,:,........ .:_*'.�:. ..:,......... r: ,....: r. .r•.•nF. :Kr: iGr.. .* r..::.. ..:-: .......... ::+..{-�:.. ... .::..: .:..::...:: ...........: :::�:+-::r:..r..I.F. r �Y. .... r..r..:.;;h.ty.%..:.:::.::.:.:.�:: ::�::!.::::tfi:;->;cn;:::�:.:.r ....... .....:.,.,o ./-rft.:, .. ,,.../ .. ..r.:.,-::::-:::i .,. .t,rf/h - .. - .. , :::•::....:..J,r..-:.:-.::::::n::::::...............:.n•1::.:.tt-rr ,,,,:2 of ....f ....:,: .: r.......:.... , a:K:............. f £� h.: • -%:f:.•.:v: r.. f. .. f., ....itw::::::v............ :.rr:........... ...... ..::nn}:•i ?' '.,f}:ah::a:$r}�:'.r:v '}\•}'-}$ ,v�,.S.$ .:/r. ..�. .{ r::r.... ..r,. -.r... }Jf:-::: ,r ..::::.. ....::::.:... ...........::::rev:-:,. , . +tF 3 � .: ::-`r..%$:}.i t$}Y r ....: f.+Sgr....::.v:::i�.:::::::::..:::::::.::.v:.. .:. , ' hrc fx...r r....... r,w..s.fv :: l :. -F�i'r':i$i$v::::::::::�.�::%%:%}:•:i:.r....:.,. ............ .. /...... ,..!,hr::: :....:.................+.:.::::::..:..,...�..r.'.r .f.r r! hh tf am.+ .,.,r. - -},`.'tw'} ,. Yr .,.. ... : : c::.�:::::::::+ u}; $':�f:. ...c}r:��i��:>�$;}:;. `ic r. �`: K:, ..:...:,,,„..1::::v::::n.::...:::roi.%:..%}:i:',1,`1:•:i:.:;rt':}}%Y::!:.!:::%1 e,/.l� J,}t •- ..�5y...3yf� }:G: .++...-:+ ,:........... ...... ;..:F ,( :•r}..-'/.:fir-Tii. .c::.. h..!vii,...;+./. .::r.... ..1., �. $+^.}�.,%r(h.F: �}:Q::v�1. {..Y....r /lr i% .4. { �?i .%..t ck.,.f .GF ,.. r:n.:.:.. .........::.r:.:<:::•.:.:.�:•:::::,.t-i.:x,::vc::::r:t:r..n:'!-rl,i:!,: :L.:,...n,:...d;:-:- ... ...:+f/�c;, ry�.ty:r ,�3,c'�}• . �}:: � r } Y,$ cc fxfh:'r . k' ::�,+}y,` y:Y.fiv�r.}v.{ - •Jt �:$ ±'.",i,//,'F 5 :f; • • {-$: rh•.lrf• iL h'":t% ,! "Jn.r lam. ws{ c; _ urn _ • • (f1 �y:Y 4+ 1 gilt: :;A:i S i f RSii RS ;fi.}:t.::. h9f J hL J/� :rY ivv]i. Ii:t - -� vv:L•v}i I''''''1.•! ' 'r ::;.•� - ��5:!" '--•'.,.^cis `::'`''` a Y. • %h}::: ..%:e y :.vim. r.. • ,:c•ii--z-5,..41-.-iwig:i .. • ,-...,010:.??-:::,:.,,,... , Li•- . • • .:. 4G .t.ti .� '.}ifsS%j Ll't+ -:':$"::f( �j ..::: • AH im 0 • ...::::. - ::=: — n:. • .0 3 t? • C5) . • . . . • . . • . • . "r"-- l tr_ I I ,--- (.0 n� o • C7 d ff 1 ....•. ..:.x.: : ... :.w...:.::.:}:.:::::::x:C�.:::•:.::.:v...:.....:...:.....r...........:..............: .. k...f.. ",.. xxaa::.r ? • a. '` •:v....:.... ..x:...•-..Ti? }X••• . a'•:: ..?YYxn{•:K.Y:a,.rr?-a::.Ya.,:x::::x:::... :: a :::::ax_ .; •,/W::{t :• "^.!a4—.." t3 . .• fL•.r,..,..r,r<ry?}`:-+::.•,,,,'::;,y:•.•.,.}: ::-: .... ,:v*E.,v.!±r: n_. {: r.f..*, aTx-.-_,.h,›. $� 4dyyfCf:�.::::. .* .kN '± 6^ es ` :pA;rf/:. ..rW5a,yrc:!V.T:J{?.tIx }' .: .'ba .}P2v .�. , .....-.:x.::;?.;y:):::::s:ii:':ii::j:2ii:i:< ::;. Ki:. .: .. ' :.:�..- v .: : v:.: . viox. ' x ...:....x.:..:x •.,.•rrvr ': } ) ??: - v1FA. }...•}.-..::._. J. :.--:.'F..:.�:..x..:}..x!.r,...i."iS...::..':x:.'.}............a.......:........../........i.....}.......:.:..:{.x..:...r.:....:...w:F:;,....:n.......:...%..?}v....::.......r.xr:.........-..r..:r.-.:...}S:x,..:v.,:..:.:,.:r•.:i::�. fl..Y.r:...•:.a'.f.iil:f irrn.-.!::.A.wF .„..{/�..f,.•:.:.fi:.::::.:...r{ ....:.;:}......rSr...:�...�.-:.:....{�.:.a.,;<}.vv:{...:x..:.ri.:.n..f:x.:Y:..::b:.-:.Y:.«.;i•-Y:.-•} :'..}:..a.:..:wY:,.:..-:�T:..x).✓.'. ,•.x .i.f`.:...: • .....f•fi2., :bxr• :'i•7..^'�'.: .v>:.:•: xvrCfi 2a :4'• •:' ;..,•. ... .......xv:.x::..x:.;•T::: ,:ni.•..J.x:: n•.:x%:f":..; v:•..i:r:i.. }•}:.S :r:':::yi:.:::::.^i,•.:}?.. v`•;::•?i:�:.:: :- ?x=- =` :`:iiY:�:::ri:'`•.I iS 4 ,:a .: x„Sywx .::. :rSF m x ,ri:.: ?a ,: vvAvx : . :.v :; :.. .. a <•.,:n..Y:nxa}:•�..::{ .:r-rv:.::::..:::f :.:.:.:.........:..:x:n.....M./n:Hr. W./ .h .. : : x. .f...: .?.:. .. ..: :x ::ir.Fv .::: . . . :'Yi : ..:::}i::i: ::.:ti : '� ....f:W .v..n.i.:..::,.nrx:F }:;:.}.}. ).:.a.}i.: :...:;:. x:::::.v:.x I:':.,::.::r•.r •F:.:x ::k .y}{. }.i::i;...:a;.:.;:.•.:.:.:...:.::...:..vv.::.x:.v::.±xi.:T:-.YC.i:}.,.:.....:.............F. .: ::::::.:,:.,-..a±..x,: ....r...... - ;ta • :}::x:r.::.:r,.: r.:.:::.......! ...x.v[::..::::::.....�..: :.,..':.'?::!r:.f;«,..f:ii:x....-.: .n.xv .n:...r::':r.:. „:.: rf ax .....r.F...........:.:. .;...............:...:.:.:....F.;:..4...... -:.:.::..-..:..-.....:...:.....:.:-:.:::,..:rr.x.:r�.af::,..,..:..:.{?-.�::�-:::�' . iiff .:. _ �:}:U:v.:x:xvv:„::&,.:.:::.::..:....::.:r.. v.r.....�:.x",.,Cx.....: . :-- ..tex:..,.4o ..::::: F , . ::..,.:.?:......{........a.rr....T.T.x:•:r.-r:.:.r:.,:.�.<.�.::::::. .-.:::...,.::•.. ....r..:..:.:...:..Y.v.. ' .x•:r.. -: ::vv... -i }: � :} .... :. /. x• • • .' ' ?: yv� : ' !" :'S•..?.,.'��t '..,:ri..5 tHV „a �!! +\bv}Si& :.rgr: ,#a<{, ' rbi: rx:fxxT.:n': :„: ft.y. ..:Ra4\} %;0'.cR. :A.�. a� .wsbf:r{4:::::::„.•...„:„.:„.:.::::::::::::„.„. {i•S°.. >, a:K. ...), ,...„:„.....z..„...„.<„,.:„.„....::::,„:„.....:4::y:x. ry '.. {yri::::*:: '. ,T. /.4 . x ;. Y , f. raYF:: .}}: x• Yla44. Sti, r4f ,/ .N • l . � y '/Ff :eu. v ' -J.vuJ1W •Nv' ?:.vri:Sir}Si;:ii:;> :i: :::: :;i::�:5:<5.ih .�.: '++ k:Jx ::v:, : . n �. : \ !iYL'if•7 E �Y; J:v;i� +: ;::.~v , �FyFr.xY.'h :af.;: U. Si: ` •.i:_ , •.':':lgrv: ” • l r -YJy:: i.rf +j:Y::f- iL'Fi' f T .• ......................�.5.....,.....vr.f............,.... .......• - "fYi:]C.i?ji:-r{::i';?r::>i'i:i.j:�::::i 4}, .:; :4S..�i:•S" •SyfC �?Y/ J1Yt;9 ^,;•r!r,;r;? 'Yr};a}:,.•-i}}:.Y:;.s:::Y:r:.'s';:::: Y"::: Jlf';uS;.;{S•r. fir.of (�,�' yO:12et^bv.-"n'ffS�< 4r:y b..,rf,s�;y. .. y.:{+.',;`?,:ir x` 3 a A-F!i:ff•:i: ,•-,,,,• a:v" ....:.: .3, ).4•/: `.i. { ::,{}};;::::i::::^.:r:±?::: :ka. r ,,, `fi,i,A: p .).Y•:. <Sf:x w.f?ct?::a%i�.... .:'Y I.SY.•. ..� �!�y� /•K'¢3 , .:.c.:▪ R..x.t}�..},,, - .....•52�:•t�Ya}•:J{:x;: ,,,4\\,,... ;a} ,hab/.::%,y.a. , 2\... y ..rvti,W/ Y - v -A ��f t ..:y.>.fG";.S �:•:•,r:�,�r�,,. :.K• 2>F! \: v'Y4� «.�o:;•i:;.: . Ji•. '2o-i,l•..t .{h •:'iY.v.:r.i'::y4 ::�: �:5:}`?; :_:ii;: ::i::'::::;::!:� ::- .{3a: :2 :<': ':riledr",,64•••,,,,....,,,,, +,d— xY�•wb.�:::y.'':?3'r`:`%:iik� ;4.C( ^::a •i•▪ .A. ,.fv •arxC, t;5-.. •:v`;1:�::'y:_v:::}::. :::%:-.•:t;n:T>aa::i}ii , jy .% � „•fY.y,! y^ N 1 �:>.vv •Yc' 'Z`.Y�:, ) <n:r,..„., `S.:S c•: };:? .ya_,<;. • • is..♦., ':i: :.•�fi 2 r,. $•�'.: '\'V'�ti:i`a:tYi3;;,<.,..M.,,Y:: J;:2^a}f....✓nA:�'',.. . Cn: vf. :;;'},vwj:tjc.Y:aY`rj ?i..,}.,C;Y})r,:;t.;`;:�S4i!{:1”%'�:/Y.�::::/:} ,.A',;:.::ki:u�s.:`}.Y.4R:;.�t,,i { h\y7',.• }Yiti„i,a\ ! ✓ "2 S:w!,S''::,fr,�,;. W y a �yv,Cyi{.in;%y:°a:v;}{.,,.`ft..... :v.5+..4�rf•a•'? f``f";:i%''fidr3n.�•LS,„Y,.:�t, :?%'� ? a. K• ,r.}.'�;.>y' 7v.tC't ralr)r vs,!±.`y; .� .•-•".::; • .t2= i!..✓..{,n2,.:. k' \r• fi' b' :•4/S i`cSS r f ` .� jn �:;iyvy!..;iy {• i::%.�.r;uw4rJ' `%y}!i/." 'jki,':v‘ S:f4°..�,.,fYY" �4✓�� Y.\y";<y�:aA!±;?r>'x..y{.,.F.,:..):.�::v : •as vw.j .yta.?; %.%9:,X*i:<Z::;5•v:J:�:i:i.�)': ^, _tnHR 'y3Q1;_53FMFNWS CENTRAL REGION TO s.81E41G3276 P.1728 NEXRAD AND PUBLIC HEALTH THE NEXRAD PROGRAM , Sporawrs and Partldpants The Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) Program is a federal effort to design, install, and operate a nationwide system of new weather radars to replace existing aging and less capable radars. The program is a joint effort of the National Weather Service (NWS) in the Dept of Commcrcc, the Air Force in the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the Department of Transportation. Purpose The purpose of the new radar network is to reduce weather-related loss of life, injuries, property damage, and interruption of business and personal activities. This goal will be accom- - plished by improving the detection of severe weather, as well as by improving routine weather forecasting, Such improvements will make possible better tornado and winter storm warnings, flash flood predictions, general weather forecasts, flight safety and economy information (wind shear, turbulence, and wind), and water resource management (runoff). For example, earlier warnings of the occurrence and location of tornadoes before touchdown will allow additional protective actions to be taken, probably leading to fewer deaths and less damage to property. In addition, fewer false hazardous weather alarms will reduce the costs of d.is-uption and protection. System The NEXRAD system will consist of 115 NWS, 23 DoD, and 15 FAA weather radars in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean. It will gather information about the icca:ion, inteesi y, antmovement of severe weather, namely, tornadoes, thunderstorms, heavy rain and snow, hurricanes and cyclones, hail, high winds, and intense turbulence. The radars will be located so that they cover severe weather areas,major waterways, offshore waters, flight routes, airports, and air bases. Site Selection Factors Each radar site is selected by considering both coverage requirements and construction and operational factors. The primary considerations are a clear view in the directions from which severe weather typically approaches and the location of population concentrations. Radar antenna tower heights are set to give adequate coverage while keeping interference by reflection from buildings and surrounding terrain small. 1 012,53Ph1."NL4 CENTRAL REGION TO 91E!64263270 ?016 P. 1E/2E Other siting considerations include roads and utilities; nearness to weather service forecast offices, airports, and military air bases; and needs for limited duplicate coverage in high-threat tornado and hurricane areas. Environmental Assessment A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement written in 1984 is the foundation of the environmental process for the IN'EXRAD Program. The basic facilities and equipment features of the radar sites were sufficiently well known in 1984 to judge their potential environmental impacts in general terms. However, the actual sites for the radars had not yet been selected, and therefore it was not possible to assess whether the potential impacts would occur at specific sites, and, if they did., whether they would be significant. Therefore, environmental nssessuacnts (RAs) are written for each site. A site-specific EA is typically prepared after the in-depth survey using additional information about the impact or impacts of concern gathered during the s-irey. To date,no site-specific environmental impact statements have been necessary. Schedule The first ten WSR-88D radars have been installed. The remainder will be installed at a rate between one and four per month until the entire network is operational in 1995. THE VVSR-88D RADAR Name The radar used in the NEXRAD network is known as a WSR-88D radar, This label shows that the radar is a weather surveillance radar. that manufacturing of the radar began in 1988, and that it is a Doppler radar (ace below). Appearance The 28-foot dish-shaped antenna, known as a parabolic reflector, is housed at the top of a tower in a nearly spherical, mostly plastic enclosure (known as a radome) about 39 feet in diameter to protect it from dirt, wind, and weather, while allowing the radar signal to pass through (see Figure 1). At each site, the tower height is selected to allow the radar to see beyond the surrounding terrain and nearby human ubstructions, tc bk,ck potentially interfering noise from other emitters, and to reduce the reflection of WSR-88D signals,which the radar receives as interfering noise. Site A typical WSR-88D radar site contains an antenna tower, an equipment building that houses the transmitter and receiver, a stand-by electric generator, and electric power and telephone lines. The actual layout at a given site depends on the characteristics of the site, including its shape, slope, drainage, and access. (Figure 2 shows a general layout.) The tower and adjacent - structures are surrounded by a 7-foot-high chain-link security fence. 2 C3-25-'J"IAR, A5....-,..,..?, Q1:SaPM NWS CENTRAL REGION 1U y 1 C:04LoJ6 i J : kn.: P.19/28 3B'-0" DIA. AliNNA — RADOME---,a.. i I, RAIL .�.,..__ .r��....�s t_ A t , I 1 __ c� r i " / REMOVABLE r'�' ASSEMBLY PLATFORM /\ ,:.-,-Altirr--, -\ t,1AXiM:J1a OF 6/ ._ -4/ =�` MINIMUM of 1 / S'fir EQUAU-'f SPACED er-rn SECTIONS r (16.4 ft min. 96.4 ft max) //i ' GATE i�� A/C UNIT \` MilROOF SECURITY FENCE `=`� �r'CURB • /ipp ` I SHELTER ,4 , _ cin hckss�n i he v-e AL * . FIGURE 1 Typical WSR-1311D Radar Tower(Profile) 03_2J JJ_,T1NraE'. ..j; 0.1•_54PM NWS CENTRAL REGION .0 .I4.J4L. „JL 1 a ='0 P.20/26 NWS NEXBAD 140 ft ....FE-- I DO ft --- gml BAOK—LJ P 80—kW -7---�z�a z 1 11W i74 ER POWGENERATOR z f !// DIESEL NEL S ORAGE)f {. 1 I—,7 x/ I 1 I m x L_ ELECTRICAL zIi SNTER MNIMUM/CNRC11OTO BE LLASE-/ STING ARPURCHASED /c/i FIGURE 2 Typical Layout For NW5 Radar Site n�—�.� TAF _vc t?i:55Pr� NN CENTRAL REGION TO 16.542532 I2 ? P.21/2E11 P.21/2E U5J 1 E ..nti� Personnel The radar requires no staff. However, government employees and contractors will pericx i- cally visit the site to carry out maintenance and to make repairs. At some radar sites, a new weather service office will also be constructed. The office will be staffed 24 hours a day by 5 to 6 persons per shift. Doppler Technology A Doppler radar is one that takes advantage of the Doppler shift to deter the :notion (rather than just the presence) of water, dust, and other particles in the air and thus the velocity (speed and direction) of the wind. The Doppler shift is the change in the pitch of a sound caused by movement of the sound source toward or away from the listener. The sudden drop in the pitch of a locomotive horn as it passes is an illustration of the Doppler shift. Designing a weather radar to take advantage of the Doppler shift is a recent engineering advance. WSR-88'D OPERATION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC CHARACTERISTICS Operation The signal transmitted by the WSR-88D consists of short pulses formed into a narrow beam by the antenna. In normal surveillance operation, the antenna and therefore the beam move continuously according to a prescribed scanning program. In all such programs, the antenna rotates con- - sinuously around its vertical axis (making a complete circle). At the same time, the elevation of the beam is held constant within the range from 0.5° above horizontal to a maximum of 19.5° above horizontal. The beam elevation may be changed at the end of each revolution. For occasional maintenance and testing, the radar operates in a"searchlight" mode, during which the beam is directed at a fixed location for as much as 5 minutes at a time. Safety measures ensure that searchlight operating time is carefully limited. The mechanical design of the antenna system prevents the beam from being directed more than 1° below or 60° above horizontal. Computer programs limit the beam to between 0.5 and 193. The WSR-88D radar detects the motion of weather as far as about 145 miles and the presence of weather as far as about 290 miles from the site. RFR Emission Frequency The WSR-88D radar is designed to operate at any frequency in the range'\2700 to 3000 megahertz (MHz). However, at a given site, the radar will operate at a single,fixed frwuen — The frequency for each site will be selected by considering the frequencies used by other radars within about 150 miles and also the frequencies that could interfere with other users of the electromagnetic spectrum (see below). S Ci1_'55F 1 NWS CENTRAL REGION iv • P.EE/28 • Beam Characteristics To meet weather detection requirements, the radar must emit a strong. well-focused beam of — electromagnetic energy. The antenna forms the energy into a narrow, cone-shaped beam. About 90% of the energy emitted is concentrated in the cone representing the main beam. The radar beam actually consists of a string of energy pulses. The pulses may be either 1.57 or 4.71 microseconds (millionths of a second) long and be repeated between 318 and 1304 times per second. No energy is transeaitted between pulses. The antenna actually transmits a signal a maximum of 0.21 percent, or roughly one five-hundredth, of the time. Thus, the pulses are separated by relatively long intervals to allow the radar to detect energy reflected back to it. Power The WSR-88D radar radiates a maximum power of 475 kilowatts (kW) or less. The pulse duration and repetition rate art:chosen so that the average radiated power is 1 kW or less. Comparison with Other Emitters The general public is exposed to electromagnetic radiation from other common sources around it. Broadcast radio stations radiate at powers ranging fror 1 so SO f in the 8 e AM frequency band of 535-1605 kilohertz (kHz) and the frequency Hz. Broadcast TV stations may radiate at powers from under 100 kW up to 3 MW at frequencies between 55 and 88 MHz and 174 and 890 MHz. Microwave ovens operate at 2450 MHz and 1 kW of power, but virtually all of the energy is contained within the oven. Cellular telephones radiate 1-5 W of power in frequency bands located between 825 and 890 MHz RFR Definition RFR is an abbreviation coined for the words "radiofrequency radiation." It refers to the emission of electromagnetic energy within a certain range of frequencies. Frequency, a key characteristic of BFR, is the rate, in cycles per second or Hertz (Hz), at which the RFR field reverses direction. For example, in the United States, electric power is supplied to homes and businesses as 60-Hz alternating current. Another irnporant characteristic of RFR is its wavelength. The wavelength is one of the factors that affect how RFR interacts with objects. The wavelength of RFR at 3000 MHz is about 4 inches. The wavelength of visible light is about 0.00003 inch, and that of power-line electromagnetic fields is about 3,100 miles. Electromagnetic Fnvironrnent Electromagnetic fields - the combination of electric and magnetic fields - are created by electric charges. Electric fields are created by the presence of elec:rric charges, and magnetic fields are created by the motion of electric charges. The electromagnetic environment at a pz.tcular location and time consists of all the electromagnetic fields occurring there, whether from human or natural sources. 6 01: P1 Nw CENTRAL REGION 70 M:8184226327 0 P623 F.23/7,E, �J 1 VUrii. Some human contributions to the electromagnetic environment are intentional, but others are incidental to some other activity. Radio and radar signals ire intentional, as arc signals from TV stations, amateur radio and citizens band operations, air navigation aids, cable TV satellites, and so on. Other human contributions include unintentional and erratic signals, or noise,from power _ lines, fluorescent lights, appliance motors, and computers. Automobile spark ignition systems are a major contributor. Nature also contributes substantial noise. For example, lightning strokes act as powerful transmitters over a wide range of frequencies. Because some signals are reflected by the upper atmosphere, noise from distant storms can cause static in local radios. Electromagnetic Spectrum Electromagnetic fields are classified by their frequency. Figure 3 shows the range of possible frequencies; that is, the electromagnetic spectrum. National and international organiza- - tions manage the spectrum and allocate portions (bands) for different purposes. The WSR-88D radars will operate at frequencies just above the TV band. Ionizing versus Nonionizing Radiation Electromagnetic radiation with frequencies higher than about 1015 He (a million billion cycles per second) is energetic enough to ionize molecules; that is, to add enough energy to an electron that it will escape from a molecule. Naturally occurring four's of ionizing radiation include ultraviolet sunlight,radioactive materials in the earth such as uranium and its relatives as well as radon gas, and gamma and cosmic rays from space. Human sources of ionizing radiation include X-ray machines and ultraviolet tanning lamps. Nonionizing radiation sock es RFR from radars, Tvs, and radios is lower frequency radia- tion that cannot have the same effect. It can, however, agitate molecules and thereby add heat to the exposed object. If the rate of heat addition is lower than the object's ability to rid itself of the heat, the object's temperature will not rise, If it is higher, the object will become warmer. Be- _ cause molecular agitation ends shortly after exposure ceases, an object that has been warmed by RFR exposure will cool. RFR versus Power line EMF The electromagnetic fields from electric power lines - often called EMF, for electric and magnetic fields - are quite different from those created by devices that emit RFR. Their frequencies, and therefore their wavelengths,differ by a factor of 100 to .100,000,000. As noted above, the wavelength of 3000 MHz RFR is about 4 inches, compared with 3,100 miles for power-line EMF. For physical reasons having to do with the distance from the source, the relative sizes of the wavelengthsactsand the two types ofdelectromagnetic e cellular nre of fields biological isl vercylobjects.tthle interaction between obi n nature. Emission Measurement The power density of an electromagnetic field is the rate at which energy passes through a given area in space. It is typically measured in units of power per unit area, commonly thousandths of a watt(milliwatts)per square c;entittsetes (mW/cm2). 7 03_27,_t1AR, 25 '`- , N157RM N1'5 CENTRAL REGION 1%.) n.:1O:LQJL1U iuz7 P.E4/28 8 E Pv� C o � 4.a o 1 = • f o X 11c 2 z g cic e T. • bu.nbui Om ge8,1411r3 Z V g -- ..- -- -- w 0 G m � sd"s uenbe+d ON e a c 0 z �—�s w CE e a a LL Co) ,OM�� a a le Weeibisig 644 C.D Ax+enbay wr%9eK S 1.21.11•14•4A ARV, tr. as �a a �a7 W1 AllhA I i M t i it •N 6. W - - a - - - 1 8 U3-2H1 `s '9 QvzP. _NWS CENTRAL REGION TO P11E4263270 F -2e Background Electromagnetic Environment The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) measured the intensity of elecrro- m agnetic fields at many locations in cities across the United States to estimate the population exposed to various levels. It found that average equivalent power densities ranged from 0.000002 to 0.000020 mW/cm2. Near FM radio and TV transminer towers, values averaged less than 0.01 mW/cm2. The highest value was 1 to 7 mW/cm2. RFR BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS Sources of Knowledge Our knowledge of actual or potential health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radia- tion is based on the accumulation of findings from published reports of more than 10,000 scientific studies =died out during more than three decades of research. Most information comes from laboratory research. Researchers have exposed both mammals, such as rats, mice, and primates, and nonmatnmais, such as birds, insects, and bacteria or other microorganisms, to RFR and looked for specific biological effects, Isolated organs, nave tissue, blood, single cells, cell cultures,and cellular components have also been studied. Some information comes from epidemiologic studies of human populations, medical case studies of accidents, and very limited laboratory experiments with human volunteers. Epidemiologic studies examine selected groups of people (e.g., those with certain occupations) who are thought to have been exposed to an agent (in this case, RFR) that might cause some effect (e.g., cataracts); the incidence of the effect in those groups is the compared with that in a "control" group of people thought not to have been exposed. Laboratory experiments using human volunteers are carefully restricted, but they arc helpful for certain levels of exposure and possible effects. Information from accidental human overexposure is somewhat helpful in extending our knowledge.but fortunately it is not plentiful_ Exposure Measurement Power density, defined above, is used to describe the electromagnetic field created by a source of electromagnetic radiation. In RFR-bioeffects research, a different unit of measure is often used to describe the dose rate of exposure. The rate at which energy is absorbed by a body during exposure to an electromagnetic field of a certain power density is defined as the "specific absorption rate," or SAR,expressed in wuttstkilogrtuu of bcxly mass(Whg). Guidelines and Standards Over the years, several organizations have developed guidelines recommending limits for occupational or general public exposure to electromagnetic radiation. These guidelines are provided for the voluntary use of any individual or public or private organization. In some instances, governmental agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and some state and municipal bodies have adopted guidelines as enforceable standards. In the mid-1980s, EPA began investigating the need for exposure standards, but in the end did not issue any standards. 9 c1116Ff'i.N,1E CENTRAL REGION TO 9181426321:,' :'u'Lb The organizations that have issued guidelines include the Institute of Electrical and Elec- tronic Engineers (IEIiE), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the National Council on Radiological Protection (NCRP) [now called the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements], the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and the International Radiation Protection Association (IBPA). Each organization has independently considered the available information on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation. Guidelines for human exposure have typically been based on applying a safety factor of from 5 to 100 to the largest SAR values that have been found not to be harmful in experi- mental studies. The existing guidelines generally recommend exposure limits across most of the nonionizing electromagnetic spectrum. In some portions of the spectrum, the suggested limit depends on the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. In the band of frequencies that the WSR-88D radar uses, the limits recommended by the organizations named above are SARs from 0.08 to 0.4 W/kg, or power densities from 1.8 to 10 mW/cm2. The average power density of the WSR•8SD electromagnetic field, as calculated using accepted engineering methods and verified by measurements at operating radars,does not exceed 0.6 rnW/em2 at the surface of the radowe. For the lowest antenna tower height, the average power density does riot exceed 0.005 mW/cm2 within 6 feet of the ground. That value falls to about 0QQQ4 mW/tm2 at 1,000 feet from the radar. -1cc w,.1`>/ Applicable Research Although a large amount of research has been carried out on the possible biological effects of RFR., the work using exposure situations similar to those created by the WSR-88D radar is the most applicable. That is, studies at very different frequencies (e.g.,involving 60 Hz power lines) and powers shed little or no light on the possible effects of exposure to WSR•88D radiofrequency radiation As explained above for power lines, the reason for this is that the nature of the interaction between the RFR and the body is quite different from that of power liner frequency fields. As noted earlier, the energy of nonioaiting radiation such as RFR can be absorbed in a body in the form of heat. If the rate of hear addition is higher than the body's ability to remove the heat, body temperature will rise. High power RFR can convey large quantities of heat relative to a body's ability to dissipate it; that heat can result in well-established and well-understood "thermal"effects. For lower energy RFR, when the rate of heat addition is lower than the body's ability to remove heat,thermal effects are not observed. Electromagnetic radiation from the WSR-88D radar is not powerful enough to cause thermal effects, which are known to occur at exposure levels well above those specified in the various exposure guidelines. Research Findings Researchers have examined a diverse range of possible effects, including cancer, cataracts, and developmental abnormalities. Although some investigators have reported observing certain biological effects, the new IEEE standard document states that there are no verified reports of 10 C3_2G_r eR.c5__5 or:SBPM'Nki CENTRAL REGION TO .1b1�11?bi ft r-[ I F.27.2; human beings being injured or of human health being harmed by exposure to electromagnetic fields that meet the new IEEE standards. Origins of Controversy The X EE findings and similar conclusions by other organizations have been challer ged by some scientists and nonscientists who report that they or others have identified potentially harmful biological effects. The resulting controversy appears to arise from several solaces, discussed below. Reporting The results of research are reported in a variety of ways. Confidence in any Teport depends on the reliability of the a count. The IEEE and others rely primarily on accounts that are peer- reviewed. In peer review, scientists, engineers, and analysts with applicable knowledge and experience carefully review research reports to judge their technical credibility. The expert reviewers generally comment on the soundness of the work and the conclusions, including such aspects as the experimental design, the experimental controls, and the statistical analysis of the results. Technical specialists who judge the evidence for RFR biological effects by focusing on peer-reviewed reports tend to discount reports that art not peer-reviewed and therefore hold such reports of effects in much less regard than the public often does. Evaluation Technical reviewers typically apply stringent scientific standards to judge both positive and negative accounts of RFR biological effects. Research on such effects is extremely difficult to conduct, analyze, and interpret. For example, epidemiologic studies may suggest a possible txtween an effect and RFR exposure. However, conclusions from this type of study association and the "control" are greatly limited because actual exposure of both the "exposed" population population is usually known only very approximately. Further, in epidemiologic and often in other types of studies, a plausible mechanism by which the effect may occur usually is not either tested or discoverable. Therefore. in keeping with the scientific approach to establishing factual knowledge, technical reviewers commonly go to great lengths to establish the biological, engi- neering, and statistical validity of reported research, findings, and conclusions. By contrast, people outside the scientific professions tend to accept all research reports equally at face value. Guarantees A common question about scientific results is whether guarantees can be given that an adverse effect will not occur after many years of exposure to some agent. In general, scientists believe that, if an experiment carried out many times indicates no effects, repeating it still more times will most likely show no effects as well. However, they cannot guarantee that outcome. Further, experimental data may be uncertain to varying degrees because of, for example, the accuracy of instrumentation, or unknown or uncontrolled variations in the subjects or the exposure levels. In addition, the availability of time and money puts practical limits on the comprehensiveness and replication of experiments. Consequently,researchers typically describe their experimental results in statistical terms and state their conclusions in the language of probability (e.g.,confidence levels). This lack of certainty is uncomfortable for many people. 11 01?59P(1, NWS CENTRAL REGION TO 91B:642532?n P026 P.28/28 _ Effect and Harm Although people are aware of effects or changes in their everyday lives that axe not harmful, they nevertheless often become concerned about effects over which they have little control or that seem to be the subject of debate by scientists. Nonthermal biological effects from exposure to RFP. have been reported. and some of the reports have been confirmed. However, to date, there is no evidence that the observed effects are harmful. EPA has stated that exposure to electromagnetic radiation from the WSR-88D radar will not cause harmful health effects in the general population. 12 _ C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 5/19/93 _ \I C11AAET CC DATE: 6/14/93 - CASE #: 93-3 Site By: Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a proposed 16' x 19' addition to an existing City of Chanhassen Pump House No. 6, for U.S. West Communications Fiber Site I- Z — Q LOCATION: East of Chan View and West 77th Street and north of Hwy 101. 0. APPLICANT: U.S. West Liesch Engineering Room 350 13400 15th Avenue No. - Q 2800 Wayzata Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55441 Minneapolis, MN 55405 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential ACREAGE: 60,000 Square Feet DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD -R, West 77th Street S - PUD -R, Hwy 101 E - PUD -R, Planned Unit Development-Residential W - RSF, Residential Single Family and Chan View - 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. w — I--. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The parcel has an existing City of Chanhassen Pump House on it 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential U.S. West Site Plan May 19, 1993 Page 2 — PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a 304 square foot addition to a City owned Pump House No. 6. The requested addition will be utilized for placement of telecommunications equipment. The city owns the land on which the addition is proposed to take place. The — applicant is proposing to lease the site from the city. The addition will house equipment but no employees. The overall site plan is very simple. The building's architectural design consists of concrete block which will match the existing building material. As a part of the lease agreement, staff requested the applicant provide a pitched roof over the existing pump house building as — well as the proposed addition. This will allow the building to fit better with its surroundings as it is located in a residential area. The landscaping plan must be revised. The Engineering Department is requesting that an access driveway loop be provided around the building. This will result in the elimination of _ some green space. The remaining area will be seeded. The applicant is proposing five trees along the westerly portion of the site. Staff is recommending ten additional coniferous trees be added. — Staff is recommending that the site plan be approved without variances subject to appropriate conditions. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The site is located east of Chan View and W. 77th Street, and north of Hwy 101, and has an area of 60,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing an addition to an existing pump house building. This addition will house the telecommunications equipment for U.S. West, and will be located west of the pump house. Parking will be located to the east of the building and will probably be used once a month for maintenance purposes. The materials to be used on the addition consist mainly of rock face concrete block which will match the — existing pump house building. The roof design has been revised since staff first met with the applicant. The current building has a flat roof. Staff requested a pitched roof be added to the addition as well as the existing pump house portion of the building. The applicant — submitted two schemes. One scheme showing the building with a flat roof and the second with a pitched roof. Staff is recommending a pitched roof be used to allow the building to blend with the single family residences in the area. — PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION/ACCESS The site is proposed to be accessed from the existing driveway to Pump House No. 6 from West 77th Street cul-de-sac. To provide better traffic movement throughout the site, the _ U.S. West Site Plan -- May 19, 1993 Page 3 City's Water Superintendent, Mr. Jerry Boucher, recommended that a bituminous turnaround be installed with the overall site improvements at the applicant's expense (see Attachment #1). Parking of vehicles will probably take place once a month for maintenance purposes. Vehicles can park east of the site. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan proposes five trees along the west side of the building. The most northerly tree will be impacted by the location of the proposed bituminous turnaround (see Attachment #1). Staff is recommending the tree be moved further west. Staff is also recommending ten additional coniferous trees be added. All disturbed areas on the site shall be reseeded or sodded. _ Staff is not requesting additional trees on the north, south, and east, because there is an intensive landscaping project proposed to take place, associated with the realignment of Highway 101 and the future construction of two tennis courts. Staff is recommending the applicant consult with BRW while preparing their landscaping plan so that planting can be coordinated with the city's landscaping plan. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Only minimal site disturbance is anticipated with the building construction. Site restoration should include sod between the building and the driveway. The remaining disturbed area will be seeded and mulched in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, erosion control fence (Type I) should be installed along the south perimeter (downstream side) of the site improvements. Due to limited site expansion, no additional site drainage improvements will be necessary. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water intersects the parcel south of the building. It appears the proposed U.S. West building is requesting municipal sanitary sewer and water service. Individual sewer and water service will have to be extended by the applicant from the existing mains on the property. As a result, the applicant will be responsible for a connection and hookup charge in the amount of $5,850 ($4,100 + $1,750) with the building permit. This fee does not include any additional SAC fees. U.S. West Site Plan May 19, 1993 Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #93-3 as shown on the site plan received April 19, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. Site restoration shall include sodding between the building and driveway and one roll of sod adjacent to the outside edge of the new driveway surface. The remaining disturbed areas may be reseeded and mulched in accordance with the City's Best _ Management Practice Handbook. Ten coniferous trees shall be added to the west of the proposed addition. The most northerly proposed tree shall be moved further to the west. The applicant shall consult with BRW while preparing their landscaping — plan so that planting can be coordinated with the city's landscaping plans. 2. Extension of sewer and water service to the proposed building will be the — responsibility of the applicant. In addition, the applicant shall pay the appropriate utility hookup and connection fees ($5,850) at the time of issuance of building permit. — 3. Erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed along the south perimeter of the site improvements. — 4. The applicant shall install a 12-foot wide bituminous driveway turnaround per the attached detail in conjunction with the overall site improvements. 5. A pitched roof shall be used as shown in Scheme B on the site plan dated April 19, 1993." — ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed bituminous turnaround. 2. Proposed landscaping plan for the realignment of Highway 101 and the construction _ of two tennis courts, located to the west of the subject site. 3. Letter from the applicant dated April 14, 1993. 4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated May 3, 1993. — 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 22, 1993. 6. Copy of the lease agreement. 7. Site Plan dated April 19, 1993. \ ( PROPERTY LINE (T%,: ,EN PUMP H USE \ � � UGE — 3 EXIST. BITUMINOUS _ 1 1 GRASS\AREA j \ \ o - \ PROPOSED 16' X 19' 62'± \ . qvi.-- \ ` (FLOOR ELEV. 956.5 ASH N TRANSFORMER IC .) 4 W 01 1 \ IP: - 'IA ° EXIST. CITY OF CHI t� M 2", ' .`e� \ PUMP HOUSE NO. 6 A1)./.44* ,,,M1 . 959 I,/ti, I 41'7 J51111119MitiW �! f'':tib . r4°.•�'�� iiik ,� PROPOSED CONCRI l3 - 0 AiFiq 6,,,,c\ AS�1 , \ ICA) ` , � N � ---t` -957 GRASS ARIA I 3 EXIST. •R • 1 nn ( __FI N. ` — 955 V -- I \ ,__ _ \ SS -- 9537 ( N\ - 951 W f I A TACHMENT 1 I PROPOSED 10' WIDE - 1 I 7 UTILITY EASEMENT \ . - • . • 3 - SUGAR MAPLE OTANICAL NAME CONDITION SIZC . N. ANO D 5 'EMERALD QUEEN- B + B 2.5' GAL. . tUBRUM RED SUNSET' B + B 4' GAL. S - NORWAY SPRUCE • LIMITS_ OF UERGUS RUBRA B + B 2.5' CAL. , :. \` . TYP. 'ALUS ROYALTY' B + B 2• CAL + STEEL EDGER. "6"- COLORADO GREEN TTP. GER SACCHARUM B + B 2.5• CAL. SPRUCE 20 - COL 3 - NORWAY SPRUCE 4" O.G. '.10EA PUNGENS B + B 8" HT. - PICEA ABIES B + B 6• HT. P10EA ABS B + B p 6' HT. N. 3 - E..:A PIGEA ABIES 8 + B 10' HT. 6' 8. 04'IIII�ILv. • --•II OSA 'CHARLES ALBANELL" GRADE 1 CONT 12• MT. I11P u " i !RANGUL.A COLUMNAR CONT./5+B 4' MT. )I I f' / : NUM OPULUS NAMJM CONT. 24'/30' MT B 68. 41 / '/`��\ -41 Al - CHNEN515 "SEA GREEN CONT. 24' SPR. .:;' ..J5 QUNOUrrOUA ENGELMANNI POT. 6' POT. /� ' �,p. / '' • �� //.., ` 3 P+` PUMPMOUSE AND PIPING CLEAR ,,ii L �6' / % le " ZONE - NO LANDSCAPING. 'I ' + / �. '4 II 5 - COLORADO GREEN • / Off`' �� i4, " SPRUCE �r ,, 0\C',' r SOD So, v, '' � h. - •G 2 - NORWAY SPRUCE 4{e 1` ?/(•� __.7"._ w�� iumiNer , O^' I Ir. 1 / 4. „ I \ / �� ! V ' '�! RNPq r• 57rEL EDGE 4" ...- l. lamiii Niit:es aiii R TYP ,,Q :: I / �Y/ � O Ey MH 10', �� COI , 6 - N �R1" 4., NH • ar • t� 11:fil: pit ,,;�i . / ,,,,,i.;• . 4 ) ? PC) )1 G. . 4 r . la 114 . ;Ill - C 10' TYP. 7 - NORWAY SPRUCE 6' `11 I 40 - G ' p �jA' 0.0 �`'•' / •:/ 1'O' T II �'Q{�� 3 - SUGAR MAPLE 10 B 1( ,S,'• Ai. /Val& 3 _ L Tt `. / m 6' 6' 6 • / • .4 i/ 5 - NORWAY 10' 1/ �. !: , , 41 SPRUCE -34. G. IPAt".9.� SOD �� W. 78TH ST. �' �■� --II ---------- -1.1tralirl-11,- ,- .4..-" ii--:-- -la= _� / _ _ __L. — �P P ` --- J OHP •41 • ;'y' �1LY� 0/P- -- V \ '. •,'fir ati•?'�+' lti. —1_ .—` — _ _ LIESCH ENGINEERING CORPORATION .. 13400 15th Avenue No.• Plymouth,MN 55441. 612-559-1423. FAX No:559-2202 April 14, 1993 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed U.S. West Fiber Site at City of Chanhassen Pump House No. 6 Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: Liesch Engineering Corporation was retained by US West Business Resources, Inc. to prepare a site plan and architectural elevation views for a proposed fiber building addition to the City of Chanhassen's existing pump house No. 6 per the City site plan requirements. We are submitting along with the site plan, two architectural elevation schemes, Scheme A and Scheme B, for the City's review. Scheme A shows the addition with a flat roof to match the existing structure and Scheme B as requested by the City, shows the addition and the existing structure covered with a shingled gable roof. The purpose of the building is to house electronic telecommunications equipment to serve the downtown Chanhassen area with voice and data services both now and into the future. The proposed addition will have its own electrical service and meter. The addition will have electric heat and an air conditioner unit. No roof mounted equipment, sewer and water will be required. The proposed ten feet utility easement from the proposed addition to Highway 101 shall be used for telephone conduit and cable. It is anticipated that once the facility is in operation, the building will be unmanned with the exception of bi-monthly maintenance and repair requirements to the electronic telecommunications equipment. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 559-1423. Sincerely, _ LIESCH/^// ENGI ' ERING CORPORATION y\AY-3,, tiA.,:f— alen A. Peterson ames M. Bullert, P.E. Project Engineer Civil Engineer Attachment cc: Jerry Krieger - US West Ijs:GO/ttr41393c Joseph V. Edeskuty - Edge Commercial Real Estate CITYOF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 - MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I14(Z — FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 3, 1993 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Proposed U.S. West Communications Fiber Site at City — Pump House No. 6, South Lotus Lake Addition File No. 93-12 Land Use Review Upon review of the site plan prepared by Liesch Engineering, Inc. dated April 13, 1993, I offer the following comments and recommendations: — UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water intersects the parcel south of the building. It appears the proposed U.S. West building is requesting municipal sanitary sewer and water service. _ Individual sewer and water service will have to be extended by the applicant from the existing mains on the property. As a result, the applicant will be responsible for a connection and hookup charge in the amount of$5,850 ($4,100 + $1,750) with the building — permit. This fee does not include any additional SAC fees. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Only minimal site disturbance is anticipated with the building construction. Site restoration should include sod between the building and the driveway. The remaining disturbed will be seeded and mulched in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control. In addition, erosion control fence (Type I) should be installed along the south perimeter (downstream side) of the site improvements. — Due to limited site expansion, no additional site drainage improvements will be necessary n t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _ Sharmin Al-Jaff May 3, 1993 Page 2 ACCESS The site is proposed to be accessed from the existing driveway to Pump House No. 6 from the West 77th Street cul-de-sac. To provide better traffic movement throughout the site, the City's Water Superintendent, Mr. Jerry Boucher, recommended that a bituminous turnaround be installed with the overall site improvements at the applicant's expense (see Attachment No. 1). RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Extension of sewer and water service to the proposed building will be the responsibility of the applicant. In addition, the applicant shall pay the appropriate utility hookup and connection fees ($5,850) at the time of issuance of building permit. 2. Site restoration shall include sodding between the building and driveway and one roll of sod adjacent to the outside edge of the new driveway surface. The remaining disturbed areas may be reseeded and mulched in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 3. Erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed along the south perimeter of the site improvements. 4. The applicant shall install a 12-foot wide bituminous driveway turnaround per the attached detail in conjunction with the overall site improvements. ktm Attachment: Driveway turnaround detail _ c: Jerry Boucher, Utility Superintendent Charles Folch, City Engineer �— \ PROPERTY LINE (7', \ -All UGE — ,SSEN PUMP H USE \ \ EXIST. BITUMINOUS 3 \ 1 GRASS\AREA \ ^ I o \ l PROPOSED 16' X 19' 62'± \ -\ l• (FLOOR ELEV. 95E5 h ASH N A� la TRANSFORMER ICA) cI P'' _ m EXIST. CITY OF C.3 -i'' ir'. t o \ PUMP HOUSE NO. 6 JCE 69a la 1 ,0f. , ,.,r 959 / Y• _ I il) . - • �,�•a lj' .�! �i LL PROPOSED CONCRI /3 1 4...jg . \ C21‘ ASH ' \ _ ICA) --.,_` \\ ---t--- -957 ..\__ ._, -----F --4-- , GRASSAR A \ N I NEXIST. •R • IN \. 955 V _, �. ___ + \ SS s" -953 \ I I M � I 951 '" I TACHMENT 1 PROPOSED 10' WIDE 1 I I / UTILITY EASEMENT CITY OF 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: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 22, 1993 SUBJ: U.S. West/City Pump House Planning Case 93-3 Plan Review I have reviewed the site plan for a 16' x 19' addition to the existing Pump House No. 6, and have no comments or recommendations at this time. tPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT 8. FUCHS , P .A May 13 ,93 14 :28 No .013 P .02 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorneys al Latw 1 j.Campbell V' 2)452.5000 Ro„cr N.Knutson 1'ax(612)451.5550 h,,m.i>M.Sc,Itt Crirl(;.Fuchs — Imo R.Wdsr,m Ell ,r11.Knet,ch Maltael A. linth,tck Rrn,it 1).Stciner May 13, 1993 DY PAX AND MAIL Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff _ Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: U.S..JJgst ease Agent Dear Sharmin: I have reviewed the above referenced lease agreement and suggest the following paragraphs be added to the agreement: - ♦ Tenant shall landscape the leased premises in accordance with the attached landscaping plan. Tenant shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaping during the - term of this lease and replacing in kind any dead, damaged, or diseased landscaping materials. • Tenant shall, at its own Cost, extend public sewer and water to the leased premises and pay all applicable fees. • Tenant shall pay all special assessments, taxes, and - utility fees on the leased premises. • Tenant shall comply with the requirements established by the City Council for site plan approval. Please call if you have any questions or comments. - Very truly yours, CAMP ELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT UC , A. $Y: - Roger N. Knutson RNK:srn Suite .317 • EctganJalc Office Ccntcr • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AND U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS , a Colorado corporation THIS LEASE, made this day of by and - between (hereinafter called "Lessor" ) and U S WEST Communications , a Colorado corporation (hereinafter called "Tenant") . WITNESSETH : In consideration of the covenants, conditions and promises hereby mutually taken to be kept and performed by the parties, Lessor hereby demises and leases unto Tenant and Tenant hereby hires and takes from Lessor the following premises (hereinafter "leased premises") located - in the City of , County of State of Minnesota, described as follows: That area indicated on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, containing approximately square feet, such leased premises being located at • TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same for a period of - ( ) years commencing on , and ending on the day of , with options to renew as provided by Paragraph 17 herein: 1 . RENT Tenant agrees to pay Lessor rent of and No/100 ($ ) Dollars per year. The rent shall be payable annually, in advance, on the first day of each and every - lease year throughout the term of this lease. The Rent specified above shall remain fixed for the first two years of the lease term. The Lease rate will then be adjusted every two years starting with - the third year of lease term and will remain fixed for two years until adjusted again. The rate will will be adjusted accordingly by the increase in the Consumer Price Index "Minneapolis/St. Paul _ Region, All Items" published by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics from the date of commencement of the initial lease term to the date of commencement of the first adjustment year, and so forth for each adjustment period. If the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, ceases to publish the Consumer Price Index, the index that will most nearly accomplish the purpose and use intended by the parties hereto with respect to the adjustment of rent shall be - used in lieu of said Consumer Price Index. (1) 2 . USE The demised premises shall be used by Tenant for operating telephone equipment. Tenant shall not store any items of a hazardous nature, including without limitation flammable or explosive substances, nor shall Tenant use the leased premises for any purpose which may cause the cancellation of any insurance policy covering the building or which may increase the premium therefor, or which will interfere with the general safety, comfort and convenience of lessor, occupants and other tenants of the building. Tenant shall be responsible for obtaining all governmental licenses , permits and other governmental requirements as may be necessary to the exercise of Tenant's rights hereunder. 3 . MAINTENANCE Tenant shall maintain the lease premises in a neat and clean condition at all times during the term hereof. 4 . CONSTRUCTION AND ACCESS Lessor will provide for 24 hour access by Tenant. Tenant, at Tenant' s sole expense, will construct the partitions, ceilings, and doors necessary to enclose the demised premises. Plans and specifications will first be submitted to Lessor for approval , which will not be unreasonably withheld. 5 . MECHANIC'S LIENS Tenant will not at any time permit any mechanic's, laborer's, or materialmen's liens to stand against the leased premises for any labor or material furnished to Tenant or claimed to have been furnished to Tenant or to Tenant's agents, contractors, or sublessees, in connection with work or character performed or claimed to have been performed on the leased premises by or at the direction of sufferance of Tenant. 6 . SPECIFIC RIGHT OF ENTRY RESERVED BY LESSOR Lessor reserves the right and power to enter upon the leased premises for the purposes of inspecting and investigating the leased premises. 7 . INDEMNIFICATION Lessor shall hold the Tenant harmless and, at Lessor's expense, defend any question of title raised against Lessor' s property. Tenant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Lessor and the Lessor's employees from and against all claims, suits , liabilities, judgements, costs , damages, and expenses, which may accrue against, be charged to or recovered from Lessor or Lessor's employees by reason of or on account of any personal injury or property damage arising from Tenants use or occupancy of the leased premises . It is clearly understood and agreed that the foregoing indemnification and hold harmless agreement does not impose an obligation on the part of the Tenant to defend Lessor from its own negligence or failure to act or that of it's employees. 8 . CONDEMNATION If the leased premises shall be taken or condemned for any public purpose to such extent as to render the leased premises untenantable, this lease shall, at the option of either party, forthwirth cease and terminate. All proceeds from any taking or condemnation of the leased premises shall be awarded to the Landlord. 9 . CASUALTY In the event of a fire or other casualty affecting the leased premises, Tenant shall immediately give notice thereof to Lessor. If the leased premises, through, no fault of Tenant, its (2) - agents, employees , invites, or visitors, shall be partially destroyed by fire or other casualty so as to render the leased premises untenantable, the rental herein shall abate thereafter until such - time as the leased premises are made tenantable by Lessor. In the event of the total destruction of the leased premises without default or neglect of Tenant, its agents, employees, invites or visitors, or if from such cause the same shall be so damaged that Lessor shall decide not to rebuild, then all rent owed up to the time of such destruction or termination shall be paid by Tenant and thenceforth this lease shall cease and come to an end. 10. ASSIGNMENT Tenant shall have the right to assign this lease to any U S West subsidiary without the prior written consent of - Lessor. 11. SURRENDER Whenever the term herein demised shall be terminated, whether by lapse of time, forfeiture, or in any other way, Tenant covenants and agrees that it will at once surrender and deliver the leased premises to Lessor in as good condition as was when Tenant took possession, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and if - Tenant shall holdover after any termination of this lease, the same shall create not more than a month to month tenancy at the rent and in all other applicable conditions herein provided. 12 . DEFAULT BY TENANT If default shall be made in the payment of any sum to be paid by Tenant under this lease and default shall continue for ten (10) days or if default should be made in the performance of any other covenants or conditions in which Tenant is required to observe and perform hereunder and such default shall continue for twenty (20) days, Lessor may (i) terminate this lease and forthwith repossess the leased premises and remove all persons and property therefrom and be entitled to recover damages or seek equitable relief in accordance with the laws of the State of - Minnesota; or (ii) Lessor may terminate Tenant's right of possession (but not the lease) and may repossess the leased premises without demand or notice of any kind to Tenant and without terminating this lease in which event Lessor may, but shall be under no obligation to, relet the same for the account of Tenant for such rent and upon such terms as shall be satisfactory to Lessor, and Tenant shall remain liable for rents payable under the lease; provided, however, that any rents received from a reletting of the leased premises by Lessor shall be credited to the account of Tenant after deduction for costs of recovering possession and all costs and expenses sustained by - Lessor in reletting the leased premises. 13 . NOTICES All bills, statements, notices or communications which Lessor may desire or be required to give to Tenant shall be deemed sufficiently given or rendered if in writing and either delivered to Tenant personally or sent by registered or certified mail addressed to Tenant at the address shown below. The time of rendition thereof or the giving of such notice or communication shall be deemed to be the time when the same is delivered to Tenant or deposited in the mail as herein provided. Any notice by Tenant to Lessor must be served by registered or certified mail addressed to Lessor at the address where the last previous rental hereunder was payable, or in case of subsequent change upon notice given, to the (3) latest address furnished. The address of Tenant. is as follows: U S WEST Communications , 2800 Wayzata Boulevard, Room 350, Minneapolis , Minnesota 55405 . Attn: Real Estate Department. The address of the Lessor is: (Name of Company) Attn: (Address) 14 . TERMINATION Tenant may terminate lease by giving six months written notice prior to termination. 15 . ELECTRIC USE Tenant will install an electric meter at its cost and pay for all electric usage. 16 . CONDUIT EASEMENT See attached Exhibit B for telephone conduit easement from street to leased space. 17 . LEASE EXTENSION Tenant will have two (2) , five (5) year options to renew this Lease with six (6) months written notice, at a market rental rate, but never less than the current rates. 18 . SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS The terms and provisions of this agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, administrators, successors and assigns. 19 . SEVERABILITY In the event that any provision of this Lease shall be held invalid or unenforceable, no other provisions of this Lease shall be affected by such holding, and all of the remaining provisions of this Lease shall continue in full force and effect pursuant to the terms hereof. 20 . MINNESOTA LAW TO GOVERN This Lease shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 21 . ENTIRE AGREEMENT This lease is the entire agreement of the parties . 22 . ENVIRONMENTAL Lessee shall not conduct any activity or keep or have on the lease premises any article or thing of a dangerous, inflammable or explosive nature that might unreasonably increase the chance of fire or that might be considered hazardous or extra-hazardous by any responsible insurance company. 23 . QUIET ENJOYMENT Lessor covenants and agrees with Tenant that upon Tenant paying the rent under the Lease and observing the other terms, covenants and conditions of the Lease, Tenant shall be entitled to peaceably and quietly enjoy the leased premises . 24 . CASUALTY Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 9 of the Lease, if, through no fault of Tenant, its agents, employees, invitees or visitors, the leased premises shall be partially destroyed by fire or other casualty so as to render the leased premises untenantable, Lessor shall determine, in good faith, whether the leased premises can be made tenantable within 90 days of the casualty. Lessor shall notify Tenant, in writing, as to such determination within 30 days after the casualty. If Lessor shall determine that the leased premises cannot be made tenantable within such 90 day period, Tenant shall be entitled to terminate the Lease (4) as of the date of the casualty by delivering written notice of . termination to Lessor within 20 days after receipt of Lessor's determination. 25. SURRENDER Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Lease, Tenant shall not be required to surrender the leased premises to Lessor at the end of the term in as good condition as when Tenant took possession in the event of casualty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this - agreement the day and year first above written. - TENANT: U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS LESSOR: a Colorado corporation By U S WEST Business Resources, Inc. Authorized Agent - BY: BY: - ITS : ITS: - STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by of , and he acknowledged the same to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF ) ) ss. _ COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by of Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, and he acknowledged the same to be the free act and deed of said Notary Public LEASEAGR Original/Blank (5) (Attached to and forming part of Lease Agreement) THE LEASED PREMISES (A floor drawing of the leased premises, usually made up by PSL or given to us. ) (6) GXt11D11 (Attached to and forming part of Lease Agreement) TELEPHONE CONDUIT EASEMENT, (PSL has this sheet) (May not used in some leases) (7) CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 5 , 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts , Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Joe Sc : tt , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes , and Nancy Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; and Dave Hempel , Asst . City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE 13 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2 , AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF , RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND TO SUBDIVIDE 13 ACRES INTO 23 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, ROYAL OAKS , BRETT DAVIDSON . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Let me ask a question . Did you have more Jo Ann? Olsen: No , that was it . Batzli : Let me ask one question before I have the applicant respond , if _ he 'd like to . This language in here about the trail bed meandering at the discretion of the applicant , etc , etc , etc . But the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction . Does that mean that we 're going to get a chance to look at it when they bring in the grading plan? Olsen : Right . Batzli : So we 're not leaving it totally up to their discretion . You guys will have a chance to look at it at that point? Olsen: Right . It can 't be on a slope like this . He can move within that 20 feet . Batzli : Would you like to give us the presentation? Would you like to comment on any of the conditions? Brett Davidson : I 'd just like to comment . . .A couple of them are just maybe typos that , first off my name is Brett Davidson . I 'm the owner of the piece . I also live in Lot 1 , Block 1 and thr- developer . Just a couple of things as we go through . And some of them are typos I would assume but just to make sure that it 's right . On the front page , I think the typo says there 's 23 acres instead of 13 . Obviously it 's , I wish it was 23 but it 's only 13 . And then page 2 , where it talks about the preliminary plat . There again , it 's a minor point but the largest lot is actually Lot 10 , Block 1 which is a little over 37 ,000 square feet so that 's another . Ledvina : Where is that? Which condition? Brett Davidson: Lot 10 , Block 1 . It 's the big one on the back side in that corner . That 's actually the biggest lot . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 2 Ledvina: Which condition are you referring to though? Brett Davidson: It 's on page 2 in the preliminary plat . Ledvina: Oh , okay . I 'm sorry . Brett Davidson: Second paragraph at the bottom of the last sentence . Let 's see , and then on page 5 where it talks about the utilities . Just about halfway through there it 's a typo again I 'm sure . Because it says — it correctly later in the report but the 12 inch trunk sewer line actually goes between Lots 11 and 12 , rather than 10 and 11 . Block 1 . There 's a storm sewer line that runs between 10 and 11 and a sanitary between 11 and 12 . And then on page 10 on the recommendations , at the top of the page where it talks about the easements . I think we left out an easement that I 'm sure you 're going to want . Why not huh? . . .and that is we 've got , it talks about a 20 foot easement between Lots 11 and 12 , Block 1 . That 's the sanitary sewer and 10 and 11 of Block 1 , that 's the trunk . I mean that 's the storm sewer . And then Lots 1 and 2 is also storm sewer but there 's already sewer across the back of Lot 10 and 11 . We don 't mention an easement for that in here . I assume you want a 15 foot easement across that? Or do I get paid for that? Batzli : Is that the dotted line on our preliminary utility? Brett Davidson: Yes it is . That was brought in from the Lake Ann Interceptor to get through the wetland . I think you mentioned it somewhere else in there . I think it just didn 't get in there . Hempel : I believe it 's staff 's intent that with the proposed pond there _ that the entire area behind Lots 10 and 11 will be a drainage utility easement so it will be covered with that . So I think it 's specific on an easement width there . Batzli : Help me out . Is that in one of our conditions right now . Which one is the pond in? Or isn 't there one? Olsen: Under condition 12 . Batzli : Well that 's the drainage and utility easements along all sides , _ front and rear lot lines . In addition drainage and utilities and it shal ] be conveyed for all pond retention areas . Okay so that . Hempel : That covers it in there . Batzli : When do we have to get specific about which areas are actually going to have an easement over them? - Hempel : When the final grading plan is prepared showing the proposed ponc, in back of those lots . Batzli : But when is that recorded then because isn 't this plan recorded? Hempel : This is a preliminary plat . On the final plat we ' ll denote all - the proposed . . .our recommendation with easements on it . — Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 3 Ledvina : That newly constructed sanitary , that 's the 12 inch line? Hempel : That 's correct . Ledvina : Okay . Scott: So that 's covered in the pond easement then? Hempel : That is correct . Scott : Okay . Hempel : Thank you for pointing that out . Brett Davidson: No , I just want to make sure it 's right . And then another one that I 'm not sure of and I didn 't get a chance to check , and _ that 's on 19 on the same one we were talking about with the landscaping . In this section we require a tree per lot from the primary specimen list for 14 lots and earlier you said half the lots , which would be 12 . Mancino: So it 's on 12 lots . Olsen: It should be 12 . Brett Davidson: It should be 12? Okay . That 's what , okay . My only other concern , I talked to Dave a little bit about this , and that is my consulting engineer is not real sure exactly what the city would like to see as far as a draintile behind the curbs because he hasn 't dealt with this specific kind of thing before so we would just like leeway to work with Dave and Dave , we 've talked about it already , to decide exactly — what 's needed and then if the City decides hey , we need one the whole length along the whole thing and it 's got to be designed like this , we 're more than willing to do that obviously but we would like the wording in here to allow us the option of working with Dave to decide what 's exactly needed and then when he decides for sure after we , and it may even be , take a little bit more look at to see if it 's needed the whole way or not . Farmakes: Are you referring to a particular condition or do you want^ Brett Davidson : Ah , is it 4? Yes sir , it 's 4 then . It 's the street construction shall include a draintile system behind the curbs . It 's like the second sentence . We know what you 'd like to see and we want to satisfy that as best we can . We just want to have the option or the _ ability to work with Dave on it or the City 's engineers and decide exactly what 's necessary . Batzli : Okay . Anything else? Brett Davidson: No sir , that 's it except if I could answer any questions . I know that just listening to some of the talk . I know one of the concern was the utility plan was the sewer . The sewer utility plan that you see there was actually supplied by Bonestroo so all the specs and all there are by Bonestroo . I know the other concern , at least from the staff report is the street . That 's a little bit of a two edged sword here . We 'd Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 4 actually , obviously prefer in some ways to rather have a cul-de-sac because those lots are more desireable than a street . On the other hand , _ because this subdivision is so different than the Rottlund subdivision in that it will have specific covenants . The homes will be a different style homes . It 's a different type subdivision than the Rottlund subdivision , we feel it 's important if at all possible , to have access off Galpin Road - to make it a separate subdivision rather than have to go through the Windmill Run subdivision to get to it . I guess the only other thing that I would request and that is if the City decides to take another look at - it , if the Rottlund development doesn 't go through , we would also like in that time to be able to assist in that look and give some input about , if it is , if it does have to be changed , if the Rottlund development doesn 't come in , we 'd like to assist in that change . I mean whether we bring in road from the center through one of their cul-de-sacs or whether we bring it on the end , we 'd just like to be able to , if it does change , to assist in that change . That 's it , unless you have some questions . Batzli : Okay . We 'll probably get to them in a minute . Brett Davidson: Very good . Batzli : It 's a public hearing . Since there 's no one else in the audience here , is there a motion to close the public hearing? Scott moved , Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Jo Ann , why don 't you run through one more time the impact of why Rottlund isn 't going ahead and how that impacts this . Olsen: Well the reason they 're not going through is just the final closing , they weren 't able to come to agreement on , I don 't know . They 're going through negotiations again . As far as how that impacts this - subdivision , and maybe Dave will be the best to address this but one of the major impacts is the storm water ponding that 's required . And I 'll let you go into some more detail on that . And then also , as far as how - the two will tie in together with the roads , local roads . Batzli : So how can we approve this if the Rottlund one doesn 't go through? Olsen: It can still act on it 's own . They can still provide the ponding on their own site . It could become permanent . - Batzli : But the engineer 's report is that either one is taking care of itself in a real good manner . How do we take care of this one by itself if we don 't e -n have Rottlund? Hempel : Mr . Chairman , maybe I can address that . If the Rottlund piece does not go in conjunction with this one , essentially this development will have to do on site temporary ponding until the adjacent parcels do develop at some future date and at that time would extend a trunk storm sewer up to pick up that drainage and then the need for a temporary pond - would distinguish . One of the concerns staff had originally with these Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 5 two developments so close together was the street access . They 're approximately 340 feet apart , center line to center line . The County , along County Road 117 , Galpin Boulevard , I 'll just point out that is under County jurisdiction . You made the same remark that it was relatively close and would prefer to see only one access . However , as the small parcels like this come in to develop , it 's rather difficult to lump them all together to foresee the future . How the future street systems will react to one another out there . On top of that we ' ll also have the potential of a common intersection with the parcels across the street to the west . I believe the Stockdale property and the Song property . There 's been some talk of development on the Song property through Lundgren Bros development . We have not really seen any kind of concept plan or layout for street access points onto Galpin Boulevard . Therefore again we 're trying to predict where likely intersections would be best suited . We haven 't explored the possibilities of which intersection would be preferenced I guess at this point but we felt by either providing the stub street on Lot 4 , Block 2 to the south to connect to Rottlund , if Rottlund one didn 't proceed that way we could limit access out onto the County Road for a future developer what I ' ll call the Rottlund piece at this time . But at this point I guess we 've already given preliminary plat to the Rottlund development . We 're unable to undo that unless another individual comes in with a similar plat , a replat or a one year expiration date on that plat expires . Batzli : I wasn 't here for the Rottlund development coming through . Did we have on any of these maps , because I couldn 't find it , what the internal workings of the Rottlund development look like? Harberts : It 's dated February 17th . Olsen: As you can see Rottlund has those two cul-de-sacs and so it 's easy to punch the road through . Batzli : Punch the road through where? Olsen : To the north . Hempel : On the most westerly cul-de-sac or it could be the whole subdivision could be realigned or laid out to be compatible with the Davidsons . Olsen: With the objective being one of those intersections to Galpin closing . So you 'd have one . Batzli : Okay . Well , let 's go around here and see what . Ledvina : . . . long cul-de-sac? Well I suppose if you had that long connecting street down . Olsen: You 'd have a loop on the side . Batzli : Okay . Nancy , do you want to lead us off here? Do you have comments , questions , concerns? Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 6 Mancino: I have kind of a . . .park designation in this area because it 's a deficient area? When and how does the Park and Recreation Commission , when are they going to choose a place in this area? Because it is park deficient and we have the Song property coming up . Olsen: Right . That 's what they 're looking for the parkland on that piece of property . Exactly how they determine . When it 's a smaller acreage like this , the 12 acres , 13 acres , they really won 't get much parkland as far as the dedication so they wait until a larger piece comes in that they can get like a 10 acres that would serve as a neighborhood park . Mancino : They don 't ever put two together even though they 're by separate owners? Olsen: Oh sure , they can do that . Farmakes : There is land that 's adjacent to that property not too far awa> to the northwest that 's a lot more applicable towards park . A lot heavier woods . Mancino : . . .but we should be hearing about that soon? Olsen : The Song property? Mancino: Yeah , as far as what will be park designation . . . Olsen: Yeah , if they move ahead with that , you should be seeing somethin< I 'd say probably late summer or fall . Mancino : In the northeast corner where the retention pond will be , you talked about losing trees . What kind of trees are they? Olsen : We 're going to go out and look at those . They 're big . They look like they 're decent trees . I don 't know , do you know what type of trees you have on there? Brett Davidson: Yes . We were just out there as a matter of fact yeste-day with the DNR . . . They 're about probably 4 or 5 inch birch trees . It 's a stand of birch trees . And they actually , that border between Lot 9. and 10 in Block 1 and we are fairly certain by talking with our consultin< engineer , that depending on the ponding size that we 're going to need , that we can move the pond south if we have to move it south and save the stand of trees . Obviously it 's to our advantage to save them too because it makes the lots more desireable . Or we could bring the , instead of having a shape that 's tending to be more of a kidney shape or something that will save the stand of trees . . .4 inch , 6 inch birch tree . - Batzli : Do you have any concern , you 've done a very nice job of taping these two together . Do you have any concern about how these are going together and if Rottlund ends up not going ahead? Mancino : Would you have , would you have designed this differently if Rottlund wasn 't in there already? Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 7 Brett Davidson: Probably the only difference I would have done , if I would have had my choice would have been lots on the east side have a cul-de-sac there . But you 've got to have access off Galpin . . . Obviously you have to put a street through to the property south so that 's really not an option . Just one other thing and I 'm sure that . . .Dave had mentioned it but while it 's not ideal , Galpin is classified as a collector and we do meet the city ordinance for distances between two streets . Although it 's not ideal , it falls within city ordinance by about 40 or 50 feet . Batzli : But would it be more valuable if you hooked up through one of the cul-de-sacs on the Rottlund property so this was kind of , this didn 't have direct access? Would it then be more valuable to you? Brett Davidson: Actually , if we had our druthers and we had to get rid of an access what we 'd rather do , if we had to would be to stop the access _ off Galpin and leave the other access into the Rottlund property rather than go through their cul-de-sacs . And the whole reason for that is if the Rottlund piece of property was similar homes and the similar type neighborhood , we 'd probably on our own would say , okay we won 't have access to Galpin . But because they 're two so dissimilar neighborhoods , you basically , if you don 't have the access off Galpin , what you have to do is come in the Windmill Run neighborhood to get to the Royal Estates neighborhood . Which in and of itself after the project is complete , although not ideal . . . I mean I 'm sure you know maybe this is just my opinion but typically people want their own neighborhoods to be their own neighborhoods and to be somewhat separated . Whether it be whatever class of homes it is . And it 's tough to do that if you enter through the Windmill Run neighborhood . So that 's why we did the access off Galpin . And in fact we have plans right now to do an entrance monument . . .Windmill Meadows to the north . There 's a Lundgren property on the Galpin Boulevard entrance and also . . .monuments on the south . . .simply for that very same reason again . To keep them separate from the south . Batzli : How do you view this neighborhood as being different from Rottlund? Just price? Brett Davidson: Part of it 's price . Part of it is we have pretty extensive covenants and we 'll have similar mailboxes . The mailboxes will all be the same . Not allowing or having an architectural committee approve any fences that go up and satellite dishes that might go up . The Rottlund -ubdivision does not have those same or similar architectural . . . requirements . Garbage cans can 't be exposed to the street . The typical things that you would like to see in a neighborhood but they are typical things that may or may not be required in a , for instance a Rottlund property . Batzli : What kind of price range are you thinking of develping in here? Brett Davidson: . . .covenant is a 2 ,300 square foot home . So the home and lot price is going to run anywhere from $230 ,000 .00 to $300 ,000 .00 and maybe on up for the larger walkout lots . Rottlund 's piece of property are developing in the $160 ,000 .00 to $220 ,000 .00 range . So theoretically it 's . . . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 8 Mancino: It will be similar to what you have there right now? Brett Davidson : Yes . Maybe even a little larger than mine . Batzl i : Thanks Nancy . Jeff . Farmakes : The shape of these two pieces of property are dictating how it 's developed . They 're narrow rectangles . You run a road through the middle of it and put houses on either side of the road . If we look at both pieces of property and we put them together , what worries me about these types of development and I realize you have little leeway with this piece of property . Are we , when we develop up and down Galpin , are we going to have accesses to Galpin every 2 houses? And in the long term when we think of these properties , do we have a long term idea of what we 're looking for as far as the roads in that particular part of town? I know that Highway 5 is working on the road to the south of that property but is there , it worries me a bit that we 're looking at these types of hook-ups but we 're not sure that development 's happening below and I 'm wondering long term if we shouldn 't be giving that more thought or do we - allow the developers to dictate that on the basis of how much property they own . Olsen : Well that plays a major part in that . We do look at what the surrounding topography is and where roads could go . We do look at what 's coming in for development and so like with this one , Dave has looked to the west to see where the road will continue . Farmakes : The piece of property to the east is like under one owner isn 't it? _ Olsen : Right . Mike Gorra 's . Farmakes: Large piece so I guess that would be beneficial or at least yot can work with that . It must be difficult with these little small pieces of property . Olsen: And we looked at that . That 's why we want to go to the south . Going to the east doesn 't work with the wetlands and the slope . Farmakes : It doesn 't worry me I guess , the pricing is close enough and adjacent although it 's really not our concern but in looking at square footage of the lots , they 're very similar . I 'm not excited by row housing . That 's my own personal taste but I don 't see how else you 're going to develop this small piece of property . It 's pretty much dictatin< that it 's a row development . It also I guess worries me that we rely so much on the shape of the property that 's owned for our connecting street - plans . I really don 't have a better idea of how to approach that but whei we look at Rottlund say pulling out and so on , that are we sure that that road curving to the south is the right thing to do? I have no answer to _ that . The recommendations and the other things that we talked about , if staff is fine with those , I have no further comments on this . Brett Davidson: Can I say one more thing here? _ Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 9 Batzli : Sure . Brett Davidson: And that is , the way I understand it at the present time , if the Rottlund property was not developed , it appears at this point that the Lundgren piece of property , which is the Song piece of property , may be even delayed for some time now so the sewer and trunk improvements may or may not even be approved . And if that happens , obviously the subdivision is on hold . So this one is almost inherently tied to the Rottlund piece of property simply because the trunk improvements probably require that . Farmakes: And that 's the point I 'm trying to make with this thing . Often we get a development that 's farther out and it 's placed out in the middle and then everything else revolves around that development , whether it 's good or bad . Just happens to be the amount of property that 's held at the time and the developer and what they happen to be doing I think . Timberwood and some other ones that are dictating how all the other development occurs . It 's kind of hap hazard to me but . . . Batzli : Is public improvement #92-5 , is that just for this development or is that on a larger scale? Hempel : Mr . Chairman , that is a larger scale . It was really started by _ the Lundgren/Song parcel . I 'm sorry , Johnson/Dolejsi parcel way to the west closer to Trunk Highway 41 . That was the impetus to start this , the whole feasibility study for bringing trunk sewer and water into the area . Along with Lundgren came Rottlund and since then Mr . Davidson . The city is prepared at this stage to scale down that project or do it in phases in order to serve this subdivision and Rottlund 's subdivision if necessary . Batzli : Well , because the applicant is saying , if these don 't happen , I don 't happen . Is he somehow suddenly assessed a much larger chunk if we phase it in and only bring it to his property? Hempel : No . The assessments have been already calculated on a unit basis and the only thing is , the city would not be recouping our costs back as fast if we 're not able to assess the larger area . Batzli : Well , if you do it on a unit basis and the others one don 't go ahead , your units change do they not? Hempel : No , they do not . The units stay the same but the ability to collect . Batzli : Well sure because there 's no units there . So are you calculating it then on a gross acreage kind of thing to figure your units? Hempel : That 's correct . Batzli : Okay . I 'm sorry , did you have anything else? Farmakes: No further comments . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 10 Scott : Dave I 've just got a question . Earlier I was looking at the slope from this is Lot 10 in Block 1 and off the top of my head , you 're going to have to refresh my memory but I notice there 's certain maximum slope that we 're looking at and it looks pretty steep to me . How does that compare with what we 're trying to do? Hempel : I believe on the review that I did , the slopes were no steeper than 3 to 1 and that would be a maximum for maintenance and mowing and so forth . — Scott : Okay . And then , so if we 're looking at developing this parcel by itself with a cul-de-sac at the end , do we therefore not get crossed with our recent cul-de-sac length? Olsen: It 'd be a temporary cul-de-sac . It wouldn 't be a permanent cul-de-sac . — Scott: Okay , yeah . Because eventually this property 's going to get developed at some time in the future . Other than that I don 't have any _ other questions . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Matt . Ledvina: Staying on the issue of the cul-de-sac , temporary cul-de-sac . I looks like for Block 1 , Lot 12 that temporary , you know if you apportioned the cul-de-sac to each side of the street there , it looks like it would — chew into that guy 's front yard quite a bit . Is there a plan to locate i• further into Lot 2 , Block 11? I 'm sorry , Lot 11 , Block 2 . You see what 1 mean? You 're looking at the housepad there . It 's a smaller building area as opposed to Lot 11 across the street to the west . Can we control that _ at all in terms of where that temporary cul-de-sac goes? Hempel : Sure . We can adjust it so it 's not a burden on that front yard. — Again it 's a temporary type cul-de-sac . With a 42 foot radius , it 's a 60 foot right-of-way so you add 30 feet . It 'd be another 12 feet outside the right-of-way would be the edges of the turnaround . Ledvina: Okay . That 's quite a bit . I mean you 're . Hempel : Your 30 foot setback? — Ledvina : Yeah. The outside lines of the street are the setback lines right? Or I 'm sorry , the right-of-way . — Hempel : That 's correct . Ledvina: And then for the temporary cul-de-sac you 'd need, did you say al — extra 12 feet? Hempel : That 's correct . 12 feet . — Conrad: 6% . Ledvina: 6% , okay . — Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 11 — Hempel : That 's 12% , I 'm sorry . 42 foot radius . Ledvina : I mean you could , if you apportion that equally on the east and — west , you could be what , 15 feet from the guy 's house with that . Hempel : 18 feet from the front door . Ledvina : Okay . That seems we should look out for that . Batzli : . . .that 's much too far away . We should make it twice as close . Ledvina : It looked like a strange alignment there and the possibilities are . Hempel : It 's possible to do an offset temporary cul-de-sac and utilize more of the backyard . — Ledvina : More like in a dog leg or something . Okay . And then . Batzli : And how do you do that with , under what circumstances does that — occur? That we end up putting in a cul-de-sac there? Temporary or permanent or whatever . Only if the Rottlund doesn 't go through? _ Olsen: I think we would always , it 's like Timberwood . Timberwood has a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of , you know for when Hans Hagen came through and now that 's never going to happen . This one it would probably stay temporary until that side is developed . Batzli : So it 's going to go in? Olsen : It 's going to go in eventually . Batzli : For sure? Olsen: A road connection will go through . That 's a good questio- though . If , like in the Timberwood case where now we know it will not go through , do we go back? I don 't know . Hempel : Put a permanent one in . Olsen: We kind of hate to . Batzli : Well if it 's 18 feet from the guy 's door , you can go back in there and put in a permanent one . Olsen: Well not there , no . Batzli : You either have to put in an undersized permanent one or do something about it now . Hempel : I guess it 's our intent that that road will extend in the future similar to what we 've done in numerous other subdivisions . At some point that road is extended . The land to the south is compatible for roadway Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 12 extension . It 's just a matter of time before somebody comes in and develop it . And that 's kind of been a starting point for their plat . Mancino: How come , Jo Ann , how come Timberwood doesn 't go all the way through if it was . Olsen: To the south? The Timberwood residents objected to it . There 's an easement that goes to the east . That has not been proposed . Again , I doubt that that would ever get approved. — Mancino: So could these , if this is . . .get resident here . Olsen: They could fight it . Mancino: They can fight it and say , we don 't want it . Olsen: That happens all the time . Farmakes: It happens every time . — Batzli : Every single time . Every one that I know . Hempel : We 've tried to minimize or at least make the residents , future — resie- nts aware of that by putting in the chain of title that this road will be extended in the future . As well as that we 've posted a sign on the barricade saying this road will be extended in the future and I — believe that 's what we 're proposing here . Olsen: Right . They can still object to it . We did that with Timberwood,_ And once the residents are there and when the public hearings come for th• extension to that cul-de-sac , they can object to it . Mancino : But if we have a cul-de-sac ordinance that says they can be no — longer than this . Olsen: What we can do , I mean we always are arguing against that . _ Obviously it 's the final vote . Farmakes: What do you do then when you have a long , narrow rectangular piece of property? You 're either going to have double the size of lot an( run the road along the edge of the property or run it through the middle of the property . And it 's got to come out somewhere else . Olsen: Yeah , right . Farmakes: So whether it 's temporary or otherwise . I think you did have a_ road drawn into the plans to the south . Olsen: For Rottlund . Farmakes: For Stone Creek wasn 't it? Hempel : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 13 Farmakes: Stone Creek , wasn 't that to the south? Olsen: To the south? Farmakes: Yeah , connected up and it made sense . Much more sense than driving to the south to get back to TH 5 . And like we said , the neighborhood just didn 't want it and they had enough people here to say they didn 't want it . Ledvina : On number , condition number 9 . We 're saying the applicant shall provide at a minimum a right turn lane along Galpin and other road improvements as required by Carver County . Now can we do that? Can we say that Carver County , it seems like we 're overstepping ourselves there . Olsen: It 's their road . Ledvina : If it 's Carver County road , we can require Carver County to force them to put in a right turn lane? Hempel : Carver County is the one responsible for granting access to the parcel . They ' ll put in conditions of that access and what 's typically happened , I believe the report also mentioned about a right turn lane into the site . Ledvina : Do you think it 's appropriate that we impose this condition on a developer at this time? Hempel : Yes , I believe it 's appropriate . Ledvina : I understand you want to identify what your intents are and what your concerns are but I 'm just , it seems a little strange in terms of the wording and the jurisdiction . But that 's fine . Number 14 . We have a similar condition as number 6 and I 'm wondering , is there any difference there , or can we take one of those out? Hempel : That is a duplication . Number 14 is a duplication . Ledvina : Okay , so we can take 14 out . I think that 's all I had . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Ladd . Conrad : I have no questions . It 's a reasonable subdivision . Batzli : Okay . Did we , we already talked a little bit about the pond in the northeast corner . Is there anything in the conditions to vacate that once we develop the areas around it? Is that something that will not be needed once we go ahead with that other development? Hempel : Mr . Chairman , that pond in the northeast corner of the development will most likely be a permanent type pond because it is adjacent to a wetland area already . The only temporary pond that we foresee on the site would be in the northwest corner if the Rottlund development did not proceed ahead . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 14 Olsen: Southwest . Batzli : Southwest . Hempel : I 'm sorry , southwest . Batzli : On Lot 1 , Block 2 . Hempel : That 's correct . Right now the applicant is proposing a storm — sewer line to connect in with the storm sewer line that was proposed by Rottlund subdivision as well . Olsen: Connect them to their pond . — Batzli : So what would , would the homeowner have to come in and petition the city to vacate that? If in fact it was taken care of by developments— elsewhere? Hempel : The City could exercise that motion . Olsen : Initiate it . It 'd have to go through the vacation process . Batzli : Okay . Diane . — Harberts: My comments just kind of lie around that whole street issue . You know is there an opportunity , and I had a chance to talk to Dave — earlier in the week . I guess it was yesterday . My how time flies . I 'm not here . You know I think there seems to be an opportunity to see if some kind of plan for a street series . I mean you know the land's going _ to be developed . You know we have these little bits and pieces . Can the City establish some kind of guide plan so things do hook up? I guess I 'd be more inclined to , my understanding and correct me if I 'm wrong , is that this subdivision is not going to happen unless the Rottlund happens — because of the sewer , the utilities . Is that correct? Hempel : No . The City said , we 're prepared to downscaled the project . — Harberts : In order to do it . Hempel : In order to do it . Just to serve this one development because wE foresee the other developers on the doorstep . It 's just a matter of time Harberts: Well and I concur with that and what 's preventing the city to — do the same sorts in terms of a street? You know an overall street plan . If you know that the plans are going to happen , can the city , you know the plan 's fine and I can understand there 's difference in houses but I still don 't see what 's wrong with having like that loop in there versus having the two accesses onto the county road . It seems like , is there an opportunity , you know it 's going to be built . The developments are going to occur . Is it in the best interest of the way city services are provided that we look at that? You know should this be approved subject to , you know to see what happens with the Rottlund and Lundgren . To look at a more comprehensive street plan . That 's basically where I stand on — it . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 15 Batzli : Is that it? Harberts: I think we have opportunities here to maybe put a little bit of guidance out there and that 's all I 'm looking for . Batzli : See we 've done that before Jo Ann , especially right around , where 'd we do it? Pleasant View . South of Pleasant View we kind of did a propose;' , this is kind of how we think it 's going to come in . This is where we 'd want the streets to happen and we did it in part because Pleasant View homeowners repeatedly came in and said , you 're putting too many accesses on the road . What 's to stop us from doing something like that here? Other than time and effort . Olsen: Right . Nothing . Batzli : Is it something that we should be doing? Olsen: Well we do do it , the times that we do make those studies other than when it 's specifically brought up by the residents is when it 's more _ of a collector , like Lake Lucy and we do an official map and things like that and take that process . We have done it before also west of Lake Minnewashta in the area kind of by where Dave Headla lives . In that area . There 's nothing , I don 't know . It 's more coming to Dave 's lap actually for him to do . Harberts: You don 't have anything to do , do you? Hempel : Well , we did look at that area up in Pleasant View and we did come up with like 4 different alternatives . I guess up there though we were limited with much smaller developable areas . Okay . Out here we 're just beginning a new frontier if you will . Batzli : We 've got a clean blackboard . Hempel : Right . I mean what it takes is larger tracts to come together and piece , come in as one large development and it 's really tough to _ dictate at this time how that property 's going to develop I guess . The developer may want larger lots . Larger homes and so forth . Harberts : But isn 't that part of our responsibility though? I mean we 're a planning commission . We should put some of that guidance out so in the sense we can deliver the city services efficiently , cost effectively . You know and I 'm not here to make a burden on the developer . It looks like a good plan hut you know I think is the ball in our court? Are we missing out on an opportunity here? You know we kind of have a reprieve now in the Rottlund piece here . Maybe it 's going to dictate a little bit because the year isn 't going to expire but like you said , we 've got this wide open frontier . Is this our opportunity to , you know at least put some kind of guidance . you know some kind of guideline out there? You know maybe we don 't make it the ordinance but by putting this plan out here , the City 's going to be able to have a desire in terms of how these streets , things are going to occur . And if the developer can show for some reason why it won 't work or something better 's going to work , isn 't that what 's good for the city rather than piecemeal here and you know , oh we 're going to have a Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 16 road here because it 's such a small piece . We 're waiting for the big one . I don 't know . I 'm just a little , this just kind of sticks with me a — little bit with this . Olsen: And actually with the Rottlund , it hasn 't gotten final plat approval . If we really want to do it , if you felt strongly about it , and Dave has suggested it , to me is to make the recommendation that the acces do go to the south on Lot 4 , correct? And we still have the ability that when Rottlund does come back through, that if we now see that there shoul1 be a different access , we can still make that recommendation . Harberts: I 'd hate to see some residents stand up here . I wasn't — involved with, the Timberwood but was that good for the city to not put it through because we had an opportunity for some very astute people to basically organize themselves . Is that what 's good for the city? Is that the vision we want? Is that the way that development occurs? I mean — isn 't it really on our shoulders or we have the ability to develop that guide plan and that 's all it is is a guide plan . Olsen: Well we essentially are doing that . I mean we 're not officially mapping it but as they do come in, we are looking where they go and as with the Song property and stuff . There 's enough features to those sites_ that there 's only certain areas that the road can go and yes , that 's what we do . But all we can do is put the road to the end of that one development that 's come through . I mean we can 't , again we 'd make the recommendation that it 's only temporary . That it has to be pushed throug`- when the next development comes through . Harberts: But that 's what happened with Timberwood and where is that . — Olsen: Exactly . Even if it 's officially mapped , they still could have made that case . They swayed the Council . That 's . Harberts: Well and that 's what I 'm saying . If we put out a guide plan here and this is the vision here and this is the way it looks like , isn 't it kind of hard to not be consistent with that unless there 's some real — good reason rather than we like it without a drive thru street? I don 't know . It 's just you know , I think you said it well that every time , if there 's a cul-de-sac that should be extended , they 're going to say no . _ People like their cul-de-sacs and we 're going to be the ones sitting here saying , well it 's good for the city . We should put it through . People art_ saying no . Well . I mean do we have an opportunity? If there 's an opportunity . I think it 's in the best interest of the city to do so . That 's it . Brett Davidson: Can I say just one more thing? ,— Batzli : Sure . Brett Davidson: Just so we get it clear . I 'm a little unsure how this compares to the Timberwood problem . I know they 're a problem but I don 't see the same problem here . Now I 'm not going to agree or disagree with what you 're saying . I don 't see the same problem here . Do you see it as — a problem here? The same that Timberwood had? Is it in fact the road Planning Commission Meeting May 5 . 1993 - Page 17 =lready looks into a pre-planned road and that 's not an issue . Is that correct? Harberts: Well , I don 't think the issue really today is the cul-de-sac . My issue is actually having some kind of overall plan in terms of , a guide plan in terms of how the street system should be looking to you know what 's best for the city . Brett Davidson: Okay . I agree with that too but you have to understand a little bit from our point of view now and that is , we in a sense do have that and that 's city and county ordinances . So when we design it , we go by the city and county ordinances which are , this preliminary plat does meet that . Harberts: Well they meet the minimum standards . The ordinance and the codes are the minimum . You shall , you know this is the minimum standards — and so from the city 's perspective , yes that 's the minimum standard but is it the best opportunity here . Because when you look at the cost of city services , things lik.,7 that , is that good for the community and that 's all I 'm asking . You know and the last thing I want to do is put a burden on the developers but bottom line here , it 's the city that 's going to be ponying up on the services and the cost . And with the budgets shrinking and things like that . Brett Davidson: Services and cost to the develop this is not the minimum . I 'm responsible for all the roads built . Herberts : Well yeah but when the sewer goes out there and the sewer costs start going up and the city hears about this . Brett Davidson: The sewer runs through there whether development 's there or not . Batzli : Yeah , but we 're like this . We were speaking more globally . You 're parcel raised an issue that caused us to say , we 're missing an opportunity . We should be looking at a lot of different parcels and _ seeing how we 're going to connect them up and what triggered this was the fact that if we put in a temporary cul-de-sac down between Blocks 1 and 2 at Lots 11 and 12 respectively or 12 and 11 , will they someday , your people that move into your development say we don 't want that to go through and so we 're trying to come up with a way that we can develop a more comprehensive way to link up all of thes lots . So we were using your parcel as an example but we were speaking very globally , so . My comments , I 've kind of snuck them in between people here and there . I only had one left . Two left . Sumps . Have we ever , we 've talked about this and I 've _-rough:t it up at our long range goal kind of meetings at the start of the year every year to do sumps but this is the first one I 've ever seen where we 've required i' . Hempel : I believe the Rottlund piece we did also . Batzli : Well sure but I wasn 't there . So I 'm sorry . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 18 Hempel : Mr . Chairman , we did receive a soil report from out there . Most of the borings did indicate very , very wet soil conditions and we , unfortunately learned by experience here that most of Chanhassen lately , or in the past is the same type of soil situation and we 've been trying t( catch up with these sump pump discharges into the streets . And discussion with the City Engineer , we feel that it should be standard construction - practice now with the street construction , to provide this drain tile . It 's not only going to provide drainage for the individual homes but it 's also going to improve our street system . It 's going to provide drainage away from our streets . Batzli : So we get rid of the discharge into the sanitary sewer which people do because their yard 's too soggy . What you 're going to do is - you 're going to run drain tile behind the curb and then hook it up to the storm sewer every whatever? Hempel : That 's correct . Batzli : And who 's responsible for the maintenance of that? Hempel : The City would be . Batzli : Where does the city responsibility end? - Hempel : We would not necessarily allow a direct connection to that drain tile system . The homeowners would bring their sump pump hoses out to a _ certain point and then build what 's called a gravel pit there where the water discharges and seeps through the rock into our drain tile system . So there ' - really the maintenance of their system would be the homeowners maintenance . The City 's would be ours . - Batzli : They 're going to be on the city right-of-way . Why do they have to maintain it? _ Hempel : Well , similar to a driveway . They snowplow their driveways in the boulevard . They pave it . Batzli : So when the sump , when the gravel gets clogged and starts spilling out into the street , you 're going to write a letter to the homeowner and say fix your gravel drainage thing down to our drain tile? - Hempel : Potentially yes . Harberts : Who signs the letter? Batzli : Well I 'm curious because when we 've spoken about this in the past , what we 've talked about is I thought , underground pipe to the drain - tile which then drained into the storm sewer system . So it was all underground . The homeowner never worried about it and now we 've got a plastic hose or something , maybe running on top of the ground . Maybe below . To a clugey little rock gabeon catch basin thing into your drain tile . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 19 Hempel : Well , it 's something that we 're probably going to have to take a closer look at and issue permits for construction . We do right now for any kind of construction in the city right-of-way and spell out responsibilities or do these inspections so we don 't have the maintenance problems in the future . Batzli : Now don 't get me wrong . I 'm 100: in favor of this but I want it to succeed . And I think we need to decide these things in advance to make sure that , you know it sounds like the developer wants to work with you and probably for the very reason that he doesn 't want plastic pipes running up out of the side of the house , across the lawn and discharging near the street into these little piles of gravel . And then we start arguing over who 's responsible for what . So I 'm 100% in favor of working here but I think we need to do this probably on even more developments . To get rid of a lot of the discharge into the sanitary sewer , etc . that we end up . The landscaping clause Jo Ann . Last sentence on number 19 . I understood that we changed it from 14 lots to 12 . Then we 're only requiring it on a minimum of 12 lots because there 's existing trees . Is that what we 're doing? Why we 're doing this? Olsen: Well , we know we could require it on all . It 's kind of a new thing that we 're stating that you have to use the primary list . Batzli : This is just , so there 's going to be trees required but you can use some of the secondary lists? Olsen: Right . It 's fine with me if you go with 100% with the primary list . I mean you have a pretty good variety there and choices . I guess I 'm just kind of slowly going into this with the new list that we 've got . Since we don 't have any policy , we don 't have any landscaping ordinance yet that states that you have to use certain species . Batzli : And see I guess I read it that , I read it completely incorrectly . You read that as you were required to put trees on the other lots but it doesn 't have to come from the primary . Brett Davidson: One tree per lot but half of them have to be from the primary list . Batzli : Okay . Well if I 'm the only person that read that wrong , then never mind . I think Jo Ann , what I would like to see on this , and Jeff has brought this up in the past , is I was at a disadvantage not having been here for the Rottlund discussion but I had no clue how this thing hooked up and Jeff has brought it up in the past . It would be very helpful to at least have a sketch on this kind of page to see how this stuff hooks up to see what 's around it . _ Ledvina : Have we developed standard plates for that yet? For this type of construction . The drain tile being on the sewer and the hook-ups and all that . Hempel : No , we haven 't . Batzli : It sounds like we 're gonna on this one . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 20 Hempel : Yeah . The boulevard areas are so clogged with other utilities . You 've got telephone , gas , electric , cable TV and so we 're going to sit _ down and specify zones for each one of these utility companies to be in s we don 't have them criss crossing and tearing up our drain tile accidentally if we don 't know about it . Batzli : I don 't have any other comments . Any comments or motions from anyone? Ledvina : I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Request #93-2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2 , Agricultural Estat= to RSF , Residential Single Family and Subdivision #93-8 for Royal Oaks Estates to create 23 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 7 , 1993 . . .subject to the following conditions , and I 'll try to get this right . The conditions are listed in the staff report with the fcllowing exceptions and changes . Condition number 2 shall be , the second sentence— shall be revised to read , Furthermore , that this easement on Lot 1 , Block 2 shall be included on the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared . Condition number 12 , I wanted to add something to that to hopefully clarify that a little bit . Condition 12 to read , th applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10 foot wide drainage and utility easements along the side , front and rear lot lines . In addition , drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed for all pony retention areas which will include the newly constructed 12 inch line along the back of Lots 10 and 11 , Block 1 . And then the rest as it reads . Eliminate condition number 14 . Condition 19 , the last sentence of that — condition to read , the required 1 tree per lot shall contain trees from the primary specimen list for at least 12 lots . I think I caught them all . Batzli : Is there a second? Conrad : I second that . - Batzli : Any discussion? Ledvina moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Request #93-2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF , Residential Single Family and Subdivision #93-8 for Royal Oaks Estates to create 23 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 7, 1993 , subject to the following conditions: 1 . The city shall accept full park fees to be paid at the time of - building permit application at the rate then in force in lieu of parkland dedication . 2 . A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be granted to the city along the applicant 's westerly property line ( Lot 1 , Block 1 and Lot 1 , Block 2 ) . Furthermore , that this easement on Lot 1 , Block 2 shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared . This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant , but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as part of the grading plan review . Planting of Planning Commission Meeting — May 5 , 1993 - Page 21 trees shall be restricted to areas east of the trail bench . Full trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force to assist in the financing of the future trail connection . 3 . The applicant shall pay an appropriate storm water trunk fee to be determined by the City 's storm water management consultant to — contribute towards the future extension of trunk storm sewer facilities . _ 4 . All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City 's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates . The street construction shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to accommodate household sump pump — discharge . Detailed construction plans and specifications for utility and street improvements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final platting . Final construction plans and specifictaions are subject to City Council approval . 5 . The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and ponding _ calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes . The storm sewer shall be designed and constructed to a 10 year storm event . The retention pond will be reviewed by the City 's storm water management consultant and constructed pursuant to guides implemented — by the City 's consultant ( Bonestroo ) . 6 . Erosion control plans and methods shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen 's Best Management Practice Handbook . 7 . The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA , Health Department , Watershed District and Carver County Highway Department . 8 . Prior to the City 's signing the final plat , the applicant shall enter — into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval . The development contract will be subject to City Council approval . 9 . The applicant shall provide , at a minimum , a right-turn lane ( deceleration lane ) along County Road 117 and any other roadway — improvements as required by the Carver County Highway Department . 10 . Should the end of the roadway not be connected with the parcel to the south , a temporary cul-de-sac shall be constructed to meet City standards with a barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul-de-sac and this road will be extended in the future . The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary temporary roadway easement for portions of the cul-de-sac lying outside the right-of-way . — 11 . Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council ordering and awarding the bid for Public Improvement No . 92-5 for the Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 22 extension of trunk sanitary sewer and watermain improvements through the development . 12 . The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10 foot wide drainage and utility easements along all side , front and rear lot lines . In addition , drainage and utility easements shall bc, conveyed for all pond retention areas which will include the newly constructed 12 inch line along the back of Lots 10 and 11 , Block 1 . 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated _ with the final plat on the following areas: ( a ) Between Lots 11 and 12 , Block 1 , and Lots 10 and 11 , Block 1 . ( b ) Between Lots 1 and 2 , Block 2 . - 13 . Should the parcel to the south ( Rottlund-Windmill Run ) not develop , this development will be required to provide temporary on-site _ retention pond until the parcel to the south develops and the storm sewer line is extended to Lots 1 and 2 , Block 2 . 14 . Deleted . - 15 . The final grading plan shall denote the type of house and elevation of garage and lowest floor for each lot . - 16 . The existing house on Lot 1 , Block 1 ( Davidson 's ) shall connect to the municipal sanitary sewer system proposed with the site _ improvements within 12 months after the connection becomes available 17 . The existing house on Lot 1 , Block 1 shall relocate their driveway to access the new street within 12 months anter the new street is constructed . 18 . The City will spread the proposed trunk and lateral sewer and water _ assessments equally over the proposed 23 lots . 19 . The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide boulevard landscaping in the form of berms and plant materials . The boulevard landscaping shall contain landscaping from the primary specimen list and shall include Lot 1 , Block 1 . The landscaping plan shall reflect existing trees which will be protected by a conservation easement . - The required 1 tree/lot shall contain trees from the primary specimen lists for at least 12 lots . 20 . Fire Marshal conditions: a . Street names must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal , particularly since it will be connecting to the subdivision to - the south . Street names must be approved so as to avoid duplication , and house numbers match the city 's grid map . b . Relocate fire hydrants as shown on the preliminary utility plan . c . A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 23 _ d . Fire hydrant caps must be painted per City of Chanhassen Engineer Spec . e . Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities . The roads shall be in place before construction on new dwelling starts which is greater than 150 ' from County Road 117 . f . If the road does not connect to the south to form a looped road , a temporary Fire Department approved turnaround shall be provided . See preliminary utility plan . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved , Scott seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 21 , 1993 as presented . ONGOING ITEMS: Batzli : Let 's hear a report from Diane and Ladd about what happened at the HRA , Planning Commission , Park and Rec . Conrad: You were there Brian and you made a very eloquent speech at the very end . Well I had to speak for you . Batzli : Well thank you because they were so . Harberts : He should share his speech . Batzli : For the record , they were so long winded that I gave up and left . I apologize . Conrad: Well I was accused of being long winded when I spoke for you . Batzli : Once you got going? Okay , well I 'm glad you spoke for me . Harberts : At the HRA meeting , and Nancy was there as well for a period of time . Basically they presented several alternatives that they were looking at for their , I don 't know if it 's the entertainment center or civic center or whatever it 's called . Basically they presented the alternatives and called a question . Do you want a recreation facility as part of this civic center? Conrad : And Brian , you were the only one that didn 't . Well no , I thought I spoke for you . Batzli : I 'm sorry , I was the only one that didn 't what? Conrad : Didn 't want the recreation part . Harberts : Public . Public recreation . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 24 Conrad : I said , I think I spoke and said that you would rather see it privately owned and operated . Batzli : Yeah . Oh yeah . Mancino: You had brought up a YM and YWCA kind of thing . - Harberts: But I think the consensus of the group was , they 'd like to see a facility , a civic center facility in Chanhassen . There was a little _ question about should it be a stand alone . Should it be there? Also , I think the consensus was that yes , we want it but let 's start all over and let 's get the input from the people . And then also that if you 're going to do it , do it right . They have what , $6 .2 million available to do the project . They felt that if they were going to do it right , they would have to find $1 or $2 million somewhere else . The Mayor does not feel comfortable with going out for a bond referendum . So on one hand I think_ the majority of the people in the Parks and the Planning Commission , to the City Council to some extent , made the comments that yes . But if you 're going to do it , do it right . Yet you have the Mayor that says , _ we 're only going to do it with the money we have available so . Batzli : Well my point , just to put it on some record somewhere , is that we can 't do it right with the money we have , in my opinion . For the - grandiose scheme they 've got to build a health club . And I don 't think we need a health club at that site . What we need are community rooms and if you want to pool , build a pool but you don 't need all this other stuff And it costs much less to build community rooms which is what we need . Th school district has come to us and said , we ' ll build a pool at the elementary site if that 's what the community needs . Well , what are we trying to cram all this stuff into one little backend? Well , we 're doing- it because we think it 's an eyesore . Well , I think there 's other ways to take care of the eyesore than to build a mecca of swimming pools and this stuff . With public money . - Farmakes : Anyone who has been following that project , it keeps on coming back to that same spot and you ask , you keep on saying , why , why , why . _ And I 'm sorry I didn 't get to the meeting . My transportation fell out . had car trouble . Harberts: You should have taken the bus . You would have been there . - Farmakes : I could have took the bus . Yeah , I should have . Scott : Dial-a-ride . Farmakes: But it has always been that way . When you ask why it is , you get a philosophical difference that 's never answered . The difference - between , and you said it , a civic center . It started out when I heard it and I thought it was a good idea was a phased down entertainment complex with an adult facility , and no more than that . And it depends on what - meeting you go to , sometimes it 's in the same meeting , the words are interchanged between civic center , entertainment complex and it just strikes me , and we were talking about that . If I was on a loan committee for a bank and an applicant came forward and started flip flopping back Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 25 and forth and gave me as much marketing information as you 've seen here on this project , you probably would break for lunch early and I don 't think the phone would t- ringing too soon to your applicant , so . Mancino : Absolutely no other community input . Harberts: Well and the point was brought up and it was kind of shot down , which was a little surprising to me was , well why doesn 't the city and the school sit down and see what they can do to build facilities so they enhance each other rather than maybe compete with each other . And the discussion was that , help me out here someone , they didn 't think it was necessary . Batzli : I don 't know if they said that . I think I was there but I don 't know that there was an answer to that . Some raised it . Harberts: Well Mike Mason raised it and it 's really hard to really summarize what the response was except that the school district , you know there 's another message that the school district is waiting for the city to decide what they 're going to do and then they 'll build it . Farmakes: But doesn 't the school district come into play as a minor , for minor 's recreation . I 'm not saying as an adjective but as a noun . You 've got for children and what they 're providing and then you 've got adult recreation and if you look in the private sector , they 're marketed separately . Although they may take place in the same area , you don 't see the kids swimming in the pool when there 's adult lap swimming . You don 't see adult basketball going on while there 's kids recreation in the gym and you don 't see racquetball for adults taking place when kids are using it . And we 're not looking at that . We go back to the civic center . Going back several years in the referendums that were defeated . I see it as a group development where we all get our basketball and go whether we happen to be 5 years old or 55 years old and we all show up to play . And that really isn 't how recreation is marketed . Harberts: Well and I think your comment is appropriate because I didn 't really get a strong sense of what the vision is for this facility . Batzli : Well I got a vision from Ladd and they all just kind of said , well that 's nice . We 'll modify it . Harberts: Oh the focus? Batzli : Yeah . Harberts : Exactly . I thought that was a real important aspect and it was like , oh yeah . Okay . Batzli : Yeah , we 'll do that later . This is concept here . We 'll focus later . — Conrad: We 'll tuck that in over here at some point . Batzli : Has everyone seen the , I 'm sure we don 't have a drawing here . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 26 Scott: The packets? Batzli : Yeah , did everybody look at the packet? — Farmakes : I 've got a packet right here . Batzli : If you look , and this is of course won 't make , if you look at this little blue area back here is Version 8 . There 's a little meeting room area and Ladd 's question was . Conrad: I really wanted to see , I asked them where there was a community center . A focal point where the community could gather in the wintertime and not be tucked away in a room . Basically the answer was , well it 's , — they really didn 't have one . Batzli : It 's back here in this tucked away room . Harberts: It was in the blue , the green/yellow room . Conrad: Well , we had a certain color that we could do that and there was— another section that it could have been a 10 x 40 foot . Batzli : A hallway . — Conrad: Yeah , and so I guess the bottom , it 's a real interesting meeting and I thought it was real valid and it 's real easy to be critical of _ what 's going on . There 's a lot of needs trying to mesh here and usually when you try to meet a lot of needs , you miss most of them . And you get , and you put some cost perameters in there but you know what 's really interesting and the Park and Rec is real enthusiastic . I think Brian you — were the only no vote on the whole evening . I cast that for you . Batzli : Did you? Thank you . Conrad: And I was vacillating . I don 't know because I don 't see what I like up front but the rest I think , everybody else was positive so it will probably be carried forth but the other thing about everybody else being — positive though is that . Harberts: We didn 't want any of it though. — Conrad: But we don 't like anything we see . Harberts: Start all over . — Conrad : So let 's try it again . Farmakes: Would you expect to see Braemar in the middle of Southdale? I don 't think so . Harberts: Hey , we 've got Camp Snoopy in the Mall of America . Farmakes : Yeah it 's still , I don 't , you know I agree with what you 're saying 100% but I don't understand why we won 't admit that this is money — Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 27 looking for a purpose and it keeps on coming back to the same location as it has for the past 10 years . Mancino: And are there different purposes? Could it be senior housing? Could it be more in the education . . . Farmakes: Well let 's back up and look at the two restaurants that the HRA wanted to put in there . We have the largest restaurant capacity in Minnesota that isn 't being used in the Dinner Theatre . Why would we put 2 more restaurants in the same location? They don 't do any lunch traffic at all there . Batzli : That 's out of the plan now for that very reason . Farmakes : I understand that but it was in the plan for a couple of years so I think Ladd 's right . It 's easy to be critical when they 're brainstorming and trying to come up with a finite number of how much is this going to cost . And they 're trying to mesh these different needs but still , isn 't there a philosophical difference that if you try to brainstorm restaurants , meeting rooms , or so on , you define what that need is . How much square feet you need . And it almost looks like we have a complex and then we ' ll figure that out later . Conrad : Every sector is defining their own little need . The business community is saying one thing . The recreation group , which is pretty strong and they have some valid needs , they 're saying something else . I think the city has a need to try to focus some development there . It could end up bad or it could end up something that 's not as good as it could potentially be . So again , there 's a lot of players and trying to mesh and I just came away from that meeting saying , hey . Let the Bloomberg Companies develop it if we don 't have a real focus and if we don 't do it right and it was real clear . I didn 't see anything that I thought was just great that I could say wow . It 's worthwhile for me to pay some tax money to get this done . I just didn 't see it , and I 'd be open to doing that . If I saw , that 's why I gave a vacillating comment . If I saw a product that I just thought was terrific , I would say oh yeah . I didn 't see that . Harberts: We were hoping maybe something better would come back . Conrad : But I think that evening , Diane you voted yes . Harberts : Well yes . Conrad: I ' ll put you on the spot . Because you got your trans . Harberts: Well , with what 's being proposed here it just , people would start realizing , and I 'm on my soapbox now . How well transit can play into this role , you know and just the discussion on the child care . I mean it 's a hot area if you can match those things and isn 't that what a community service is all about? Filling those type of needs . And so , yes I voted for something like this because I can see this becoming a community focal point . How , I don 't know . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 28 Farmakes: If you could drive a car because you 're certainly , if I had a child that was 7 or 8 , I wouldn 't want them riding their bikes through all these parking lots . And I again question that location for that use . _ Conrad : For what? Farmakes: For kids . Scott: Basically what you have here is that you have . Harberts: You have $6 .2 million that 's waiting to find a home . Scott : Well , you have the Park and Rec Department that would love to have something like that to schedule . You have the Chaska Athletic Associatio that you know needs , they need ballfields . And maybe gymnasiums . Okay . And then you have a landowner who 's also a partner in a hotel that is looking to enhance their property and I don 't have a problem with somebod'— trying to get the job done but if Mr . Bloomberg is interested in developing meeting rooms , he should walk across the street and go to Kevin McShane and go hey Kevin. I want some money to buid some meeting _ rooms . Well I don 't see the community going , City Council , Planning Commission , we want a community center . We want a community center . Spenu that money . We 'll pay for it . You know . We 'll borrow a couple million bucks . That 's not what 's happening . Farmakes: And it 's not a community center . Scott : No . It 's not . Farmakes: It 's in no way , shape or form a community center . _ Scott : No way . And the only problem is then you have people on city staff , I mean it 's an eyesore . I think it 's an eyesore but do you have to spend 6 1/2 million bucks to do as , I think it was Mr . Green , wanted to — have something that worked , "worked architecturally" . But now I 'm not an architect and that was probably significant to someone who understands what he said but I went , now wait a minute you know . So this makes me — really , really nervous . Farmakes: Did Senn make any comments at all? Scott : Mark? Farmakes: Yeah. — Scott : I would have expected him to because it 's similar to what I said . Farmakes: Because his comment about if they build a Target they will come . And if they come , this property will develop on it 's own but it seems that the city wants to play the cards on how that property develops . And that seems to be as much of a reasor as an eyesore per se . Scott : It 's Menards . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 29 Harberts: And I think Dick Wing said it well though . That he didn 't feel that it was the community 's , you know a public service to have to build this type of facility . Batzli : Okay but with. . .why did everybody vote yes then? What was the thing that everybody said yes? Conrad: Free money . Harberts: Well , you 've got $6 .2 million burning a hole here. Conrad: But let me follow up on Diane 's point , and it 's really valid and you 've got to stand back . The validity is to build a core city center . Batzli : That 's what I 'd like to see . Conrad: You only have a few opportunities to do this . This may be the only one . And if you say hey , we don't got it right and then you may never have it so you 'll end up becoming like another city that doesn 't really have a focal point . �- Harberts: Downtown focus . Batzli : But my suggestion , and I totally agree with that , and I think that 's completely valid . You need the focal point but then build a community center . Buy the land next to it and when a health club wants to come in , you give them the land to buy . Here you go . But we 've already got our community center and this is what we 're focusing on and you know . Conrad: I don 't disagree with you . Batzli : And I don 't get it . So that 's the point that I don't get . It seems to me that the Park and Rec wants to have this thing to schedule and so by God , they 're going to build it . Scott : They want control . Batzli : And that 's fine , if the community really needs it . I don 't know . I mean my kids are really , I 'm in the Minnetonka School District . We gravitate towards Minnetonka programs , and I 'll just be candid with that . So I don 't know what the need is in the Chaska School District for kids and scheduling and that type of stuff . Farmakes: But did the Parks support that location or just the facility? Conrad: The location and the facilities . Farmakes: Really? Really? Conrad: I think the only one that I heard , Senn was the only one that didn 't want it there . Harberts: There was a free standing one at Lake Ann or something . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 30 Conrad: Yeah . Harberts: You know I don 't know though , did the Park people really support the location or the fact that here 's an opportunity and here 's a good site . Scott: You could get one fast . Farmakes: See I 'm surprised because the Park Board has been so pro for — our young people and pushing that type of recreation and I 'm surprised that they picked that location which is not what you would think of as a developer being a location to bring kids into . Harberts: But the question was , what was the alternatives . Farmakes: Civic center . — Harberts: Well I know but it made it sound like there wasn 't a lot of opportunities . — Farmakes: The new school . Harberts: Well , and you know the question that was brought up , and this — is what I don 't understand is , why aren 't they sitting down with the School District together . You know get a community survey . Sit down with the school district and then start programming what 's good for the kids . — You know what the needs are and then enhance each other . I mean I totall. thought that they 're on two different tracks and not talking to each other or they 're not talking well . Farmakes : I think there 's some State regulation involved in there too that the State guideline won 't give you credit if you 're a city and what you would best , that you have to meet their required recreation minimums . — And the fact that you have ballfields a block away are not valid or relevant so I 'm not sure how that plays into when you build them on the property you 're going on . _ !-arberts : Yeah , but if you 've only got $6 .2 million and that 's all the money you want to spend , you 'd think you 'd sit down and see the creatives approaches . I mean I deal with State and Federal regulations every day . — There 's creative approaches . Farmakes: We just voted to approve $42 million bond though so that — coincides with that acreage that 's being purchased there . You know again it seems that what happens when they build this facility and you have all these varying needs . It actually goes up and they see that it wasn 't . Harberts: Big enough or . Farmakes: But what happens when the Orthodontists are in for the hotel — convention and decide they want that meeting room and the Quantas are looking for a place for their breakfast meeting . You know is it to be sold , is it being sold to everyone as some sort of panacea and it 's not . — These are very small , compared to what they were talking about , very smal. Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 31 square footages . And to really target it towards a much more modest application and if they go ahead and get it sold by saying it 's a convention center or saying it 's a civic center and people in their mind 's eye see it as Chaska , they 're going to be disappointed . Scott : I keep thinking of initially when we had that meeting where this thing kind of , at least surprised the heck out of me . That Park and Rec meeting that we had . And I saw this line and on one side it was public money and the other side it was private money and they were public money being spent on meeting rooms connected to the hotel . I really get the feeling that something 's been cut . A deal has been made . People have said things to one another already and perhaps that 's why this thing keeps going right back to the same spot . Farmakes: Well any time that you have , and Chanhassen does not have a wealth of developers yet saying . . .over and over again but I 've never found that or I 've never seen that there 's anything that 's happening behind the screen . Scott: Well what I 'm saying is there 's an understanding . Farmakes : . . .major investment in town and you will obviously get government interaction . You get that in Minneapolis . You get that in several areas and sometimes it 's good . When you look at the Target Center downtown , and sometimes it 's not so good when you look at Minneapolis petting sued . Getting their hands burned with getting into development with the French . . . Mancino : The Bloomberg Companies , did they develop Market Square? Harberts: Yes . Farmakes : I believe were they not a partner . Harberts : They were involved . Farmakes : But I think Johnson , Lotus was the developer of record . Harberts: It 's amazing what a little bus shelter can do . Farmakes: But these are developers that have served our community well but I agree with you that when you do get a private and public concern going on here , the question has to be , just like these PUD 's . What are we gettir:q out of it and it seems to me that the information , the hard information that 's following this development is not the type of hard information that you would get if you were an investor or you were a banker putting money into this . =Nott : Well and one thing they 're not doing is when you think about who 's the customer . Who is the customer? I don 't see a lot of "customer input " either . Harberts : No , it seems that the priority here is to fix the eyesore and Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 32 here 's $6 .2 million and if the community can perhaps benefit it from some degree . Farmakes: The demographic studies that were done by both the civic center commission that was put together , is no longer an act . The demographics that were done by the Park Board , there were a lot of holes in those _ demographics . They were unscientific . They were mailed out . I believe they sent out 1 ,000 in the last version for what they were looking for . They came back , I know they made the statement that half of Chanhassen approves trails. Well the fact is , is that I think they sent out 1 ,000 — and half of those responded and half again of that thought that it was okay . Now the statement half of Chanhassen approves trails doesn 't support that database . It 's half of the respondents and that 's less than _ 5% of the voting public of Chanhassen. So you have to question some of the facts and figures that are coming forward . When you see a referendum like this center that gets voted down 2 to 1 , and then arbitrarily in a meeting , and I brought this up at the city planning meeting when we were — doing the work goals . There was somebody on city staff that said it only lost by a few votes . That was the trail vote . It was 2 to 1 against the civic center and then without any background information , it was just gut— feeling they said , well that was voted down because of Filly 's . Filly 's there . Well , there 's no information to support that . No hard information . Batzli : Yeah , but that was the issue in the vote . Scott : But then they were also looking at the . . . Farmakes: I was here at the time . I didn 't vote for it because I thoughi it was a lousy location . Filly 's had nothing to do with it . Batzli : Well the debate in the newspaper and other places always seem to turn to Filly 's . Farmakes: But I wouldn 't spend $6 million based on my gut feeling on that . Batzli : But from a planning perspective moment here , we have an eyesore . — It 's downtown . We have a need , I think for a comm•jnity type center . Is that a good way to , is that a good location to build meeting rooms for Boy Scouts and things like that? You know have a central focus meeting place _ for the city . What do you think about that just as a planning committee? Forget about what all the rest of the residents think for a minute . From a planning perspective , what do you think? Farmakes : If you 're asking me , I think it 's a good idea and I said it at the meeting . I think an entertainment complex here would round out nicely . I 'd like to see more retail , better retail there . But it 's — difficult in small town retailing to get anything that 's going to work . Batzli : They announced at the last meeting that it 's going to be •convenience retail . Not specialty . So it 's going to be drive up , 5 minutes , buy a jug of milk and leave . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 33 Farmakes: Yeah again , I made the statement when Target came in here . I would have liked to have seen a broader shopping capability here than Brooks and Target but retailing , or upper end retailing we don 't , it doesn 't seem like we have the amount of generated dollars . There 's too much competition 15 minutes away but still in all I hope that the city doesn 't wind up being nothing but Subways , Targets and that brings us back to the other point that this made is that is some of this TIF money going to be spent on civic uses . It just seems so far that in downtown development that there 's been not a lot spent , that I 've been seeing coming up on civic uses . I haven 't seen a lot coming up on supporting retail and we 've sort of done that now but I do think that it 's a good idea . I do think though that it should be geared , as I said all along , to adults because I think that that location is well set for that . It 's _ accessible by car . Our downtown is not pedestrian friendly and I don't think it will ever be . Batzli : Paul wouldn 't agree with you if he was here . So I have to just raise that . Farmakes: He can put as many bridges as he wants and the kids may come here , but I 'll be darn if I want my kid to walk through 600 cars in the parking lot to get to a place . I don't want him to and I feel very uncomfortable about that . I 'd let my teenager come downtown but I sure would think twice about sending my kid down here . . .and there really isn 't a place to hang out , young teenagers that hang out down at the Chan Bowl , and they 're a problem down there . And there isn't a place downtown . If you 're not spending money , you really don't belong down here . I think that if they tried to combine those two markets with this application , it 's going to not work very well . Batzli : Does everybody else agree that it is a good location to fix an eyesore , spend public money , get a community center kind of thing? Harberts: Well I have to agree with Jeff in terms of the adult target market . Because I think with the school you certainly have that opportunity to focus that more along the kids , teenagers , whatever because of the activities , facility that they 'd have . I would certainly support =something that was more oriented towards the adults . Mancino: But is a civic center the same thing as a health center? Batzli : Well I don 't think so but . Harberts: And you know I like Ladd 's comment though about making it something that it can be focused though as a focus point for the community . Farmakes: But families do not recreate together and you will see that at Northwest , Flagship , Swim and Fitness . They 're all , some of them are all targeted to different , Swim and Fitness to a younger age group . Northwest to family orientation and Flagship to sort of a country club tennis operation . But none of them recreate together . They just don't . They 're not set UP that way . The times aren 't divided that way and I don 't know why we come forward and we sort of say that we 're going to be playing Planning Commission Meeting May 5 . 1993 - Page 34 baseball with our kids when we 're not going to be . We 're not going to be playing pick-up games at basketball with 14 year old kids . It doesn 't work that way . — Scott : And also too with City Center Park , I mean that , the whole concept behind that is almost like it 's kind of an outdoor congregating place — which probably will be the hangout instead of Brooks or Filly 's now . But yeah , I agree that there 's got to be some indoor community space . And if it 's going to be indoor community space that 's publically funded , I think — that 's one thing . I think that 's something , I mean there 's no question that that 's what we need . Anybody too involved at all in some of the continuing education things or any indoor type activities , whether it 's Karate or who knows , we just don't have enough space . When we start — getting involved , I start getting uncomfortable when we start talking about running a business that has fairly substantial operating costs . Running meeting rooms that maybe they can be rented to community groups . L don 't know . But when you start looking at an investment in , like a million dollars for a pool . That 's expensive , etc , etc . Batzli : Jo Ann , I mean right now for meetings throughout town, I keep on hearing these things that the Boy Scouts or whoever , are they meeting in City Hall? In the Schools? At the Fire Department kind of thing? Olsen: Wherever . Batzli : Who schedules that? The City does? The City just provides . _ Olsen: Well if it 's in one of the city 's facilities we schedule it . But like they want to be able to use this during the weekends and now that they 're not allowing access , nobody else is here to really watch what — happens so . So yeah , if it 's in the fire station or Old City Hall , we do lot. there . Farmakes: Did anyone bring up during the meeting , at the meeting the financial health of the holding company for the eastern section of this development? Batzli : No . Scott : Well I know their reorganization plan was approved by the — Bankruptcy Judge . So they have a plan . atzli : The group that owns the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre , they — apparently filed for reorganization . Scott : Oh I thought you were talking about Filly 's . Farmakes : I 'm talking about the . Scott : IBC . — Farmakes: Yeah . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 35 Scott : International Broadcasting Corporation that owns the Dinner Theatre . Yeah , cwns the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre . Farmakes: They 've been in 13 for a while haven 't they? Scott : Yeah , Bankers Trust because they sold , like Dorothy Hamill bought the Ice Capades and the Harlem Globetrotters were bought by some guy from Honeywell or something like that . But the Dinner , from what I understand and I do not , this is just what I 've been reading in the funny papers but the Dinner Theatre itself is financially healthy . Batzli : Yeah . That 's my understanding . Scott : But I don 't know if it 's true or not . That 's just what I 've read . Batzli : So what direction , what are they going to do now? You two stalwarts that stayed til the bitter end . Conrad: I left . Batzli : Oh you left after you made your speech? Conrad : Yeah , I just left . They told me to shut up and I left . Batzli : So you said Batzli doesn 't like it . I hate it but go ahead with it and then you left? Conrad : No , I stayed around long enough to hear everybody 's opinion . Farmakes : Who 's the major push on that? Harberts : I 'm guessing it 's the HRA . Conrad : Well , the HRA and Park and Rec . I think Park and Rec has wanted some athletic facilities for a long time so I 'm sure that 's a driving force . I don 't know . Jo Ann , do you have any feeling there? Olsen : . . .even for staff we 're confused . Batzli : See I 'm not against this at all really . I mean I would love to see this thing go but I don 't think we can build it and get what we want for the amount of money we 've got . And that 's what troubles me and so what I 've tried to do is suggest E way or , you know buy the land . Sit on it . Just build some meeting rooms . Do something where you can do it correctly . Make sure it 's open . Make sure there 's a focus . Make sure there 's a meeting room . Make sure you can get north and south in the building and none of these things , we keep seeing plans that don 't do it _ and reasons for why they can 't do it , or perceived reasons . Well , parking 's a problem or something . And I just sit here and I look at it and say , well until you do it right I don 't even want to say yes because I agree that we need it . I think it would be great . I would love to see plan number 8 or 10 . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 36 Mancino: So why don 't we write this stuff together as a commission and give them our report in what we feel? Batzli : I don 't even know if we can . Mancino : Matthew 's on the HRA . He can deliver it for us . - Ledvina : I 'm not on the HRA . I 'm the liason , right . Mancino: . . .you can deliver our thoughts . Why wouldn 't they want our thoughts? Farmakes : I talked to some of the people on the HRA . They weren 't , it - didn 't seem like they were really gung ho on this thing . It seemed like they were . . . Ledvina : No , they aren 't . They 've gone through a lot of different variations of this thing and they started out with $12 million as to what they thought was a good plan and they 've scaled it back , scaled it back and compromised and it 's , you 're right Brian . They 've shaved it so much that they don 't know what . What it can do and it 's just . Batzli : See I 've never even seen how many people this could support . Thi - type of a building . So how many residents can use it at once? Farmakes : But they were stooping to use that space as temporary space for the library when the library study says that that 's exactly what they should not do with library space . So I think that was like 8 ,000 square feet or something like that or just to get that much out of it , I mean that 's hard they were looking a tenant to make sense out of that thing ane- it , I wonder how many other uses are just , we 'll throw them in there and get the square footage and we 've got a tenant . And whether or not it makes sense to put it there or not . _ Harberts: And I think though the discussion though on that Wednesday before something , the number of people went up to the Shoreview Community Center . - Scott : Yeah , I was up there . Harberts : In our bus of course . And people are drooling in terms of what Shoreview has and they drool somewhat in terms of what Chaska has but you know in Shoreview , 500 ,000 used it in one year . This facility , you know _ I brought up the issue of parking . This facility , I don 't see how 500 ,00( people are going to go through it . I mean are they , why are they trying to put the Shoreview up there? Batzli : Well see the kids can 't get there and so you 're going to have to drop them off . So but who 's going to use it . I mean that 's the thing I keep bringing up . Farmakes : And I believe if time goes on a little farther now , that there 's a lot of creative book accounting that 's going on in the Chaska center . Their marketing plans aren 't quite jelling . Planning Commission Meeting — May 5 , 1993 - Page 37 Scott : And at Shoreview , by the way . Farmakes: Aren 't quite jelling with what the original projections were and it 's always , with Chaska it 's always free land . Somebody always come — up with free land . As long as there 's several million dollars of community money coming after it . Harberts: But at the same time , why are they putting the Shoreview 's and the Chaska 's up there? In terms of it 's like , here 's the goal . It seems like they put those two community centers as the goal here and I don 't think that 's right for this area . Mancino: That 's the only vision that they have . Harberts : Well exactly . If somebody asks , well what 's the other options and they were speechless . Batzli : Okay , what is the outcome of the meeting that they had on Monday? What are they going to do now? Harberts: I really don 't know . Conrad : I would bet , and I left but I would be they 're really confused . Harberts : They are . Conrad: Because the bottom line was we didn 't see anything we liked . So there was a go but we needed a first class , or better facility and . Harberts : But the thing that came out was , you have to get the community input simply because they 're all over the place here . Ledvina : Maybe that 's the next step . — Farmakes : I had an opportunity to talk to the Chairman of the HRA and I asked him if he had seen any marketing information or this stuff at all . They hadn 't seen anything . And these are people that are going to sign off on $6 million bucks and it would seem to me again that we 're relying it seems to me on a lot of gut opinions here as to what 's going to work and what isn 't . — Conrad: I think it 's appropriate that we come up with a statement . Ledvina : Sure , I can do that . Conrad: A position . Ledvina : I 'd be willing to draft a letter and we can take a look at it at the next , well not the next time because I 'm going to have to look at the Minutes of this meeting . But the following time . . . Batzli : I don 't think you ' ll see a consensus from what we said . Ledvina: Well I ' ll give it a shot . I think there are some elements here . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 38 Mancino: I think we 've asked some really good , tough questions about where they 're going . Harberts: But I 'm sensing a consensus here . One , some kind of community focus . In a sense along the adult line . And third , whatever is done you do it right but make sure you 're hitting a mark . — Scott: Like for example , I haven't had anybody come to me , and I haven 't asked this question which is probably why but what is the problem? What _ is the problem we are trying to solve with this? Mancino: The eyesore . Scott: Okay . What is the problem? Well , I don 't know. What is the problem . Meeting space is short . Farmakes: Back up . There 's a finite amount of time to spend the money . 1996? Conrad: Another problem is the property can be developed by the current — owner . Farmakes: See that 's where the Menards scare tactic . — Scott : See that 's another thing that makes me really uncomfortable . Farmakes: Why would you put a lumber yard in the middle of a retail center? Scott: Just because . — Conrad: I don 't find that . That 's not a threat to me right now . Scott : . . .but anyway , what 's the , no , it 's like what 's the problem and is it supported by fact? Well we need 4 racquetball courts . The hell we do . Who says? Batzli : I know . I play racquetball . Scott: Well so do I . — Farmakes: I play racquetball too . Scott : I play at the fire station for free . But anyway , like what 's the problem and then let me see some statistics that there is a problem and then , once you understand what the problem is , and it 's kind of like , okay . So we need meeting rooms and 2 gyms . Okay , what does that cost? — And then , yeah . If we get silly and have another $8 million and we need swimming pool , hell let 's get a hockey rink . Let 's you know but I don 't think anybody really sat down . I think you 're right . They see 1996 . — We 've got $28 million bucks . We 've got to spend it . And then it goes from there . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 39 Farmakes: AlthcJgh , let me throw this out . If this was an adult facility and there were cost sharing aspects to it where the civic use would be at one time and commercial time would be at another , is that not an _ intelligent , prudent way to spend their tax money? If it works out . If we get something for it . Versus , and looking at the total picture how it valuates . How it improves the value of their property . How it improves the ability of their business to not put that on there long term debt load of financing a pool or financing meeting rooms or racquetball courts or exercise rooms for their hotel or whatever it is . And who runs that facility? Who operates it? Is that commercially operated and the city contracts that out? Scott: Because maybe that 's part of the problem . Farmakes: Or does the city wind up staffing it and paying for retirement and benefits and so on . How does any of that information play out and I haven 't seen any of that . Scott: No . And maybe the problem is that the folks who own the hotel , they have a problem because they , although their occupancy rate is about as good as you can ever get in a hotel , that we have a problem . We need the meeting rooms . Well I don 't have a problem saying , hey listen . We 'll pony up this much or we will sign a 10 year lease for x thousands of dollars a year or month or whatever to have this kind of access to that facility . I don 't have a problem with that . Farmakes : Yeah , and I don 't think we should be micro-managing it anyway but I mean if you look at the concept , there might be an opportunity there for that type of application that might work both for persons willing to invest money downtown and for the city . If it 's done lith that in mind _ and not sold as a civic center . Because I agree with you . If they start seeing Shoreview 's in their mind or Chaska , that 's not going to be what it 's going to turn out there . Harberts: And that 's what 's out there right now . That 's all anybody can see . Scott : But those are both like , those are both 50% more expensive . Harberts : Well I know . Exactly but like I said , that 's what 's being held up right now . Scott: Yep . And one of the things that I , since I 'm such a jerk . I asked the business manager of Shoreview , and he was really nice and I 'm not going to go into that but I just said , are you guys making any money? He said , well last year we made $25 ,000 .00 . I said , wow . Well what 's your debt service like? He looked at me and I said , well you guys , they _ had $6 million that they had kind of squirreled away . And then they had a bond referendum for I think $2 1/2 - $3 million and I said , what 's your debt service and he went , what? I said when you guys borrowed this money and you have to pay it back , I said my guess is that that 's like thousands and thousands of dollars a month . You know maybe $150 ,000 .00 a year . And that might be HP12C with me . He kind of looked at me and I just said , okay . Well I get the answer to my question . So I get really concerned . Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 40 I mean I run a business you know and I don 't have free money . So I don 't know , but like what 's the problem . Let 's solve the problem and then maybe leave some space to anticipate future problems and maybe a pool , I don 't know . Batzli : A pool would be nice down the road . Make that the addition . If you need gyms , if you need meeting rooms , let 's do it right . Let 's have focal point . Let 's buy the land so that we can do it and we put up a building . We hide as much of the eyesore as we can and when we can afford_ it , we put up the health spa . Farmakes : I wonder if the phasing issue of this , it seems like there 's resistance to a phase in approach to that and I don 't know if that 's because of the requirements and the spending of the money . I don 't know , that doesn 't really help the business application at all . . . Batzli : Well gyms , weight rooms , meeting rooms , those can all be used by the businesses if they want to . You just don 't have a pool . And because the pool is one of the biggest . Scott: That 's a very expensive component . Plus from an upkeep standpoint . Mancino : Well in the comprehensive plan , that was the number one thing , the survey that everybody wants in Chanhassen . . . Batzli : What a pool? Mancino: Open swimming at a pool . . . Farmakes : But does the city wind up staffing it? Providing the service? Mancino : I don 't know . What I 'm saying that 's what the residents want . — Batzli : But the first thing they say at the meeting is that the school district , Chaska School District come and says , should we build a pool at the elementary site . Well if they 're going to build it in a couple years . what are we building one for? Scott : That 's right . Plus with our land participation . Harberts : Yeah , but is that going to be more family oriented versus adult oriented? Mancino: . . .well exactly and I didn 't see the survey . I don 't know if they have focus groups . I don 't know how they conduct their research . I _ mean part of . . .have a market research conducted , who does it . Is it the party with a vested interest? I mean . Farmakes : It 's clarified as an unscientific . Harberts: It almost seems appropriate to turn this thing , rather than into a civic group , into like a business center . You know you 've got your_ retail , your hotel and then putting the meeting rooms that are shared by Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 41 civic and business . And I would even . Mancino: Then why don 't they pay for it? Harberts : Well and I would even be as , you know I 'm really , I guess I 'm real pro the private sector involved . You can give them the carrot , you know the land or whatever and have them come and build it or even just operate it . I think you 're going to be further ahead . Scott : You could have the city lease the meeting facilities so they can turn around and take care of the groups . Conrad : But we should have a vision . We should have a vision . Joe , you 've been saying what problem and I buy that . Scott : Well I think I know what the problems are . Conrad: But on the other hand , from a planning standpoint , do we have a vision for downtown for a community type of place? Is there anything in our minds that say in 20 years it should look like this and we missed the opportunity in 1993? And I think that 's part of maybe the statement that I 'd like us to come up with . I think solving problems , I really agree with almost every , there 's nothing I don 't agree with . . . Scott : Well a year round meeting place because the city center park will be like the 6 month meeting maybe . Conrad: Yeah . I 'm looking for , as I said at the meeting , I 'm looking for a place for a school choir can sing in the wintertime . Scott : Or teenagers can hang out for free and not get in trouble . Conrad : Absolutely , and really literally my mind keeps saying , you 've got two buildings . They 're both privately owned here . And then you dome the common space between the two . You atrium it and all of a sudden you 've got a common space so the city is putting the atrium over two buildings that have a private function . That 's what 's going on in my mind . But _ that 's not what we have here . But I think we should be able to have some of those visions if we can to share . Scott : Well there 's always opportunity in a chaotic situation and I think what we see is a lot of people who haven 't really figured out where they 're going and far be it from us to fill the void but I mean that would be nice for us to say , A , B , C , D , E , F , G . Something logical and concise and maybe this would be a good opportunity for us to , as a relatively new group just to plan . Ledvina : I 'd be happy to give it a shot . Farmakes : I hope that we consider how civic uses do play into what we 're investing in here because otherwise we 're going to wind up with a mall from one end to the other and that 's it . And then we shouldn 't be calling ourselves a city . We should be calling ourselves a mall . I hope that we wind up balancing some of this TIF expenditures that we 're doing . That Planning Commission Meeting May 5 , 1993 - Page 42 we 're building something that 's going to last . Something that 's going to be around here more than 10 years , like some of our retail buildings . At least that 's what I would like to see . — Batzli : Okay . So you ' ll draft something for us? Ledvina : I ' ll give it a shot . Batzli : Okay . Good . Anything else? Wait a minute . One more thing . Mancino: Diane 's about comprehensive street plan in that area , that new area that 's going to be developed from Galpin . North of Galpin . Is there something that we can see Jo Ann that we can see what 's existing and - what 's planned for that whole area and . . . Batzli : She can do it . Olsen: I can do it . I ' ll make sure that Don and Todd and all those guys get copies of these Minutes too to go along with to see what they come up with . Would you like to see if I could get Don to come to one of the meetings . Upcoming meetings . Not the 24th but , I mean not the 19th but maybe the first meeting in June . Again , just to have a one on one with them or , would that be beneficial or no? Scott : Don is a big proponent . Olsen: Right . . .behind it . And he 's also the one that 's in the middle of all . I don 't know . I mean has he done that already? Didn 't we already kind of do that at the start? Ledvina : Yeah , I think that was mid to last year . Olsen: Last year . Maybe it 's time to do that again . _ Harberts: You know and it might be nice because Matt , you 're drafting that letter . A staff report or update or administrative report next week as to what they see as the next step . Or what they see summarized out of the meeting because I didn 't have a very clear direction at all . Olsen : Even internally we weren 't sure . . . — Farmakes : And I talked to them about that too . That if it 's not done right , if this thing isn 't done right , it 's going to smack of public money invested into private concern in downtown and it 's going to look one sided . And if it 's not done right . If it 's done right , I think it won 't be . it could be a benefit to the city . But if we sell it , I hope they think about how they 're going to sell that to the public . Scott : Well they 've got to go out and find out what the problem is that the public perceives it and then just say , okay . Well here 's what you told us . We listened . Here 's the solution . Olsen: Maybe they have that stuff , they just haven 't presented it . . . Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1993 - Page 43 Scott: I didn 't get one in the mail so . There 's probably a good reason for that though . Farmakes: I asked 3 people on the HRA , none of them had seen any concrete , hard . Batzli : What does our agenda look like at the next meeting? Do we have anything? Olsen: I think we just have Halla . . . ' There were a number of conversations going on at the same time at this point . ) Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY QF 10,!„ 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: May 12, 1993 SUBJ: Report from Director At the City Council meeting of May 12, 1993, the following actions were taken: 1. A bid was awarded to begin construction of improvements to West 78th Street in downtown Chanhassen. The improvements include realigning the street in the vicinity of Powers Boulevard, increasing its width to four lanes west of Market Boulevard, development of sidewalks and landscaping, installation of signalization at four intersections and improvement of the geometrics east of Market Boulevard. 2. Preliminary plat PUD for 93 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition, Argus Development. In my opinion, this project is evidence of the high level of review and refinement that is provided by Chanhassen's development review program, with input by the Planning Commission. This plan comes about as close to making a silk purse out of a sow's ear as any that I have seen in a long time. The City Council was very satisfied with the plan which incorporates a large number of _ refinements since it was first submitted, most of which served to improve tree preservation. Residents again spoke about the project; however, most of them focused on the issue of changing the name of Lake Susan Hills Drive. The Council heard testimony from the Public Safety Director regarding a meeting his staff had held with residents concerning the name change. While they continue to believe that it is unfortunate that this problem was not caught earlier and that safety could be improved if a name change were to be instituted, they did not at this point believe that it was worth the significant disruption to these residents that appears to result. Therefore, they recommended an alternative strategy of posting large directional signage out on Powers Boulevard indicating which street numbers were on a particular side of the street. The City Council approved the preliminary plat and related requests deleting the condition regarding changing the name of the street. They added a condition increasing the number of trees to be installed on each non-forested lot from 1 to 2. Ars t 41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission May 12, 1993 Page 2 3. Preliminary plat to subdivide 68.53 acres into two single family lots, Laurent Addition. This is a fairly straightforward request and there was almost no discussion about it. While the property owner has raised some questions regarding the condition that was added requiring the dedication of a recreational easement along Bluff Creek, he was not in attendance at the meeting. Staff refined the request to outline a recreational easement 50 foot to either side of the creek corridor. The City Council approved the request accordingly. 4. Accept feasibility report for storm water improvements on Frontier Trail. Strictly speaking, this is not a Planning Commission item. However, it is an exciting one to staff since we believe it proves the cost effectiveness of the surface water management program that is currently nearing completion. As a part of an early phase of the project, Bonestroo identified five or six hot spots that we should look to in the short term to improve lake water quality. When the plan is finished, there will be a number of projects outlined, but we asked them to give us some early assessments so that we could undertake work in 1993. While we are proceeding with several of the smaller projects, one of the larger ones in the vicinity of the Forcier property on Frontier Trail, was believed to be beyond our financial means at this time. There is very significant drainage in this area that flows directly into Lotus Lake. Much of it comes from the hill above Frontier Trail and is untreated and runs directly into the lake at high volumes causing significant erosion. It was believed that it would take over $100,000 to remedy this problem, since it would not only require construction but also land acquisition. Although the SWMP Task Force decided to focus our efforts elsewhere this year, Dave Hempel and I had advance knowledge of what we wanted to achieve in this area that was highly useful when the property owner happened to walk into the door proposing a subdivision. The long and the short of it is we will be able to resolve approximately 80% of the problem while sharing the costs with the developer. Instead of needing to expend something on the order of$100,000, the total project cost will be approximately $30,000, with the city's contribution being approximately two-thirds. We expect to have the work done, with any - luck, later this year or early next year in conjunction with a residential subdivision. We expect the Planning Commission will get to review the residential subdivision within the next 30 to 60 days. ONGOING ISSUES REVISED MAY 19, 1993 IS SUES STATUS 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. 5 On-going work with Task Force. Grant _ Corridor Study request to fund $300,000 pedestrian bridge over Hwy. 5 near CBD has been submitted to MnDOT ISTEA grant process. Request — made to HRA to fund Project Manager for Park and Ride/Legion/AVR proposal. Public hearings to be held summer/fall, 1993. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments — allow — 3. Sign Ordinance Draft ordinance has been completed and will be reviewed by the Hwy. 5 Task Force in May. Staff expects to get it to the PC during June. CC asked that the committee look at limiting the number of sign boards on building exteriors for office buildings. — 4. Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Advisory Tree Board established by City of significant vegetative areas Council. Currently working on issue. — Forestry intern hired. New ordinance being drafted. — 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the ordinance. Initial comments delivered to MnDNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. 6.* PC input in Downtown Planning and Ongoing. Work continuing on refining plans Traffic Study for downtown community center proposal — and senior housing development. 7. Review of Architectural Standards to Hwy. 5 Task Force is working on this issue. — Promote High Quality Design Will likely influence what is done in balance of city. — 1 8.* 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. Working with MnDOT to install bridges — over creek for Hwy. 5. Recreational easements being taken over the creek in vicinity of Laurent farm near Pioneer Trail — under proposed platting. Land for school site and trail south of Hwy. 5 and north of Timberwood acquired by City Council — action. 9. Temporary uses, sales - new Staff to bring back to Planning Commission — ordinance at a future meeting. 10.* Sexually oriented businesses Scheduled for City Council review. — 11. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC. 12. Upgrade landscaping ordinance To PC in July. Staff attended Parking Lot standards to meet criteria established Design Conference in March. _ during Target Review. 13. Joint meeting with Park and Requested by PC. _ Recreation Commission on natural area preservation and Park Comprehensive Plan. — 14.* Reviewed land use designation of To be scheduled at June PC meeting and parcel located west of Hwy. 41 and will be discussed at Hwy. 5 Task Force — south of Arboretum. Meeting. 15.* Auto related uses. CC wants to review potential of eliminating — them from the city and zoning ordinance. 16.* Local/Collector Street Plan PC requested discussion of potential — developing a map and plan. * Change in status since last report. — 2 — L CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. L Attorneys at Law L Thomas J.Campbell Roger1'1 4i'- �t er N. Knutson Fax(61_214i'-iii: Thom],M.Scott Gary G.Foch, L Jame R.Walston Elliott B.F:nct ch Michael A.5roback April 28, 1993 Renae D.Steiner Mr. Paul Krauss ' c p Chanhassen City Hall Air; 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 'Q93 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 C. RE: Highway Business Zoning Dear Paul : You asked me to comment on a concept discussed at a City Council work session that would remove certain auto related uses from all existing zoning districts but would allow them in a new district. No land would be initially rezoned to the new classification. Assuming a solid planning report provides a rational basis for the zoning ordinance amendments, there are no overwhelming legal obstacles to the proposed changes. Challenges can be mounted for totally excluding a "legitimate" land use from the entire community. Beaver Gasoline Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 285 A2d 501 (1971) . Equal protection challenges can be made if there is no rational basis for excluding one use in a district while permitting a similar use. Board of Supervisors v. Rowe, 216 S .E. 2d 199 (1975) . Consideration should be given to the effect of making existing uses non-conforming. Such uses will not be able to expand or rebuild if destroyed. In addition, the business owners may have a difficult or impossible task in obtaining bank financing. Lending institutions are wary of financing non-conforming uses. What criteria will be used to determine the appropriateness of rezoning property to allow auto related uses? Have you considered establishing strict standards and allowing such uses by conditional use permit in the districts where they are currently allowed? ery tru yours, CAMpBEL KNUTSON, SCOTT &;-PITCHS, P.A. BY: " .ger N. Knutson LRNK:srn LSuite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 5. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 `• Aalbn W AdVa 11e11R &domed ✓ DWil MEMORANDUM *Wed Nte - /40- 93 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager are submitted to Comn ioi FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director( Dote submitted to Cana 3 3 DATE: March 9, 1993 SUBJ: City Council's Request for Information Concerning Auto Related Uses And a Possible Overlay District Ordinance BACKGROUND At the last City Council meeting in February, a number of items concerning the Highway 5 _ Corridor were discussed. As you recall, these discussions were tripped off by the requests associated with the construction of an Abra Auto Body shop on Lake Drive. The requests were not extensively reviewed and the item was referred to the March 3 work session. Along with the Abra request, the Council wanted to discuss the Highway 5 Corridor Program and wished to again review the potential of imposing a moratorium on development in the corridor. No minutes were taken at the work session, so this memo is based on my recollections of the meeting. The various options for imposing a moratorium were discussed, including using the ordinance developed by staff and the City Attorney. Staff reiterated our original advice that a moratorium could be imposed and would likely be upheld. We noted that the number of sites where a moratorium was needed to stop development, prior to the completion of the Highway 5 Study, was limited due to utility extension problems or our ability to exercise financial influence through the use of TIF. However, we have become concerned that the on-again/off- again nature of this discussion jeopardizes our ability to have a moratorium upheld. We also noted that comments that implied that a moratorium would be imposed if a given development proposal did not comply with some unspecified standards, or that it would be used to leverage improved standards, run counter to the effective administration of a moratorium. A judge would likely find these actions to be arbitrary. The possibility of imposing a use specific moratorium was also discussed. As I understand, it would stop any development of auto-related uses including services and fast food establishments. It did not appear to apply to other auto related uses which could conceivably include banks, motels or convenience food stores. Neither moratorium approach received substantial support. t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth March 9, 1993 Page 2 - The Council then requested that staff bring forward information on two related topics. The first was a review of the City Code, vis-a-vis auto related uses, and the possibility of eliminating them or further regulating them. The other concept was to resurrect the proposal of imposing a Highway 5 PUD Overlay District that had been suggested by the Planning Director last year. This report is intended to respond to both issues. AUTO RELATED USES Each of our commercial districts allows some type of auto related uses, although they vary as to type and whether they are listed as permitted or conditional uses. You should also be aware that development standards vary between districts so that the intensity of uses that are allowed change somewhat between the districts. Auto-related uses can also be allowed in PUD Districts, although the City Council has a great deal of discretion in this area. For example, a small amount of support services may be permitted in the Opus/Gateway proposal. Similarly, two fast food restaurants are allowed on the five outlots in the Target PUD. It is possible to eliminate or modify areas in which auto related uses are permitted by tinkering with the ordinance. For example, we have been focusing on the BH District due to the Abra and Goodyear requests. We note that fast food restaurants are a permitted use in this district along with car washes. Auto service centers, gas stations and emission control testing stations are listed as conditional uses. You could elect to eliminate any reference to auto related uses in the Highway Business District. This may or may not respond to your concerns. It is unlikely to stop the Abra request, but you should seek the City Attorney's counsel in this matter. It could prevent these uses from occurring on the last building site, but staff is not sure if this will respond to your needs or the residents' concerns. For example, a liquor store or retail could go on this site and either is likely to raise similar concerns over use. Eliminating auto related uses from the code also would have several negative impacts. For example, closing the BH District to these uses would not only prevent new uses from occurring, it would make existing uses non-conforming. Thus, if Gary Brown's service station were destroyed by fire or natural event, it could not be rebuilt. Conceivably, this status could have a real and negative value on all such existing uses. The second impact is more of a question. While you could eliminate these uses from the entire City, is this really the goal? I fully agree that these uses are often obnoxious and have a real potential for off-site impacts. However, these issues can be dealt with by employing specific development standards and/or modifying land uses and the zoning map. The fact is the number of available sites remaining is relatively limited. I am attaching a copy of the zoning map for - your review. I also have to ask if it is appropriate to totally eliminate these uses from our community. Many represent viable businesses and provide services that are a part of our lives. Don Ashworth March 9, 1993 Page 3 We should not become a dumping ground for them, but isn't it reasonable that we allow enough to support the needs of our residents? Even Minnetonka, which is often thought to be one of the most exclusive communities in the region, allows auto related uses. Thus, I am not sure if this is a course of action you should consider. Other strategies you may wish to consider include revising the land use plan and zoning map as described above. Of course we are already committed to developing a Highway 5 overlay district that will impose more stringent standards. But unless it is coupled with changes to the land use plan and zoning map, it will not eliminate auto related uses. Staff needs the City Council's guidance on this matter before proceeding further. CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT Last year, I believed the city was on the verge of undertaking the Highway 5 planning program in earnest. However, I was concerned that it would take a substantial period of time to complete the project, and it did not take a rocket scientist to see a lot of development activity on the horizon. Ultimately, the Highway 5 project was not authorized for several months and it took even longer for the project to really get underway. My concern was that we seemed to need something to get "our feet in the door" and give the city some additional tools to work with. The proposed overlay would have rezoned the entire corridor to PUD. Since we did not have any real standards to describe (and we still don't, although they are in the process of being drafted), the ordinance has a large intent statement. The intent statement would allow the City to insist that development proposals be consistent with the Highway 5 program, something that existing codes do not require. A copy of the ordinance is attached. If this was to be reconsidered today, we could expand the intent section by using the goals and policies that have been developed by the Highway 5 Task Force (copy attached). This approach offers a useful tool, but it is not the total answer. Rezoning to PUD without standards is likely to raise concerns by the property owners. However, at that time it was viewed as a more palatable alternative to a moratorium. It also does little for the land use issue that has been raised by Councilman Senn. The City Attorney also raised some concerns with the approach, as outlined in his attached memo. SUMMARY In summary, while it is clear that there is a significant concern over this issue, it is not clear how you define the problem or which solution meets your needs. As I have often stated, the Highway 5 Program should ultimately meet your needs. It will not be ready until next fall and it is unlikely the process can be accelerated without compromising the program's effectiveness and _ our public information policies. While there are relatively few sites where development is imminent, I cannot tell you that you will not see a proposal you don't care for in the interim. Staff is seeking your guidance. 03:11.93 10:07 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL l a.TSON 2002 — CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. .AttomcS's 1_;W it 12)44_'-xiX .11 1cr 1.C'ur•t::-. Fax(6121 45:'5)]l ii.;;rr\. liner•::: I min:u 4.S`..v:r (.5;:7; J:uiu.R.NVol nor. F!!iorr 13.i.:netx.h April 9, 1992 18,:iclvel.\.firoka — RI .IL D.t+te:.ter Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 — RE: Highway 5 Corridor overlay District Dear Paul: You asked me to comment on the draft Highway 5 corridor Overlay — District ordinance: 1. Overview. May central concern is the extensive use of adjectives, rather than nouns. The more specific the ordinance, the more enforceable it will be. If a proposal is rejected, we must be able to cite the specific ordinance provision that is not satisfied. The case study, "Building Community Across the Corridor" , is a good — vision, but it must be reduced to standards to be enforceable. 2. overlay District. I suggest that, consistent with the overlay concept, there be an underlying zoning district with allowed — uses. This gives us some protection from taking claims based upon the theory that the overlay district is so subjective in its approval process that there are no uses allows as of right. This also — eliminates the problem of making most or all existing uses non- conforming. 3. PUD. The notion of having to rezone property that is in the — overly district to use it consistent with the requirements of the overlay zoning district is troublesome. Once it is rezoned PUD, would it be out of the overlay zoning district? The better approach may be to require a conditional use permit Very truly yours, — CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. .1 . B . Rog, /N. Knu' on — RNK: srn J Suit�: :1 i . Ea anJale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, \IN 55121 § 20-683 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (5) Temporary real estate office and model home. (6) Churches. (Ord. No. 123, § 1, 3-12-90) Sec. 20-684. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an R-16 District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is as follows: a. Two thousand seven hundred(2,700)square feet per dwelling unit. (2) The maximum lot coverage is fifty(50)percent. (3) The building setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50)feet. b. For rear yards, fifty(50)feet. c. For side yards, fifty (50)feet. (4) Parking setbacks shall be twenty-five (25)feet from all property lines. (5) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. b. For accessory structures, one (1) story/fifteen (15)feet. (Ord. No. 123, § 1, 3-12-90) Secs. 20-685-20-690. Reserved. ARTICLE XVI. "BN"NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec. 20-691. Intent. The intent of the "BN"District is to provide for limited low intensity neighborhood retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-692. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a"BN" District: (1) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (2) Neighborhood oriented retail shops. (3) Self-service laundries. (4) Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations. (5) Day care center. Supp. No. 2 1218 ZONING § 20-695 (6) Personal service establishments. (7) Professional offices. (8) Small appliance and shoe repair shops. (9) Health services. (10) Veterinary clinics. (11) Utility services. (12) Shopping center. (13) Private clubs and lodges. (14) Community center. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-693. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a"BN" District: (1) Parking lots. (2) Car wash (when accessory to automotive service station). (3) Signs. • — (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-694. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BN" District: A'(1) Convenience store with gas pumps. — (2) Reserved. * (3) Drive-in banks including automated kiosks. — (4) Reserved. (5) Standard restaurants. (6) Bed and breakfast establishments. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 10(5-10-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 116, § 5, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 120, § 4(7), 2-12-90) . — State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-695. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BN" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum district area is three (3) acres. This paragraph may be waived in the case of expansion to an existing district. (2) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet. — Supp.No.3 1219 — § 20-695 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (75) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60)feet in all districts. (4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150)feet. (5) The maximum lot coverage including all structures and paved surfaces is sixty-five (65)percent. (6) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in sections 20-1191 and 20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts,without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. c. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is twenty-five (25)feet for side street side yards. e. Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that one-hundred-percent screening is provided at least five(5)feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use of fencing is not permitted. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, one (1)story. b. For accessory structures, one(1) story. (8) Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards, thirty-five (35)feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30)feet. c. For side yards, fifteen (15)feet. d. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. e Buffer yards: The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty-foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a _ one-hundred-foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to pro- Supp.No.3 1220 ZONING § 20-712 vide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city,new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering sat- isfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to fifty (50) percent. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 10(5-10-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94, §§ 1, 2, 7-25-88; Ord. No. 136, §§ 1A, 1B, 1-28-91) Sec. 20-696. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "BN" District: (1) Churches. (2) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-697-20-710. Reserved. ARTICLE XVII. "BH" HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT Sec. 20-711. Intent. The intent of the "BH" District is to provide for highway oriented commercial develop- ment restricted to a low building profile. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-712. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "BH" District: (1) Financial institutions. Ar 12 i Fast food restaurant. (3) Reserved. (4) Standard restaurants. Supp.No.3 1221 § 20-712 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (5) Motels and hotels. (6) Offices. (7) Retail shops. (8) Miniature golf. (9) State-licensed day care center. * (10) Car wash. (11) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (12) Personal service establishment. (13) Liquor stores. (14) Health services. (15) Utility services. (16) Shopping center. (17) Private clubs and lodges. (18) Community center. (19) Funeral homes. 1.4 to it (20) Automobile servicing within enclosed structures designed for the purpose where fuel is not dispensed. (21) Financial institutions with drive-through services. (Ord.No.80,Art.V, § 11(5-11-2), 12-15-86;Ord.No. 116, §6, 1-22-90;Ord.No. 122, § 1,2-26-90) Editor's note—Section 1 of Ord. No. 122, adopted Feb. 26, 1990, added subsection(20)to § 20-712. Inasmuch as there existed a subsection(20), the editor has included the new provi- - sions as § 20-712(21). Sec. 20-713. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BH" District: (1) Signs. (2) Parking lots. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-714. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BH" District: (1) Reserved. (2) Supermarkets. tir( Small vehicle sales. Supp.No.3 1222 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 173 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE — CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING ALLOWED USES IN THE BH DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-712 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by deleting subparagraph (20). Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 27th day of July, 1992. — ATTEST: La Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chni, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 3, 1992) — ZONING § 20-715 (4) Screened outdoor storage. I(5) Auto service centers. (6) Garden centers. *(7) Convenience stores with gas pumps. (8) Motor fuel stations. A.(9) Emission control testing stations. (Ord.No. 80,Art.V, § 11(5-11-4), 12-15-86;Ord.No.80-G, § 1, 1-11-88;Ord. No. 91,§ 1, 6-27-88; Ord. No. 116, § 6, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 120, § 4(8), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 137, § 2, 2-11-91) Editor's note—Section 1 of Ord. No. 91, adopted June 27, 1988, amended § 20-714 by adding a subsection (5)thereto. Inasmuch as there existed a subsection (5), added by Ord. No. 80-G, the editor has renumbered the new provisions as § 20-714(6). Subsequently, subsections (5) and (6), added by Ord. No. 116, § 6, adopted Jan. 22, 1990, were renumbered as (7) and (8). State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-715. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BH" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum district area is ten (10) acres. This paragraph may be waived by a condition use permit in the case of expansion of an existing district. (2) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand(20,000)square feet. (3) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage in all districts of sixty (60) feet. (4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150)feet. (5) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five (65)percent. (6) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in sections 20-1191 and 20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts,without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. c. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district — without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is twenty-five (25)feet for side street side yards. — e. Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that one-hundred-percent screening is provided at least five(5)feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced Supp.No.3 1223 ZONING § 20-732 Sec. 20-716. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "BH" District: (1) Churches. — (2) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (3) Farmers markets. — (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-717-20-730. Reserved. — ARTICLE XVIII."CBD" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec. 20-731. Intent. The intent of the "CBD" District is to provide for downtown business development supporting a strong central business district while enhancing the overall character of the community in conformance with downtown redevelopment plan, goals and objectives. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 12(5-12-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-732. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "CBD" District: (1) Bowling center. — (2) Retail shops. (3) Offices. — (4) Standard restaurants. (5) Liquor stores. — (6) Entertainment. (7) Convention and conference facilities. — (8) Financial institutions. (9) Health care facilities. — `(10) Hotels. (11) Specialty retail(including but not limited to jewelry,book,stationery,bible,camera, — pets, arts and crafts,sporting goods). (12) Supermarkets. (13) State-licensed day care center as part of shopping center. (14) Personal service establishments. Supp.No.3 1224.1 § 20-732 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (15) Shopping center. (16) Health and recreation clubs. (17) Fast food restaurants as part of shopping center. (18) Utility service. (19) Personal services. (20) Apparel sales. (21) Bars and taverns. (22) Clubs and lodges. (23) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (24) Cultural facilities. (25) Department stores. (26) Home furnishings. (27) Newspaper offices. (28) Multiple family dwellings, including senior citizen housing. (29) Print shops. Supp.No.3 1224.2 § 20-736 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (2) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (3) Farmers markets. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) _ Secs. 20-737-20-750. Reserved. ARTICLE XIX. "BG" GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec. 20-751. Intent. The intent of the "BG" District is to provide for downtown fringe commercial develop- _ ment identified as the least restricted business district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 13(5-13-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-752. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "BG" District: (1) Bowling center. (2) Day care center. (3) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (4) Standard restaurants. (5) Entertainment. (6) Apparel sales. (7) Personal services. (8) Health and recreation clubs. (9) Specialty retail (including but not limited to jewelry,book, stationery,bible,camera, pets, arts and crafts, sporting goods). (10) Small appliance and similar repair shops. — (11) Funeral homes. (12) Financial institutions, including drive-in service. (13) Newspaper and small printing offices. (14) Private clubs and lodges. (15) Miniature golf. (16) Veterinary clinic. — (17) Animal hospital. Supp. No. 2 1226 ZONING § 20-754 (18) Offices. (19) Health care facilities. 3/ (20) Motels. (21) Supermarkets. (22) Home improvement trades building supply centers. (23) Garden centers. (24) Utility services. (25) Bars and taverns. (26) Fast food restaurants. (27) Reserved. (28) Community center. (29) Senior citizen housing. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 13(5-13-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 116, § 8, 1-22-90) Sec. 20-753. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a"BG" District: (1) Parking lots. (2) Signs. • (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 13(5-13-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-754. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a"BG" District: (1) Reserved. *1(2) Truck,automobile,farm implement,recreational vehicles and boat sales and service. (3) Equipment rental. (4) Screened outdoor storage. • #+(5) Major auto repair and body shops. 11(6) Convenience stores with gas pumps. $ (7) Motor fuel stations. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 13(5-13-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 116, § 8, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 120, § 4(10), 2-12-90) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Supp.No.3 1226.1 ZONING § 20-771 The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to pro- vide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening _ for the higher intensity use.As such,they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential.To the extent deemed feasible by the city,new plantings shall — be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,however,such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan,shall be the obligation of the property owner. _ Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering sat- isfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to fifty (50) percent. The applicant shall — have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 13(5-13-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94, §§ 1, 4, 7-25-88; Ord. No. 136, §§ 1A, 1B, 1-28-91) — Sec. 20-756. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "BG" District: (1) Churches. (2) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-757-20-770. Reserved. — ARTICLE XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec. 20-771. Intent. The intent of the"BF" District is to accommodate limited commercial uses without urban — services. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 14(5-14-1), 12-15-86) Supp.No.3 1227 § 20-772 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-772. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BF" District: (1) Parking lots. (2) Signs. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 14(5-14-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-773. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a"BF" District: (1) Motor fuel stations without car washes. of(2) Truck/trailer rental. (3) Utility services. (4) Reserved. (5) Cold storage and warehousing. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 14(5-14-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-D, § 1, 1-11-88; Ord. No. 103, § 1, 5-22-89; Ord. No. 116, § 9, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 120, § 4(11), 2-12-90) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-774. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand(20,000)square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum front footage of sixty(60)feet in all districts. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is forty (40)percent. (5) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in sections 20-1191 and 20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements. _ b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts,without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. c. The minimum setback is fifty (50) feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is twenty-five(25)feet for side street side yards. Supp.No.3 1228 HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY MISSION STATEMENT Highway 5 is the major traffic artery in our community. It is what links us to the Twin Cities Metro area to our east and the prairie farmland to the west. The view of our community, offered by the trip along the highway, is experienced at least twice a day by many of our residents. It is also the primary exposure to our community that is seen by commuters and travelers who are transiting our area. — Along this route one can find land uses that define what Chanhassen is. There is our growing, _ well planned,central business district and employment concentrations offering jobs for over 6000 people. There are strong residential neighborhoods set back from the highway. There are churches, school,parks and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. Helping to define the corridor _ is a change in landforms with rolling, wooded terrain north of the highway giving way to farmland on the south. Significant portions of the City's ecosystem is visible along its length including lakes, Bluff Creek wetlands and forests. — Much of Chanhassen's future is located along the corridor. City plans call for new neighborhoods, schools and employment opportunities. The Highway 5 Corridor Plan is a result _ of people trying to ensure that we are knitted together by the corridor rather than being torn apart as has been the case in many communities in similar situations. It is an attempt to take control of events and guide them to our best advantage, or simply put, it is intended to allow the city to be proactive rather than reactive. Development along the corridor is precipitated by two factors; the Minnesota Department of — Transportation is scheduled to complete the design upgrade, from two lanes to four lanes in the spring of 1996, and the Metropolitan Urban Service Area was expanded in May of 1991, to include most of the area along the Highway 5 Corridor. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area — (MUSA) was expanded and the City's Year 2000 Land Use Plan was amended to reflect changes in proposed land use recommendations. MNDOT will be participating in the development of a northern frontage road. The frontage road will run north of Highway 5 between Audubon and — Highway 41. This road will be included as a part of the Federal Environmental Assessment(EA) along with Highway 5. The EA is scheduled to be completed by the end of 1993. The location of the south frontage has been driven by development proposals, and its construction will be completed as development occurs. The location and design of these roads is one issue for the task force to resolve. In updating the Comprehensive Plan, the northeast corner of Highway 5 and 41 was left out of the MUSA area. This property was left as a future study area. The city has also directed the Task Force to determine the appropriate land use for this property, as well as revisiting land uses along the corridor that may be conflicting with the vision of the plan. It was the desire of the city to have a vision created for this corridor and staff contacted the Design Center for American Urban Landscape of the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota, to help the city in defining that vision. In February of 1992, the Design Center submitted to the city a case study that put forth several ideas. These ideas included making rooms, making connections for roads, paths, water and open space, using landscape features such as vegetation, topography and extended views which make distinct buildable sites. This study was used as the basis for the formation of a task force to take its components and develop a corridor plan for Highway 5. The major issues the task force needs to focus on are the access boulevards, adjacent land uses, parks, open space and trails, development (design) standards, and the corridor design (streetscape). HIGHWAY 5 PROGRAM GOALS AND POLICIES ACCESS BOULEVARDS Goal: The corridor plan should develop access boulevards consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and the "Building Community Across the Corridor" concepts. The northern boulevard should be designed as the "main street" of Chanhassen as it will be a continuous street from Highway 101, west through downtown Chanhassen, and west to Highway 41. Policy: The function and design of the streets paralleling Highway 5 should be "boulevards" which are distinctly different from what is normally considered a frontage road. These boulevards should connect the community linking neighborhood to the central business district, employment concentration, — community facilities and recreation opportunities. To the maximum extent possible, it should allow vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles to complete trips without having to utilize Highway 5. These boulevards should not necessarily hug the highway, but rather provide a local route that follows existing topography, preserves natural features and supports approved land uses.. A serpentine alignment is desirable. Policy: The design of the boulevards shall be conducive to the feel of a main steet and not the feel of a high density collector, which these streets will be classified. The pavement width should be the minimum required. Hard surface bike paths and pedestrian trails should be included in the right-of-way. Landscaping and _ plantings (streetscape) should be placed along the streets with particular emphasis placed on landscaping areas between the road and Highway 5 when the routes run near each other. LAND USE Goal: The Highway 5 Corridor Plan should seek to define a mix of land uses that support the concept of developing a diverse community supporting the land use goals contained in the City Comprehensive Plan. Land use decisions should seek 2 to develop and support an image that defines Chanhassen as being a community with solid residential neighborhoods, cohesive downtown, diverse economy and strong social fabric. — Policy: The Highway 5 plan should generally support land use decisions and policies detailed in the City Comprehensive Plan. When deviation from the plan are _ proposed they should be based upon the following determinations: a. that new information has been made available since the Comprehensive — Plan was approved that supports re-examination of the plan; and b. that alignment of the access boulevards and potential impacts of other — Highway 5 plan elements offer new opportunities and constraints that were not previously considered; and c. that the work undertaken by the task force to determine appropriate design concept for individual sites supports refining land use decisions. Policy: The Highway 5 Plan should determine land use designations for the 1995 Study area identified near the intersection of Highways 5 and 41, as well as any other undetermined parcels located within the corridor. The purpose of defining land uses is to promote more efficient planning in the corridor and assist property owners and residents in understanding what may occur in the future. It does not _ imply that these parcels will be brought within the MUSA line in any particular time frame. These decisions will be made by the City Council at some point in the future. Policy: Conceptual development plans will be prepared for critical sites within the corridor. These will be adopted with the corridor plan to serve as guides for _ preparing and reviewing development proposals in the future. The conceptual development plans will be utilized to refine allowable uses, provide input into access, grading, building materials and orientation and to ensure that other plan — elements, such as environmental protection and pedestrian access are incorporated. PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS Goal: The Highway 5 Plan shall seek to preserve and enhance recreational open space, — passive and active, along the corridor. Policy: The Plan shall be coordinated with the Park and Recreation Element of the City's — Comprehensive. Policy: The plan shall incorporate provisions for protecting and enhancing the Bluff Creek — 3 _ Corridor that will ultimately connect Minnewashta Regional Park with the Minnesota River National Wildlife Refuge. Included in this policy is the concept of utilizing a bridge of major culvert and associated trail. Similarly sensitive provisions are to be incorporated at creek crossings of the access boulevards. Policy: Other pedestrian linkages should be integrated including one in the vicinity of the Central Business District, the other at Lake Ann Park and others if appropriate. Linkages should be a means of mitigating the affects of the community being divided by Highway 5. The plan should seek to incorporate trail linkages identified by the Park and Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The linkages should connect adjoining neighborhoods and employment centers, the central business district,recreation areas and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. Policy: The Plan should identify open space to be preserved by public ownership of through developer contributions. These should include areas having scenic and environmental importance such as major stands of trees, view corridors, wetlands and water courses. Significant landform should also be designated and outlined. as a means for incorporating them into development proposals. Policy: The plan should seek to limit the impact of the access boulevards on Lake Ann Park, while improving the safety and comfort of the access for the city residents. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Goal: Implement development standards along the corridor to ensure that new development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Highway 5 Plan. Policy: A higher quality of building and site design shall be required along Highway 5. _ This includes building architecture, materials and landscaping. Signs shall be low profile and architecturally compatible with the building. Policy: Buildings shall be oriented to reduce massing and scale where appropriate in proximity to Highway 5 and screen undesirable elements from the view. The undesirable elements include parking lots,loading docks etc. Generally,buildings should have office and high design amenity components located closer to the highway. The undersireable elements should be located behind the building when viewed from the highway. Policy: Setbacks from the highway shall be sufficient to provide appropriate landscape buffering and reduction of the visual impact from the Highway. Policy: On large development sites utilizing a mix of land uses, the higher quality uses shall be required on sites in proximity to the highway. For example, in an 4 industrial park, office buildings and high design amenity structures should be located near the highway with industrial or warehouse structures found on interior parcels. — Policy: Sites being developed within the Central Business District shall be designed to compliment architectural styles and development patterns to promote the — cohesiveness of the downtown area. Policy: Development plans shall incorporate provisions for pedestrian access and be — designed to promote transit usage. Policy: No direct access to Highway 5 will be permitted. All primary access is to be — gained from the access boulevards and local streets extending from them. Policy: Site plans must be designed to maintain landforms and environmental features to the greatest possible extent. When feasible, these landforms and features should be complimented by the design. For example, the planting of a grove of _ over-story trees or design of a water feature to compliment the site, is encouraged. Policy: Higher intensity uses shall be effectively buffered from lower intensity uses, _ natural features, parks and public spaces. CORRIDOR DESIGN/STREETSCAPE Goal: Highway 5 shall have a unifying theme throughout the corridor. These themes include continuity of features through the preservation of open space, points of — view and natural features including wetlands creeks, major stands of tress and rolling topography. Policy: Gateway treatment shall be designed for major intersections along the highway, especially at the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. Policy: The corridor plan shall define and coordinate the various public spaces along the corridor. These include the use of city owned parcels such as the Hanus/Apple Valley Red-E-Mix sites, parks, environmental features such as Bluff Creek and — wetlands that may be acquired, as well as the numerous remnant pieces of right- of-way and landscaping areas that will be created by Highway 5 construction and the access boulevard. The plan should outline appropriate uses, management and — financing strategies. Policy: Roadway improvements in the corridor should support and facilitate pedestrian — access and transit including mass transit, service pedestrian access needs specific to Bluff Creek, Lake Ann Park and the Central Business District should be addressed along with others if opportunities present themselves. 5 — Policy: Design elements of Highway 5 shall be sensitive to supporting the city's goals for the corridor. These considerations should include minimizing right-of-way requirements, use of appropriate paving treatments and lighting, sensitivity to grading issues and impacts on adjoining parcels and protection for the city's natural environment. 6 Hammel Green and Abrahamson. Inc. Architecture •Engineering• Interior Design s' Li /r _ 1201 Harmon Place G' Minneapolis. Minnesota 55403-1985 VO, c • /1,1° PK io e-, 3 E e Telephone 612.332.3944 Fax 612.332.9013 Q� H3A _ TO: Chanhassen Entertainment Complex File HGA Commission Number 1139.004.00 FROM: Curt Green DATE: May 6, 1993 SUBJECT: Notes of Meeting held on May 3, 1993 A meeting with members of the Chanhassen City Council, Planning Commission, Park Board and HRA was held on May 3, 1993. Don Ashworth began with a presentation of objectives, yes or no vote, and their preference for general direction of planning. He recommended Number 11. I presented the three plans, Numbers 8, 10 and 11. Extensive discussion took place about the following: • Bowling alley building • Parking for retail • Access to Seventy-Eighth Street • Inclusion of public spaces or multi-purpose space for classes and activities for the community • Openness • Interest and reactions within the two school districts • No referendum • Child care handy for bus stop • Cinema near Market Place and Highway 5 Don then questioned each member present as to their yes/no vote and preferred scheme. The majority felt the bowling alley should be retained but modified to be aesthetically satisfying. Signage should be removed. Plan #10 was frequently referred to, but with modifications. There was a majority vote for proceeding with a recreation center. Voting on a specific scheme was inconclusive, but many revisions were suggested. chgl2.ct RECEIVED cc: Don Ashworth, City of Chanhassen 7 1993 Todd Gerhardt, City of Chanhassen Todd Hoffman, City of Chanhassen CITY OF CHANHAstN Gary Reetz, HGA CITYOF WISI • c E N 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 May 10, 1993 Mr. Conrad Fiskness, Manager Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District c/o Barr Engineering Suite 300 8300 Norman Center Drive Minneapolis, MN 55437-1026 Dear Conrad, As you are aware, Chanhassen is nearing completion of our comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. We have already generated several significant products which are currently in use. These include our wetlands protection program which is regarded as one of the most progressive in the State, and our Best Management Practices Handbook, both of which have been forwarded to the District Engineer. Plan elements dealing with managing water quality and volume issues are to be completed by the end of June and are also spinning off useful information. For example, we have already incorporated water quality protection measures into new developments and public projects and are currently undertaking a series of water quality improvement construction programs. Thus, while we have always attempted to deal with surface water issues in a responsible manner, we will shortly be in a position to comprehensively manage all our water resources. It is with this in mind that I am writing you regarding several issues of concern on the working relationship between the City and Watershed District. It is my hope that we can begin a dialogue to not only deal with these issues but also to reassess and revise this relationship. _ PERMITTING PROCESS Several years ago, the City instituted a grading permit program. Under it, anytime 50 cubic yards of material is moved a permit must be obtained. Earthwork involving more than 1000 yards of material requires City Council approval. As noted above, we have a sophisticated wetlands protection program and an excellent data base on the city's 200' scale aerial maps and are able to identify and avoid impacts. We are listed as a local governmental unit by BOWSR and have been extremely active in State wetland issues. We have also adopted by ordinance a Best es- sib PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Conrad Fiskness May 10, 1993 Page 2 Management Practices Manual and have developed a very sophisticated storm drainage plan. We have inspectors that regularly check on the grading and receive/respond to complaints and issues raised about the permits. My concern is that the Watershed's permit program has become redundant. It results in additional cost and time delay and, since there is rarely any inspection by your staff, is not likely to result in any net improvement in environmental protection. Sufficient coordination on a system wide basis will be provided by our Comprehensive Plan. I further note that we are in the process of hiring a full time Water resources coordinator to help manage our program. I believe it would be useful to arrange to have the Watershed District defer administration to the City in a manner similar to which other districts and communities are doing. I would anticipate your maintaining some sort of oversight and coordination function. DISTRICT'S LAKE WATER QUALITY REPORT Frankly, we were surprised and somewhat dismayed with both the information contained in the report and the manner in which it was released. Although we have gone to great lengths to keep your staff notified as to progress on Chanhassen's plans, we received no notice nor had any input into your lake quality report. In fact, the first we heard about it was when we read the article that was run in the Chanhassen Villager based upon your press release. I only received a copy of it after requesting one directly from your staff. We have gone to great lengths to develop an understanding of our water quality issues and to educate our residents on what we and they need to change to improve the situation. I was very concerned to read the information that infers that there is no water quality issue in Chanhassen and in fact the quality of many of our lakes is actually improving. These conclusions fly in the face of other sources of information including Metropolitan Council data. They deny the reality that many of our lake residents have visually noted declines in quality. What probably concerns me the most is that there appear to be major inconsistencies in the data on which these conclusions were based. I have asked our consultants, Bonestroo Engineering, to review the material and ultimately many of these questions need to be resolved by having our engineers speak directly to yours. However, I note the following: 1. The trend data contained in the report dates back to the early 1970s. Much of the data indicates improvement in water quality in the early years of testing. Since the District's report offered no theories as to why changes to water quality were occurring, I can only — speculate. The 1970s saw the installation of lake-side sanitary sewer systems that relieved direct discharges as well as the removal of a small treatment plant on Rice Marsh Lake. Thus, it is reasonable to expect some short term improvement. However, many of the same charts appear to indicate declining trends since the early to mid 1980s, which is Mr. Conrad Fiskness May 10, 1993 Page 3 consistent with impacts from urbanization. Yet the report seems to extrapolate that the 1970's trends will continue. 2. Some of the sampling methodologies seem inconsistent with developing accurate data on the lakes. This needs to be further explored. 3. Just a few years ago, the District used declining lake water quality to justify undertaking the $1 million Chain-of-Lakes project. The project was not undertaken due to outside issues but never-the-less, I have to ask what has happened in the last few years to significantly change things? As I indicated above, I would like to have these and other issues explored by our respective engineers and have them report their findings back to us before any final conclusions are drawn. LACK OF CITY REPRESENTATION ON DISTRICT ISSUES I have long been concerned over the lack of direct participation of City staff on District, Board or advisory committee activities. To the extent that we are to jointly manage water resources, excellent communication is paramount. It is for this reason that we have been sending all meeting packets for the Surface Water Management Program (SWMP) Task Force to your staff and invited their participation. I further note that many of our concerns over the District's recent water quality report may have been dealt with at an earlier stage. When your citizen advisory committee was established some time ago, Charles Folch, our City Engineer, contacted the — district asking that he or some other city staff member be appointed. He never got a response. Without hearing from Mike Klingelhutz, a Chanhassen resident who was appointed (but who has since resigned) we would have no idea about what they were discussing. When I raised this concern recently to Bob Obermeyer, he told me that Charles was on your Technical Committee. Charles has never been informed about this and when I asked Bob about it he told me that they have never met. The last situation has to do with a proposal to cooperatively develop a water quality improvement project with the District that was suggested by you at one of our SWMP meetings. You heard about improvement projects we were considering and noted that one of the advantages to the District was your ability to fund projects. You suggested we submit a proposal to cooperatively — undertake the project. We formally submitted a proposal and never heard back from the Board, nor were we ever invited to discuss it with them. After several months I asked Bob about it and he told me the Board had decided they could not participate until a new district plan was developed at some time in the future. Clearly, this situation can be improved upon. Mr. Conrad Fiskness May 10, 1993 Page 4 SUMMARY As I noted at the outset of this letter, I believe these issues need to be addressed and a new understanding of how our water resources are to be managed needs to be developed. We are asking that you direct your staff to meet with City representatives so that we can report our findings back to our respective decision makers in the near future. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning PK:v c: Charles Folch, City Engineer Roger Knutson, City Attorney Surface Water Management Task Force City Council [ 0 err March 22 , 1993 TO: Persons Interested in Revision of the Minnesota Environmental Review Program FROM: Gregg Downing EQB Environmental Review Coordinator RE: Attached Report: "Concepts for Revision of the Environmental Review Program" At its March 18, 1993 meeting, the EQB authorized the distribution of the attached report on concepts for revision of the existing environmental review process. This report has been prepared by the EQB Subcommittee on Environmental Review Revisions. The report includes nine recommendations for revisions to the existing review program--some minor, some major. The EQB is seeking public reaction to the ideas in this report. Written comments should be submitted to the EQB offices by May 14. To aid your review, a list of "leading questions" is enclosed on issues and topics we are particularly interested in receiving input about. As an additional means of getting feedback, the EQB will hold two public forums: * Thursday, April 29, St. Cloud Civic Center, 10 Fourth Avenue South, St. Cloud, one session from 2 : 00-4 :30 p.m. and a second session from 7: 00-9 : 00 p.m. * Thursday, May 6, Room 301, Centennial Office Bldg. , 658 Cedar St. , St. Paul, from 2 :30-5: 00 p.m. Any interested person is invited to participate in these f&rums, whether to offer testimony or simply to learn more about the concepts proposed for revising the program. Based on the ideas in this report, comments received, and other information, the Subcommittee will consider whether to recommend to the Board that statutory or rule amendments be pursued. Any questions about the report or opportunities for public input may be directed to me at: (612) 296-8253 ; 1-800-657-3794; (or TDD, Minnesota Relay Service at (612) 297-5363 or 1-800-627- 3529) . ENYIBONMENIAI BOARS 65B CHAP SJBEE1, Si. PHI, MN 55155 612 296-2803 El 612 296-369B SIAEE P6OY10I0 8Y m PEANNIN_ • EQB SUBCOMMITTEE OS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REVISIONS LEADING QUESTIONS TO ACCOMPANY REPORT "CONCEPTS FOR REVISION OF ', THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM": Question 1. The report indicates that one major problem with the current process is that the EAW process, which is intended only to screen a project to determine if thorough review is required through an EIS, is frequently used as if it were intended to be a thorough review in itself. The problem with this is that an EAW is not designed to cover everything that an EIS would, particularly alternatives to the project, and the process is less thorough, especially with respect to public input. Recommendation 1 of this report suggests three optional process revisions to try to correct this situation. In your view, is this substitution of the EAW for the EIS a serious problem, and what is your reaction to each of the three options for revision? Do you have any ideas for additional options? Question 2 . The second major problem identified by the report is the lack of any administrative oversight on decisions by RGUs. The report suggests a limited EQB oversight role involving the authority of the EQB Chair to remand --send back for reconsideration-- a faulty decision to the RGU. The EQB would NOT be able to reverse the decision, but could require reevaluation of the decision and point out flaws and omissions. Only the courts would actually be able to overturn an RGU' s decision. Do you believe that some sort of administrative oversight is needed? If so, what is your reaction to the proposal in this report? Do you have any concrete ideas for other forms of oversight that might be more effective without being too time- consuming? Question 3 . Recommendation 3 suggests creating a list of specific indicators of "significant impacts, " to be used to decide if complete (EIS-level) review is needed. A draft list of such indicators is shown in an appendix. What is your reaction to this list, and do you have any suggestions for improving it? Question 4 . Many people feel that the unit of government with the most authority over a project often has an inherent bias in favor of the project, which creates a conflict with objective review, and that therefore some other unit should instead be responsible for preparing the EAW or EIS. The report makes no recommendations about this issue. Do you see this as a major problem, and if so, do you have any suggestions for addressing it? (Continued) 5 EKYI80KMEKIAI QOAIl1Y 80ANO 158 CEDAR S18EE1, SL PAOI, IN 55155 112 296-2603 IAN 112 298-3698 STAFF PROYIDEO 8T Q] PIAKKIK'' Question 5. The report makes no recommendations for changing the present citizens ' petition process, except to develop better guidance about what sort of evidence needs to be submitted. Do you feel there are any major problems with the petition process and, if so, what are your thoughts on improving it? Question 6. It is generally believed that developers are opposed to doing EISs because of the time and expensive involved. Do you have any concrete suggestions for streamlining the probess to make it more palatable to developers? Question 7 . Do you have any suggestions for revising the existing mandatory EAW, EIS, or exemption categories or adding new ones? INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to present to interested persons some concepts under consideration by the EQB for revising the state environmental review program, and to solicit input from interested persons about the advisability of these proposed changes. The revision concepts explained in this document have been developed at the direction of the Board by a staff-level committee of representatives of the member agencies of the EQB and a subcommittee of members of the Board itself. The Board directed the staff committee and subcommittee to review public criticisms of the present process that have been voiced in recent years and recommend changes that may be needed in the process. The concepts presented in this document represent the current thinking of the staff and subcommittee on what changes need to be made and how it should be done. The EQB invites all interested persons to review this document and express to EQB any reactions or other thoughts about revision of the environmental review process. A notice accompanying this document explains how to present your ideas to the EQB in writing or orally. - After the EQB subcommittee has reviewed public input and agreed on whatever modifications to the revision concepts are needed in response, the EQB would begin to draft specific wording for _ changes to the enabling statutes and rules to enact the revisions. It is anticipated that statutory changes, if required, would be introduced into the 1994 session of the legislature. Formal rulemaking procedures would follow adoption of statutory amendments. If statutory changes are not required, formal rulemaking may begin in 1993 . -1- BACKGROUND: A BRIEF HISTORY AND EXPLANATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM The Minnesota environmental review program is one of the most basic governmental tools for protection of environmental resources. It is a special review process that complements normal permitting and approval processes and is applied only to development projects which may potentially cause significant environmental effects. Of all development actions that take place across the state in a given year, only about 150 are reviewed under this program. This program is authorized by Minn. Stat. , sec. 116D. 04 and 116D. 045 and Minn. Rules, ch. 4410. The purpose of the program is to disclose information. It complements whatever permitting and approval processes apply to a project by disclosing additional information about how the project could affect the environment, and how those effects could be reduced or avoided. It is then up to the officials who approve permits and other forms of approval for the project to take note of this information and use it in deciding if the project can be approved, and under what conditions. Environmental review does not, in itself, approve or disapprove a project. Environmental review is an open, public process. A major role is played by agencies which would not otherwise review a project and also by the general public. Environmental review uses two types of documents and processes to develop and present information. The most-frequently used is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) . The EAW is defined to be a brief document intended to set out the basic facts necessary to decide if the project has potential for significant environmental effects. If the project has potential for significant environmental effects, then the other review document, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) , is required. The EIS is intended to be more thorough than is an EAW, both in depth of analysis and in scope: the EAW is only intended to disclose whether the project will significantly affect the environment, whereas the EIS is intended to analyze the impacts in some depth and identify means by which the impacts could be reduced through mitigation measures or avoided through the implementation of an alternative to the project as proposed. Both EAWs and EISs are automatically required for certain types and sizes of projects, as specified in rules adopted by the EQB. Most review is done because of these mandatory requirements. However, if review is not mandatory, in most cases it can be ordered at the discretion of any governmental unit that must approve the project. Some minor projects, however, are specifically exempted fron review at all. -2- An EAW process typically requires 2 to 3 months to complete. While EAW costs vary widely, many are done at relatively little cost. A typical EIS process takes 9 months to a year to complete and costs in the neighborhood of $100, 000. On the average, about 120 EAWs are prepared each year and about 10 EISs are prepared. There is a third component to the environmental review process -- the citizens ' petition. If neither an EAW nor EIS is otherwise required, by filing a petition signed by at least 25 individuals and accompanied by sufficient evidence of potential for environmental effects, citizens can formally request preparation of an EAW on a project. The petition does not automatically result in an EAW, rather, the "Responsible Governmental Unit" assigned by the EQB must consider the evidence available and make a determination of whether the project "may have the potential for significant environmental effects, " in which case an EAW is necessary. BACKGROUND: WHY THE EQB IS CONSIDERING REVISING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS Over the last several years, in a variety of forums, significant criticism has been directed at the current state environmental review program. Much of the criticism has centered on two themes: (1) substitution of the EAW process for the EIS process; and (2) lack of checks and balances on RGU decisions. According to statute, the EIS process is the tool for analyzing the environmental impacts of a project in depth, as well as for identifying mitigation measures and exploring alternatives. The EAW process is merely intended to disclose enough information to tell if an EIS is needed. However, in practice, the EAW process is often used as the environmental analytical tool in itself, in effect taking over the role of the EIS. Unfortunately, using the EAW in place of the EIS makes the review less thorough and narrows its scope. The review is less thorough because: there is less opportunity for outside input than in the EIS process; the EAW process does not include any provision for assessing review costs to the project proposer; and there is a lower expectation than for an EIS about the depth of analysis. It is narrower in scope because the EAW process is not intended to address alternatives at all and is less thorough about mitigation than is the EIS process. Many critics of the present program believe that less-than- thorough review has become commonplace by the reliance on EAWs to the virtual exclusion of EISs, unless the EIS was mandatory. -3- Under the present program statute and rules, the only way to appeal or challenge a decision by an RGU about whether an EAW or EIS is needed is to file a legal action in district court. Even the EQB has no authority to challenge an RGU's decision except by filing a lawsuit. In addition, the EQB has no mandate and very limited resources to enforce any alleged violations of enviromental review requirements. Since 1982 the EQB has limited its role in enforcement of the program to cases where a clear mandatory EAW or EIS requirement was being completely ignored; the EQB presently is not in the business of challenging the discretionary decisions of RGUs. Many critics of the present program believe it is a mistake for EQB to have no responsibility for oversight of RGU discretionary decisions and advocate the reestablishment of some form of administrative appeal process that could be used instead of a lawsuit. Up until 1982 it was possible to appeal RGU decisions to the EQB, but the process had so many problems with it that it had to be abandoned. Designing an administrative process that works effectively and efficiently is not easy, but many think that some form of administrative oversight, probably exercised by EQB, is essential to an effective environmental review process. In August of 1990, the EQB discussed these and other environmental review issues at length, and decided that staff effort should be devoted to evaluating whether the process should be revised somehow to deal with these issues. A committee of EQB staff and staff of member agencies worked on these issues for about a year. A public solicitation of comments on the environmental review process was advertised in January 1991, and input received in response was considered by the committee. The staff committee delivered a report with recommendations to the Board in July 1991 . The Board then formed a subcommittee of four members to work with the staff committee on the recommendations. In November 1991 a focus group of persons knowledgeable about the process was convened to discuss the staff committee' s recommendations. The subcommittee developed the present report based on the results of all this previous work. -4- RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EQB SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REVISIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The remainder of this report presents the concepts for revision of the environmental review process supported by the EQB Subcommittee on Environmental Review based on discussions to date. These concepts are subject to modification based on future review and comment from interested persons. Introduction to Recommendations 1, 2 , and 3 . Recommendations 1, 2 , and 3 represent three different responses to the issue of the substitution of the EAW process for the EIS process. Recommendation 1 presents three options for revising the process of environmental review to get at this issue. Recommendation 2 addresses the issue by giving the EQB authority to overrule an RGU's decision not to do an EIS. Recommendation 3 attempts to prevent substitution of the EAW for the EIS by creating more specific indicators of "potential for significant environmental effects, " the statutory standard for requiring an EIS, under the assumption that if it is more obvious that the standard for an EIS is met, it will be harder to avoid doing an EIS. Recommendations 1, 2 , and 3 are not mutually exclusive solutions to the problem of substitution of the EAW for the EIS. Recommendation 2 could be used in conjunction with the existing process or options 1-A or 1-B of recommendation 1. Recommendation 3 could be used with any process option. Recommendation 2 is also obviously proposed as a solution to the issue of lack of an administrative oversight process for RGU decisions. RECOMMENDATION 1: REVISE THE EAW AND EIS PROCESSES. Three conceptual options for revision of the EAW and EIS processes have been developed and are presented in this report. In different ways, each addresses the issue of the substitution of the EAW for the EIS. The three options are: 1. Option 1-A is basically a fine-tuning of the existing process. 2 . Option 1-B would replace both the EAW and EIS processes with a new, unified process that blends elements of the EAW and EIS processes together into one. 3 . Option 1-C would change the EAW process into a review process in its own right (i.e. , not simply a screening process to see if an EIS is needed) and would change the way in which an EIS could be ordered after completion of the EAW. A fourth option would to be to leave the processes as they are now, and accomplish the objective of avoiding substitution of the EAW for the EIS by means of recommendations 2 and 3 . -5- Recommendation 1, Option 1-A. "Fine-tune" the existing processes. This option would retain the role of the EAW as primarily a screening document to help determine if an EIS is needed. The culmination of the EAW process would continue to be the decision by the RGU at the end on whether an EIS will be done. The changes to the EAW process outlined below would be intended basically to improve the information disclosed through the EAW process so that a better EIS decision can be made when used in conjunction with the better significance criteria in Recommendation 3 and the EQB oversight of Recommendation 2. Option 1-A would amend the EAW process in the following ways: 1. Increase from 30 to 90 days the allowable time for postponement of the EIS need decision after the end of the comment period in order to obtain critical missing information. 2 . Add a second review period for obtaining public comment on supplemental information gathered in response to comments received in the original 30 day review period. 3 . Add a step to the process, to occur immediately after the end of the 30-day comment period, in which the project proposer would be required to prepare a written response to comments appropriate for a proposer's response (primarily comments suggesting project modifications or addition of mitigation measures) . 4 . Add a section to the EAW form called a Mitigation Plan that includes: (a) mitigation measures already incorporated into the project by the proposer; and (b) mitigation measures that could be required through permits or other regulatory authorities. The Mitigation Plan would be revised based on comments and responses by the proposer and RGU and would be adopted by the RGU as part of the record of decision on the need for an EIS. 5 . Add a section called Alternatives that includes: (a) explanation by proposer of any alternatives considered in the planning of the project and reasons why the project proposed was selected overAny alternatives considered; and (b) identification by the RGU of other alternatives that appear to be environmentally superior to the project as proposed. Commenters would be specifically asked to suggest other environmentally superior alternatives. 6. Establish EQB "gatekeeper" authority, the authority of the Chair or a designee to reject EAWs submitted for notice in the EQB Monitor for lack of a complete and good faith response to the questions. The EIS process would not be fundamentally amended under this option, however, the rule provisions on scoping would be refined to place more emphasis on covering only truly significant issues in an EIS. -6- Recommendation 1 , Option 1-B. A new single , flexible process . Option 1-B would eliminate the substitution of the EAW for the EIS by merging the two processes into a single new type of process. This new unified process would be intended both to ease the transition from" EAW review" to "EIS review" and also to improve the efficiency of EIS review by piggy-backing on the review already accomplished in the EAW review. A diagram depicting the steps of this proposed process is shown in Figure 1. The steps of this new process would be as follows; note that several options for controlling the number of reiterations of steps 4 to 6 are presented: 1. The RGU, working largely from data supplied by the proposer, would complete sections of the review form (similar to the current EAW but expanded) that are mandatory for completion in this step. This would include the information necessary to identify and assess the significance of environmental effects. At the option of the proposer, other form sections, including sections dealing with mitigation and alternatives, could also be completed in this step. 2 . The RGU would distribute the document for a 30-day comment period, similar to what we now have for an EAW except that a public meeting might be required. 3 . The RGU would evaluate the information received to this point to decide if review has been adequately completed or if further review is necessary. The criteria for further review would be: (1) the review has failed to disclose sufficient information to identify and assess the level of significance of all environmental impacts; and (2) the information disclosed indicates that the project has "potential for significant environmental effects" according to the significance criteria in the rules (see recommendation #3) . Before the RGU determines whether further review is necessary the proposer would have the opportunity to respond to comments received by modifying the project and/or agreeing to mitigation. If the RGU determined review to be complete, a notice of completion and record of decision would be issued documenting and justifying the decision. If the RGU determined further review was necessary, it would issue an order for further review specifying what further review was needed. The types of further review possible would be: (1) _ additional information to identify and assess the level of significance of potential impacts (this type of additional information would basically be to correct deficiencies in the original document) ; (2) information to characterize significant environmental impacts in more detail, if needed; (3) information about mitigation to reduce or avoid identified environmental impacts of potential significance; and (4) information comparing the project as proposed to reasonable alternatives with potentially lesser environmental effects; this comparative information would address relevant sicnificant econoric ar:� social impacts as well as environmental impacts. -7- 4 . If in step 3 the RGU determined further review was necessary the review would be performed by the RGU, again relying in part on information supplied by the proposer, and the appropriate sections of the review form pertaining to the further information would be completed. 5 . The entire augmented review document would be distributed again for public review. The length of the review period might be linked to the type of additional information being supplied. Requests for further review would be required to be accompanied by evidence that the document contains inaccurate or incomplete information relevant to the identification, mitigation, or avoidance of potentially significant adverse environmental effects. 6 . The RGU would repeat the decision-making process of step 3 based on the additional information developed in steps 4 and 5. Again the basic decision would be whether review as adequately completed, based on the same standard as in step 3 . Two optional mechanisms for controlling how often further review could be ordered by the RGU are presented below. (Assuming it is not precluded) additional review would be needed if: (1) it were still not possible to determine the level of significance of some impact; (2) additional information from steps 4 and 5 indicates that an impact is "significant" and it requires more detailed characterization; (3) additional information from steps 4 and 5 indicates an impact is "significant" and mitigation must be studied; (4) additional information from steps 4 and 5 indicates an impact is "significant" and there are apparently reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize the impact; or (5) study of mitigation or alternatives in step 4 was inaccurate or incomplete. If the RGU determined review to be complete, a notice and record of decision documenting and justifying the decision would be issued. If the RGU determined that further review was needed an order for further review would be issued and steps 4 to 6 would be repeated. 7 . If the RGU ordered further review in step 6, the further review would be completed through the procedures of steps 4 to 6 . The Subcommittee decided that two options for controlling possible abuses of further review orders (requiring reiteration of steps 4 to 6 simply to stall an unpopular project) should be presented for public reaction. Either of these could be added to the above process: Option 1. Place a limit on how often the RGU can require further review (perhaps limited to 2 orders) but allow a waiver of the limit by action of the EQB or EQB Chair for cause. Option 2 . Allow the proposer to appeal further review orders to the EQB or EQB Chair (perhaps only on the third or subsequent order) . The Subcommittee is interested in any opinions reviewers may have thncn cvnti c`:c --c '- ether -- for ?EcurinU t4)pt f .r+her review would not be abused under process option 1-B. -8- - The analysis under Option 1-B would all be based on a form which would be like the current EAW form except expanded to deal with mitigation and alternatives and supplemental impact analysis. Some parts of the form would need completion for all projects in the initial round of review. Others would be mandatory only if either the project was in a mandatory EIS category or if the RGU found the need based on the results of completing other parts of the form. Option 1-B would introduce three innovations into environmental review. The first important innovation of Option 1-B is to change the nature of the decision that the RGU makes after review of the EAW. Presently, the RGU's options are "the whole EIS process" or "review over. " (The RGU can also postpone a decision for up to 30 days to obtain critical missing information. ) In over 99% of the cases, the RGU opts for "review over, " even in the face of unanswered questions, unresolved issues, and unmitigated impacts. The situation must be very serious before the RGU is willing to order an EIS on a project where it is not mandatory. Option 1-B would expand the options for further review. Instead of ordering an EIS as we now know it, the RGU could simply order further study of specific topics that were unresolved by the EAW. The second innovation of option 1-B is that it would make the combined EAW and EIS processes more efficient by piggy-backing the EIS onto the EAW document. Under the present process, one of the biggest inefficiencies is that the EIS document is essentially a separate document from the EAW document that precedes it. Option 1-B would create a process in which the initial EAW document would be the core of the final EIS document and additional information developed as part of the "EIS" review would be added to the EAW document (probably by use of new supplemental information sections) . The third innovation of the option 1-B process is that the question of the need to explore alternatives could be postponed until a complete factual record about the impacts and mitigation had been developed. This record would allow a more realistic and focused debate about whether there are potential environmentally-superior alternatives which need to be compared to the project. Presently, alternatives to be analyzed are selected during the scoping stage, when often only incomplete information is available about the nature and extent of impacts; this often makes it difficult to choose the right alternatives to explore. -9- Recommendation 1 , Option 1-C. EAW as review in itself . Option 1-C would change the purpose of the EAW to be a review of the environmental impacts of the project and mitigation measures for these impacts. Presently, the purpose is merely to screen the project to determine if an EIS is needed. The following changes would be made in the EAW process under this option: 1. There would be a draft and final EAW, with the final incorporating changes and new information added in response to coments on the draft. There would be a 10 day comment period on the final document. 3 . A Mitigation Plan would be added, similar to that described under option 1-A. 4 . An Alternatives section would be added similar to that described under option 1-A. 5. The EAW process would end with an official decision by the RGU of adequacy or completeness of the review of impacts and mitigation. The decision about the need for an EIS to explore alternatives would be a separate matter, as described below. 6 . RGUs would be authorized to assess the EAW costs to the project proposer (perhaps with a cap on the amount) . The EIS process would be altered primarily in how one could be ordered following completion of the EAW process. Under this option, all governmental units with approval authority over the project, and perhaps also the EQB, would have authority to order an EIS within a restricted time period after the end of the EAW process (perhaps 45 days) . The unit ordering the EIS would automatically become responsible for preparing the EIS. The standard for ordering an EIS would be that despite the mitigation identified through the EAW, impacts were likely to still be significant and there were apparently superior alternatives that would avoid those impacts. The scope of the EIS would be limited to a comparison of the apparently superior alternatives with the project. Option 1-C would officially recognize the EAW as something that it frequently is now in practice, i.e. , a review in and of itself as opposed to a screening process for an EIS. The present EAW process has serious limitations as a review process, and option 1-C would be one way to make it into a true review process. The distinction between an EAW and an EIS would be basically reduced to whether or not a serious exploration is made of alternatives that may be better for the environment. -10- Under this option, oversight of the EIS need decision is accomplished simply by granting authority to any governmental unit with approval authority over the project to order an EIS if it believes the standard is met. Under this option, all analysis of impacts and mitigation would be the province of the EAW. The EIS would be restricted to analysis and comparison of potentially environmentally-superior alternatives. RECOMMENDATION 2: REESTABLISH SOME FORM OF EQB OVERSIGHT OF RGU DECISIONS. The need for a renewed oversight role for the EQB was one of the most universally agreed upon topics discussed by the EQB staff and subcommittees. It is widely believed that some form ofcheck- and-balance role is needed to counteract a tendency for RGUs to make pro-development, environmentally-insensitive decisions. Prior to the amendment of the program in 1982 , the EQB did have authority to review and reverse RGU decisions. However, problems with the process and abuses of its use soured opinions of the EQB and RGUs alike about the viability of the EQB oversight role, and it was discarded by amendment of the statute. However, in hindsight, many now feel that it was a mistake to totally eliminate all oversight by EQB, and believe that some oversight is crucial to having an effective program. The oversight role proposed is the authority of the EQB Chair to "remand" questionable decisions to the RGU for reconsideration, with written directions about what must be reconsidered and why. In conjunction, the EQB would add additional staff for the environmental review program so that it could critically review RGU decisions. This oversight would NOT enable the EQB to actually overrule an RGUs decision; that action would continue to be the province of the court system. However, EQB would be in a much better position under this system than it is now to seek judicial action against bad decisions by RGUs. In agreeing to propose the "remand" form of oversight the EQB staff and subcommittees gave consideration to a variety of other possible forms of oversight which have been suggested, but rejected them. The primary reason for rejecting them is that all other proposals are believed to inherently take too long and consume too much time of the Board and staff. In addition, most persons familiar with the experience of EQB as an appeal body from 1974 to 1982 recognize that a Board appeal process does not necessarily lead to better decisions anyway. -11- RECOMMENDATION 3 . ESTABLISH SPECIFIC CRITERIA INDICATIVE OF "SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS." The "potential for significant environmental effects" is the key phrase in the whole environmental review process yet it is undefined. It is proposed to add in the rules a listing of indicators of significant impacts which the RGU would be required to compare to the EAW information in deciding whether the potential for signficant environmental effects exists. If the project posed the potential to create any of the situations described on the list, the "significance" standard would be considered to have been met, and appropriate further review would be required (the exact form of the further review would depend on which of the four process options of recommendation 1 were chosen) . However, the general principle is that if there is potential for any significant impacts, mitigation and alternatives must be explored. Appendix 1 presents a preliminary listing of significance criteria. It is recognized that much work remains to be done in refining this list before rules could be promulgated, and the subcommittee welcomes any thoughts on this from reviewers. RECOMMENDATION 4 . ESTABLISH UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT TYPES OF ALTERNATIVES MUST BE EXPLORED IN AN EIS (OR EQUIVALENT REVIEW DOCUMENT) . An examination of past EISs reveals that alternatives analysis is commonly a weak point in EIS preparation. It is not uncommon for an EIS to address only two alternatives: the project as proposed and the "no-build" alternative. It is therefore proposed that all alternatives analyses be required to address the following types of alternatives: Alternative sites Alternative technologies Modified designs or layouts Downscaled size Alternatives incorporating identified mitigation "No-build" If it is not reasonable to analyze any alternatives of one or more of these types, the EIS would instead include a justification of why no such alternatives were reasonable. This justification would be subject to review and challenge like any other part of the EIS content. "Alternatives incorporating identified mitigation" includes various redesigns and modifications of the project that would add in ieentified ritication measures. This type of alternative -12- probably overlaps the the "modified design/layout" and "downsizing" alternatives in most cases, however, it needs to be explicitly listed to ensure that all EISs compare the impacts of the proposed project to a project that fully mitigates identified impacts. RECOMMENDATION 5. EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZE THE USE OF "TIERED" REVIEW. "Tiering" of environmental review is a concept taken from federal NEPA procedures. It refers to the separation, or tiering, of review into stages, where each successive tier becomes more focused on details. The first tier of such review normally examines broad or generic issues, such as alternative technologies to accomplish a certain objective, while the later tier (s) deal (s) ith specific details of sites and structures. Tiered review is appropriate in situations where it is not feasible to examine all potential options in detail at once and where the decision as to what to do can be broken down into a series of logical steps. A typical example is the process of siting some sort of facility where the decision can be broken into a preliminary step of selecting the best "search area" from among a group of candidate search areas and a secondary step of picking the best site within the selected search area. Tiered review can be interpreted to be implicit in the current process, but it is not explicitly provided for. The proposal is to add specific authorization for tiered review and guidance for how it is to be done. As part of this guidance, there should be provisions to assure that an appropriate level of review precedes each decision-making point where any alternatives are dismissed. RECOMMENDATION 6. REVISE THE WAY OF APPLYING MANDATORY CATEGORY THRESHOLDS SO AS TO COUNT PAST PROJECT STAGES AS WELL AS THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED STAGES IN ORDER TO BETTER ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS; ADD EAW QUESTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. It is generally felt that cumulative impacts --impacts that accumulative sequentially from multiple projects -- is an area of concern that is not dealt with very well under the current process. Two proposed changes are suggested. Under the present system, when it is being determined if a proposed project exceeds the thresholds for mandatory EAWs or EISs, anything already in existence (past project stages) is never counted (except in the case of marina projects for which special wording requiring consideration of past stages already exists) . This has led to circumvention of review through staging projects over time so that no stage up for approval ever exceeds a mandatory threshold re?ardless of the total cumulative size of the overall project, and regardless of the cumulative impacts of -13- the overall development. The proposal is to impose a new rule for applying mandatory category thresholds that requires inclusion of all past stages of the project by the same proposer; if the sum of past stages plus what is current proposed exceeds the threshold, review would be mandatory. This change would eliminate some cases of circumvention of the review process and give a better handle on cumulative impacts from sequential development. An additional recommendation regarding cumulative impacts is to add questions to the EAW form at its next updating asking for an explanation of how the proposed project was contributing towards cumulative impacts which might, as a whole, be significant even if the present increment was minor in itself. RECOMMENDATION 7. DEVELOP BETTER GUIDANCE FOR PETITIONS SO THAT THE "MATERIAL EVIDENCE" BURDEN IS IDENTICAL IN ALL CASES. Questions frequently arise about how much evidence need be submitted in order to make a citizens ' petition for an EAW valid. There is no statutory or rule clarification of what constitutes "material evidence. " The proposal is to creat additional guidance on this point so that all petitions can be held to the same standard and so projects are not delayed by petitions for which there is no sufficient evidentiary basis. The resolution of this issue could be accomplished either by adding guidance to the statute or rules regarding what is material evidence, or by developing more complete administrative guidance to give to prospective petitioners, perhaps in the form of a recommended petition form. RECOMMENDATION 8. REVISE THE MANDATORY EAW AND EIS THRESHOLDS. To date, the following mandatory category revisions have been suggested: - add categories requiring review of land use planning and zoning actions -- this could include adoption and amendment of comprehensive plans and major zoning or rezoning decisions - reevaluate EIS categories for public projects to assure that thresholds cover all projects that could significantly affect the environment and which involve choices among alternatives -- perhaps add a general mandatory EIS category for significant public projects - update the category types to address new types of projects or new technologies that have emerged since the last update, including: ash landfills; medical waste incinerators; PCB incineration; ranure corposting - update categories for solid and hazardous waste -14- - update recreational projects category -- consider EIS threshold, distinguish sewered from unsewered projects - delete interstate natural gas pipeline EAW threshold - update highway and airport thresholds Additional suggestions for mandatory category revisions are welcome as part of the response to this report. RECOMMENDATION 9 . MAKE VARIOUS HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS TO THE PROGRAM RULES. If and when the rules are revised, there are a variety of minor errors that will be proposed for correction. FIGURE 1 STEPS OF RECOMMENDATION 1--OPTION 1-B I En Te Z o } m 0 0 o j 3 0 is c 6 m o o o o E p a s. Q Q C a— \> r10/ U C E Eng oa U m C) 13 o •g N C C C) s 0o > t h • co a m i c E •` ao) ` 'N . co _ = CU. .E a o um .Q y C v R pp E ti 6 � ti` = LL a Q 0 O W -a U .0 h N O cm C) } _H \ cc Z Ld c 3 0 O \cw U/ 1 c 0 E m o a U A m C7 CD In C) .0 C V) >4 ZS 7: r.V1 rcl= . - E E N o V t C j ci g � -oE - co_ U UC w M .c C .c APPENDIX 1 DRAFT LIST OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Each of the impacts identified below would be considered as a "significant environmental effect" in most circumstances in which they occur: Air quality impacts - violation of air quality standards - emission of toxic substances that may adversely impact humans, plants or animals either directly or through any route of uptake - substantial quantities of fugitive dust - odors, if related to a specific air quality standard Water quality impacts - violation of water quality standards - alter the trophic status of or eutrophy a lake - degrade ground water quality - degrade the quality of a source of drinking water - discharge of toxic substances that may adversely impact humans, plants or animals either directly or through any route of uptake - degrade a high quality/ pristine water body - overload an existing wastewater treatment facility so as to cause any of the above water quality effects - use of soil absorption systems in areas of unsuitable soils or in too great a concentration for the capacitiy of the soils - cause significant sedimentation of waters of the state Waste production impacts - creation of large amounts of wastes (hazardous waste, solid wastes, sludges, ashes, manures) requiring disposal Flora/fauna impacts - impact endangered/threatened species] - loss of scarce/important habitats (e.g. , spawning areas) - removal of large quantities of vegetation or fauna/substantial loss of habitat - substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife or aquatic species - potential to introduce exotic species - destruction or removal of, or interference with, important spawning areas for aquatic species Valuable resources - loss of wetlands or substantial loss of quality of wetlands - loss or impairment of character or quality of important archeological, historical, or cultural resources - loss or impairment of character or quality of important recreational resources - create overcrowding/conflicts with existing water surface uses - loss of substantial farmlands - physical alteration of water bodies-- filling, dredging, elevation changes - substantially increase siltation in a water body - wild and scenic rivers, trout streams, canoe routes - prime agricultural soils - cause the harvesting of X cords of wood per year - consumption of large amounts of fossil fuels or minerals - cause substantial erosion of soils Conflicts with plans - conflict with adopted environmental/resource protection plans/goals - conflicts with approved local water plans - conflict with local comp plan with respect to loss of ag lands Other impacts - substantial increase in flooding potential - violations of noise standards or substantial increase in noise - pose a substantial risk of releasing toxic/hazardous substances intc the environment (e.g. , spills, leaks, disturbing previously contaminated area) - encouraging or attracting a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few days - impair water supplies by appropriation of large amounts of ground water - substantial increase in runoff from an area Other -- things not listed above but that are significant nonetheless