The URL can be used to link to this page

11-16-94 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIC WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994, 7:30 P.M. _ CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Preliminary Plat to subdivide 8 acres into 2 single family lots zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located west of Hwy. 7, east of Hennepin Co. Regional Railroad Authority and south of Pipewood Curve, 4131 Pipewood Curve, Lyle Delwiche, Delwiche Addition. 2. Amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI, regarding the Sign Ordinance. 3. * Item Deleted. 4. Rezoning of 39 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat to create 48 single family lots and 3 outlots. a wetland alteration permit for mitigation of ponding areas, and conditional use permit for alteration of areas within a flood plain on property located north of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek, Creekside Addition (formerly Heritage First Addition). Heritage Development Company. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING 11 EMS OPEN DISCUSSION 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 to will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. Item Deleted 3. Rezoning of 49.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential, preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home lots and one outlot, and a wetland alteration permit located 111 north of Hwy. 5, approximately 1/4 mile on the east side of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117). Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highlands. fr I CITY OF PC DATE: 11/16/94 CHANHASSEN Y CC DATE:12/12/94 •,..1_, CASE #: 94-17 SUB ' r STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to replat two parcels with a total area of 7.84 acres into 2 single family lots, Delwiche Addition LOCATION: Lots 8 and 9, Block 3, Pleasant Acres 2nd Addition. West of Hwy. 7, Zeast of Hennepin County Regional Railroad and south of Pipewood I 4 Curve. V APPLICANT: Lyle D. Delwiche 4131 Pipewood Curve CL Excelsior, MN 55331 Q 474-1475 • Action by City Administreor, PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District /-D4"Endorsed ACREAGE: 7.84 Acres Rrjec:ef. Re%-_-1L— 2-`I_e-- DENSITY: 0.25 Units per Acre Gross Dee. tr C.... ..w ADJACENT ZONING AND DetF s��r T u.M LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family ____ /1-15/-95/ S - RSF, Residential Single Family Q E - Highway 7 Cr' W - Hennepin County Regional Railroad WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. w PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contains a single family home and a stable. The majority of the site is located within the City of Victoria. A wetland occupies the southerly Cn edge of the site. The westerly edge of the site is heavily wooded and has a stream. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) A , CART , • N V O O O f 7 OO Q Qi •M 0 O 6200 I T - ----. 1 l - ►_ ST pFvLAKE _6300I�/R6/N/A _ . _ __ •"I:4,4 .40 .100 -vs O. 6400 ----- / Pt = VA .EA 1 ,-., 7P,wp QST ER • clRcL l �A�, 1::::k V 6500 *'` . ', liLl • ro a::: /44.� ��s DMAW or �miazEwa INA m a, ..TRY) AI;, 6800 , D ��•A '•R. ,• =/ L A K ROAD sT- „..„,,,r.„ STRATFOR. .ip 69 00----- BOULE M / N N E W STRATF.-.ieV 1 i, 7000 71- • KINGS ROAD PUD-R R I �Iilill" , 7100 — • • , LA-A--Az . �' ‘.57. JOE, � �'' lii-Cf:*&; - I- 0 PON• -�`� i M,�� .`• ��iIlullilp �' / ��111� 7200— — .k 1 ,� \\ �/ KNOLLWOOo C:�i \ �: , TRAIL - MINIII7300I ......�\ , . ' _�(' COL REWASHTA r f .. 111Y19 AA _T400 a ?.. atrai-r a T Y Delwiche Addition November 16, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to change the configuration of two lots. The westerly portion of the site which is comprised of existing Lot 8 and the majority of Lot 9, is located in the City of Victoria. The easterly portion of the site is located in the City of Chanhassen. Lot 8 is a landlocked vacant parcel. Lot 9 contains a single family home and a stable (both structures are located in the City of Victoria). The proposed configuration of the new lots would divide the parcels along the municipal line creating a new lot in Chanhassen while the remaining property would form a new lot in the City of Victoria. The total site area is 7.84 acres. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Lot 1 is located entirely within the City of Victoria, consequently, Chanhassen has no jurisdiction over it. Staff contacted Victoria's Planning Department and was informed that the same application has been submitted to them. A sketch plan was reviewed by Victoria's Planning Commission. The concept was approved as submitted on November 7, 1994. Plat approvals must be obtained from both Chanhassen and Victoria. The average lot size is 3.92 acres with a resulting net density of 0.25 units per acre. The site is located West of Hwy. 7, east of Hennepin County Regional Railroad and south of Pipewood Curve. Access to the site will be provided via Pipewood Curve. Lot 1, which contains the existing home and stable and is proposed to be located entirely within Victoria, would have no frontage on Pipewood Curve. A cross access easement over Lot 2, in favor of Lot 1, will be required as a condition of approval of this plat. Proposed Lot 2 meets the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees. Staff believes the proposed grading plans will have the least impact on the trees. The proposed house pad location appears to be the most reasonable one on the site. A preservation easement over the wooded areas along the west and south portions of the property will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. PRELIMINARY PLAT • The applicant is proposing to change the configuration of a 7.84 acre parcel into two lots. The westerly portion of the site which is comprised of existing Lot 8 and the majority of Lot 9, is located in the City of Victoria. The easterly portion of the site is located in the City of Chanhassen. Lot 8 is a landlocked vacant parcel. Lot 9 contains a single family home and a stable (both structures are located in the City of Victoria). The proposed configuration of the Delwiche Addition November 16, 1994 Page 3 new lots would divide the parcels along the municipal line creating a new lot in Chanhassen while the remaining property would form a new lot in the City of Victoria. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Lot 1 is located entirely within the City of Victoria, consequently, Chanhassen has no jurisdiction over it. The average lot size is 3.92 acres with a resulting net density of 0.25 units per acre. The site is located west of Hwy. 7, east of Hennepin County Regional Railroad and south of Pipewood Curve. Access to the site will be provided via Pipewood Curve. Lot 1, which contains the existing home and stable, and is proposed to be located within Victoria, would have no frontage on Pipewood Curve. A cross access easement over Lot 2, in favor of Lot 1, will be required as a condition of approval of this plat. Proposed Lot 2 meets the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. GRADING & DRAINAGE The site is fairly wooded with a variety of trees. The only grading proposed is for the house pad which is very minor. A small drainage ditch meanders through the parcel. Staff recommends the applicant dedicate a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the ditch to preserve the neighborhood drainage pattern. Erosion control fence will be required at the time the grading occurs. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service has been stubbed to the property line from Pipewood Curve. According to the City Treasurer's office, this parcel was only assessed for one unit previously. Therefore, the new lot should be charged a typical hook up and connection charge at time of building permit issuance. The 1994 hook up charge is $2,425.00 and the connection charge is $6,568.42. Both of these fees may be assessed against the parcel. Since there are no public improvements proposed, a development contract will not be required. STREETS Access to the lot is from Pipewood Curve which is constructed to city standards. No additional improvements to the street will be required. WETLANDS There do not appear to be wetlands associated with the buildable area and, therefore, the City and State wetland regulations do not apply. Staff encourages natural landscaping and Delwiche Addition November 16, 1994 Page 4 filtration to protect runoff into the ditch since the runoff from the ditch discharges into a nearby wetland. PARK DEDICATION The Park and Recreation Director recommends full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 2 62,500 340, 390' 30'/10' 10' It should also be noted that Lot 2 is considered a corner lot and will have a 30 foot setback from Pipewood Curve and Hwy. 7. The remaining sides will have 10 foot setbacks. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The site is covered with a combination of mature trees and a young forest. Approximately 6,400 square feet of the site will be impacted by grading to prepare the site for development. The remainder of the parcel will remain intact. Staff believes the proposed grading plans will have the least impact on the trees. The proposed house pad location appears to be the most reasonable one on the site. A preservation easement over the wooded areas along the west and south portions of the property will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. The baseline canopy coverage is approximately 90 percent of the site. City Code requires a post-development canopy coverage of 55 percent. The applicant will far exceed this requirement since the proposed grading activity will only impact 10.2 percent of the site. The resulting canopy coverage is estimated at 79 percent. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. Delwiche Addition November 16, 1994 Page 5 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The site will require some alteration within the northwest side to prepare it for development. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. Only minimal tree removal shall be required. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. Delwiche Addition November 16, 1994 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94- 17 for Delwiche Addition for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans dated November 2, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. 2. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development and will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. 3. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 4. A cross access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access to Lots 1 via the existing private driveway. 5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City on the final plat a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing drainage ditch. 6. Lot 2, Block 1 will be responsible for a hook up and connection change of$8993.42 (1994 figure) for connecting to municipal utilities. This fee will be payable at time of building permit issuance. The fees may also be assessed. 7. The applicant shall escrow with the City $300.00 to cover the city attorney's time for review and recording of the final plat. 8. Approval of the plat from the City of Victoria." ATTACHMENTS 1. Preliminary plat dated November 2, 1994. CITY TF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: November 8, 1994 SUBJ: Sign Ordinance Background The Planning Commission tabled action on the sign ordinance on October 19, 1994 to give staff time to make revisions as well as provide additional information on several issues. Previous changes are shown in bold and all current revisions are underlined on the attached draft ordinance. Analysis The Commission directed staff to provide additional information or research on the following issues: 1. Explore options which would allow Southwest Metro the opportunity to advertise on bus benches and shelters. It was recommended staff look at the way other communities handle advertising on bus benches and shelters. It was also recommended that staff make a distinction between benches located inside and those located outside. Finding: In the opinion of the City Attorney, if we allow Southwest Metro to advertise on benches and shelters, we must allow others to advertise on benches. A number of cities which allow advertising on bus benches have a separate ordinance to regulate the location and type of benches. This is a separate issue. For the purpose of the sign ordinance, we need to decide if we should allow advertising on benches. If you do allow them, we can then look at adopting a separate ordinance or simply allow benches to be placed without city consent. The proposed sign ordinance only regulates those Planning Commission November 8, 1994 Page 2 signs situated outdoors or visible through a window or door. Thus, the only benches regulated by this section would be the ones located outside. Staff is recommending that no advertising be allowed on benches. 2. Concern was raised over the purpose section of the ordinance which addresses the philosophical issue of whether signage should be used to identify a business or used as a form of advertising. Finding: Staff changed number one (1) of the Purpose section to address this issue. The amendment reads as follows: "Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise the location of a business." 3. A concern was also raised regarding unnecessary duplication of signage in the ordinance. Staff was directed to clarify what constitutes a sign. Should color bands on buildings, certain architectural features, color of buildings, etc. be considered as signage? The Commission felt the sign ordinance should address these issues. Finding: Under the proposed definition of a sign, all of the above named features could be interpreted as signage. However, if you look at the overall intent of the sign ordinance, it is clear it does not regulate these types of features, nor does it attempt to. The regulation of building colors, color bands, and certain architectural features are best addressed through architectural review standards. There seems to be an attempt to draw design features into the sign ordinance. We currently have these types of review standards in the Highway 5 overlay district. In addition, these issues are often addressed during the site plan review process. If the Commission would like to include these types of standards in the sign ordinance, staff recommends adopting the following section: Sec. 20-1265 (h) Architectural features associated with company logos or colors shall be applied toward the maximum allowable sign area permitted in the district in which the sign is located. These features shall be applied toward the maximum allowable sign area at the rate of one-third (1/3) the architectural feature area. Planning Commission November 8, 1994 Page 3 a. For the purpose of this section architectural features shall include, but not be limited to, wall, roof, and window mounted neon, illuminated sign bands, backlit canopies, awnings or wall banding features, etc. b. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used only for accent purposes. This paragraph was added to Sec. 20-1265 General Location Restrictions of the draft ordinance. 4. Commission wanted to make Section 20-1265 pertaining to window signs more equitable. Those businesses with more windows would be allowed more signage under the proposed draft ordinance. Finding: This section currently states that window signs shall not cover more than fifty (50) percent of the total window area, and the total window sign area shall not exceed the permitted wall sign area. Thus, we have already put a cap on the amount of window signage allowed. A building with a large window area would be limited on the amount of window signage based on the wall sign area allowed. Staff believes the only way to be more equitable, without being overly complicated, would be to further restrict window signage. Staff did not change this section of the draft ordinance. 5. It was suggested that we change Sec. 20-1303 to base the height and size of a pylon sign on site characteristics, (class of roadway, speed limits, topography, location, etc.) not size of the property. Finding: Staff would like to point out that the only place pylon signs are allowed in the draft ordinance are on parcels which abut state highways. Therefore, pylon signs will only be located adjacent to principal arterial and minor arterial class 1 highways. The site characteristics would be similar in the majority of areas in which pylon signs are allowed. Because of similar site characteristics, staff believes we would gain very little in improving design or making a sign more visible, while at the same time making the ordinance more complicated. If the height and size of a pylon sign were to be based on site characteristics, every time the speed limit or road classification changed existing signs would become non-conforming. In addition, if there are unique circumstances associated with the lot, such as size, shape, or topography, a person could request a variance. Planning Commission November 8, 1994 Page 4 For the reasons stated above, staff is recommending that the height of pylon signs be based on the size of the principal structure as proposed in the draft ordinance. Recommendation All amendments have been made to the draft ordinance as directed by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and make any additional changes and recommend the City Council adopt the amendment. Attachments 1. Proposed Sign Ordinance 2. Illustrations showing wall signs 2. Planning Commission minutes dated October 10, 1994 ARTICLE XXVI. SIGNS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-1251. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS. A. Purpose The purpose of this sign ordinance is intended to establish an effective means of communication in the city, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the city's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: (1) establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise the location of a businessi • (2) preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; (3) ensure that signs do not create safety hazards. (4) ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; (5) preserve and protect property values; (6) ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with the principal structures; (7) limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. B. Findings The City of Chanhassen finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the construction, location, size and maintenance of signs be controlled. Further the city finds: 1. permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship, to the image of the community; 2. the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community; 3. an opportunity for a viable identification of community business and institutions must be established; 4. the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that unduly divert the attention of drivers; 5. installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high winds and an obstacle to effective fire fighting and other emergency service; 6. uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic attractiveness of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and growth; 7. uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs, which are commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way, or are located at driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also adversely impacts a logical flow of information. Sec. 20-1252. Permit and variance fees. Fees for sign permit applications and variance requests shall be imposed in accordance with the fee schedule established by City Council resolution. The intent of this section is to recover costs associated with administering this ordinance. Permit fees shall reflect the costs of reviewing and processing permits, as well as costs associate with periodic enforcement activities and compliance checks. The fee schedule will be adjusted as costs change or as directed by City Council resolution. 2 Sec. 20-1253. Variances. The City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this article. Written application for a variance shall be filed with the Planning Department and shall be supplemented with reproducible copies of the proposed sign. The application shall be processed in conformance with the public hearing requirements dictated for variances in Section 20-29. No variance shall be granted by the City Council unless it has received the affirmative vote of at least simple majority of the full City Council. Sec. 20-1254. Permit generally. (a) Except as provided in Section 20-1255, no sign or sign structure shall be erected, constructed, altered, rebuilt or relocated until a permit has first been issued by the city. (b) The following information for a sign permit shall be supplied by an applicant if requested by the city: (1) Name, address and telephone number of person making application. (2) A site plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, building structures, parking areas, existing and proposed signs and any other physical features. (3) Plans, location, specifications, materials, method of construction and attachment to the buildings or placement method in the ground. (4) Copy of stress sheets and calculations. (5) Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site on which the sign is to be erected. (6) Any electrical permit required and issued for the sign. (7) Such other information as the city shall require to show full compliance with this chapter and all other laws and ordinances of the city. Information may include such items as color and material samples. (8) Receipt of sign permit fee. 3 (9) The Planning Director, upon the filing of any application for a permit, shall examine such plans, specifications, and other data. If the proposed sign complies with this article and other applicable ordinances, the city shall issue a sign permit unless City Council approval is required. If City Council approval is required, the matter shall be promptly referred to the council for action. Sec. 20-1255. Signs allowed without permit. The following signs are allowed without a permit: (1) Political Campaign signs: Temporary political campaign signs are permitted according to the following: a. Signs may be permitted from August 1, in a state general election year, until ten (10) days following the state general election. b. The sign must contain the name of the person responsible for such sign, and that person shall be responsible for its removal. c. Signs are not permitted in the public right-of-way. d. Shall comply with the fair campaign practices act contained in the State of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 211B.045. e. The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph. (2) Directional signs. a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. _ _ __ _ .. . . : : -- - - - _' . No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per site. The City Council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be 4 inappropriately routed through residential streets. .- • . . . - • : - : . • . The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the City Council. c. On-premises signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general appearance of the site from public right-of-way. "- • .- •:• : --. - •• . - . . . - _- - - • . . • . No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per site. The City Council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. d. Bench signs are prohibited. (3) Community Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a religious, national, state or local holiday or event and no other matter, and which are displayed for a period not to exceed forty (40) days in any calendar year. (4) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of any automobile service station or convenience store selling fuel, only if such signs are affixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral part of a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise permitted in that zoning district. Motor fuel price signs affixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed four (4) square feet in sign display area. When such signs are made an integral part of a freestanding business sign, the sign display area devoted to the price component shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total sign display area of the sign. (5) Nameplate or integral signs not exceeding two (2) square feet per building and does not include multi-tenant names. (6) Non-illuminated construction signs confined to the site of the construction, alteration or repair. Such a sign must be removed within one (1) year from the date of issuance of the first building permit on the site, and may be extended until the project is completed. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each street the project abuts. Commercial and industrial signs may not exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area, and residential construction signs may not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in sign area. (7) Signs of a public, non-commercial nature, informational signs erected by a governmental entity or agency,including safety signs(O.S.H.A.),directional signs 5 to public facilities, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the like. Signs shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet. (8) Rummage (garage) sale signs. Rummage sale signs shall be removed within two (2) days after the end of the sale and shall not exceed four (4) square feet. Rummage sale signs shall not be located in any public rights-of-way. The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph. The city may assess a fee in the amount established by resolution for each sign removed by the city. (9) Temporary development project advertising signs erected for the purpose of selling or promoting any non-residential project, or any residential project of ten (10) or more dwelling units, located in the City of Chanhassen, shall be permitted subject to the following regulations: a. Not more than two (2) non-illuminated signs or not more than one (1) non-illuminated sign per street frontage shall be allowed per project. b. Such signs shall only be located along streets that provide primary access to the project site. c. Such sign shall be set back not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any property line, and shall be firmly anchored to the ground. d. No such sign shall be located closer than fid- )one hundred (100) feet from an existing residential dwelling unit, church, or school which is not a part of the project being so advertised. e. Such signs shall not be located closer than one hundred (100) feet from any other such sign located on the same side of the street. f. Sign display area shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet, and the height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet. g. . . !! .- - - . . - :.. . . . - . • - . - - _. to exceed three (3) years. For the purpose of this paragraph, the . - - -.• . . . • - •- - . ._ . - _- -- - . . •. Such signs shall be removed when the project being advertised is completed or 6 after three (3) years1 whichever comes first. The Planning Director may permit a sign for longer than 3 years if the project being advertised is not one hundred(100) percent completed. (10) Temporary real estate signs which advertise the sale, rental or lease of real estate subject to the following conditions: a. On-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of the premises upon which the sign is located. 1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per street frontage. 2. Sign display area shall not exceed two sixteen (16) square feet per sign on property containing less than ten (10) acres in area, and thirty-two (32) square feet per sign on property containing ten (10) or more acres. 3. No such sign shall exceed ten (10) feet in overall height, nor be located less than ten (10) feet from any property line. 4. All temporary real estate signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following sale, lease, or rental•of the property. 5. Window signs advertising the sale, rental,or lease of a building are permitted subject to the conditions of Sec. 20-1265(g). b. Off-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of business and industrial buildings: 1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per building. 2. Such signs shall only be permitted in business and industrial districts, and on property located within the same subdivision or development as the building being advertised. 3. Such signs shall not be located closer one hundred (100) feet from any other such sign located on the same side of the street. 4. Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet, and the height of such signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet. 5. Such sign shall be setback at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 7 6. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following the lease or sale of the building floor space which it is advertising. of whichever s frst 7. Provide written permission of property owner. c. Off-premises directional signs which show direction to new residential developments in accordance with the following. The intent of this subparagraph is to allow short term signage, for residential development, to familiarize the public with the new development. 1. Such sign shall only be permitted along major arterials and collectors as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. Only one (1) sign per corner of an intersection per development shall be permitted. There shall not be more than 4 signs per intersection. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle, measured thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line. 3. Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet and the height of such signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet. 4. Such sign shall not be located closer than twenty five (25)ten (10) feet from any street right-of-way line, and shall be firmly anchored to the ground. 5 •- . _ -_ - _ . - _ .- _- - -- . . . _ - •. sign on their property. Written permission must be obtained from the property owner upon whose land the proposed sign is to be located. 6. Such sign shall only be constructed out of maintenance free - . - '. ' . . • . Such sign shall be non- illuminated and kept in good condition. 7. Such sign shall be removed six (6) twelve (12) months after the sign has been erected and developer may not apply for a second off-premises directional sign permit. A sign shall be permitted for each phase of a development. 8 8. _ . . • . - . -• - -. - - - - -enly 9. _ _- - -• - ' ,,., 44emesL. Signs for home promotions (Parade of Homes, Spring Preview, etc.) shall be limited to four (4) square feet and shall be permitted only for the duration of the event. Sec. 20-1256. Permit for temporary sign, searchlights, banners, etc. Temporary signs are permitted as follows: 1. Banners shall not exceed 100 square feet and portable signs shall not exceed 32 square feet and shall meet the following standards: a. a thirty (30) day display period to coincide with the grand opening of a business or a new development (business park or shopping center), or a business may display a banner or portable sign on three occasions per calendar year with a maximum 10-day display period for each occasion. b. messages must relate to on-premise products or services, or any non- commercial message; and c. banners must be affixed to a principal structure which is owned or leased by the business which the sign is advertising. Non-profit and governmental event banners are excluded from this provision. d. portable signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way. e. sign permit issued by city. 2. Inflatable advertising devices are permitted according to the following: a. for each site or center,two occasions per calendar year, with each occasion not to exceed seven (7) days; b. written authorization from the property owner or their designee must be submitted with the sign permit application. 9 c. sign permit issued by city. d. maximum height of the inflatable shall be 25 feet. e. . _. .• - - - - : . '• -, - _ _• - - _ •- ' . - - • • dirytFiet. . . . . . .. • prehibiteck 3. Flashing or blinking portable signs, stringers, and pennants are not permitted. 4. Large flags flown in high winds may cause a noise nuisance and are subject to removal upon complaint. 5. The use of searchlights shall be limited to three (3) occasions per year, with each occasion not to exceed two (2) days. The use of searchlights shall be controlled in such a way so as not to become a nuisance. Searchlights may not be illuminated between the hours of twelve (12:00) midnight and six o'clock (6:00) a.m.. Sec. 20-1258. Legal Action. If the City Planning Director or an administrative officer finds that any sign regulated by this division is prohibited as to size, location, content, type, number, height or method of construction; or erected without a permit first being granted to the installer of the sign to the owner of the property upon which the sign has been erected or is improperly maintained, or is in violation of any other provision of this chapter, he shall give written notice of such violation to the owner or permittee thereof. If the permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter within (10) calendar days following receipt of said notice: (1) Such permittee or owner may be prosecuted for violating this chapter and if convicted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. Sec. 20-1259. Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited: 10 (1) Advertising or business signs on or attached to equipment, such as semi-truck trailers, where signing is a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary or permanent basis. (2) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and temperature signs and barber poles which may be permitted by conditional use permits (see sections 20-231 through 20-237). (3) Projecting signs, not including awning or canopies as defined in this ordinance. (4) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed on the roof, facia or marquee of a building provided it does not extend above the highest elevation of the building, excluding chimneys, and provided: a. Roof signs shall be thoroughly secured and anchored to the frames of the building over which they are constructed and erected. b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the periphery of the roof. (5) Wall graphics and design treatments depicting corporate logos and company symbols. (6) Temporary signs or banners except as permitted in Section 20-1256. (7) Signs which are placed or tacked on trees, fences, utility poles or in the public right-of-way. (8) Bench signs are prohibited. (9) Billboards are prohibited. Sec. 20-1260. Nonconforming Signs. When the principal use of land is legally non-conforming under this chapter, all existing or proposed signs in conjunction with that land, shall be considered conforming if they are in compliance with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district in which the principal use is allowed. Excluding normal maintenance,face changes, and repair, a non-conforming sign shall not be moved, altered •- . -• • : • -- - • - - = - - - •• • or enlarged unless it is brought into compliance with the sign regulations. 11 • Pr-oper-ty Sec. 20-1265. General location restrictions. (a) No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to one-half(1/2) the minimum required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within any drainage or utility easement. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from any private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line. (b) Signs on adjacent non-residential property shall be positioned so that the copy is not visible from residential uses or districts along adjoining side and rear yard property lines. (c) No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be erected or placed upon any public street, right-of-way , or project over public property. Temporary signs may not be erected or placed in a public easement unless approved by the city. (d) Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed as traffic controls, such as "Stop," "Caution," "Warning," unless the sign is intended to direct traffic on the premises. (e) No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on rocks, fences or trees nor, interfere with any electric light, power, telephone or telegraph wires or the supports thereof. (f) No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. (g) Window signs shall not cover more than thirty three (33) fifty (50) percent of the total window area in which they are located. The area of a window sign shall be interpreted as the total window area for that face of the building. In no case shall the total window sign area exceed the permitted wall sign area defined in this ordinance for said district. 12 Architectural features associated with company logos or colors shall be applied toward the maximum allowable sign area permitted in the district in which the sign is located. These features shall be applied toward the maximum allowable sign area at the rate of one-third (1/3) the architectural feature area. a. For the purpose of this section architectural features shall include, but not be limited to, wall, roof, and window mounted neon, illuminated sign bands, backlit canopies, awnings or wall banding features, etc. b. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used only for accent purposes. c. Bands consisting of earth tones are exempt from this provision. Sec. 20-1266. Maintenance and repair. Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. Sign or sign structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired replaced, or removed by the licensee, owner or agent of the buildfig upon which the sign stands immediately upon notification by the city. If the permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter within (10) calendared days following receipt of written notice: Such permittee or owner may be prosecuted for violating this chapter and if convicted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. All signs shall be subject to inspection by the Building Official, or any other official of the city who may be appointed by him, to ascertain if the provisions of this chapter are being met. Sec. 20-1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc. All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture. Multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings shall have uniform signage. When buildings or developments are presented 13 for site plan review, proposed signs for the development should be presented concurrently for staff review. All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings all submit a comprehensive sign plan for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Signage shall use dual, channelized letters, individual dimensional letters, be back lit if a wall sign is illuminated, and be architecturally compatible with the building and other signage if in a multi-tenant building. Cerporate-leges Company symbols, display messages, pictorial presentations, illustrations, or decorations (anything other than wording) shall not occupy more than fifteen percent (15%) of the sign display area. Sec. 20-1268. Noncommercial speech. Signs containing noncommercial speech are permitted anywhere that signs are permitted, subject to the same size regulations applicable to such signs. Sec. 20-1270. Uniform Sign Code. The design and construction standards as set forth in Chapter 4 of the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Sign Code as may be amended, are adopted. Sec. 20-1275. Construction Standards. (a) A free standing sign or sign structure shall be constructed so that if the faces are not back to back, then they shall not have an angle separating the faces exceeding -twenty-9(4 forty-five (45) degrees unless the total area of both sides added together does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area for that district. 45 degree maximum angle (b) All on-premise freestanding signs must have structural supports covered or concealed with pole covers. The actual structural supports should not be exposed, and the covers should be architecturally and aesthetically designed to match the building. Pole covers shall be a minimum height of (eight) 8 feet. The exposed 14 uprights, superstructure and/or backside of all signs shall be painted a neutral color such as light blue gray, brown, or white, unless it can be illustrated that such part of the sign designed or painted in another manner is integral to the overall design of the sign. • (SPOPPICA .r.�i.:..awe J (c) The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the National Electrical Code as adopted and amended by the city. Electrical service to such sign shall be underground. (d) No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the building official. Any canopy or awning sign shall have a minimum of an eight (8) foot clearance. (e) Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver. No such signs shall interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal; this includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. Illumination for a_sign or groups of signs shall not exceed '/z foot candle in brightness as measured at the property line. DIVISION 2. SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT Sec. 20-1301. Agricultural and Residential Districts. The following signs are allowed by permit in the A-2, RR, RSF, R-4, R-8, R-12 and residential PUD districts: (1) Public and Institutional Signs. One (1) ground low profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on the premises of any public or institutional property giving the name of the facility and nature of the use and occupancy. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line, and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. (2) Area Identification/Entrance signs. Only one (1) monument sign may be erected on a lot, which shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, 15 nor be more than five feet high. Any such sign or monument shall be designed so that it is maintenance free. The adjacent property owner or a Homeowners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification/entrance sign. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operations, and shall be securely anchored to the ground. Sec. 20-1302. Neighborhood Business, Fringe Business,and Office & Institutional Districts. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any OI, BF, or BN Districts: 1. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business or institutional sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area shall be permitted. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 2. Wall business signs. One (1) wall business sign shall be permitted on the street frontage for each business occupant within a building. Wall business signs shall not be mounted upon the wall of any building which faces any adjoining residential district without an intervening public street. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table: Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Total Square of Wall Footage of Signs 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 3% 4,500 + 240 3. • _• - . . . .. . - . . - •- Wall signs shall only include tenant identification, tenant logo or registered trademark, center name, or any combination of the three. 16 xa,Yt0AL : 1 ✓ S I G- a5 /1 Area = /, SOD 51. C-71 /Sod x . // S Te 4/ S.3& 4,. = '6 '- Sec. 20-1303. Highway, General Business Districts and Central Business District. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG, or CBD District: The following table lists the standards for freestanding and ground low profile signs in the BH, BG, or CBD zone. PYLON GROUND LOW PROFILE Principal Height Sign size Height Sign Size Structure (feet) (sq. ft.) (feet) (sq. ft.) 50,000 sq. ft. 20 80 10 80 or greater Less than 16 64 8 64 50,000 sq. ft. 1. Pylon business sign. Pylon Signs are permitted on parcels that abut Highway-5 State Highway corridors only. One (1) pylon identification sign shall be 17 permitted. This sign may identify the name of the center of the major tenants. The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage of the principal structure as shown in the table. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted per each outlot or separate building pad that has street frontage. The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the table above. Such signs shall be located at least 300 feet from any other pylon or ground sign and at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 3. Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table: Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square of Wall Footage of Sign 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 3% 4,500 + 240 4. Menu Board. One (1) menu board sign per restaurant use is permitted with a drive- through facility. Such sign shall not exceed forty-five (45) square feet in size nor greater than eight (8) feet in height. Such sign is permitted in addition to any other sign permitted in the Zoning District. • 18 Sec. 20-1304. Industrial Office Park Signs. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP District: 1. Pylon or ground low profile business signs. Pylon signs are permitted on parcels that abut the Highway 5 corridor only. One (1) pylon or one (1) ground low profile Industrial Office Park identification sign shall be permitted. A Pylon sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign area and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. A ground low profile may not exceed eighty (80) square feet and eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted for each individual tenant. Such sign shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 3. Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table: • Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square of Wall Footage of Sign 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 3% 4,500 + 240 Secs. 20-1306-20-1350. Reserved. • 19 Sec. 20-1 DEFINITIONS Sign means any object, device, display, or structure, or part thereof situated outdoors, or visible through a window or door, which is used to advertise, announce, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, commodity, product, service, event or location, by means, including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures, pictures, illumination or projected images. Sign, Advertising means any sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, activity or entertainment not conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is located. Sign, Awning means a temporary hood or cover that projects from the wall of a building, and which can be retracted, folded or collapsed against the face of the supporting building. Awning may extend in any required yard ^WN-�g setback a maximum of five (5) feet. (2.6 feet in the supplementary regulations) Sign, Banner means a sign which is made out of a paper, cloth or plastic-like consistency, affixed to a building, vehicle, poles, or other supporting structures by all four (4) corners. Sign, Business means a sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted, or to a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the premises where the sign is located. Sign, Business Directory means a sign which imRnWA identifies the names of specific businesses I AistAyRAN- located in a shopping center, medical center I SnpeRovAKET and professional office and which is located on the premises of the shopping center so identified. Sign, Campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or supporting political candidates or issues in connection with any national, state, or local election. Sign, Canopy - Any sign that is affixed to a projection or extension of a building or structure of a building, erected in such as manner as to S I Cr ti provide a shelter or cover over the approach to CANOPY .f� any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. II plastic, or structural protective cover over a 20 door, entrance, window, or outdoor service area. Sign, Changeable Copy, - a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign. Sign, Construction means a temporary sign erected on the premises on which construction is taking place, during the period of such construction, indicating the names of the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the owners, financial supporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the situation or project. Sign, Development Identification means a permanent ground low profile sign which identifies a specific residential, industrial, commercial or office development and which is located on the premises of the development which it identifies. Sign, Directional means a sign erected on private property for the purpose of directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic EXIT onto or about the property upon which such sign is located, including signs marking entrances and exits, circulation direction, parking areas, and pickup and delivery areas. Sign, Display Area means the area within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits DISPLAY T or the actual sign message surface, including any AREA structural elements outside the limits of each sign I forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a single facing. Sign, Festive Flag/Banner - a flag or banner constructed of cloth, canvas or light fabric, that is hung from a light pole. The flag/banner shall contain no advertising except for cultural events, special holidays/seasons, etc. Sign, Flag - any fabric banner used as a symbol of a government political subdivision or other identity. Corporation flags shall not exceed 12 square feet and may be flown in tandem with the state or national flag. _.. ' • _ ' : _ _ _. . .• .. - .. - 21 Sign,Flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign which exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color effects by any means what so ever. Sign,Freestanding/Pole/Pylon,means any non-movable sign not affixed to a building but erected upon a pole, post or other similar support so that the bottom edge of the sign display area is eight (8) feet or more above the ground elevation. Sign, Governmental means a sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any governmental functions, or required by law, ordinance or other governmental regulation. Sign, Ground low profile business means a GROUrvp business sign affixed directly to the ground, LOW PROMtF with the sign display area standing not greater than two (2) feet above the ground. i, r Sign, Holiday decoration means a temporary sign in the nature of decorations, clearly incidental to and customarily and commonly associated with any national, local or religious holiday. Sign, Home occupation means a sign containing only the name and occupation of a permitted home occupation not to exceed 2 square feet. This is also a nameplate sign. Sign, Illuminated means a sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by lights on or in the sign or directed towards the sign. Sign,Informational means a sign containing descriptions of major points of interest, government institutions or other public services such as hospitals, sports facilities, etc. Sign, Institutional means a sign which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public or private institution of the site where the sign is located. Sign, Integral means a sign constructed as to be an integral portion of the building of which it forms a part. PIZZA Sign, Integral Roof, means any sign erected or constructed as an integral or p = essentially integral part of a normal roof structure of any design, such that no part of the sign extends vertically above the highest portion of the roof and such that no part of the sign is separated from the rest of the roof by a space of more than 22 six (6) inches. Sign, Marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, or attached to any projection or extension of a building that is designated in such a manner as to provide shelter or cover over the approach to any entrance of the building. Sign, Menu Board means a sign located adjacent to the drive-through lane that is used to advertise the product available at a fast food restaurant. Sign,Motion means any sign or part of a sign which changes physical position by any movement or rotation of which gives the visual impression of such movement or rotation. Sign, Nameplate means a sign, located on the premises, which bears the name and/or address of the occupant of the building or premises. Sign, Non-Conforming, a sign that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance. Sign, Off-Premise, an advertising sign which directs attention to a use, product, commodity or services not related to the premises on which it is located. Sign, On-Premise, a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, product, use, service or other activity which is sold, offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is located. Sign,Portable, means a sign designed so as to be movable from one (1) location to another, and that is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or the ground. Including but not limited to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, sign converted to A-Frames, menu and sandwich board signs, and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations. Sign,Private Sale or Event means a temporary sign advertising private sales or personal property such as a house sale, garage sale and the like or private nonprofit events such as picnic, carnival, bazaar, game night, art fair, or craft show. Sign,Projecting means a sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for support and which projects more than twelve (12) inches from such building. Sign, Real Estate means a sign pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or a portion of the premises, on which the sign is located. Sign, Roof means a sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or which is wholly dependent upon a building for support and which projects above the roof line of a 23 building with a flat roof, the eave line of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip roof or the deck line of a building with a mansard roof. --- -- ROOF SIGN Sign, Temporary means a sign designed or r -- ' � intended to be displayed for a short period of time. This includes items such as banners, pennants, flags, beacons, sandwich, or balloons or other air or gas filled figures. ` ti�`�ti n n Sign, Wall means a sign attached to or � » ! \1\\N.. '''..4 j — erected against the wall of a building or PROJECT u } structure with the exposed face of the n sign in a plane approximately parallel o to the face of the wall, and which a does not project more than twelve (12) 5 11\UUN inches from such building or structure. z I V nW Wall signs shall not include product _Lug d �� advertising. Wall signs shall include tenant identification, tenant logo, center f SII' name, or any combination of the three. I GM 1 Sign, Window means sign, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, designed to r communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale or service, that is placed inside a window or upon the window panes or glass and is visible from the exterior of the window. Site Distance Triangle means no sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to one-half (1/2) the minimum required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within any drainage or utility easement. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from any private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line. 1nr94 24 SIG- ti 7•s.! V./14' . S40xq. « SGOrtas.$'J iry (- S r G n/ fi /b T., w.i/ Gi.r =9ES9 {{ 95:'7'/3_ 3v V S:j. A..e = i2 N.B S2 F51. I C� � GIU -, ,✓a A,e . _ / so s.1 4— ;sodX //= /55- 7;1./ S.jn /Q�r•. = iE Sa I1 60' S ?- GN • • 1 7;13 /14:i lino. =..2,/30 S?{. ,,Sao x .09= /92"9 T Ja S,jn A/.a = /$1 SG 4-1/. A I j N.1 L CN. % N N . ;1 T ^ ! n k.- L f1 > � ' -0 ca 4., ,r !----'k a CO v I ! '� V k ` , 1 y J i oI t i V I 1 yr 41 1 I 1 I . i k 0 CITY O F : :: 0/19/9CHAI�HASSEDI 11/16/94 N.-17e 12/12/94 CASE #: 94-4 REZ, 94-8 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 39.5 acres of property from A2, Agricultural Estate, to RSF, Single Family Residential, preliminary plat approval for a proposed 48 lot single-family development, a wetland alteration permit to fill or alter wetlands Z within the development, and a conditional use permit for the placement of fill Q and excavation within the flood plain, project called Creekside Addition VLOCATION: North of Twin Cities & Western Railroad tracks, west of Bluff Creek and east J of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek Q APPLICANT: Heritage Development 450 East County Road D Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 (6121 481-0017 PRESEAT i,' ,NIAG: AgikulLuiai csutte uisult,i., rt2 ACREAGE: 39.5 acres DENSITY: Gross: 1.22 units per acre Net: 1.68 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, vacant S - PUD-IOP, Chanhassen Business Center, Twin Cities & Western RR E - IOP, vacant W - RR & RSF, Timberwood Estates & Stone Creek or.ti WATER AND SEWER: Available PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northern % of the site consists of cultivated and pastured W farm land. The northern 1/3 of the site has severe significant topographic changes from a low of 900 feet in the wetland to a high of 960 feet on top of the knoll. The property is bounded on the north and east by Bluff Creek. The southern lh of the side is wooded. A ravine which acts as a temporary stream traverses the southern 1/3 of the project from west to east. Two wetlands are located on the property, one on the east and the other in the south. A third small wetland that is being filled is located near the high point of the site. A NSP transmission power line runs along the entire western limits of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre) I r..... ,,,,.„,...: . ::,,iiiiiii-. .. .;.#//f VEIDo el IO mmuna 1 ��hIIIIrj/111 i :, , t iota AI I I _LI s•1•• �..074 P i'= % . .1 V14.161 111111V‘ mil. Pr -...114;;;411.1.,1',7.4:::i.,, 5,1635,07,Ili S°11 :-.Lr ......) .... .A.5.—;,1z_lifir_ii_az 64...:."7"--.A.--i q 17.- ' G'"O'6 .0 • rA• ir.trz,„puTo... ..-„-t oi i t � 11�' 11 � � 2 . oftiI8 4 � I x 8100- . _ _ ..... 9� _1111111116,X'-:.....4 oe INV"71 i ik"4:1#Vie:illi 11117., •�r uf,,J ��p,�� Ail itdfu►� aat „.,,,,,, ,,,, 8 ,�— \s, • ' .' ILA. ii,x ,� OA P' tl' r aoo i 1 ,„, ni s=•• ,f I 9 I ‘ in _ N?7 Ar 1 ii 1 • 9400 1 MS ,190 r_ 1499 , I , �� 1 a� r /d Pl.' • /4 PO T' WO t MX 4*aI• WNe IV-PT Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY A completed application was received on September 20, 1994. The applicant is proposing a single-family subdivision consisting of 48 single-family home sites, 4.2 acres of right-of- way, 5.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.0 acres of parkland on 39.5 acres of land located in the central portion of the city on the west bank of Bluff Creek north of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad tracks. The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 15,305 square feet to 44,168 square feet (not including outlots) with an average lot area of 21,143 square feet. The intent of the development is to create a project that is compatible with the natural elements of the area, specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area, and the existing topography, as well as the existing developments to the west and the future development to the north. Three wetland areas are located within the development, one along Bluff Creek in the central portion of the project, another in the south adjacent to the railroad tracks, and the third near the high point of the project. This plat meets minimum code requirements for a single-family development , creeks and view One of the most important recommendations that the applicant needs to incorporate into the proposal is the design components for Bluff Creek corridor including maintaining a 100 foot building setback from Bluff Creek. While staff believes that the roadway alignment for the project should could be adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the future home buyers in this development a shared sense of ownership of Bluff Creek and the open space to be created in the wetland complex, we are willing to compromise with the developer and support the roadway alignment as proposed, provided the applicant provides a trail easement along the edge of the wetland (the rear of Block 1 and the edge of Outlot C) and dedicates the wooded area located in the southeast corner of the development for parkland. The parkland dedication proposed by the applicant is unacceptable to the city. The city will acquire any of this land in excess of the subdivision dedication requirements by negotiation or condemnation if necessary. Staff is proposing • . _. , ! _ , _- - •--.. . _. _ . . _ . - . , . . . - . - - - - - - - - •- = . -- •- - • •• . • a minimum 50 foot setback from the tributary- -be regoired. Except for the southerly portion of the property, the proposed grading plan will impact the topographic features of the site extensively. Existing elevations as high as 962 in the north part of the parcel would be graded down to approximately 944. This is due to the extreme elevation changes on the site. Staff believes that extensive earthwork Abe is necessary to prepare the site for building pads and utility and street construction. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 3 Staff is recommending revisions for the subdivision that will enhance environmental protection and make the development better for the community and the future residents of this neighborhood. However, we believe that these corrections can be made prior to final platting and therefore are recommending rezoning, preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit, and conditional use permit approvals. The Planning Commission met on October 19, 1994 to review this plat. The item was tabled so that the applicant and city staff could review and address the following issues: 1. Transition from Timberwood Estates. The applicant has provided cross sectional views of the plat to provide a visual presentation of this development's relationship to Timberwood Estates. As can be seen in these diagrams, Timberwood Estates will overlook this development with steep grade changes which will provide Timberwood residents vistas of the wetland complex. In addition, the applicant has modified the landscaping plan to provide groupings of trees to provide a transition from Timberwood into this project. Staff also believes that the lot depths in excess of 170 feet along this area will aid in the transition from Timberwood Estates into Creekside. 2. Site grading. The applicant has revised the grading plan since the last review as a result of staff recommendations to reduce the grading cuts in the knoll area of the plat, the northern one-third of the site, between 3 and 4 feet. The house pad elevations at the end of the northern cul-de-sac have been revised from 940 to 944 feet. House pads elevations along the Stone Creek Drive extension have been increased 3 feet in elevation in the knoll area. Steeps slopes are being relocated from the middle of the site to both the western and eastern portions of the development. The limiting factor in relation to the amount of grading in this area is the street and sanitary sewer elevations. 3. Roadway alignment. Staff has reviewed three different roadway alignments for Stone Creek Drive. Option A aligns the roadway adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. While this alignment would provide the community a sense of ownership of the wetland complex, staff believes that the proposed industrial development to the southeast and east would limit the value of this experience. Rather, staff believes that a more intimate natural experience will be provided through the placement of a trail system adjacent to the creek. Option B would align the southern end of Stone Creek Drive adjacent to the Timberwood Estate subdivision along the NSP easement. While this alignment would eliminate a swath of tree Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 4 removal from the middle of the forested portion of the site, there are several problems with this alternative including a non-symmetrical curve of Stone Creek Drive that would result in a hazardous corner at the connection of this plat to Stone Creek Addition, the location of a right-of- way at the rear of lots within Timberwood Estates, creation of a corner lot in Stone Creek Addition which was not designated or designed for a corner lot, the possible replacement or re-engineering of the electrical transmission poles within the NSP easement, tree loss would still occur within the right-of-way, and the sanitary sewer location would require depths of 35 plus feet and result in grading within the Timberwood Estates plat. 4. Parkland location/dedication. The applicant has not revised the plat to accommodate staff recommendations. However, the park location is included as a condition of approval. 5. What portions of the site meet the Bluff Ordinance definition. To meet the definition of a bluff, a site must have both a 30 percent slope and a minimum elevation change of 25 feet within the 30 percent slope area. The only portion of the site that meets both these requirements is the northeast corner of the site to the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. This area is being shown on the grading plan to not be disturbed. Additionally, the applicant has complied with the 100 foot setback from Bluff Creek which would exceed the bluff setback requirement of city code. BACKGROUND The 39.5 acre parcel being submitted for review was formerly contained in a concept PUD submission for Chanhassen Corporate Center and more recently as a single-family PUD. The Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial of the conceptual single-family PUD. In their review, the Commission was concerned about the lack of details provided by the applicant for this stage of the development review, e.g. house pad locations, detailed drainage and utility plans, grading plans, as well as the numerous issues pointed out in the staff report. The primary issue of the Commission was the question as to whether this proposal is premature based on the need for the city to define all the criteria regarding the Bluff Creek corridor as well as the wetland areas. The Commission was also concerned about the following issues: 1. number of lots under 15,000 square feet in area (21 of 56 lots or 37.5 percent of gross lot area and 26 of 56 lots or 46.4 percent of net lot area); (Note: This is no longer an issue) Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 5 2. treatment of Bluff Creek, the ravine and the wetlands; 3. drainage patterns, specifically, how the development will impact drainage from adjacent property; 4. minimizing grading, topographical disruptions and working with and maintaining some of the steep grades; 5. providing a transition from Timberwood to Heritage, concern about lot size directly abutting Timberwood; 6. overall density of the development; 7. minimizing tree loss; 8. location of sanitary sewer stub into Timberwood; and 9. timing for the northern extension of the road to the proposed east-west collector street. The City Council granted conceptual approval to the single-family residential PUD on May 23, 1994 with the direction to resolve the numerous issues contained in the staff report. The applicant's conceptual plan originally had 56 lots, but was reduced to 53 lots after initial revisions. Since Council's approval, staff and the applicant met to determine if the direction provided in the conceptual PUD approval could be implemented. A sketch plan of the development with the roadway alignment adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor was provided by the applicant. The Bluff Creek alignment plan showed a total of 44 lots located to the west of the roadway. Parkland, encompassing the land south of the ravine and east of the roadway, was also dedicated incorporated. The Creekside Addition proposes a total of 48 lots. Also, t The four lots south of the ravine and east of the roadway are to be dedicated and/or purchased by the city for parkland. The plat is therefore reduced to 44 lots which is the same number of lots that were provided as part of the Bluff Creek alignment proposal. The applicant has dropped the idea of proceeding through the PUD process and is requesting a straight subdivision of the site. The roadway alignment adjacent to Bluff Creek works within the context of the PUD. Given the constraints presented by a standard subdivision, the proposed subdivision design provides a good alternative with its meandering street, trail easement along the edge of the wetland, and the dedication of a mature, forested area for passive park use. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 6 SITE ANALYSIS The northern two-thirds of the property are currently in an agricultural state with a wooded area in the southern one-third of the site. Within the southern area, adjacent to the Twin Cities & Western Railroad line, is a wetland/ponding area. Bluff Creek is the easterly and northern border of the site. A tributary to Bluff Creek runs within a ravine located within the wooded area in the southern third of the site. A large wetland complex is located on the eastern part of the development adjacent to Bluff Creek. The property has varied topography with over a 60 foot change in grade. Timberwood Estates, a large lot subdivision, is located west of the project. A NSP electrical transmission line and easement runs along the entire length of the western border of the site. REZONING The rezoning of the property from A2 to RSF is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 Units/Acre). Staff supports the rezoning of the site as part of the subdivision process. SUBDIVISION REVIEW WETLANDS The City is committed to the protection and restoration of the Bluff Creek corridor and is initiating a comprehensive watershed plan to protect the creek and the corridor associated with it. This site includes the headwaters of Bluff Creek and three wetlands of which two of them have high potential for protection and restoration. This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks and replacement requirements as stated in the Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) and the City Wetland Ordinance. The City is the Local Governing Unit (LGU) administering the WCA. A permit application for a wetland alteration permit from the City and the State can be obtained at City Hall. The application combines the two permit processes. Bluff Creek - An east and west branch of Bluff Creek come together at the northern part of this proposed development and Bluff Creek continues to run north to south through the site. The creek discharges into the Lower Minnesota River approximately three miles south of the site. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek is a DNR protected water. The City's shoreland ordinance requires that the lowest floor of a structure be placed at least three feet above the highest flood of record, the ordinary high water level, or the level of a technical evaluation conducted to determine the effects of flood stages of the proposed Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 7 construction. If there is more than one approach used, the highest flood protection elevation determined shall be used for placing structures and other facilities. The watershed district, the City, and the applicant will have to meet to evaluate the methodologies used to determine flood elevations in order to establish a flood elevation for the creek based upon the best available information. Wetland A15-11(1) - Approximately 4 acres of an ag/urban wetland is located along Bluff Creek in the lower two thirds of the site. This wetland extends east off the property and is approximately 12 acres total in size. The wetland has been drained and altered in the past and has a high potential for restoration as part of the Bluff Creek Corridor. Wetland A15-15(1) - Approximately 0.7 acre of an ag/urban wetland is located in the southwest corner of the site. A small portion of this wetland is proposed to be filled as a result of the development. The quality of this wetland, however, is better than some ag/urban wetlands since the surrounding area is heavily wooded. Wetland A15-7(1) - Approximately 0.03 acre of an ag/urban wetland is located in the northwest corner of the site. This wetland appears to be a perched system and will be filled as a result of the development. Bluff Creek Tributary - There is a creek draining from the property in the southwest corner of the property to Bluff Creek. Although this creek is not DNR protected or a designated wetland it provides a natural resource amenity to the area and contributes to water quantity and water quality components of Bluff Creek. This creek drains from west to east through a heavily wooded area with a marginal understory. Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The tributary to Bluff Creek located in the southwest portion of the site should be preserved for the most part. A sanitary sewer line is recommended to be installed along this creek since it is the best location to provide a gravity feed system to service Timberwood Estates in the future. Soil erosion and sedimentation are of greatest concern to this area especially during Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 8 the time of construction. Staff recommends that heavy-duty Type III erosion control fencing be installed and maintained along Bluff Creek/wetlands except adjacent to where ponding areas are proposed. In these areas, type I erosion control fencing shall be used. The erosion control fences shall be maintained until the entire site is fully revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. Staff also recommends that a drainage and utility easement be established along the creek with a minimum width of 30 feet. Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point at the Minnesota River. Staff has reviewed the upper part of Bluff Creek with the Design Center at the University of Minnesota and recommends a 100 foot buffer to maintain a natural resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational trail corridor. Wetland Replacement - The Wetland Conservation Act requires that wetland fill be replaced at a ratio of 2:1. Half of the replacement must be created wetland to provide no net loss, however, the other half of the replacement can be completed as restoration. Staff encourages the developer to assist with the restoration of the large wetland A15-11(1) as part of the mitigation efforts. The City is willing to assist the developer with a restoration project for this wetland. This would then create wetland banking credits as well as an aesthetically appealing environment to future landowners. The banking credits would be proportioned between the City and the developer for future use based on the amount of contribution to the project. As for the area of wetland that must be created, staff suggests that all of the required area be an extension of the large wetland rather than including some creation in the wetland in the southwest corner. The wetland in the southwest corner has a large number of trees and it is not worth removing them for wetland creation. The buffer strip for the upper part of the watershed is a very important issue to address in the design of the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan since this will provide a guide to the type and amount of open space necessary to preserve, enhance, and protect the natural resources of the basin. The wetland buffer strips in the City ordinance are very liberal protection requirements and only take into consideration the type of wetland. The following are a few suggestions from Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness that was written by the Washington State Department of Ecology (February 1992): a. Studies indicate that buffers from 50 to 150 feet are necessary to protect a wetland from direct human disturbance in the form of human encroachment (i.e. trampling, debris). b. 95% of the buffers smaller than 50 feet suffered a direct human impact within the buffer while only 35% of the buffers wider than 50 feet suffered direct human impact. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 9 c. Wetlands with important wildlife functions in eastern Washington should have a 100 to 200 foot buffer depending on adjacent land use. d. Buffers widths effective in preventing significant water quality impacts to wetlands are generally 100 feet or greater. STREETS The plans propose on extending Stone Creek Drive from the southwest corner of the site to immediately provide access to the site. The north/south street will eventually tie into the City's south frontage road project which is currently under construction. There will, however, be a gap between this development and the frontage road. Staff believes that preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing a financial escrow with the City to guarantee completion/connection of the "north/south" road to the frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved by the City Council to ensure that this development is connected in the future to avoid a "dead-end" street scenario. The applicant is proposing to dedicate the necessary 60-foot wide right-of-way for the north/south street and two cul-de-sacs. Access from the south (Stone Creek Drive) which is considered a neighborhood collector street has been constructed with the Hans Hagen Stone Creek development. The street section was built 35 feet wide back-to-back urban street section within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. In addition, a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk was constructed as well. Staff is recommending that this typical street cross-section be extended as well through the Heritage plat up to the future frontage road. The plans appear to propose this street section including a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the westerly side of the north/south street. The applicant's engineer should verify that the sight lines at these intersections will meet MnDOT's criteria based on a 35 MPH design speed. areas (Lot 25, Block 3 and Lot 10, Block 2). Staff believes that Lots-24 and 25, Block 1 are slopes. The southerly cul-de-sac is proposed to serve Lots 19, 20 and 21, Block 3. Two of the three lots (Lots 20 and 21, Block 3) encroach upon the tree line which will result in tree loss. An alternative to preserve these trees would be to modify the south cul-de-sac to a private driveway and reconfigure Lots 19 through 23, Block 3 to pull the home sites up out of the tree line. This would also reduce the applicant's costs for constructing a full City cul-de- Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 10 sac/street. The appropriate cross-access easements would then be necessary to preserve access across the lots and spell out maintenance responsibilities. The proposed north/south street will cross the ravine area. The proposed street elevation is approximately 10 to 12 feet higher than the existing creek. This is necessary to provide sufficient cover over the culvert. However, the resulting side slopes will extend 30 feet east and west from the street right-of-way. The use of retaining walls should be considered in an effort to reduce tree loss on the east side of the street. On the west side, a sanitary sewer line will be extended along the creek corridor for future service to Timberwood Estates. In this area retaining walls may not be necessary. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be required as a part of the final plat submittal. Street construction plans shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. UTILITIES As a part of the City's Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and watermain project, sanitary sewer and watermain have been extended to the southwesterly corner of the site. The City has been working with the developer to extend trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities through the site and utilize the proposed street alignment. The City has contracted with Barton-Aschman to prepare the construction plans for this next segment of trunk sanitary sewer through the development. Barton-Aschman has prepared plans to extend sewer service through this development. However, the plans follow the previous street alignment which resulted in sewer lines less than 25 feet deep. The proposed street alignment will result in the sanitary sewer lines being up to 35 feet deep. Although staff would prefer that the sewer line be shallower from an economic standpoint, it is much more effective for the City and the developer if this trunk sanitary sewer line could be utilized to serve both as a lateral and a trunk benefit to the adjacent property. Staff is willing to compromise on the depth issue since it is a relatively short distance. Barton-Aschman also reviewed an alternative sewer alignment running along the wetlands along the east side of the plat. However, due to poor soil conditions and environmental reasons, this alignment is not feasible. We believe the roadway alignment as proposed will accommodate the future trunk sanitary sewer needs for the City. All utility construction outside the scope of the trunk sanitary sewer lines shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the utility improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications will be subject Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 11 to staff review and City Council approval. The City's contract could be expanded to construct the developer's sanitary sewer laterals and services if so desired. In conjunction with the final platting process, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. Staff has reviewed different alternatives to provide Timberwood Estates with sanitary sewer service in the future. Staff has explored the possibility of extending the sewer line through Stone Creek 4th Addition to Timberwood Drive. However, there are two low points on Timberwood Drive where the sanitary sewer will actually be daylighted. Therefore, the only other alternative short of a lift station is to provide service to Timberwood Estates along the Bluff Creek tributary corridor between Lots 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25, Block 3 (Heritage Preliminary Plat Development). The applicant is responsible for extending sanitary sewer to the plat boundary along the Bluff Creek tributary which lies just north of Renaissance Court. This would give sufficient elevation to serve the entire development of Timberwood Estates via a gravity system. Staff will be recommending that the applicant extend an 8-inch sanitary sewer line along the Bluff Creek tributary to the westerly boundaries of the plat for future service to Timberwood Estates. Although this may result in immediate impact along the tributary of Bluff Creek, this is not uncommon for extension of sanitary sewer due to the fact that streams or lake areas are usually the lowest areas in the City. The extension of Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer already runs adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor from Lyman Boulevard. The area will re-vegetate and retain its natural features upon conclusion of the project. Depending on timing, the applicant may wish to proceed with extending the trunk sanitary sewer line through the development prior to the City initiating a project. The City would reimburse the applicant the cost difference between an 8-inch line versus an 18-inch line by issuing a credit against the property assessments. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Except for the southerly portion of the property, the proposed grading plan will impact the topographic features of the site extensively. Existing elevations as high as 9-5-7 960 in the north part of the parcel would be graded down to approximately -9.34 944. This is due to the extreme elevation changes on the site. Staff believes that extensive earthwork will be necessary to prepare the site for building pads and utility and street construction. According to the Bluff Creek Corridor Study, Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 in the northern portion of the property will have a limited amount of buildable area with the proposed 100- foot setback from the creek. This is also true in the southern portion of the site along Lots 8, Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 12 9 and 10, Block 2. The southerly portion of the site is heavily wooded and is not proposed to be graded at this time except for the roadway. It appears the applicant is desiring to custom grade each lot as a building permit is issued. The applicant should demonstrate on the grading plan the proposed house type and elevations of the garage floor and lowest floor elevation of each particular lot within the subdivision to determine impact of grading and tree removal. In addition, the builders of the wooded lots will be required to submit individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans for each house for staff to review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. This development abuts Timberwood Estates to the west. The applicant is providing for drainage from the Timberwood site to drain between the home sites where storm sewer will convey storm water runoff to the water quality ponds proposed adjacent to Bluff Creek. A storm sewer line may be necessary in the rear yards of Lots 14 or 15, Block 3 to convey runoff away from the houses. This will be further investigated with the plans and specifications review process. All floodplain issues shall be discussed with the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District engineer and the City's consultant for the SWMP before final approval on the normal and high water elevations for Bluff Creek. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site shall be in accordance with the City's SWMP. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 13 accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 21/2-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. One stormwater pond is proposed along the central western edge of Bluff Creek to pretreat the water according to Walker standards prior to discharge into Bluff Creek. Normal and high water levels in each of the wetlands should be given on the grading and drainage plan. This pond should be constructed with the initial stage of grading to provide maximum erosion control protection. Another storm pond labeled "proposed temporary pond" located at the north end of the site will also be constructed to pretreat storm runoff from the northerly portion of the development. This ponding location is anticipated to be increased in size when the 8 acres to the north is developed. The grading plans should be modified to show the pond contours and outlet control structure. Staff questions whether or not there is sufficient cover over the northerly creek crossing to permit a storm sewer line across the creek to the proposed interim pond. This should be further explored by the applicant's engineer. SWMP Water Quality Fees - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. Dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 to $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be waived. SWMP Water Quantity Fees - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. The single-family low-density developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre less any wetlands. The proposed development of 33.8 acres of single-family residential acres would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $66,924. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. These credits, if any, will be applied after review of the construction plans. EASEMENTS The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas and wetlands. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 14 Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. The wetlands or storm ponding areas (Outlots A, C and D) may also be deeded to the City versus an easement. EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan is required and should be incorporated on the site plan and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencement. Staff recommends the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion control measures. Type III erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetland areas except where storm ponds will intercept the runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these areas only Type I is recommend. All disturbed areas are to be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Protection around catch basins such as hay bales or silt fence is also required until the pavement is installed (BMPH). If at all possible, construction of the site in stages is highly recommended to help reduce sedimentation into the City's infrastructure. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has prepared a tree survey of the site locating all significant trees and canopy coverage calculations. The base line canopy coverage is 21.9 percent (7.4 acres). City code requires a post development canopy coverage of 30 percent (10.1 acres). Therefore, the applicant would be required to plant 2.66 acres (441,698 - 325,800/ 43,560) as part of their forestation program for this development. In addition, the applicant has estimated that they will remove 54,540 96,000 square feet of the existing canopy coverage. Since this canopy coverage is required to meet the minimum canopy coverage requirement, there is a replacement requirement of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. This replacement area amounts to 1.5 acres (54,510 x 1.2 / 43,560) 2.64 acres (96,000 x 1.2 /43,560). The total tree planting requirement based on the forestation and replacement requirements is 166 trees (2.66 + 1.5 x 43,560 /1,089) 212 trees (2.66 + 2.64 x 43,560 / 1,089). - . . .•- • . . ' ... . s - - - . . • • -- coverage areas need to be overlaid on the grading plan. - - - - - _ ... - times the area being removed, the total replacement area would be 91,200 square feet. Staff - - . . .. .. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 15 • • -- - - • - - tree planting requirements. In developing the subdivision design, every effort should be made to preserve existing trees. Where possible, the applicant should attempt to preserve stands of trees in preference over individual trees. A woodland management plan shall be prepared for the entire development pursuant to the tree preservation ordinance. The subdivision standards require one tree to be planted in the front yard of each home. Credit for preserved trees of six inches or larger caliper can be granted. As part of the final process, the applicant will be required to provide a detailed landscaping plan for the development. PARKS/OPEN SPACE The City of Chanhassen is in the beginning stages of preparing a proposal to develop and begin implementing a comprehensive natural resource management plan in the Bluff Creek Watershed that demonstrates prudent development can occur in harmony with protection and restoration of natural systems and unique resources in an urbanizing watershed connected to the Lower Minnesota River. As part of this corridor design, the following issues will be addressed. The establishment of a linear park encumbering the entire Bluff Creek Corridor including adjacent wetlands and areas/lands of significance to the corridor has been identified as a top priority of the City's Comprehensive Recreation Plan. A trail will be a part of this park. The trail will pass under the Twin Cities and Western Railroad at a viaduct located at the southern terminus of this concept plat, Public ownership of the entire creek corridor, including lands required for trail construction, is desired. The city will require the dedication of the area south of the ravine and east of the roadway alignment. Dedication of land in excess of that required under the subdivision ordinance will be compensated at a fair market rate. If the developer and the city can not agree on a fair market value, then the city will condemn the property. This area provides a unique transition from the open wetland trail to a small segment of mature wooded forests. An existing farm path that traverses this area will be incorporated into the trail system. Additionally, a 30 thirty foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the entire length of Bluff Creek. The developer shall construct the trail and receive trail fees credits in proportion to the costs of the trail's construction. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 16 At their meeting on August 9, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission moved unanimously to recommend to the City Council the following conditions in regard to parks, trail and open space and to bring back a redesigned plan incorporating their recommendation: 1. The land bound by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the extension of Stone Creek Drive on the west, and the arm of Bluff Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased through a combination of park dedication fee credit and cash. 2. The open space corridor along the creek shall lie adjacent to the road. Compensation for any open space lying between the wetland and the subject road's right of way would be made under this scenario. 3. The alignment of the 8 ft. bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland prior to its connection with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and Engineering Departments prior to construction. TRAILS The Park and Recreation Department is requesting an 8-foot wide trail around the wetlands on the east side of the plat. Staff has learned from previous projects that soil conditions in these areas are far from desirable for constructing trails. Additional costs are incurred for soil corrections and increased gravel and/or bituminous materials to support the trail. Staff recommends that the exact alignment be determined in the field after consulting with a soils engineer. COMPLIANCE TABLE CODE MINIMUMS: Lot area: 15,000 square feet; Frontage: 90 feet; Lot depth: 125 feet: Setbacks: Front - 30 feet, side - 10 feet; rear - 30 feet. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 17 LOT BLOCK AREA (SQ. FRONTAGE DEPTH (FT.) FT.) (FT.) 1 1 28,849 229 156 2 1 20,001 110 153.5 3 1 20,296 87* 181 4 1 25,215 83* 226.5 5 1 25,401 83* 225.5 6 1 22,309 82* 205 7 1 20,263 96 189.5 8 1 15,363 102 151 9 1 15,305 110 139 10 1 16,921 125 168 11 1 17,982 119 183 1 2 16,007 100 160 2 2 18,339 149 158 3 2 15,882 131 144.5 4 2 15,310 99 138.5 5 2 20,868 118 150 6 2 20,861 119 151.5 7 2 20,562 148 139 8 2 22,683 106 142 9 2 23,039 90 211.5 10 2 36,527 298 133.3 11 2 20,008 126 159.5 1 3 28,763 135 131.5 Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 18 2 3 20,237 105 164 3 3 18,437 125 148 4 3 18,553 229 168.5 5 3 130160 130 146.5 6 3 15,557 78* 142 7 3 44,168 88* 200.5 8 3 25,943 92 142.5 9 3 16,490 105 154 10 3 16,490 96 173.5 11 3 29,546 90 259 12 3 21,283 85* 200.5. 13 3 17,484 91 177 14 3 16,106 95 169.5 15 3 15,862 87* 166.5 16 3 16,360 96 176.5 17 3 21,033 124 219.5 18 3 17,450 148 138 19 3 21,665 59* 133.5 20 3 17,598 63* 138 21 3 19,382 71* 131.5 22 3 16,671 120 130.5 23 3 19,585 187 167.5 24 3 20,921 175 127.5 25 3 32,724 162 140 26 3 24,921 240 150 A 230,868 Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 19 B 64,033 C 63,162 Park 87,120 Notes: * Meets Minimum Frontage at the Building Setback Line Section 18-60 (d) states that lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities, such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas . Lot 25 Block 3 The plat shall be revised to eliminate L et 25, B ock 3, locate rear property lines along the Bluff Creek tributary which will improve the placement of homes adjacent to the Bluff Creek Tributary and reduce the amount of trees that will be lost.. Additionally, staff believes that there is a remanent of land north of Lot 1, Block 3 that is not included as part of the plat. This remanent should either be combined with the abutting lot or designated as an outlot for entry signage purposes. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS Subdivision, Section 18-39 (f) 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets the lot area requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. - • • . , - - , - • - _ 3 - - • 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the city's land use plan. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 25, Block 3. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 20 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will impact the land form and existing wetlands and vegetation. 6- - - _. :t . . . - fiatural-feator-e-presefyagen,While feature wetlands will be impacted, the proposed mitigation should improve the quality of the remaining wetland. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/FLOOD PLAIN ALTERATION The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit the alteration and excavation of land within the Bluff Creek flood plain. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 21 Finding: Before final plat approval, the applicant's design will have to meet the standards set for water quantity, water quality, erosion control, and general construction by the City, the watershed district, and the state. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. • Finding: The development of the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the stormwater management plan. Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 22 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: Restoration and enhancement of the surrounding natural resources is considered an asset to the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The wetland areas that remain will be used as open space and a park corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed realignment of the north-south road adjacent to the Bluff Creek wetland complex will reduce the number of access points directly onto the road. This roadway will improve traffic circulation in the area. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The alteration project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features of major significance. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The wetland project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features of major significance and improve the aesthetics of the area. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The development's design will provide flood protection as well as aesthetic improvements to the area which should enhance the property values. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 23 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: Will comply with federal, state and local requirements. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20-407) When approving a wetland alteration permit the following principals shall be adhered to: 1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the wetland. Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek Development. This wetland has been impacted by human intervention, but should be protected and preserved to the extent possible. Both wetlands will be mitigated through enhancement and extension of the wetland complex along Bluff Creek and the southern wetland. There will be no net loss of wetlands. 2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek Development. The proposal minimizes the impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complexes. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 24 Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity. Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. 5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (Outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek Development. The proposal minimizes the impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complexes. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: Rezoning "The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning #94-4, rezoning 39.5 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family Residential, consistent with the City of Chanhassen Land Use Plan." Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 25 Subdivision "The Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat approval of subdivision #94-7 subdividing 39.5 acres of land into 47 44 Lots and 4 outlots subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall incorporate -design-components fief the pfoposed-Bluff Creek Watershed Plan that are being initiated in the upcoming month. The applicant shall attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan. 3. A woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process. The . -- •-- - - -- . - -- . - - 4. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. of any building permits. 6. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 7. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 8. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 9. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 26 10. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. 12. Park and Recreation conditions: a. The land bound by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the extension of Stone Creek Drive and Outlot B on the west, and the arm of Bluff Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased through a combination of park dedication, fee credit and cash. b. A 30 foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the Bluff Creek Corridor/wetland complex along the north and east portions of the plat. c. The alignment of the 8 ft. bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland prior to its connection with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and Engineering Departments prior to construction. 13. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 100-foot setback buffer around Bluff Creek and a 50 foot setback buffer along the tributary to Bluff Creek. 14. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council. Type III erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetlands except where storm ponds will intercept runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these areas Type I erosion control is required. 15. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 27 utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 16. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post- developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 17. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 18. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi- lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided to the Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot. 20. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 21. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right-of-way areas. 22. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines. 23. The proposed storm water ponds shall be designed with side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial site grading. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 28 24. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each wooded lot prior to issuance of a building permit. 25. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the applicant constructs the water quality ponds as proposed these fees will be waived. 26. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction plans. 27. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 28. The southerly cul-de-sac shall be re-evaluated for a private driveway in an effort to pull the house pads away from the tree line. A turnaround in accordance to the Fire Marshal's recommendations shall be provided. 29. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8-inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary (Lots 21, 21, 23, 24 and 25, Block 3). 30. The northerly proposed interim storm pond shall be shown on the grading plan. Details such as contour lines and the outlet control structure shall be included. 31. The north/south street shall be extended through to the frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial security to guarantee the roadway extension will be completed. 32. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessment resulting from the City's public improvement project (93-26) including but not limited to hearing requirements and claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 33. The trail alignment around the wetlands (Bluff Creek corridor) shall be determined in the field after walking the site and consulting a soils engineer. 34. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands. The wetlands and ponding areas may be deeded to the City as outlots as well. Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 29 35. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls along the east side of the southerly creek crossing to minimize tree loss. 36. Adjust the lot lines for those properties that abut the Bluff Creek tributary to use the tributary/bottom of ravine as the lot line." Conditional Use Permit "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #94-4 to permit the placement of fill and excavations within the flood plain alterations subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall comply with the wetland fill/excavation and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the project. All mitigation work shall be limited to the Bluff Creek corridor and not in the wetland located at the southwest corner of the site." Wetland Alteration Permit "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #94-4 to permit filling and replacing wetlands on the site subject to the following conditions: 1. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 2. Wetland buffer areas are required around the wetlands in accordance with the City Wetland Ordinance. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 50- foot buffer around Bluff Creek with a 100 foot building setback and a 10 to 30 foot buffer with a minimum average of 20 feet around the tributary to Bluff Creek with a 50 foot building setback." ATTACHMENTS 1. Wetland Map 2. Development Review Application 3. Letter from RLK to Planning Commission dated 9/19/94 4. Land Use Plan Map 5. Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen Preliminary Plat 6. Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 9/30/94 Heritage First Addition August 10, 1994 Revised 11/10/94 Page 30 7. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 10/3/94 8. Letter from Richard J. Pilon (Minnegasco) to Robert Generous dated 9/28/94 9. Letter from Joe Richter (DNR) to Robert Generous dated 9/26/94 10. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 11. Bluff Creek Corridor Street Alignment Option 12. City Council Minutes of May 23, 1994 (Heritage PUD) 13. City Council Minutes of April 11, 1994 (Heritage PUD) 14. Park and Recreation Minutes of March 22, 1994 (Heritage PUD) 15. Planning Commission Minutes of March 16, 1994 (Heritage PUD) 16. Preliminary Woodland Management Plan dated 11/4/94 17. Planning Commission Minutes of October 19, 1994 . . • ••••• . I MO 2(1) ..._ _. . . • 1 • • . t . . -\,r,,, -Wk:.--44,..,,,-• ,ivr. I- 11 - - N • if'. •,. \•,, ,-,..;-1 A9,7,,_7(2 ..i;;A. •_ i--- 10-12P li -1 ,.!1:• A9-11(1) ,.-. ...-; -..., .4.---:--, .. i ,-:".:: -'.- • • :2:i_1.ri.4..;(.-4 -p*.iseji, -, ..° . •1 ., (N) ,\,,,...,..:.,.7.-..:.t.,14.,,i.,,,,,,,-,Tii-;05rN.,7.,,,;.,7:f;., -4, -*•;44' 4--.'' 1 A10-13 2 A 1 - . 1-i,.....•::(NT: ie":.....;:4-.1:3{.' 10-209W (A) 1°;93(2)A10-14(1) - ,. (A) .•;,!,..-:.:(4 . ..,-::-,::-_•;--2. :-._.•,,-•:.,..2,-,., ., •- -,...,.... A9-12(1) _-------08, (A) Al a 130 ,...,-77-,,,_ 49. - 1 -- - • Al 0-1',(21) ,• • ... . • •....---..,_- ____________ ......---,:ii..„—... l ....."--.' ger-- .. . .. --------\ , Al 4-1(1 ..--• :k`•;:r_.''._:.".,1‘ • A15-2(2106 . •,-. . , , • ..... Al 3(1) . ,,,:•'-',..„44-(-9• x-At.st.i2; .. ....,..,. .••• .--.. ;:-......„, ...• : /Lg..--' A 3:;;-:.4:" ."' SCHOOL SITE r 03 . .--..- :._ -- -/(3)- 1 * A15-2(1) . (to ., * * ,c3 \ r.... , N ThAir .... . ....4, , . ...1 , . , .-- i C. , Li . - .i F. P 1 1 1 '..'s "'.. iik''4.-.. ..4&., :..: '11 --—i----1— '.41.;. .,._ -r . - -OJECT LOCATIO9 ,-....,.., ,-:-•,.:. i - •.,<-,,,•-.., ----- -- , -.,,,-.47A,c1 -— ..2,-,.,:- . . i I-\ Al i '''A118:73,„(1)-As4%;?;:. • , ! —1up ,(3) 7#----4404AW01,3Wk.,:, i 1 E' I A . 46-5\_ el, A15-8(1) • 1047:2 .-•:- , --,.r.:',.,.,:,;,.;,:z.Z,:,.•.,--,.,..a,-..z 1 , if• 1 I A -c---.,--,, ...,./,:--,„,..‘,.. j,_' i A16-7(2) '.-tr-,:,,,,";i::';";--2-:-',VC I ! ! ; \ 1.-. -.--I - _ - -.... -. 4 ',, .0 1 '.,,-.;',.f4, •.,-*•:::::L7-7::"' f 1 41 ,..emt-7(1) -- Al =9,(1) i-......__. / N.,. 41PC ,,r, ....- i..„ ....4 ,....., 1 - (A) `, i ------, A y5- --0 .a.:-....., -1-. ,.::,,,iti.t.- „.71,1„,,,, .....,„ „_.,_....._4 i 1..... A) !'.,-. .n._.-- - .6 e• Ajti y%i) A1312(3) H 1( ! ' •41 ••;:-,...•I 77_7. 1., .: A16-12(2) i ri t I, -----• - - - - \ 1 i , , t , _,-; )34 iit---' e" II_ / , V. • I. . .2 ! i 4 _cREEAc .---1 1-{:::-.7.1c,T . 114 13(1) .°1 - LIC v-E ------ --- - • ' A15:=10(2) 1 ' Z. . .i, (A) --;•< • t ei(A) _ _ 1... A1 ... 1..0. ".,,,,,•:„.,,,,, • ••40 ... - •- .4—— i• ' ,4 $.., , tri...= ..A, .„.„- ':IN 1--s Y ,'' ll ti I- 7 - - i t . • , ,/,.--; ....... . , i 1...„....-:;:...t- -1.--., ./- * .2i#M. / - / --,•:::-.-- ' l, . • 7,1 • f 1 1., • ..-, ,.0.---1 ., 4, - . . . 11 V. .,...0--"\ ''' '' •16 -- ,''I (.(N/k- ;. .: .1 •• ‘V ' ' • 11N •i - :: .,-•.• i-.""y•--- I 1-••'''l; -••7 • ' ,i'' M5-10(3) i i; „.;,...,- . - ";---' :• -(11) 4R" 1 l i f, • - ' (J LYMAN BLVD,. • •.'if .--- ..- .4. . „ - •At4' ;.i i . ••• ...r. - - A2-,„; 2-1(1) ,•-\ ; ,.. \ \ •,(A) .- ft if .•r t I i # i • i k.-:',',-.2.'' j / :-....; Nro \ ,•„,-, (--./ F ,‘ 1 i • i .. •' )4" vo .- t -' • It- .. . ,., ilt,,:i ' • ! : E ! • ..: • : . , „I- , 1. -• , \, C- • : 4'': : I .' 1 • vial .. - / 1.''t''' • 0 Ili'-,,,..4k.:-;;,, /—1.1, ! i J. . • f •"' ; -- AA;:;,•47 -,,,. --c.-4IE • A21-4(1) iii.:.44 A22-1(2) -.-4..Q.4': e '-' (A) • i , I •1/4 i f ; -•11;:k /Iv; V • • , •i , 1:•- . •,,>: :;-I'',(0,,,44 0 A22-6(1) -/ .- / j -,;;;-• #4;47 ilkt*A) ,...:;&i:-.: - i •--.i - , \F.2,, ... 1 --;„;',*. / -r• , A ,te,,,.11:4744 ii•, • •,,....3.4NA,, , ,, ,• • LEGEND • to,t -.1c..,..c.: -- . ., - ....,..it. ,., • t„..r.,.„iv:Ai, •- :.---...).-- • , — .44-7,161-'19 . t g• ' . .. ::•'- ! . 7.7 DENOTES WETLAND ••••..... ...._. , t--- -7-- • * A22-12(1) PIM ENT 1 . • • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937.1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Heritage Development OWNER: Fee Owner Heritage Development ADDRESS: 450 East County Road D ADDRESS: 450 East County Road D St. Paul, MN 55117 St. Paul, MN 55117 TELEPHONE (Day time) 481-0017 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. X Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance LOO 3. GradingExcavaticn Permit 13. x Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. X Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPR/VACIVAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. y Subdivision 1 TOTAL FEE $ 2,325.0Q A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processede appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Chanhassen First Addition of Chanhassen LOCATION East of TimhPrwnnd C pct of Bluff Crccit LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the sout•.hest rpL,rtpr of X15, Township 116, north, range 23 west of the 5th principal meridian, west of the centerline of the creek. • PRESENT ZONING A? REQUESTED ZONING RSP PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Agricultural REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Preliminary plat per subdivision code r'hr+ar la, refer to plans and narrative document. This application must be completed in full and be typewntten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorders Office and the origi al doc - ent returned to Hall Records. 7//8/ Signa tire • Appli ant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. [RIK 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, Mn. 55343 72 ASSOCIATES LTD. fax:(612)9612) 33 953 September 19, 1994 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Preliminary Plat of"Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen" for Heritage Development This submittal is consistent with previous submittals in it's request for the following approvals: 1. Rezoning of 39.5 acres from A2 (Agricultural Estate)to RSF (Single Family Residential). 2. Preliminary Plat of"Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen" for 48 Single Family Lots and 3 outlots. 3. Wetland Alteration Permit to fill or alter wetlands within the development. 4. Conditional Use Permit for the placement of fill and excavations within the flood plain. The intent of this submittal is to provide appropriate responses to concerns raised at previous Planning Commission meetings through well thought out and detailed plan revisions and specific statements which can be incorporated into an acceptable Developers Agreement that will be agreeable with the City Council. SENSE OF COMMUNITY/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Locating the trail alignment adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor is a highly desirable and effective method to provide the community and future home buyers in this neighborhood with a shared sense of ownership of the Bluff Creek corridor. The placement of an eight foot wide community trail instead of a sixty foot wide public road along the Bluff Creek corridor is also a cost effective way for the City to provide public access while retaining the unique natural topographic features of the site and preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics of this significant natural feature. Combined with the Shoreland Ordinance and the Wetland Conservation Act, this approach will maximize environmental protection of the Bluff Creek corridor. .Civil Engineering .Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment .Landscape Architecture •Construction Management Heritage First Addition September 19, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The details provided in this submittal for completion of this stage of the development review can be separated into three broad categories which are as follows: 1. Findings for approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit/Flood Plain Alteration. 2. Specific plan revisions(organized by plan sheet). 3. Conditions which should be incorporated into the City's Developers Agreement. Based upon a thorough review of the City's Ordinances, policies and Comprehensive Plan, the following findings can be made regarding the proposed Preliminary Plat of"Heritage First Addition of Chanhassen": a. REZONING FINDING: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential - Low Density, with a net density range of 1.2 to 4.0 dwellings per acre. b. PREL[MINARY PLAT FINDING: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and meets the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage at the building setback line. FINDING: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed alignment of the north-south street generally complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan's suggested alternative(not required)alignment. FINDING: The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development. The proposed design attempts to minimize grading of this site and maximize preservation of existing trees. FINDING: The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements Heritage First Addition September 19, 1994 Page 3 required by this chapter. The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. FINDING: The proposed subdivision works'with the existing landform, existing wetlands and vegetation by preserving existing trees and various locations in the development. FINDING: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. c. PRIVATE STREETS Two private streets are proposed to provide access for two proposed lots along the southern portion of the property. These lots are in the wooded portion of the development and access to one of the lots is restricted by the location of an existing wetland. FINDING: The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the main considerations are that this portion of the development is wooded, access is restricted by the location of an existing wetland and construction of a public street in this area would result in the loss of a significant number of trees. FINDING: The proposed north-south street is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that an extension of that public street is not required to serve other lots adjacent to the development. ENDING: The use of a private street will allow for the enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees(see preliminary grading plan and tree survey). d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/FLOOD PLAIN ALTERATION FINDING: The proposed subdivision design will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. FINDING: The development of the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the stormwater management plan. Through the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Heritage First Addition September 19, 1994 Page 4 FINDING: The proposed wetland mitigation will enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided.to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. FINDING: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. FINDING: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. FINDING: Restoration and enhancement of the surrounding natural resources is considered an asset to the community. FINDING: The existing and proposed wetland areas will be used as open space and a park corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. FINDING: The proposed alignment of the north-south road will improve traffic circulation in the area. FINDING: The alteration project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features of major significance. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. FINDING: The wetland project will protect and preserve natural and scenic features of major significance and improve the aesthetics of the area. Open space in conjunction with the trail system will serve the existing and planned neighboring uses. FINDING: The development's design will provide flood protection as well as aesthetic improvements to the area which should enhance the property values. Heritage First Addition September 19, 1994 Page 5 FINDING: The applicant is proposing to fill a small perched wetland on the high point of the site. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the site will also receive some fill as a result of the extension of the road from the Stone Creek Development. This wetland has been impacted by human intervention, but should be protected and preserved to the extent possible. Both wetlands will be mitigated through enhancement and extension of the wetland complex along Bluff Creek and the southern wetland. There will be no net loss of wetlands. FINDING: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in connection with the Bluff Creek Corridor. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. FINDING: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the dedication of the Bluff Creek Corridor (outlot C) and the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. The following plan revisions have been made based upon the Staff report and Planning Commission input: a. Site Plan/Preliminary Plat. 1. Lot areas were revised to the following: 1) 6 of 48 lots for 12.5% of lots ranging in size from 15,000 to 16,000 square feet; 2) 16 of 48 lots for 33% of lots ranging in size from 16,0001 to 20,000 square feet; and, 3) 26 of 48 lots for 45.5% of lots greater than 20,000 square feet. The average lot size is 21,017 square feet. 2. Bluff Creek, the ravine and the wetlands have all been incorporated into outlots and/or easements which will protect the integrity of these areas. 3. Overall density of the development has been reduced from 1.28 to 1.21 dwelling units per acre. 4. Street names to be submitted to the Chanhassen Fire Marshall, Public Safety Department and Inspection Division for review and approval prior to final plat Heritage First Addition September 19, 1994 Page 6 approval or the issuance of any building permits (this includes the private drive). b. Grading Plan. 1. Revisions to the grading plan have included minimizing grading, tree loss, topographical disruptions and working with and maintaining some of the existing steep slopes. 2. Building pads have been delineated with building type (FB-Full Basement; FBWO-Full Basement Walk Out; and, FBLO-Full Basement Look Out), Lowest floor elevations, garage floor elevations and typical top of foundation elevations indicated. 3. All wooded lots will be individually graded and a grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be individually submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for these lots. 4. Drainage calculations are available and will be provided upon request or at the time of final platting and the construction plan review process. 5. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities will be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. A sediment and erosion control plan will be designed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council. c. Utility Plan. The following notes should be considered part of the plan set: 1. A ten foot clear space will be maintained around the fire hydrants (i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable Television transformer boxes) pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Section 9-1 to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. 2. Maximum fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet. d. Landscape Plan. Heritage First Addition September 19, 1994 Page 7 1. Comments regarding species selection were taken into account when revising the street tree plan. In addition, lack of nursery cultivation for some of the suggested species created availability concerns and other nursery-grown species were substituted for some of the suggested species. 2. The proposed landscape quantities were revised to reflect the more accurate existing quantities. (See Tree Survey notes). 3. A woodland management plan will be prepared for the entire development in accordance with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. 4. This project meets the requirement for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks and replacement requirements as stated in the Wetland Conservation Act and the City 's Wetland Ordinance. In addition, wetland buffer areas will be staked in accordance with the City's Wetland Ordinance. e. Tree Survey. A detailed tree survey was prepared locating all existing significant trees and defining canopy coverage. In addition, the Tree Survey was overlayed on the Grading Plan in order to get an accurate count of all existing trees to be removed. f. Detailed Tree Inventory. A 50 scale drawing of the tree survey has been provided in order to properly identify all of the species and sizes of existing trees. Items of review which are more appropriately located in the Developers Agreement are as follows: a. A financial escrow will be provided to the City to guarantee completion/connection of the north/south road to the frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved by the City Council in order to avoid a "dead end" street scenario. b. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street improvements will be provided to the City as a part of the final plat approval. Street construction plans shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval. Heritage First Addition September 19, 1994 Page 8 c. A Soils report will be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permit. ' 1 *7R■. ♦• a •' `it ••� • , lc- 11/1111_11111! < <� .•'� ra .41,kitidbit'Aill . . .4.. , •.w- . ... ,....:-.....4-,-1•• IIIIIAIIIIII;41P16H - •••_Ilimo.11 q 1111 7.7mine III III iklikilidial I. Lam:`C :..:t.y�)�f,...4 * ::::.*::::......:....--..-----.......--4.... kr•e-•i-‘,•",b.: ••-•s•••J2K.. :•:::::-:•:•:•:- ■ • • • • • •■ • ■ • •y.1.1••.�.;• \.»{.V�\ ▪ C--/ .•Y.::t::i.••' ■ • ■ ■ ■ • • • ■ .i.v\••i...I' /IY-I\til-\ �l • • ■ • • • • ■ == fig• r•:,..,...i 4.11"Mid"Adir ....:::::::..........:::::::...:...:::.::::.::::::::::.:.:.::::::.:.:.:.:::::-.::..::..::..::$..:...:...:::•::.::...:.::...:...i.::: JAL � 1 =• C :::::„....):, ::::•:•••• • ... :.,.• .:_, . ............... ,i.....,. it. C.; ? :.4..\\.... ,lxiii I...... ...:::::::.::::, _ _ N iijk -4k, ,,, N;•,. \ HEERITAGE.NiciAc 1.4.`L. -\�� :. .. . .... .. . ......... . .... " ITE \ lb • .. .. Z,...44.7---.) r .. 1013:... .,,...6_.__ ..... -7 M . .... i ...:.7....,<;,.. ` \ ` ` -•'.• .. N\111116 .-.N., / ''' ••• ir • •ji. ,t i • , ...I 04 is.laig 011 1/4 : ilLi .,ibe 1 14111K11111 .•••41\ • r...C;,, \ f•'.�` rll� �� .. tip:a. "at. ,�,C11� \ Lk- :LLapt 15% I qty: A ..\\ % i Mit CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE 1 RIK Ho.,....Mgt 56.343 (6121 YEAR 2000 ` d ASSOAT'c5 LTD J tar i612)933`1753 LAND USE PLAN 7/18/94 • 1 1 ,,i . 1 11111111 I Ilii `t .c• ,... , . . .... • :` ._ . ) 11 U ! in .1 ., \. _ ........, • I1r i f U1 ' i .I� . 'g`\I, Ler, -\\-‘,. m•• ` \ k* ,-, ." `, Plllllu1lI1IIIlIIlPIIil1i1iI b •\';'`` jam.. ...N --; : :.--,. - ___I_ , I 111111111 ilirrrrri 1111Ill II , Ei •. I, 1 '1 - _ . ! IR :, L.,_,,,-.,--\-41„,tlij ! ,,,_24-, ./ ,,, A 11� i .. '\ s > /�, 4 4. 1, ' " 18'ris- e 7:71 le eT 70 ' f-`_z---_1-1 I 14.--z----_--i- Ct • ii m I Le__I ; 152 L_ ___I > 1 qm _ 1 I ;l§ :>i1 63 _ < << = - ill m ?g r , -tif, I �a--- 1 o r ,I= a --a i=; s I VI MI LA'o x i ret;"', \ --‘4.. L T4.0. Efr & ;\ 2 ittlig. A m 0 ; . • 71 ...c 1,..i...f. t___,or \ ,,,,r. \\ 1 L., is —i ` I lii1 fir- = i � 1=ill p,�� 1 ! 1 1,,,,1 ril ,ul › I �.._ZJ , f-, _, i I 115 _ � n ,S IEi E ! i a O � ;,. ;_ ` ` , /: ; y.;!r/ / _ Z 11 01 , 11' • 5 —4 w'7y.! !y,!aye ,I•I r• ' 0 •,g tb +. , ! D :� ;' %�i.! / g �;;�; �r--A�- ��._ _•_,-I •• Z t S t j 17' (1) ..4/ P., g I ; ....-1" In1=1....„,.,,, • Hi' 5.:1 rn 7E cl T, 0 N mit s 1 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: September 30, 1994 SUBJ: Heritage First Addition - Heritage Development Company Planning Case: 94-8 Sub, 94-4 RE2, 94-4 WAP and 94-4 CUP 1 have reviewed the site plan for the proposed single family dwelling concept and have the following requirements: 1. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. This would also include the private drive. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs. bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 3. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road. 4. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. g:\safet}•\+nMentag 2 ph CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official'4 DATE: October 3 , 1994 SUBJ : 94-8 SUB, 94-4 REZ, 94-4 WAP & 94-4 CUP (Heritage Development) I was asked to review the development plans for Heritage Development stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; SEP 20, 1994 ; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " Analysis : Elevations . Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments . Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance . Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types . These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process . I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations . Soils Report. In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes . Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department . Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents . Bob Generous August 5, 1994 Page 2 Recommendations : 1 . Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval . 2 . Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings . This should be done prior to final plat approval . 3 . Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits . 4 . Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval . enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo g:\safe*.y\sak\memos\plan\heritage.bg2 CITY OF CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • FO. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might he helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. PLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approamately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambkr. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Mary. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SI:WO Designates Split Fogy Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. SE- sEWo WO O ilk _ _ _ __ aRLO Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. is �4) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Minnegasco. A Division of Arkla,Inc. September 28, 1994 Mr. Robert Generous Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94-8 SUB, 94-4 REZ, 94-4 WAP, 94-4 CUP Heritage First Addition Single-Family Site Heritage Development Company Dear Mr. Generous: Enclosed are your prints for this project indicating that Minnegasco does not have natural gas mains within the development area. Natural gas service is available to this property from a gas main to the south of the railroad tracks at the south edge of this project . No addition work is anticipated at this time unless requested by a developer/builder/ owner. The developer/builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco' s Residential Energy Services, 525-7607, to make application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal . Sincerely, 10110)7_ Richard J. = lon, P.E. Senior Administration Engineer Engineering Services 612-342-5426 cc: Mary Palkovich Terry Jencks RSG %ED CITY OF C-::.,.r. -c"1 700 West Linden Avenue P.O.Box 1165 Minneapolis. MN 55440-1165 STATE OF 7371 . DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO September 26, 1994 Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION, BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY (City 94-8 SUB, 94-4 REZ, 94-4 WAP, 94-4 CUP) Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received September 21, 1994) for the above- referenced project (Section 15, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is on the proposed site. Any activity, such as placing a stormwater outfall, below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek which alters its course, current, or cross-section, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR. It appears that the wetland mitigation proposed for this project will involve work in Bluff Creek and require a permit from the DNR. 2. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. All the stormwater from the development should be treated. We object to having untreated stormwater routed directly to Bluff Creek because it will cause erosion, sedimentation and water level bounces that would adversely affect water quality and wildlife values. 3. Portions of the project site occur in the 100-year floodplain. All the work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. 4. Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of tributary/urban. The shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the bank of the channel, or the width of the floodplain, which ever is greater. The development must be consistent with the city shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: a. The northern half of the project area contains bluffs (i.e. slopes that average 30 percent or greater and rise 25 feet above the (OHW) top of the bank) along Bluff Creek. The bluffs should not be disturbed and all structures should be set back at least 30' from the top of the bluff. b. Steep slopes exist within the project area. Topographic alterations should be minimized in this area. c. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore and bluff impact zones. The minimum shore impact zone is a 25-foot strip along both sides of the creek. The bluff impact zone is an area within 20 feet of the top of the bluff. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II September 26, 1994 Page 2 d. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Bluff Creek using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. 5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-7203) . d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist JR/cds Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed � Distric�� Bob Obermeyer Chanhassen Shoreland File Chanhassen Floodplain File Bluff Creek File 3:----M, I\ IV!' NOTICE OF PUBLICLir- HEARING Gtv �� 0 •, _ _ PLANNING COMMISSION i`,�.'�� nitro MEETING �� 1111:411 Wednesday, OCTOBER 19, 199441�I 110141��Y� F Jr st."--- at 7:30 p.m. �,I -- 41//(i•- 1-* ' ; City Hall Council Chambers =' nMIli ��j -At tip 690 Coulter Drive la 1 �i��p..,�.. 1110.011;11114d1 :s.::' / 1 r- ' h Project: Heritage First Addition 1 ' - _ Iiia C.It M ow�Ni``,,,,•,,-; MK 4/an/ A 11 Developer: Heritage Development Co. - ,�:� ��' - . . �.frM� M. Location: North of railroad, west of � A z .,,.. � '� .... .,.....:: ' �' Bluff Creek and east of ,e/ \ '` Timberwood Estates and -9 , "�_ ,�- Stone Creek r $ � © \_ _ ; �- Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 39 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF, preliminary plat to create 48 single family lots and 3 outlots, wetland alteration permit for mitigation of ponding areas, and conditional use permit for alteration of areas within a flood plain on property located north of Twin Cities &Western Railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek and east of Timberwood Estates and Stone Creek, Heritage First Addition, Heritage Development Company. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 1994.df�� 1 If;ise - 1 � McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. c/o Grand Met Tax Dept. Shamrock Property Partners J.P.'s Links Inc. MS: 1843 7350 Commerce Lane c/o John Przymus 200 S. 6th St. Fridley, MN 55432 642 Santa Vera Drive Minneapolis, MN 55402 Chanhassen, MN 55317 T. Lars Conway Michael J. Gorra Chan-Land Partners 4415 Fremont Ave. S. 1680 Arboretum Dr. 200 Hwy. 13 W. Minneapolis, MN 55409 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Burnsville, MN 55337 Betty O'Shaughnessy Dale F. & Marcia Wanninger Lawrence & F. Raser 1000 Hesse Farm Rd. 8170 Galpin Blvd. 8210 Galpin Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Merle D. & Jane Volk Richard Hartung & Wallace Otto Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire 16925 Co. Rd. 40 400 Oak St. S. 4890 C. Rd. 10 E. Carver, MN 55315 Waconia, MN 55387 Chaska, MN 55318 Jay C. Dolejsi Audubon I Limited Partnership Mitchel & Mary Krause 6961 Chaparral Ln. c/o Lars Akerberg 2380 Timberwood Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 P.O. Box 158 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 James L. & Linda J. Leirdahl Mark & J. Taintor Layton & Linda Zellman 2350 Timberwood Dr. 7481 Saratoga Drive 2290 Timberwood Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Curtis & Janice Olson Gregory & J. Maaxum Mark J. Foster & Karen S. Olsson 1961 130th Ln. 7480 Longview Cir. 8020 Acorn Ln. Coon Rapids, MN 55448 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard D. & Marry Frasch David Gestach Richard M. Czeck 8000 Acorn Ln. 8001 Acorn Ln. 8011 Acorn Ln. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317-9662 Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & Debra Ann Lano Stephen McCurry & Sracey R. Rickert & 2060 Oakwood Rdg. Bridget Haefner Michelle Rheault Chanhassen, MN 55317 16780 North Manor Rd. 2040 Oakwood Rdg. Eden Prairie, MN 55345 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Alva Bruce & Kristina Johnson James & Colleen Dockendorf James & Joann Jancik 2051 Oakwood Rdg. 2061 Oakwood Rdg. 2050 Timberwood Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317-9666 David & Gail McCollum Agha Thir Khan & Stanley & Christine Rud 2048 Timberwood Dr. Patricia Khan 2030 Renaissance Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 2040 Renaissance Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Roberta Lawson Gerard & Bonnie Murkpwski William & Lana Miller 2041 Renaissance Ct. 2051 Renaissance Ct. 8121 Pinewood Cir. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & Bonita Roeder Gregory & Jill Perrill Craig & Mary Harrington 8108 Pinewood Cir. 2102 Timberwood Dr. 8140 Maplewood Ter. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 --...., ,_ ...:„. ....... .... — -, . 3 --- . --. N _.,,.......,tit . . ' ss _ ;•, - /jr"-. - .I11iMA I • - ‘;'''' "I 1 .. el' • \ -n ...,- , • , ! ?PAW - • ' ; 33 m '•ii.--- if / ' i'' m x C4, 0 .,N,.., xi ........- - - -.-------4...L. k, , _. ;/ ,/ ' [I. - - c 1,____ .--=/-4_4.- •.‘ L. '0, -414 fi ' lif• -N-' .........- : ., , sa '-• i 0,'1. . • umml 1,..W ,_ t i . - M t . •-• - \\\\ S -I'll,' !,\ 1.•• --; %'_,Aavoi r) > • • ., , .. 0 \ (% ; \ _ III • 1 '1 7-. '\. —I _. . . .. . 0: I)1!1 au -I . . ' N I . . I 0 ' • 7 Z , / / \ -L.J .1 / \i ., • - .'N.\- •"" - ; • •' 7. .1 l . . - N .-• --.., - • : 4,x•,, , ,.%., ..,:4 •--2, - - • -- ,, -/- . . ,- I 1,, ) ....../ City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK ASSOCIATES. Bob Generous: The applicant was last before the City Council on April 11th of this year. At that time they were requesting the conceptual approval for a PUD for a planned unit development for a 56 lot subdivision. This is the basic plan that they have. Staff had concerns about this plan, and so did City Council. Specifically how they were going to treat the wetlands in the Bluff Creek corridor. The use of cul-de-sacs rather than private driveways and the small lots that abutted Timberwood. At that meeting Council tabled the concept plan for further work by the applicant and they came in with these revisions. The old...show their treatment of the wetland areas. The installation, the purple area represents some ponding areas that they provided on the site to help with storm water runoff. The little red dashed line that I put on the overhead shows the realignment of the road to provide some curvalinear atmosphere to the subdivision and to put in that last cul-de-sac. The solid red lines are the use of private drives. We believe that they're moving in the right direction with these revisions. However staff took this concept a little bit farther and looked at having the applicant possibly revise this plan to include additional...into the development. To permit the siting of some larger lots around the western boundary of the site. If they're going to group any smaller lots, to have them be on the inside curve of the development and along that eastern part of the project. Proposing an open space that provides connection down to the trail system and as an overlook for the wetland area or the wetland complex that will be in the middle of the project. The applicant also showed a little park setting at the convergence of the east and west banks of the Bluff Creek. Staff still believes that the planned unit development is the most appropriate way for the city to handle this development and conceptually we agree that a single family subdivision is appropriate land use for this site. We believe also that the conditions that we outlined in the staff report and that we included in this memo will provide the applicant with sufficient direction to the city to the next level of review and we're requesting that the City Council give conceptual approval to them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. thanks Bob. Is there anyone from RLK Associates that would like to say something at this time? Are you basically in agreement with what staff has pulled together? John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. John Dietrich from RLK is...The second one is that after meeting with the staff and talking about a number of issues off the presentation that we came to before, we as a group, RLK and myself. Three planners from RLK and I went out and took the old plans and walked the site. Actually spent most of a morning out there looking at it and it was interesting to look at the staff's sketched concept plan and to think about new ways to approach this site. The topography and natural resources on this particular piece are rather difficult to work with. And I guess going through the staff recommendations, there's a number of issues that I'll let Mr. Dietrich speak to specifically, but I guess in general I'd like to say that although this is perhaps one particular way to align the road in staffs concept sketch, the one we put up was basically based on two things. One of them is trying to salvage as many trees as we possibly could and meet the existing connection of Stone Creek. And the second one was, we actually tried to not push the topography around on the hills...part of the plat the best that we could. Staff's concept sketch does begin to push out what is a somewhat steep slope and then push everything then further towards the creek and to Bluff Creek corridor to try and establish. The other solution then was also to push the road to the westerly side upon that very steep hill which then presented a very large problems for the sewer main...So in general I guess what I'd like Mr. Dietrich to just kind of go through and again address the issues in general, I think that we spent a number of hours talking about and sketching in my office and in RLK's... We've lost a number of lots to try to get it down to the point where...And I'll be here to answer any questions. 14 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. I would just like to go through the recommendation that staff has...and the overall concept, I would say we are in agreement with them. However there are just a few issues that we would like to raise in terms of some of the staff recommendations that are in the report beginning on page 5. The first one was the design charette that will be coming up. We have again requested that the developer, Heritage Development be involved in the design charette so that...combination of public and private input into that process. Secondly, the item number 4 with regards to the pre-treatment of the storm water pond that we will be taking and treating all storm water ponds and we will keep all ponding to a minimum. It is in our best interest to have the minimum number of ponds and we will submit all stow' water calculations through the engineer for their review. Secondly, the ability to take storm water from the north side of the site and also from the Chanhassen Corporate Center site, across the creek bed would result in storm sewer pipes anywhere from 35 to 40 feet deep...ponding area. I think the storm water ponding on the Chanhassen Corporate Center site should remain on the site and not cut across the creek. Item number 7, we have no problems with. Item number 8. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized that it be a lateral stubbed towards the Timberwood Estates. We feel that Lots 3 and 4 would not be the proper location to stub that. That is right in the low lying area of the creek and within the area of...tree masses and feel that would be contrary to the concept of trying to preserve that natural wooded land to the south of the property. The north, item number 9 would be no problem. Item number 10. A curvalinear street that's shown on the concept plan by Mr. Generous did not look closely at the grades that are on the site. And in walking the site, if you look at grades, the oaks that are to the center of the site, we feel we have tried to provide at keeping that...as possible based on that concept grading plan. And still provide public access to the park. Access to the park where it was suggested in the staff concept plan would require an extensive grade to climb up and feel it would be very difficult to make a trail of ADA compatibility in that area. We will comply with number 12, number 13, number 14. number 15. Item number 16, we have utilized a private drive in order to try to maximize the site and retain the natural features and the woods and wetlands. We feel the use of the private drives on the west side of the roadway do not allow the site to be kept in it's most natural setting and we have tried to minimize the amount of roadway structures, roadway grading that we go through to get to the areas to the south. Number 17, trail or sidewalk on the west side of the roadway. Number 18, we will do a tree survey. Number 19, we would like to investigate the setbacks in order to have a little variance to the setbacks and to...20, 21, 22, 23. will be no problem. 24, 25, 26. 26, the southern terminus of the trail shall not parallel the railroad tracks. Again, after walking the site and going along the southern wetland that has been identified, that is by far one of the most pristine and natural areas of that entire site. We would highly recommend that the trail stay along the railroad tracks and on the southerly side of that wetland without trying to cross and come back up...next to the public roadway system... Number 27, a 50 foot wide trail strip be preserved along the western boundary between Stone Creek Drive and the railroad tracks. Our concern is that the 50 foot area will be exclusively on Heritage development and not... Hans Hagen side. We'd like to just be treated fairly between the two developers instead of having all of the access on one side of the property line. There are NSP lines in that area so that area would be...Number 28 I spoke to about ADA codes on the trail. And 29, the trail crossing the creek in it's entirety, saying on the west side of the creek in it's entirety...branches. Again, after walking the site, the trail would not be graded and made to ADA standards along that northwest, northeast corner of the site. Based on site review, we would highly recommend that the trail cross the creek on some much flatter land and preserve that slope that the DNR has said should be protected. 30 will be fine. 31. There are a number of spaces and quality environments along this trail corridor between the open creek, parkland, picnic areas and utilization of buffer areas along ponding areas for that trail corridor. That we have...very strong trail plan that offers a variety of environments and we'd be happy to point those out in a little bit more detail. Number 32, 100 foot building setback. That's been maintained on all lots except for one at this time and we would gladly work with that.. Number 33, we will try to keep the ponds 15 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 down to a minimum and...Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Bob referenced some of the questions in regards to each of those specific items that have been mentioned. Regarding low lying areas. Some of the grades on 8 and 10. Some of the others. I don't know if you were taking notes at the time. But I can understand some of your questions. Can you address some of those? And the reasoning for it. Kate Aanenson: I was going to say a lot of these, some of the later ones are conditions of the Park and Rec Commission or the Director would like to look at. Again, this is part of the concept. These are things that we see that need to be articulated as the next phase develops. We're saying...need to be resolved. Some of these are kind of unresolved issues as far as the staff level. That as part of the charette process we're trying to decide what would be appropriate. I think some of his points may be legitimate. As this evolves and we get further details on the grading and... Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm hopeful we're going to address a lot of those questions and indicate our concerns as to why we even came up with those. One of the others is to share between properties, as he mentioned something between Hans Hagen and their properties. The only question I have with Hans Hagen, I'm sure they have provided different things within their proposal. Kate Aanenson: I think Todd maybe better, could answer those... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I did take notes throughout John's presentation. The issues which they presented are not difficult for staff to resolve through this. Issues such as the ADA accessibility and those type of things. We may not be able to meet them in their entirety. It's our intention to do that where we can. But there are other issues as well. Every time you cross the creek, it's a 515,000.00 or $20,000.00 project to make the creek crossovers as well so we weigh those alternatives. As far as the 50 foot buffer zone for the trail crossing underneath the viaduct which is underneath the railroad tracks, that's an important link for the entire north/south Bluff Creek trail segment and the suggestion that...easement for the power lines and investigate that is a good one as well. So not only I'll take a look at the Hans Hagen plat but that has been approved. From this point we...It's also in an area down there where...that pond, we're not affecting...so those issues are all fairly insignificant. We can work with the applicant. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Council have any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I would certainly like to use this as an opportunity to once again address density. A question I would have. At the conceptual level is how many cars is this going to bring in and do we have the roads and the infrastructure to handle them. Right now we can't get cars onto Highway 5 onto Galpin Road. And now we're, density. We never want to talk about density so I go back to my request that we look at going to 22,000 square foot lots with PUD's down to no lower limit with an average of 18. Mainly out of density. I'm looking at this conceptually now. And we've tried to kind of protect Timberwood. Not that they necessarily deserve protecting nor am I their buddy. I mean they're there and they're their little island and I think their development. But they have low density so I happen to like them because they're low density. I can't afford to live there but they offer me low density so they're not impacting my lifestyle as much. But now we've got these 13,000, 13,000, 16, 26, 17. We've got these small lots bordering these large lot homes. That doesn't, that to me conceptually is not acceptable. So the first comment I will make is to abut and put this type 16 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 of density on the lot lines of the existing Timberwood is not an appropriate development. I think it ought to be buffered and if we're going to have small lots, they ought to be on the east and we ought to have the larger lots abutting Timberwood. Or frankly I'd rather see this go to industrial with a quality type industrial building coming in. Rather than this high density housing. We've talked about that in the past. Who would be better off or better served. The other thing is that as you get going conceptually, I would like to have a layman's description of the grading. On Oak Ponds you could have just told me they're going to destroy the hill. Flatten it out and I could have bought that. Here I'd like to know what they're going to do to our landforrns, and layman terms would be, they're going to cut the blazes out of it or they're going to trim a little off the top and move a little to the bottom. I mean I just, I'd like to know what's going to happen. Or if they're going to flatten it, I want to know that. Those are layman terms that I can work with. So the density bothers me. The density with the infrastructure bothers me. The amount of cars and traffic troubles me greatly. I don't like it. This is really impacting this area in a very negative way and it's not even, I mean it's agricultural zoning right now so I think we want to look at that. See the grading. The abutting to the existing, the buffering. This type of density as it buffers Timberwood. If I lived there, I would be here tonight. I guess that's all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Dick stole my thunder once again. Councilman Wing: Oh. go first You should go first Excuse me. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's alright. No, no. As always you articulate better than me anyway. I too have concerns about the density. Obviously on the Timberwood side but even more so on the Bluff Creek side. This is a really neat tract of land and I'm very disappointed when I look at their roads that RLK has put in. We're practically obliterating the largest stand of trees and it will be cornfield so staffs recommendation to push that further to the east makes sense. This does need a lot of work. I am prepared to give it conceptual approval with the caveat that we need larger lots abutting Timberwood Estates. Particularly I'm looking at up towards the north where you've got 1, 2, 3, 4 and then around that cul-de-sac you've got a density of homes right next to basically two homes on the Timberwood side. You know you've got like 15. It needs a lot of work. I would agree with the applicant that the trails near the railroad tracks should be as it is. That's pretty steep grades there and we don't want to impact that any more than we have to. The sewer stub between Lots 3 and 4 does not make sense. That's where a creek is. I guess those are my biggest issues. Basically the density. I like the lot sizes towards the southern side of proposal but that's where you're getting to Stone Creek which equals pretty much those densities. Where you've got your higher densities of 11,000, it's up towards your large lots near Timberwood. That just doesn't make sense to me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: Well, it sounds to me like the charette may take care of a lot of the issues. I'm hearing that both sides, if you will, are talking and things are getting to roll. I'm a little concerned when I hear low density versus high density. We're talking about affordable housing and we're also talking about urban sprawl. If we knock out x number of lots, what does that do to jack up the prices for people that want to live in Chanhassen? I understand Council's concern about high density. The other side of that point is, for every lot we take out here, a lot's going to go somewhere else and how about Morrish and urban sprawl and those kinds of issues. I think we, it's real easy to talk this stuff but I think there's some other issues we also need to discuss. And I'm not saying some lots can't be changed around and I'm not completely disagreeing with what's being said but not only do we have to look at high and low density but we do also have to look at things like 17 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 affordable housing and urban sprawl. And every time you make the lot size bigger. you're jacking up the price and it's making it that much harder for people to live in Chanhassen. And I think those are some issues that we also have to take into account too. I'll admit to a little concern about the 15,000 square foot lots abutting Timberwood However, there are a number. I mean I think of Carver Beach where I live. I have a much larger lot as do the neighbors on my street but right over in Triple Crown, they're much smaller lots and we've got trees and there's all kinds of stuff between the two. So, you know so be it. Sony about that. I do think we need to look at the other side of low density and high density and putting in affordable housing and urban sprawl. I've seen plans that are a lot higher density than this for the same amount so I think we need a little bit more of a balance there with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: It sounds like it's going the right way as far as between applicant and staff. Getting some of the questions worked out. Going out and looking at the site, I think there are some valid points that the applicant has over the topography but again. I'm not sure what all the issues are both ways on that, one way or the other. I think it'd be nice to really see that kind of analysis in front of us so we know what we're giving up or getting one way or the other. Given which way you go on that decision. Conceptually I don't see a problem with the direction it's headed. I think there's some good points both sides. I too get a little concerned when I hear the term high density because I mean this is a half acre lot average basically which to me seems fairly low density in relationship to a lot of things we've done. You're kind of, it seems to me we're kind of catching the applicant here between the rock and the hard place. A neighborhood on one side and Bluff Creek on the other side and I'm not sure both sides are going to end up being happy or dealt with in a manner that I think we'd like to see the creek dealt with or the way that the neighborhood would like to see dealt with on the other side but at the same time I get a little fearful that depending on how far you push this, you get down to density numbers on single family that are, that's going to do exactly what I would like not to see happen there and that is force them to take a different direction other than single family there and look at something else and I just, I can't agree with the potential or possibility of sticking industrial or whatever in that particular site. I think it is single family. For one single family and that's what ought to be pursued there. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, with that I guess everybody's really expressed some of the concerns that I have. On either issue or each one of these and there's no sense in continuing on with the discussion from my standpoint. I would then bring this back to Council. See if there is a motion for the revised plans for the conceptual plans at this time. Councilman Senn: Kate, what are you looking for? Kate Aanenson: Concept approval at this time. Councilman Senn: With the caveat that you're going to continue to work. Kate Aanenson: Right. Now this has no, as far as legal standing. These are the marching orders. This is what they need to come back with preliminary so the preliminary will go back to the Planning Commission and.. site elevations. You get...grading and the tree survey. All that sniff will come back in the next round and be very detailed. For right now we just want to know whether or not they need to go forward...and do that detail. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I'd move conceptual approval based on staff and the applicant going ahead and working those things out. But also when it comes back next round, I'd really like to see that analysis because I 18 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 think there's some very definitive issues here that if we isolate and look at individually, it's going to get very complicated. I think we need to look at them side by side and know what the trade-offs are on one versus the other. More or less how's this decision going to affect the creek? How's it going to affect the neighborhood or how is it going to affect the cluster of trees? I mean I hate to say it but in this tight of area where you are, there's going to be a lot of affects that way and I would just like, I mean we're going to have to sort those out and I think it'd be a little easier for us to do that. Kate Aanenson: That's why the staff supports the PUD...that in a cornfield we go with 11,000 square foot lots. Up in the trees we do...3/4 or 1 acre lots. So unfortunately there was a concern about not averaging out the lots in a traditional subdivision. And this is an answer again is a balancing act...you've got Timberwood and you've got the creek and somewhere there's an appropriate mix and where's the balancing here. But there is a place to have some of the small lots and places where...and I think those are only accomplished with a PUD. Doing a straight subdivision I don't think does the best job on the site...it's a balancing act and that's why I think the charette we'll find out... Mayor Chmiel: I think you can do that direction as you've done before with your Q and A's in relationship to each of those concerns and addressing those concerns so we at least know where it's coming from. Councilman Senn: I'd just like to see the Q and A's organized a little differently on this one in the sense that, if you make them separately it's going to be real hard to follow. I'd kind of like to really almost see a cross section and say here's the affect on A, B and C. Kate Aanenson: There's a lot of layers... Councilman Mason: That's a good idea. That would be helpful to see it like that. Councilman Wing: Okay that Boyer. we were kind of sold a bill of goods on the Boyer conceptual plan that we were going to have all these wonderful things happen and it turns out when they go back to the standard subdivision, they couldn't get the density thought they could. It sort of seemed to start to work to our advantage. What if we take this charette and all our tree preservation and all our setbacks that we've developed over the last few years and apply it with a standard subdivision on this narrow strip. Would we win or lose here? Kate Aanenson: I think on the Boyer's you have to go back and look at, they were trying to do a different type of project. They were trying to do a zero lot line which is a lot different. Councilman Wing: I understand. Councilman Senn: I think if you, Dick I mean looking at this strip and if running a typical subdivision through it, I don't think anything that's been presented is even close to that. I mean I view that as a mild disaster. I mean if you're trying to do that. Kate Aanenson: I understand. I think you still have the tree preservation, you still have certain setbacks but I think it'd be much more sterile. I think this is probably a little bit more creative. Mayor Chmiel: I think staff has direction as to what we're looking for. To accomplish this particular proposal. So with that we have a motion on the floor. Was there a second? 19 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have a comment to what Mike was saying about affordable housing. You know that's an issue that we have put on our agenda to address, and I don't think it's being ignored in this. I think we were looking at the specific topography and the constraints of this piece of land and saying, it's not appropriate here. Councilman Senn: I don't think Mike was saying that though, was he? I mean he wasn't saying put affordable housing here. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. He was, well. Mayor Chmiel: I guess what he's really relating to, and correct me if I'm wrong to what you were saying, was that you saw housing costs raising. whether it be affordable or not. Councilman Mason: Yes. Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Just the automatic overall. Councilman Mason: Yeah, thanks. Yeah. Councilman Senn: The larger the lot size. Councilman Wing: But the larger the lot, the smaller the lot is the greater the density so people we get in and then are we dealing with those issues. If we want to talk, density keeps coming up. Planning doesn't want to mess with it. I mean they can't get off dead center with density. They haven't for 10 years but yet density is the issue and I don't mind small lots, and I don't mind affordable housing. I don't see those as relevant issues at all. I mean let's talk affordable housing. Let's talk small lots. Density is what concerns me because I can't get on Highway 7 anymore. I can't get across Galpin Road on TH 5. These densities are really troubling me because they're making life unbearable. Councilman Senn: But Dick there's other parts of Chan that are better. Mayor Chmiel: With that we have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call the question. Resolution #94-55: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create a single family development subject to the following conditions: 1. ... ... .. . .. .._ .._ .. - . .•• . . . ... _. _ •- . The City's recommendations will remain pending on the design components for the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan. A charette will be held on May 26, 1994 concerning the design issues for the creek north of Lyman Boulevard. Buffer strip widths and areas will be addressed at this time as a guidance for planning. 20 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 (Revised) ftecessefy (Completed) ... . .. •.... _ _ .._. ..•:. :::.• ..... ._. _ __ Two regional stormwater ponds for water retention and pretreatment are recommended. One in the southwest corner and one in the east central section of the property to retain and pretreat stormwater prior to discharge to the wetlands. The southwest pond is in the process of being constructed in conjunction with Stone Creek 4th Addition (Hans Hagen) to take runoff from portions of the Hans Hagen property and the southern third of the Heritage property. The east central pond should be designed to take runoff from the northern two-thirds of the property in addition to portions of the Chanhassen Corporate Center property. Fees for trunk storm sewer will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the stormwater infrastructure. •. .• r a •wetland "„ ` (Revised) Ston,, Cock ,,.h, Addition bt..v.,,,_d . (Revised) 7. The SWMP requires the applicant to pay stormwater quality/quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. The applicant may be entitled to some credit or compensation if they provide the necessary on- site stormwater quality/quantity improvements as outlined or modified in the SWMP. This will be determined upon review of the storm drainage/ponding calculations. 8. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized to serve both a lateral and a trunk to benefit the adjacent property (staff recommends that the applicant provide a sewer service in the general location of Lots 3 and 4 for future extension into Tirnberwood Estates). The best location for the sanitary sewer will be further investigated during the grading and utility plan preparation process. 9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to a future east/west frontage road within three years after the final plat is approved for the first phase. 10. Curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics and character to the neighborhood as well as deter speeding motorists. The attached diagram suggests a street cut that will retain the stand of oaks in the central area of the property, provide public access to the park. and allow for larger lot sizes along the western border. 11. •-. •.... - ... _. .. _ •-_. . _ . •-- .. . (Revised) 21 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 12. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be required for submittal with final plat approval. All street and utility construction should be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. 13. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval. 14. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. 15. Trail easements connecting the interior of the development with the Bluff Creek Corridor trail system will need to be developed. 16. The applicant should investigate the use of private driveways to serve up to four lots from the proposed north/south local street in order to minimize impacts on wooded areas and the wetlands. There are a number of private drives on the east side of the road. It is recommended that these alternate between the east and west sides of the road. 17. The north/south street should provide a sidewalk on the east west side of the roadway to match the typical cross section for Stone Creek Drive. This sidewalk will make the roadway pedestrian friendly as well as permit school children to walk to the school site once the future frontage road is constructed. 18. A tree survey must be prepared as part of the developmentpreliminary plat review process. In addition, a woodland management plan will be required . 19. The applicant may wish to investigate the use of setback variances to accommodate the siting of housing in the vicinity of wetlands or to preserve existed wooded or topographical features on the site. 20. Submit utility plans for review and approval. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet maximum. 21. Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval. 22. Submit turning radius dimensions to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. 23. Applicant shall address the comments enumerated in the letter from Joe Richter of the DNR dated 3/2/94." 24. A ten (10) foot clear zone must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP. NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. 25. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. 26. The southern terminus of the trail shall not parallel the railroad tracks. It should be located between Lot 53 and the wetland with sufficient buffer to protect both. 27. A 50 ft. wide trail strip shall be identified along the westerly border of the plat from the Stone Creek Drive extension south to the railroad tracks. This corridor is for the future Bluff Creek trail which will pass under the railroad tracks at this location. 22 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 28. The mid-way trail connection shall be relocated to the vicinity of Lots 35, 36 and 37. This easement shall maintain the 30 ft. buffer distance consistent with the remainder of the site. This is accommodated as part of the staff sketch plan. 29. The trail shall remain on the west side of the creek in its entirety, crossing the west branch at the convergence of the east and west branches. then continuing on to the collector road. 3(1 Trail fee credit shall be granted for the construction of the trail. Buffer areas are required for wetland protection and shall not be considered for park fee credit. 31. One of the goals of the Bluff Creek Corridor plan is to provide a quality outdoor experience along the corridor. A necessary component of such an experience are open space areas which provide views and allow for the placement of picnic tables, etc. Such spaces are not represented on this plan. 32. A minimum one hundred (100) building setback should be maintained from Bluff Creek. This may be revised based on the outcome of the Bluff Creek charrette. 33. The two small ponds that are not required for stormwater retention or pretreatment should be removed from the proposed plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,560 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST ON PROPERTY ZONED 01, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 820 LAKE DRIVE. Kate Aanenson: (A portion of the staff report did not get picked up by the microphone.) ...one of the additional things that we asked for is that they place a berm facing the proximity to Highway 5. A berm in the parking between Highway 5 and the church itself. If you've driven across that, you're right on grade...south of Highway 5. We are...getting MnDot approval. They are reviewing it right now. There's also a power line in the area. The Planning Commission wanted me to review this project...berm could not be placed so they wanted to see some alternatives because they felt that that soften the building. They are doing landscaping out in front of the church and that does help soften...In addition we feel that there's additional areas that are outside the MnDot right-of-way that additional plantings can be done and also along the driveway easement even though... in that area. Other than that we feel like the church has met the requirements of the Highway 5 overlay and would recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Kate. I like the looks of that myself. It's really quite outstanding. Would the applicant like to come forward and go through your formal presentation with this. Jim Dewalter: My name is Jim Dewalter. I'm Chairman of the Building Committee. Don Wagner is here as well. He's the architectural firm that we're working with and if you'd like me to go through the changes we're going to make or the details of the plan? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you would. Just lightly. 23 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 Kate Aanenson: I wish I had a perspective. I should have given you that. Councilman Senn: I mean, aren't we talking the same thing? Kate Aanenson: ...what we're trying to do is there shouldn't be any, a lot of these are going to have vegetation...and I should have attached a copy of the specs so you could see how high... Councilman Mason: How high is the sign? Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I can't remember now. Diane put this together but if you want to table this, we can provide.... Councilman Senn: I mean the ones I've seen marking other things they're like 4 to 5 feet in height and they are just ugly. Councilman Mason: I think tabling it's a good idea because I agree with Mark. We've got so many doggone signs up all over, you little green post signs all over. Kate Aanenson: ...so people can't take it out and mow but yet people can see it and I agree... Councilman Mason: I'd move that we table this until we can see those specs. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor to table. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table action on the Wetland Buffer Monumentation fees for further documentation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONING 39 ACRES FROM A21 AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK ASSOCIATES. Kate Aanenson: ...it's currently zoned A2. It is bordered...The applicants are proposing a 56 single family housing site. There are two existing wetlands on the property. One included the Bluff Creek. As you're aware the City is working to get this segment of the road as it goes over to the school. Highway 5 is up here. This is Timberwood. And the subdivision will tie into Stone Creek. Right now here's the extension. I would just like to address the issue as far as how we feel it merits the PUD. There's a significant amount of varied topography in the area as well as a creek corridor... This is concept at this point and staff certainly feels it merits the PUD as far as preservation of the natural features. We feel at this point this proposal that you're looking at tonight falls short of mark. If you look at the conditions, we do have a lengthy conditions...The Planning Commission had recommended...conceptual approval be given at this time for the reasons outlined in the report. Given the number of lots that are under 15,000 square feet. The treatment of Bluff Creek. The grades...preserve the topography. Provide a transition for Timberwood to Heritage to the south. There is a utility line, a power line that runs along the back of these lots and you can see that some of, these are quite a bit smaller lots, especially when you look against adjacent to Timberwood. There's a significant change in the lots and the number of 49 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 homes that...Minimizing the tree loss. And then the tying of the extension road. The east/west tying into that. Right now it appears that this road needs to be carried all the way over to McGlynn's. Otherwise we need to get the extension down from this street. Otherwise they're dependent upon the extension of the Fourth Phase of Stone Creek in order to get access to this. One of the big issues that the staff brought out. As you're aware, the city is pursuing the LCMR grant with Bluff Creek study and we do have an ad hoc committee with that Unfortunately even if we do get funding for that, it's a year away. What we had recommended throughout this report is that we put together a design charette with Bill Morrish. I had contacted him and he said he was too busy to do that but recommended Lance Neckar from the Landscape School. Lance did send me back a proposal for doing a design charette and looking at the issues of Bluff Creek. We not only have this project going forward but we also have the project...which is north of Highway 5 which the creek also goes through. That property we talked about as far as where the frontage road should be crossing the creek or whether it should stay to the south. We do have a lot of issues and we feel like this is kind of getting ahead of what we're doing which is kind of the same situation when Opus came forward on the Highway 5 corridor. We don't have the standards in place and that was the whole intent of securing the LCMR grant is to come up with some designs. We know we want to protect the Bluff Creek corridor and we want some elevations but we're not sure as far as where we should provide the recreational opportunities and the revegetation and basically enhance...itself. So what we have recommended in this report is that we...come back, if conceptual approval is given for this, to come back with final approval, that we allow a design charette to happen. Lance Neckar did tell me that Bill Morrish has freed up some time and feels really committed to this project and they're looking at the end of May for doing the design charette. It will be coming back...to approve funding for that charette but I think that's...and what we recommended in this report is before it would come back again, that they incorporate some of those issues. And what we're talking about as far as the corridor, is just flushing out some major issues...starting at TH 41. Going all the way down at least to Lyman Boulevard because that's where all the pending development is happening. And what we don't want to do is allow subdivisions to go in and then find out we haven't provided the proper setbacks and.. But we do feel this merits a PUD. As outlined, as I read through the Planning Commission and there are some concerns as far as the amount of grading. The lot sizes. And the applicants are aware that there may be a lot of change between this plan and the preliminary plan. The Planning Commission, when they recommended denial. We have this problem every time we do the concept PUD. It's not ready for concept. If you go back and look at the ordinance, what is required for conceptual. It really is just a general statement and we've always felt like it's really just their marching orders before they come back and we did the same thing with Opus. We asked them not to come back until we got the Highway 5 in place...So what the applicant is looking for is some direction. Just to point out the salient issues and this is what we need to go back and address. Now obviously we did go...recommended denial but what we've given in the conditions of approval is substantial direction and as I said, marching orders that they need to...So staff is comfortable although the Planning Commission recommended denial, we had conceptual approval with the conditions in the staff report, and there's quite a few of them. John Dietrich: I'm John Dietrich from RLK Associates..John Dobbs from Heritage Development regrettably had a conflict tonight..I appreciate the comments that we received from staff with regard to the conditions of approval. We realize this is a concept plan and there is additional work that needs to be done on this site...We have also tried to work closely with the engineering departrnent...that's also one reason that we also went forward with the concept plan is that we can start to look at that alignment and be able to start...that sight accordingly. We realize there are a number of issues that need to be addressed and we'll start working on them. We are currently getting surveys. Wetlands delineated and those items being picked up so that we'll be able to have a much better handle on the overall development of the site. We do realize there will be a combination of lots, both over the 15,000 and under the 15,000. The plan as it sits today has an average lot size of approximately 20,000 square feet, not counting the wetlands that are on the site. So it's, in order to preserve 50 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 some of the topography. The trees along the southern part of the second wetland. The two wetlands that are identified on the site. It's going to take a challenging plan and it's going to take some flexibility from the city and that's why we were requesting the PUD. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: I think the Bluff Creek issue stands alone. The only comment I had, I think which came first, the chicken or the egg and was Timberwood there first or second and although I don't have any great needs to defend Timberwood, we have tended to protect them and they've kind of been a group that came in and established a neighborhood that they wanted and we did separate them from Stone Creek. We didn't tie those together for a reason and I wouldn't even entertain the thought of them taking the Timberwood residents and tying them to 5 homes in their backyards so I think this western border or the eastern border of Timberwood with 16 homes is totally incompatible with the existing land use and I wouldn't even want to address that. I'm not even interested in looking at it. I don't think that's fair to them. I don't think it ties the areas together and that would have to be the large lots there and small lots someplace else if there's going to be any. I'm not interested in seeing this area because that's. These lot sizes Kate, they're not just the buildable numbers right now? These large lots still include wetlands and may not be buildable, is that right? Kate Aanenson: You mean some of these lots? Councilman Wing: No, the average lot size is 20. Did you mention that still includes non buildable areas possibly? John Dietrich: That has deducted out the wetland areas. Councilman Wing: Deducted out, okay. Councilman Senn: All the lots were meeting the ordinance requirements. Kate Aanenson: Well the PUD, the smallest lot size you can go up to is 11,000. John Dietrich: And the smallest lot size I think was 12,500 and then 13,500. Councilman Wing: My only comment was the 16 lots bordering Timberwood and putting 5 homes in someone's backyard. They kind of didn't move there for that reason. Or moved there to avoid that. Is that what I wanted to say? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. That's what I want to say. Since it's two homes away from mine. Councilman Senn: So what's somebody supposed to do? Mayor Chmiel: He's just making general comments. Councilman Wing: I don't think we need that density abating those houses. Mayor Chmiel: In and adjacent. Even though it's a PUD. I didn't like the size of those lots that bother there either but Colleen. 51 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: There are two things I like about this proposal. One is that it's coming in as PUD. I think that's certainly appropriate. And the other thing is the builder. I think they, I mean the developer. You've shown great willingness to work with the city. I just think this is premature at this time. There are too many outstanding items and I think staff has really outlined what needs to be worked on. So I'm not prepared to give concept approval tonight. Go back. Work on some of the issues and then come back and we'll take a look at it. You know going in residential, I think that's the appropriate use for this piece of land. But it just, there are too many things left out right now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Councilman Mason: Well, I'll admit when I first read through this I thought huh, you've got to be kidding. Well just because I think clearly and I think everyone's admitting that there are some things that need to be worked out. The reason I would vote approval tonight is just because of the, what Kate had just said about a concept plan and the underlying portion here where it says, approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plat or any part thereof or to rezone the property to planned unit development district. And I think with this rather lengthy list of recommendations and I would concur with what Richard said about the homes abutting, regardless of what property they're abutting, I don't, that size I don't think is compatible to the size of the Timberwood homes. I'm sure the developer understands. There's quite a bit of work that needs to get done before they would come back to us again. So I can go along with it with those conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I mean as far as preliminary concept goes, once you superimpose and inject staffs points and comments, I think it's an early stage and there's a lot to be done...but I think if you incorporate and work out the things that staff wants to work out, I think it brings it pretty much in par with what we're looking for normally. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too feel that it's a little premature to even give the conceptual because I want to see a little bit more and I'd like to see staff work back with the developer to come back with something other than what's basically shown. And I think it's a good proposal, having residential in and adjacent to what's there and would serve the area rather well. But the sizes, I still have some real concern with, even though it's PUD. So with that, would someone like to make a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move to deny the concept approval. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say. Councilman Senn: Wait, wait. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Did you want to say something? Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean it seems to me that if you think it needs more work past the concept approval, why don't we table it and let them go through the work. I mean I don't know why we're denying it. It seems to be inconsistent with what we would normally do. Usually we table it and let them go to work on it some more. 52 City Council Meeting - April 11, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: That would be up to the motionee and with the second to make that change to either table. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That does make more sense because we're not saying we don't like the concept in general. Yeah, I would withdraw my motion and make a new one to table. Mayor Chmiel: Would the second also? Councilman Wing: That's fine. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll entertain the motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I already made it to table, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table concept approval for a Planned Unit Development for Heritage Development for further work. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT COMPUTER AIDED GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND SUBDIVISIONS. Kate Aanenson: I did hand out a couple additional letters that staff had received...concern about this item. This directive came from the Planning Commission who was concerned about being able to really get a grasp of the scale and scope of the projects. And the City Council's discussed that also. It also came out of the fact that we saw the photo imaging for the bridge for the ISTEA project. It helped to visualize the scope and the scale of that project. So the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment. So what we've done is prepared an amendment that would, our subdivision requirements for application and site plan review to add language that would say, computer image enhancements. If you look at the definition that we put in there, there was a discussion about whether or not the...would be sufficient or enhanced photos like you say tonight with Byerly's. And I think that's probably sufficient for a lot of projects. But there are projects when computer imaging is more appropriate so there is, under subdivision and site plan application there is a requirement that says other information as deemed necessary by the staff. Well lot's of times, that's where we do ask for just renderings and that may be sufficient but we did want language specifically that talked about the generated photo composite imaging and...So we amended the code in two places. The subdivision regulations where we're looking at large subdivisions and again this may be a multi-family project along Highway 5 where we're trying to capture the visual and what the impacts would be of the roof lines, the...of the buildings...So it does make sense in subdivisions. And it may not in all subdivisions. I think when we put it in there saying they may be. I think that's a concern a lot of people have...and then also when a site plan, it may be a simple site plan and it be required but...it may be a small one that has significant impact...The other issue that came up is the cost. People had a concern about that. In looking at the Planning Commission Minutes, Bob did discuss that and he called and found out, he felt the standard right now was about 53,000.0O...it was our understanding that that would be the high end and that the cost, depending on once you put the original information in, then duplications are alterations from that...Of course this is a new technology that's rapidly catching on and it's our understanding that the cost of this, there's more people doing it...So with that, we'd recommend approval of the two ordinance 53 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SLNGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Jeannene Krone RLK Associates Steve Schwanke RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet Richard Frasch 8000 Acorn Lane David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Jeannene Krone: I had two requests from John Dobbs who is of Heritage Development and the first is that the trail easement that you are looking at would be a 30 foot easement. Hoffman: Would you please introduce yourself. Jeannene Krone: My name's Jeannene Krone from RLK. I'm landscape architect. So Heritage requests that they be granted a 20 foot easement along the wetland instead of the 30 foot to provide the trail. And there were some changes. We discussed them with the Planning Commission that where we originally wanted the pond is a wetland and they will need to be doing some ponding outside this wetland to the east. So this would be a storm water pond around here and I drew a quick section that shows right through here that the back of the lots would come down. There'd be a narrow pond then I had a 20 foot trail bench and then the wetlands start and eventually go to the creek. And now they're doing a 20 foot easement instead of a 30 foot. John Dobbs wanted to say that he would be willing to put in the trail as requested as long as he was fairly compensated... Andrews: Do you know what the average lot size is you're proposing here? Jeannene Krone: The average lot size is 20,000 square feet.. That includes property, this part of the wetland. Andrews: The outlots? 19 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 Jeannene Krone: The outlots. And other than that, there's still a 15,000 square foot minimum beyond the wetland. Manders: The trail you're talking would be on the bottom side of the water retention? Jeannene Krone: It would be, no. It would be between this pond and the wetland. Manders: Right. Jeannene Krone: So it would, it's proposed to come up this part of the creek but it can't go up here because of the wetland. So it'd be between the pond and wetland here and stay just outside the wetland until it gets back to the creek. And the main reason for the 20 foot easement is there were some lots that wouldn't work if it had to be a 30 foot trail. Andrews: Todd, usually we are looking at 20 foot easements. Why were we looking at the extra 10 feet? Hoffman: In conversation with Diane Desotelle and other members of the planning and engineering staff, there's a requirement for a 20 foot buffer inbetween that wetland the developed property and that buffer is to allow the natural vegetation to collect sedimentation... etc, etc before they drain into the wetland. So if we... Manders: What constitutes the definition of that wetland? Is it just elevation or is it just. Hoffman: It's a mapped wetland. The elevation and the aerial underneath that is also it's an elevation. Jeannene Krone: And we will be having the wetland staked as soon as the ground thaws, and delineated...were taken from maps from aerial photos where the wetlands are. Lash: When you're saying some of the lots won't work with the 30 foot easement, are you saying they're too small? Jeannene Krone: Yeah, they'll be too small. Berg: What's too small? Jeannene Krone: Less than 11,000 square feet in a PUD. Lash: Yeah, that's too small. 20 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 Jeannene Krone: And then it's too narrow. Too narrow for the house and stuff. Manders: That's assuming that the current road structure is approved or is that finalized? Jeannene Krone: That's assuming the road structure is approved. Lash: This is all still under the conceptual plan. So if we stick with the 30 feet, the plan can be redone so it would be workable. Could it not? Jeannene Krone: Sure... Andrews: Is there anyone else here from the audience that has any questions or comments about this proposal? If so, please state your name and address please? Richard Frasch: Okay. Do I have to stand up or can I sit down here? Andrews: If you could approach the podium. Hoffman: You're on record here. Richard Frasch: Big audience here. My name is Richard Frasch. I'm at 8000 Acorn Lane in Timberwood. From my perspective, just so I understand where we're talking about here. Is this Timberwood right here? Jeannene Krone: Right. At the bottom. Richard Frasch: Okay, and then this road here, is that. Jeannene Krone: That's the proposed frontage road. Richard Frasch: Okay, so that would be connecting toTimberwood? Jeannene Krone: No. It would go along with the school opening. It would be just north of Timberwood. Richard Frasch: Right at the north of Timberwood. Hoffman: This is north. This is Acorn. This is north. This would be the new frontage road. The new school, park site and then Highway 5 runs vertically here. 21 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 Andrews: I'll have to say personally as a Park Board member here that I cannot support reducing that easement. I think that this particular corridor is absolutely critical to the city and it's future beauty and I just feel that we can't give an inch here. I just don't think we should. I feel that the houses in these price ranges, you know a few lots may be sacrificed but I just don't think that we should be asking for anything less than top quality. Here we have one of our most valuable pieces of property and it's a PUD coming in asking for lot sizes that are actually below standard if they were not under PUD and I just don't think we should support anything but the type of quality that our city should demand. That's where I stand. Roeser: I agree. Lash: I agree. Berg: Absolutely. Manders: The ordinance was put in place for a reason. To keep the fertilizers out and all of those things so I agree. Andrews: Yeah. Do you need a motion here Todd or, I mean I think you're getting some feedback right there where we're standing, which is that we're not supportive of any change in that setback. Hoffman: If you're prepared to make a motion, the motion outlined in the... Andrews: Well I move that we would, that the Park Board resolutely is in favor of maintaining the 30 foot easement necessary for the trail and the proper amount of distance for protecting the creek. And therefore would ask that the applicant resubmit a plan that would meet that requirement. Lash: Second. Andrews: Any discussion? Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the applicant maintain the 30 foot easement necessary for the trail and to resubmit a plan that would meet that requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Hoffman: ...you need to compensate the applicant or the developer for the cost...in 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - March 22, 1994 developing that trail and that's always been the city's policy... LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 82.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD; INCLUDING 19.3 ACRES FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, 52.9 ACRES FOR MULTI-FAMILY, 3.4 ACRES FOR PONDLNG AREA, AND 7 ACRES FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD, AND ABUTTING THE NEW CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE/RECREATION CENTER AND PARK SITE; CHANHASSEN CORPORATE CENTRE, HIGHWAY 5 PARTNERSHIP, RYAN COMPANIES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, BOISCLAIR CORPORATION AND RLK ASSOCIATES. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Steve Schwanke: Members of the commission, thank you Todd. My name is Steve Schwanke with RLK Associates and I've been working on this particular project here for probably the last 6 to 7 months. Jeannene Krone who was here just a few minutes ago was assisting with some specific design of some of those particular areas. As Mr. Hoffman has mentioned, we view this very much as a concept stage. A lot of the designs that we have submitted, we have 5 plan sheets as part of this. A lot of the design work that we've put together for that really is, in terms of a concept, we want to really make sure that we begin to identify some specific land uses and some specific densities that will be allowed for the access points. And actually when we begun with all of this, probably 5 or 6 months ago, it's been in a very fundamental point. We began working with the city and the city's consultants actually 5 or 6 months ago working with design and some of the major infrastructures in this area here. Barton-Aschman has been very cooperative as well as the engineering department and the planning departments and of course the parks and recreation department in assisting us in designing a lot of the infrastructure for this particular area here so when the feasibility study for example for the east/west collector road came out, it was principally based on the design that we had created for that in a way that we were able to maximize the land uses both to the north and to the south as well as being able to...corridor here that Todd was talking about. The east/west corridor as it snakes up from the north here and goes west a little bit and then goes up to the north again. So a lot of that work we actually have been doing in September and October. We've also been working in this particular area here in conjunction with the School District and their consultants HGA. As well as the city's consultant Bonestroo who's been doing some of the storm water planning for this particular area here...in conversations with the school and the city for the design of this pond area here as well as just the size of it and you know what areas should be brought into it and things of that nature. We've actually been involved in this project for some time working with the city 24 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall account for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text. 11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286. All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Scott: The motion carries 4 to 2 and Ron, if you could summarize your thoughts on your nay vote. Nutting: In my earlier comments I basically agreed with the east elevation signage. I guess I'm new to this game and I still haven't fully figured out the process but I'm less a tinkerer and more along the lines with what Ladd was saying. I don't, I'm not comfortable with picking everything apart to what I see as opposed to what the developers have spent a lot of time working on. Scott: Okay. And Ladd, your comments. • Conrad: I've made them already. Scott: Good. And this goes to City Council? Generous: March 28th. (Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and was not present to vote on any of the remaining items.) PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 John Dobbs 450 East Co. Rd. D, Little Canada Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge Bob Generous, Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for staff? Hearing none, would the applicant or their representatives wish to address the Planning Commission? Please identify yourself. John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. I guess I'd just briefly like to give an overview and let John Dietrich from RLK will go through some of the concerns. I guess I'd just briefly like to tell you a little bit about me. I'm a trained landscape architect and interestingly enough, a number of the people who show up on your...community across the corridor, study of urban design studies, one of my professors in landscape architecture department and Bill Morrish did some...urban design and Lars...who is a professional landscape architect who was my advisor at one point. Not only that but I happen to run Heritage Development at the moment...so it gives me an interesting and unique perspective I think on what's going to come up and I'm actually looking forward to it I think. ...make a difference and do some different things. The reason we put together the preliminary and put it out as a PUD was, as Kate mentioned, there are a lot of concerns staff has and that we have about the property and it seemed like a very good way to keep...and the staff and the Planning Commission and City Council. A number of issues have been addressed as in the preliminary meetings that I've had, as Dave mentioned, with storm water management. The landscape is, that we're addressing here is very narrow and also very rolling. There's a future park corridor running down the Bluff Creek...idea for the entire city itself. And the future sewer line that's coming from Stone Creek running out to the future school site. Had meetings with Kate and Diane, Dave and Charles, the City Engineer. I've also been over to...Bill Morrish and Tom...and just trying to be as much a part of this as I possibly can so. We're coming to the...meeting at 2:00 tomorrow and I'm pretty excited about the process and I think we'll pass along...With that, we do have some concerns with the storm water is a real issue. That's changing as we speak in terms of drainage, Stone Creek and new runoff that we're going to generate, park corridors and trails along it so obviously...So John Dietrich who represents RLK will... John Dietrich: John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the landscape architects and civil engineers preparing the findings for Heritage Development. I have just some clarifications that I'd like to put to each of the I guess 23 recommendations that we have with you. Address those. We've had a chance to discuss it. We are basically in approval with the recommendations as they are stated. Some minor clarifications that...Should we speak to those now or would you like to discuss the plan first? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: I guess I think probably what we'd like to do is have you go through the recommendations and then do your clarifications so we can understand what your position is and so forth. John Dietrich: Thank you. I'm on page 15 of the staff report...The first one, the applicant incorporate design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed plan that are being initiated in the upcoming month. Yes, we definitely want to include those. We just want it to be clear that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in this corridor. Open space, land use. The access needs. The need for development of the residential property so that they all have to be tied in so we are a quality park and open space and have..individuals come down and use that space. Secondly is timing. We are interested in moving forward with a final PUD and then into a preliminary platting procedure so that we can look at an opportunity for development on this site this coming year, 1994. So we are looking to do, trying to move along quickly but also incorporating the concerns. Number 2, the proposed ponding area in the southern portion should be relocated to lessen impact on wetlands, wooded areas and natural features. If indeed the ponding area that we have...talked about with Heritage and...is going to be an issue, we feel that there's an opportunity to have a pre- treatment of the storm water between the wetlands to the east and the lots up the roadway that would necessitate some...and possibly the roadway and possibly some negotiation between the square footages of all the lots but we feel that would be a doable process and we would definitely adhere to the pre-treatment of any storm water...wetland areas. Number 3, that's a yes. We will definitely be working with Frank Svoboda and Associates for wetland delineation. Number 4, attempt to retain the natural topographic features. Again, we will be looking closer at the grading plan and design and in concert with these...trunk line, sanitary sewer and watermain to this site, we want to try and have an equal balance for good engineering and good site design for all parties involved. Number 5. Pretreatment of the storm water. Basically we go back to comment number 2. The City has suggested removing Lots 50, 51, and 52 and building a storm water retention pond for the pretreatment area. We feel we can modify the location of that pretreatment area so that we will not lose 3 lots outright for pretreatment. That is again a...modification that would have to be. Number 6. Wetland 15-15-1 should remain in it's current condition. If in fact it does remain in that condition and you would like to have us work with the city as to potentially looking at that as some unique housing sites on the edge of that pond area where they would have a much higher tree count within the lots. So if it's not going to be for ponding, there should be another use that is estimated to stay exactly like it is. It would have to be some type of credits... Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. Is that the wetland that is drained by a culvert? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Hempel: That's correct. Ledvina: Okay. So are, do you have any specific proposals as it relates to that? Do you need to take that culvert out or is that what you're thinking or modify that? Resize it or. John Dietrich: This is the ponding area that we have a specific, we had anticipated utilizing as a storm water pretreatment before it would flow into the wetland. Currently there's a creek and in the creek...site from the Timberwood Estates area. We would propose that that would be in it's current location. That with a street crossing. Ledvina: Okay. John Dietrich: Did I answer your question? Ledvina: Well. Hempel: One of the issues I guess that staff had before was this, this is the location of the wetland that's currently being drained through an existing culvert that goes underneath the railroad tracks in this location here. Based on the surface water management plan, we did propose...the use of this wetland but as the storm water quantity...as of today right now. A lot of the Stone Creek development as well as the southerly...drain through a ravine down to the wetland to this location here and...It is our belief that somewhere in this area here, this flat area with the trees...for water quality improvements is adjusted in this point. So we feel there's probably a location here where a pretreatment pond can be developed prior to a storm sewer to go in prior to discharging into the wetland...continue the drainage patterns of the neighborhood. That's something we want to be looking at here when we get the grading plans and so forth. Ledvina: Thank you. John Dietrich: Item number 7. The SWMP report, the storm water quality/quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. Yes we will be looking to provide that on site and the credit that comes with that report and providing that service. That would be great. We also are concerned about what those fees are and that report is in it's final draft form so we have not had an opportunity to actually see the report. Number 8, sanitary, trunk sanitary sewer lines to be used as both lateral and trunk. We intend to work with the city and have those within the public right-of-ways of the site so that we have an opportunity to maintain the creek corridor in it's natural state which we think both parties will benefit from. Number 9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to the future east/west frontage road. Between Galpin and Audubon Road. We fully intend that that 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 connection would be critical to servicing this site and as that roadway is developed, this one would also be extended. That outlot is part of the Chanhassen Corporate Center PUD concept plan submission which was submitted I believe 2 weeks ago to the city. Number 10, curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics. We will work with the city and try to come in with as quality of a plan as possible with the understanding that it is a long narrow, highly topographical site so we're trying to balance a number of issues at this time. Number 11, to make the north/south roadway the major traffic flow. Yes, we will modify that. Number 12, derailed construction drawings and specifications. Yes, we will submit to that. 13, final construction drawings. Absolutely. 14, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security. We assume that will be based on the standard criteria that has been used on other platting procedures for securing the escrow. We will submit that. Trail easements connecting the interior of the development to the Bluff Creek, absolutely. 16, the applicant shall investigate the use of private driveways to serve up to four lots. We will look at that issue to try and minimize the amount of right-of-way for individual lots if we have the opportunity to do so. Number 17, north/south street should provide a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway to match the typical cross section for Stone Creek Drive. Provided the sidewalk that is being proposed does connect into another sidewalk, we would agree to this condition. Our concern is that it ends at our property line and goes nowhere else, then we should not be required to put it in. A tree survey, number 18. Yes, we will take care of that. Number 19. We will look at setbacks of variances to accommodate the siting and maintain that...Number 20, 21 and 22. Yes we will submit all of those approvals. And 23 addresses the issue of the DNR letter by Mr. Richter to Kate Aanenson. Although we're concerned with the classification of this as a protected tributary, it is the distance of 300 feet from the creek center line or bluff that it has the shoreland overlay district provide to it which requires 20,000 square foot of...lot area. We would ask that you look at a combination of lot areas would have an average of 20,000 square feet across the development in order to make this entire site work with the strong site constraints and... Scott: Okay, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Those who would like to speak, please come forward. State your name and address. Tahir Khan: I am Tahir Khan and I live in Timberwood Estates. I read over the details on drainage and I want to go on record stating that it is a drainage that is occurring from my 20 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 property which is 2040 Renaissance Court. Which if you could put a map up. This is the lot and there's natural drainage to the pond here that's not shown but it drains up and goes, the water drains east and not towards the creek but it goes east, straight across and drains into the creek that runs north and south. The way I see this platted out it's going to be running right through the back yard until it hits the road. And I'm wondering if. Farmakes: Excuse me just a minute. I saw you move the pencil back and forth to the east and west. North I believe is facing, so which way does it drain, east or west or north and south? Generous: It drains from west to east. Scott: Towards Bluff Creek. Generous: Yes. To the wetland. Tahir Khan: It's a natural area. It just happens to be draining right from this corner. It goes right to the creek and I'm wondering if there's any provisions that you have thought of so they don't end up with a...pond where the water has no place to go except...go south. Hempel: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to address that at this time if you'd like. Down here is Renaissance Court. This is the lot that, he lives on right here. This drainage ravine that goes right through here is the one that carries the runoff from west to east. To the Timberwood Estates down to Bluff Creek, which is down here in this area. We will be requiring that this drainageway be left open with the appropriate sized drainage culvert similar to what's in to... Estates up here. We will maintain that flow through there. Will not be compounding... Tahir Khan: On the one you had up where the current drainage is occurring towards, there's a slight depression on the top northwest corner and it serves two homes. One is my house and the one north of my house. And the natural flow of the ground as it is, where that drainage occurs, goes right through the property to the east. And unless there is some grading that could occur so as to divert, there's also a power line that runs north and south. So unless from that top northeast corner there's a new ditch section be done north and south, for any house that goes...is left not only it's own back yard but also cause flooding in the northeast corner of my house and the southeast corner of the Johnson home. Hempel: Once we get a formal grading plan we'll be reviewing that to make sure that the neighborhood drainage patterns are compatible. That we're not breeding any kind of ponding onto the properties outside of the plat. It's part of our review process. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Tahir Khan: This side of the concept where they show the street layout and the lot lines. Hempel: We don't have a grading plan at this time or a utilities layout so when that step during the preliminary plat approval process is what they supply in the piecemeal information. This will address that further. Farmakes: Which lots would we be talking about here in relationship to the comment? Hempel: It'd be up along this corridor here. It would be the east lot line of the plat. These back yards of the Timberwood development in here. Scott: Which lot numbers? Farmakes: So we're not talking about 4, 3, 55 or 54? Hempel: I would say you're looking at Lots 4 thru 12 in this area. Address the back yard drainage. John Dietrich: It appears that it might be running through the pioposed Lot 7? Scott: Right. John Dietrich: We will take a closer look at that and it may necessitate a pipe out to that side or a definite swale or some type of drain tile along the property line... Tahir Khan: Also for the record, if your architects care to go and see it right now...that pond is about 50 feet in diameter. And it has not gone over the slight hump before it starts to drain so it's collecting right now between my property and the property north of me and I think as the spring thaw progresses, it eventually will top itself off and start heading across the, start draining eastward now. John Dietrich: Would there be a problem to drain that all the time without having the water. Tahir Khan: We would prefer, looking from our point of view, to have it drain all the time because there is some very mature oak trees that momentarily do get submerged. Then once in a while when the plow used to plow the cornfield, it would leave ridges. 6 inches to 8 inches worth of ridges and that would be like a dam. And eventually the ridge would break and the flow would be very rapid across the cornfield so preferably it would be, if there's a road going by and it can be graded so that the lots and the road are lower, by only even a foot, then that water would probably drain normally into the sewer anyways. That's all I 22 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 have, thank you. Colleen Dockendorf: Hi. Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Is that the exact area we're talking about where the sewer stub will go in? Hempel: The sewer stub for servicing the future Timberwood Estates, we're looking at this corridor through here. It would be the lowest portion. Colleen Dockendorf: As with all conceptual approvals there's, it's hard to give comments when it's not final but my other concern is the time line that you guys are trying to meet and are we putting the cart before the horse...Bluff Creek corridor done this summer. I'm not sure if all...and if we give conceptual approval at this point, are we forcing ourselves to a time line that we don't want to be subject to. Tahir Khan: I have one more point. I read about the stub also for the sewer. If it has to run into the Timberwood Estates, I would personally oppose to having it run next to the creek or the drainage creek because it's very heavily wooded and it meanders back and forth sufficiently through my property as well as properties through the west of my property. And it would require a lot of trees going down. The sewer line would have to go across. Now there is a drainage and utility easement on the northern edge of my property that takes a straight shot towards Galpin Boulevard. If the trunk has to go and get stubbed in between the creek and the existing easement, I would recommend the existing easement because the existing easement also is part of this pond that I'm describing and consequently there's not as many trees. And also access, like I said, straight to Galpin but I would be opposed to having my property detreed...in order to facilitate the stub going in. Hempel: We'll be looking at that in greater detail in the upcoming preliminary plat submittal in determining the best alternative to extending sewer, sanitary sewer in the future for Timberwood Estates. Where the creek runs in the lowest portion of the Timberwood area though it's typically, well there's...to extend sanitary sewer so you can service the entire development through a gravity system...and no need for an additional lift station and so forth but we can certainly review that in greater detail in the upcoming month here so. Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the general public? Okay, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to dose the public bearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: I'll make it short and sweet. First of all, Bob I want to thank you for doing such an extensive job of bringing up so many issues. It's just a very good report and thanks. I'm having a hard time, actually Colleen kind of took the words out of my mouth. Saying yeah to this conceptual plan because I think conceptual plan sets the tone of the development and I think the tone of this development, and it says in our staff report on page 2. The intent of the development is to create a project that is compatible with the natural elements of the area, specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area and the existing topography. And it goes on. And because of that I would like to wait until the shirette is done on the Bluff Creek corridor and those design components the developer can work with. Until that is done, because I think it will set the tone of this development. And I would like to wait and I could not give conceptual approval right now until that Bluff Creek shirette is done and see how the developer takes those design components, guidelines, and works with them in this development. Because it is the whole part of this development. The Bluff Creek and the natural topography. Scott: Okay, good. Jeff. Farmakes: A couple of general comments. I get uncomfortable when a high percentage or we start hovering close to 40-50% of substandard in a PUD. I don't know why that is but it seems to be a target that we shoot for. There always seems to be that there's a bunch of little lots and then there's some tree top lots that make up the rest that have extensive square footage but what it does is it equalizes out the other lot. But the problem I have with that is that a lot of that square footage that we're using isn't buildable under normal development process and I keep on bringing this up. This is a difficult area to develop, granted and I don't see a problem with the PUD. I see a problem with some disseparate lots, in particular where some of these drainage patterns are where there's deep ravines. Very limiting as to where those pads are going to go and the lot looks much more spacious than it truly is. And without seeing building pads on this particular review, it makes it kind of dangerous from the concept standpoint to give approval to this type of thing. Or really review the design of it. Drainage issue is a concern in particular with this type of property and it's essentially that's what this is. It's a big drainage field and I would be concerned about that if I was an adjacent property owner or potential owner of this property. And I think it's sort of the cart before the horse here in this development, I'd agree with Nancy. And I would vote to deny it at this point. Scott: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: I have a couple of questions for Dave. On condition number 9. Talking about the north/south street shall be extended through that outlot to connect to a future east/west frontage road within three years of the final plat. I'm concerned about the connective you 24 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 know road scenario and what would be the time line for the east/west frontage road going in? This is part of that south frontage road construction. What are we looking at there? Hempel: That's correct. The east/west frontage road will serve the school site and eventually multiple residential sites there east of the school site. The city project will be commencing this spring with the site grading of the school. Utilities later on in the summer with the street construction in the fall. Completion date of I believe July of 1995. Ledvina: Okay. Doesn't it make sense to just, so this, the roads in this subdivision would actually be done this year, is that what we're shooting for? Is that what the developer is shooting for? Hempel: I don't want to speak for the developer but my interpretation of their plan here is to show you the entire development with anticipation of doing a phased approach. The outlot to the north is actually under a different PUD development and it will be corning in in the next couple of weeks. Chan Corporate Center I believe it's called. I don't know, maybe the developer can address their phasing...of this parcel. Maybe they are proceeding to develop 56 lots. John Dobbs: It would depend on a number of issues...the one that's the most glaring and that is this trunk sewer coming up. Whether that would follow the road line or not. If it does follow along the proposed alignment that we have, there would be some drainage that would have to be...in preparation for the sewer...Then our intention after that, after the sewer would go in, if there's enough time this year...put in streets as far as weather... Ledvina: Okay. Well I'm concerned about a 3 year time period. The issue as I see it relates to safety and maybe 3 years is too long...to delay that connection so I guess I wouldn't change that recommendation specifically but I would request that staff review that recommendation again to see what might be appropriate as it relates to that time frame. It may be an as soon as possible type of thing, you know would be appropriate. On item number 17, Dave. Would you clarify the situation with the sidewalks there? How do you see that? Hempel: Certainly. Currently Stone Creek, the Hans Hagen development to the southwest of this site, is proposing to extend Stone Creek Drive to where it exists today in the first phase of Stone Creek. There currently is a sidewalk I believe on the south side of Stone Creek Drive...which will terminate at the westerly property line of the subdivision. Their street, typical section does include the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk as well so it would be completing the sidewalk. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Ledvina: Okay so that, so we wouldn't have a situation where we would have a sidewalk ending? It would connect to the existing sidewalk? Or the proposed sidewalk in that area. Hempel: That's correct in that location and eventually there is a sidewalk/trail in harmony with each of those... Ledvina: Okay. And getting, stepping back a little bit on this whole development. I guess generally I support, certainly support the development of this site using the PUD approach. We certainly do have a very sensitive area that we're dealing with. We have the extreme topography on the northern part of this site and then also the ravine on the southern part of the site. I would want to see those elements treated very carefully and to that extent I would strongly support staff's recommendation that the private driveways be looked at in great detail. Not necessarily to reduce the right-of-way but in an effort to minimize the disruption to the topography. Also, it may make sense to increase the distance or just to eliminate grading from those very steep areas and just pull the extent of the development back on the northern part of the site to essentially leave those areas alone. And similarly to the, as it relates to the ravine on the southern end, I understand of course you have to cross that but as it relates to minimizing and perhaps even eliminating the grading associated with the preparation of pads, building pads in that area. I think the street alignment certainly can be changed to maybe provide a little more curvilinear aspect as the staff has pointed out. And I think things can be perhaps readjusted in terms of the locations of the private, potentially private drives to be sensitive to the topography. Let's see. I guess I would support this conceptual approach. I think even though we don't have the guidelines for the Bluff Creek corridor, I think that the developer is certainly aware that that is the reason that we're, that we want to evaluate this or the reason it should be evaluated using the PUD approach. And although things may not be specific as it relates to the standards, I think staff has probably a pretty good idea of some of the things that can be done at this point to minimize the impact on the corridor. To provide the access that we want to. The open space, etc so I think we're pretty far away from making decisions that really dictate how the corridor will be impacted at this point so I think that knowing what our goal is going to be I think is enough. And I think we can move this forward from this point. So again I would support this proposal with the staff changes. I've got some other conditions that I would add to address some of the neighborhood concerns. Farmakes: Could I ask a question? How do you feel about so many undersized lots? And adjacent to the property. Ledvina: Well, we're looking at it as a PUD so some of the things that we can do for the developer relate to the undersized lots and the setbacks. The roadway setbacks in exchange for added sensitivity as it relates to the area surrounding the corridor. But specifically I don't 26 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 know if 24 lots averaging 13,500 square feet, you know that might be acceptable. Farmakes: My point on that though is if you look at Lot 37 and you see Lot 38, those lots are a third of those lots are buildable. Ledvina: Right. I understand your point. Exactly. Farmakes: So if you count those and the ones that are already substandard, if you get to 40- 50%. 60%. 7070. At what point does the trade off for sensitivity become, really go beyond the zone of single family and start encroaching elsewhere. Just because it's a wetland doesn't, you couldn't build a traditional development on it. Ledvina: Right. Well if it's a wetland it can't be included in the total, is that correct Kate? Aanenson: There's a compliance table in the plat that shows the lots without the wetland...We check out the net and the gross... Ledvina: You might think it's not buildable because of the topography but you know they have some rights in terms of being able to grade that area. We don't want them to. Farmakes: Well no, but what I'm saying, even as total square foot. Not usable square foot but if you look at total. 21 of the 56 lots are undersized. That's, if you look at the usable, I did count the usable square foot because we don't really have a criteria for that but it seems like we get all these somewhere around 50% being undersized. And when they go in adjacent to properties that are large lot, how are we dealing with a transition of development. Ledvina: That's always an issue, certainly. And some of the things that actually, now I wasn't able to walk that whole line there. I didn't want to because I'd be trespassing, or at least I thought I would be. But I see a lot of topographic changes there that, and there's a lot of vegetation there along that line. There is a, is there a power easement right on that line? Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: I think that also provides a buffer. And I don't know. You raise a very valid point and there's a red flag that goes up when I see the backs of 5 lots, more than that, 6 lots abutting one lot. So that's always a concern. But I think the gains that can be made relative to the creek may outweigh that given the specifics for the site. Farmakes: So you think that more homes, I'm not here to beat up on your logic but you think that more homes, when you're saying the site benefits. Does the site benefit from more 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 homes or higher density within the site or? Ledvina: Well, coming in here and just grading it all out, you could put more lots in here. Farmakes: But there's a substantial amount of it you couldn't grade out. Ledvina: Right, and the wetlands you can't. Farmakes: In other words, the houses are lined up in a row so at least a substantial amount of them are sort of lined up in a linear line so I. Ledvina: I would change that certainly. Farmakes: But there's not a lot of room to play around there before you get into the wetland. Ledvina: No, you're right. I will say this. I don't know that whatever number of lots, 59 lots. I don't know. Maybe that probably seems like there's too many lots on the development. So if, I don't know what the total number of lots will be but when you do start changing the road alignments and taking a close look at areas, very steep contoured areas that you don't want to grade, maybe the number of lots will go down. I'm hoping it will. Mancino: Then conceptually, would you go with more clustering of the houses and have more open area where we wouldn't do, there wouldn't be as much grading and keeping the ravine, etc? Ledvina: Well they suggested looking at the use of private drives with homes serviced off of private drives. Several. 3-4 homes. That's a technique. Clustering houses. I guess that's kind of a clustering type of thing...I'm done. Farmakes: I just had a question. Ledvina: Those are my comments. Scott: Okay. Ron. Nutting: Very good comments. I guess my issue comes down to giving conceptual approval now versus deferring you know until the corridor or watershed plan is done contrasted with the fact that the recommendation number 1 says they incorporate design components from that. Is it 6 and 1, half a dozen of the other. I'm not sure. In terms of everything may change or have to change because of that. So that point seems to suggest that I can live with 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 the recommendation but I agree with, I do agree with Jeff's concerns and also other comments that have been made and so the question is, do you move it forward by deferring or do you move it forward by approving subject to. And that's where my confusion comes into the process. Ledvina: Well we will see this again. I mean this is a conceptual. Nutting: Yeah, so I guess from that standpoint I would tend to lean to say that subject to the various comments that we could approve then the conceptual plan and move it forward. But there's a lot of issues that are going to have to be resolved before it gets past that next stage. I think Jeff's comments are appropriate. Scott: Good, thank you. I was kind of surprised when we had two residents come up. One who lived or has a lot adjacent to this property and they didn't say anything about the density or the number of lots and so forth. I agree with Jeff on the kind of the false sense that we get when we see very large average lot sizes but that's dictated primarily because of non- usable space and so it kind of gives us a false sense. This to me looks extremely dense. I don't support moving this forward. I guess even though it's from a conceptual standpoint, I still think that we're saying something stronger than perhaps we are when I say I approve this conceptually. I can't approve this conceptually. I think it's too dense. I think there are, when I think about the work that we did on Al Klingelhutz's multi-family. We had a situation where we had some large lot people with 15,000 square foot lots abutting, I think there were seven 15,000 square foot lots abutting a fellow who I think had a 2 or 3 acre parcel. The developer came back and reduced the density but basically worked with the adjacent residents. Also too, is it topographic or topographic? I'll say topographically and when I take a look at the northern extension of the street and I think Matt had a good point about maybe doing something different. I see from Lot 22, I see an elevation of 910 going up within, to Lot 19. We've got a 40 foot change in elevation and obviously that probably exceeds our, was it 6%? 79'c? So I think we're talking about some horrendous grading. I can't pass this on right now. I think there's such a, there's a large component here where we have to be sensitive to Bluff Creek and so I would recommend denying this conceptual plan. I don't have any further comments. Do we need more discussion or would someone like to make a motion? Mancino: I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of this conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development subject to the applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan. They're being initiated next month and when those get incorporated, that we see a new conceptual plan and I would also like to add that many of the issues that are in this recommendation that Bob has put together for us, be incorporated into the conceptual plan 29 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 too. Scott: Is there a second please? Farmakes: I'll second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the applicant's request. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of this conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development subject to the applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan and that the applicant incorporate the conditions outlined by the staff report into their conceptual plan. All voted in favor, except Ron Nutting and Matt Ledvina who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Scott: By a vote of 3 to 2 the applicant's request is denied and this goes to City Council on the 28th? Generous: The April 11th. Scott: April 1 lth? Okay. And what will be accomplished relative to the, at least the design or the shirette or some input. Will there be some facts that will be available or some city guidance...time to rework their plan prior to presentation to the City Council? Aanenson: I don't think so. We didn't intend for that...What we'll try to do now is...so they know what to do when they come back the next round. They may not get 56 units. They may get less than that but we have to resolve all these issues...that's fine but obviously we hadn't intended for this shirette or this focus group to meet before they go to Council. But we certainly will communicate with them and with you so you know what the issues are when it comes back. Scott: Yeah, that's what I'm kind of thinking. If there's probably going to be some new information available, okay. Ledvina: Joe? Scott: Yeah. Ledvina: I'd like to clarify two points that were discussed in addition to the things in the 30 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 staff report. I would like to see the staff evaluate the drainage patterns within the Timberwood Estates neighborhood to make sure that the patterns of drainage are maintained and specifically in the vicinity of Lots 4 thru 12. And I'd also like to add that the consideration for the sanitary sewer stub for Timberwood Estates, the siting of that stub minimize topography disruption and tree loss to the extent possible. Scott: Do you guys want to take a 5 minute break before we do the next? (The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT COMPUTER AIDED GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND SUBDIVISIONS. Public Present: Name Address Vernelle Clayton 425 Santa Fe Circle Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments? Mancino: Is this a public hearing? Scott: It will be. I don't know, I just have one comment. In the section 1(4) where you talked, item number (m) where you talk about computer generated photocomposite images or artistic renderings. I personally would like to see computer generated photocomposite images only and the reason, I was quite struck by the pedestrian bridge. I mean that, I think as a Planning Commission we were able to make some decisions based upon some fairly minute differences I think in the pylon size and different materials and then also they were able to do a time progression and say well here's what it's going to look like now and here's what it's going to look like in x number of years. From an artistic rendering standpoint, I don't see that as being as valuable. So I would rather not have both. The question does come in though, do you have an idea of what this costs somebody to do a photocomposite versus an artistic rendering? Generous: I don't know the artistic rendering. Now they gave me some examples of the 31 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, Mn. 55343 (612)933-0972 ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612)933-1153 November 4, 1994 PRELIMINARY WOODLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (Formerly Heritage First Addition) Existing Acreage 39.5 1,472,328 s.f. Base Line Acreage (39.5 - 5.7 AC Wetland)= 33.8 AC Minimum Requirements of Tree Canopy Coverage 30%of Base Line Acreage .30 x 33.8 AC = 10.14 AC = 441,698 s.f. Existing Tree Canopy 7.4 Acre= 21.9%Coverage= 322,344 s.f. Existing Tree Canopy Deficiencies 441,698 - 325,800= 115,898 s.f. Required for 30%coverage 115,898 + 1,089 = 106 Trees Proposed Tree Canopy Removal Per Lot: BLOCK 3 Lot 20 1,700 s.f. Lot 21 4.000 s.f. Lot 23 2,000 s.f. Lot 24 4,500 s.f. Lot 25 5,100 s.f. Lot 26 4,100 s.f. BLOCK 2 Lot 7 600 s.f. Lot 8 4,500 s.f. Lot 9 4,300 s.f. Lot 10 6,700 s.f. Lot 11 4,300 s.f. RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 32,400 s.f. RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTH 7,800 s.f. BLOCK 3 Lot 10 8,000 s.f. CITY OF oHP.N'F::: E 1 Lot 11 6,000 s.f ...r.--�_-� TOTAL CANOPY REMOVED 96,000 s.f. 1 + + - NOV 0 i Total Square Feet Canopy Removal Replacement at 1.2 time removal: DEPT. 96,000 x 1.2 = 115,200 s.f. C "NHASSEN PLANNING 115,200+ 1,089 = 106 trees • Civil Engineering •Transportation • Infrastructure Redevelopment • Landscape Architecture • Construction Management CANOPY In order to achieve the 30%canopy coverage for the Creekside Subdivision,the following is provided on the revised Landscape Plan dated November 2, 1994: 30%Coverage of Tree Canopy= 441,698 s.f. Existing Tree Canopy Coverage= 325,800 s.f. Existing Tree Canopy Deficiencies 441,698 - 325,800 = 115,898 s.f. Required for 30%coverage 115,898 + 1,089 = 106 Trees Replacement Tree Canopy 96,000 x 1.2 = 115,200+ 1,089 = 106 Trees RESULTING TREE REPLACEMENT TOTAL 212 Trees The proposed tree canopy removal is assumed to be a worst case scenario of tree canopy removal. The grading plan was utilized as a limit of impact for the roadway improvements and each lot identified in the schedule assumed a 20' driveway, and complete clearance of the 60'x 60' or(3,600 s.f.) home pad. As each woodland lot is developed, it is assumed the homes will take advantage of the woodland characteristics and not clear cut the entire home site. The tree replacement (preliminary woodland management plan)will allow the wooded lots to remove the tree canopy as outlined on the landscape plan. Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 (Diane Harberts left the meeting at this point and was not present to vote on any of the remaining items.) PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING OF 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2 TO RSF, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR MITIGATION OF PONDING AREAS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF AREAS WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD TRACKS, WEST OF BLUFF CREEK AND EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES AND STONE CREEK, HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. Public Present: Name Address • John Dietrich RLK Associates Michael Duffy 30E 7th Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 John Dobbs 450 E Co. Rd D Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item and asked if there were any questions from the commission. Mancino: Bob I do, just a couple. Just to help me remember a little bit of what came to us before because quite frankly I've forgotten. What I want to know is why staff has changed it's mind about the placement of the roadway and not wanted the road closer to the wetland which would reduce the grading in that northern third of the steep slopes and it would also, as you say, give it more of a public kind of a roadway and in looking out at Bluff Creek and the whole area and we're very concerned with Bluff Creek and having it be a community area. So why is it that the staff has said this is okay instead of keeping the road alignment the way it was and pulling off cul-de-sacs. I don't understand what we're getting for giving that up. Generous: We'd rather have the diversity and the...trail on the rear of those lots to give the public access to the wetland complex and then have the dedicated land in that forested area. 40 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: But couldn't we still get, have the forested area and move the road closer to the wetland and have the trail on the other side of the road? Generous: I suppose that's an option. I don't know... Mancino: Okay. I just wondered background. Generous: We still think that we give a lot of the same benefits. We will have view corridors between the housing pads so that people can see into that. We believe with the access that will be provided to the trail easement... We wanted to have the sewer system go through the, either along that corridor and the city road because of the soil conditions down there and so we believe in looking at this development, that curvalinear street does have a lot of benefits to it... Mancino: Instead of going straight through it. Now we are buying, the Park Board is buying these lots, correct? Generous: Well they would buy the land in excess of the dedication requirement. They have to provide 2 acres of dedication. Mancino: So we are paying for it. It's not being dedicated to the city. Generous: Right, for the excess. Mancino: Yes, okay. Thank you. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments. Ledvina: The NSP easement along the west side of the property. How far does that go into the property? Generous: I believe it's a 40 foot easement. Ledvina: Okay, so there's 40 feet in Timberwood and 40 feet in Heritage, is that correct? Applicant: According to our research, it is an 80 foot easement. Ledvina: Okay. Has there been any measurement of EMF that you're aware of? Okay, maybe I'll ask the developer to review that when he does make his presentation. The Outlot D area, what's the fate of that? What's the rationale for that? It's toward the southerly. 41 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: 1.47 acres? That was a...provided as part of the Stone Creek development... Hempel: That's a water quality and treatment project which was developed with the Hans Hagen Stone Creek development. It will also provide some treatment for a portion of this development. Ledvina: Okay, so it's adjacent to the wetland then? Hempel: That's correct. I believe Outlot D does cover the wetland and the storm pond. Ledvina: Okay. Thank you. Scott: Any other comments or questions? Okay, thank you for the staff report. Would the development team like to make a presentation? Please identify yourself and let us know what you have to say. Michael Duffy: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Michael Duffy and I'm an attorney with... I'm here representing Heritage Development. Also on behalf of Heritage Development is Mr. John Dietrich. Specifically he is the land design architect with RLK and Associates and Mr. Dietrich has prepared the plat that is before you this evening. Also on behalf of Heritage, Mr. John Dobbs. Mr. Dobbs is Director of Development with Heritage. First off I'd like to express Heritage who'd like to express it's appreciation for the staff acceptance of the road realignment and express it's appreciation for the staff's recommendation as this preliminary plat...approved. Mr. Dietrich and I however have a few comments with respect to the staff report. After Mr. Dietrich and I have made our comments, we are going to ask that the staff approve the plat as submitted this evening... With that I'm going to step aside and Mr. Dietrich is going to give his comments with respect to the conditions set forth in the staff report and then I will be making some more comments after that. John Dietrich: Thank you. My name is John Dietrich, RLK Associates. I would like to briefly talk a little bit about the history of the site and then go into some of the details and the characteristics and components of this site that we are pleased to present in the preliminary plat format. In order to do that I will be walking between the overhead projector and the microphone...can be heard well enough from the overhead projector, I'm going to just stand there. As Mr. Generous had mentioned, is that loud enough? Ledvina: That's fine. 42 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 John Dietrich: Had mentioned, the site itself is a 39 acre parcel and it's bounded on the west by the Timberwood Estates. On the north by the property that's currently defined as Chanhassen Corporate Center. On the west, or excuse me, on the east by a large extended wetland that does go into the site. And on the south, Stone Creek Subdivision essentially on the southwest corner. Along the southern border is the Twin Cities and Western Railroad tracks. Approximately in a location parallel with the north/south line along the west is the underpass under the railroad tracks that is to be included as a part of the comprehensive trail corridor for the city of Chanhassen. It is the intent of this subdivision to meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance for the site as it would be rezoned from A2 to a residential single family. The lot minimum for residential single family is 15,000 square foot lots. The lots that are proposed average 21,000 square feet. That was very important that we wanted to increase that size based on some of the comments when we received when this came through in the preliminary PUD last spring. Just to redefine some of the edges. Timberwood Estates is along the edge with tree cover and large single family lots. They currently do not have sanitary sewer located in this subdivision. Bluff Creek comes down and forms the northerly border as well as the eastern tributary of Bluff Creek and then the creek runs along the eastern property edge. The red line identifies the delineated wetlands that are existing on site. The green area identifies an area of overstory mature growth which principally occupies the southern one-third of the site. There's a cluster of overstory trees in the center and one isolated wetland up in the top portion of the slope. This entire area has been pasture land and is currently farmed for a portion of it. The development will have the opportunity to meet the storm water ponding and wetland protection so the opportunity for Bluff Creek and the entire Bluff Creek corridor includes water quality will be greatly enhanced through the development of this 39 acres. Lastly, this little wetland to the south will also be protected and there is currently a pond down on the very southwestern corner that will take runoff from approximately the lower portion of the site and the Hans Hagen site into that pond, pretreated before it would be discharged into the wetland. Secondly, there will be a pond area to the east of the wetland area which the majority of the site will flow into and that again will be pretreated according to the city's standards of Best Management Practices before discharging into the wetland corridor. We propose a storm water pond north of the creek to handle the northern portion of the site and that would also be developed in conjunction with the development to the north of Bluff Creek. The roadway system will extend from Stone Creek and through the site so that the roadway system will extend from Stone Creek subdivision, meander through the site. Have two public cul-de-sacs and then it's proposed to extend north across the creek into Chanhassen Corporate Center to the east/west frontage road which is currently under development by the city. That will be serving the school site and discussions as to how far east that will be extended will impact the timing and development of this roadway connection to the north. If I may briefly touch upon the comprehensive plan. This site has utilized the comprehensive plan as it's basis. This year 2000 land use plan, taken from your ordinance, identifies the site outlined in red. It 43 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 is scheduled for residential single family density of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Our development is proposing a net acreage or net density of 1.6, which is close to the lower end of the residential range. The designated open space development principally lies entirely east of this site, except for this northern knob, the entire site is programmed in your comprehensive plan to have residential single family on it. And the park and open space development will occur to the east. As part of our development we are proposing that the parkland dedication extend the comprehensive trail system from the south, under the underpass and would allow trail access around the site to bridge an area between the wetland, the ponding and the residential single family development. It is our proposal that that 2 acre park dedication, as it's identified on this site plan in green, complies with the ordinance and meets the objectives of the park dedication requirements. It will also protect the slopes that are along the steep corridor of Bluff Creek while providing a sense of variety of spaces...open space, ponding areas and along the wooded areas to the south of the site. Mancino: John, could you give me a description of that park dedication area as far as physical as elevation. What people would do there, etc. John Dietrich: In terms of the park dedication, the topography has a low point at the southwest corner. Comes across the wetland and then we would anticipate it raising up in the range of 8 to 10 feet along the southern, southeastern corner. Coming back down along the east side of the creek and then from this point it is in the wooded area. It would then be fairly flat as it would go through the ponding and wetland area. We anticipate it to be a 8 foot trail within a 20 foot buffer area that would have wetland and ponding along side. It is this segment of the trail that would be fairly flat. It would have a rise of a couple of feet as it would need too to have access up to the north/south roadway. And as it would start to ring around the site to the northeast, the elevation has an opportunity to go up along the slope or follow the creek which is quite a bit down the side of the slope. There are very steep slopes along this side and we would definitely want to work with the city and Park and Recreation Director to place that trail appropriately. We have even talked at one time that we would suggest a trail physically crossing the creek in this location and move the trail on the other side of the creek. You may have an opportunity for a better trail here. In terms of the site itself, the city would be looking at grading the northern portion of the site and taking that down. We are concerned about the Timberwood Estates and the transition that will occur between them. The large lots to the west would allow those items to have very little impact from this development. By taking the slope from the property line down, we would allow the views from Timberwood Estates to basically remain as they are today. The pads coming west of the north/south roadway would have elevations of anywhere from 20 to 25 to 50 feet below the elevations that are currently on that knoll. We are taking this hill down and anticipating moving it south so that we have an undulating roadway experience. As part of the contours that are anticipated to be shown on, we've put together a 3D model of the site. 44 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 This is looking at the site, essentially a bird's eye view if we are southeast of the site. With this it would allow the existing knoll on the north and it shows how the bank is running through the site. The proposal with the roadway wrapping through would maintain the western edge. Hopefully come down and we will have a bench for the homesites. Roadway. Another bench for the homesites and then the slope would project a bit closer to the wetland on the northeast corner and then taper back in around the ponding area and as we would reach the tributary to Bluff Creek, which extends up into Timberwood Estates, we would try to match grades as close as possible and as we would move into the wooded area on the southern one-third of the site, we will keep grading to a minimum so that it will have a minimal impact to the trees. There will be trees removed on this site. We understand that is part of the development process. However we want to make sure that we have the correct number of trees calculated when this roadway project goes in...and we will work with staff to make sure that we compensate any tree removal according to the woodland management plan. With the site itself, we are looking forward to an approval that would talk to the merits of this project. The sensitivity that we are providing for this site and the opportunity of providing 48 home sites in the Bluff Creek corridor while maintaining a public presence with the trail which comes along the east side of the road. East side of the homes and the public nature of the wetlands and the ponding area. Both on the east and on the west side. Mancino: John, could I ask you a couple more questions? John Dietrich: Certainly. Mancino: First of all I'd like to thank you for presenting this and having it for us. I'd just like to ask a couple questions on it and make sure I'm looking at it right and understanding it. As I go from the existing view to proposed view, where you're putting the road north and south, you're actually building up a ridge, especially towards the middle and going north, that the road sits on and then on each side are walkouts. Is that correct? John Dietrich: Not on each side. Mancino: Just on the wetland side? John Dietrich: Walkouts would only be on the east side of the roadway. Mancino: Okay. So that's why the ridge is, you kind of built up that area? John Dietrich: Yes. Mancino: You filled in. 45 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 John Dietrich: We have filled in east of the roadway in that northeast section. Not on the north side where the steep slopes are from the Bluff Creek but as we start to round. As we begin to round the site more to the east, this area is fill. Along the north we are making the grades match for those walkouts because. Mancino: It works that way? John Dietrich: We need to stay 50 feet away from their center line from the creek for grading and 100 feet away for any structure and this plan achieves that. Mancino: When you get up to the northern edge of a property and to the west of that road it, to me, looking at the existing view, it looks like mountains you know and then when I look at the proposed view, it looks like there aren't too many mountains to the west there anymore. Are you looping off, how many feet? 20-30 feet of those slopes? John Dietrich: We are taking the slope down approximately 20 feet in a couple of locations and on the average it would probably be in the range of 8 to 12 feet across that. Mancino: And have you done anything to protect and preserve those? I mean have you thought about instead of going in with regular sized cul-de-sacs? Doing private drives. Placing the lots a little differently. John Dietrich: We have gone through a number of design alternatives. We previously have looked at a plan with the private drives trying to service the lots so we would have an opportunity to have the steeper slope going up the hillside. That was basically rejected by staff when we discussed it previously. We feel we have looked at the alternatives. We have tried to work with the slopes. Work with the engineering department to have the slope as low as possible for the sanitary sewer but yet try and minimize the cuts and fills on the site. Mancino: What's the balance? I mean what is cut and fill? What do you come up with over the whole project? John Dietrich: Over the whole project right now we are a little long. When I say we're a little long, we're in the range of I would say 20 to 25,000 yards long. We anticipate trying to work with the grades along this center portion. Bring those up a little bit so we can have a balanced site. Mancino: Thank you. 46 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 John Dietrich: It's getting late here. I'll try to quickly go through a few items that I would like to touch on. The items that were, that begin on page 23 of the staff report, that being the conditions of approval. And for the most part we are in agreement with a great majority of them. However I... To begin with on page 23 of the staff report. Number 1, Michael will address that one on his closure. Number 2, we will definitely attempt and retain the natural character of the slopes and the site wherever possible. We will have to work with the grades to make this site balance. Especially on the north side. The woodland management plan will be provided. We have submitted a landscape plan that staff has counted and said we are maybe about 30 trees off in terms of replacement. We will work with staff to make sure that we are in concurrence with that woodland management plan for the tree removal. In order for that roadway to go through, there will have to be trees removed. In order to have home sites in the wooded area, there will be trees removed. We would like this woodland management plan to be comprehensive and address even the individual lots and right-of-way so that when this plan is finally approved, those individual lots will already have the calculation of trees that would be anticipated removed when the private development moves forward on this. Item number 4. The revise the grading plan. We will not have a problem revising the grading plan to try and keep a balance site. We will also make sure we identify each and every floor elevation according to the City of Chanhassen Code. We use a different numerical numbering system... Item number 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, we would have no problem with. Item number 11. The applicant shall revise the plat to eliminate Lot 25, Block 3 and bring the total number of lots to 47. For an overall site plan I'm going to show a detailed area of this area that talks about Lot 24 and 25, that are essentially along the tributary of Bluff Creek. As part of the approval or the plan that was submitted did not identify easements for the tributary of the Bluff Creek and the property line was defined by this line here. Staff has recommended that the property line center along the Bluff Creek tributary center line, which is this heavily dashed line. The red hash areas would represent a 30 foot easement centered on the tributary center line. The green line represents a 50 foot setback from the center line of the creek that has been suggested to be added as a buffer to the tributary for water clarity issues. The Lot 25 is this shape with a private drive coming in. We suggest that based on the tree survey, there is an opening of significant trees in this area of Lot 25. We previously had identified the house pad within this area. We would propose, without changing the property lines up to the center line adjustment, the home pads could move to the south and still have more than 4,000 square feet of space for that house to be placed. It would be a bit askew. However, we would anticipate any of the home sites within the woodland area would be of a higher quality and individually placed within the site. Additionally Block 24, had the opportunity to move that home pad 60 feet to the south and still be well within the boundaries and setback requirements whereas also Lot 26 could possibly shift down... By adjusting the home sites within this wooded area we feel we still have the opportunity to have those floor elevations. A minimum of 3 feet above the flood stage and still have adequate home sites without unduly, or without sacrificing the natural 47 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 amenities that this creek corridor does have and we would also not lose any other significant trees by maintaining these two sites. Mancino: Would you be custom grading those? John Dietrich: Yes. These would be custom graded and also, for example Lot 24. I identify 3 trees that are within that 60 x 60 foot pad. I also know the right-of-way...identified this cluster of trees to be removed. We would work with staff so that any trees within the home pads and access to them would be included as part of the woodland management plan to allow a development to proceed and we would anticipate that would be a worse case scenario on these individual lots and ideally as they would be initially graded and designed, more of the trees could and would be saved. Such as the home site could wrap around the site and definitely save these... Those would have to be addressed on a lot by lot basis but we wanted you to have the tree calculation figures into the final plat of the process. Scott: How would that lot be serviced? Would that come off of, would it be a driveway off of the private drive? John Dietrich: Lot 24 would come directly off the access. They would have to have their own driveway. A private drive only allows one lot to be served. This is really not a private driveway. It's almost like a flag lot. So only one residential unit may be served to accommodate the flag lot. Mancino: That area isn't covered in our grading plan. John Dietrich: On the grading plan that is part of the package, we did not put the grades on there. Mancino: So we can't tell how many of the trees will stay or go. John Dietrich: At this time, in order to make a calculation we would say the trees that are within the designated home pads that were put into the calculations as removable. Generous: That's what my estimates come from... John Dietrich: If I could continue so we can get out of here. Item number 12, Mr. Duffy will address. Item number 13, the site plan does identify the 100 foot setback from the center line of the creek and all structures will be beyond that 100 foot setback line, and that is identified both the 50 foot setback for grading and...setback on the site plan. Items number 14 and 15 we will happily comply with. Item number 16 we will comply with and the pond 48 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 has been designed to provide slopes of 10 to l at the high water...proper water elevation. I need my engineer to tell me those and with the remainder at 3:1 slope. Item number 17 will be fine. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 we will all comply with. Item number 24. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each wooded lot prior to issuance of the building permit. We will show a grading plan that will be minimal for those lots. We want those trees to be saved wherever possible and work with the contours that are in there. We will include the potential for those individual home buyers to know what trees and the conditions of development are on those individual sites instead of leaving that up to the individual home buyer after the site is... The 60 x 60 pads is probably a worst case scenario. That's 3,600 square feet. If we start building homes that are 3,600 square feet floor area, it's going to be tough. We anticipate these to be two story homes and the floor plan be quite a bit less than 3,600 square feet. Item number 25 and 26 and 27, we will comply with. Item number 28, the southerly cul-de-sac shall be re-evaluated for a private driveway. We have looked at a private driveway in an earlier submission that we did pull because of items that were not fully addressed. One of the issues staff brought up was the number of units that were serviced off the private drive access and serviceability to fire safety. We have not redesigned this site to incorporate public drives in both of the cul-de- sacs so that we will have a better and we feel the best plan that can be put together on this site. The public service and fire safety and not meeting conditions of approval or encumbrances and cross easements, will make this a much more sellable and attractive subdivision. Item number 29. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary. If I could go back to this item. The Bluff Creek tributary is centered right here. There would have to be significant tree removal along this easement that's outlined in red in order for that sanitary sewer stub to be taken to the eastern, western property line for potential servicing of the Timberwood Estates development. The need for moving the lots and home pads on Lots 24 and 25 was to retain the natural character and amenities and tree cover along this tributary. It is our desire that sanitary sewer not go in for the disruption that it would put on that area and we feel that the trees that would be removed will not grow back easily. The trees that will be removed, they have to be replaced with smaller trees and that's why we're trying to minimize the number that we would have on this site. Scott: Dave, on that particular point. Is the rationale for that stub, is that to service another or future development? Hempel: Yes Mr. Chairman, that's one of the viable routes to provide gravity sanitary sewer service to the Timberwood Estates development at some future date when those larger lots reconfigure down into smaller lots. Short of installing a lift station or two in that area to service it, which is a great cost and maintenance problem for the city. That would be the alternative. 49 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: Dave, we've done that though in other areas like Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition because of the preservation of trees and other things. We went in and did a couple lift stations. Hempel: I am not recalling any off hand. I can use an example of the sewer line, one of the existing street areas. In fact there's one in the Bighorn Shadow Ridge development which you couldn't even tell that we were in there. That was done about 6 years ago. Mancino: But how long does it take to get back natural? I mean is that a 5-6 year? I mean it's not really natural. Hempel: The life of the sanitary sewer is determined in the field based on the existing trees. They can be, the sewer line doesn't have to go perfectly straight. It can meander along there to avoid significant trees if it stays within this corridor. The depth of the sanitary sewer line will be relatively shallow. Less than 10 feet because we don't need the great depth that we put in... Mancino: The shallower the less wide you go. Hempel: That's exactly right. Mancino: What about coming up from Stone Creek? I mean why wasn't there, when that was developed. Hempel: We did explore that avenue as well. There are two low points on...drive where sanitary sewer would actually daylight with the gravity system. Short of the lift station... We did look at, when Hans Hagen was developing Stone Creek and felt the only other alternative was this corridor through this tributary to service it. Scott: Okay, thanks. John Dietrich: Item number 30, we will definitely show grading contours for the storm sewer plan proposed in a temporary fashion on the north side of the creek and we will also look closely at the need for the elevations of that crossing in order to accommodate a storm sewer as it would cross the creek in order to maintain the proper flow. The extension of, number 31. Extension of the north/south street be extended through to the frontage road within 3 years. We would have no problem with that condition on that the city has also extended the roadway to that point and to the east. Currently that roadway is not there and we would need a roadway to hook up into. But it is our desire to have that as an access for the anticipated traffic flow and circulation for this entire area. Number 33, the trail alignment around the 50 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 wetland along the Bluff Creek corridor. We would definitely work with staff to have that placement within the defined park dedication area that we are proposing. Item number 34 we will concur with. Item number 35 we will use retaining walls. We anticipate they will be field stone quality from boulders and rocks unearthed during the excavation. And item number 36, we would adjust the property lines along the Bluff Creek tributary as we had shown on the overhead as necessary. And we still feel we have the opportunity to maintain that number of lots and maintain the natural amenities and significant tree population for those two lots. And lastly I'd like to point out the sketch plan that was identified in your planning commission packets was a discussion of the plan that Heritage Development presented to the city a number of months ago for discussion only. That plan was never officially submitted and the plan that we are proposing at this time we feel is the best plan that is available and meets the objectives of the subdivision code and the concerns that the Planning Commission did address when this was initially proposed as a concept PUD plat. And conditional use permit and wetland permit alteration, items number 1 and 2, we will also concur with. And with that I'd like to turn it over briefly to Mr. Duffy for a couple points in closing. Michael Duffy: Thank you John for your presentation. Members of the commission, as you've heard from Mr. Dietrich's presentation, this preliminary plat complies with...with all code requirements and ordinance requirements that have also been established by staff in the staff report... There are a number of things however, and conditions that the staff has set forth that are not requirements set forth in the subdivision ordinance which I'd like to go over at this time. The first one of these set forth is number 1 on page 23. This is the condition that the staff has put with respect to approval of the plat. This is in respect to incorporating design components for the proposed Bluff Creek watershed plan. It's Heritage's position that simply put, it's Heritage's position that it is unreasonable for Heritage to have to comply with a watershed plan that is not yet enacted. It's unreasonable. We do not know what the watershed plan is so for us to agree to comply with this plan would be unreasonable. We do not know what the plan is. It does not exist and in fact would be retroactive. In effect requiring us to comply with this would be retroactive application of law. Another condition I'd like to refer you to is condition number 12 on the next page. This is in respect to the condition that the staff has asked for that more property be dedicated for park purposes. At this time as Mr. Dietrich has explained, the plat as it has been submitted to you does comply with subdivision ordinances...ordinances such that Ordinance 18-79(i). The formula there when you apply that formula it requires that there be 1.92 acres of dedication in this subdivision. As Mr. Dietrich has explained, there are 2 acres that have already been dedicated. If the city so desires to buy the property that the staff has recommended be dedicated, there is nothing that Heritage can do to stop the city's powers of eminent domain but Heritage will not agree to dedicate any more than what is required by the park dedication ordinance. I'd like to turn your attention lastly to condition number 32. This is a condition 51 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 that states that the developer and any property owners will waive any and all procedural and substantive objections in respect to special assessments for the city's public improvement project #93-26, including claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. Heritage is willing to pay it's fair share. Fair and equitable share with respect to these assessments but is unwilling and is unreasonable without knowing what these assessments are, to waive rights, especially when those assessments may exceed the benefits to the property. In this case this is unacceptable to Heritage. In sum, these 3 conditions that I talked about are conditions that are not required by the subdivision ordinance. They do not have a rational...with respect to approving the plat that is before you today. What we ask that you do this evening is approve the plat as submitted in accordance with the comments that both Mr. Dietrich and I have made. We hope that you're prepared to approve the plat tonight as it has been submitted. The one thing that we ultimately ask is that this not be tabled this evening. You have a couple of proposals in front of you. You have a proposal with conditions from the staff. You've heard our comments in respect to the staff conditions and the way we would like it approved. And we hope, I think that's enough information for you tonight...and we respectfully request that you would make a decision this evening. If you have any further questions, 1 have nothing further. Thank you. Scott: Any questions or comments? Mancino: I have a couple questions, unless somebody else does first. To Bob. It must be getting late... Explain to me again, and I'm looking on sheet 2 of 7. Do you have that in front of you? Okay. I see in the eastern, northeast corner it says park dedication, 2 acres. And it's also Outlot C also? Generous: No. Mancino: Would you take a few minutes and explain to me where this strip goes and what Outlot C is? Outlot C becomes a NURP pond? Generous: Yeah, that's a ponding, storm water pond. Mancino: Okay. And the park dedication starts at the northern tip of the roadway and comes all the way around to, it ends at, between Lot 11 and Lot 1. Correct? Lot 11 of Block 1 and Lot 1 of Block 2. Generous: No, it actually ends at the western property line in the southeast corner. Mancino: Oh okay. But you can access it between those two lots. 52 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: Between 11 and 1, yes. Mancino: And how wide is that? Again is it. Generous: I don't know. John Dietrich: It's a minimum of 20 feet. Mancino: Thank you. Make sure I understood that. Thank you very much. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Ledvina: As it relates to measurements of EMF from the NSP line, has there been any effort to do that or can you comment on concerns that you would have as it relates to the power lines in that area. John Dobbs: My name is John Dobbs, Director of Development for Heritage. I have...we'll probably do it in the course of...extremely high tension lines that we've asked for and received a number of issues from NSP supporting that but we'll probably do it subject to the people who will consider moving there...We'll probably do it as part of the marketing... Ledvina: Okay. But in terms of the voltage that's going through those lines, what are you looking at there for voltage? John Dobbs: I have no idea what the voltage that runs through that particular set of lines. I know that the...from 345,000 volts...and also they had a number of different levels of lines that go back. The amount of voltage is not necessarily a geometric ratio to the amount of EMF that comes out of that. Ledvina: It's the current essentially. John Dobbs: Height and as well the current... John Dietrich: If I may add commissioner. The larger, I'm going to say the larger transmission lines, the ones that have holes that run along the tracks, comes to the site and then heads south, north of the tracks is a much lower voltage line. It is on wood poles, double standards that come all the way up to Highway 5. So I know the larger ones carry much higher, greater number of lines but the ones along the western line are of lower caliber. 53 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Anything else? Would anybody from the development team wish to add anything else? Okay. This is an item for public hearing. Is anybody here from the general public wish to speak about this project? Seeing none, can I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I missed the meeting where this was at before. Can you explain to me in regards to the park why that particular site was considered the 2 acres up above. I believe it was 2 acres for the park. To the exclusion of the wooded area down below by the wetland...the south end. Generous: Because the applicant wants those wooded sites for home sites... Farmakes: So this is the area that we're considering? Generous: The city would have the wooded land. He wants to dedicate the land along the wetland. Farmakes: Is that discussion at a state of maturity or are you positioning here? Generous: Well the Parks Commission wants to have more land. Farmakes: Okay. So is the city's position aggressive in pursuing that, I guess that's my question. Generous: Yes. Ledvina: Can I follow up on that? Is it a trade off between the trails or that other wooded area to the south? Is that what we're looking at? I mean could you say. Generous: Well that's what we were looking at. That trail...roadway alignment as proposed in this plat...and we would do the dedication of the parkland in the southeast corner. Ledvina: But as it exists now, they're dedicating that strip as, and that's where the trail is going to go, is that correct? 54 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: Yes. That's, they're dedicating that for their 2 acre requirement... Ledvina: Okay. But we could say that area is not acceptable and not have the trail in there and then get the 2 acres in that southerly portion. Is that the other option? I mean would that, I mean we have a question of the ordinance here in terms of the amount of dedication. Am I making sense? Generous: Yes. I don't know how to answer. I don't know if, we would like to have an easement for that on top of the drainage and utilities...so we can have our trail system down around the wetland corridor and into... Ledvina: Okay, so what we're requesting that the developer do is not dedicate that strip along the corridor as a park but get us an easement to build us a trail in that area. Generous: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Scott: That was my concern too. Is the difference between easement for a trail and a park and I see what you're saying. So this is not as aggressive as we would like to be to develop that resource. Ledvina: But if we did it that way, then we would, the city would be in accordance with their ordinance in terms of the park dedication. But at the same time we have the ability to have them provide an easement for that trail. Okay. Scott: Do you have a question for the development team? Farmakes: I still have another question in regards to the park. Does this encompass all of Block 2 or is this a portion of Block 2? Generous: It's just those lots. The area where those 4 lots are. Farmakes: That would be Lots 8, 9, 11 and 10? Scott: 9, 10 and 11. Farmakes: ...24, 26 and 25? 55 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: Just east of the road. Generous: No, along the east side of the road. 8, 9, 10 and 11. And we would require, whatever the code requires in dedication and the city would purchase the remainder. Farmakes: Okay. Then so, in looking at the pads then for everything to the west of the road, then they would follow, those trees would be removed then, correct? Generous: Yes. Farmakes: There isn't a distribution of quality of the trees in the report that are on the schematic here. It doesn't talk about percentage is oak or elm. Not being a forester, the quality of the woodland there. Generous: Is very good. Farmakes: It's very good or are we talking more oak than box elder then? I would encourage the city to pursue that to fall in line with what's going on with Bluff Creek and I'm not sure, not having benefitted from the presentation of the developer in the past meeting...making judgments based on the staff report, other than the issue of parkland. I'll pass on the rest. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I guess some of my questions with regards to the park dedication have been answered. Is the city able to, listening to the developer's comments, I'm not sure if I heard them saying that the maximum they are required to give up by ordinance is 2 acres? Generous: Yes. 1.92. Nutting: And what is the Lots 8 thru 11 encompass? Generous: I believe the park...is 2.7 in that area. Nutting: So the city is proposing that they would purchase the additional .7 thru whatever means. Condemnation if necessary. Okay. I'm not sure, in terms of the issues that the applicant is not in favor of in staff recommendations number 1. Incorporating the design for the proposed Bluff Creek. Again, I'm a little bit of a novice of this game but I've listened to us incorporate this as it relates to the Highway 5 corridor. As it relates to Bluff Creek. As it relates to numerous other issues that are in progress. I don't know the legalities of that but 56 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 I don't think I would depart from our present approach in terms of making sure that we have developments that doesn't incorporate the future planning that's going on right now. Number 28. I don't know Bob, I'm hearing the developer say that they had originally proposed a private driveway concept which staff was not in favor of. And now staff has turned around and said give us a private driveway. Where does that all fall? Hempel: Mr. Chairman and commissioner, maybe I can address that. That came out of my staff report. I don't think it's the same, exact location or the same number of lots being serviced by the cul-de-sac. I do recall trying put the...previously but I think this is a different scenario. This has two of the lots, the house pads back into the wooded areas which results in tree loss. My thought is to try and eliminate the tree loss as well as help reduce cost... the developer, some of them prefer actually the private driveway versus the public street as well so it provides some diversity out there on those lots. I thought it was a win/win/win solution but maybe I'm not hearing that from what the developer is saying so I guess I'm open just from the standpoint that this is the...save us some additional trees and pulling those house pads down from the wooded... Generous: ...this vicinity. The other one the housing... Nutting: I'm not an attorney. I'm not going to touch number 32. Where that one goes. I guess I'd like to listen to the comments of the other members before pulling together my final thoughts. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I have a few questions. Bob, in your report on page 2 you have a couple of sentences that I'm reading here. Paragraph 2, sentence number one. This plat meets minimum code requirements for a single family development but falls short of ordinance requirements for the preservation of site characteristics including topography, creeks and scenic views. Can you talk about that a little bit? Generous: That's part of the conditions. The 100 foot setback and the 50 foot setback as a buffer area. With the recommendations in the staff report...that's primarily what we were looking at. Mancino: And are we doing mass grading on this? Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape. 57 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: And how are we preserving topography? If we're doing mass grading and especially in the northern part where there's steep slopes. Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, I'd be happy to address that one. The variety in elevations...balance earth work to develop house pad elevations. And also provide streets that meet our city code for street...Or provide a bench for a house to go on and... Mancino: But if we have said in our ordinances that we're preserving and protecting...those areas, shouldn't be less densely developed? Isn't that how you preserve and protect? Hempel: That would be one alternative to it I guess. Mancino: Is there any other alternative? Hempel: By trying to reconfigure the street alignment through there would be one method but again...increase the grade elevations. Mancino: And haven't we gone to 10% street grades for special areas like this? Hempel: In some areas we have. I haven't felt the need to do that to this road. To maintain a variety of slope...grading plan, they are still trying to reproduce the rolling terrain effect that you have out there today. Not to the extent that you have out there... Mancino: Would that northern cul-de-sac do less grading if it were a private? I mean if it were a smaller. Would that help at all Dave? Because that's where you have some of the steep slopes on that northern area. Hempel: The driveway grade, or I should say the street grade already is proposed at approximately 7%. 10% street grade...little bit of elevation off the top of the hill there but I don't know if it would be significant enough to warrant a private driveway. Mancino: Okay. Secondly Bob, oh I'm sorry. I have another question. Bob on that same paragraph. You said while staff believes that the road alignment for the project should be adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the future home buyers in this development a shared sense of ownership. Is that still the thinking of staff? That is the preferred route? That is still the preferred route, okay. Generous: We are compromising to get this to move forward. Mancino: So we're compromising really where we want the road just to move it forward? 58 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: And take a good look. We also want to work it out so, the developer's agreeable for our parkland dedication area. Mancino: But the developer isn't. Generous: We'll find out. Mancino: But according to what I see in front of me the developer isn't. Generous: What you see in front of you and what the conditions of approval are aren't the same thing. Mancino: Okay. My last few points, questions are, when we saw this before on page 3 of the staff report we asked for 4 things. Or the Planning Commission denied it. It was just I think the sketch plan. On 4 points and I just want to bring those up again. Number 4 was, we wanted them to minimize grading. Topographical disruptions and working with and maintaining some of the steep slopes. Number 5, provide a transition from Timberwood to Heritage. We were concerned about lot size directing abutting Timberwood. 6, we were concerned about the overall density of the development and we were also concerned about minimizing tree loss. And I have concerns about all 4 of those and actually whether they've been done with this new plan. The minimizing tree loss, we have a road going through the only place where we have trees. Mature trees. And we have lots going in there and I think this is pretty much what we saw the first time that we looked at it so I don't see a big improvement on that area. Overall density. Bob, what has that done? Generous: What did we do? I don't remember what it was the last time. Under the concept plan for the PUD they were able to go down to 11,000 square feet and average 15. They are averaging 21,000 now so. Mancino: So that has happened. Generous: Yes. Mancino: Good, good. And the lots that abut Timberwood, have those also increased in size? Generous: We believe so. They have the flare now back sides on the cul-de-sac. Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you. 59 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Ledvina: On the plan, let's see sheet 2. Looking at Lot 1, Block 1. We have 100 foot setback from the creek and I see the line and it essentially cuts right through a buildable area on that lot and I'm wondering can we still get a house pad in that area? Generous: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. So you can get in a 60 x 60 foot area into that? Generous: At this time...about 4,000 square feet. Ledvina: 4,000 square feet within the triangle? But people don't build houses in a triangular form. Generous: They can make it L shape. They also don't have to build a 60 x 60 house. Ledvina: No. That's true but that's the standard for providing the house pad. Okay. So you're satisfied that we can meet the requirements and also provide a buildable area in that lot. Okay. I guess I would like to hear from the developer specifically as it relates to the park situation. You mentioned you were anxious to make a comment and I'll let you do that now John if it's okay with the Chairman here. John Dietrich: Thank you commissioner. In regards to the park dedication area, we are proposing we'll meet the intent of, we will meet the code requirements of the 2 acres which will essentially be a minimum of a 20 foot buffer strip running along the entire eastern side of this development to provide access up to the east/west roadway and then run along Bluff Creek to the southern portion of the site and then west along the southern boundary of this development towards the underpass. Go to your comprehensive trail plan, which is stated, your trail would be in conformance with the comprehensive trail plan. That is the area that we proposed for park dedication and we feel meets the most closely intent for the comp plan. Secondly in terms of, if I may address a couple of the other issues that were also brought up in terms of this private drive. We will propose to maintain the public drive access in order to have proper frontage and access that would be of a public nature. We feel it would be best for all citizens and homeowners in this area to have public driveways. Or public cul-de-sacs. The 50 and 100 foot setback is met on every lot north and south in terms of grading within 50 feet of the creek and the structure setback within 100 feet. In order to preserve the topography of this site we are not grading along the entire northern area of the site where the steep slopes are along Bluff Creek. We anticipate there would not be any grading within this area so that steep corridor will be maintained in a steep nature and present condition. The slope will be projected out along this area and we will maintain the elevations along the entire rear of the property. In terms of transitions to Timberwood, the existing plant material 60 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 will provide a buffer that is already on the site and would be stepping down. We will have a transition so that the homes will not be right back up against the property line. With the NSP easement of 40 feet, we will be at a minimum of 40 feet. Most cases more than 40 feet off of that property line. Ledvina: Thank you. The area along that north high point, have we evaluated those areas in relation to the bluff ordinance and do they need any requirements there? Generous: The closest point is in the northeast corner of the lot along the trees. Ledvina: Okay. Okay. I did want to speak to some of the issues that were raised as part of the conditions. I guess number 1. Condition number 1. Generally I feel that we want the developer to deal with those elements of the design but I can definitely see their point in terms of making them accept something that doesn't exist and I guess I wouldn't support condition number 1 as it reads in the staff report. Maybe we can soften that to say the applicant shall attempt to incorporate design components. I don't think we should make it a definite condition and I think the developers have worked to provide some amenities and be sensitive to the Bluff Creek in their design as it exists right now. Especially with the setbacks. I think that they've demonstrated that so I don't know that we should hold their feet to the fire as it relates to that. So I see some nodding heads over there that that maybe is a way to go with that. Mancino: Matt, what if we put a date on it and said that in the next month or two, if this plan is done with and they're still in the preliminary going to the final, they could incorporate it. And have it some way. Ledvina: Well, if there's something that we have as a standard and that we can look at and compare it to the plan that we have, then I would say yes. But I don't like these interim kind of things. I realize that that's a transition but I don't think that that works for me. I feel that that trail should be looked at in terms of an easement and I believe that the city is justified in that perspective. And the specific parkland dedication should be as the staff has indicated in terms of that southerly area so I would support that. Going to, let's see there was another here as it related to the assessments. Can you speak to that Dave in terms of asking them to waive their due process on something that doesn't exist yet. Hempel: The project has actually been petitioned by the property owners. Feasibility study's been looked at and I was going to touch on that a little bit...Without the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer lines the development doesn't have sewer capability so we've left it optional for the developer. If he wishes to proceed extending this trunk sanitary sewer line to the development, then we'd reimburse him the cost of the lateral line and the trunk line. The 61 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 city has to put it in. We have to go through...public hearing and ordering the project, calling for plans and specs and ordering and so forth. What happens in the process, the property gets platted. It gets 40 some lots out here. You've got 40 some potential owners that could be closing on the property at the time we're holding the assessment hearing and where the language comes from is from the attorney's office. All these new property owners weren't notified of the public improvement project before and...problem with the public hearing process and the appeals and so forth that would occur from it. The project would not proceed ahead without a feasibility study that laid out the assessments for these parcels. The assessments may vary but they can only vary at a rate of 10%...So that would probably clarify what... Ledvina: Well essentially it's for the developer's good, right? To benefit in terms of keeping things moving. Hempel: Yes. From that approach, yeah...I think this came from the hearing standpoint... Ledvina: Alright. That's the extent of my comments at this time. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Bob, tell me about the transition between Timberwood and Heritage. ...Last time we talked about what's the transition. We're concerned with it and I see all the vegetation and the landscape plan going on the road. I don't see anything going between the two areas so obviously you must feel that we don't need a transition. That's taken care of. I don't... Generous: Except...for all the additional landscaping... Conrad: And we don't have that? We don't know what that is. Generous: We don't know... Conrad: So we're moving from 8 houses in Timberwood as I count to 14 houses in Heritage that they abut each other, and I guess that's okay. But I am specifically concerned about houses that are close. I see a couple close houses in Timberwood that I'd be concerned with and I just don't know that we really got a good buffering plan. Maybe it is Bob. Maybe in the future it is. I don't see it right now. That's an issue that I'm concerned about. We talked about grading and that was a concern we had and it looks to me like we're really doing a lot of grading here. Balancing the site. Dave says that that's what we've got to do to make it usable. Boy. Bob, what's the Bluff Creek watershed plan? What is it and where is it? 62 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: It's still in the process. Conrad: And who's doing it? Generous: The city...We lost out on the grant money to pay for... Conrad: So it's not even close to being done? Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape. Conrad: What could the potential impact of that plan be on this? Generous: Larger setbacks. Maybe they'd say 200...We don't know. Conrad: So it's really we don't know. Okay, then if we're not even close. Usually developers that we work with are usually pretty, even though we're doing things in the future we want them to support what we're doing and if, you know I think it's just a good cooperative spirit. I didn't notice that when you were talking. But on the other hand if we're not close, there's nothing that you can pay attention to so I guess I have to take number 1 out and that's not what I thought I was going to do. But if we're not close, I'm not going to, I'll test this plan on other issues and not waiting for something that's really not close to finalization. The difference really from the concept stage to the sketch stage is, we've reduced some houses and we've curved the street and staff is hopeful that we'll get a park out of the thing. Do we know what trees are going down? We don't know what trees have to be cut at this point in time, do we. We know what trees are there but. Generous: Approximately. We estimated it...reduce their building pads in that wooded area... Conrad: So how sensitive is this plan to the trees that we have there? Is this the only plan that will work Bob? Generous: The alignment of the road in the southern end... Then the rest of the site...there's a stand of trees in the middle. Whether or not they can or can't save those. Even under the PUD we want to show... Conrad: Nancy, I agree with all your comments. I don't know, I don't think our comments from the first go around have been really incorporated and maybe we were just sort of being real nice and philosophical. Practically speaking there's got to be a road going through there. Scott: Where do you think that road should go? 63 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Conrad: Well, I don't know. There's trees down there and you've got to bring a road through and I just don't see any solution. Scott: I'm thinking once it gets to the point when it's the wooded area, and I was quite taken by the initial kind of thumbnail sketch of having that road go along the Bluff Creek area and then having the grading effect of that road be very close to the 100 foot setback. Something in that. Roads are rarely amenities. But if they can be placed in proximity to a natural resource. So you do have the views and it performs it's traffic function and a trail can be incorporated. I mean that was kind of what my vision was of this particular piece. And now it's... Mancino: It's kind of like going down Lake Lucy Road and being able to see the view because of the wetlands. You know one...going from Galpin east and then the closer when you get to Powers. One of the nice parts about that is that you have some wetland views. And this is such a gorgeous area. Scott: I'm not going to speak for the Parks Department, parks group. Just a thought that there seems to be a lot of push and pull at the parkland dedication as a trail. And maybe one of the points we could discuss, not at this forum. Okay, if it's going to be 2 acres, talk about relocating the road and then have that dedication right along side the road and they'll have their, they'll be able to develop the higher buck lots down in the wooded area. The roadway I think would, that would be pretty spectacular and even as a thought process but I was, you take a look at where the road is now and I'm kind of going, well. We can do much better. Mancino: Which is what staff came up originally. Scott: Yeah. So that's my. What do the other commissioners think about the road position? Nutting: I guess I'm just trying to resolve staff getting from the original proposal to where we are now. I hear staff saying, or in the report it says to compromise to obtain the easement for the trail. Is that. Mancino: For the parkland. Generous: Park dedication. Nutting: But then staff says in the next sentence they're going to, that parkland is it regardless. Whatever means is necessary. 64 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: We looked at the idea, we can't get... We want our 2 acres in the woods. Let's push the road back over. The developer is not willing to work with the city. Then we have our public access for the...roadway alignment and the sidewalk going along there. But they were willing to compromise that and let him get his walkout in the Bluff Creek corridor... Nutting: The only other comment I have is I would amend my original comments with regards to number 1. Perhaps it's the hour but as I sit and think about the Highway 5 corridor, we at least had a document which had some direction. It wasn't finalized. It has been approved by Council and I guess I, sitting and listening to Matt and Ladd, I'm saying yeah. I mean I don't see how I can suggest that we put restriction number 1 in this document. Conrad: What's our vision of Bluff Creek? It's a, who knows. What is Bluff Creek? I don't know what it is. I honestly done. It's too bad. It's hard to tell whether the plan's good or bad when you don't know what the... The amenity is that you're trying to preserve and what you're trying to do with it and I don't know what that is. You know if Bluff Creek, we're just going to have a trail down there. I really wish we had a view, a vision of this or maybe somebody, I wish I had it. I don't. Therefore it's hard for me to preserve something that I don't have that vision for. Farmakes: Some of that is covered though Ladd in the preservation ordinance... Conrad: Tell me what Bluff Creek is? Do you envision Bluff Creek as a public walkway? Farmakes: Probably a part of that is presentation when we're talking about that. We're talking about trails going to the north/south. The creek goes down to the Minnesota bluff area. Conrad: Do you envision it as an isolated experience or one with traffic next to it? Farmakes: Well as I understood it, with the trail going through it, obviously there's public access to it. And again, that trail system coming up from the south crossing over TH 5 and coming into the north. It's been a while since we went over that stuff. As I understood it, the slide show was brought in here and they went through the trees and so on and the locale and obviously it gets wilder as it heads down towards the river. But at some point in time it seems to me that that is where the trail is. Conrad: And who endorses this concept? Is that Park and Rec? Is that their vision right now? 65 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Farmakes: Well it's MnDot's vision. We've got a connection going under the highway there. Mancino: A wonderful bridge culvert. Conrad: I don't want to drag this out any further but I'm looking for, so Park and Rec basically said they want a trail going through there. They didn't say they cared if there was a road next to it or not. Mancino: And the roadway I can see, you know I don't know what happens down south but it meanders and it can come close to it at times and other times you know...so it's more of a trail in the woods effect. Farmakes: From what I've seen in some of the more wild areas of that creek, some of it you never can put a road next to it. Some of it just goes down vertical for a considerable ways so. Conrad: Okay. I'm having a tough time dealing with it because I don't know if it's an isolated experience where you try to get somebody away or you're just having a trail next to a little stream so I'm not sure what it is. I'm going to stop talking. I guess I don't have a real good feel for this project. It looks like moving a lot of earth around. It didn't seem like we were real sensitive to the environment. The developer on the other hand has reduced the number of lots. My only issue right now, I think in terms of the staff report. Number l's got to be out. Number 32, which the developer had some problems with. I don't have a clue how to handle that one. Again, it seems like something that, if I were them, I'd want it out. I don't know how they can run their business with the way that was worded. Maybe there's a better way to express it. My biggest concern is transition from Timberwood. I don't know what it looks like. How it's done. I don't know how certain houses are protected. I think somebody should know that. Mancino: Do you want to see it back again? Conrad: For that one issue, I don't know. I guess if there are other issues. For that one issue, I might be able to say send it to City Council with a staff recommendation or a report. If it's just that one issue. If there are issues tagged on to that that we're concerned with. Road alignment maybe. Park. Maybe we want to see how the park works or something else. Maybe if there are other issues, then we should table it and bring it back. We haven't passed anything tonight yet. I see no reason to change it. Just work until 2:00 in 2 weeks. If there are other issues, then it should probably come back. 66 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: Yeah, I think there's some specific issues. I mean I don't see compromising the road alignment. I'd like to see it come back and move the road alignment. What the staff had originally asked for. And it would be meandering and follow the bluff line. And also I share Ladd's comments, which I kind of brought up earlier too about the Timberwood transition. And I'd like to see also if that can minimize some grading. Scott: Can we have a motion? Conrad: Joe, where are you at on the street? I don't want to send something back and screwing around with if we're not going to move it someplace. Scott: My major issue was the road alignment. And I was, there's intent of ordinances with regards to park dedication and then there's the letter and my thought is that, I think when most people think of a park dedication, they're thinking of something that is not straw shaped. I think when the Park and Rec or when that ordinance was put together, I think we were thinking of something kind of like a square. Something that was contained so I mean that to me looks like a by the, very by the book interpretation of our parkland dedication ordinance. Which is perfectly legal. Perfectly legal. But to me that doesn't seem like that's the intent. I think what the Park and Rec people were looking for is more the intent. It's an amenity and it's very nice to see them as, they've moved I think in the last two years I think that I've personally been working with them, moved from thinking of parks as an active scheduled, flat situation and now they're looking very seriously at doing what we see here as preservation of wooded areas and so forth. And I think that's the intent of that particular ordinance. So I'm looking at those two things are my major issues. Then also too, we were just looking at our bluff ordinance. In the two pages that I see here, I don't see anything in here that says 30% slope over 25 feet. Ledvina: Because that's the old version. Scott: This is the old version, okay. Well that makes sense. So I took a look at a couple of areas up here on the hill and there's a number of areas in a 25 foot stand. There are 8 foot changes and I'm just, I'm looking here at the topographic map. The thing that was very striking to me was to see that 3 dimensional view and so yeah, I have a lot of...what I believe from looking at the topographic map. From doing the measurements and using the scale provided me and using the bluff ordinance, there are bluff areas in the northern part of this thing and somebody's going to have to prove that I'm incorrect before I'm going to move off of that point. So that's where I'm coming from. And we've got another 2 hours tonight so. That's where I'm at. ...that based upon our bluff ordinance, cannot be graded. Plain and simple. 67 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Nutting: When are we going to move this forward? I mean your comments about the park. Staff has made recommendations which are supportive of your direction. It comes down to the issue of the road, is the biggest one I'm hearing which throws this whole thing back to the drawing board basically. Scott: My major concern is the major topographic changes up on the north side and I think that some of those areas are protected by ordinance. Nutting: But staff, Bob you said you have looked at that? Generous: Yes. When I was using the 30% and 25...elevation change. Scott: Yeah, I was doing the same. I was using an 8 foot change in a 25 foot span and I came up with. Generous: You've got to have a 25 foot change in... Scott: No, I was just using the 25 foot span and the 8 foot change. So it's basically 33% or 32%. Generous: That's not far enough down. It's not a large enough change that way. It has to be a total of 25 feet in... Scott: Alright. Nutting: So if that addresses the bluff issue, then we're down to the road. Mancino: Well and transition between Timberwood. I move that we table. Michael Duffy: Excuse me. I'm sorry to speak out of order. Scott: Excuse me. Public hearing is closed. We're considering a motion so. Mancino: We can say no to it. Scott: Yeah, which we can say no to. So, it's been moved that we table this. Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second. 68 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table. Is there any discussion? Conrad: Yeah, the road issue. Nancy, what would you expect back? Mancino: I would expect back to see a different road alignment and one that meanders with the bluff, the natural topography and it's something that I think the staff has and the applicant talked about, meandering through here and seeing what kind of development proceeds from that. Actually I...on page 2 of what the staff has written for the advantages to that. Conrad: So you would ask the developer to move the road next to? Mancino: I haven't seen it, yeah. I mean I'm sure that they have done some of this. While the staff believes road alignments of the project should be adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the future home buyers in this development a shared sense of ownership of Bluff Creek and the open space to be created in the wetland complex. I think the only, the sense I got from Bob was the only reason that they were still behind this and still think it's the best road alignment. Scott: Then also too, I think that road alignment in conjunction with the park dedication along that road alignment, I think it would be a good trade off versus having the dedication of the wooded area plus having the city buy 7/10ths. Nutting: So you're saying give up the south area then? Scott: I think that would be. Ledvina: I wouldn't support that. I would like to see that area incorporated as a park. I think that's important for this development. Just my thoughts on the road is, as I look at the road, there aren't a whole lot of opportunities to change the character of the road. We do have ordinances as it relates to the maximum grades and such that we have to deal with here so I don't think that there are a lot of options with this road. I know we want to be sensitive to topography in that instance but if you're going to put a road through it, you're going to have to grade it. Mancino: But don't you have to where it is now too? Ledvina: Pardon? Mancino: You're saying there would be a difference between putting it along here versus where it is? 69 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Ledvina: Not much of a difference. Mancino: Okay. Grading wise. Ledvina: That's what I'm seeing from some of the topography that I'm looking at here. Mancino: So it couldn't change fairly easily. Ledvina: No. Mancino: Oh! Ledvina: It can be changed but you're still going to have the grading to meet the slope requirement. So the value. Mancino: It's more of a community value. Ledvina: Yeah, right. That's the kind of thing you're looking at. It's not an and or, it's not a real clear cut option in terms of put the road down here and ydb don't grade this area. That's not the trade off. So I guess it gets back to, what does the road do in this area. I mean does it provide a scenic view off to the east of the bluff area which is quite, goes quite steeply down and then steeply back up so what do you see. I mean I don't know. You don't see that much. In terms of being able to view the whole bluff. I mean I don't, it's not, it doesn't have a real good visual for me right now in terms of seeing exactly how the road. Driving along this road in it's easterly position is going to be such a huge amenity. Mancino: It won't have a natural amenity to it. I mean much like you would. Ledvina: Well the area from the other side of the, the areas on the other side of the bluff won't be developed. Mancino: But again, that will be 100 feet away so you have a couple hundred. Ledvina: Yeah, 200 feet actually. Right, but you're not going to have a vista type of situation. Mancino: It won't go on and on. Ledvina: Right. So I guess I see the trail as providing that experience with the bluff area and the Bluff Creek area and I don't know. As I look at the site, I see that the position of 70 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 the road as reasonable. In terms of that view amenity or whatever we're considering there. So that's my thought on it. Nutting: Unless you've got views of substance that are coming from that road, it's going to be a local amenity as opposed to one that's an attraction. You know that's going to bring...the trail or the road I guess is where I'm coming at it. I think if we've got the trail, if we have the trail and we also have that park down to the south. The trail through the easement with the staff's conditions. I guess I'm not having as much of a problem with that as maybe some of the other members. Maybe... Scott: We've got a motion on the floor. Discussing a motion. Do you want to? Conrad: Yeah. Well this is important because if we don't know where we're going with this road, then there's no point pulling it back. The developer doesn't want to change it. Obviously he's not going to. If we had that vision of what we wanted, then we could stick to it. Joe you're concerned with bluffs and grading. Was that tempered by anything or are you still concerned with the bluffs and grading at the north end of the project? Scott: It concerns me. I think that's, if there's anything I think we're real clear on is preservation of features, topographic and vegetation and that's a concern. However you have to...that the developer and staff have worked hard enough to come up with the best possible solution so what we can do, why don't we vote on the motion and see where that goes and. Conrad: Well again, I'm trying to understand if we have some real valid things that we can send staff back to do. I know they can show us, and the developer can show us the transition stuff. We need that. I don't know, you're working next to the biggest area subdivision we've got. I don't know why this place isn't packed. They've been packed for every other thing that we've done close to them. They've been here. They're not here tonight so maybe it's because it's 10 after 12:00 but again. Mancino: Was there a neighborhood meeting? Conrad: I'm just amazed that they're not concerned and maybe they've worn me down after all the public hearings but you know, I think that's significant and maybe this is just fine but we don't know right now. I don't have a clue on it. Ledvina: Can I just say something to that? I think one of the things with the grading in this area is that you take the pad elevations down and the Timberwood people are seeing well over these roofs and it's not affecting them. 71 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Conrad: Yeah, see I think that's true. I think there's some real validity to that, but I don't know. Again that's one of those, I don't know. Ledvina: And also, with the NSP line in there, I think that creates a buffer. It's a strange buffer but. Conrad: Just don't walk under the power lines. Ledvina: Yeah. Well it's there and there is that easement and it does create a separation. Mancino: Matt, how do we know that? How do we know that they can't see because these things go up 35 feet? 20 feet. Ledvina: The houses? Two levels is what? Mancino: Yeah, but most peaks of the roofs have...so I don't know what Timberwood is. Ledvina: Well okay. Most of these buildings are at 950 or roughly. The northern one half of this lot in here and well, we can be looking at probably 930. I don't know. I guess you're right. You can't really say but you know that there's 20 feet of difference and if you have 20 feet, that's quite a bit in terms of providing a visual buffer and also a physical buffer too. Combined with NSP. I don't know. I just feel that the separation issue is there. It's been addressed by this plan. Conrad: Might be. Ledvina: That's my thoughts. Conrad: Yeah, might be. I don't have a clue. I see some houses that are real close. And here they've got 2 1/2 acres and we've got a house going up to, 2 or 3 in fact abutting that. So Joe you're still concerned about the bluff grading. That's still a valid issue. You want Bob to be going back and looking at that? Scott: Yeah. Conrad: And then street wise, you want a different plan? Scott: Well I think in my mind that would be preferable to have a different street location. Conrad: Putting it next to the creek? 72 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Yeah. Conrad: Your intent is not to reduce the number of houses. Your intent is to move. Scott: No, I don't have a problem with the density at all. Especially because they've got larger square footage lots on the western side. But we have a motion on the floor to table and let's vote on that. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission table the Rezoning, Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Heritage First Addition. All voted in favor, except Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Scott: The development is tabled. Now specific directions for staff and the developer. Zeroing in on the transition plan. Very specifically what do you want to see? Conrad: I just want to see the transition between the two areas. How they show it Scott: What about when Byerly's was in they showed the top of the Byerly's building. The development behind. Something like that. Conrad: We need some kind of schematic. Scott: Yeah, cross section to say here's the houses in Timberwood. The closest house, how's it going to line up. Because that's, something like that's a quick view. Nutting: From my perspective that's the issue from my support of tabling, that's the one issue that I guess I could come to terms with is saying we're giving that a lot of consideration for other developments that are coming through. I think it's only appropriate that we give it the same here. Scott: Yeah. My major concern is the grading on the north side. You talked about private drives and so forth but that seems to be custom grading private drives are about the only tools that we have. Mancino: Steeper grades. Scott: Which as far as the cul-de-sacs, I know that, of course it's mostly the south cul-de- sacs or streets that run north and south, we're more willing to allow steeper grades because in 73 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 the winter and so forth. The way this property is set up, I don't think we quite have that opportunity so. Mancino: I think we were all in consensus on parkland. We really feel that that area should be incorporated into it. Conrad: And I think Bob and staff should review points. The ones that the developer has cared about. Point number 1. It just shouldn't be there when this comes back unless there's something on the horizon. Number 32 should be taken care of. Scott: Now if there's something with the Bluff Creek group that is to the form that the Highway 5 document was, that was something that people could use very, very easily but if it's not there, it doesn't make sense. REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92 ACRES INTO 47 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE. Staff Present: Name Address Martin Kuder 6831 Galpin Blvd. Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd. Peter Davis 6640 Galpin Blvd. Sam Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Tom Owens Minneapolis Bill Engelhardt Engelhardt and Associates Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Now do we have another grading plan that was submitted today? Generous: Yes. The applicant's engineer provided that...We did hire Bill Engelhardt to review this... 74 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order and then asked each of the Planning Commissioners to introduce themselves and their backgrounds and why they chose to serve on the Planning Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino and Jeff Farmakes. Diane Harberts arrived after item 1. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Bob Generous, Planner II PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 1.87 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6330 MURRAY HILL ROAD, HOBENS WILD WOOD FARMS 1ST ADDITION, HOBEN CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Chuck Spevacek 6474 Murray Hill Road Keith J. Boudrie 6482 Murray Hill Road Gilbert Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road Paul Burkholder 6370 Murray Hill Road Peter Staudohar 2204 Sommergate Kaye Benson 2211 Sommergate Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments from Commissioners? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Just to clarify what you said regarding condition 15. Are you suggesting that we make changes to that or that is it? Al-Jaff: The change I've... Ledvina: Alright, thank you. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: Yes, I was going to ask for Mr. Hoben to make some comments. Do you have any questions for staff? Mancino: No. Scott: Okay, good. Would the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Is Mr. Hoben here? Oh, sir. Jim Hoben: Good evening. I am Jim Hoben and am reappearing. After listening to the concerns of the people at the last meeting I spent the next morning driving around, back and forth, up and down in order to do myself a favor as well as them. I decided to go with 3 lots on this particular parcel of ground, as was just explained by Sharmin so that the two entrances would be directly off of Murray Hill Road and the other off of Sommergate. I think we...next to the house that's already on the Sommergate. Lot sizes are more than ample. I've got a color rendering to give some indication of how they tend to sit on that property. The one that's marked out here in orange is the house that I intend to specifically put on that corner. There's always I know concern, not only about the number of units but all these things and I know from staff and everybody else and having been in there for 6 years myself along with... On the other hand, if we're going to come into it and again, one of the reasons I wanted this specific parcel now was because of the trees and the ambience and the whole atmosphere which I thought was a very nice piece of property... And so we are going to maintain all the trees as possible on there. We will have to have a few clearing spots in order to set a house down but other than that I think I discussed this with Mr. Hempel and also with Sharmin and I don't think that we have any problem between ourselves as to how we're going to set those houses on there. ...the engineers have shown a 60 x 60 box and long driveway and that's kind of where they go but not exactly. This is a little bit more specific and the one large lot is 256 feet deep I think or something like that by 125 feet wide. The actual house, because again Sharmin...it's going to be somewhat forward than that. Actually almost where the property line separates Lots 1 and 2, which is you go forward of that up in here. The house will sit more or less in the middle of the lot. And in doing that...and other than that I think it lays out quite well. As a matter of fact, doing that, making this change and again this was...a favor. I think these homes, what I'm going to put on there will be worth a little bit more money than what I had planned to be on it before. If there are any specific questions which you wish to ask me, I'll be very happy to answer them. Scott: Good, questions. Mancino: Yes, I just have one and that is, I just wanted to make sure that I'm clear in the staff report Mr. Hoben on condition number 7. It says that on the big lot, on Lot 3, and you just stated this but I just wanted to make very clear that it specifically says that you will not 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 take down the two black walnut trees, and I just wanted to make sure that that was okay with you. Jim Hoben: Yes. It's fine with me. I have to work out the grading. Mancino: Because there won't be any flexibility. Jim Hoben: ...all kinds of things to work with, yeah I want to keep the walnut trees. We have to work out the grading. As we come up, this is a slight incline we come up to this 10% grade. I think what I worked out the other day, I was at 10.3% or something like that. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Thank you sir. This is old business and we gathered quite a bit of citizen comment last time and I guess what I'd like to do now is to get comments from commissioners regarding which way we should go on this item. So Ladd. Conrad: Nothing to comment on. I think it's a good proposal. I think it's more sensitive than the last one we looked at and I don't have any further comments. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Is this is a public hearing? Scott: No. Ledvina: Okay. Well I just would like to say that I think the developer has been sensitive to the wishes of the residents and he noted some deficiencies in terms of what we wanted to see in the last report such as the grading plan and we do have that in front of us and I'm fairly comfortable with that. I guess I would support the staff recommendations on this proposal. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I also support the staff recommendation and I do applaud the applicant for making the changes and listening to neighbors and Planning Commission and staff so I do support it. Scott: Good. Jeff. Farmakes: I have nothing more to add to the comments that have already been made...if there are any individuals here from that development, the surrounding properties on that development, some of the comments from reading the notes from the last meeting that I did make is that there are large lots throughout Chanhassen, particularly in the south. People that 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 want to keep these hobby farms. If you're interested in doing that, the process here is not to wait for development to come into these large lots. If you're interested in doing that, you need to talk to the elected officials of the city to look at perhaps a secondary single family zone for larger lots to preserve them. There simply is no other mechanism in place to preserve those lots. If your neighbor chooses to subdivide and it's within the minimum single family zone, and he's got these 15,000 square, they can do that. This is a problem that's going to keep on reoccurring. This is a small lot surrounded by a lot of large ones. This isn't going to go away. This one I think was solvable because of the developer and size of the overall development but I'm not sure that the intent to try and preserve those large lots of homes, I'm not sure we have a mechanism in place to do that. Scott: Good, thank you. I'd like to thank the developer for working with us. Just for those of you who didn't follow this particular issue. The first revision of this plan that we saw on this particular property already exceeded our minimum requirements and a number of neighbors voiced their concern relative to how this particular development with 4 lots was not in character with what they thought the neighborhood was when they moved in and Mr. Hoben was under no obligation to change his development so this is a classic example of what we like to see and what I like to see personally as a commissioner where a developer pays very close attention to what the neighbors think. Makes some modifications purely on his own and thank you very much. May I have a motion please? Conrad: I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans dated October 24, 1994, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the modification handed us to item number 15 tonight. Scott: Good, can I have a second please? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staff recommendations. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94-15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans dated October 24, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. 2. The applicant shall work with the city in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. 3. Building Department condition that the applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal. 4. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 5. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition. 6. The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of trees: a. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. b. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 1. 7. The two black walnut trees in the center of Lot 3, Block 1 shall be preserved. A tree protection fence at the canopy dripline for these trees shall be installed prior to any construction on Lot 3, Block 1. The tree protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lot 3, Block 1. 8. The 50 inch dbh eastern cottonwood located in the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be saved. A tree protection fence shall be installed at the dripline of the tree. An exception to this placement shall be to the north of the tree where the tree protection fencing may be placed at the edge of the driveway easement. The tree 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 1. 9. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500.00 escrow prior to the city signing the final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents. 10. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies for demolition of the existing buildings and disconnection of the utility lines for Lots 1 and 2. 11. No berming, landscaping or retaining walls will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city, and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 13. Lot 3 will be charged a hook-up charge in the amount of $2,425.00 at the time of building permit issuance. 14. The applicant and/or contractor shall receive the necessary construction in right-of-way permit from the city and provide a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.00 for extension of utility service to Lot 3. 15. Driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to the existing driveway locations on Murray Hill. The driveways may be expanded to a maximum width of 20 feet at the street. Driveway access to Lot 1 shall be from Sommergate. The use of retaining walls shall be employed to minimize grading. 16. The applicant shall pay the city a SWMP water quality and quantity fee in the amount of $3,879.00 in lieu of on-site ponding facilities. These fees are payable prior to the city signing the final plat. All voted in favor and tfie motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 9.7 ACRES INTO 48 LOT SINGLE FAMILY TWIN HOMES, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 24 STRUCTURES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE, POWERS PLACE, JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Ron Bremer 2021 Field Ave, St. Paul Phil Jungbluth 8209 West 93rd Street, Bloomington Larry Harris Attorney for Applicants Jim Jasper Jasper Development Mark Jeffries Millco Landscape Products Greg Halling Rader and Associates Jay Jasper Jasper Development Joe & Deanne Hoppe 8530 Tern Court Kounthone Souvanna Kane 1600 Lake Susan Hills Drive John Williams 1531 Lake Susan Hills Drive Betsy Jenkins 1511 Lake Susan Hills Drive Arthur W. Stene 1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive Loleta Rogers 1571 Lake Susan Hills Drive Gary Conduit 8440 Pelican Court Jerome R. Reutzel 1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive Doug Jacobsen 8551 Merganser Court Bob Lanzi 8431 Egret Court Patrick A. Nelson 8411 Egret Court Dave Clough 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive Pat Victoria 8530 Merganser Court Jeff Zahn 8461 Pelican Court Ronda Pierre 1591 Lake Susan Hills Drive Tom Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court Sharmin Al-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments for staff from the commissioners? Mancino: I have one. Sharmin, how are we deciding we have what three, did you say three wetlands? Ag urban wetlands here. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Al-Jaff: I'm sorry. Mancino: We have three ag urban wetlands here and one of them we are retaining. It will stay natural and then the other two. Al-Jaff: They are...with the mitigation that will perform, we will get much better quality wetland. Right now the type of a wetland is still...they don't perform as well as they should. Mancino: Okay. Are we mitigating on site or? Al-Jaff: Yes, we will on one. Some of the mitigation will take place on the northerly portion of this site so this wetland will be enlarged. The rest will be mitigated with the improvement of County Road 17. Mancino: How are we deciding, what is the procedure of deciding whether we mitigate 2:1 on site or whether we bank it and go somewhere else? How is that set up? Aanenson: A lot of this is part of the storm water management plan and we went through and we did...inventorying all the wetlands and going through and banking. Like Bluff Creek is identified as we want to enhance. We view some of these areas that aren't functioning as well and they could add value wetland...project somewhere else. We were before you a couple days ago to talk about the...on the other side of Lake Susan. While we're improving that wetland, we think that's going to function as a high quality wetland... Mancino: Would you go one step further and explain to me what under utilized means because when I think of a wetland, it creates an ecosystem that is in and of itself, whether it's under utilized or not. Aanenson: Well it's very, very small. It's there but we think that by enhancing somewhere else, we're creating a better quality, better functioning environment somewhere else. Mancino: So it has to do a lot with size? Aanenson: Size and function. Again we're kind of, Chanhassen is very dynamic in the way we approach this. We look at not only size and function and quality and if we can improve and make a better one somewhere else, it does... kind of rated them all. When we did our inventory we looked at where are the best opportunities to do some really good projects. Instead of them all being marginal... The ones that we felt were already degregated, to improve some of it for the chance to improve the quality of it. That was part of the rating system. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: Okay, thank you. Scott: Any other questions? Well would the members of the development team like to speak? Larry Harris: Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation. My name's Larry Harris. I'm the attorney for the development. I think as you can see from reviewing the revised staff report, the developer has taken to heart the comments that were made not only by staff but also by the Planning Commission and the residents at the meeting on September 7th. The primary issues that were raised at the September 7th meeting, I had written down into three categories. The first was a public safety issue. The primary areas of concern raised there were retaining walls. The Planning Commission had very clearly wanted to see detailed drawings of the retaining walls. They wanted to see engineering data, and Mark Jeffries who's handling the landscape development for the development team will make a presentation in that regard. One of the other areas raised was access to Powers Boulevard, which staff has already explained. The plan has been substantially modified to address some of those concerns. Greg Hailing, the engineer for the development team will make a presentation where he talks about access issues and also shows how the layout was changed on certain issues such as berming the streets to enhance eye appeal have been dealt with. Another area of concern related to environmental issues. One significant area was wetland and wetland delineation. A qualified wetland delineator has been on the scene. A report has been provided to staff. I think staff has adequately addressed that issue but if any specific inquiry needs to be made, either Mr. Halling or myself would probably be...to answer any questions that the Planning Commission members or the public might have. The third area of concern was primary developmental concerns. Style issues, shall we talk about. The architect for this project, Ron Bremer has prepared a scale model showing out the units lay out. How the roads lay. Where the retaining walls will be so people can get a better feel for that and we'll make a presentation in that regard. Phil Jungbluth will make a presentation concerning what I'll call the style issues. Exterior style issues. One of the things the Planning Commission expressed was, what is the siding on it? What are the roof lines going to look like? What type of roofing materials are going to be there and Mr. Jungbluth will make a presentation in that regard. First I'd like to call upon Greg Halling, the project engineer. He'll explain the revised layout and he'll be in a position to answer any questions concerning utilities... Greg Hailing: I'm Greg Hailing with Rader and Associates, civil engineer. Essentially what's been done is to change the layout as the units lay out along Powers Boulevard to get more of a pleasing aesthetic look as you look at the units. One of the big things which Dave has already pointed out was the elimination of this connection to Powers Blvd and in order to do that, the road has been placed parallel and close to Powers Blvd. One of the wetlands which 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 was mentioned earlier that is going to be filled is in this location and on the earlier, the first layout, that wetland would not have been filled. So what we're doing is, you know it's kind of a balancing act. Trying to determine which item, whether it's that particular wetland or the road, is more important, and meeting with the County Engineer, or engineering consultant, and staff, it was felt that this was a good compromise and an improvement, particularly on the traffic routing. The other thing that I wanted to point out, the three wetlands that are being filled have been dug up previously because of sewer line. An existing sewer line has gone through there so those are very disturbed wetlands and that's part of the lower quality item I think that was mentioned before on those wetlands. Also on the wetland it is, we are looking at increasing the wetland all on the north side here and that particular increase in wetland is equal to the three wetlands that are on site so essentially we have the same area of wetland when we get them on site plus there will be the increased wetland on the city's project and location. The other thing that we've done, there were two cul-de-sacs in this area and if you notice, this one is eliminated with the thru drive. This particular turn around in this area is accomplished for, or the turn around is for the fire trucks and it would be accomplished in a T type turn around rather than a cul-de-sac. And the reason that that was done is to try to pull the units in. Try to minimize the disturbance to the large mass of...trees that are on the site and so we're just going up to the trees, a smaller amount or trying to minimize that impact. Are there any questions? Ledvina: Is this model to scale? Ron Bremer: Yes. Each of the contours represents a foot and a half. Approximately a foot and a half. Ledvina: So vertical and horizontal scale is equal here in this model? In terms of the grading and all of that. Ron Bremer: That's correct. Ledvina: Alright, thank you. Scott: Do those pins denote the sections that we have in here with regard to the retaining wall? Ron Bremer: Those represent very closely the corner points of the property line. Scott: Of the lots? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ron Bremer: Of the property line. Of our property line...individual lots but our overall property line. If we connect the line between those, that'd be approximately... Mancino: And what does this gray material represent? Ron Bremer: The model's generic in nature in that again, we're just generically showing where the trees are and the extent of the tree planting. So green represents the deciduous tree type. These little pointy gray things here represent a pine tree essentially. Coniferous tree type. And these simply represent planting hedges. I guess what we're trying to illustrate here is that we're planting above these terraced retaining walls so that we can prevent people from walking over those, even though we've minimized the height of those retaining walls but we're also guarding those. That's what these gray strips represent. They're lines of plantings. Mancino: I don't understand the retaining walls. I can't tell where. Ron Bremer: Oh the retaining walls, I'm sorry. They're back here. You've got to get up to actually observe them. That was one of the items that was discussed was the height, the overall height of the retaining walls. We've reduced the height of those and terraced them so that we minimize any one single vertical jump. Mancino: And the terraced area is approximately 5 feet? So is there any plantings on those terraced areas? Ron Bremer: Actually the landscape people would have to address that. But again, they vary slightly from 3 feet up to 6 feet in height. And again, the plantings here are generic. We cover most of the major planting areas but there's an extensive planting program around each individual unit that's really not represented here because of the scale. Mancino: And the other thing that this model represents is some of the different detail work that you're doing on the roof lines? Ron Bremer: That's correct. We have two basic unit types which we've developed and when we get back to some of the boards, I'll show you more of the specifics on that. But so we have two basic unit types and beyond that, along Powers Blvd we've developed several various elevation types. We've introduced cross gables, dormers, and also gables at the ends of these porches so we've got a total of 4 types that we're introducing. In addition to that, optional decks and porches, and/or porches will be offered so there will be an additional rhythm here. This doesn't necessarily represent exactly which units get the dormer because ultimately that's going to depend on who buys what options but we're saying we will in fact provide that kind of variety along Powers Blvd. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: Unless someone doesn't buy the dormer style or. Ron Bremer: Well, dormer style is a side issue but if they buy an attached porch, which isn't represented here. Say this one might get an attached porch so this may get that sort of a look on it. So then we'll have to vary the pattern really. It all depends on what options people buy but we will provide that level of variety. Scott: Are there any architectural details that are available on the back sides of these units that will be facing Powers? Ron Bremer: Yeah again, I guess we'll get to that on the boards in a little while. Scott: Okay. How about, we all have some drawings that I believe, 6-7 sections of the retaining wall. Are those denoted at all on this particular model, or...landscape architect can probably tell us. Ron Bremer: He'd have to address that. Scott: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Ron Bremer: I guess before I get to the boards, just a couple additional notes about the model. We've maintained a relatively low density, at least for townhouses. We've kept the roof pitches at a moderate level and all the strength points for the roof masses spring off of the first story elevation. The first story with elevation. In other words, there's no storing of half masses or two story masses here. We're all springing off of that. That point right up here. So we're keeping the roof masses low I guess is what I'm getting at in order to preserve the views across the complex. And when you get down and look at it at eye level, you can start to see, especially when you get up here, the place on top of the hill, there's very little impact with these people above the hill. Mancino: Actually what is the elevation difference? I stood up there in different areas. Ron Bremer: Well the site slopes generally, that's north on the model. The site slopes generally from west to east and also from south down to north. The high point within our boundaries, within our...our survey just extended slightly beyond this property line. So the high point on our site was approximately 962. The elevation and at the low point was approximately 912 so there's about 50 feet of slope from here down to there. And again, as far as the scale of this complex, again when you get down and look at it, you start to see a rhythm of, a nice rhythm of, I think respectfully massed buildings with plantings and density and proximity to the street. I think this will feel more of something that might be in a small 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 town neighborhood rather than a high density townhouse project. And so as far as the architecture itself, or the details of the buildings themselves, we try to play up on that feeling. The small town sense. To do that we've tried to minimize the scale or the perceived scale of the buildings. And also tried to introduce harmonizing elements. Or illuminizing elements I should say on the design. So this is the Itasca, which is the walkout unit, which would be closest to yourselves for the most part on that model. What we're doing here is we've introduced these continuous bands around the building to sort of wrap around and what we're expecting to do is provide a base for the building and body size and a cap if you will. And we'd reinforce that cap by using various siding. In this case the scalloped sort of shingle style siding. These are all premium grade vinyls and Phil will talk a little bit more about that. Other elements that we tried to introduced that are somewhat traditional, are planter boxes. We're providing grids on all the windows. Again at the columns, where we have columns, we're providing a trim at the base and at the cap to give it more interest. And more traditionally styled guardrails and that's again with heavier...posts and traditional pickets in between. So we've given, we've tried to give these things a flavor of a little bit the traditional flavor. So that's the Itasca unit. Now again we start talking about the variety along the street here and I'll show you some of the elevations we've developed. Again these units along here, these 9 units are the Itasca so they're the same unit size. They're broken up into two parts. The curvature of the street house is kind of shifting back and forth like this and it also helps this coming in and out a little bit. It gives us a little more of a romantic progression through the site. So I guess in comparison this is the standard Itasca. One alternative that we've developed along the Powers Blvd side is to introduce these two dormers on either side. One more point to make is, the cupulas we have on every single unit aren't represented on, they get a little too small. This again is the Itasca. Another elevation for it would be the cross gables and cupula on top of that. We'd keep the scalloped shingles again coming from the front. Okay, so I covered the basics. One more. This one represents what it will look like with the screened porch on it or... Phil Jungbluth: It could also end up either having dormers and/or a central gable. Scott: So the cross gable is optional but not, this is the center section and side sections that are set back but it's the cross dormer on the side sections that are an option? Not the side... Phil Jungbluth: Right. Ron Bremer: ...porch. So you may see this with one or the other variations of the dormers. So I guess in sum here, we've got at least 4, in fact probably 5 different elevation types that we're introducing along Powers Blvd. And there's only about a dozen units along there so that's a pretty good percentage. That's our standard unit. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Phil Jungbluth: I guess that represents, that was the main unit of concern was the facing Powers Blvd. You had requested to see what the materials would be so we brought some samples today. This particular sample is what we propose to use as siding on the project and this right here. I think you can see what it is. It's a high grade premium vinyl siding with a 4 inch reveal and it has a very deep setback. Deeper than the standard vinyl or standard aluminum siding. It's also a very smooth finish so that it looks like a painted board. That's the whole idea of this particular grade of siding. And these are the colors that area available. They're all metal, earth tone colors. A continuous band that we're talking about in terms of using as a decoration, we've decided to go with white because white will go with any of those colors. So rather than what is... It's a very thick siding and we use it on our premium grade. We offer two types of homes, because of our single family products and we use this in our higher priced homes of $200,000.00 and up so it is something special. I don't know how much more I can describe it. What we're also planning on doing with gables, as indicated on the front of the units, right in here and this is on all of the buildings, is using another vinyl product called cedar impressions which is a vinyl siding that looks like cedar shakes. It's a very deeply embossed product used for accentuating architectural details and giving that textured look to all the units that we're trying to achieve. Mancino: So your customers can pick from any of these colors? Phil Jungbluth: Well what we would do is we'd have every other house a different color. First of all we won't let them have the blue. But they certainly could use any of these other colors. And however it would be the case of no two houses next to each other would have the same color. Or buildings I should say. Or across the street. We will control what site gets which color. So that only every 10 houses have the same color. Scott: Any questions or comments? Harberts: What was the estimated market value of the homes? Phil Jungbluth: Well we're looking at upwards of $110,000.00. Harberts: Per unit. Phil Jungbluth: Per unit. Scott: Okay, anything else? Good, thank you. Phil Jungbluth: Did you want to talk about the landscaping? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mark Jeffries: I don't know whether this will yield any more information than the model but it might help to take a look at those a little bit. My name is Mark Jeffries with Millco Landscape Products and I did the landscape design. I did not design the walls but I can probably address some questions on the walls. I really don't have a presentation but if you have any questions. Mancino: What are the walls made out of? Mark Jeffries: The walls will be made out of interlocking system called Stone Wall. Stone Wall select. I have brochures to look at. I have enough, does everyone want to take a look at one? Scott: Yes. Mark Jeffries: You also on the walls have a detail I believe that shows a cross section in 7 different places on the wall. There is one that states on that cross section # 4 is a 3:1 slope instead of a 2:1 slope. Mancino: What about on cross section #6. Is that still a 2.5 to 1 slope? Greg Hailing: They all, the minimum was 3:1...3:1 on the grading plan that was laid out. Mark Jeffries: Okay, so that would be 3:1 also. Mancino: So section #6 would be a 3:1? Mark Jeffries: Correct. Mancino: Can you mow a 3:1 slope? Greg Halling: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Mark Jeffries: One thing on the plan, or on this model. Well yeah, it is shown. The planting areas here are shown in front. And you have a detail as to what those planting areas are. They are some...it doesn't show all of them but there's about, I think about a half a dozen of them. And there is one error on that also, the cardinal dogwood hedge, which is the hedge material that would go behind the wall, here is the specifications in 5 gallon drums. That would also meet those specs... 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: Can you review for me the berming on Powers? And the height of the berming. Mark Jeffries: Well if you take a look at that model, I think that might be more helpful to you. The planting areas, I really concerned myself with the planting areas and those by nature are typically bermed somewhat. And it shows on that model I think pretty well, the berming. Scott: Which, and I would assume that the species that you're using along Powers are all salt tolerant? Mark Jeffries: Yeah. Right. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Conrad: Who's responsible for the maintenance of the walls in 5 or 10 years? Is that the homeowners association? Mark Jeffries: The maintenance for the walls, you're saying like if they would fail? Conrad: Well, yeah cave in. Mark Jeffries: I guess I can't speak to what's between the builder and subcontractor who builds the walls. Phil Jungbluth: There will be a homeowners association, which will be funded to take care of any future structure requirements. There's also a homeowners association which will take care of lawns, snow removal, except for garbage... So if the wall fails or if shingles need replacement, siding... there's a fund and the homeowners association... Harberts: Can you describe to me how you envision the garbage collection to occur with this type of layout? Phil Jungbluth: I sure can't. I'm not a, you know whatever. Harberts: Do you anticipate that it's going to be a door to door type of pick it up at each individual unit or is it going to be a common collection point? Phil Jungbluth: No, I would anticipate we'll have it door to door. Scott: Any other comments? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: I just had one more landscaping question. On the cross sections that I'll see at the property line, I understand should be a tree. Is that a tree at those property lines? Mark Jeffries: That's the hedge. Mancino: That's the hedge. Mark Jeffries: That's the hedge, right. Scott: Good, any other landscaping related comments or questions? Harberts: I have a staff question. This is for Dave. The turn arounds with the T and with the other sides, have they been reviewed by the Public Safety Department as to, can the vehicles, the emergency vehicles turn around? Do you know? Hempel: The turn arounds have been designed in accordance with the Fire Marshal's, he has a handout that he gives. He gives specifications described for turn arounds... Harberts: They're not concerned with that T style turn around or whatever? Hempel: They use a T bone, a Y or a standard cul-de-sac. Harberts: Okay, thanks. Scott: Anything else? Would the development team like to make any more comments before we open the public hearing? Good, thank you Mr. Harris. This is a public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Just for purposes of information, how many people would like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Good. You can still speak if you don't raise your hand obviously but sir, if you'd like to start it off and give us your name and your address. Tom Rasmussen: My name is Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court and like Matt, I'm a civil and environmental engineer. First of all, just to address, maybe in the future for the developers, it would be nice for the public to see this before the meeting so that we get a chance to look at it and make some comments on it. That's just a general question. The one thing very disappointing about the model is that there's a bunch of houses on top of 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 there and they're not shown for that. Probably my biggest issue with this thing is safety reasons. Catherine, could you come here please. This is my daughter. She plays on the back of the hill there and this is a 6 foot high ladder. Catherine, do you want to go up? I can't afford expensive models. Do you want to go any higher? Okay. Are you scared? No? Would you want to jump off from here? That's right. Okay, thank you. The development would be fine if there was nothing on top with the retaining walls. I can't allow this to be in my back yard. They talk about some bushes and some shrubs and stuff but if you look at their plan, there's gaps. There's openings. I don't feel comfortable with that right now. The way the existing slope is, when the ball goes down the hill, it stills go down right now. I'm just, I think it's stupid. I really disagree with it and think some others will also repeat that fear for the retaining walls. I think it should be a 3:1 slope throughout and no retaining walls. One of my other issues that we've talked about are significant grading within my property. This is my yard. This is the back of my house on Merganser Court. I'm within 30 feet of the property line and you'll notice on their grading plan, there's a nice little gap there between the shrubs and then all of a sudden I've got a 5 foot retaining wall. Boom go down to another 5 foot retaining wall and then we've got that. Sorry, if she goes sliding back there in the winter and it's going to be hard for us to watch them constantly and I know that stuffs going to happen with that. The other issue is when they're grading, they're doing significant amount of grading extremely close to my house. Within 30 feet of it and I'm concerned with foundation problems or whatever. Because my house is up here, you're going and moving a lot of dirt and what like that. You remove that. What happens to my foundation? I don't know. Dave and I, we had a discussion on that today and it's real... While I also have this sky rail up here, I'd like to raise a couple of other issues. For this portion of the development that's there, there's only a parking stall for just 2 vehicles. In our previous meeting we had talked about what we were concerned where do their company park if they're going to have a party here or open house, where are they going to park? There's only room for 2 of them down there right now. For all of these units in this section, there's no other public parking for that. The other thing, their third design wipes out is a 24 inch oak over here and a 30 inch oak tree over there. You can't, can we replace a 30 inch oak? I don't think so. For that. And I guess what I would propose and being some type of options is where I've got the blue lines crossed out like that. I would propose some type of a re-shifting of the units to try and preserve the trees and then extend the parking lot down here in this region then and try to eliminate some of the use of the retaining walls up in this region as much as possible. That is just one suggestion to try and get around some of the issues that we've got facing us and I realize that they're trying to make some money and all that too but on the other hand, we've got some significant safety and environmental issues that we want to talk about. We had previously talked about, mine is cross section #4 in your pamphlet there, in case you want to...and I've gone and done another little one myself here. But again as you'll note, this is the existing slope and it will slope pretty much in an existing format just kind of continues on and then it kind of tapers off towards the bottom of the hill. Like that. Again, it wouldn't 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 take much going to all of a sudden come down and again hit these steps. The other thing with retaining walls you need to be aware of is that back in '87 there was a significant amount of failures in Bloomington from the super storm. They need to be properly engineered and they need to usually have drain tile behind them also to keep these from failing. Those are important safety concerns and design...I do thank the developer for addressing the wetland issues and I'm happy to see that the one on north side is being preserved. I am happy with the access of that too. Getting back to Dave's previous comments about County Road 17, I'd like to state here publically that I'm extremely disappointed in our Roger Gustafson with Carver County as a whole for not listening to the residents that live in that area. To our concerns. I think at a minimum where their driveway comes in there should be a pedestrian crossing to the park that's being proposed across the other road there. Why in the world, right now it's a pain to get out there. There's some cars coming up there about 55-60 mph and we've got to come from a dead stop and out there. Now we've got to cross two lanes of traffic. Sit out in the middle and then come back out. I know they did their projections and all that other stuff but common sense, we live in a neighborhood. I've made two 911 calls for accidents at the north end of Lake Susan Hills Drive and CR 17. We live there. We know what kind of stuff is going on there all the time. Lastly, we had talked a little bit about...along CR 17. Again, what we had talked about today is there isn't room for a berm up there of any significance to do anything. For noise reduction. The residents along there, it's an extremely noisy road and if I'm, I wouldn't want to buy one of these townhouses where right out my back yard is this road because there's no way for that. And if they can do any type of break at all, a year round break with trees of some significant sizes, that would help out a lot. On top of a 3 foot berm but with walk out units walking out to a 4 lane highway or whatever... And I guess I would like some clarification of the price. Tonight we heard upwards of up to $110,000.00. The last time we were here they said base price would be $110,000.00-$120,000.00. Applicant: That's what I did say. From $110,000.00. Tom Rasmussen: From $110,000.00, okay. I misunderstood you...So thank you for your time. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Jerome Reutzel: My name is Jerome Reutzel. I live on 1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I'd like to reiterate some concerns that Tom had mentioned, and the concerns that I have. First of all the traffic concerns. Traffic's bad on County Road 17 and I recognize at this point in time that it may not be necessary for anything to be done. What I'm very concerned about is whether or not, how many deaths or how many serious injuries will it take before something is actually done, and it's not that far from reality. Will it be 1 death? Will it be 2 deaths? Will it be my death? Will it be my wife's death or will it be my children's death? That road 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 will be used and I'm hoping that it will be reviewed on a periodic basis, and I believe that it will be. My second concern is the crosswalk concerns as far as getting from one end to the other, as far as the parkland that's available on the other side of County Road 17. I don't see any provision that's being made. I know a lot of people are making crosswalks or crossings from one side of the street to the other and there's no provision for that. I was kind of hoping to see some kind of traffic light but I can see for at this point in time that may not be necessary. I'm hoping in time that that does become reality because I think it's necessary. My third concern is the replacement of the trees. Tom had mentioned that some of the larger trees were going to be disposed of and in looking through the report that I received from Sharmin, I noticed that one of the staff recommendations tonight is that increased vegetation be placed on this site, and I think the developers have addressed the issue to a certain amount but it leads into my fourth issue. The fact of the safety issue with those retaining walls. I have to agree with Tom. In my back yard the children play there and they spend time there and it's dangerous and there are gaps where those kids could easily fall. They're young kids and I think that there needs to be something done, seriously, in order to prevent those kids from getting on the other side. Scott: And what would you suggest? Jerome Reutzel: Well you know I'd like to say, I'd like to suggest a fence. But from a realistic standpoint is that visibly appealing? Not necessarily. I don't think so. I think a hedge may very well be, a straight hedge of some type would be necessary along the border, particularly where the retaining walls are going in. I've seen, I will speak of my parent's development. What they have are actually spruce trees that were put behind their property to border them from a church. That has been very effective over time to eliminate traffic. However from when they were first planted, they're still is traffic going in between the church and their yard. I think at a minimum there's going to have to be a basic hedge going in to prevent traffic back and forth. Kids coming down that hill are not going to see those retaining walls as they're going down. They're hidden and as a minimum, I implore the developers and based upon the recommendations of city staff, I ask that something be done there. It doesn't affect my property directly but I can assure you that it does, it could easily affect my children and affect a lot of other children in that development because I've seen them play there. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Scott: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Of course you're not obligated to speak but we don't want to discourage anybody if you've got something on your mind. Yes sir. Bob Lanzi: My name is Bob Lanzi, 8431 Egret Court. First of all I really appreciate the builder working with the planning department. I really appreciate all the help that staff has been. I've come at various times to ask questions and every time I've had questions answered 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 so I appreciate that. Stating one concern also, it would have been appreciated to be able to see something like this little plot that's here ahead of time so we'd have an opportunity to respond to it. I know for myself living right in that first cul-de-sac. The northern portion of this. I'd like to see exactly what that northern most wetland, what's going to be affected there. I mean we're talking about a 2:1 restoration. I do realize it's not pristine and there's no formal obligation not to touch it at all but one thing I'd like to see is just kind of find out what exactly it's going to do. Is it going to be a holding pond? Is it going to remain virtually untouched? Is there going to be, I know on the other side of the road, the other side of CR 17, that is more so of a holding pond than it is a wetland natural area. I know for the whole, I can't speak for the whole development but I know as you come into the whole development, the first thing you see is you do see that wetland and that's kind of the character of the development as you go into it and I think that would be of some concern for all the residents. Not only the ones bordering along the proposed development, that something is done to keep it as natural as possible. I also saw in the proposal that there would be some berming along the whole western side. Basically the whole back of the proposed development. I'd like to see exactly what was going to be there. I've seen some of the plans and it seemed like it wasn't adequate in creating some sort of a barrier between the multi family housing and the single family housing. Sure, all the residents that are here expressed a big part of their concern along with, the number one issue is safety. The number two issue would be value concerns for the homes in that area. It seems only appropriate that there is a very good buffer. I'd like to see what the exact pitch is going to be on those berms. It seems like a perfect time, although I haven't seen able to see it. I'd like also to see that the berming that is done, the vegetation that is there is more coniferous. Year round. Shrubbery. More along the lines of spruces. I guess the only thing I concur so far with what the developer has done on the other side of the road, and there really didn't seem to be much of coniferous. A lot of deciduous. We live in Minnesota. 6 months a year there are no leaves on those trees and as a homeowner looking right there, I'd like to see a berm adequately dividing the multi family compared with single family. Thank you for your time. Scott: Well thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad: I move to close the public hearing. Ledvina: Second. Mancino: Joe, I just have some questions that I would, that Bob and Jerome and Tom have brought up that I'd like Dave and Sharmin to maybe help us with. One is, Tom had said Dave, that you two had talked about the grading and how close it will be to the foundation of his home. Can you tell us a little bit about that and your feelings? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Hempel: Sure, I'd be happy to. Previous to the meeting tonight Mr. Rasmussen and myself discussed this issue with the proposed project with the grading in relationship to his home. I've indicated to Mr. Rasmussen that I'm not a soil engineer. However, we do have other examples in this city like when they do soil correction under a house pad, they typically go along a slope, a 1:1 slope or 1.5:1 slope. Essentially it sets the house on a pyramid and as long as that zone is not impacted, it should not impact the foundation of that home. Another examples are...along the Minnesota River valley. The homes that are within 30 feet of very severe bluffs. Very steep and sharp slopes... Similar situation I guess but not nearly to the magnitude of the bluffs that we have over in the Minnesota Valley there...5 foot retaining walls but again, I'm not a soil engineer who could give you expert advice on that but my personal belief is that it should not affect the foundation of the home. Mancino: Does somebody stand behind that? Does the developer? Do we ask the developer to stand behind that when they're going to be so close to a foundation? Hempel: I would envision I guess that is some property damage was done to the adjacent property as a result of site grading, the developer does have insurance to cover such occurrences. Harberts: Nancy, can I just interject? Who would be an expert in that area? Hempel: Soil engineer would be. We would need a soil engineer on site for the site grading to prepare the house pads and so forth... Mancino: That's a good idea. To make sure that that's in the recommendations. Sharmin, another question that came up that Bob asked a little bit about the wetland. If we will be saving and mitigating and adding to and how will it be kept? Will it be kept natural? Al-Jaff: What's going to happen is the wetland will be...it would be able to function as a... Hempel: Maybe I can expand on that a little bit. The wetland on the north end of the project is a very low quality wetland. It has been excavated a couple of times...and it's still a functioning wetland aesthetics... And they will be utilizing as a part of the storm drainage system, we will pre-treat the water prior to discharging into it and then essentially a water... pond to utilize this wetland area. There should be water controlled by outlet construction...so it actually should enhance the aesthetics. Scott: Good. The public hearing has not been closed yet so. Conrad: We've got a motion though. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: Yes, we have a motion. Is that the end of the discussion? Mancino: Those are just some of my questions that I think. Scott: Which we can still discuss after the public hearing. So can I have all those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by saying aye. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I'm not sure on the traffic concerns how you, being a county road...Mr_ Gustafson. I know that they use a criteria that if there are so many accidents before they consider a cross walk and I've always been uncomfortable with that engineering talk when I hear it. It's a...what criteria he was using for saying that that's not factual. Hempel: I believe at this time the park is not existing... Farmakes: So that would follow that development then? Hempel: That's correct. I believe that should be what's dictating...crosswalk. Farmakes: I still know that the retaining wall's going to cut...safe from a construction standpoint. Safe meaning that I don't think somebody's going to hurt themselves severely by going over that. Obviously still it's of concern that close to single family residence area. And I don't think that the planting of a hedge is going to solve that problem. ...a few safety issues. I wish I was more of an expert on that. Public safety...address that concern. I'm not uncomfortable feeling that I am expertise in that area but it seems of concern to me and those obstacles are that close to the back of the single family residents. Mancino: Well there are two sections. Sections 4 and Section 6 where, from my calculations the property line and the start of the first retaining wall is approximately 18 feet. So again in Section 4 and Section 6, if children were going down the slope and they hit the retaining wall in 18 feet. So you don't have a long. Farmakes: Not much. Mancino: No. Farmakes: And if an obstruction is placed there to hinder them, I question whether it would be much of an obstruction for a year or so... 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: What about an ugly but safe fence? Farmakes: I don't think that was the berm that the editor, the person that got up and spoke was thinking of. Not seeing a proposal for a fence and not having expertise...qualify as being safe in that issue, I don't want to play designer on that end. I'm not comfortable with that. I think there's still a safety issue with that... The issues in regards to the highway planning, I would also like to remind the people at the public hearing that Chanhassen has two representatives on the County Board. If you're not satisfied with the response that you're getting from the County, I suggest that you call them. That's what they do. I think it would help. The issue of the parking options were brought up. If someone has a party, where do they park. These type of units are fairly established in Chanhassen and I'm not sure if we've had a lot of problems with overflow parking in those areas. There could be potentially a problem with that here. But I think that that's inherent...not a lot of street and cars to park there because of the close proximity of the home. I don't see where that's going to be solved unless we create a parking lot or something like that. The property's just too narrow for it... As to the exterior to the home, it wasn't clear when this first came back. I'm somewhat concerned in trying to envision. There are so many variables here that as a purchaser, you may get a cupula somewhere. On one side of the building and not on the other. Depending upon which option you purchase. I'm not quite sure how lopsided that would be in the end result. Some of the options I think are fairly innovative on the roof line in the back. The front seems to be rather stationary though. I don't see many options on the front of the building...cupulas out in front. Large expanse of ceiling there, of their pitched roof. The rest of the options showing shudders and some of these other things. I like these things. I like these as additions. I think it would help the exteriors to face Powers Blvd...extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Well some good points that Jeff brought up. I've got 3 or 4. I think the developers did a nice job coming back with the model. I appreciate that. That's neat. I think that, I appreciate the changes they've made. I have the same concern still with the retaining wall. I think something from a safety standpoint has to be done. I'm not sure, retaining wall, maintenance, have to be assured that maintenance is taken care of. Proper engineering. Have to make sure that the retaining wall, with all the water and the problems from the neighborhood talking about their drainage problems, I think we have to insure somehow in our contract that this is engineered properly so that we don't need the maintenance. And safety. Fm not sure what to do with safety. Again, I like the terracing. I like what I see here. I still have a problem with a drop off. And therefore, it's not totally solved in my mind. And as much as I hate chainlink fencing, or any kind of fencing, something has to indicate where that drop off is. I don't have a solution but something has to happen there. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Guest parking, does this meet the standards for a higher density development that we have for guest parking? You know, in our recommendations it says there will be no parking on the street, which means all guest parking will have to be in the driveway. Is that right? Al-Jaff: It will be on the driveway as well as the applicant is providing 4 stalls right there. 2 stalls. Another 2 here. Conrad: Yeah, that's not very much. Now based on our place, our units up the street here that are higher density, we had all sorts of parking problems there for guests. How did we solve that? Did we solve it? Mancino: The one across the street. Conrad: Which way am I pointing? Yeah. Again, we had problems there and. Aanenson: Did we have problems there? Conrad: Had. I don't know if we do now. We did have a lot of problems. Aanenson: They provided guest parking. There's some areas...but if someone is having a party... Conrad: I guess the point though is, do we have a standard for guest parking for a higher? We don't have any higher density developments in Chanhassen. Aanenson: 1 parking space for 6 units. Scott: For guests? Aanenson: For guests. Do they meet that? Yes. Harberts: Has it been applied in the city somewhere? Aanenson: Yes. Oak Hill Ponds. They used it. And again, it's not...but we did opportunity for them. Conrad: And is that an updated standard? Are we comfortable with that? Aanenson: Yeah. I think so. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Conrad: Okay. And it's working up here. Do we know, have we not gotten any feedback recently? Hempel: I don't think we've had a true test yet to be honest. I guess this holiday season will be a true test. Conrad: Okay, but it meets our standards. We believe our standards are updated. Okay. The only other question I have is the guarantee of design diversity. I like that. I think some improvements are just real nice. Thank you for adding those options. Again, I do believe that people should select what they want. I don't like to force a developer into design but on the other hand, in this case, I want some guarantee. Now in our recommendations, the staff report said, the townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in the attached narrative. I'm not sure what that attached narrative is but it probably doesn't reference what they've presented tonight. Probably. But again, I'd be interested for the commissioners who haven't talked how you want, you know in principle I believe that people who buy the units should select what they want to live in. Yet on the other hand, we don't want to have I don't know, 8 units that look exactly the same because everybody liked the best option I guess. So I'm looking for a way around that. I'm looking for a way to solve that in terms of encouraging the developer to make sure that happened. I heard them say that they would try to make that happen but I really don't see anything in our staff report that would make me feel comfortable that some kind of diversity will happen. The options are there and I like that. The developer did their job. Aanenson: Can I clarify that Ladd? Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: What our intent would be...these design options and the no... Conrad: The key word is options Kate. So we're stuck with options. Aanenson: We can put that into the PUD... Conrad: But an individual may not choose. The ones that buy these 9 units may not choose any options other than the basic option. Al-Jaff: We can have them specify. Aanenson: On the site plan, just as they did tonight. They have to be either Itasca or... 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Conrad: Yeah, and it's probably appropriate to do it, what Kate just said yet on the other hand, it doesn't insure it. So you know I don't like to decree design but as long as the options are there, are we happy? Aanenson: Well what you're getting on this, you're giving them the basic. The framework. Okay, if they want to put...they have that option. What we're saying is at a minimum these are the design... Conrad: Right. So I'm okay with the parking has met our criteria. I'm probably okay on the design diversity. I'm still not quite there on the retaining wall. Scott: What would you suggest? Like a 3, instead of having a 5 foot drop, 6 foot drop, have it like no greater than a 3? 4? Conrad: Joe, I can't figure that out. I really don't know. I don't know, I think if we had a 4 foot, I think the neighbors would still come in and say we have a 4 foot drop. You know I don't know that there's a magic footage there. It's just that my concern still is, it is, there's no warning that it's there. So in my mind we have an option of putting a chainlink fence around the entire. Every time there's an entire upper part, which is not the most aesthetic thing to do there yet. Mancino: I'd like to hear some options from the applicant. Scott: Yeah. Well I was just looking at the brochure. There's fence, fence. Conrad: Yeah. Scott: So it may be a combination of less severe steps and some sort of a continuous barrier, year round barrier. Conrad: Maybe. I don't know. Scott: Okay. Anything else? Conrad: No. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I don't know why but I think the staff should consider looking at a centralized garbage collection point in the main body of the development. I'm just a little uncomfortable 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 with the how tight things are. And given some of the discussion with City Council. I know this is a private street and stuff but if there an opportunity to have a centralized garbage collection. Just maybe to look at it to consider it and see. I don't know why, I guess it's just because of how tight the development is. With regard to the pond and some of the discussion in the staff report. Is it possible to have Diane go out there and take a look, or just kind of, I don't know, just kind of look it over and make sure that it does get to be an enhanced pond rather than a breeding pond. Al-Jaff: She has a...and she has worked very closely with their wetland delineator. Harberts: Okay. So you're comfortable that it's moving in the right direction? Al-Jaff: Right. Harberts: Okay. I don't have any comment with regard to retaining walls. Here I understand it's an issue. I guess I certainly understand the concern by the neighbors in terms of the safety. It certainly is a PUD so we certainly have some flexibility here but I think the homeowners on the back side also may want to take a look at options that they may want to look at in terms of safety for their families with a fence, or whatever. Let's see, collector. Fencing. I like the design. I like the materials. I think it's going to be a nice building materials. A nice look to the area. I think it fits in okay in terms of the density of Lake Susan. One of the questions I have, tell me about the trails. The trail system on Powers. Is there any trail system? Al-Jaff: Yes, and it's going to be built in front of the improvement of County Road 17. Harberts: And so the trail would be on this side? Hempel: Both sides. Harberts: Both sides? And when it talks about park and trail dedication fees shall be paid, are they then, rather than having the developer put in the trail system now, we're just collecting the funds to build it later? Is that the idea? Hempel: The trail system is part of the overall upgrade of Powers Blvd and trails are a big part of the funding for the county road. Previously with this development, the developer had dedicated considerable parkland in the overall Lake Susan Hills development. Therefore, their trail fees and park fees, or no trail fees and half park fees are going to be collected. Harberts: Say that again Dave. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Hempel: The PUD contract requires no trail fees and 1/2 park fees. Harberts: Because of the previous dedication of land? Hempel: And trails. Harberts: And trails. But did I understand that there's going to be trails built on this side and my question is, have we collected then either in land or in fees, to take that into consideration then? Hempel: Yes we have. Harberts: Okay. And we have plenty of right-of-way? Hempel: Plenty of right-of-way, yes. Harberts: Okay. Interesting comment from someone. I think it was the first gentleman. I wouldn't want to buy one of these homes being right up against a busy street like that either. So it'll be interesting but I guess that's where, it's a free enterprise system folks so build them and see if they come. I guess that's about it. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: There was a question on the design and condition number 3. I don't know how we'd get at that but the developer had done quite a few units on the east side of Galpin, just to the north of that so, and I've seen those units and they're very nice. I think they've done a real good job with the colors. Mancino: Where? Ledvina: Just to the east and north. Right of this development. That's your development, is that correct? Okay. So I guess you know there's also a track record that we have here and I think that's, they've done a nice job there and I'm sure that they'll do a nice job on this development with their building styles and things like that. I like what I'm seeing tonight in terms of the elevations and the materials, etc. Let's see. Looking at the retaining wall, I think I have the same concerns as it relates to safety and I'm wondering if possibly we could use a short fence. Maybe a 3 or 4 foot fence behind the plantings that might work as kind of like a safety net if a kid racing, or something like that, the fence would stop him for sure. And if he's going to go over, if he's going to want to go over the fence, he's going to know that there's something on the other side of the fence. I mean a 3 or 4 foot fence won't 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 prevent the kid from physically climbing over the fence. It will prevent him from having an accident like a runaway sled or whatever. I don't know but I think that can work. And with plantings in front of that fence, you could screen it from view. Mancino: When you're saying front view, are you talking about on the east side or the west side of the fence? On the neighbor's side? Ledvina: The east side of the fence. Mancino: The east side of the fence. Harberts: That would have to be on the, it would have to probably be on the side of the development because in the homeowners association then would probably be liable for the fence as well. As well as continuing maintenance so. Ledvina: And maybe the fence can be taken down after 4 or 5 years when the hedge or the shrubs or the conifers get large enough so that there is a definite you know break there. But a safety break and that's, I think what has to be done and I guess I, in terms of what we're looking at tonight. I would suggest that a condition be added to that effect and I don't know what the agreement is on that but I think if a fence is added in that regard, we can provide that safety element. Scott: Is that at the property line or near the. Ledvina: Near the plantings. Scott: Near the retaining wall. Ledvina: Right. Scott: Okay. Ledvina: Behind the plantings or to the west of the plantings. Larry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this is the Planning Commission's deliberations but both the landscape engineer and myself have some additional information. Seeing that the Planning Commission seems to be fixed closely on this issue. Would you like to hear what the developer believes it can do in terms of fencing and how the shrubbing would actually work along the retaining walls? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: Well maybe what we should do, what would you think about passing this on to the City Council noting that we have a concern and some possible solutions for the retaining wall and safety issue. You're going to be at that meeting anyway and then address that during the public hearing. But then I'm not speaking for the other commissioners. This may not move forward, but if it does, that would give you probably a better forum and then we'll just let them know and hopefully they'll be reading their Minutes. Okay, anyway Matt. Continue. Ledvina: Enough with that. Mancino: Well I also think it's important for the citizens who've come to also hear maybe a suggestion that they have so they can prepare for the City Council meeting knowing what the suggestion is going to be. Harberts: But wouldn't the suggestion be incorporated into the packet that's going to be sent to the Council members? Mancino: Yeah, but this is a public hearing so I would like the citizens to be able to hear it too. Harberts: Well the public hearing's closed. Conrad: Joe, I think we should continue our deliberations and then give the developer a couple minutes to talk about the safety concerns that we have and that way the residents can hear so when they go to City Council, they know what is being presented. Scott: Yeah, it won't be a public hearing but I think this is a rare exception to how we do things so any other comments? Ledvina: Yes. One of the things on the south side of the property we clustered that group of buildings there to that southern extent and we did a lot of things with that connecting roadway to preserve the trees that are in that area. The plan that I see with the layout, I don't think it does that very well. I note that there's 9 oak trees that they've identified in their landscaping plan and from my estimation, 6 of the 9 oak trees will be taken out. I think that that's way too much. I think we're defeating the purpose of our efforts and maybe the developer doesn't even realize that but specifically unit 20, there's 2 oak trees. There's a 24 inch oak and a 30 inch oak. They're very close to the building line and that building, that unit has to be moved if those trees are going to be saved and I think that would be an absolute must. The other trees in the cluster to the south, there is 4 oak trees there that appear to be lost in the current layout and I don't know exactly what can be done in that area but I think that if we can save 2 of those trees, because as I look at the stand of trees, going 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 out to the site, you see the oaks along the edges and there aren't that many, that's it in terms of the oak trees. There are sugar maples in the center and there's a lot of scrub in there too but I think we can do, I think the developer can do a better job of relocating those building locations to save more trees. Scott: Do you have a condition? Ledvina: Yes, I would add a condition to that effect. Harberts: To delete or just move or what? Ledvina: Well specifically Unit 20 would have to be moved to save those 2 trees. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that the developer eliminate Unit 21 to save those, and I believe that if they did that, 4 oak trees could be saved in that area with the shifting of the northern unit in that area so. I don't know if I would go that far. But I think it's, again I look back at the general purpose as to what we were trying to do with our efforts in that and I don't know if we've gone far enough. I think we can do a little bit more and really hit the center of the Target. Harberts: What exactly are you at? Are you saying Matt, I'm hearing two things from you. One, well what I'm hearing is that we should save the trees and if, the trees should be saved as our primary goal. And if that can be achieved by just moving 20, 21, fine. Ledvina: Unit 20 specifically and I don't know about 21. I'm telling you that I don't know where I'm at with that one. Mancino: Do you see a way to move and save? Ledvina: I don't specifically see a way of moving Unit 21 and saving trees. I guess if 2 of the 4 trees there could be saved, I would say then move it. If not, lose it. Harberts: Lose the unit? Ledvina: Yeah. Mancino: And that's something that we could put in a recommendation and have staff and the applicant figure out if they can... 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ledvina: I think that's reasonable because the, you know we're looking at the most, some of the most significant trees on this site. And I think that was also one of the goals here. Let's see. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Good, Nancy. Mancino: I don't really have any new comments at all. I think everybody's touched on them. I do think that this has been a good process, meaning that the Jasper Development has come back with some changes that the citizens, homeowners in the area have brought to our attention and I thank you for all your comments, because they've been very good ones. I also feel that when we are going to have models, and I know this isn't in an ordinance and I don't know how to put it in but that citizens who are coming to talk and be part of the process do have some time to come and look and to process it and ask some questions about it. And if we could, this is just a tremendous visual. 3 dimensional representation, if we could get these 48 hours prior to a meeting and have them on display here, it certainly helps. My last point, and this has nothing to do with Jasper Development. It just is a comment that I'd like to make to our commission and to our staff is that, I think this PUD in this particular area, this Outlot B was not well planned from the very beginning. Taking a, you look at it and it's like somebody decided that we needed multi-family in this area. I mean it just wreaks of that. They put a little strip with multi family and it looks like a strip multi family development. So from the very beginning of the process in 1987 when this PUD was passed, I don't think it was planned, well planned. I think that when we do do multi family, we want to integrate it into the rest of our neighborhoods. We just don't want it to be this sore thumb sticking out like this. I think it has made this development problematic at best. I think there would have been other ways to have entered this development other than Powers. I think Jasper has done the best they could but I think they started out with not good planning on the part of staff, Planning Commission and City Council. And I think that we should realize that and I think that when we are looking at developments like this in the future, we'll be seeing another one tonight which is multi family near single family which also has an outlot. That we should think about the implications and what's going to happen in the future. Harberts: Nancy do you think that, you know with your comments, do you think it's because of kind of the piecemeal approach to the development? Mancino: I think that the very beginning when it was passed as a PUD and somebody said we needed multi family exactly nobody, they just kind of said in this outlet let's put multi family there and I don't think anybody thought through the implications of how do you put a road in there. How do you, you know what's this going to look like? How is it going to serve our community? How is it going to serve that neighborhood? • 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Harberts: It should have been a little bit more integrated I think. Mancino: Yes, much more integrated. Scott: That also points out I think a major role that we play when we have multi, I think of Mission Hills. I think of the development that's coming up. I think of this one. One of the big roles that we tend to play is focusing on the transition between dissimilar uses, or similar uses, dissimilar density. So yeah, I think your point is very well taken. Harberts: Well I think one advantage too when you look at Mission Hills, we had the whole picture. Whereas with this it seems it was that piecemeal approach. Mancino: Well the outlots kept getting developed but still, the overall concept was there to begin with. I mean somebody decided at the beginning that these. Harberts: Yeah, but we still didn't have that full picture. Not like we did with Mission Hills. Mission Hills was easy because you could see how it would integrate. How the transition would occur or not. You know make these lots a little larger, things like that. That was easy you know versus something like this. This seemed like anything with Lake Susan Hills was just like pulling teeth every step of the way. I don't know why. Mancino: Well we have single family to the west of it and we have single family to the north. We have park to the east and we have single family to the south. It just doesn't work for me from the very beginning. From the get go but I just would like us to remember that and hopefully use that as knowledge as we look ahead. Conrad: Well then the PUD should not have been approved in the, I don't necessarily agree. The PUD should not have been approved in the first place. Then you're going to have to force every PUD to give you a design of all the outlots. That's what you're asking for. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear the developer's comments on their retaining walls. Scott: Okay. Do you have a very brief description of your thoughts? Mr. Harris. Larry Harris: Thank you Mr. Chair. I realize this is not your normal procedure but I wanted to get the information and I agree with Ms. Mancino. I think the residents want to know what the developer can do. Essentially the developer can do one or two things. Or maybe even a combination thereof. The developer proposes putting shrubbery across the tops of the retaining walls because it's the most aesthetically pleasing. Mark Jeffries tells me that in 5 gallon containers, one option would be to plant, and maybe not double but a significant portion greater than what would normally be planted for that density in year one and then 34 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 year two...do some pulling. If you do that he says that at the end of one year you should have full hedging across the top. That full hedging of course the benefit of it being aesthetically pleasing and providing a barrier. However, the developer is also willing to put fencing across the tops of the retaining walls. I mean the obvious solution would be 4 foot galvanized, and probably black vinyl covered and just mirror and follow the retaining wall all the way across... The developer is more than willing to present that. To be honest, I think we want some direction from the Planning Commission and/or the neighborhood as to which way to go. In terms of restructuring the retaining walls, it's really not viable to develop the property with intervals or steps less than that. It just's an engineering nightmare and even if in the one area you went to 3-4 foot intervals, the concern of the neighborhoods and the concern about, the safety concern is the same whether it's a 4 foot drop or a 6 foot drop. The issue is, what can we do to screen and protect the wall and I guess what we'd like to hear is maybe some feedback either from the Planning Commission or the residents as you see appropriate and the appropriate recommendation is going to be included in the information I guess submitted to the City Council. Scott: Well I'll tell you what we can do is put in a condition that either or both and then we'll have another public hearing and the residents can come. Express their preferences and go from there so that's. Larry Harris: Who will have the other public hearing? Scott: City Council. That's assuming that the project goes forward. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the. Aanenson: Can I make a clarification of the motion? There is one item as far as wetland... There is a Wetland #94-5. Ledvina: Okay, do I add that to a specific item? Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: Which? I'm sorry, which item? Scott: Which page are we on, 17? Al-Jaff: 17. Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD #87-3, Wetland Alteration Permit #94-5. The rest remains the same. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. Well then I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval, I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of PUD #87-3, Wetland Alteration Permit #94-5 and Site Plan Review #94-7 as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the conditions in the staff report with additional conditions noted as follows. Number 33. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for impacts to adjacent building foundations during the grading process. 34. Retaining walls shall be engineered to incorporate subsurface drainage and surface water runoff. 35. The applicant shall investigate the potential for centralized garbage collection. 36. The applicant shall provide a safety fence or other landscaping provisions to help prevent children from falling over the retaining walls. These safety provisions or fencing shall be discussed and approved by city staff considering the discussion held this evening. 37. The applicant shall relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. Also, the oak trees in the vicinity of Unit 21, change that. The 2 of the 4 oak trees shall be saved in the vicinity of Unit 21 at a minimum by relocating the placement of the unit. If it is not possible to save at least 2 of the 4 oak trees in that vicinity, the unit shall be omitted from the development. Harberts: I have a clarification for Matt... Is it my understanding that assessment is to be done by a certified soils engineer? Was that your intent? Ledvina: Sure. Harberts: Okay, just wondering. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staffs recommendation with conditions as added. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of PUD #87-3, Wetland Alteration Permit #94-5 and Site Plan Review #94-7 as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the private streets. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions/signs shall be placed on the private street. 2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 3. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative. Introduce some variation among buildings facing Powers Boulevard through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span. 4. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. 5. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 6. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. 7. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. 8. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff. 9. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets. 10. A revised landscaping plan which provide additional landscaping and berming along Powers Boulevard (CR 17), and the westerly portion of the site. 11. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review. 12. Fire Marshal conditions: a. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. b. Submit new street names for review and approval. c. A twenty foot wide fire land must be maintained on the new proposed north/south street. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides of the street with 75 foot spacing. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 13. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 14. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 15. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The street shall be constructed in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance for multi family zoning (Ordinance #209). Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines will be performed by the city's Building Department. Streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 16. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 17. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 18. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 19. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 21. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. 22. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 23. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the City. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 24. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. 25. The proposed storm water ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond(s) shall be sized in accordance to the city's Surface Water Management Plan. 26. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 27. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 29. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss/resolve the specifics on pond design and access to the site. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 30. No decks or any portion of the dwellings may encroach into the city's drainage and utility easements. 31. The curves in the private street lying south of the access shall be "softened" to accommodate public safety vehicle turning movements. 32. The plat should be redesigned to remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25 foot building setback line. 33. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for impacts to adjacent building foundations during the grading process. 34. Retaining walls shall be engineered to incorporate subsurface drainage and surface water runoff. 35. The applicant shall investigate the potential for centralized garbage collection. 36. The applicant shall provide a safety fence or other landscaping provisions to help prevent children from falling over the retaining walls. These safety provisions or fencing shall be discussed and approved by city staff considering the discussion held at the Planning Commission meeting. 37. The applicant shall relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. 2 of the 4 oak trees shall be saved in the vicinity of Unit 21, at a minimum, by relocating the placement of the unit. If it is not possible to save at least 2 of the 4 oak trees in that vicinity, the unit shall be omitted from the development. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: This goes to the City Council. Aanenson: 20th. Scott: 20th? 28th? I'd like to thank the developer for working with the neighbors and I appreciate the neighbors coming in. As you can hopefully see, and Mr. Rasmussen, thank you for taking the time to kind of consolidate your neighbors' thoughts, but thank you very much for coming and we'll take a couple minute break while we exchange people because we have another issue coming up. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING OF 49.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO R4, MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 49.9 ACRES INTO 93 TWIN HOME LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD (CR 117), LOTUS REALTY SERVICES, LAKE ANN HIGHLANDS. Public Present: Name Address Jeff Steinke 7481 Windmill Drive Mike Gorra 1680 Highway 5 Blane Hammer 7421 Windmill Drive Joel Reimers 7495 Crocus Court Rick Manning 7460 Windmill Drive Cinda & David Jensen 2173 Brinker Street John Hennessy 7305 Galpin Blvd. Amit Diamond 2117 Brinker Street Cohn & Desiree Brown 2131 Brinker Street Mark & Sharon Pryor 7541 Windmill Drive Allan & Mary Jane Olson 7461 Windmill Drive Julie Wojtanowski 2059 Brinker Street Kathy Haldeman 2059 Brinker Street Joan & Kevin Joyce 2043 Brinker Street Ed & Kathy Loveridge 7508 Tulip Court Michael & Kristine Perry 7521 Windmill Drive Bonnie Lou & Charles Peterson 7496 Crocus Court James & Jeanette Freidler 7500 Windmill Drive Peter K. Beck 7900 Xerxes Avenue So. Ross Fefercom 7625 Metro Blvd. Suite 145 Steve Selinger 7480 Windmill Drive Virginia A. Bell 7476 Brinker Street Joy Bott 7490 Tulip Court Dawn Cook-Ronninger 7471 Tulip Court Patricia A. Lynch 7475 Crocus Court Lars Conway 4415 Fremont Avenue So, Mpls 55409 Dawn & Brian Erdman 2091 Brinker Street Wendy Stove 2103 Brinker Street 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Scott: Yes. Ledvina: The grading situation, I guess I wasn't able to resolve it. Maybe it was in the staff report. Was all the grading going to be done at once or what's, how is this going to happen? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. That's one of the items that we pointed out in our staff report. It was unclear whether it was all going to be under the first phase or if it was going to be two phases. We requested the applicant to fax a narrative explaining the phasing approach of the site grading. One other thing I'd like to add at this point, I guess Bob had mentioned contingencies about phase two happening. The other item would be storm water quantities...as well for Phase two. Ledvina: So do we know what the applicant is planning as it relates to grading or we're requesting that of them at this point? Hempel: We are requesting that. Scott: Bob, you mentioned that there are several options for zoning of this property and I sense that there's some prerogative that we have. You had mentioned that of those options you need to determine which is appropriate, or maybe you need to tighten that up a little bit. Generous: ...basically a policy decision. Does the city want to continue and have the standard 15,000 square foot lots...go with a slightly higher density and have the twin homes which is still single family at least from our standpoint...Or should we go and look at what the Highway 5 corridor study is saying for the future and... Scott: Can I ask you a question? With the, has the actual, the decided location of the access boulevard been made public record? Has it been surveyed, platted, located, etc, etc? Aanenson: Well we're going off the, what you recall the task force recommended the northern alignment. The Planning Commission recommended the northern alignment but Council recommended the southern alignment. ...hearing of the EA document has not been determined. Staff gave direction to the applicant to go ahead and use the northern 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 alignment...as an environmental assessment document. But we still believe as part of the design...the northern alignment. This is approximately the second... Scott: So what do we have here? What is this proposed second phase? Is that, I know that both the northern and the southern alignments and this was kind of the Bluff Creek crossing section so how does what we see on this plan relate to. Aanenson: It reflects the alignment on the EA document on the northern alignment. Farmakes: Kate, can you explain when you're referring to the souther or northern alignment, are you referring to this particular piece of property, or are you talking about the several options that were available throughout the Bluff Creek corridor? Aanenson: ...this is the northern alignment that you're seeing...and the southern alignment had the road... Both options again, high density is already on the comprehensive plan adjacent to Highway 5 and we haven't changed that as far as the Highway 5 document as far as... There still is talk about the Van de Veire property and other opportunities there that have not been resolved... There was other land use considerations being used for that one. Farmakes: My question is, in regards to the Council, you said that they made a recommendation for the southern alignment. Are you referring to this particular location of the property or for all the options that were available between here and TH 41? Aanenson: They went with the southern the entire route, is that your question? Farmakes: The entire route from Lake Ann to TH 41? Aanenson: Correct. The task force had the cross over... Farmakes: Including the property west of Galpin. Scott: So what we see on this plan is the northern alignment? Thank you. Mancino: I would also like to add, being a task force member, that in our task force guide book on 23, that the potential uses were, they said single family residential or multi family and the higher density abutting obviously Highway 5 so they could also see it single family. At the time and on Highway 5, just so you know, nobody talked about twin homes. That doesn't mean anybody was for or against but I think when everybody talked about single family, they were thinking about the traditional single family, detached. They weren't 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 thinking about twin homes when they thought about single family and that just has to do with the Highway 5 task force. I just wanted to make that clear. Farmakes: I think I was opposed. Mancino: To? Farmakes: To the way that this zone was laid out period. It was my opposition to getting a corridor... Mancino: For the multi family. Farmakes: Not that I object to... Audience: Could you speak up, we can't hear you. Farmakes: Nancy's referring to a task force that operated for a couple of years in regards to the Highway 5 task force, which is referring to recommendations as to an access road that followed, that would allow traffic to egress into the city without getting on the highway. Highway 5. Where that access road would be going, there was options for both northern and southern alignments. Southern being closer to the highway. Like a frontage road going closer to the highway and the northern route more similar to Lake Lucy Road or Kerber Boulevard where it goes up farther into the northern reaches. When we're talking about the theory about what type of property zonement would be along those routes, say to the south of the access road, to the north of the access road, what the buffers would be between medium and high density housing. My concern, being on the task force, when it was talking about the comment that Nancy made is that there were differing opinions in regards to the solutions for this, including a task force and the Commission here and what I'm hearing, the Council also. There are a lot of different factors that play here. My concern was that we do not get a corridor between Lake Ann and Highway 41 that's nothing but high density or medium density, townhouse type structures and that there's some diversity showing up. Typically aligned next to a highway you'll typically see these long endless large apartment, townhouse type buildings that you see on 169 for instance going north. And they go on for 5 or 6 miles. I'm hoping we don't see that here but. Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification? We're not recommending...but still it's low density according to the comp plan which was always 1 to 4 units per acre. We're not recommending medium. But within that we're saying there's three opportunities you have. And yet they're consistent with the comp plan... 44 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Farmakes: I think the issue is where the alignment road goes, anything to the south of that, in this case it's an outlot, what would happen there? At that point and for the property adjacent to it because that will somewhat dictate how that property develops. Aanenson: ...zoned high density. But the land use...comprehensive plan has guided that for high density. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments for staff? Or any other comments from staff. Harberts: I'd like to ask a question. I don't know exactly where I'm going with this but my understanding with this particular project is that it's going to force the Council to make a decision on the alignment. Are they ready to be forced into that decision? Scott: When is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet hearing scheduled? Aanenson: Well there are a number of things that have to happen. You have to decide whether or not...rezoning at this time, and you have to decide whether or not we're going to take utilities to the project. It's all predicated on the fact that you're ready to move forward with this plat. Then if we do get to that point, then the Council's got to decide whether or not that's what they want to do. Scott: As far as the road goes, the Phase I can be serviced with transportation and utilities from the Windmill Run subdivision so for the Phase I that's, these are never no brainers but that's an easier thing to get at because the access boulevard does not enter into it. Aanenson: Correct. So we there's some time...if the road does shift... Scott: Okay. Harberts: To me though it's, well I guess as I look at this, I'd like to know where the road's at in terms of with the outlot, with how this maybe not so much with Phase I but Phase II or whatever. I guess if it was my preference, I'd like to know so I know what I'm looking at as a total picture there. I mean we talked a little bit about the struggle we had with Lake Susan and the piecemeal affect. That's what's happening so, that's my comments. Scott: Okay. Any other additions or. Mancino: Ditto. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: Ditto, thank you. Anything else? Any other comments from staff? Questions from commissioners. Harberts: No, I'll be quiet for a while. Mancino: I just have one question for staff and that is, Bob you've given us the background here that we have 81% units are single family. We have as a category multi-family which is 9.6 and subsets of that category is twin homes which is 4% and townhouses which is 5.6%, right? What does that mean to me? Generous: That 81% of the homes. Mancino: And single family. Generous: Are single family detached. Mancino: But I mean do we have any planning as to where we want to be in those? Aanenson: Yes. The comprehensive plan, one of the goals is to have diversified housing opportunities for people who want single family. That don't want the large yard. Maybe first time home buyers. That's one of the goals of the comprehensive plan is to provide diversified housing styles. It's mentioned several times in the comprehensive plan. Farmakes: If it's mentioned, do we take percentage numbers saying that when Chan's filled up with 32,000 we have these percentage of multi family units? Mancino: Yeah. Generous: ...breakdown in structures. Farmakes: So do we have goals as to, or are they open ended goals? Generous: They're open ended. One of the goals is to provide affordable housing. Mancino: And again we haven't defined affordable housing. We haven't said how much. Generous: Well actually there are some definitions that we can use. Farmakes: I was wondering if we define that or that will be defined for us by a Minneapolis representative in the State Legislature. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Generous: It's being defined for us by the legislature. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Would the developer, the development team like to make a presentation? Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, my name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. Sometimes I forget. I represent Lars Conway, who is the owner of the property. We have with us this evening, if you'd like to direct any questions to them, Peter Beck who is our attorney and Jack Lynch who represents BRW...as an introduction. He's done, we just figured out today, 250,000 lots, which I think is pretty impressive. And they just completed a 25,000 lot subdivision in Phoenix. Isn't that amazing? And then Ross Fefercorn who is the developer and proposed developer of this site ultimately, with these country homes. I've passed out some sheets because the neighbors have been concerned about what is this and because of the process that we go through when we're just doing subdivisions, this is not a PUD and we feel that we fall underneath the category of your comprehensive plan, is 0 to 4 unit subdivision is a permitted use here. If you recall last year somebody, I believe in August of 1993, adopted a plan for this area. You are a party to that. That suggested that this area be increased to 8 units. And the road south of the new Highway 5 corridor be 12 unit density. We've been kind of floating around for the last 2 years while we're waiting for that plan to be adopted by the City Council. Because there's some urgency on our part to get rolling on this particular parcel, we decided that we'd stay within your current comprehensive plan guideline which was 0 to 4 units on this side of the road and 0 to 8 units on the south side of the road and if you look at your comprehensive plan you'll see, it says 8 units. 0 to 8. 0 to 4 and then the single family homes where these folks live, and that was the long range plan. If you also read your comprehensive plan you'll see that you have guidelines that have set up your goals as to what the multiple family unit mix should be in the city and historically Chanhassen has been well below their goal. I can't remember but I think we've got a copy of it because I was a part of that process about 7 or 8 years ago. This evening we realize there's two decisions that you may or may not make but we believe you have 120 days to make that decision because it's just a subdivision permitted under your rules and regulations. We are in fact trying to force the decision on the location of that road. We've told the Council that. We've waited two years for them to react to it. Because you, this body recommended the northerly route, that's what we're using. This is exactly what you suggested late last fall. That has not been as yet recommended or accepted by the Council. Now you're free to change your mind but this was the decision that you made. Also in that report you recommended 8 units to the north and 12 units to the south. Obviously because the Council hasn't done that, you're welcome to change your mind. I don't think you're welcome to change your mind on the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 1987. I think that's there and based upon that, a lot of people have made decisions. As far as the staff report is concerned, we don't have any concerns with it other than items that we have planning on just 47 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 talking to them because we got an extended stay here as far as the public hearing is concerned so just for the record we have concerns about items 6, 7, 8, 19, 24, 25, and 27 and most of these are clarifications or technical issues. We will get together with the staff between now and then. I don't think we have to go into getting exact. Because I think a lot of this is just input and probably participation by the, well one of the things. We've got a number of calls from neighbors saying that they were promised that this area was zoned single family. Well in fact it is single family but it's 0 to 4 units per acre. We weren't part of that. We have never had a call from any neighbor. I don't think, Lars did you ever have any call from a neighbor? Did you ever have a call from a realtor? No. And so therefore any of that kind of conversation was not, we were not party to it. We believe that if anybody looked at the comprehensive plan, they would have said it a little bit differently. If they had followed the public hearings that were going on for 2 years on the Highway 5 corridor they would certainly say, well it could have been up to 8 units per acre so obviously whoever informed these folks that they were not following anything that you were doing. I don't know if anybody talked to any of you or the staff, they would know. I don't know. We are concerned however about how we buffer to these folks so in talking to Bob Generous he said one of the concerns was the transition. Not just by unit mix but also the transition by what does it look like. So we're going to show you some of the landscaping ideas that we have here now that may take care of that issue. My feeling though is that you will have to deal with this single family issue yourselves. I'm a resident of this particular community. I think we need more density just to get going but that's my own personal feeling...but I'd like to have Jack Lynch just kind of go over the rationale behind the plat at this time. Jack Lynch: I'm not sure what I'm going to say, to tell you the truth. The piece we're dealing with is approximately 50 acres on the northeast corner of Galpin and TH 5. At this time we're asking for rezoning of the northerly 35 acres. Basically an R4 zoning category. There is a discussion on the table about the access boulevard. Whether it should be in the northern alignment or the southern alignment. It's being presented and asked for, vote up or down on it so we can get on with life. So the property owner can get on with his life and develop the property. We have, as staff has said and as Brad has mentioned, worked with the staff on locating and going along with the northern alignment. There has also been discussion here tonight on the differences from the zoning codes, the comprehensive plan, the guide plans, the corridor studies. They all mention something that's just a little bit different from the... The corridor study that I think this body adopted though had in it's recommendations was a density gradation from single family to mid density to high density. I think the guide plan talks about mid density to low density. And certainly we've got an existing zoning, or existing subdivisions at low density. We took the corridor study and actually I think some of your comments at the beginning of the meeting today and we took a serious look at the high density, medium density and decided that was a little bit too high and backed off of that to the low density to potentially medium density. This outlot has not been yet decided whether 48 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 it will be, exactly what it will be. But we did make a conscientious decision by the parcel north of the access boulevard and the subdivision to the north should not be a medium density product. It should be a low density product and that's what we're proposing. The other discussion item had to do with the landscaping. The initial submittal was a little light on the landscaping and we have gone back and taken a look at basically the landscaping was shown has to be increased by 50% and we would basically locate those additional plants and then do some more extensive berming along that northerly property line. Where we would propose a natural change from one density to the next density. Actually going from a 2 1/2 density product to a 3 1/2 density product, there's no difference. With that let's get into some of the discussion items and we'd be glad, all of us, to answer any questions. Scott: Questions or comments? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, can you resolve the issue as it relates to the grading with the two phases? How is that going to happen? Jack Lynch: Quite frankly it doesn't make any difference to us. It's probably more economical if you grade it all at once. However, once it's graded all at once, the commitment is made that that product is going to go for the entire 92 lots, which is not a big deal. It's probably easier to grade it all at once. Ledvina: If your proposal to grade it all at once? Jack Lynch: Well it was, yes. The proposal was to grade it all at once but it was unsaid, unstated in the solution. Scott: What's the total pad size for each building? Jack Lynch: Like the square footage for the unit? Scott: Not the square footage but just the pad, size of the foundation pad. Jack Lynch: It's probably roughly about 3,000 square feet. Ross Fefercorn: ...house pad is minimum size about 15 to 20 square. Scott: That's per side though, right? Ross Fefercom: Yes. Per side. • 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: 3,000 total. Ross Fefercorn: Exclusive of the garage. If we go a minimum with double car garage and build a 2 1/2 acre car garage and build a 3 car garage as requested by the customers. Mancino: Mr. Lynch, are you going to be showing us architectural styles, etc? Jack Lynch: No. This is simply a standard subdivision request. Mancino: But part of the Highway 5 corridor is that we're supposed to be making some of our decisions on the quality that we've asked for under the Highway 5 corridor study. How are we going to make a determination on quality in this corridor if we don't know what you're going to... Brad Johnson: Single family is excluded. Mancino: No it isn't. Brad Johnson: That's what your guidelines say. Mancino: Well, that's if we go with single family. But if we went with multi family, it wouldn't be excluded. Generous: Right, and that's from... Aanenson: And again clarification, this is a standard subdivision. You're not doing a site plan review. It's not a PUD. It's not a multi family project where they're bringing in buildings... We haven't done one of these. We're all kind of...but that's why I said there's other options. Mancino: But under land use, etc in Chapter 4, etc it doesn't exclude single family. It doesn't say it excludes it when it gives guiding philosophies, etc. Aanenson: ...ordinance itself that was adopted. Mancino: Oh, okay. Jack Lynch: There has not been a developer selected but those are some of the units that are being talked about. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: No, that's it. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, good. Anybody else from the development team? Brad Johnson: Well a couple questions have come up. We realize it will be about 2 weeks here so we have a slide presentation we can provide the neighborhood. There are 4 or 5 projects like this in the city...how they will look... The average price range on these runs from $150,000 to $350,000.00 per side. Their square footage runs from about 1,700 square feet up to 4,500 square feet per side. They're not small units. Audience: Is that on this plan development or on other developments? Scott: I think what we'll do, we have a public hearing and we can have some back and forth, and I'm sure there will be some. Brad Johnson: I just wanted, because somebody asked me prices and that's the range. It's a very versatile product and probably the number one product like this was designed by... very few children type of product...They're the number one Reggie Award of all the homes in this classification. They won the number one award for quality and design. That's why we... Farmakes: Mr. Chairman, since we have a large group of people here and it is somewhat confusing because of the alignment considerations on Highway 5, the zonement, the rezonement application for options that we're looking at here may be something we should walk through once again. Looking at the possibilities. Again, this comprehensive plan is a guide and there is a difference of opinion as to which one of these routes should be used. Although we've recommended that, we did not recommend it unanimously and I believe that there's difference of opinion at City Council so the question being, it seems to be an important one, is what this property is rezoned for. Other than discussing the price of the housing units. It seems where do you start first. There may be some confusion on the part of the audience here with regards to the philosophy of what that zonement is going to be. Whether it's a PUD or whether it's low or medium density and where that alignment defines that being the buffer. In other words, if the southerly alignment has no developable property to the south of it, therefore there's a larger amount of property. The northern splits two pieces so there's a barrier. So anyway, there's several options to look at there and I think you touched on whether it was a PUD or a traditional development and that may need a little more clarification for the people in the audience. Scott: Yeah, I think it might help from a RSF, residential single family, which is the Windmill and Royal Oaks, basically what that is, by ordinance a developer can come in and 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 cut the property up subject to the proper street width and so forth. Can divide the property up into 15,000 square foot lots. Put a house on there that has a 60 x 60 foot pad, which would include the garage and a deck and so forth, and they can build those all day long and that's the minimum from the ordinance standpoint. In some instances, I don't know if you're familiar with the Song property. Lots of trees. Lots of terrain differences and that's where we like to apply a PUD or planned urban development. What that allows us to do is that allows us to be more flexible with the ordinances but for very specific purposes. For example we had the Song property, that I mentioned, had a tremendous amount of mature trees. Extremely old so basically what we did is we allowed the developer to allow smaller street widths and allowed them slightly greater grades for the streets to preserve some of the trees, which obviously was a benefit for them because they can sell their property for money, etc, etc. but then it allowed us to follow one of our guides which is to preserve as much of the natural terrain or the natural vegetation as possible. So a planned unit development is a way that if a property has some significant topographical or vegetational, I'll make up a word, we use that. So those are two options that we have here. As far as the R4, which is the one I'm not as familiar with, basically what that would allow you to do, if you could envision this, is that it looks as if these lots are approximately, if you took the two lots together it looks like they're what, 20,000 square foot. Okay, so we have two lots but the homes are touching so basically what it looked like, if you didn't know that it was two families, basically you're looking at a home that's going to be approximately, I think they're anywhere from 3,000 square feet to conceivably 9,000 square feet. And if you're talking about the 15,000 square feet a side to the 4,500 square feet per side. So those are basically the 3 zoning options. Now you've heard some talk about a Highway 5 corridor study. You've heard about the comprehensive plan. And then other guide documents. Basically what the comprehensive plan is that every decade the citizen task force, the Planning Commission, the City Council get together and take a look at the city. All the undeveloped property and try to say alright, what do we want our city to look like. Where do we want to have multiple family? Where do we want to have commercial property and so forth so that our city develops in an orderly fashion. Well the comprehensive plan, these are all plans and things are not cast in concrete by any means but we want to have a plan that we have to present to the Met Council for approval so they know what we're trying to do with our property. That's basically what the comprehensive plan is. The Highway 5 task force was a study that lasted for over 2 years of which Commissioner Mancino and Commissioner Farmakes were involved with, where we figured we had this highway. It's going to have an impact on people who drive through our community. People who live here. What do we want them to see from the highway relative, because we got involved with building materials. We got involved with views to see natural amenities like Bluff Creek. So hopefully this is quite eye opening. There's been a lot of work been done on this but once again, these are guides. These are plans and we tend to, in this instance we're focusing on a particular piece of property. There's a known quantity. We know what your area looks like. It's zoned residential single family. We know what 52 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Highway 5 looks like. We know what Galpin. Because of the City Council not acting on the alignment, we don't know exactly where that access boulevard is going to be. So where we're at right now is, because of, and you may have heard this earlier today. Because of some misinformation or lack of information that was printed in the newspaper, this is not considered to be an official public hearing, which means that the Planning Commission cannot make any recommendations for the City Council. So what we're going to do at the public hearing is to get neighborhood input. I sense, and the other commissioners sense that one of your major concerns is the change in density from your development into what this may be and just to let you know, the Planning Commission, at least I've been here for 2 years, what we have consistently done is buffered not necessarily with just vegetation but buffered with a more gradual change of density inbetween two "dissimilar" areas. So if that is a major, may I just ask a question. How many of you are primarily concerned with the difference in density between your development and this proposed development? Mostly, okay. Okay. So I think that point is understood quite well by us and what, I'm not trying to discourage anybody from speaking at the public hearing but if maybe one or two people could articulate that for the public record, we'd appreciate it. If there's some other things, and that's why we have these because the developer is using their, in good faith coming up with here's something that we believe fits with these three different documents that overlap and underlap and so I mean in their situation, they're making their best efforts to do what they think is appropriate. Obviously when there's development next door to anybody, you're concerned so this is the way the process works and I think what we should do, with that in mind, is could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino: So moved. Harberts: I thought there wasn't a public hearing. Scott: Well. Conrad: Let's just listen for input. Let's have the public hearing next time. Scott: Would someone like to speak? Step up to the podium. Give us your name and your address and then let us know, as best you can, what's on your mind. Kevin Joyce: My name's Kevin Joyce. I live with my wife, Joan and 3 children at 2043 Brinker Street which is in Windmill Run development. My property abuts the proposed Lake Ann Highlands development. At the end of last year, 1993, my family was investigating home sites in the southwest metro area. We narrowed our choices down to Chanhassen. We were very interested in the Windmill Run development that was being developed by Rottlund Homes. In researching our purchase, one of the main criteria was the type of neighborhood 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 that we'd be raising our family in. I went to City Hall the week of December 27th. I'm not exactly sure of the date but it was that week right after Christmas. I met with Bob Generous of the Chanhassen planning staff. We discussed in detail the area just south of the property I was interested in purchasing. He showed me a color coded land use map that showed the Windmill Run property as SFH I believe designated. He never showed me any comprehensive plan. There was no zoning done on the property just south of this that we're discussing tonight. I asked him what was planned for that property and Bob said, similar housing to Windmill Run. Single detached houses. I asked would they be similar in value to the houses built in Windmill Run. Bob said he couldn't guarantee the value of the homes but the lot sizes would be the same. Minimum 15,000 square feet or 3 SFH houses per acre. I had a witness to this meeting and he's willing to file an affidavit that this discussion took place and this was the content of that discussion. When we received a notice of the development, we were obviously very upset and wondered if we had made a mistake. We had misunderstood what was said at that meeting. However talking with our fellow neighbors, we found out that most of them were either directly or indirectly told the same thing. SFH. Single detached houses. I think it proves that there was some misinformation here given by the action of our neighbors, and we have quite a few of them here today. That they have some concerns about this particular development. I feel we were misled by the City of Chanhassen. I feel there's been a gross misrepresentation by the planning staff of Chanhassen against my family. My family based a large portion of our decision to purchase this home in Windmill Run in Chanhassen on the information that was given by the Planning staff. Many of our neighbors based their decisions on this as well. I feel Chanhassen's responsibility to us as new residents to live up to the commitment they made to us when we were told the property to the south of Windmill Run would be used as a continuation of our existing neighborhood and that's how I feel. I feel very strongly about this. I think there was gross misrepresentation here. That's all I have to say. There are other people in this group who have the same problem. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra and I live and own about 50 acres directly to the east of this subject property. Have you got something you can put on the screen there that shows the site plan? Generous: Subdivision? Mike Gorra: Just the whole site. Well, no. That shows the... First I'd like to say that I don't have any objections to what the proposal is on Mr. Conway's property. The only reason I'm here is to protect the interest of my property and if there's something that affects it, I want to know what's going on. First of all I really don't think that there's any confusion to what the 54 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Council wants as far as the land because on March 28th of this year they voted on Resolution #94-40 unanimously to approve the southern alignment. And my conversations subsequently with the councilmen since then indicate that they haven't really changed their mind on that. Now maybe the staff has over ruled the City Council, I don't know but what are we doing looking at a plot plan here that shows the northern alignment instead of what the City Council recommended. That's my first question. No answer? Scott: I don't have an answer, no. Mike Gorra: Okay. So then staff did over rule City Council. Aanenson: ...considered the possibility that the northern alignment may be the preferred alignment. They've had several work sessions and the final alignment has not been selected. That was an informational meeting for the EAW, or excuse me, for the Environmental Assessment. The final public hearing with the final recommendation has not been held. Mike Gorra: What was Resolution #94-40 then? Aanenson: They did make a recommendation south but they've also. Mike Gorra: So what's the confusion? I mean as far as the public announcements, the only announcement from the City Council is this resolution that I'm speaking of, is that correct? Aanenson: That's correct. Mike Gorra: Okay, so as far as we know that's the way it...so what's the confusion? Aanenson: As far as what's on the public record, that's correct. But there have been other discussions that you may not be aware of that the Council has held that they may consider going to the north. Mike Gorra: Okay, which brings me to my next question. Now this road on the south side of the development that ends in a dead end at the property line. Is that correct? Generous: Yes. Mike Gorra: Is there any guarantees from the developer that this road is going to be continued to the east? How can you act on a plot plan or a development when you don't know if the road's going to go any farther? How can you ask them to build a road when you don't know if it happens south there or if you can go farther? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Generous: Well we have to provide access to adjoining properties all the time and this would be providing access to your property. Mike Gorra: Yes, but I've indicated that I am proposing a golf course on this property and it doesn't include a road at that location, which is the northerly access. And I've also indicated to the City Council that we're going to have to have a court hearing and let a judge decide if the City has a need for a road there when they have an alternative which many people think are better, cheaper and will look better in the long run. So there's no way that you can stand here and guarantee to these developer that that road is going to be where you propose it is. So how can you have it on the plan at this time? My third question is the drainage. Have you studied the drainage on the proposed development? Scott: Dave. Hempel: Yes we have. Mike Gorra: Where does the water on the west side of this development drain to? Hempel: The west side of the development? It will continue to maintain the drainage that exists today for the most part. Mike Gorra: But will there be more water draining onto someone else's property than there is today? Hempel: It will maintain the pre-developed runoff rate. As with any type of development, the amount of runoff will increase with the amount of hard surface coverage. However, to maintain the level of flood protection and maintain the level of discharge rate, or the pre- developed runoff rate. In addition we will be incorporating the city's comprehensive storm water management plan to ultimately serve water quality and quantity...in this area. Mike Gorra: Okay but, what you're saying in the long run is this water's going to be running onto someone else's property. Hempel: As it does today. Mike Gorra: Yes. But at a greater rate. Hempel: Not at a greater rate. The same rate. Mike Gorra: Do you have those computations so I can. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Hempel: We do not have those at this time. That is a restriction we impose upon the developer to maintain that rate. Mike Gorra: But you have no computations. Hempel: We typically do not have computations at this stage of preliminary plat. Mike Gorra: Well all I'm asking the Planning Commission, if you're going to plan something, plan something that might work and go by what the, first of all go by what the City Council recommends. At least they're the elected officials and they're supposed to do the recommendations around here. Secondly is take action on a plan where the road, where you can guarantee the developer that he's going to be able to extend his road and make it work. You can't do that at this time. Nobody can because we all know that when you go to court, nobody knows what's going to happen in court until it happens. And the third thing I want to be assured of is the drainage on this property. It's not allowed, you can't, everybody knows when you develop a piece of property there's going to be more hard surface. The water isn't going to soak into the ground so it's going to run someplace. I want to know for sure that this excess water isn't going to be running onto my property. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Mike Perry: My name is Mike Perry. I live at 7521 Windmill Drive with my wife, my 2 year old and also my Golden Retriever and we came here from out of state so I wasn't able to review a lot of the proposed plans and ordinances but one thing that does happen when I relocate, and I've relocated 6 times in the last 12 years. My company takes care of a lot of that sort of thing for me. So they ask a lot of questions of the city and the planning and I also try to do some questions and some phone calls and that sort of thing. And one of the things that we came up with was, we were going to be adjacent to development that was very similar to the one that we were investing in. And this is our second home,just like many other people. It's their second and for some people third home. And one of the things, we had a get together last Sunday and I guess one of the best testimonials that I can offer this council here is there was an individual that moved from out of state, just like I had. He moved from the New Jersey area and he was faced with the similar type of development and I think it cost him, and correct me some people if I'm incorrect, that were at our Sunday meeting, but I think it cost him when a lower cost. Or I shouldn't say a lower cost but a lower quality development went in next to his property and then he had to resell it, it cost him a good $50 to $75,000.00 is what he quoted at that meeting. I guess my point is, if you're going to plan out a large area, and I've lived in some developments where they had all the way from $100,000.00 home, and I should really correct myself. All the way from apartments to million dollar homes. All the way from the stretch from $100,000.00 all the 57 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 way to million dollar homes. It was done in a very, very quality fashion. And when the developer made his, even his first proposals, it had very, very good testimonials of other properties. It also had very, very good architectural drawings, similar to the one that we saw earlier tonight where it was a nice planned out project. And I think that this project is going to be done, and done well, we're first going to have to determine for this general area what we really want it to look like when we grow up. I can take you to Houston, I can take you to Dallas, I can take you to New Mexico and I have areas where I could show you where it's one steam of apartments or townhouses right down a major corridor. Something they didn't plan 10 years ago in the early 80's in Houston but certainly in the 90's, that's what they saw. And they saw a lot of developers that maybe had some very, very good expertise in commercial but then all of a sudden decided to go into residential. And then when things got tough and Kate and I were discussing, you said interest rates went up, all of a sudden these developments aren't occupied. And that's another thing. One thing you have is you have a very, very good diamond here. You have a very, very good diamond and it's called Chanhassen and I think you need to polish. Polish that diamond and polish it in the right way. And that's really all I have to say. I have some concerns about the overall planning and how this whole thing is going to funnel down together. I have concerns about the buffer area. I'm not seeing a lot of things that I've seen in other quality developments. I don't see any ponds that would keep the natural wildlife within the particular area. I'm not quite sure what's going to happen with the wetlands. I don't think it's a 100 year wetlands as they call it down in Louisiana but certainly it is a wetlands. What's going to happen with that? So I think there's a lot of open ended questions here and hopefully we'll find out more and more what's going to happen with this development. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Joan Joyce: Hi. I have a very sore throat. I'm surprised I can even talk right now but I'll do the best I can. My name is Joan Joyce. I live on 2043 Brinker Street in Windmill. Putting aside the fact that we definitely, without a doubt have grossly been misled with regard to what we've been told by the City Hall here, I would also like to point out that in terms of coming into this community and looking at what potentially could exist here, in this area, it's shocking to me to even think that you can have two residential streets parallel to each other that are not first time homes. Probably second time homes because they are custom homes, upper bracket. Not million dollar homes but surely none of us are purchasing our first home here. This is second or third. It's amazing to think that something like a change of housing, such as these twin homes, can exist so closely to a small smattering of 35 homes. 35 homes is not a neighborhood. It's a small group of the start of a neighborhood. Again, we purchased expecting this to be a big, nice neighborhood in which our children could ride their bikes down the street a couple of blocks here and there. That's definitely not what is going to happen here. Obviously what I see is you're going from single family homes to higher 58 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 density twin homes to apartments to townhomes. I mean and throw anything else in there to this big hodge podge unplanned area, it absolutely has no cohesiveness with regard to overall planning. I don't understand how something like this could even be considered. Again, I think back to how this whole issue started when the zoning was changed from whatever it was to allow the single family housing that now we live in. In my opinion, the die was cast at that point. That was zoned single family housing and that's what it's become and it doesn't make logical sense to me, after such a small start on this neighborhood, to change it to something else and end up with a different sort of living with regards to the people that are there. It's a different lifestyle. It's not the same sort of neighborhood and that's all I have to say, thank you. Scott: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. John Hennessy: I'm John Hennessy. I live at 7305 Galpin. Bob, could you put that on. Could you point out my property. I own the 3 acres right on that section. I would ask that if we're putting some screens, that the developer would screen with vegetation, trees around my property on the north and the east side there. And the other question I have was, I notice one of the internal streets comes right through my northeastern tip. It looks like the pavement is right on my property line. If the pavement is on my property line, then the right-of-way is well into my property, is that not correct? Scott: Yeah, what would be the grading impact? We are looking at pavement here, right? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can answer that. That's road right-of-way. Scott: Okay. And what would be the grading impact? How much beyond the road right-of- way does grading impact? Hempel: We're not proposing to intrude upon Mr. Hennessy's property with the grading of the street. Based on the grading plan. Scott: Okay. John Hennessy: That is where the... Hempel: Correct. The curb would be about 14 to 10 feet away from the property. John Hennessy: And then I would ask that storm water be reviewed very carefully because... land around there, from about 200 feet to the northeast of my land, it all kind of washes down 59 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 so if we have 2 1/2 to 3 inches of rainfall in a 4 hour, 5 hour period, I've got a nice stream running right across my driveway... Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Mark Pryor: Mark Pryor. I live on 7541 Windmill Drive which would abut the property. And just, I have to admit I'm fairly naive with this area. It's difficult for a homeowner to kind of get the grasp on this. We did look into it and I took some offense to some of the remarks made earlier about not knowing what was going on. In listening to the discussion here today, I have a couple concerns in that there were representations made by the city to a number of myself and my neighbors about what was going to be there. And I can see, in just listening to the discussion, where it came from. I've heard a number of people use the term low density single family housing in the same breath. In fact I think Mr. Scott did the same thing. That's what we were told. Scott: Well I didn't. I used single family but it's been kicked around, low density and it's 0 to 4 units and you don't, when someone tells you low density and it's not followed by the 0 to 4, you can assume what you want. Mark Pryor: That's representations that were made to us and that's the kind of thing that we heard and that's what we looked into and that's what we relied on when we made our purchases and it's a real problem for me, when we go to the city and inquire as to what's going on and get this representation and then when development comes up and when we come to the meetings and they say well, you know that's not really what it is. It's low density but it also includes twin homes. We didn't tell you that because we lumped it all together. But that's a real concern I have because I think these representations made were not clear and I think it's real clear in the discussions why that happened and I think the Planning Commission is the...to look at that in terms of planning in your plan. Not only your plan but also for representations made to, not only those who are new folks but other potential buyers of what's going to be in certain places and what kind of tiering and what kind of neighborhoods are you going to have in single family and a little more density and those kinds of things. I think the commission's got to look very closely at that. There's been some problems in the past which are coming to light now which I think...look at very closely. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Pat Lynch: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Pat Lynch and I live at 7475 Crocus Court, which is part of the Windmill Run development. I'm up way past my bedtime tonight to emphasize how darn important this is. And I guess to restate it in a little different way, kind of the expectation piece that's of serious importance to me. What 60 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 everyone talked about in terms of the misrepresentation is that we're not all dummies. We're not all stupid and when we ask those questions, we believed those answers and we believed the answers in their simplest, easiest to understand form because we don't know the initials. And if you're not familiar with the acronyms, you're saying does that mean single family houses? They say yeah, that's what it is and you say, well that makes sense. So people made what they thought were conscience decisions. People also didn't take the time to try to find things out and for the most part that many people can't be that stupid, I don't think. In terms of referencing did we pay attention over 2 years. Most of us have been here for 6 months. That development is about that new so to assume, in some of the references that we would have been somehow rather illiterate to the plan, you can only ask the question when looking at it but if you haven't been a party to that during that period of time, it's reasonable to assume that you may not have had that familiarity if people have only been here since April. The other part of it I guess that's of critical importance to most of us is that what we had assumed in the conversations, and we received as many answers as well what we really need is affordable homes. Well $300,000.00 isn't affordable homes. And other people said, we're not talking about affordable, we're just talking about the spreading of a corridor in an orderly fashion and what it appears to us is that it's not an orderly fashion and what our expectation and what our hope is that there be given some consideration to that. Particularly in light of how much research so many people did. It isn't as if we're in some ways looking at it and saying we're not expecting to have neighbors. Everybody's assuming that we're going to have neighbors. We're hoping the neighbors are the neighbors that you said would be there, which is how this is how the neighborhood would progress up to Highway 5. And the other part of it that's of critical importance is the roadway piece. When people talk about using Windmill Drive as the construction road and when people talk about using Windmill Drive as the other access for emergency vehicles, that's a serious issue. Windmill Drive is not the kind of street that you'd probably look at and say, that's the one that you'd target for that kind of usage. Our hope is that as you listen to us, you're not listening to a group of neighbors who stayed up past their bedtime to simply be nay sayers to a project. We expect to have neighbors. We're hoping that the Planning Commission understands what our neighborhood is looking for, thought we were promised and would be happy to welcome to the neighborhood. And we'd certainly love to be a part of the process of planning too because we weren't around for the other 2 years of discussions so, thank you. Scott: Well you are now. You are now. Good, anyone else. Well since this isn't a public hearing, I don't have to close it. Anyway, I think this would be an appropriate point in time for the commissioners to discuss their thoughts and then after we get done with that, we won't be making any recommendations but it will be, this is what, we're talking the 16th. We're going to be exercising our stamina again on this. Okay. You're it. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ledvina: Well we've had, over the 3 years that I've been here, we've had many situations such as this where residents will come in. Into our room here to oppose developments based on zoning and it always is a difficult situation and I don't know, you know what happened with the city in terms of the discussions that were had with staff and I will personally be looking into that a little bit and seeing exactly where we're at. But I think from my perspective at this point, I have to look at it in accordance with the comprehensive plan and what we're looking at there. And again we are trying to make a transition from the Highway 5 corridor and we have planning right next to the corridor that allows for a more dense type residential situation and that has to be transitioned back to single family. And the single house per lot situation. I think that that's a tough thing to do but I think with the efforts associated with a transition between the northerly extent of this development and the previous developments with landscaping and setbacks and those types of techniques, that those transitions can be made and I've seen that work many times. So I am somewhat confident that that will be able to make this work and work together. I have a few specific comments for staff on the plan as it's laid out in front of us tonight. Looking at Units, and I'd like you to take a look at this Bob if you could. Looking at the back of Units 5 and 6 for Block 3 and 3 and 4, Block 3. There's a. Scott: On page? Ledvina: Well the preliminary grading plan. It shows that 5 and 6 is essentially a walkout and there's approximately 40 feet between the back walkout and the side of that other building into 3 and 4, Block 3. So if you'd just look at that area there. Maybe we can do something with that. It looks a little tight in there. You see where I'm talking about? Okay. There was one other comment that I wanted to make and I didn't make it. As it relates to these units that will be on the north side of this development. Typically with our single family home scenario we can have buildings that are on the order of 15, well it's 20 feet apart essentially. 20 feet from corner to corner. Building corner and with this development you should note that the buildings will actually be along that north side 75 feet to, in some instance 120 feet apart. So I think that's. Mancino: Like where Matt? Ledvina: All along this north face. If you look at the separation distances between the buildings, we're looking at roughly 70 to 120 feet apart. So I think people are thinking these buildings are squashed together and they really aren't. I mean because they are together, you know, the two units are together, you have a lot more side yard area and things like that and I think actually that's, that can be a very nice feature to have. The buildings are not in there compactly so I think that's another thing that can help in terms of the transition. So but as it relates to Units 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 on Block 3, I think...taking a look at. Also looking at 62 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 the grading plan, I know the developer has worked to maintain some character but I think some additional efforts can be made with the grading. I don't know, where are we in terms of street slopes Dave? Have you look at that? That center road. Hempel: Street...off of. Ledvina: Okay. So they're closing in on about the maximum grades? Okay. And I think after that, you know recognize that the developer has done pretty much what he can in terms of dealing with that. That's the extent of my comments at this point. Scott: Good, Nancy. Mancino: I have a couple questions. Excuse me, Matt I have a couple of questions for you as the grading. When I got out of my car and walked at the dead end street that goes into this from Windmill Run. I went up and stood up on a slope that was directly south of that street and it was high. I mean I was standing there and I could see McGlynn's, I could see you know south. What's happening there? I mean I can see the road's going to go through. Are we going to be loping off a lot of the rollingness? When I look at this I see a lot of 990's to, I see lots of 990's in this Phase I up to 1,000 so I see a 10 foot difference in elevations and that's about it. Through this whole Phase I. Ledvina: Well they have to, obviously they have to match the grade at the existing Windmill Road there. But a lot of, actually there's a lot of filling that's going on. Well let me take a look here. I guess I hadn't noticed that specifically in terms of what they're doing. It roughly drops to about 980 and then it goes back up essentially so there's a couple of hills in there. A couple of 10 foot hills in that road before it terminates at the access boulevard so. Mancino: Okay. So you're saying they are, to me it looks like they're doing quite a bit of flattening. Ledvina: Well they are but they're generally speaking they're attempting to maintain that general topography there because it does go, the top of the hill goes to a little valley area and then it goes back up and then it goes back down again. You know from north to south. So I don't know. And in those areas, you're right, it's pretty high and they are working at some pretty steep grades over in that area so. Mancino: Well I'm wondering though, the public view that we're going to have from Highway 5, that was one of the things that we discussed... Ledvina: Right, with Oak Ponds, yeah. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: Yeah, what's that going to do and if you look in Chapter 8 of the Highway 5 study guide. Excuse me, of people who don't have that Bob on Figure 8.4, I mean we clearly say in this area preserve steep slopes. Is that, I mean I know the precedent has been set by City Council that we're not really preserving steep slopes in our subdivisions. First hand on that but do we care? Generous: Well yes we care. It's how much of it do you need to preserve? Do you have to keep every knoll out there? Mancino: No, I think there was actually one right here, if you look on Figure 8.4. It wasn't like the entire, they weren't saying the entire area but a particular high point that one might say is a feature on this particular land. Generous: That's where they're reducing the peak down to 12 feet and they're shifting near the top of that contour, they're shifting over this...coming down from that. So they are taking out the highest point but then they're having, from that point to the intersection they're having a 10 foot elevation change. I don't know. How much do you have to preserve to get these... Mancino: Is it still steep? Generous: Not as steep, no. Mancino: And what percentage are you taking off, 30%? Hempel: I guess one clarification, what do you consider steep? What percentage is steep? We reviewed a plat earlier tonight where we had retaining walls with 3:1 slopes for back yards. Those are steep. Mancino: Well whoever wrote this put down steep slopes and it was one of the things that we talked about on Highway 5 so if we're not going to do anything about it, let's not talk about it. Hempel: As Bob mentioned, there's one knoll on Block 3 there. Lots 9, 10 and 11 that would be reduced by about 12 feet. The rest of the subdivision will maintain it's rolling character with the 7% street grades. If you wish we can grant a variance and increase to 10% street grade... From an engineering standpoint, I wouldn't recommend it. I don't see the compromise as it's worth it. There's not trees to be saved. There's not wildlife to be saved as a result of it. They're still maintaining the rolling integrity of the piece of property. The curvalinear streets are going to magnify that as well. There is a...difference of about 1010 with the existing Windmill Run street is. And when you get down to the southeast corner 64 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 where the frontage road is, the elevation there is almost 960 so there's a significant grade difference between the two. From the north end to the south end. Mancino: Yeah, that's over a pretty big expanse. If we do 10% grades then on the south slope, much like we've done it on others so there wouldn't be a problem with, in the winter time. Hempel: Winter times it would be exposed to the winter time...freezing conditions. Mancino: Yeah, I'd like to see some grade changes in the street if we can maintain. It was significant during this Highway 5 study to put it on our figures here and yeah, I think it's important. I think that Mike Gorra brought up a very good question, discussion point and that is, we have certainly made a recommendation to the City Council on where the road goes. One of the reasons for even to me, at least I was told the Highway 5 task force was to be proactive. Was to get out there ahead of developers and say, let's do some good planning and I would like to see the City Council now, we have done our job at the Planning Commission and made our recommendations. I would like to see the City Council also come to a decision on where this north access boulevard goes. Because it will greatly affect what happens here. Farmakes: Are you clarifying that when you're saying the north access boulevard goes? Are you clarifying your preference? Mancino: Where they would like north of Highway 5. Okay. No, I'm not saying whether it should go north or south. I'm just saying north of Highway 5 I would like to see City Council right now make that decision. We've got development out here ready to go and. Scott: You've got to tap the microphone 3 times before you say that. Harberts: Mr. Chair? Scott: Yes. Harberts: If it's okay I'd like to make my comments. I have to catch an early flight tomorrow morning so I'd like to take my leave then. Scott: Good... Harberts: I'm not advocating for or against the development at this point. I'm certainly a proponent, if you understand some of the politics that are going on in the region in terms of what's coming out of the Metropolitan Council, that they certainly will have a greater amount 65 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 of power that the legislature has dealt to them through the last session. And what I'm seeing here is far better than what I'm hearing down at the Met Council in terms of what they would like to see out here. I think Matt brought up a very good point, and I think it would be in the best interest of the developer if they would perhaps take a step further in terms of their presentation of what the impact really is or is not because when you look at this, when you look at the two lots that they average each lot perhaps, the average is somewhere between 10 and 12,000 per unit. You've got two lots together. That exceeds 15,000. That exceeds the lots on the other side. You've got a 3,000 square feet pad, as I understood, as the total unit which is about the size I would guess of a standard home in that type of price range on almost double a regular lot size. I think, I don't know. But that's what the numbers tell me based on my experience of sitting here for the last 2 years. Boy, that's not so bad is it? But I don't know that if we have a display model or something like that rather than all these lines or something, it might be a little easier to see that a little bit more comfortable. I like, now don't hold me to my words. I don't know if I'm saying these right. I like, I'll say a more enhanced density. I can remember sitting here with Windmill Run and talking about this is what we think is going to happen, because this is what's been happening in the city and I believe in the staff comment, you said this is the first time this has ever come to us. Somebody is challenging us or testing us in terms of what the code is saying and they're well within their right to do it. Personally I'd rather see this as a PUD. It gives us a little bit more flexibility in terms of putting some more of the pieces in there that we like. Maybe a little bit more green space. There's a lot of houses in here. There's going to be a lot of people here. A little bit of green space. Kids riding bikes, things like that. I guess if this was a perfect world, I'd say put a PUD on the whole thing. Ladd tells me, well they can do this. Well okay, fine but I'd still like to see a PUD. If the world was perfect, I'd like to see the Council tell us yes, this is what it is. The southern alignment. Yes, we've got it in policy but anybody knows with a governing policy, they can change their mind. This is going to force them to get on the fence here or get off on one of the sides here. I'd rather be able to be able to look at the whole thing rather than to piece meal. Sometimes this world isn't all that perfect. So we have to live and try to do our best job. We certainly you know, we certainly if we had our crystal balls we'd certainly make this a perfect world but we try and that's all we can do. I think the input is good. I think it's great. There's some very good points brought up. I would like to see building materials. Yes, you don't, the developer does not have to, or builder, whatever it is. They don't have to show this to us but come on folks. We've got some residents here that have a concern about what the values of their homes are going to be. Is it so wrong to maybe go that extra step further because that makes our job a little easier? Like I said, I don't think this is such a bad, this is really a better density when you put it in that perspective, than if it was a single family house. I think. I don't know. I'm guessing. I can't tell a whole lot from lines on a piece of paper so I guess, since this is public input, we have an opportunity to see this, I would just encourage the developer to maybe go the extra step to help everyone becomes a little bit comfortable with what this is. I 66 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 remember sitting here with Windmill Run expecting yes, we'll see 15,000 square feet lots and a house and so on and so forth but you know, this is well within the code. You know staff lives and breaths this every day and this is what they expected to see. We've never had one of these. Whoa, someone read the book and this is what they can do. There's nothing wrong with that but yeah, I'd like to see a little bit more green. I'd like to see a little bit more open space. My comment though to Bob is, in Block 3, 16 and 15, I believe the way that pad is proposed facing the road, that that's going to be where their access point is...from sight lines, things like that and the amount of traffic. Is that such a good way for the cars to be backing out? I don't know. That's my, that's a challenge there. I'm not a real big proponent of, in the cul-de-sacs. The islands, sure they look nice but from a public safety and from maintenance and stuff like that, I don't know if this is a homeowners association as the last one. They didn't go into that. I don't know. Then they're the ones that have to wrestle with it but if it's a city, we don't need to raise our taxes anymore just to go around some pretty things. Those are my comments. We're going to see this back. Like I said, the way this is sitting right now, what I can tell or can't tell, I'd rather see a PUD just to, in a sense make sure we're meeting the criterias of Highway 5. Things like that but like I said, it looks okay but you know maybe the developer or builder or Brad, maybe you can give us a little bit more information or renditions of what we're looking at because this isn't so bad but when you look at all these blue lines and stuff, I'd get nervous too. Brad Johnson: Can we rent a bus and we'll see? Harberts: Sure. I'll give you a deal. With that, that's my comments and I'm sorry but my flight leaves real early in the morning. Scott: Have a safe trip. • Harberts: Thanks. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: Nothing to add. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I'll make my comments as brief as possible...I guess I see this as the cart before the horse here because of the alignment issue. There are people that talked from a standpoint of it has to get the City Council off the stick if they throw a proposal at them with an alignment the opposite of what they voted on. I don't know if I buy that exactly. I would like to remind however the people in the audience here that this property is currently zoned 67 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 agricultural estate I believe and that's important to bear in mind. What you have here, what people are talking are proposals. You have the opportunity to contact your elected officials and let them know that you disagree with that. For those of you who've just moved into the area, been here 6 months or so, you're probably not familiar with some of the planning and so on that's been involved, or the forces that are involved. For some of you that are out of state. The Met Commission of the people's Met Council that people are talking about is a governing body that takes the 95 communities that make up the metro area and basically doles out and plans money for things like effluent collection and improvements of utilities and so on. These things are very expensive and they have a way of controlling development. The inner city obviously, and the powers that be within the city would like to see city density all the way out. They'd like to see as many people as possible placed per square foot so they don't have to pay as much for utilities and sewage collection. So there are those forces at work that would like to see high density and nothing but because it would be cheaper for them. There are other forces at play out here of families who have owned farm property here for generations and they're selling off because of taxation and it's time to cash in. There are developers here who would like to have certain ways that they can develop a piece of property where they make more money and you have those forces at work and then you have your investment in a single family zone where you're concerned about the value of your property and what goes next to it. Getting back to the original point I made. That property currently is zoned agricultural estate and the process, it's still open. It has to be voted on to change the zonement and so your City Council will get that on their agenda at some point in time and the process is, is that you call up and complain and say you don't want it. If you have, you're part of that process. You're part of that pressure. I did not go along with the commission and voted for the southerly alignment between Lake Ann and Galpin. Then I went with the northern route. I think that there are Minutes available to you if you care to read that but I think that will be a deciding factor of whether or not this is a PUD or it's a regular development. I believe that there is more opportunity to buffer that development and your homes with a PUD and I believe with the southerly alignment there'd be more property available there to deal with rather than to compartmentalize the zonement. And I, if I make comments on this development, I kind of feel like I'm falling in line with what I see as sort of a directional phase to the northerly alignment. I'm not going to do that. I think that that's wrong. I also think that if the City Council in work sessions are discussing this issue, it should be in the public's eye based on the amount of work that went into it. Particularly if it's counteracting public hearing information that they voted on. I don't know what the particular city rules are on that but it seems that I wasn't aware that they were considering re- voting on that or were in session somewhere on that. Scott: Nor was I. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Farmakes: But there are, depending on how you say this, there is a consensus that we were all in line and agreement with this and I know city staff adamantly feels that the northerly alignment is the correct way to go. Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is that whether or not it goes to the north or to the south, it's guided single family. Regardless of where the road goes and this is one option underneath the single family. Whether it goes north or south. It's guided single family. 1 to 4 units per acre. So what you have to decide is whether or not you want it to go single family, PUD or 1 to 4. That's what you have to struggle with. Farmakes: Yes, but I think what the point here is, what we're talking about and where it gets lost is what is the end result of what we want to see. And we're talking about this road and it's alignment. We're talking in some cases the end result of the ability to develop property and the options to develop a large amount of property as an option. A golf course for instance was named or townhouses or four plexes or where that road goes is going to determine what that is. And it seems to me that will be the first point. You don't come up with a development and then say well, here's the first development. We have the road up here. Therefore the rest of the properties surrounding it is going to fall in line. I would hope that what we look at is, we look at this as this is a guide and it doesn't necessarily have to dictate specifically what we wind up with. What typically happens in the process is that when a development comes forward, there's a developer, the surrounding property owners come forward and say you know, this is what we would like to see and then there's a process that we go through. But I'd probably see this again, like Diane did, as a PUD situation but I would again like to see the road go to the south. And I also think that that will change fundamentally this development. That's the end of my comments. Scott: Good. Well thank you all very much for coming and I think, hopefully being part of the process, maybe some of you for the first time, get at least an idea of the players, the forces that are at work. If you don't happen to know the names of your Council people, all their phone numbers are in the phone book and their published in every Villager. There's a section that says who they are at the State and local level. We appreciate your input and hopefully you felt that you were involved and we're listening to what you're saying. We'll be seeing this again and you all will get notices and it will be published in the paper so we expect to see you all in 2 weeks. I'd like to thank the development team for coming in and the adjacent property owners too. Thank you all. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING ACCESS STRUCTURES ON RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Comments. Mancino: What's an unenclosed shelter? Aanenson: A fish house would be an enclosed shelter. So what we're trying to say is really just making this, it has a roof over it... Scott: It's not habitable. Farmakes: Are there gazebos that you just set up, they're not attached to the ground? I mean is that a requirement that it be attached? Aanenson: Well I think what we were looking at too...quality but it has to be well maintained and the enhancement to the beachlot or the setting...from the lake. Farmakes: So it's not just crated out and sat down somewhere. Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. And just bringing drawings...the association would maintain it. Conrad: So would they have to, Kate would they have to bring a drawing for us to approve it? Aanenson: Yes...want to make sure it's part of the conditional use...makes sense because it may not make sense for all beachlots. I think in this one it did...but not in all. Certainly not a recreational beachlot... Scott: Okay, anything else? Can I have a motion? Oh excuse me. I have to open the public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? I think what I'll do, seeing that there are no members of the general public here, that we'll forego the opening and closing of the public hearing and go right to a motion. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission review, hold on. Scott: Can I help you with that? Ledvina: Yeah, help me with that. Is this where I'm at? Scott: I'd just read that. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ledvina: Okay, well I'll read it. I don't know if I know what it says but I would make a motion that the Planning Commission review and make any additional changes and recommend the City Council adopt the following amendment to Section 20-263, Recreational Beachlot as identified in the staff report. Scott: Is there a second? I'm sorry, was that a second Ladd? Conrad: Yeah, I guess so. Scott: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we endorse the staffs recommendations. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the following amendment: Section 20-263, Recreational Beachlots, is hereby amended as follows: (2) Except as specifically provided herein, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos and unenclosed shelters) shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beachlot. Add the following: (18) Gazebos and unenclosed shelters may be permitted on recreational beachlots subject to City Council approval and the following standards: a. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. b. No gazebo or unenclosed shelter shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback for the zoning district in which the structure is located. c. Maximum size of the structure shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet. d. Maximum height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. e. Gazebos and unenclosed shelters shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high quality design concept for the lot which is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 f. Gazebos and unenclosed shelters shall be properly maintained. Structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired, or replaced by the homeowners or beachlot association. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Scott: And your reasons ma'am. Mancino: Unenclosed shelters, I don't think are quality. I don't think somebody would want them on their adjacent recreational beachlot. Gazebos I can understand. I don't understand the universal unenclosed shelters. Aanenson: We could build in a definition... Mancino: To me it's just not in the same playing field as a gazebo. It's not a big deal. Aanenson: Gazebo has... APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scott moved, Farmakes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 19, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Kate Aanenson gave the Planning Commission a update of the actions taken by the City Council on items forwarded from the Planning Commission. Ledvina: Can I stop you there? Are we going to follow that up with changes in ordinances? Aanenson: At your recommendation. Ledvina: Well, it wouldn't be my recommendation but maybe it's their recommendation. I'm being facetious but whatever. Aanenson: I guess I missed the point. Ledvina: Well obviously there are ordinances on the book and we're trying to evaluate those as it relates to Shamrock and I don't know. The question is, do those ordinances hold any weight and where are we at with those ordinances. 72 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Conrad: Yeah, I think we should get the attorney here and inform us more of what these ordinances mean and the intent statements because if we can't follow the intent statements, then we have to put some hard data into the ordinance, which is really unfortunate but obviously we'll have to do that so. Ledvina: Because we're going in a different direction than they are then and we're never going to, we're not going to come close then. Conrad: They're getting legal advice that's different. Mancino: No, no. The lawyers said that they could use the existing ordinances, the existing comprehensive plan intent statement. They could use it and support what the Planning Commission had decided. They decided not to but it's like Dick Wing, that night...asked the attorney here, is this too much gray area? Can we not rule on these? Are they too fluff? Are they too general and he said, no. You can rule using these and it was in the paper and it's in the Minutes. Ledvina: Well my comment is that I'd just like some direction based on, obviously they're saying Planning Commission you're wrong but we've got to get something back. We need some feedback on why we're, on what they feel is not right. Aanenson: ...try to meet and talk about some of those issues. Farmakes: Well that might be good too with the sign thing coming up too because if they approve that monolithic sign there next door too which is kind of counter, why give them a 20 foot pylon sign when they make Target put in an 8 footer? I mean how does that, explain that. Mancino: Yeah, that was true too. Aanenson: So would that be your recommendation that there be a joint meeting to discuss some of these issues? Scott: Well the access boulevard for number one. And then, I'll keep it to planning related things. Mancino: Topography ordinances. I mean general. Aanenson: The intent statements. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: I guess I didn't, the bluff ordinance, I didn't sit down and say well what are we protecting with that? What specific properties? Aanenson: Well that was a broad brush to say, steeper slopes and we told you it didn't cover a lot of those things. Scott: Yeah, I think we know that baby needs to be re-tooled. Mancino: But when we get very specific like we have about signs and street frontages and then we get something like a Byerly's where we have to give them the street frontage, and they really didn't need it on the east side. Then you can't take it away. So sometimes the intent statement works so much better than every little nuance. We'll never be covered. I mean we found that time and time again. But anyway. Conrad: I guess I need the feedback from the City Council. I don't know if I want it first hand but I need the feedback as to what they thought, and maybe that's staff summarizing it for us but what they thought about why they didn't feel comfortable. Was it the legal aspect that they would be taken to court, even though I just heard that wasn't. Aanenson: That's partially what she said. Unfortunately Elliott was at that meeting and Elliott had a misunderstanding. I don't want, I mean there's a lot of issues there. Conrad: I've heard some different things. Ledvina: I agree with Ladd. If we sit down, we're just going to talk about generalities and nothing's going to happen. Scott: The last two meetings that we've had with the City Council I didn't feel we really got anything out of anyway. We asked some real specific questions about what do you want and...because maybe they don't know. Farmakes: If you back up to the Press development though, we've had several, recently had several 6 to 1 or we've had several either unanimous denials and they walk out of there getting approved. Scott: Yeah. As a matter of fact, all the denials. Farmakes: Well, I'm just saying that a lot of them were based I think on philosophical direction, which I think is what they seem to be,just my gut feel is that they were acting as if they're treating it like a typical development. The developer comes in there and thanks the... 74 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 and they roll over. And I don't know if that's because we're not following it through or we have to show up and re-present it. Mancino: Well I think that it is our responsibility, especially when staff takes a different position than we do, because some of those we have recommended denial and staff has recommended approval. So I think that when we differ from staff, then yes. Somebody from the Planning Commission should be there and explain why we differ, and that's happened. Farmakes: I feel somewhat uncomfortable with that because as I understand what we're supposed to be doing here is we're serving at the direction of the City Council and I get uncomfortable when we're going somewhere else. We should be in sync. Now if there's a different philosophical direction, then we should know about it and make the decision whether or not we want to serve because we're supposed to be representing the community here in that regard. As I understand it. Or we're giving the community input. We're the community representatives. It gets to be a discouraging issue I think if we're not in communication in that regard. Scott: Well there's also, there's a fundamental relationship difference. I think our relationship with city staff is very similar to the relationship that I expect from the City Council is that city staff handles all sorts of details that I would care not to know about and then here's a product that we review and make our recommendations based upon that and we don't have to deal with a lot of details. We handle a lot more details than the City Council should handle and then they should say okay, well what's the sense. Oh this is denial, okay. But it seems like there's a tremendous level of detail that gets tossed around at the City Council level that it's kind of like it's almost redoing the whole issue. Which, the developers and get a couple of attorneys, can take advantage of that. Farmakes: Well, you know you've got to read the notes. Mancino: They're not reading the notes. Scott: Yeah. Farmakes: But getting back and talking to a few of the members, the Council members, some of them feel that we should work the thing out before it gets there. And what I say back to them is that if someone refuses to do anything and they want to bring it forward to you, what are we supposed to do. Hold them to the floor. If they don't want to compromise and go into what direction we feel is the overall direction that we're going. Mancino: They've got it made because. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Farmakes: They use that type of non-communication then to come forward. Try to ride it into you and then push harder with the phone calls. Do we get into a position where we're basically having this meeting over again during City Council time where we're re-presenting all this stuff. Ledvina: Yeah, shouldn't have to do that. Scott: Well then also there's the issue, if I were to develop a piece of property in Chanhassen, I'd put together the, I mean personally I would do it differently but if I were a typical developer, I'd just say this is the minimal thing. 15,000 square foot, blah, blah, blah, blah. Here's the deal. Go to the public hearing. Table. I'd just keep throwing the same stuff out and then you get bumped up, based upon a time issue and then there's another time issue and I don't know. Mancino: Strategy. Scott: Absolutely. You don't have to do anything. You just show up. Farmakes: Get your issue in at about 12:30 at night. Scott: Yeah, and then I don't know if there's anything in the ordinance that allows the City Council to toss the thing, you know if they deny it then they start the process all over again but, so anyway. That was kind of ongoing items and open discussion. Conrad: But what are we doing? Are we taking the initiative or are we asking the City Council to tell us what they would like to do? Do we want to review this ourselves at an upcoming meeting? Scott: Review? Conrad: Review the ordinance in terms of preservation of. Aanenson: And maybe have Roger... Conrad: Yeah. I really don't care. The City Council changes. I guess my, Jeff I do, I would like to think we're in sync. Yet on the other hand, I guess I'd like to kind of figure this one out for ourselves. Farmakes: I'm talking more about philosophical direction than, I was listing out some stuff but rather than discuss those particular items, but talking more about more or less a general • 76 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 intent statement for what we're supposed to be doing. I think that it's not to say of course that the City Council can't disagree with whatever we come up with but if there's usually unanimous votes, one tends to think well there's a philosophical difference going on here. Scott: Then there's the question too about, I mean when we take away, when city staff makes a recommendation to us and it's totally opposite of what we think it should be, I mean we make the effort to say, Kate. What the heck are you thinking? Did any Council people call any of you people on the Shamrock? Ledvina: No. Farmakes: I talked to one informally. He voted against it. Scott: Anyway. Okay, any other items? Aanenson: ...talk to Roger about coming in here... Okay, they approved the first reading of the diseased tree and then I neglected to put on there but...I believe that's about it. Scott: Can I have a motion to adjourn? Mancino: I just have two things. I would like to at some point have two, and I don't know if they're work sessions on them or what they are but number one is neighborhood commercial. We have never really talked about architectural guidelines...neighborhood commercial that may be happening. And how they're different than a strip mall or a strip shopping. And secondly, a Vision 2002. What's happening there? Aanenson: Oh interesting. Fred just came in today. They did do the phone survey. Maybe I'll have Fred come to the next Planning Commission meeting... (Taping of the meeting ended at this point in the discussion.) Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carded. The meeting was adjourned at 11:43 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 77 • : :• Pape 4-Chsska Humid—Thursday, August 18, 1994 3, rE' _- sSz.+Ga. S�¢ ! �•+�rtiK 'R , a ; I ;ta„ S1 ; •z � ` - i� .:.�t ��. '-s .�•i.�"r$R _{1 ,.'�G. `'i�Fp:�(.5,4�'`� _ . j t �S 3 yt tti r its �. #c r, .� . • ani y ir '• � k • > �r t- ,,. r. rill 1 a j.. , t` 0-4. 4 i '_ t- ' CuáiItjé1ä[ cth y rnemm• �_ . ' ' i�.f f • �t,:�ti�•;1� +�'y{t•:'1�', t_�'r �y'� ' • �-�.7r tf � ±�}� '� i n l': C - CityCoühoiI ;; ' ` .... ,A . _ t I i� ofthiChaskä ' ; �..Eeta s c/Fj , . In t .L; #z � i `y p s ' ,. . . �. `.• . ere'.c. o 7Evetyonawanls an open elective-way,a board of: Neither•'the tequ ted neg + , ,•Ylt- , , , -1 su d Council,'or county_-board whose buy out was appirbpx1a actio Either th ,y perviaort, ty 'nseets` i obi members areWilling to'listen to thepeople the development *' g it may- P city.:141iditoi ti>id:litgk *1I voters..Yet,strange as y seem for us to sayit, nance .� ' r '' `` ct - r+equuements or ft hoes ttotrectedpropr (. • -_s ::there is also the danger of being too open;too willing erty owners should not be Pat-Of the a ua&,n.'bore �. 'f to make constituents the"sixth member of the coun- property owners have a d_iffetent ie tioti t '..-t7 7 • dl."And that is just whet the Chaska.City Council went frond which to seek eivil `It's lled"the a� . e has done. . _ _ • courts.".�heii potential 00144,1g:4460``R ' 'x k i It is time for the council to right itself a real estate a , P�� " ` gent,or eyes stir tV,gv statements y 4t This"sixth`member",behavior has'manifested allegedly made, .•);-,f;AA "' `,r; ; y<,�� ` i�' Y _.cif Its theway people spend increasingly more time All of this sixth' 1s .,; %`,, �- -addressing the council on non-hearing matters,just' `ening council Meting*apprecte -�°meet : $6e $ individual'Vie int across''often on • in co my : ,. "` 'Viewpoint' gs mmo tutit.`middgh . . • • ,•,r _ V ;titter not directly affecting themselves:_`There are one a Council t ,.' soioe citizens who n� .rn. metabers,-who hinge � �_ ,pntitt��- ,P,;;;-:-,i• �;�,�� pop A before the cable television a full eight hours'on another .s# -..:77.4.:4-td,,: � tiv�ec 'camera-iti:ooisncit'chambers on a regular basis.They ability in theseimarathon,boishdl•sesaio 3'No one till. ,,. 7. : 't K4repeatedly step into routine council debate: as ssharpat th&end of�bt day Is'st`gy f4 i'l.s. Qt ` 'A Y , V • 'Z '• 4'.. -.- , �;.* .There are also petitioners who make thein case, beginning.The cit surf tta'ir�datls dder�4s aoa� A-- ' 3 � . ,again and again.The council,not wishing to offend cil at top form at both the beginning nttd end of.its, k t "someone:alioWS a person to repeat ad infinitum the=f.meetin i 3*c ,,n s 'max : E8• ' € 1;.0.' ;14--A - d ,,. same argumsants,as he or she hopes to west down the" And,to its Ciedit,'the Cott til is"trying to bear the r „ rooundl to a personal point of view ' ''. . , ' voices of Constitueab,but it hit been Sp.ope in that :;, x ``:`'Sixth member-itis".also has shown itself in an effort that' u ' ` t .� _ z ��:� People'itidverteatly:.luvb �ed10 • extreme 1<poor and inappropriate council decision` "believe their.voices automation. y` ,;u s writ I -wb&e h ditected as part of its planning approval that They do not:-%4-t a, = =' �'` ° _ ic.:-: 4• • sr a bee' oper tiate wi,th�mewe s about This is a nation based on ere derddemoc3 ` '.:- . :holt btlybnt. , t racy, Simply staff,we ,, „y_ "-inti .‘,.,..3,..4,,....,. .4'Tbroe Iiomebw•nem near the entrance to the -.our knowledge bf die s `• , , <. V •JWoodridge subdivision siaid'they'did not want to values; and th _i. continue living in their homes if the subdivision had .making their beat fff one7en� m r, an had . -That n jd .•At4 ? D enticipaied,'I'hey asked for a bay-01(.4j'} - times;,we . . -��`• �` �,� tthotbut th�,i�espdasibii:' ,��:�� , s YIn th s se;the.council almost madetheba�out i b ?•,,e%, ',! • . Y ° ty �P�o�tellgg_thami'ol;af�bpiniopa,;but they._��. Tfi• :. a condition of approval; but then it backed-of and remain the ulliimate;deCision'=maketOliq� .a Get tt merely required an attempted negotiation.At least A°not expect to do h#s a�sixth rnembe:"of thraoouncal.t '` I was tf-e+ Ione of those homeowners made it clear,this week, • - -- : ' ~` the-25th the tf that a required buy out is expectedof the•oouncil. .z LVonae Baltic :love,mut k.z,t th f , Letters r s +_ • _ `'4 Ston using animals as performers ' . latest� . hundred t•' OCTOBER 1994 ZONINCWODS AMERICAN r PLANNING ig ASSOCIATION 1111111 Planning for Design with Nature Open Space Conventional zoning has been the norm in most communities for the last several decades. It involves categorizing land into Developments separate use districts, specifying the activities allowed in each district, and prescribing standards with which they must By Dan Biter and Sarah Bohlen comply.Many communities are finding that this type of zoning creates problems. Land is usually designated according Where has all the open space gone? Local government officials to the compatibility of the surrounding land uses. For seldom wish to sacrifice all open space to development. But example, intense industrial districts arc usually placed away what is the alternative? Many planners now suggest open space from low-density residential districts. However, communities developments. also known as cluster developments. They are do not always take the nature of the land into consideration intended to produce exactly the opposite of what `cluster" when making these designations,which results in zoning implies—clumping or high-density development. Instead, these districts incompatible with the land they comprise. developments allow the usual number of homes on a parcel of Some problems arise when land parcels are forced into land while downsizing lot sizes and altering the typical lot plan awkward sizes or shapes, causing development to be difficult or to allow for greenways and ocher open spaces. costly and possibly eliminating existing natural resources.Also, Planners have debated the merits of open space communities often underestimate the open space needed for developments for decades. In recent years, however, "suburban greenways. trails, parks, and neighborhood playing fields and sprawl" has faced increased criticism.At the same time, limit it to leftover land that cannot be developed. They end up proponents of open space developments have been scrambling to find land they can designate as open space. demonstrating that clustering lots adds economic value by There are several methods of acquiring open spaces. reducing road-building and utility costs while increasing including fee-simple acquisition (purchasing land) and the "quality of life"attributes. purchase of development rights, but these programs can be This issuc of Zoning.News examines the open space or cluster expensive, and communities have little control over the development as an alternative to the traditional subdivision. A willingness of property owners to sell their land or rights.As a California court has defined open space development as "a device result, communities are writing open space provisions into for grouping dwellings to increase dwelling densities on some their zoning ordinances. By using more flexible zoning portions of the development area in order to have other portions techniques. development is encouraged in areas that are most free of buildings. . . . The plan is to devise a better use of undevel- able to sustain that development, allowing more sensitive land oped property than that which proceeds on a lot-to-lot basis." to be preserved. Rated by 25%as "rural":44 acre parcel; Rated by 75%as "rural":44 acre parcel; 20 lots(2 acres each); no open space; 20 lots(3.4 acres each); 25 acres open no pond access except from four lots. space; pond access for all residents. Permanent i goo" ` Open Space �5 r r • I Matter 1 i I Woods e i rrall r/ f! // N ----, *,a I ii It .. L�r ; ' _ ` _ a L. A, / IN um ma \l/4;:-.---- + 111 - _ .. \ . These two site plans illustrate the alternative posed by cluster design. Benefits of the Open Space Option Washington. For further reference,the development of a rural Growing demand for the protection of environmentally cluster ordinance is discussed in detail in"Rural Cluster sensitive lands has spurred public interest in open space. Zoning: Survey and Guidelines" (Land Use Law 6-Zoning Clustered developments may be used to preserve environmental Digest September 1990). features such as park and greenway systems.water resources Title.Most typical are"Cluster Development Ordinance"or such as floodplains or wetlands,agricultural land,forested land, "Open Space Development Ordinance."Some other titles from or just open space in general. the ordinances we reviewed include: Flexible Development But the benefits are not limited to environmental features. (Grafton);Residential Compound (Concord);One Family Well-designed open space developments are more pleasing Clustering Option (West Bloomfield Township);Common aesthetically because the site design and layout allow greater Open Space Development(Washoe County);Scenic flexibility. They preserve both the overall density of an area and Preservation District (Vista); Suburban Cluster Classification the rural character that many people desire. Developments may (King County); and Clustered Housing(Traverse City). revolve around a certain activity(such as a recreational opportu- Definitions and Description.A clear definition will help nit•) or preserve a historic landmark (such as a battlefield). The eliminate confusion about what developments fall into this development may also seek to preserve something less tangible category.The following are a few of the definitions we found. but equally important—energy. With this greater flexibility,lots "Cluster grouping:A designed contexture of residential units can be oriented to the sun or prevailing winds, taking advantage and their accessory facilities which may be used as a repetitive of natural heating and cooling features. motif to form a cluster pattern. Each cluster grouping shall be A number of studies have compared the economics of separated by landscaped areas or natural open space to form the conventional and open space developments. In Randall Arendt's larger cluster development." (Pima County) Rural by Design(APA Planners Press, 1994),Elizabeth Brabec "Flexible Development:A flexible development shall mean a outlines how higher-density cluster developments have several Major Residential Development in which the single-family advantages over low-density sprawl. Developers and land owners dwelling units are clustered together into one or more groups on can earn the expected return with either design. But cluster the lot and the clusters are separated from each other and adjacent neighborhoods result in lower municipal and public service properties by permanently protected open space." (Grafton) costs,and the homes typically show a higher resale value as a Intent or Purpose. Each community is unique in appearance, j_ result of the better"feel" of the subdivision. One studs'of two location,spatial patterns and relationships,and preservation t-- communities. "Market Appreciation for Clustered Housing goals. Before it can write a statement of intent,the community with Permanent Open Space." published by the Center for must decide what it deems important and what must be Rural Massachusetts. found that homes in clustered preserved. Some statements of intent or purpose follow. developments appreciated at a significantly higher rate than "It is the intent of this section of the ordinance to encourage those in conventional developments. variety and flexibility in land development and land use for residential areas,subject to the purpose of zoning and the A Building Public Support conditions and safeguards which will promote the Why aren't all communities jumping at the chance to include comprehensive plan; to provide a harmonious relationship with •- open space pros isions in their zoning ordinances?Local officials the surrounding development, minimizing such influences as may feel chat the increased flexibility in sire development will land-use incompatibilities, heavy traffic and congestion, and lead to more difficult' in site review. Developers may feel that excessive demands on planned and existing public facilities; to the typical buyer prefers large-lot, single-family homes. Current provide a means of developing areas of physiographic or other residents may feel that the open space preserved may someday physical features to enhance natural beauty and other attributes, become developed, leading to much higher densities. Other and in so doing to provide for the use of such lands as concerns involve responsibility for the maintenance of the open recreational space for the residents of such developments to space. the residents'loss of the sense of ownership that comes encourage the efficient use of those public facilities required in with owning a large piece of land. and even the perception that connection with new residential development, and to encourage more affordable housing will lower property values. innovative design techniques to utilize the environment as a Many of these concerns can be attributed to a lack of informa- guide to development such as,but not limited to,zero lot lines, tion. But the quality of the development and the administration parry walls,site locations with regard to energy consumption. of the ordinance provisions are crucial. Involving the public in and other concepts." (Myrtle Beach) developing the ordinance is a good way to disseminate informa- "The purposes of the flexible development are to: a.allow for don on the benefits of open space zoning and helps to formulate greater flexibility and creativity in the design of residential r1 the ordinance's goals. The requirements and the reasons behind developments;b. encourage the permanent preservation of open them should he as clear as possible to streamline the design space,agricultural and forestry land,and other natural resources: review process. and all applications that fully meet these require- c. maintain the Town of Grafton's traditional New England rural ments should be granted irrevocable approval. character and land-use pattern in which small villages contrast with open space and farmland;d. protect scenic vistas from Ordinance Sampler Grafton's roadways and other places;e. preserve unique and Zoning,Veus has examined open space ordinances from across significant natural,historical,and archaeological resources: f. the country to develop a composite of the best provisions.The facilitate the construction and maintenance of streets, utilities, jurisdictions include: Pima Count,Arizona;Vista.California; and public services in a more economical and efficient manner:g. Baltimore County. Man-land; Concord and Grafton. protect existing and potential municipal water supplies: h. • Massachusetts:Traverse City and West Bloomfield Township, encourage a less sprawling form of development." (Grafton) Michigan: Myrtle Beach. South Carolina:\X'ashoe County, "The purpose of this article. . . is to set forth regulations to Nevada: York County.Virginia: and King County, permit variations of lot size in order to preserve or provide open space,protect natural and scenic resources, achieve a more development of property which will result in the substantial efficient use of land, minimize road building.and encourage a alteration or removal of natural vegetation,trees,shrubs, sense of community." (Washoe County) rock outcroppings,water course,or scenic amenities. . ." "The intent of this section is to permit one-family residential • Performance-based zoning protects resources by regulating the ;" development which, through design innovation,will encourage impact of the uses rather than the uses themselves. Instead of creative development alternatives which will benefit the total —allowing uses"by right," performance-based zoning grants community by preserving desirable open space,wetlands, special permits if the proposed uses can satisfy performance 4 designated and undesignated woodlands, and other natural criteria. For example,a model ordinance in Lane Kendig's - assets, in conjunction with the development of clustered one- book Performance Zoning(APA Planners Press, 1980) family residential dwellings and provide improved design describes how performance standards should be used: alternatives other than conventional subdivision development for difficult sites. The proposed cluster development must meet The density factor(DF) is the maximum density ' the letter and spirit of the zoning ordinance,and the use will be permitted on the buildable portion of the Bice...All compatible with already existing uses in the area, not interfere tracts of land within a district may be developed to the same density factor.The density factor is calculated by with the orderly development of the area,and not be dividing the total number of dwelling units per acre by detrimental to the area." (West Bloomfield Township) ,., the net buildable site area. . .The floor area factor is the Application Procedures.This section should describe the amount of floor area of a building compared with the net T process and requirements needed to submit a cluster buildable site area.The minimum site area specifies the development proposal. Issues addressed should be where to file minimum total number of acres for which development _ the application (usually the local planning department) and of a particular use may be proposed.The minimum lot additional information required beyond what has been set forth arca,on the other hand,specifies the minimum lot size a' by conventional subdivision regulations: "In addition to the for agriculture,nurseries,and single-family uses. normally required information, the submission shall include a • Density bonuses set the base density level of an area by A.: statement setting forth the total area of the tract, the available determining the average densities needed to preserve the -__ developable acreage. . . . the maximum number of lots allowable activities desired. Developers are then allowed to develop at under conventional zoning and subdivision requirements,the higher densities if they use clusters to preserve open space. number and size of lots in the proposed cluster development, The density bonuses might be based on the size of the parcel, and the total area of the open space system." (York County) the amount of open space preserved,other special criteria, or The manner of presentation of rhe proposal may also be any combination thereof. Baltimore County uses the design included: " . . . an application . . . shall he submitted . . . of the proposal to apply the following bonuses: accompanied by the following detail drawings and information: 1.A fully dimensioned sire plan drawn to scale which clearly DENSITY BONUSES indicates all property lines. buildings, structures. . . . and all existing natural land features. 2.An engineered grading plan DU/Acre DU/Acre which indicates proposed finished grade elevations, earth Underlying Zone Allowed by Right with Bonus movement.drainaze provisions with existing natural DR1 1 1.5 topography overlaid. A contour interval of two (2) feet shall be DR2 2 3 fi required except %%here the slope is greater than fifteen percent (15°o) in which case fie (5) foot intervals are permitted. 3. DR3.5 3.5 5 Existing and proposed utility facilities shall be shown. 4. The DR5.5 5.5 8 location. size and elevation of all exterior identification signing. 5. Scale elevation drawings showing the proposed exterior DR10.5 10.5 16 exposures of all structures along with a description of the materials to be used in construction. 6.A basic description of Design Standards and Review.This part of the ordinance the location and type of landscaping proposed to be used and can be the most difficult to write,but if well written,will be the the method of irrigation and maintenance. 7. On-site parking most beneficial section. It should include a method of calcula- areas. points of access.visual screening devices and landscaping tion for determining the allowable number of dwellings (overall shall be shown.- (Vista) density); infrastructure requirements for roads and provisions of Open Space Provisions. Open space developments may be water,sewer, and other utilities;permitted types of dwellings encouraged in several ways.A mandate is likely to be politically and the physical design standards;criteria establishing dimen- difficult and tends to lose the spirit of the cluster development. sions of lots,setbacks,and road frontages;the amounts and Techniques such as using overlay zones,performance-based types of buffers required: and open space requirements. Charles zoning.and density bonuses are more likely to succeed. Reed,editor of The Zoning Report,advises considering allowing • Overlay districts are sets of additional regulations superim- nonresidential uses such as churches,schools, recreational posed over the base district requirements. usually to protect complexes, and, under certain circumstances,light commercial. • some sort of resource, such as steep hillsides or scenic rivers. Standards may be set by physical limitations,such as For example.Vista begins its scenic preservation overlay topography or soil stability,or by health requirements such as district regulations by listing the criteria an area must meet minimum lot sizes based on the need for on-site water wells and to he a part of the district. then listing the types of develop- sewage, but they should always be based on the reasons for the _ mens that require special permits within the district: "1. community's desire to preserve open space.Arbitrary Subdivision of land into five(5) or more parcels. 2. move- requirements should be eliminated. For example, "all lots must - ment of earth,by grading.which results in a cut or fill in be at least 50 feet wide,"with no explanation as to why lots excess of five (5) feet at any point on the subject property. 3. must be 50 feet wide, is the sort of requirement that inhibits 3 Resources parcel shall be in preservation open space areas that would not otherwise be preserved under chapter 12,Floodplain, Floodway, Organizations Watercourse,and Wetland Protection.The preservation open Global Cities Project (A project of the Center for the space areas shall be measured no closer than ten (10) feet to the Study of Law and Politics) side or thirty-five(35) feet to the rear of the dwelling units and 2962 Fillmore Street shall be dedicated to the common use of the residents of the San Francisco,CA 94123 development. Roads and bodies of water,while included in total (415) 775-0791 parcel area,shall be excluded from the preservation area (Published a series of handbooks titled Building calculations." (West Bloomfield Township) Sustainable Communities:An Environmental Guide for Local Governments) Vital Points Center for Rural Massachusetts The success of open space zoning depends on the administra- don of the ordinance. Set clear guidelines, and don't stray Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning from them. Also, bear in mind that as lots become smaller, Hills North some of the benefits of living in a rural environment may be University of Massachusetts lost. The density of the developments is critical as it affects Amherst,MA 01003 the neighboring open space. If higher density is permitted, it will be built, so be certain that the added density will not Publications have adverse effects. Arendt. Randall, Rural by Design:Maintaining Small Town Character,Chicago:APA Planners Press, 1994. Kendig. Lane,with Susan Connor,Cranston Byrd,and Dump Truck Judy Heyman, Performance Zoning,Chicago:APA • Dispute Plays Planners Press, 1980. Pivo, Gary, Small, Robert,and Wolfe,Charles R.,"Rural in Peoria Cluster Zoning: Survey and Guidelines," Land Use Law &Zoning Digest, September 1990. The inhabitants of Limestone Township in Peoria County, Illinois,are in an uproar over an enormous red dump truck Reed.Charles, "Cluster Housing Zoning and parked in their neighborhood. In 1988, its owners, Bill and Subdivisions: New Ideas for Innovative Housing," The Zoning Report,June 19 and July 3, 1987 (two parts). Twila Barlow,bought six acres of land in the area. In spite of its Stokes, Samuel N.,with A. Elizabeth Watson,Saving residential zoning, the land was littered with much junk, most America's Countryside,Washington. D.C.:National of which the Barlows hauled away in their truck. Trust for Historic Preservation, 1989. Having done so, the Barlows felt justified in asking their Yaro. Robert,et.al., Dealing with Change in the neighbors to remove junked vehicles and other garbage from their property. Irritated by what they regarded as unwarranted Connecticut River )'alio}, Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Environmental Law interference,the neighbors reported the Barlows CO the zoning Foundation, 1988. board for violating the Peoria County zoning code,which prohibits the parking of trucks of more than 1.5-ton capacity on residential property,either outside or in a private garage.The creative design.Also be careful to set standards for the land to Barlows paid a $250 fine but, at the same time,applied to the be built on. In one case,a cluster development meant to board for a home occupation license to operate a trucking preserve agricultural land ended up clustering the dwellings on business on their property. The board denied the license,and the best agricultural soil. the Barlows appealed to the board of zoning appeals,which "All cluster developments shall conform to the following upheld the denial.The Barlows then appealed to the local trial restrictions: (1) Preservation area. Within the cluster court,which concurred in the denial. On appeal,the state development, a minimum of seventeen (17) percent of the total appeals court remanded the case to the zoning board for further consideration.The case remains in litigation. Meanwhile,the dispute with the neighbors has grown more Zoning Neks is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning acrimonious.The Barlows reacted to their fine by seeking out Association.Subscriptions are available for 545(U.S I and 559(foreign). and reporting every zoning violation they could identify. They Michael B.Barker,Executive Director:Frank S.So.Deputy Executive Director: uncovered more than 500 incidents. Zoning enforcement in William R.Klein.Director of Research. Peoria County is complaint-driven,and the board is obliged to Zoning Net.r is produced at APA Jim Schwab Editor:Michael Barrette,Dan Biver, Sarah Bohlen.Fay Dolnick.Michelle Gregory.Samar Jeer.Beth McGuire.Mara investigate every complaint it receives.Area residents were Morris.Das id Smith.Reporters.Cynthia Cheski.Assistant Editor:Lisa Barton. enraged by this latest action.Two years ago,alarmed by the Design and Production backlash they had triggered, the Barlows retracted their Copy right,t1999 bs American Planning Association, 1313 E.60th St..Chicago.IL complaints.They later reinstated their actions.The board is 6063—.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1"6 Massachusetts Ase..N.U:'..Washington.DC 20036, now processing some 270 complaints. All rights resercd.No part of this publication may he reproduced or utilized in any The acrimony has led,however,to broader action by the form or by any means.electronic or mechanical.including photocopying.recording. county.The Barlows'actions and their neighbors' reactions or by any information storage and retrieval system.without permission in writing have forced the county land-use committee to review the from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper.including 50•'0°°recycled fiber regulations for trucks and heavy equipment parked at night in and 10°0 postconsumer waste. ® residential areas after being used elsewhere in the daytime. Fay Dolnick 4