Loading...
07-19-95 Agenda and Packet AGENDA FILE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1995, 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE_ CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Preliminary plat to subdivide 5.98 acres into 5 single family lots located at 7530 Dogwood Road, Getsch Addition, Getsch Corporation. 2. Rezoning of 2025 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary plat to subdivide 20.25 acres into 18 single family lots and 1 outlot located at 7210 Galpin Blvd., Forest Meadow. 3. *Item Withdrawn by applicant. 4. Preliminary plat approval subdividing Lot 3, Block 1, Sunridge Addition, an 1127 acre parcel into one lot of 2.62 acres and an outlot of 8.65 acres on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located at 8950 Audubon Road, Marlin Edwards. 5. *Item Deleted and rescheduled for August 2, 1995. 6. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from office/industrial to residential low density; Rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate, to RSF, Single Family Residential; preliminary plat approval for 59 single family lots and 2 outlots and associated right-of-way on 46.27 acres; and wetland alteration permit to fill wetlands on-site on property located at 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.), Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties. 7. Wetland alteration permit to fill 0.66 acre of wetland basins near the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd (T116N, R23W, Section 16, NE1/4 NE1/4). Two small wetlands and a very small part of one large wetland will be filled for the construction of the southern Highway 5 frontage road and a multi-family residential development. These wetland impacts will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 with a wetland restoration project just southwest of Lake Susan (T116N, R23W, Section 23, NEI/4 W1/2), City of Chanhassen. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. * Items Withdrawn/Deleted 3. Site Plan Review for an 11,134 square foot car wash building located on 1.78 acres of property zoned BH,Highway Business District and located south of Hwy.5 on the north side of Lake Drive East,Amcon Corporation. 5. Site Plan Review of a 9,161 square foot office/warehouse facility on a 1.57 acre lot,property zoned PUD,Planned Unit Development Industrial,located on Lot 2,Block 1,Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition,Highland Development,Inc. CITY OF PC DATE: 7/19/95 \ • • UAA !EIt CC DATE: 8/14/95 CASE #: 95-11 SUB • 1- ff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 5.984 Acres into 5 single family lots, Getsch Addition Zz LOCATION: East of Lake Minnewashta, west of Dogwood Road, South of Tanadoona Drive, and north of Crimson Bay Road V APPLICANT: Getsch Corporation 5233 Richwood Drive (� Edina, MN 55436 a_ Q PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District ACREAGE: 5.984 acres • DENSITY: 0.8 Units per Acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - RR, Rural Residential District QE - RR, Rural Residential District W - Lake Minnewashta WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The majority of the site is heavily wooded with mature trees. The site is a riparian parcel on Lake Minnewashta. It contains two single family homes and one cabin. (f) The site generally slopes to the southwest. A bluff is located within the westerly portion of proposed Lots 1 and 2. The top of the bluff is at approximately 980 contour line. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Large Lot LJ-J7.1,1 LAKE 7 !. LAKE ,,,,_._\11•••. . /' , M/NNEw. 1 t 0 ..-1r/ / N N E W A SHTA �1, 1,', 4�i REG/ONAL \\ - - ��" ` '`� PARK �� * 44iiiir IIIIII! I, . ..„--; --A,Lion "- Elli - -- _ /- ar :: ik gr Atuimmili_...j; .. . ,;..... ... ... 7"r -----... ___, / JP ..---- - �,(1( lit cc ` 4NEWASHTA c;-6 ` ii 04, fVURT t .�• i`4 ) . DRIVE tN �f 44 QO I „ t.. s -,,, ,moi, 0.,\k, , ,,,, 2 witAiisc, ,... � o AMP oam I _4/4A41 POND - 7 ON• ST A AY / E----- 4R80RE UM POND' .. I /182ND STREET f' •` r -5 POND V Getsch Addition July 19, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 5.984 acres into 5 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The site is located east of Lake Minnewashta, west of Dogwood Road, south of Tanadoona Drive, and north of Crimson Bay Road. Access to the subdivision will be provided via a private street extending from Dogwood Road. The average lot size is 52,135 square feet with a resulting gross density of 0.8 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant owns Lots 11 through 17, Sunset Hill on Lake Minnewashta Addition. Sunset Hill on Lake Minnewashta Addition was platted in 1930. The subdivision contains 17 lots and a 20 foot wide right-of-way. This development is and will be served via a private driveway. The existing 10-foot wide bituminous driveway will need to be expanded to 20 feet wide and designed for a 7-ton per axle weight per city ordinance. In addition, a turnaround will also be required as part of the driveway upgrade and subdivision proposal. A driveway or cross-access maintenance easement agreement will also be necessary to preserve access through the lots in the future. A bluff is located within the westerly portion of proposed Lots 1 and 2. The top of the bluff is at approximately 980 contour line. All proposed structures must maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees. The tree canopy covers 85-90% of the site. The applicant must maintain a minimum of 68% canopy coverage. Existing canopy coverage after development is guided to be at least 68%. Tree removal due to grading and construction is approximately 0.52 acres or 15%. The tree canopy coverage after development will be between 70-75% which is within the minimum requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. 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. BACKGROUND City records go back to April 1980 show Lots 11 through 17, Sunset Hill, under a single Parcel Identification Number under the name of Margaret Getsch. At some point the ownership was changed to Getsch Corporation. The Zoning Ordinance states that if two or more contiguous lots are in single ownership and if all or part of the lots do not meet the width and area requirements of this chapter for lots in the district, the contiguous lots shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purpose of this chapter. If part of the parcel is sold, the sale shall constitute a self created hardship under the variance provision of this Getsch Addition July 19, 1995 Page 3 chapter. The zoning ordinance requires an area of 40,000 square feet per lot. All seven lots have an area less than 40,000 square feet with the exception of one lot. The area of these lots are as follows: Lot 11=7501 Dogwood 39,381 square feet - vacant Lot 12=7511 Dogwood 36,857 square feet Lot 13=7521 Dogwood 36,377 square feet Lot 14=7531 Dogwood 35, 952 square feet Lot 15=7541 Dogwood 35,369 square feet - vacant Lot 16=7550 Dogwood 35,777 square feet Lot 17=7561 Dogwood 41,101 square feet - vacant A single family summer house occupies Lot 12. A screen house straddles the dividing lot line between Lots 12 and 13. A single family house straddles the dividing lot line between Lots 13 and 14. A single family house and a detached garage occupies Lot 16. Mr. Ed Getsch, who owns the house on Lot 16, recently discovered that because the land is owned by a corporation, he is technically leasing the land the house sits on from the corporation. He wishes to clean the title of the property. Hence, this subdivision application is going through the process to combine the 7 non-conforming lots to create 5 conforming lots and clear up the title of the property. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.984 acre site into 5 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 0.8 units per acre. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 40,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 52,135 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site is located east of Lake Minnewashta, west of Dogwood Road, south of Tanadoona Drive, and north of Crimson Bay Road. Access to the subdivision will be provided via a private street extending from Dogwood Road. A bluff is located within the westerly portion of proposed lots 1 and 2. The top of the bluff is at approximately 980 contour line. All proposed structures must maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. This subdivision is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan since it is guided for Large Lot Residential (One unit per 10 acres) however, the property is zoned Residential Single family which allowed 40,000 square foot lot on unsewered riparian lots. In this situation, the Zoning Map takes precedence over the Comprehensive plan which makes this proposal consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Getsch Addition July 19, 1995 Page 4 STREETS Access to the site is from Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Road which are not constructed to city standards. The City has recently taken over minimal maintenance responsibilities such as snow plowing and some road repairs on an as needed basis. A portion of Dogwood Road adjacent to this parcel is non-existent. A 60-foot wide right-of-way exists, however, the street was not constructed in conjunction with the plat of Zimmerman Farms. Since this development is replatting seven lots into five lots, staff believes that Dogwood Road at this time should not be required to be improved in accordance with City standards. In addition, staff believes within the next five to ten years, depending on development pressure, utilities may be extended to the area at which time the street would and could be constructed to urban street standards. At that time, this development would most likely sustain assessments for the street and utility improvements. The development would have the potential to future subdivide into smaller lots once city infrastructures and a public street is constructed adjacent to the lots. This development is and will be served via a private driveway. The existing 10-foot wide bituminous driveway will need to be expanded to 20 feet wide and designed for a 7-ton per axle weight per city ordinance. In addition, a turnaround will also be required as part of the driveway upgrade and subdivision proposal. A driveway or cross-access maintenance • easement agreement will also be necessary to preserve access through the lots in the future. The City's fire marshal will most likely require identification/address signs to be placed at the location where the private driveway exits Dogwood Road. UTILITIES The site is located in an area without city sewer and water services. The lots are proposed to be serviced with on-site septic sy stems and wells. The preliminary grading plan does not indicate the primary or secondary septic locations and will need to be added. In addition, the grading plan needs to be signed by a land surveyor or a professional engineer licensed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. jSTS SITES The proposed and existing individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) sites for the proposed and existing dwellings are not shown on the preliminary grading plan plat. Chanhassen City Code requires the location of two ISTS sites be shown for each lot. The location of these sites should be determined by a Carver County licensed ISTS site evaluator and approved by City staff. In addition, it must be demonstrated that the existing ISTSs are not noncomplying or failing systems. A licensed ISTS inspector may be required to make a determination on the status of the existing ISTS. The existing ISTS, if it is not a failing or noncomplying system, may be on one of the proposed ISTS sites. Getsch Addition July 19, 1995 Page 5 Proposed and existing well locations within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision must also be shown. Well locations are necessary in order to determine permitted setback compliance. SITE GRADING Only minimal grading will be required to prepare the house pads and extend and widen the existing driveway. Individual erosion control and drainage plans will be required for each lot in conjunction with submittal for building permit applications for review and approval by the City. Since there are no public improvements proposed with this development, a development contract will not be required. The City typically collects surface water management fees for the subdivision; however, since the plat is actually being downsized from the original subdivision, staff believes the surface water management fees should be waived. PARK DEDICATION Full park and trail fees will 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 40,000 90' on street 125' 30' front/75' rear 150' on Lake 10' sides/30' bluff BLOCK 1 Lot 1 44,570 101.14' 372.57' 30'/75' 165.01' 10'/30' Lot 2 56,846 125.04' 356' 30715' 150' 10'/30' Lot 3 53,737 141.20' 363' 30775' 150' 10' Lot 4 56,453 100' 360' 30'/75' 152.07' 10' Lot 5 49,073 220' 339' 30775' 150' 10' Getsch Addition July 19, 1995 Page 6 TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The proposed subdivision is densely wooded. Significant trees include oak and maple, with a substantial population of basswood, ironwood, poplar, and ash. Base line canopy coverage is approximately 85-90%. This high percentage of canopy coverage allows the development of the three homes to potentially have a minimum impact on the site. Existing canopy coverage after development is guided to be at least 68%. Tree removal due to grading and construction is approximately .52 acres, or 15%. This amount of removal is within acceptable limits and therefore the developer will not be responsible for any replacement plantings. Canopy coverage after development will be 70- 75%. In order to ensure proper protection of the woods on site, staff recommends tree removal limits be established on each lot. Removals shall only be allowed within a 15 foot perimeter of the building pad and grading limits. No additional trees shall be removed unless approved by city staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #995-11 for Getsch Addition for 5 single family lots as shown on the plans dated June 19, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. Tree Removal Limits will be established 15 feet from building pad and grading limits. The locations of trees must be shown on site surveys submitted for building permits. Any additional tree removals must have staff approval. 2. The private driveway/street shall be upgraded to meet city ordinances. 3. The preliminary grading plan should be revised to include the following information: a. Show primary and secondary septic site locations. b. Show the revised private driveway including turnaround. c. Final grading plan should be signed by a licensed land surveyor or professional engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Getsch Addition July 19, 1995 Page 7 4. The applicant shall provide a cross-access driveway easement agreement to preserve access through the proposed lots and to spell out maintenance responsibilities. 5. 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 (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 6. Building Department conditions: a. Show the location of two proposed ISTS sites. This must be done before final plat approval. b. Demonstrate the existing ISTSs are not failing or noncomplying systems. c. Show existing and proposed well locations on the proposed five lots, and existing well location on lots abutting the proposed subdivision. 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. 7. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. These plans shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Marshal. 8. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 9. A preservation easement over the westerly 150 feet of Lots 1 and 2 shall be dedicated." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Joe Rechter dated July 5, 1995. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 5, 1995. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated June 12, 1995 4. Memo from Jill Sinclair dated July 10, 1995 5. Preliminary plat dated June 20, 1995. STATE OF '' DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO July 5, 1995 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II City of Chanhassen (sr , 690 Coulter Drive r Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Getsch Addition, Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) , City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City #95-11) Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: We have reviewed the site plans (received June 21, 1995) for the above-referenced project (Section 8 , T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1 . Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) , a Public Water, is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) level, which alters the course, current or cross-section of Lake Minnewashta is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. The OHW for Lake Minnewashta is 944 . 5 feet (NGVD, 1929) . 2 . The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. It appears that there will not be a stormsewer for the proposed driveway. We recommend that the amount of impervious surface in the development be minimized and that the stormwater be routed to swales with unmowed vegetation that will remove pollutants from the stormwater before it runs into Lake Minnewashta. 3 . Lake Minnewashta has a 100-year flood elevation of 945 feet (NGVD, 1929) on the FEMA maps. All the work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 4 . Lake Minnewashta has a shoreland classification of recreational development and a shoreland district extending 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with the City's shoreland management regulations. In particular: a. Lots one and two contain bluffs (i. e. , slopes that average 30 percent or greater and rise 25 feet above the OHW) . These bluffs should not be disturbed and the structures on theses lots should be setback 30 feet from the top of the bluff. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II July 5, 1995 Page 2 b. Lots three, four, and five contain steep slopes. 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 an area within 37 . 5 feet of the OHW. The bluff impact zone is an area within 20 feet of the top of the bluff. d. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Lake Minnewashta using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. Screening is particularly important for structures that are on top of bluffs. 5 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. The existence of bluffs and steep slopes on the site require the use of stringent erosion control measures 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. The City of Chanhassen should regularly inspect the erosion control measures on the site during construction. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit will need to be obtained. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. 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 c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Gene Strommen U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann CITY CF ..._ ., tol , 1014.‘iCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -alb MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer A DATE: July 5, 1995 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Getsch Addition Land Use Review File No. 95-10 Upon review of the preliminary grading plan prepared by Schoell & Madson dated November 2, 1994, I offer the following comments and recommendations: STREETS Access to the site is from Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Road which are not constructed to city standards. The City has recently taken over minimal maintenance responsibilities such as snowplowing and some road repairs on an as needed basis. A portion of Dogwood Road adjacent to this parcel is non-existent. A 60-foot wide right-of-way exists, however, the street was not constructed in conjunction with the plat of Zimmerman Farms. Since this development is replatting seven lots into five lots, staff believes that Dogwood Road at this time should not be required to be improved in accordance with City standards. In addition, staff believes within the next five to ten years depending on development pressure, utilities may be extended to the area at which time the street would and could be constructed to urban street standards. At that time, this development would most likely sustain assessments for the street and utility improvements. The development would have the potential to future subdivide into smaller lots once city infrastructures and a public street is constructed adjacent to the lots. This development is and will be served via a private driveway. The existing 10-foot wide bituminous driveway will need to be expanded to 20 feet wide and designed for a 7-ton per axle weight per city ordinance. In addition, a turnaround will also be required as part of the driveway upgrade and subdivision proposal. A driveway or cross-access maintenance easement agreement will also be necessary to preserve access through the lots in the future. The City's fire marshal will most likely require identification/address signs to be placed at the location where the private driveway exits Dogwood Road. Sharmin Al-Jaff July 5, 1995 Page 2 UTILITIES The site is located in a rural, residential neighborhood without city sewer and water services. The lots are proposed to be serviced with on-site septic systems and wells. The preliminary grading plan does not indicate the primary or secondary septic locations and will need to be added. In addition, the grading plan needs to be signed by a land surveyor or a professional engineer licensed under the laws of the State of Minnesota . The City's Building Official will comment further on the septic design and location. SITE GRADING Only minimal grading will be required to prepare the house pads and extend and widen the existing driveway. Individual erosion control and drainage plans will be required for each lot in conjunction with submittal for building permit applications for review and approval by the City. Since there are no public improvements proposed with this development, a development contract will not be required. The City typically collects surface water management fees for the subdivision; however, since the plat is actually being downsized from the original subdivision, staff believes the surface water management fees should be waived. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The private driveway/street shall be upgraded to meet city ordinances. 2. The preliminary grading plan should be revised to include the following information: a. Show primary and secondary septic site locations. b. Show the revised private driveway including turnaround. c. Final grading plan should be signed by a licensed land surveyor or professional engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. 3. The applicant shall provide a cross-access driveway easement agreement to preserve access through the proposed lots and to spell out maintenance responsibilities. jms c: Charles D. Folch, Public Works Director Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator gAeng'daveknemos\ge sch.ppr CITY OF -1 CHANHASSEN f_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �-r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDU • TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official lTk DATE: June 12, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-11 SUB (Getsch Addition) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUN 20 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: ISTS Sites. Proposed and existing individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) sites for the proposed and existing dwellings are not shown on the preliminary grading plan plat. Chanhassen City Code requires the location of two ISTS sites be shown for each lot. The location of these sites should be determined by a Carver County licensed ISTS site evaluator and approved by City staff. In addition, it must be demonstrated the existing ISTS' s are not noncomplying or failing systems. A licensed ISTS inspector may be required to make a determination of the status of the existing ISTS. The existing ISTS, if it is not a failing or noncomplying system, may be on one of the proposed ISTS sites. Proposed and existing well locations within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision must also be shown. Well locations are necessary in order to determine permitted setback compliance. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Show the location of two Proposed ISTS sites. This must be done before final plat approval. 2 . Demonstrate the existing ISTS's are not failing or noncomplying systems. 3 . Show well existing and proposed well locations on the proposed five lots, and existing well location on lots abutting the proposed subdivision. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\getsch.sjl CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jafff, Planner II FROM: Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern DATE: 10 July 1995 SUBJ: Tree Preservation/Removal, Getsch Addition The proposed Getsch Addition property is densely wooded. Significant trees include oak and maple, with a substantial population of basswood, ironwood, poplar, and ash. Base line canopy coverage is approximately 85-90%. This high percentage of canopy coverage allows the development of the three homes to potentially have a minimum impact on the site. Existing canopy coverage after development is guided to be at least 68%. Tree removal due to grading and construction is approximately .52 acres, or 15%. This amount of removal is within acceptable limits and therefore the developer will not be responsible for any replacement plantings. Canopy coverage after development will be 70- 75%. In order to insure proper protection of the woods on site, staff recommends tree removal limits be established on each lot. Removals shall only be allowed within a 15 foot perimeter of the building pad and grading limits. No additional trees shall be removed unless approved by city staff. Staff recommends: 1. Tree Removal Limits will be established 15 feet from building pad and grading limits and will be defined by tree protection fencing. 2. Locations of trees must be shown on site surveys submitted for building permits. 3. Additional tree removals must have staff approval. C I TY Q F PC DATE: 7/19/95 \ I HATHAE1 � '1 CC DATE: 8/14/95 CASE #: 95-10 SUB 95-4 REZ B : Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 20.25 acres of property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF,Residential Single Family and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 20.25 Acres into 18 single family lots and 1 outlot, Forest Meadow Z Q LOCATION: 7210 Galpin Boulevard. West of Galpin Boulevard and approximately 2,500 feet north of Highway 5. eL APPLICANT: JMS Development Corporation David A Stockdale a_ 80 West 78th Street, Suite 130 7210 Galpin Boulevard Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate District ACREAGE: 20.25 acres DENSITY: 0.8 Units per Acre-Gross 1.3 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD-R (Planned Unit Development-Residential) S - A-2; Agricultural Estate District E - Galpin Boulevard Q W - PUD-R (Planned Unit Development-Residential) QWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. pi_ _ PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The majority of the site is being farmed. Two wetlands are located within the northeast portion of the property. Mature trees are concentrated within the northwest corner and north of the site. Bluffs occupy the northwest corner of the site. The site generally (7slopes to the southwest. A single family home occupies the northeast corner of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density 5 i __... ,. k :0 9 ,k...\ ---, 7 t 1 1 ..,.., cili*.., z W 1 W vt l ,__ Q Q 1 1 Y 1 ie y -„. 3. CrCC Q I / .la dIIL 0 o�y'4 X1,1-- ,04 ilr 'PI . lid . cr cr D-- -- . ,- _i. - 4,1,,,t, 4 WI Mt .AI V 1). vr, ,1 q 2 iitore 4•44 , (6, 10 rie •• 1 1 • \ 0 . (7) .. Sowl f� ip or if 4 1":" f cc gtx t VI ; -1-:...:‘ Q y ...1 \ Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 20.25 Acres into 18 single family lots and 1 outlot. The property is zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate District and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 33,299 square feet with a resulting gross density of 0.8 units per acre. The site is located west of Galpin Boulevard and approximately 2,500 feet north of Highway 5. Access to the subdivision will be provided from the north via an extension of Fawn Hill Road which will connect this subdivision with Galpin Boulevard to the east (through The Woods at Long Acres/Lundgren Bros. property). The proposal shows Fawn Hill Road ending in a cul-de-sac, servicing all lots with the exception of Lot 18 (existing house) which currently gains access off of Galpin Boulevard. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Outlot A, as shown on the plat, will serve as a future park for the area. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along the northwesterly corner and the center of the site. The majority of these trees will be saved. Trees within the northwesterly corner of the site are located on top of a bluff. None of these trees will be lost. A tree preservation easement over the wooded areas within Lots 6 and 7 is required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending a 5 acre park. The plat reflects a park slightly less than that in size. The applicant has agreed to modify the size of the park accordingly. In reviewing this plat, staff also had to look at access to the property to the south. While these property owners are not ready to develop or subdivide at this time, staff wanted to ensure that they have adequate access and utility services. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide future street and utility access to the property located south of the subject site. In summary, staff believes that the proposed rezoning and subdivision is well designed. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from A-2, Agricultural Estate District, to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the north and west is zoned Planned Unit Development Residential. The area to the south is zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate District and Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 3 is guided for Residential Low Density. The area to the east of the site is zoned Residential Single Family. The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 0.8 units per acre and 1.3 units per acre net after the streets and park land are taken out. This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 20.25 acre site into 18 single family lots and one outlot and a proposed 5 acre park. The density of the proposed subdivision is 0.8 units per acre gross, and 1.3 units per acre net after removing the roads and park lands. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 33,299 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A bluff is located within the northwesterly edge of the property. All structures must maintain a minimum of 30 feet from the top of the bluff. Oudot A, proposed with this development, is reserved for future park land. This will be discussed in detail in the Park and Trail section of the report. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS There are two jurisdictional wetlands on site according to the wetland delineation report dated June 20, 1995 by Kenneth Powell of Svoboda Ecological Resource. Both of these wetlands fall into the area proposed for park land, and therefore, the City would be responsible for replacement if wetland impacts can not be avoided. It appears that these wetlands are the result of manipulations to the landscape by previous property owners, however, the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) does not exempt these wetlands. The wetlands are labelled basin 1 and basin 2 on the attached figure. Basin 1 is a wooded swamp and basin 2 is a seasonally flooded basin; both basins would be characterized as ag/urban since they were created and have little diversity in vegetation. There are also two ponds noted on the attached figure. The pond north of basin 1 was excavated by the previous owner, and therefore, it is not a jurisdictional wetland. The pond along Galpin Boulevard is a Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 4 low lying area and is also not a jurisdictional wetland. The area proposed to be graded has no wetlands on-site. Buffer Strip The City of Chanhassen has a wetland ordinance protecting wetlands from alteration. There is also a buffer strip requirement associated with the protection of each particular wetland. If the wetland is natural, the buffer strip width is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. If the wetland is ag/urban, the buffer strip width is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback from any wetland is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. DRAINAGE The site drains to the south and discharges into the large wetland associated with the headwaters of Bluff Creek. The wetland is described as ag/urban, however, it should be highly protected since it is associated with Bluff Creek and has potential for improvement. The northwest corner of the property is heavily wooded and very steep. The slopes meet the bluff protection criteria, and therefore, a 30 foot bluff setback is included in the plans. There are also two drainage areas that should be protected from erosion during construction. One is along the western border of the property and the other is just south of Lots 12 and 13 where a temporary sediment pond is proposed. Stormwater discharge rates from this development will have to be minimized to predeveloped runoff rates until downstream storm sewer facilities are constructed. The proposed site grading will maintain the existing drainage patterns. However, the applicant, City staff and the neighbors to the south (Turcotte) should meet to discuss the storm sewer/ponding alternatives. The City's SWMP proposes a regional stormwater quality treatment facility south of this development adjacent to the wetlands. A trunk storm sewer is recommended to convey stormwater runoff from this site to the future regional stormwater pond. The plans propose a temporary sediment basin to treat runoff prior to discharging downstream. This proposal is not acceptable but staff feels there are viable alternatives that can be applied to accommodate the storm runoff. This needs to be resolved prior to final plat consideration. Detailed stormwater and ponding calculations for pre- and post-developed conditions using a 10-year and 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration shall be supplied to the City for review and approval. Additional catch basins or ponding facilities may be required upon review of these calculations. GRADING Most of the site is open fields with isolated groups of trees in the northwest and northeast corners of the site. Less than half of the site is proposed to be graded to develop the street Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 5 and house pads. Some tree removal is necessary to develop the house pads for Lots 16 and 17, Block 1. Staff recommends that these lots be custom graded at time of building in an effort to minimize tree loss. Individual tree removal, grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for review and approval by the City in conjunction with applying for a building permit. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves 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. Storm Water Quality and Associated Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall 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 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City proposes one regional water quality pond for this site and the land south of this site and just north of the large wetland. The best location for the pond is on the property to the south along the edge of the large wetland. The proposed SWMP water quality charge is $800/acre for single-family residential developments, and therefore, this development will be responsible for approximately 13.3 acres of developable land or $10,640. Storm Water Quantity and Associated Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. The total developable area of the property is 13.3 acres, Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 6 assuming Outlot A (4.86 acres) is proposed public park. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $26,334. EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and development plan and submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff requires Type 3 erosion control fence be used around all of the wetlands. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. No building permits other than one for a model home will be issued until the site grading is completed and all disturbed areas reseeded and mulched. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained on Farm Hill Road until the street is paved. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site from existing Fawn Hill Road. The sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from the north property line throughout the site. Upon review of the preliminary utility layout it appears fire hydrant placement may need to be revised. The fire hydrant spacing shall be in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are spaced approximately 300 feet apart. These types of plan revisions occur during the construction plan review process in conjunction with final plat. Detailed construction plans and specifications for street and utility improvements will be required for review by City staff and formal approval by City Council. The street and utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee of the installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. As with other City developments, moisture content in the soils is relatively high and the City has required the use of a drain tile sy stem behind the curbs for improving both the street sub-base as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. The drain tile system will need to be incorporated into the construction plans adjacent to those lots which are unable to discharge either into the storm sewer system or ponding area/wetland. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside of the street right-of-way. The drainage and utility easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Considerations will also be given for access to maintain the ponding areas. Fawn Hill Road currently deadends at the southern border of the Lundgren development (The Woods at Longacres). This proposal plans on extending Fawn Hill Road into a deadend cul- Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 7 de-sac. The overall length of the deadend cul-de-sac becomes over 1800 feet long with no secondary access. From both a access and a utility service standpoint, staff recommends that a watermain stub be extended along lot lines between Lots 11 and 12 and a street, which is further discussed in the street section of this report, for future extension to the parcels to the south. This extension will also provide an element for future looping of the deadend watermain in Fawn Hill Road which will improve water quality. The site also contains an existing home (7210 Galpin Boulevard, Stockdale residence). This parcel is not connected to City sanitary sewer or water. City sewer and water exist along the west side of Galpin Boulevard. According to City Ordinance, dwellings within 150 feet of existing sewer and water lines shall be connected within 12 months after the system becomes operational. According to the drawings, the homesite sits back approximately 190 feet from the existing sewer line. Staff believes with the development of the parcel, the existing home should be required to hook up to the existing sanitary sewer line and the septic system abandoned in accordance with local or state health codes. The structure may remain on the well until the well fails. At that time the resident must hook up to the city water system. STREETS The site is proposed to be accessed through the extension of Fawn Hill Road from the Lundgren Bros. development (The Woods at Longacres). The parcel is also adjacent to Galpin Boulevard which services the existing homesite on Lot 18, Block 1. The preliminary plat proposes to provide sufficient road right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard as well as the proposed Fawn Hill Road in accordance with City ordinance. The proposed extension of Fawn Hill Road from the Lundgren Bros. development will make Fawn Hill Road an extremely long deadend cul-de-sac without secondary access. In addition, the parcel to the south (Turcotte) has future subdivision potential. The Turcotte parcel abuts Galpin Boulevard which can be used as an access point; however, this would cause the property to be another long deadend cul-de-sac. Staff believes that a secondary access road should be stubbed south in the vicinity of Lot 12, Block 1 to provide future street access to the Turcotte parcel. The exact alignment and placement of this road should be worked out between the Turcottes, City staff and the applicant prior to final plat approval. It appears there is sufficient lot width to adjust the lot lines to avoid losing a lot and still accomplish the future road to the south. Staff is also willing to compromise on the road right-of-way width for this street to a 50-foot wide right-of-way in order to accommodate the applicant. In conjunction with this proposal, the proposed trail between Lots 14 and 15 could be re-routed to the future street to the south and would gain access to the southwest corner of the park, thus eliminating an unfavorable connection between two homes (Lots 14 and 15). The plans propose on dedicating the necessary street right-of-way (60 feet) through the subdivision. Preliminary street grades range from 0.7% to 5.0% which meets City ordinances. Detailed street construction plans and specifications prepared in accordance with the City's Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 8 latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates will be required for review and approval by City staff and formal approval by City Council. PARK DEDICATION The comprehensive trail plan identifies Galpin Boulevard as a trail route in the city's comprehensive plan. The Galpin Boulevard trail will be constructed in the future; independent of this development. The plat proposes a 4.85 acre park. A portion of the Stockdale property has been identified as a potential parkland acquisition site for nearly two years. This identification followed the city's approval of two "private" parks in Lundgren Brothers' developments to the north (The Woods at Longacres and The Meadows at Longacres). A purchase arrangement was close to being consummated with Mr. Stockdale in 1994. This "deal" would have seen the park located in the same location with Lundgren Brothers developing the remaining property. Time passed and Jeff Schoenwetter of IMS Companies has now optioned the entire parcel from Mr. Stockdale. JMS Companies is amenable to continuing in the footsteps of past negotiations. The proposed Forest Meadows plat resembles closely plans of the past. The applicant is eager to move forward with his plat and was very cooperative with staff and the Park Commission. Negotiations resulted in the following proposal for the Park & Recreation Commission's consideration: 1. The park be platted as an outlot in the general configuration shown on the proposed plat. 2. The city shall compensate JMS Companies $24,000 per acre for the outlot at the time of sale. (The same compensation offered to Mr. Stockdale.) 3. JMS Companies shall mass and finish grade the outlot per the city's plan at no cost to the city. 4. All park and trail fees shall be waived for Forest Meadow. (These fees total $20,400 at current rates.) 5. JMS Companies shall administer all work relating to the construction of the park's trail loop, trail connection to Fawn Hill Road, entry road and parking lot. The city shall pay unit prices for the materials consumed in this construction. IMS Companies shall assume all "soft" costs associated with this work. One of the recommendations the Park and Recreation Commission made was "The proposed trail easement located between Lots 14 and 15 shall be 20 feet in width and the outlot area Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 9 shall be reconfigured to include no less than 5 acres of property." Since then, and as part of the street extension to the south, it became obvious that the trail should run parallel to the street rather than locating it between Lots 14 and 15. Hence, the condition has been changed to require a 20 foot wide easement. However, the specific location has not been determined yet. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this proposal on June 27, 1995. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear/bluff 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 18,520 90.07' 209' 30'/30' 10' Lot 2 23,024 117' 266' 30'/30' 10' Lot 3 22,017 114' 285' 30'/30' 10' Lot 4 21,855 194.60' 188' 30'/30' 10' Lot 5 23,826 208.47' 161.55' 30'/30' 10' Lot 6 75,257 67.00' 344.06' 30'/30'/30' on cul-de-sac 10' Lot 7 42,561 67.00' 267.21' 30'/30'/30' on cul-de-sac 10' Lot 8 42,802 67.00' 271.77' 30'/30' 10' Lot 9 24,396 107.09' 233.21' 30'/30' 10' • Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 10 Lot 10 21,008 90' 176.29' 30'/30' 10' Lot 11 19,497 95.00' 159.42' 30'/30' 10' Lot 12 25,420 90' 184.32' 30'/30' 10' Lot 13 22,177 90' 190.5' 30'/30' 10' Lot 14 18,969 95' 181.4' 30'/30' 10' Lot 15 25,680 95' 191.17' 30'/30' 10' Lot 16 18,712 90' 205.61' 30'/30' 10' Lot 17 19,541 90.43' 224.41' 30'/30' 10' Lot 18 58,596 60.09 403.84' 30'/30' 10' Outlot A 4.859 acres Galpin Blvd. 0.341 Fawn Hill Road 1.29 TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Within the proposed development, wooded areas are concentrated in two locations along the northern boundary. Species present include oaks, elms, ash, basswoods, and box elders with occasional cedars, ironwoods, pines, and plums. Many oaks are large and the woods are generally healthy. Baseline canopy coverage for the site is 16.6% (95,311 s.f.). Required minimum canopy coverage after development is 25% (143,870 s.f.). Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 11 Impact on the wooded areas due to construction is minimal. Canopy removal is limited to Lots 16 and 17. A total of 9,150 s.f. will be removed on those lots leaving 86,161 s.f. of canopy coverage on site. Since existing coverage is below the required minimum, removals will be replaced at a rate of 1.2 times the 9,150 s.f. Also, 57,709 s.f. must be reforested to meet the 25% minimum canopy coverage. This equates to 53 trees for reforestation and 10 for replacement plantings. The 63 trees required by ordinance shall be planted on Lots 1-17. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: REZONING "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve rezoning (#95-4 REZ) 20.25 acres of property zoned A-2 to RSF for Forest Meadow as shown on the plans received June 19, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #95-10." PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for (Subdivision #95-10) Forest Meadow for 18 single family lots and 1 outlot as shown on the plans received June 19, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. The landscaping plan shall include 63 trees to be planted on Lots 1-17. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. 2. Building Department conditions: a. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 12 b. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Add one additional fire hydrant. Hydrant maximum spacing is 300 feet. The distance between hydrants located between Lots 3 and 4 and between 6 and 7 is in excess of 500 feet. b. 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 safety operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. Street name is acceptable. d. Cul-de-sac inside turning radius must be 451/2 feet, not 42 feet as shown. 4. Park and Recreation conditions: a. The park be platted as an outlot in the general configuration shown on the proposed plat. b. The city shall compensate JMS Companies $24,000 per acre for the outlot at the time of sale. (The same compensation offered to Mr. Stockdale.) c. JMS Companies shall mass and finish grade the outlot per the city's plan at no cost to the city. d. All park and trail fees shall be waived for Forest Meadow. (These fees total $20,400 at current rates.) e. JMS Companies shall administer all work relating to the construction of the park's trail loop, trail connection to Fawn Hill Road, entry road and parking lot. The city shall pay unit prices for the materials consumed in this construction. JMS Companies shall assume all "soft" costs associated with this work. JMS Companies shall secure a minimum of three competitive bids for this work. These bids shall be submitted to the city for review prior to selection of a contractor. Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 13 f. The proposed trail easement shall be 20 feet in width and the outlot area shall be reconfigured to include no less than 5 acres of property. 5. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 6. 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. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. A rock construction entrance shall be installed and maintained on Fawn Hill Road until the street is paved. Construction access to the site other than Fawn Hill Road is subject to approval by the City. 7. 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. Other than one model home permit no other building permits will be issued until the site grading is completed and the site reseeded and mulched. 8. 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 utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 9. The wetlands and wetland buffers shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans. 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 accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 10. 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 stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations 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. Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 14 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, 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. 13. 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 shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 14. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 15. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 16. The proposed stormwater pond 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. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 17. The house at 7210 Galpin Boulevard shall be connected to City sanitary sewer within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The well may continue to be used until it fails, at which time the property shall connect to City water. 18. The proposed single-family residential development of 13.3 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $26,334 and a water quality connection charge of $10,640. These fees will be fine tuned during the time of final plat since credits may be given if the applicant proposes to assist with the trunk system. The fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 19. 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. A drain tile sy stem will need to be incorporated into the construction plans for those lots which are unable to discharge directly into either a storm sewer system or pond/wetland. Forest Meadow July 19, 1995 Page 15 20. The applicant shall meet and resolve with the property owners to the south and City staff the placement of storm sewer facilities and extension of a street prior to final platting. 21. Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. Individual tree removal, grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of a building permit." ATTACHMENTS 1. Area map showing proposed Forest Meadow. 2. Memo from Bill Weckman, Carver County dated July 6, 1995. 3. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated July 13, 1995. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 7, 1995 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated June 27, 1995. 6. Memo from Jill Sinclair dated July 10, 1995. 7. Staff report from Todd Hoffman dated June 27, 1995. 8. Preliminary plat received June 19, 1995. a , irar I, v••cf... fa-- a ..... •e• Illir All . = , ,.... .:z. • I a % • "..'...2.-s--,, / (I! .•. . ampo i on .,..„..... r 1,,,..... . 4 Unl ‘'''P' • CC 4:14, •• •• -.S----- , , - ;„:4111w4444 ...L.:L. . ..,......,...___.z.:__ '''''''''''''' •• .•_:„...:''' ........_......_.._ • ............ .. . .\-p- . _x: __•,:_...2. .........._:____________ • 0 .,,, , .,..‘1‘..u..g i ; ::_. _Da ic•:. • . • , _.::.•.., ••• 3 1 • • , ..‘ ...t,..,• t i AM . . • 0 .,..„.M.•% L.; ‘„(.1, 6 ,, 4111P •ikci,- .:, .... ,,:, :,. . , .:-....4:,•.1,k, • 1..4:4.`....*,',•••-•, , .-k.„. 9 3 i 3, 131.• t•rt: .-1.- i : •• -. '.•• .11/ ' ....;,.% •:...N. I ; } . 7. /i •• i I I -.=.---2._2.;`. C •' 1 7..`":!. :...-.. ;7•4..irl• '; • ... 4,5 ---:!! "'i •-- ! 1 , ,..,. , 0 * 1 •-.7.1 • • •,-t ' ' ''- */,',:•- r < • 1! , . - •' .' 1 ' -- 1 •1‘ 1.,: 7;....,...,t,\,,,, i ....., t.,.t..f-o:.,,:.;,- •, al it. ., .•4-1s 'a - 5:„ . :. ..• 3\:.... . '• dr / •.:1 . . 7 .; ..1165 4 =‘- ...... gin.. 4-;A i / cf- 1 • _-:,;;,,'":.,c( .."*. it:L:a'a 7k.. •••.' ..,.. 1 ''4'•g:... ...3-4,-- A •••.5. 3' • i i t.. • 4-1-.....,V ''' ' I • Cl) 1 tr . ir, _.... • ,. 1 ...j ... , ..:-..,..c.t.... . . .•-•,,,, •.u.—•,...... .":\ '-!,..‘_11:••,..- '":14.'l'e !,::* , .;,•,•.."..,:'^,.t.;\ 6 U.1 1 I • ...) • -...... ,...f.,;•,r ,I• I . .c s...:,,,_• ..,,,,..,:i.•-,1;,,.. __. ..,„:.,::. •\ t' .6.3*, Xt.: 5j,ii• 4; It ... . i .. , .....,:.,.,... .T‘.,(‘..., I • .. .. , i cot- S. . .. . .... • • V:.....1:;: ; 7-.L.___L____ . • • tt.5.•• - I bit • 4 lilt .... . , z 0 vs • Z .11 -... .• • .z. 41/4.71.% All 111 I I 1 I I I 1:7 :4111 I II I II I II 11111111 1..1 I I III . 1 I... . le 1 '''.\ illipiliCil VI\ tillir 1 7:1.• ____Tl,,_...-1...1;.( .. •„..-..-i: .--: "-ITT" •• • ,r. 3 1 • a T • \lk i.• al . •••• N •-....,,,,,,,,,..,...N.....N, . \NIIIIIIIIIr i S • .43 -.. ...E -1 1---:%.*7.,.......„:„.... .i . :• .•3 ,,,..; . .•. , WI . ;17; ...'N.N. , 414 . ,ik . ,. , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 600 East Fourth Street. Box 6 Administration Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Parks CARVER Phone (612) 361-1010 Engineering Highway Maintenance COUNTY Fax (612) 361-1025 Surveying&Mapping July 6, 1995 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II 1)1\ - 1 FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant CountyEngineer � ; SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Forest Meadow (95-4 REZ and 95-10 SUB) Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Forest Meadow subdivision transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated June 20, 1995. 1 Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 50 foot from centerline corridor shown would provide for a potential 100 foot corridor. This corridor would meet the recommended needs for a 2-lane urban roadway. The city may wish to consider a wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on 10%Post-Consumer Recycled Paper C1TY (✓ t •; 4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. 6. Existing drainage patterns must be maintained. No impounding of water will be allowed within the road right of way. 7. A permit for access from Carver County will be required for the proposed access on to CR 117. Requirements for that access may include construction of right turn lanes. Additional traffic information should be supplied which indicates the expected use of the proposed park area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. q ,!1. CITY OF \ ' -4 .:' CI1ANIIASSEN .: _ . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 f Z. (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 01- DATE: July 13, 1995 SUBJ: Forest Meadow Preliminary Plat Review - File No. 95-23 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings dated June 19, 1995 prepared by Roger A. Anderson and Assoc. Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS There are two jurisdictional wetlands on site according to the wetland delineation report dated June 20, 1995 by Kenneth Powell of Svoboda Ecological Resource. Both of these wetlands fall into the area proposed for park land, and therefore,the City would be responsible for replacement if wetland impacts can not be avoided. It appears that these wetlands are the result of manipulations to the landscape by previous property owners, however, the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) does not exempt these wetlands. The wetlands are labelled basin 1 and basin 2 on the attached figure. Basin 1 is a wooded swamp and basin 2 is a seasonally flooded basin; both basins would be characterized as ag/urban since they were created and have little diversity in vegetation. There are also two ponds noted on the attached figure. The pond north of basin 1 was excavated by the previous owner, and therefore, it is not a jurisdictional wetland. The pond along Galpin Boulevard is a low lying area and is also not a jurisdictional wetland. The area proposed to be graded has no wetlands on-site. Buffer Strip The City of Chanhassen has a wetland ordinance protecting wetlands from alteration. There is also a buffer strip requirement associated with the protection of each particular wetland. If the wetland is natural, the buffer strip width is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. If the wetland is ag/urban, the buffer strip width is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average Sharmin Al-Jaff July 13, 1995 Page 2 width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback from any wetland is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. DRAINAGE The site drains to the south and discharges into the large wetland associated with the headwaters of Bluff Creek. The wetland is described as ag/urban, however, it should be highly protected since it is associated with Bluff Creek and has potential for improvement. The northwest corner of the property is heavily wooded and very steep. The slopes meet the bluff protection criteria, and therefore, a 30 foot bluff setback is included in the plans. There are also two drainage areas that should be protected from erosion during construction. One is along the western border of the property and the other is just south of lots 12 and 13 where a temporary sediment pond is proposed. Stormwater discharge rates from this development will have to be minimized to predeveloped runoff rates until downstream storm sewer facilities are constructed. The proposed site grading will maintain the existing drainage patterns. However, the applicant, City staff and the neighbors to the south (Turcotte) should meet to discuss the storm sewer/ponding alternatives. The City's SWMP proposes a regional stormwater quality treatment facility south of this development adjacent to the wetlands. A trunk storm sewer is recommended to convey stormwater runoff from this site to the future regional stormwater pond. The plans propose a temporary sediment basin to treat runoff prior to discharging downstream. This proposal is not acceptable but staff feels there are viable alternatives that can be applied to accommodate the storm runoff. This needs to be resolved prior to final plat consideration. Detailed stormwater and ponding calculations for pre- and post-developed conditions using a 10- year and 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration shall be supplied to the City for review and approval. Additional catch basins or ponding facilities may be required upon review of these calculations. GRADING Most of the site is open fields with isolated groups of trees in the northwest and northeast corners of the site. Less than half of the site is proposed to be graded to develop the street and house pads. Some tree removal is necessary to develop the house pads for Lots 16 and 17, Block 1. Staff recommends that these lots be custom graded at time of building in an effort to minimize tree loss. Individual tree removal, grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for review and approval by the City in conjunction with applying for a building permit. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm Sharmin Al-Jaff July 13, 1995 Page 3 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. Storm Water Quality and Associated Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall 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 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City proposes one regional water quality pond for this site and the land south of this site and just north of the large wetland. The best location for the pond is on the property to the south along the edge of the large wetland. The proposed SWMP water quality charge is $800/acre for single-family residential developments, and therefore, this development will be responsible for approximately 13.3 acres of developable land or $10,640. Storm Water Quantity and Associated Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total developable area of the property is 13.3 acres, assuming Outlot A (4.86 acres) is proposed public park. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $26,334. EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and development plan and submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff requires Type 3 erosion control fence be used around all of the wetlands. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. No building permits other than one for a model home will be issued until the site grading is completed and all disturbed Sharmin Al-Jaff July 13, 1995 Page 4 areas reseeded and mulched. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained on Farm Hill Road until the street is paved. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site from existing Fawn Hill Road. The sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from the north property line throughout the site. Upon review of the preliminary utility layout it appears fire hydrant placement may need to be revised. The fire hydrant spacing shall be in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are spaced approximately 300 feet apart. These types of plan revisions occur during the construction plan review process in conjunction with final plat. Detailed construction plans and specifications for street and utility improvements will be required for review by City staff and formal approval by City Council. The street and utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee of the installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. As with other City developments, moisture content in the soils is relatively high and the City has required the use of a drain tile system behind the curbs for improving both the street sub-base as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. The drain tile system will need to be incorporated into the construction plans adjacent to those lots which are unable to discharge either into the storm sewer system or ponding area/wetland. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside of the street right-of-way. The drainage and utility easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Considerations will also be given for access to maintain the ponding areas. Fawn Hill Road currently deadends at the southern border of the Lundgren development (The Woods at Longacres). This proposal plans on extending Fawn Hill Road into a deadend cul-de- sac. The overall length of the deadend cul-de-sac becomes over 1800 feet long with no secondary access. From both a access and a utility service standpoint, staff recommends that a watermain stub be extended along lot lines between Lots 11 and 12 and a street which is further discussed in the street section of this report for future extension to the parcels to the south. This extension will also provide an element for future looping of the deadend watermain in Fawn Hill Road which will improve water quality. The site also contains an existing homes (7210 Galpin Boulevard, Stockdale residence). This parcel is not connected to City sanitary sewer or water. City sewer and water exist along the west side of Galpin Boulevard. According to City Ordinance, dwellings within 150 feet of existing sewer and water lines shall be connected within 12 months after the system becomes Sharmin Al-Jaff July 13, 1995 Page 5 operational. According to the drawings, the homesite sits back approximately 190 feet from the existing sewer line. Staff believes with the development of the parcel the existing home should be required to hook up to the existing sanitary sewer line and the septic system abandoned in accordance with local or state health codes. The structure may remain on the well until the well fails. At that time the resident must hook up to the city water system. STREETS The site is proposed to be accessed through the extension of Fawn Hill Road from the Lundgren Bros. development (The Woods at Longacres). The parcel also is adjacent to Galpin Boulevard which services the existing homesite on Lot 18, Block 1. The preliminary plat proposes to provide sufficient road right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard as well as the proposed Fawn Hill Road in accordance with City ordinance. The proposed extension of Fawn Hill Road from the Lundgren Bros. development will make Fawn Hill Road an extremely long deadend cul-de-sac without secondary access. In addition, the parcel to the south (Turcotte) has future subdivision potential. The Turcotte parcel abuts Galpin Boulevard which can be used as an access point; however, this would cause the property to be another long deadend cul-de-sac. Staff believes that a secondary access road should be stubbed south in the vicinity of Lot 12, Block 1 to provide future street access to the Turcotte parcel. The exact alignment and placement of this road should be worked out between the Turcottes, City staff and the applicant prior to final plat approval. It appears there is sufficient lot width to adjust the lot lines to avoid losing a lot and still accomplish the future road to the south. Staff is also willing to compromise on the road right-of-way width for this street to a 50-foot wide right-of-way in order to accommodate the applicant. In conjunction with this proposal, the proposed trail between Lots 14 and 15 could be re-routed to the future street to the south and would gain access to the southwest corner of the park, thus eliminating an unfavorable connection between two homes (Lots 14 and 15). The plans propose on dedicating the necessary street right-of-way (60 feet) through the subdivision. Preliminary street grades range from 0.7% to 5.0% which meets City ordinances. Detailed street construction plans and specifications prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates will be required for review and approval by City staff and formal approval by City Council. RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS 1. 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. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. A rock construction entrance shall be installed and maintained on Fawn Hill Sharmin Al-Jaff July 13, 1995 Page 6 Road until the street is paved. Construction access to the site other than Fawn Hill Road is subject to approval by the City. 2. 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. Other than one model home permit no other building permits will be issued until the site grading is completed and the site reseeded and mulched. 3. 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 utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 4. The wetlands and wetland buffers shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans. 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 accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 5. 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 stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations 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. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, 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. 8. 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 Sharmin Al-Jaff July 13, 1995 Page 7 be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 10. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 11. The proposed stormwater pond 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. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 12. The house at 7210 Galpin Boulevard shall be connected to City sanitary sewer within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The well may continue to be used until it fails at which time the property shall connect to City water. 13. The proposed single-family residential development of 13.3 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $26,334 and a water quality connection charge of$10,640. These fees will be fine tuned during the time of final plat since credits may be given if the applicant proposes to assist with the trunk system. The fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 14. 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. A drain tile system will need to be incorporated into the construction plans for those lots which are unable to discharge directly into either a storm sewer system or pond/wetland. 15. The applicant shall meet and resolve with the property owners to the south and City staff the placement of storm sewer facilities and extension of a street prior to final platting. 16. Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. Individual tree removal, grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Attachment: Wetland Figure c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g.'.eng\diane\planning',forstm ed.pc 2 O I �� w / � v `phi- , .,. , frop. ,...04, ��,� , . � i4 1. vy * ‘.?� i I /PT.! -.:1 ,4 r 1. I / 'a !_;41h4li* g WO .1hil• ,.3.4. ,\,, / / // C 04 Sly . it -5''7/4 1-Li P--\___ • 4 -)--- .., • i a A/ ir) € • I 1 — ythii ill/ ;1 '4174�r • 1� 11 �" !I .ii.1 1 1 a ,\\\ 1S / •! I s 1 I 11 II \ /// 11/! .t.' Ill,�I +g t."1'd( / llllr II 11_ .r e \1 . /44'4N,N; : +•, t 1! I I �1 -§ A'. k: - IilL ItriPW-1.1 i‘\'-.1, **N8.,' \AVii,.1:71 . oz, \ 4 , li, pe, *" .-a4ir• --' am -IN 3 • ' < Z / N ci moi`e 3 //1/°;`�.`N 4n > itit I* 1 rr. u 1�I • j r s �j . ////i° j: • S �9�L?' q far '_ +1 0 myao { n n" �J, 'O•A. t� h Q 4< i I7:4,-:—. . PrlirVIII:-71.1-11' " " \ 0m 331 (',:, lir-A... 10) 4 II 4 r j1 II \\ e� �" a • '.fir • -4 0 / — 0 \ '.. ‘014114,1i:it 6Alitt% \A . 7! '.:: z r 't1 b-. ngr -.\,fpr A .. 2 1 `.444, in 140, ir., ,-,A) 1.21 Alt , ' ! i.`7. MI NY'1411111111 10 ''. t ..........\.:, a 60.68 (' ."' ! g , .: 4 ,, 1.„, o 1 r- a. cn E C7 a� yam-{,� si mlnat :-=^- aebrsi ` �•. _ o — y 1. :::.�, ::,KF �9. ..b.. Cot,,; -- ,,'—.,,.0.1.4..li!T / CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: July 7, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-10 SUB, 95-4 REZ (Forest Meadow, JMS Development) I was asked to review the proposed subdivision plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUN 19 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project . Analysis: Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designation on Lot 3, Block 1 is incorrect . The dwelling type designation should be revised to reflect the types shown on the Grading Plan. 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 . Recommendations : 2 . Revise the Grading 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. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\forstmdw.sjl CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: June 27, 1995 SUBJ: Division of 20.25 Acres to 18 Single Family Lots Planning Case #95-10, SUB and 95-4 REZ I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention, and have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. 1. Add one additional fire hydrant. Hydrant maximum spacing is 300 feet. The distance between hydrants located between Lots 3 and 4 and between 6 and 7 is in excess of 500 feet. 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 safety operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 3. Street name is acceptable. 4. Cul-de-sac inside turning radius must be 451/2 feet, not 42 feet as shown. g:\safetyVn\95.10 CITY OF 4Of- t i ol r CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern DATE: 10 July 1995 SUBJ: Tree Preservation and Removal, Forest Meadow Within the proposed development, wooded areas are concentrated in two locations along the northern boundary. Species present include oaks, elms, ash, basswoods, and box elders with occasional cedars, ironwoods, pines, and plums. Many oaks are large and the woods are generally healthy. Baseline canopy coverage for the site is 16.6% (95,311 s.f.). Required minimum canopy coverage after development is 25% (143,870 s.f.). Impact on the wooded ares due to construction is minimal. Canopy removal is limited to lots 16 and 17, block . A total of 9,150 s.f. will be removed on those lots leaving 86,161 s.f. of canopy coverage on site. Since existing coverage is below the required minimum, removals will be replaced at a rate of 1.2 times the 9,150 s.f. Also, 57,709 s.f. must be reforested to meet the 25% minimum canopy coverage. This equates to 53 trees for reforestation and 10 for replacement plantings. The 63 trees required by ordinance shall be planted on lots 1-17, block 1. Recommendations: 1. Landscaping plan to be submitted including 63 trees to be planted on lots 1-17, block 1. 2. Tree removal limits be established at proposed silt fence line. No trees may be removed behind that line without city staff approval. 3. Trees along the northern boundary line on lots 1 and 6 not protected by silt fence line must be saved and protected by tree fencing. C I TY O F PPRC RD DATE: June 27, 1995 3 (; CC DATE: J GHANI� SS��t HOFFMAN:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 20.25 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 20.25 Acres into 18 Single Family Lots and 1 Outlot. Q LOCATION: 7210 Galpin Boulevard, Forest Meadow U IMMOAPPLICANT: JMS Companies a_ Jeff Schoenwetter 80 West 78th Street, Suite 133 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD-R (Planned Unit Development-Residential) S - A2 Q E - Galpin Boulevard W - PUD-R (Planned Unit Development-Residential) W COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN: This site is located in a park deficient area (see background) COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: Galpin Boulevard is identified as a trail route in the city's comprehensive plan. The Galpin Boulevard trail will be constructed in the future; independent of this development. Forest Meadows Preliminary Plat June 23, 1995 Page 2 BACKGROUND As the commission is aware, a portion of the Stockdale property has been identified as a potential parkland acquisition site for nearly two years. This identification followed the city's approval of two "private" parks in Lundgren Brothers' developments to the north (The Woods at Longacres and The Meadows at Longacres). A purchase arrangement was close to being consummated with Mr. Stockdale in 1994. This "deal" would have seen the park located in the same location with Lundgren Brothers developing the remaining property. Time passed and Jeff Schoenwetter of JMS Companies has now optioned the entire parcel from Mr. Stockdale. JMS Companies is amenable to continuing in the footsteps of past negotiations. You will notice that the proposed Forest Meadows plat resembles closely plans of the past. Mr. Schoenwetter is eager to move forward with his plat and would like to work with the commission. Negotiations with Mr. Schoenwetter have resulted in the following proposal for the Park & Recreation Commission's consideration: 1. The park be platted as an outlot in the general configuration shown on the proposed plat. 2. The city shall compensate JMS Companies $24,000 per acre for the outlot at the time of sale. (The same compensation offered to Mr. Stockdale.) 3. JMS Companies shall mass and finish grade the outlot per the city's plan at no cost to the city. 4. All park and trail fees shall be waived for Forest Meadow. (These fees total $20,400 at current rates.) 5. JMS Companies shall administer all work relating to the construction of the park's trail loop, trail connection to Fawn Hill Road, entry road and parking lot. The city shall pay unit prices for the materials consumed in this construction. JMS Companies shall assume all "soft" costs associated with this work. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park & Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the proposed Forest Meadow plat with the following conditions of approval: 1. The park be platted as an outlot in the general configuration shown on the proposed plat. 2. The city shall compensate JMS Companies $24,000 per acre for the outlot at the time of sale. (The same compensation offered to Mr. Stockdale.) Forest Meadows Preliminary Plat June 23, 1995 Page 3 3. JMS Companies shall mass and finish grade the outlot per the city's plan at no cost to the city. 4. All park and trail fees shall be waived for Forest Meadow. (These fees total $20,400 at current rates.) 5. JMS Companies shall administer all work relating to the construction of the park's trail loop, trail connection to Fawn Hill Road, entry road and parking lot. The city shall pay unit prices for the materials consumed in this construction. JMS Companies shall assume all "soft" costs associated with this work. JMS Companies shall secure a minimum of three competitive bids for this work. These bids shall be submitted to the city for review prior to selection of a contractor. In addition, the proposed trail easement located between lots 14 and 15 shall be 20 feet in width and the outlot area shall be reconfigured to include no less than 5 acres of property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Forest Meadows Plat. 2. Numerous documents related to past acquisition efforts. c: Don Ashworth, City Manager Pam Snell, Finance Director Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I 7--_ - lu t,,...„....J?1 t°' --'� ` �/' ((:' M/NNEWASHTA e �� 1_._____..L_. AKE . it J isT J _ FG/ONAL \ 1 r I s_ . LAKE PARK - - �` , NARRI,SON 1111' 0.1.1it!I 1111 AP/ I , AlIQ 4., JPO " .. O A' m 00J d DRIVE " l t rI5JiimiJ Iniiiiiiiik - 41% : I _ND 'OND 41 A Y ( 'r - _ --- \\ ss -� 0) s;> I • (t" f , ft a‘ - t 1 % i !!.DD • `7 CPQ i SSTREET _ 41; 1 IQ .� POND rNOP Pt.:.. T ,,,„ •• oc A _A.. 4/4/3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN "y 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 " (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: September 20, 1994 SUBJ: Proposed Stockdale Land Acquisition For some time now, the proposed Stockdale land acquisition has been on "simmer." However, another step forward was recently taken towards consummating a purchase agreement this past Wednesday, September 14. On that day, Mr. Stockdale and Mr. Scott Miller (his attorney) met with Roger Knutson (the city attorney) and me to discuss this transaction. Mr. Terry Forbord of Lundgren Brothers Construction was also party to this meeting as Lundgren Brothers is also anticipated to purchase a portion of Mr. Stockdale's property. As commission members will recall, the concept plan for this proposed park was developed by Hoisington-Koegler Group depicting a neighborhood park of approximately 6.4 acres in size. A variety of formalities concerning any transfer of lands were discussed at this meeting, but the issue of greatest concern to the commission was the proposed reduction in size of the park. As can be seen, two modifications are proposed--a triangular piece of land in the northwest corner of the concept park site would be incorporated into the residential plat and a smaller triangular piece of property would be added to the park from Mr. Stockdale's homestead. The obvious concern is, at what point do we cross that critical line when the necessary investments to create and maintain a neighborhood park are not justified due to the size/configuration of the property? The city's Comprehensive Plan recommends neighborhood parks be 10 to 25 acres in size. At less than 6 acres in size, this park would be smaller than Curry Farms neighborhood park. At present, the city maintains 7 neighborhood parks smaller than Curry Farms and 11 neighborhood parks larger than its 6 acres. A second issue of concern to the commission is Lundgren Brothers' inquiry into locating a berm that they would like to construct between the two properties, wholly or partially, on city park property. Park and Recreation Commission September 20, 1994 ' Page 2 ACTION REQUESTED At approximately 6.4 acres, the city is already compromising its standard for neighborhood park size. Is the commission concerned with a further reduction? If so, what action do you advocate? Secondly, what direction would you like to take in regard to the inquiry from Lundgren Brothers to wholly or partially locate a berm between the two properties on city parkland? (See map for approximate location.) pc: Dave Stockdale and Anga McBride, 7210 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Terry Forbord, Lundgren Brothers Construction Roger Knutson, City Attorney Scott Miller, Miller and Kellermeier, 3908 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St., Mpls. 55402 ma NW 'uoaseyue4o la Allo B® tpI ©m CS.t6 -. NV'Id .Id3DN03 NtiVd OldVA31flo9 NId1V D a.I dnet5 nl7wi•..ahn a C / 1 . ,. \am (F-10°V01 (\\ii.............c...... • • • ■ 086 J ■ i I ■ TA!! ,1111 leh aRs�■„....■. fo f 00 ��, '7 \ IiiIR \\-.1.. k \ a • I ........ ..„--,*,,,voilli, i . rN....„..i do) j U ,:,.: ,4 - .‘„ . ._..... . , \, ,, - \ : 1 •\ \ v, ` ``kms`. s. i r ,_ No „,.... _ .. . , ..., , i 1 ' 1 I ! ,, °°. '\ ii. I O!� t \ / i I I f; t \J. NNS`'o► / 1 1 i \� .` `\ \\,`�s� ` r"`. i n1 • • o'o\ i • t 1 fl!. __----___-1/ W $$y, \ ‘ 11111 \IN's O,O . IV. 0 . • .\M.411111 , ext■ i Fir. . 1 `` 9 o di a+ 910 !/\ \1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 just, I think if they want one that's fine and we can probably scrounge up the money to do it but I'd want to look at the plan before I'd just plunk it in. Andrews: Would this flat area that you mentioned, Todd would that be as far as security for, not for small tots but as far as younger kids, would it be visible and safe so the "riff raff' couldn't snatch any kids there or bother any kids? Hoffman: If you've ever been to the park, you could see there's... Andrews: Okay. Does this need a motion or is this enough direction for you to work with here? frdeGJ /1 Hoffman: Enough direction. j.. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIO S: STOCKDALE PROPERTY. Hoffman: I keep putting that on the agenda and it keeps bringing Dave out. Not my intentions but obviously Dave would like to keep up to date as well on what the city's thoughts...somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 acres of property...So that's about all I have. Letter of December 13th was included in your packet. Letter to Jim Walston. City Attorney's office from Mr. Stockdale. It references a Mr. Scott Miller who represents Mr. Stockdale. I spoke with Scott Miller this past week and really in our conversation both parties stand prepared to make final arrangements or at least discuss final arrangements about the property that should potentially be occurring over the next couple of weeks. I spoke to Jim Walston today. He is redrafting the original purchase agreement presented by the City to address these issues and then we'll take it from there. Present those back to Mr. Miller and Mr. Stockdale. We can go over those with the commission and then Dave, you would like to ask some questions as well. The sale of the property must be in conjunction with the sale of the development of the...That probably land acquisition there would take place through an agreement between Mr. Stockdale and Lundgren Bros Development. I put calls into Terry Forbord this week and when I get an updated feeling from their position. I'm not sure, have they talked directly with you? David Stockdale: We traded phone calls today. That's where we got. Hoffman: So every time the phone calls get updated, then the phone calls...take place. As a part of the Johnson/Dolejsi/I'urner and Song plat, as you recall. The updated or new addition to those site plans, those plats in our door and not to anyone's surprise they included a ghost plat of how that back part of the Stockdale property could be developed into houses as they've indicated that before...How the city can make that contingent upon our approval, we 26 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 still haven't totally worked that out. We could make our purchase agreement contingent upon...it's a very difficult line to cross. We cannot represent Mr. Stockdale to Lundgren. We cannot represent Lundgren's position to Mr. Stockdale. We have to be in communication but we can't be... Lash: So we're just basically waiting for that deal to come through before this deal can go through? Hoffman: Well, yeah we want to. Andrews: It sounds like it needs to be simultaneous. A three party arrangement. Hoffman: Could be. Or else at least we could sign our purchase agreement contingent upon...happens in the next two weeks or month. The...present terms obviously are we presented our position to Mr. Stockdale of $24,000.00 per acre and that's what the city has offered to pay and we have not received a counter offer. Identification of said property, specifically the north and west boundary alignments. As I related to Mr. Miller, the north boundary is adjacent to Mr. Stockdale's home and we don't have a problem moving that line one way or the other. Dave and I have talked about that. There's some buffering there. The property which would be park includes some trees which we would have in the plan to donate and to remove so those trees would be in this buffer as well. The west line needs to fluctuate somewhat because the city wants to acquire approximately 6.2 acres but at the same time we didn't want to push that line so far west that it infringes on what could be developed. It just so happens that there is a fairly nice break in there. Drainageway if you will at the bottom of the hill which would be back yards of homes. It comes down and really hits at the bottom of the hill where the park would be coming in at that point. Lash: Did you say we're getting 6.2 acres? Is that what the agreement is for? ... And then where are the other acres coming? Hoffman: The other acres would be the main portion of Mr. Stockdale's property which would be sold to a separate party. So the park is 6.2 acres. It originally started at about 5 but then when...identified the location for a well house or pump, so we want to add about another acre so we could buffer that. Modification of environmental warranties. The environmental warranties included...were very stringent. Mr. Walston has identified at least the representative meeting less than those warranties. It's been Mr. Miller's position that `hey would like to state that they are not aware of any environmental problems or did not create environmental problems on that property and that seems acceptable to our attorneys. Payment of pending and levied assessments. Again, this would be a negotiable item. Certainly if we acquire property which has some pending assessments on it, we could assume those...purchase 27 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 25, 1994 agreement you could say those are the liability of the seller. Temporary and permanent ingress and egress. Dave, that was in regard to? Dave Stockdale: It's been a while. I'm trying to refresh my memory on that too. Hoffman: Ingress and egress is not a problem so usually that's in regard to construction. We did talk about some easements for utility lines. Dave would hook his household up to city sewer and water which is...has a direct correlation to item number 4. Pending and levied assessments. Our agreement was that we would run the water line through our property to his property line and he would hook up from there...So hopefully Mr. Walston and Mr. Miller are standing....facilitate this thing and...Dave, did you have anything to say? Dave Stockdale: My name's Dave Stockdale, Galpin Boulevard. It's been kind of a long time since we've had conversation and I think probably the biggest reason is the attorneys. Just the purchase agreement's...and some of the things that I, from a land person's point of view looked at...specifically the environmental warranties was probably the most complex part of this dance between dealing with the city and dealing with Lundgren Bros and trying to bring together...and that's a real complex issue. It's a very balancing act. Obviously if I sold out right to the city and I had a purchase agreement with Lundgren Bros that didn't come to fruition, I'd have...so it's real critical that...so you guys can allocate where your park is going to be. And that's...new experience for me. It's not as a straight forward process but we're still looking. Andrews: Mr. Stockdale, I'd want to again thank you for your effort here and cooperation. This is something that I've not seen from anybody else as a private citizen in our city for many, many years. Dave Stockdale: It works good at a certain level but a lot of it has to do with what happens with the back half. Andrews: Sure, I understand that and I understand it's a complex problem that you're going to a lot of effort. And it benefits the city and I'm not an elected city, or an official city official so to speak but as a citizen I certainly appreciate what you're doing very much. Dave Stockdale: We'll see if it works out. Andrews: I hope it does. It may not but I hope it does. Dave Stockdale: ...real straight forward. Anyone on the commission want to buy it all? 28 CITY OF q!:„ CHANHASSEN .JJ� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director -17 DATE: December 9, 1993 SUBJ: Proposed Real Estate Purchase Agreement; David Stockdale and Anga McBryde- Stockdale, 7210 Galpin Boulevard, Excelsior, MN 55331 As the Commission is aware, a real estate purchase agreement proposal dated November 10, 1993, has been delivered to the Stockdales. In speaking with Mr. Stockdale this past week, he indicated that they are in the process of reviewing the proposal with their attorney. Mr. Stockdale went on to state that upon their complete consideration, he would contact me. pc: Mayor and City Council Don Ashworth, City Manager Jim Walston, Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs David and Anga McBryde-Stockdale, 7210 Galpin Boulevard, Excelsior, MN 55331 9 , . ,f. ti CITYOF . , . CHAIIIIASSEN __ ,,_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 f' , = (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission 71( FROM: Todd Hoffman, Recreation and Park Director DATE: September 23, 1993 SUBJ: Stockdale Property Update The City Council authorized the city to proceed with the purchase of parkland from David and Anga Stockdale on Monday, September 13, 1993. The City Attorney has prepared a purchase agreement and has been in contact with the Stockdale's. I will keep the commission informed as negotiations proceed. Please be aware that the city's Engineering Department has identified this site as a good location for a future city well and has requested that we plan for such an additional use. The well will require a small building. To accommodate this, the size of the parcel to be acquired will be increased to approximately six acres. V CITY OF .4' " _ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director 7/ DATE: September 8, 1993 SUBJ: Authorization to Proceed with Parkland Purchase, 5+ Acres; David and Anga Stockdale Property, Galpin Boulevard The presentation of this item is born from the review of the Song property (Lundgren Brothers Construction) preliminary plat by the Park and Recreation Commission. The commission reviewed Lundgren Brothers' proposal for this property on two separate occasions--July 27 and August 24, 1993 (see attached reports and minutes of July 27--the August 24 minutes are not yet available). As you are aware, this particular review was especially arduous for the department. The Park and Recreation Commission is sincerely concerned about the lack of public park space within the proposed development. As a part of a previous plat review (Johnson/DolejsilTurner), which is a "sister" development to the Song property, the commission did recommend that a private or association park be approved. Lundgren Brothers Construction has expressed their willingness to pay park fees in addition to constructing their private park facilities for both sites. An alternative to acquiring public lands as a part of the development of the Song property is to buy other property in the vicinity using park fee revenue generated from both the Song and Johnson/Dolejsi(Turner developments. Park fees for these sites will exceed $140,000. In exploring this option, the commission asked for a report describing the property in the area be prepared (see attachments). David and Anga Stockdale own approximately 19 acres of land immediately south of the Songs. At the July 27 Park and Recreation Commission meeting, Mr. Stockdale told the commissioners that he had some reservations over selling a portion of their property for park purposes. In the following weeks, however, the Stockdales reconsidered their position and decided to contact the city about the potential acquisition of a portion of their property for a park. This information was presented to the commission on August 24, 1993, the second time they reviewed the Song application (see attachments). Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1993 Page 2 Upon conclusion of the discussion on August 24, the following action was taken: Lash moved, Berg seconded to recommend that the preliminary plat to subdivide 112 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development into 115 single family lots (Song property) be approved by the Park and Recreation Commission contingent upon the following conditions of approval being met: Parks 1. The private/association park be approved only if the additional amenity of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be transferred to the city for public park purposes. 2. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Trails 1. A 20 ft. trail easement shall be granted along the entire easterly property line. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. 2. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/DolejsijTurner applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be waived. Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1993 Page 3 This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity. This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is acquired. Upon authorization from the City Council, the City Attorney's office is prepared to initiate negotiations for the purchase of the 5+ acre Stockdale parcel located on Galpin Boulevard north of Highway 5 as depicted on the attached diagram. Mark Koegler of Hoisington-Koegler Group and I have personally inspected this property,finding it suitable and desirable for the construction of a neighborhood park. The remaining western portion of the Stockdale property may be acquired by Lundgren Brothers for inclusion in their proposed development to the north. pc: David and Anga Stockdale Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc. Attachments 1. Staff report dated August 18, 1993 2. Response from Lundgren Brothers Construction dated August 24, 1993 3. Land ownership map 4. Stockdale property information and map 54. Minutes of July 27, 1993, Park and Recreation Commission meeting. - - 11 ' .., \I filf '"G ' Ilw HERMAN F/ELD P V I T s�. ' LooY (I ) �L44L PARK : I , EN �� u " 1 ah ... . ...fiCR:...TVIiiiiinrai moc.‘DGE �� --- 1117:4; i.4 N.,..\\, A- I ) L 0 LAKE , .. , ,� M/N1/EWAS /9 7/71 ._,--/e V/ I \ I� � _________, (i ;IIII ���1REGIONAL - PARK I oftc A KE MARR/,SDN ill Air4,1 MM. 1111W . la SONG • P' PROPERTY 4, L Jam, (. �o e� JoHNso�s c-_:, AI X04,4 \��.-. ... OOLESJ I DRIVE i . .,, • -TuiA R 6.4ppr 0 STOCK DRI:E : al/ - i s♦ maw WINDL �1•'� Q b s♦ bill RAN aG DOI.ES.11 13ENTZi'i� S 50 cc emnisT �oNwAY cusiooN L W iN6S D SaCIASay ;iftw,i, icasoqb Ix -OND `' t G iazG, �S AY • •. I j 4* 0 ii 0 , CITY OF PC DATE: July 19, 1995 \ I ' P CHAHAE N CC DATE: August 14, 1995 k • CASE #: SUB #95-12 By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval subdividing Lot 3, Block 1, Sun Ridge Addition, into one lot of 2.62 acres and an outlot of 8.65 acres Z I— a LOCATION: 8950 Audubon Road V APPLICANT: Marlin Edwards 8950 Audubon Road CL Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 368-3119 4 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 11.27 acre parcel DENSITY: Gross: 0.09 units per acre, Net: 0.38 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RR, single-family home S - A2, Lyman Boulevard Q E - A2, Audubon Road W - A2, vacant 0 WATER AND SEWER: Water Available, Sewer not available Lid PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: An existing home is located on the northeast quadrant of the property. A large wetland complex is located in the western INII C � third of the property which continues to the north and west. The wetland edge is approximately at elevation 880. The southern half of the property is currently being cultivated. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Large Lot (2.5 acre minimum) Iliriam a _i 1612n Itil R WP ,s ,- 4 .. , ii Q, CREEK • i.�1R� *Mt 'ino ',.'. G• VE. / ' 04Lt;1Ir D .4a C.R. 18 I \ 0 I��/j , lam) PARK �IIf♦r �� ' / VALLEY M i t;a-1 0 , tr4,,,i _,et,- fis ic pit At. \vat. I / I 1 . �,•�� 0� ff Ca Q ANEEJ Ma •,�k� FL•MINGO DR. I 111.141kmullilNR�� • „.641,,,. O O 0 ' , i T .n NArui 0 .. 9000 `` `•,. es j , 1~ % Ai MIRLOCA 10 9100 r. 9200 v 9300 ,, o ,/ 9400 s - C� \ \ 9500 9600 m •v • o i in s ' A. 3700 L- 7X800i--)1~-., [•.'..._1 `` r Marlin Edwards Sun Ridge 3rd Addition July 19, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a simple lot split creating a 2.6 acre lot around the existing homesite and an outlot of the remaining 8.6 acres of the property. The outlot by definition is considered an undevelopable property until it is further subdivided. At that time, the property owner would need to provide the city with topographic data and wetland delineation prior to receiving final plat approval. The applicant has expressed interest in selling the outlot to the city for open space. JtACKGROUND The property was platted as part of Sun Ridge Addition, Subdivision 87-25, approved on October 19, 1987. ,STREETS/ACCESS The existing residence will maintain its driveway off Audubon Road. No public roadways will be needed as part of the development. Staff does recommend, however, with the subdivision that the applicant dedicate one-half of the necessary right-of-way along Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard (County Road 18). According to the City's comprehensive plan, both of these roadways are designated as collectors and require 100-foot right-of-ways. Therefore, the applicant should dedicate a 50-foot wide right-of-way from the center of Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard on the new plat. In addition, there is an existing 20 foot wide walkway easement along Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard. The applicant should dedicate additional trail easements to maintain this 20 foot wide trail easement. LANDSCAP NG/TREE PRESERVATION Because the applicant is creating a lot within an existing parcel and is not currently proposing additional development, no landscaping plan is being required. GRADING/DRAINAGE Since this is a simple lot subdivision to subdivide the house from the remaining parcel, there is no need for utility extension or upgrade of the existing driveway. Marlin Edwards Sun Ridge 3rd Addition July 19, 1995 Page 3 COMPLIANCE TABLE Rural Residential, RR, minimum standards: area - 2.5 acres, frontage - 200 feet, depth - 200 feet, front setback - 50 feet, side setback - 10 feet, rear setback - 50 feet. BLOCK LOT AREA FRONTAGE DEPTH (ACRES) (FEET) (FEET) 1 1 2.62 191.04 @ 400 Outlot 8.65 202.78 780.59 Total 11.27 @ Meets minimum lot frontage requirements at the building setback. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RR, Rural Residential District. 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 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. 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. Marlin Edwards Sun Ridge 3rd Addition July 19, 1995 Page 4 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision 95-12 approving the preliminary plat for one lot and one outlot, as shown on plans prepared by Rieke, Carroll, Muller Associates, Inc. dated 4/19/95, on 11.27 acres of land subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall dedicate a 50-foot wide right-of-way from the center of Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard on the new plat. 2. The applicant shall dedicate a 20 foot trail easement outside of the right-of-way for Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard. 3. The applicant shall show the location of an alternate individual sewer treatment system (ISTS) site. This must be done prior to final plat approval. 4. The applicant shall designate the remainder of Lot 3, Block 1, Sun Ridge Addition as Outlot A. Marlin Edwards Sun Ridge 3rd Addition July 19, 1995 Page 5 5. The applicant shall designate this subdivision Sun Ridge 3rd Addition." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter to the Planning and Zoning Department from Marlin Edwards dated 6/12/95 3. Reduced Plat 4. Contour Map and approximate lot lines of Subdivision 5. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 717/95 6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE 1d34`JNIPJNHId N3SSbHNt/HD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 5661. 6 T Nnr DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Oa/1130311 N3SSVHNVH3 dO AlID APPLICANT: 717 YI,i // F Gvct GGS OWNER: S6ei1 ADDRESS: ? ; 5G 4.(-10.4)// �d ADDRESS: CiAc ,1 tio 5S- K2, i794/ .5:5 3/7 TELEPHONE (Day time) 46-.)7) -(- 3` -7(- 23 TELEPHONE: -/2 - �� 3 /i9 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review `, Notification Signs f c5 . 9. Site Plan Review X Escr w for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** 10 /SPR/VACNAR/WAP V $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision O TOTAL FEE $job 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. 8'/z" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME LOCATION F75-0 A-ccl c1/4-1,0>, /22(r LEGAL DESCRIPTION /4- 3( giock ( ( 51n r��ctSL PRESENT ZONING 'l� REQUESTED ZONING FR PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Fe-5 L/ LOt- / ,)^,( REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION l REASON FOR THIS REQUEST See 6 Ic_/ Le This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature of Applicant Date 6—( i 9 ignature of Fee Owner g f 'S'i` te S- -4/s Application Received on f q5--- Fee PaidMt.t 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. June 12 , 1995 Planning and Zoning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 To whom it may concern: I am filing a petition to allow the subdivision of Lot 3 Block 1 Sunridge into two parcels . One is a lot of 2 . 62 acres, which includes the site of the current residence, well and septic site, as indicated on the enclosed copy of the plat which was produced using the services of Rieke, Carroll Muller Associates, Inc . of Gaylord, MN. The second is the proposed Outlot A, of approximate area 8 . 65 acres . I have no plans for immediate redesignation of this outlot as a buildable lot . My interests are simply to hold this outlot as an investment or to sell it to the City of Chanhassen for use by Parks and Recreation or Wetland Management . I have commnicated these plans to some of the neighbors, who are supportive of a sale to the City, should that be the eventual outcome . I am moving to a new residence south of Prior Lake, which is considerably closer to my new place of employment, west of Northfield, MN. As a result, I am selling the 2 . 62 acre parcel on which the residence sits . The parcel I am retaining is composed of cropland and grassland, some of which is currently designated as wetland. I have made arrangements for the cropland to remain under cropping as it has been for the entire time I have owned it, under the stewardship of Gale Degler. I am confident you will find these plans reasonable and appropriate . Furthermore, I am receptive to any interest the City may have in purchase of the outlot as part of the "green belt" it now holds throughout much of the length of Bluff Creek. Sincerel 1 /.;00" Marlin Edwards s,YVu1I\.rrfI.TIV.Iu-fl 4-11-f6 WSW en[if �� 01 I beast !\l' I I \ 9'0,,y,5. \\ 7� / \ '"J I z3 w \ I Z \ 1 In \ �i �� / . o \ / Z , \ ) V (7 cn "�J xi 0 P1 0 I I \,,, i (�4 4 :i700U I Z 10, 0 1 4 � —1 k-.. g / C (7 ‘T, / 0 f C w fTl — I 0 1 sor2r13 •E ,1 (\ 1ro.W I C,\\ o • K I p—1 I m Stw,, I1-- �S t 0-11cA ys�fiy N \'$ 1 N - K7C_ M c$ in1$"1 Zen Z N A\ a Z„ D I 1 D \ 1 m S 10T1I v o u / a= /N C I fY R ` ?t SJ'70' // `/// m R o y` rZgl. ,J ppi 'i3,ps ac ^-:— L . , '• / !/ NJ p^ 'xQj � �� } fTl ? / / a I m Az 4 0r / / $�oii@61,79. '^ IwwH?ve QCs J4f.3 41. Ru BON L !,eq,_�� s \ -Y2�'Pro -S 8 o RO�4a o�3,ss—��� ap 1.m:Nnu.' Fg __,______._,,pl saaa" ng g. oo5s2 = a f * gni;- r'' .9-1M1 .t i WI 1"1 NY:5111. 119-Ili fl R A lq P qS 1-32(;1Z o n o 1i �£ Vst3rps a • ili i�i ��m� IUkI� � U iT N N 1 C Q�j �J > r Y p .)5q$ I1 - la O U z NU b P U TN L 8:3. �'; 14 , `, ',� � �+- � �?�' � ' ` \\ •Ns,��` �,� � ` ~' _`'tai r. \ w _).,. i r •: `' > • . . �, .� -- oma_'��� _ _ x879.8 } _ I`f., -'•^ -�'.,fit, �. Jkit—.r _ - ' 4 , 1• ''s y� v ' v- � �` -\f iNI 1 •t`'! moo." • e ,'?3 '� tea-. i!i• 1timet• qk. tr _ r 80 .. }.• �. .x-171 .4 , ) 'Il • jt' O s.�{.' [ ` A 1 \. .� f! �.t.+ •� :�rrte•. , ,_- _,---.:_____ —____„_.___—_i_-_- - -----1._ • Li ' _R , 1 \<:-. q, "i ;:i ii '' � ©' . _. \ w"� 877 ' ti�iG ' . \ \\'�/ , , •fi ` � \ • Y/ ' ... j � f- ' x / , I. ,.‘W.;. .,•lii",. d K w�f !,./ ffi! t Y � �" kr .11* X 877.2 t '876.9� f i /II% r t• J.%f �`: kr \i' 876.9 r .. ,+ . .'►-•'1; .?Y i a.s x '''''..- ....?'1, -... ' ".„/ ...."- , ' -. ,-.' - k ' "" /di ,4'.••*: / , 'LL __a:7 �'9. 63.5 p , __ _ . ....... .......) �� r\� 891.5 X � ) 684.4 X --+_' +• r✓-37.,. - .,�: \ - • — -- 880 rE : IMAGES OF OBJECTS NOT AT GROUND LEVEL MAY BE DISPLACED. 200 400 600 800 1000 FEET ALL RIGHTS DOCUMENT M, ANY MANNER CITY OF CHANBILSSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �-f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 40/.ki DATE: July 7, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-12 SUB (Marlin Edwards) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUN 19 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: ISTS Sites. Chanhassen City Code requires that two ISTS sites be located and shown for each lot. The location of an alternate ISTS site should be determined by a Carver County licensed ISTS site evaluator and approved by City staff . Recommendations: The following condition should be added to the conditions of approval . 1 . Show the location of an alternate ISTS site. This must be done before final plat approval. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\edwards.bgl d111111 _ 7 +41,‘:‘, �In V r--..1.. ,-I.. J.R 1 u..anc. / ♦ t IV.. 7 •" A ftlii at VP ,`,, v' PARK IIIII�„5'C♦: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING !„� �7,/ _ la �� i'or ii Ili t; .r�'J; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VI "ARK �'i1�13u �� ` '` Wednesday, July 19, 1995 ��rrAte�lm —'—i :� at 7:00 p.m. %l �U 3s ' City Hall Council Chambers *�� S 140. = 690 Coulter Drivefar �� it . meg Project: Marlin Edwards . .` , 1i11,. Preliminary Plat , . � LOCATI 1 Developer. Marlin Edwards „ ' a Location: 8950 Audubon Road Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is Marlin Edwards for preliminary plat approval subdividing Lot 3, Block 1, Sunridge Addition, an 11.27 acre parcel, into one lot of 2.62 acres and an outlot of 8.65 acres on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located at 8950 Audubon Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the 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 July 6, 1995. ** THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION WILL BE REVIEWING THIS ITEM ON TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1995 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. i IGS y5 Marion Michel Ronald & Carol Entinger Charles Mattson 8941 Audubon Road 8851 Audubon Road 2870 Wheeler St. N. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Roseville, MN 55113 City of Chaska Dean & Louis Degler Gayle & Lois Degler Atm: Planning Dept. 9111 Audubon Road 1630 Lyman Blvd. One City Hall Plaza Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Michael & Joanne Cochrane George & Desa Zraick Gareth & Cindy Davies 1751 Sunridge Ct. 8850 Audubon Road 1831 Sunridge Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel & Robin Edmunds 1861 Sunridge Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 6, CITY OF PC DATE: July 19, 1995 \'\l 0C II A�U A S s E� CC DATE: August 14, 1995 CASE #: 95-1 LUP, 95-2 REZ �� 95-4 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from office/industrial to residential low density; Rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Single Family Residential; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 0.116 acres of wetland Z and provide wetland mitigation on site; and preliminary plat approval for 59 Qsingle family lots and 2 outlots and associated right-of-way. Project known as V Southern Oaks. LOCATION: 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.) CL a. APPLICANT: Scherber Partnership Properties John Fisher Q Box 181 8470 Galpin Boulevard Rogers, MN 55374 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 428-8400 (612) 470-5098 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 46.27 acres DENSITY: Gross - 1.27, Net -1.82 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD, Trotters Ridge S - A2, vacant, and industrial E - RSF, Stone Creek QW - Industrial Park in Chaska Q . WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site WPHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The property has farming uses on the northern and eastern portions of i= the site; mining and excavating operation on the western and southwest portions of the property; and landscaping operation is located on the central portion of the property. Additional industrial (f) operations are also located in the central portion of the property. A house is located in the southeast corner of the property. Three large wetland areas are located in the east central, northwest, and southwest of the property. The site is significantly wooded in the north central area. The property has a high point of approximately 980 feet in the north central and low point of 940 feet in the southwest corner of the property. The property is bounded by Galpin and Lyman Boulevards. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial CSV 40 a` „ 7 -, "� MIMIMir r.1 •�;Ind onnin�: 4- 11111)#mi 1 1 11* IN AA —_ _ _ STATE •..Y Aillt‘'' r � \ • 80ULE� cf, pill" A iik 0 plieTil.t7iii Ps E0 . 11280 SINtur C .4947. ;,;4040,,....:t..4441, .,..‘ 1., r_________,yri, _ .11lry�iplit\ 10 4�f Ail tWile ."-4-11 I, l ig ri CATION !,--.„_ __...,....,,,,,t.z„, , k:r v.�,R �. 11 ky„ fi,' �.no.;,,,,�,j P C,.7...,..„1111 LYMAN BLVD " :>:. ., v n,/ y\�,,,)/ �111,a o.- I I e100-1 �aRc ", o I c o 0 0 o 0 0 �Y 1��,• {'J I 4 8900 •. 4 1 NIL e 9000 o \ 1 :.�rJ LYM C CITY OFSao A I � 920C BASE MAP 9300 I e ) I I (N. • 9400 KI .' � _ ... ..__ 9500 1 • z I 9500 m _ D I _ 9 i00 a I /'��. L 9800 /2/....)a.;-:-.A...--L /—v� _. ._ 6 2 7( Q� 9900 Q ooeo— . 10200 - - - SEN ENGINEERING DEPT. ' X0300 • \\ REVISED JAN, 1995 ., -_l - .. 1 •0400 \ I, 0500 '. r l - 1 y Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Scherber Partnership Properties, is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment from office/industrial to residential low density; rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate, to RSF, Single Family Residential; preliminary plat approval for 59 single family lots and 2 outlots and associated right-of-way on 46.27 acres; and wetland alteration permit to fill 0.116 acres of wetlands on-site on property located at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 square feet to 54,950 square feet with an average lot area of 21,197 square feet. Outlot A consists of a wetland and proposed landscape berm. Outlot B consists of a wetland and proposed wetland mitigation area. Wetlands on site consist of approximately 3.7 acres. Due to the existing uses located on the property, staff required that the applicant complete a phase I environmental assessment of the property, which was conducted by Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. The conclusion of this report, attached, is that additional environmental investigation be performed on-site to determine the magnitude of possible sources of contamination identified within the report. Additionally, tires and used batteries were discovered stored on-site. These items need to be disposed of or recycled in accordance with recommended procedures of the Pinnacle report or acceptable measures. Staff believes that the additional environmental investigation as well as the removal of the tires and batteries be required before this property receive any final development approvals. The results of this investigation may impact the design and layout of the final development. Staff is currently working with the property owner to apply for an Interim Use Permit to permit the continuation of a mining operation (black dirt) that is in operation on the site. As part of the interim use permit, the property owner (John Fisher) is requesting continuation of the mining operation for at least five years. Staff is also working with Mr. Fisher to have the industrial uses on site brought into conformance with city code. The uses on site that are not approved as previous conditional uses are in violation of city ordinance. Staff has advised the property owner that in order to continue these uses on site, he will need to rezone the property to Industrial Office Park, IOP, and request a site plan approval for a new building that would meet current codes. The property owner has expressed an interest in proceeding with this alternative, potentially subdividing the property into two parts, but he has not submitted this alternate application. Until the land use issue is resolved, staff has deferred enforcement action on this violation. Staff is concerned that a reduction in the city's industrial land use is not in the best interest of the community in terms of maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses, preserving an appropriate tax base mix, or providing a range of employment opportunities. In addition, the Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 3 applicant has not proposed a development that is unique to the community or fills a niche in the housing needs for either current or future residents of the city. A "traditional" subdivision is proposed for the site. This traditional subdivision does not maintain the natural features of the site, and, in staffs opinion, is just as environmentally intrusive on the site as an industrial/office park would be. The applicant could have requested other types of development including a Planned Unit Development locating larger lots in more environmentally sensitive areas and smaller lots in the open areas of the site. The applicant could have requested a multi-family project that might have met some of the affordable housing goals of the city. The applicant could have proposed a small lot development, maintaining large areas of the site for open space or a cluster development. The applicant could have proposed a development that included both industrial and residential properties within the site, placing industrial lots on the southern portion of the site and residential lots on the northern portion of the site. However, the applicant did not propose any of these alternatives and is, instead, proposing a single-family subdivision on land designated as office/industrial while large areas of appropriately designated low density residential lands are vacant. This site was guided for office/industrial in the 1991 Comprehensive Plan partially because it was being used for a non-residential and non-agricultural purposes and it was adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the south in Chaska. In addition, the site is adjacent to two collector roadways, providing high levels of access. The city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance require extensive buffering between industrial uses and single-family residential. An industrial development on this site could be easily buffered from existing residential neighborhoods. Staff is recommending that the requested Land Use Map amendment be denied. We are consequently recommending denial of the rezoning of the property from A2 to RSF due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan as well as denial of the wetland alteration permit because a final development proposal is not included. 13ACKGROUND On February 13, 1987, the City Council approved CUP #87-1 for a landscape contractor's yard and a wholesale nursery and a variance to permit a contractor's yard within one mile of an existing contractor's yard (on the same property) subject to the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday and work on Sundays or holidays is not permitted. 2. All truck traffic leaving the site must be southbound on County Road 117 and truck traffic entering the site must be northbound on County Road 117. Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 4 3. Outdoor lighting and speakers are not permitted. 4. Berming and landscaping shall be provided as shown on the site plan dated January 22, 1987. 5. Any expansion of the operation shall require a conditional use permit. On November 19, 1984, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), #84-13, to permit a contractor's yard for R & W Sanitation on the southeasterly 32 acres of the site. Such approval included the storage and repair of garbage trucks. The CUP was subject to the condition that "Any expansion of the operation such as construction of additional buildings or an increase in the number of vehicles beyond what is represented in request #84-13 must be approved by a conditional use permit." The property was zoned R-1A, Agricultural Residence District. On November 19, 1984, the City Council also approved CUP #84-14 for a contractor's yard for Mr. Volk to include the storage and repair of construction equipment for Volk Trucking and Excavating. The permit was issued subject to the following conditions: 1. All equipment must be stored within the confines of the yard area as identified on the submitted site plan and must be kept out of site (sic) from adjacent properties. 2. Any enlargement of the operation such as construction of additional buildings or an increase in the number of vehicles beyond what has been submitted in this application must be approved by a conditional use permit. 3. Unlicensed, junk vehicles must be placed in an enclosed building or removed from the premises. 4. Installation of evergreens along and on top of the berm on the south side of the yard. In April, 1982, the property owner, Volk, applied for a building permit to reconstruct a pole barn which had collapsed due to heavy snow. The building permit was denied because the storage and repair of excavating equipment in the pole barn was not a permitted use in the R-1A district at that time. Mr. Volk petitioned the Council on May 17, 1982 to issue the building permit. The City Council approved the issuance of the building permit subject to Mr. Volk applying for a rezoning request from R-1A to I-1. Mr. Volk made an application for the rezoning and a comprehensive land use plan amendment. On June 25, 1982, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. However, the Planning Commission recommended that the applicant have the option of returning to the Planning Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 5 Commission with a CUP request. The City Council considered the request on October 4, 1982. The Council tabled the item until staff completed a survey of all contractors' yards as well as other non-conforming uses in the city. The City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow contractor's yards as CUPs in the R-1A zone on August 20, 1984. On November 12, 1980, a rezoning request from R-1A to I-1 on the parcel was considered by the Planning Commission. At that meeting, the request was revised to an ordinance amendment to permit contractors' businesses and storage yards as conditional uses in the R- 1A district. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The City Council subsequently denied the request on January 5, 1981. REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment for this property from Office/Industrial to Residential - Low Density. This property was one of four areas that was designated for Office/Industrial use as part of the 1991 comprehensive plan update. At that time, there was a remaining supply of 95 acres of vacant industrial land in Chanhassen. For the continued well being of the community and in the interest of promoting a balance of land uses, Chanhassen established a plan that would accommodate a reasonable amount of industrial office development in the future. With that goal in mind, the city assessed where it would be reasonable to allow this development to occur. In undertaking the analysis, the location of existing industrial office development in Chaska was reviewed, existing and proposed roads and highways necessary to provide high levels of access were assessed, and the need to provide the buffering of existing residential neighborhoods were examined in detail. The result of the analysis was to add additional office/industrial land totaling 638 acres for a total industrial land use area of 1,099 acres representing 8.2 percent of the city's total land area of 13,327 acres. The proposed amendment would eliminate 46.27 acres of office/industrial land from the city. This represents approximately four percent of the office/industrial land in the city. Staff indicated to the applicant that there was a reason for giving this property a future land use of office/industrial. At first blush, staff relied on the comprehensive plan which states this "area for industrial expansion is a collection of relatively small sites located at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. This area is currently being used for non-residential and non-agricultural purposes and is adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the south in Chaska." Staff indicated that a compelling argument would have to be made to demonstrate why the land use designation for this area should be changed. The applicant's argument for amending the comprehensive plan are: "The subject property's unique natural features (pristine oak forest, wetlands, and 40 feet of topographic relief) strongly suggests a down guiding from office/industrial to residential in order to preserve Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 6 natural amenities. . . In summary, down guiding the subject property to low density residential use is consistent with adjacent residential land use patterns, will be k environmentally destructive than (sic) office/industrial use, and consistent with the Natural Resource and Housing goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." In 1992, the American Planning Association undertook a study of land use ratios in 66 municipalities. The summary of this survey was published in the American Planning Association, PAS Memo of August 1992. Industrial land use ratios for communities under 100,000 averaged seven percent with a range of 0 to 25 percent. Included in the study was a summary of a land use study by Eisner and Associates of land use ratios compiled between 1939 and 1985. The Eisner study showed a range of industrial land uses between 10 and 11 percent. It is illustrative to look specifically at two communities: Columbia, Maryland, a 1960s planned community, and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, an upper midwest community comparable in population to Chanhassen. Columbia's residential land use components is 43 percent of its land area. Its commercial and industrial land uses represent 20 percent of the land area. It is assumed that the uses are evenly distributed between commercial and industrial. Oak Creek's land uses are distributed as follows: residential - 37 percent, commercial - 8 percent, and industrial - 12 percent. Chanhassen's land use ratios are as follows: residential - 42.2 percent, commercial - 2.1 percent, and industrial - 8.2 percent. As can be seen, Chanhassen's industrial and commercial components are smaller than either of these communities, while its residential component is proportionate to both of the communities. These ratios will also be considered when we examine future land use of properties currently outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). Staff is concerned that a reduction in the city's industrial land use is not in the best interest of the community in terms of maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses, preserving an appropriate tax base mix, or providing a range of employment opportunities. In addition, the applicant has not proposed a development that is unique to the community or fills a niche in the housing needs for either current or future residents of the city. A "traditional" subdivision is proposed for the site. This traditional subdivision does not maintain the natural features of the site, and, in staffs opinion, is just as environmentally intrusive on the site as an industrial/office park would be. The applicant could have requested other types of development including a Planned Unit Development locating larger lots in more environmentally sensitive areas and smaller lots in the open areas of the site. The applicant could have requested a multi-family project that might have met some of the affordable housing goals of the city. The applicant could have proposed a small lot development, maintaining large areas of the site for open space or a cluster development. The applicant could have proposed a development that included both industrial and residential properties within the site, placing industrial lots on the southern portion of the site in areas that are less desirable for residential development adjacent to the expanding industrial property to the south Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 7 and Lyman Boulevard and which is being used as part of this proposal for berming and buffering, and residential lots on the northern portion of the site adjacent to Trotters Ridge. However, the applicant is, instead, proposing a single-family subdivision on land designated as office/industrial while large areas of appropriately designated lands are vacant. This site was designated for office/industrial use partially because it was being used for non- residential and non-agricultural purposes and was adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the south in Chaska. In addition, the site is adjacent to two collector roadways, providing high levels of access. The city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance require extensive buffering between industrial uses and single-family residential. An industrial development on this site could be easily buffered from existing residential neighborhoods. Staff is recommending that the requested Land Use Map amendment be denied. We are consequently recommending denial of the rezoning of the property from A2 to RSF due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. Staff has performed the exercise of reviewing the applicant's proposed subdivision for compliance with city ordinance and whether the design is the best use of the land. SUBDIVISION REVIEW i.AMISS,AP N(:/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has estimated the canopy coverage of 342,888 square feet (7.87 acres). The total site is 46.27 acres. From this area, 3.7 acres of wetland is subtracted for a net acreage of 42.57 acres. The base line canopy coverage area is 18.5 percent. City code requires a minimum canopy coverage area of 25 percent for low density residential developments. The applicant would therefore be required to provide an additional 6.5 percent, 2.77 acres, for a forestation plan. This represents the planting of 111 trees. Since the existing canopy coverage is all required to meet the minimum requirements, no canopy area can be removed without replacement. The applicant has estimated a total canopy removal of 142,278 square feet, 3.27 acres. The required replacement area is 1.2 times the area being removed or 170,734 square feet, 3.91 acres. This requires the planting of 157 trees. Staff does question whether the estimated tree removal for home construction accurately reflects the actual tree removal for the site since the applicant has not shown complete grading on Lots 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 28, Block 1 and Lots 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, and 23, Block 2. The applicant needs to provide additional details as to how tree removal calculations were done. The applicant is required, based on their proposal and canopy coverage calculations, to provide a total of 268 trees for this development. The applicant's landscaping plan proposes planting a total of 112 trees. This plan must be revised to provide an additional 156 trees. In Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 8 addition, the applicant needs to revise the plan to incorporate 20 percent of required trees as evergreens which must average seven feet with a minimum tree height of six feet and use a minimum of 21/ inch caliper for the deciduous trees. The city could also require that landscape buffers be provided along collector and arterial roads: Galpin and Lyman Boulevards. The applicant shall revise the plan to provide additional plantings along these roads. The applicant should also provide additional screening along the western property line of the project, adjacent to the industrial development to the west. The applicant shall develop a woodland management plan for this project pursuant to section 18-61 of the Chanhassen City Code. WETLANDS There appears to be six wetland basins on site. Staff requires a wetlands report documenting the character, locations, types of wetlands, and alternatives to the plan to try to avoid impacts. Figure 1 shows the approximate locations of the wetlands as they appear on the grading plan. Basin 1 is located in the northwest corner of the site. The northern part of this wetland is located on the Trotter's Ridge development. It is an ag/urban wetland and does not appear to be directly impacted by the proposed plan. The applicant will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average buffer width of 10 feet around the basin. Basins 2, 3, and 4 are located on the east side of the property and are aligned north to south along Galpin Boulevard. These basins are classified as ag/urban. They have been heavily grazed and cropped over the years and would make an ideal wetland restoration project. It appears that these basins were connected at one time. Basin 4 and part of Basin 2 will be filled as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation is proposed between Basin 2 and Basin 3. A combination of wetland creation and wetland restoration should be evaluated here. The applicant will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average buffer width of 10 feet around the existing and created basins. Basin 5 is located in the southwest corner of the property. It is an ag/urban wetland that will not be directly impacted as a result of the proposed plan, however, the current earthwork operation which has occurred in the past has impacted this wetland and needs to be restored. The applicant will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average buffer width of 10 feet around the basin. Basin 6 is located in the west central part of the site in an area that is heavily wooded. This wetland has not been given a classification, and will be evaluated after the City receives the wetland report. If it is classified as a natural wetland, a buffer strip of 10 to 30 feet wide with an average buffer width of 20 feet around the basin is required. A portion of the western edge of the wetland is proposed to be filled to meet building setbacks. Staff would like to see alternatives to this presumed avoidable impact. Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 9 The City of Chanhassen is the local governing unit (LGU) for the State Wetland Conservation Act and will be administering the permit process in conjunction with the City's Wetland Alteration Permit. A wetland replacement plan and all of the necessary attachments is required before a permit application process can begin. A wetland permit application can be obtained at City Hall. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves 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. The SWMP is available for reference at City Hall and the Chanhassen Library or can be purchased for $150. 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. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall 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 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Single-family residential developments have a water quality charge of $800 per developable acre. Credits will be given if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. The connection charges will be calculated after review of the final construction plans and will be due at the time of final plat recording. Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 10 GRADING & DRAINAGE Most of the site drains to the southwest and eventually discharges into Lake Hazeltine which lies in the City of Chaska. The south and east portions of the site bordered by Galpin and Lyman have been heavily impacted by farming practices where the northwest corner of the site is wooded with interspersed wetlands and has received less human impacts. The northeasterly corner of the site drains north via a storm sewer into Trotters Ridge. The area that drains to wetland basins 2, 3 and 4 should be maintained to the extent possible to provide hydrology to these basins and the proposed mitigation. It appears that the stormwater will be pretreated and discharged into the wetland. The stormwater pond should conform to the wetland and integrated into the system by seeding with native grasses, sedges and emergents. The area that drains to Basin 6 must also be maintained. Backyard drainage does not have to be pretreated, but staff is concerned that the loss of drainage area taken up by impervious surface area will further degradate the functional quality of this wetland. There are four proposed stormwater ponds on-site in addition to the existing wetland basins. One small pond discharges into Basin 2 and one very large 3-cell pond discharges into Basin 5 in the southwest corner. Staff believes the storm pond on Lots 5 through 8, Block 2 should be eliminated. There is sufficient room in the ponding areas proposed along Lyman Boulevard to pretreat and store runoff. A 2-cell pond may be applicable here since there is a large drainage area and two cell ponds can provide for more efficient treatment with less area. Two inlets may be necessary at the first cell of the pond due to the storm sewer configuration, however, they should enter at the east end of the pond for efficient water treatment. If the applicant can meet the state wetland conservation act requirements for a 2- cell pond, the second cell may be used as wetland mitigation. PLEASE NOTE: When you are applying the water quality program, Pondnet or Pondsiz, the runoff curve number is the C coefficient for the rational method adjusted for a 2.5 year storm. Typically, this factor is 0.27 to 0.45 for single family residential developments depending on the density. Since the wetlands are ag/urban, a retention of 35-50% will be sufficient. Additional storm sewer and catch basins will be required to consolidate the system. These types of changes will be addressed during the construction plan review process. Stormwater quantity is an issue for this area since the site is discharging into Chaska from Basin 5. The applicant will need to provide for a 100-year 24-hour storm retention at the stormwater pond(s) along Lyman Boulevard to maintain predeveloped runoff rates. Therefore, more ponding area will be required unless the applicant is able to work with the City of Chaska to meet their requirements at the discharge point of Basin 5. Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 11 The majority of the site is proposed to be graded to develop the house pads, streets, and ponding areas. Staff believes the site grading could be reduced to preserve the topographic features on the site. Most of the lots are proposed as walkouts which involves more grading than rambler or lookout-type dwellings. Typically, berms are required/desired along the perimeter of the site (Galpin Boulevard, Lyman Boulevard, and the industrial park to the west). A berm is proposed along Lyman Boulevard. Staff believes that additional berms should be created along the portion of Galpin Boulevard lying south of the south loop street as well as the westerly side of the development to provide a buffer from Chaska industrial park. The site also contains existing buildings which need to be removed and septic and well systems abandoned according to City and State health codes. Currently there is an illegal earthwork/mining operation occurring over the southwest corner of the site that should be brought into conformance prior to preliminary plat approval. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for added protection. A final grading plan should be developed in accordance with the City's BMPH and submitted to the City for review and approval in conjunction with final plat consideration. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water serviced is available to the site. Water is proposed to be extended from the intersection of Stone Creek Drive and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19). Sewer and water has been extended from this intersection to the property line. Upon review of the preliminary utility layout, it appears the fire hydrant placement may need to be revised. The fire hydrant spacing shall be in accordance with the City's fire marshal's recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are spaced approximately 300 feet apart. These types of revisions occur during the construction plan review process. Detailed construction plans and specifications for street and utility improvements will be required for review by City staff and formal approval by City Council. Street and utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 12 As with other typical city developments, moisture content in the soils is relatively high and the City has required the use of a draintile system behind the curbs for improving both the street sub-base as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. A draintile system will be needed on those lots which are unable to discharge into either the storm sewer system or ponding area/wetland. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside of the street right-of- way. The drainage and utility easement width shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access to maintenance of the ponding areas. Since the site has previous structures, most likely there are existing wells and septic sy stems which will have to be properly abandoned according to City and State health codes. ,STREETS The site currently is accessed via a gravel driveway from Galpin Boulevard. Plans propose on developing the site in two phases with a looped street. At the end of Phase I, a temporary turnaround will be required. In addition, a sign should be posted on the barricades indicating that this street will be extended in the future. Access to the development is pending approval from the Carver County Highway Department. Staff believes that access will be permitted. Plans are being finalized for the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19). Galpin Boulevard will be expanded to a four-lane, urban street section. According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Galpin Boulevard is classified as a collector. Collector streets are typically 100-foot wide right-of-ways. The applicant should be required to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for a total of 50 feet or one-half of the necessary right-of- way of Galpin Boulevard. Previously, the Hans Hagen Stone Creek Development dedicated the other 50 feet in conjunction with the final plat of Stone Creek. Additional trail easements outside of the right-of-way may also be necessary. Depending on timing of the County project, interim or permanent turn lanes along Galpin Boulevard may or may not be required by the County. The applicant is proposing the necessary street right-of-way (60 feet) throughout the subdivision. Preliminary street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which meets the city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications prepared in accordance with the City latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for review and approval by City staff and formal approval by the City Council. PARKS/IES-SPACE This project was reviewed before the Park & Recreation Commission on April 25, 1995. Full park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 13 COMPLIANCE TABLE SETB ACK REQUIREMENTS: Front - 30 Feet, Rear - 30 feet, Side - 10 feet; Galpin Blvd. - 50 feet, Lyman Blvd. - 50 feet, Wetlands - 40 feet from buffer edge with 10 feet average buffer width. MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS: Area - 15,000 square feet, Frontage - 90 feet, and Depth - 125 feet. BLK LOT Area (sq. Frontage Depth (ft.) WETLAND ft.) (ft.) SetbackBuffer (ft.) 1 1 18,360 119 150 none 1 2 18,018 108 155 none 1 3 55,162 57* 304 none 1 4 35,764 57* 276 none 1 5 28,339 56* 172 none 1 6 15,097 93 149 none 1 7 17,483 107 151 none 1 8 17,242 87* 209 none 1 9 22,543 79* 200 none 1 10 21,611 83* 208 none 1 11 19,686 90 219 none 1 12 18,750 106 228 none 1 13 19,027 100 224 none 1 14 20,199 87* 206 none 1 15 26,501 70* 214 none 1 16 30,258 84* 212 none 1 17 18,743 84* 189 none Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 14 1 18 16,904 90 187 none 1 19 16,973 90 188 none 1 20 21,475 81* 199 none 1 21 29,586 79* 253 40/10 1 22 54,950 74* 309 40/10 1 23 34,391 82* 290 40/10 1 24 25,848 82* 253 40/10 l 25 22,540 106 249 40/10 1 26 19,949 104 238 40/10 1 27 18,815 90 209 40/10 1 28 17,281 85* 177 40/10 1 29 16,136 92 156 none 1 30 15,000 98 152 none 1 31 15,000 98 152 none 1 32 18,665# 122# 153 none 2 1 28,039# 159# 182 40/10 2 2 16,281 98 184 40/10 2 3 16,883 89* 184 40/10 2 4 16,929 86* 179 40/10 2 5 15,867 90 176 none 2 6 15,000 140 170 none 2 7 15,000 90 160 none L 2 8 15,590 86* 160 none 2 9 19,314 85* 182 none Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 15 2 10 18,322 90 196 none 2 11 19,635 90 177 none I 2 12 21,976 90 244 40/10 2 13 24,787 257 225 40/10 2 14 19,628 122 197 40/10 2 15 19,037 88* 167 40/10 2 16 16,853 89* 179 40/10 2 17 18,500 93 183 40/10 2 18 17,060 60* 150 none 2 19 19,336 56* 167 none 2 20 20,670 58* 164 40/10 2 21 15,954 98 148 40/10 2 22 16,217 106 168 40/10 2 23 23,395 138 183 none 2 24 17,557 130 192 40/10 2 25 15,729 85 @ 185 40/10 2 26 16,813 90 187 40/10 2 27 23,960# 122# 174 40/10 Outlot A 233,891 Outlot B 92,288# ROW 438,786# Average Lot 21,197 TOTAL 2,015,593 *Meets minimum width at building setback line Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 16 #Area and width will be reduced with the platting of additional 10 feet of ROW for Galpin Blvd. @ Does not meet minimum requirements FINDINGS Subdivision. Section 18-39 (f) 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: With the exception of Lot 25, Block 2, which does not meet the minimum lot width requirement, the proposed subdivision meets the minimum requirements of the RSF district regulations. While technically meeting the code requirements, the applicant should adjust lot lines to give each lot 90 feet of frontage, except on large curves. Staff believes that the applicant does not meet the intent of the wetland protection ordinance, Article VI of the zoning ordinance, of avoiding the alteration and destruction of wetlands. Some of the proposed wetland fill is being done to meet wetland setback requirements for proposed lots, rather than altering the site design and lot layout to meet code requirements. 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: Subject to the city amending the comprehensive plan from office/industrial to residential - low density, the proposal is consistent with the land use designation. 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; While some of the site contains poor soil conditions for development (Cordova silty clay loam and Glencoe silty clay loam) on proposed building sites or roadway, it is possible through soil corrections to make the site suitable for development. As a condition of development, the applicant will be required to incorporate best management practices for erosion control and demonstrate all lots would be buildable. 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; Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 17 Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision negatively impacts the environment through excessive tree removal and wetland alterations. While some tree removal and wetland alterations are oftentimes necessary to develop sites, through alternate site design, including clustering or larger lots, the applicant could minimize environmental damage. 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. 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 that may destroy or diminish the wetland. Finding: The applicant has not demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands. 2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation. Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 18 Finding: The applicant has not demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands. 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 on site or within the watershed. 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 enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 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. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in the area. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Land Use Map Amendment #95-1, Rezoning #95-2, Preliminary Plat #95-4, and Wetland Alteration Permit #95-2. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate, A2. 2. The legal description of the property is: Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 19 That part of the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 1065.41 feet thereof, lying west of the center line of C.SA.H. No. 19 (also known as C.S.A.H. No. 117), and lying north of the south 100.00 feet thereof. Together with that part of the SW IA of the SW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of the south 100.00 feet thereof, and lying west and southwest of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said SW IA of the SW 'A and the center line of C.SA.H. No. 19 (also known as C.SA.H. No. 117); thence southeasterly along said center line to the center of C.S.A.H. No. 18; thence southeasterly along the center line of C.S.A.H. No. 18 to the north line of the said south 100.00 feet and there terminating. 3. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. FINDING; The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed action has been considered in Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 20 relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Goal It is the city's overall goal that its amenities and qualities be maximized and preserved while allowing growth to occur in a comprehensively planned and reasonable manner. Land Use Goal Achieve a mixture of development which will assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base. Land Use Policy Planned industrial development will be encouraged as a means of encouraging tax base growth and creating new employment opportunities. It is believed that planned growth can and should be designed to minimize environmental, neighborhood and traffic impact. The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between uses of different types; the more incompatible the neighboring uses, the more important the transition zone. For example, natural features may provide good transitions between incompatible uses or uses of moderate intensity can provide transitions between high intensity and low intensity uses. The Land Use Plan also seeks the establishment of buffer yards where appropriate. These buffer yards represent areas of increased setbacks where a developer will be required to install landscaping and berming to offer improved separation of incompatible uses. Should the Planning Commission decide to recommend approval of the Land Use Map Amendment, then staff offers the following conditions: 1. 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 by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance # 9-1. 2. The spacing of fire hydrants as shown ranges from 400 to 600 feet apart. Submit new utility showing spacing at 300' foot maximum. Contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. 3. Full park and trail fees shall be paid as specified in city ordinance. Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 21 4. 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. 5. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 6. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 8. The applicant needs to provide additional details as to how tree removal calculations were done. 9. The applicant is required, based on their proposal and canopy coverage calculations, to provide a total of 268 trees for this development. The applicant's proposed landscaping plan proposing planting a total of 112 trees. This plans must be revised to provide an additional 156 trees. In addition, the applicant needs to revise the plans to incorporate 20 percent of required trees as evergreens which must average seven feet with a minimum tree height of six feet and use a minimum of 2 1/2 inch caliper for the deciduous trees. City could also requires that landscape buffers be provided along collector and arterial roads: Galpin and Lyman Boulevards. The applicant shall revise the plans to provide additional plantings along these roads. The applicant should also provide additional screening along the western property line of the project, adjacent to the industrial development to the west. The applicant shall develop a woodland management plan for this project pursuant to section 18-61 of the Chanhassen City Code. 10. Prior to receiving any final development approvals, the developer shall perform additional environmental investigation, as specified in the Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. report, as well as the removal of the tires and batteries. 11. 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. 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. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 22 12. 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 utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 13. 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 accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 14. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater 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 stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations 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. 15. 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. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, 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. 17. 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 shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 19. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 20. Water quality ponds provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands 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. A landscape Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 23 plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. The predeveloped runoff rate to Chaska shall be maintained. 21. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 22. The proposed single-family residential development will be responsible for water quality and quantity connection charges. These charges are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The charges will be calculated in conjunction with construction plan reviews. 23. 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. The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. 24. The applicant shall provide a wetlands report. All wetlands shall have buffer strips in accordance to city ordinance. All wetland buffer strips shall be shown on the final grading plans. The wetland in the southwest corner of the site shall be restored in conjunction with site grading. The grading around wetland basin 6 shall be revised to avoid impacts to the wetland. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a wetland alteration permit. The storm pond proposed on Outlot B shall conform to the wetland and be integrated into the system by seeding with native grasses, sedges, and emergents. The storm pond on Lots 5 through 8, Block 2 shall be eliminated and storm sewers added to convey runoff to the ponds in Block 1. 25. The applicant shall bring the illegal earthwork/mining operation occurring on the property into conformance to City Code Section 7-30 prior to preliminary plat approval. 26. If the project is done in phases. Temporary cul-de-sacs shall be constructed at the end of the streets. Signs shall be placed on the barricades indicating that the street will be extended in the future. 27. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat, a 50-foot wide right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application • Southern Oaks July 19, 1995 Page 24 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 4/12/95 4. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 4/17/95 5. Letter from Joseph G. Richter to Robert Generous dated 4/17/95 6. Memo from Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer, to Sharmin Al-Jaff dated 4/11/95 7. "Land-Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Under 100,000, American Planning Association, PAS Memo, August 1992 8. Phase I Environmental Property Assessment, Pinnacle Engineering, Inc., Conclusions 9. Wetland Identification for Staff Report, Figure 1 10. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 11. Notice of Informational Meeting Dated 7/6/95 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Scherber Partnership Properties OWNER: John Fischer ADDRESS: Box 181 ADDRESS: 8470 Galpin Rogers, MN 55374 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) 612/428-8400 TELEPHONE: 612/470-5098 1. ✓ Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. VWetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Aezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review VNotification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNARTWAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds ro 10. V Subdivision TOTAL FEE $"2-74-796"---- 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. 8Y2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Southern Oaks LOCATION NW quadrant of Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard LEGAL DESCRIPTION reference attached PRESENT ZONING A-2 agricultural estate REQUESTED ZONING RSF - residential single family PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION office/industrial REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION residential - low density REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Down Guide and Zone for single family residential use - reference attached This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. e 9 I2_\ Signature f Applica - Date 321/9 Si aiir ttire of e Owner Date Ap 3/Z� 1 4)� Fee Paid z�bs Receipt No. S-(12- 17 kation Received on � 1 l 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. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment The subject property is presently guided office/industrial. Adjacent land use and guiding consists of law density residential north, residential - large lot northeast, low density residential east, office/industrial south and office/industrial west. The subject property's unique natural features (pristine oak forest, wetlands, and 40 feet of topographic relief) strongly suggests a down guiding from office/industrial to residential in order to preserve natural amenities. Applicable comprehensive plan goals and policies for natural resources are as follows: Goal To promote rational planning which correlates growth and the preservation of a high quality environment. Policies All site plans and other development proposals should be reviewed to determine impacts upon natural systems. These shall include but not be limited to bluffliness, soils, vegetation, wetlands, drainageways and topography. Applicable comprehensive plan goals and policies are as follows: Goal To provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community development goal. Policies The City of Chanhassen will attempt to provide adequate land for projected housing growth and to provide housing opportunities for persons of a range of incomes. New residential development should be discouraged from encroaching upon vital natural resources or physical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural state. In summary, down guiding the subject property to low density residential use is consistent with adjacent residential land use patterns, will be less environmentally destructive that office/industrial use, and consistent with the Natural Resource and Housing goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. That part of the E 1/2.of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 1065.41 feet thereof, lying west of the center line of C.S.A.H. No. 19 (also known as C.S.A.H. No. 117), and lying north of the south 100.00 feet thereof. Together with that part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 15,Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 100.00 feet thereof, and lying west and southwest of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the center line of C.S.A.H. No. 19 (also known as C.S.A.H. No. 117); thence southeasterly along said center line to the center line of C.S.A.H. No. 18; thence southeasterly along the center line of said C.S.A.H. No. 18 to the north line of said south 100.00 feet and there terminating. CITY OF CHANHASSEN *I.' ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 12, 1995 SUBJ: Southern Oak, Scherber Partnership Properties; Galpin Blvd and Lyman Blvd Planning Case 95-1 LUP, 95-2 REZ and 95-4 SUB I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division and have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements: 1) Street names are acceptable. ili 2) A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, ie. 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 by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance # 9-1. 3) The spacing of fire hydrants as shown ranges from 400 to 600 feet apart. Submit new utility showing spacing at 300' foot maximum. Contact Fire Marshal for exact locations. g:'safety,ant enerous CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II 4_,FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official a.iDATE: April 17, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-6 LUP, 95-2 REZ & 95-4 SUB (Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties) I was asked to review the proposed subdivision plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, DEC 28 1994, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. 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. Although elevations are included, there is no legend or explanation of there meaning. 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. More than 50% of the proposed lots contain soils classified in building site group 9 or above. Building sites in these groups are considered to be severely limited as to their suitability for building foundations. Consequently, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for building permit plan review purposes. The soils report should include a 79g lot by lot tabulation. Bob Generous April 17, 1995 Page 2 Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. 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. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo g:\safety\sak'nemos'plan\sthoaks.bgl CITY of •f. • CHANHASSEN t A � 690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -'y (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAI,l'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. FILO or RIA Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with tie basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. 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 Sptit Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry 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. I SE R SEWO WO F/ Lp - 1 -- , — — -- or RLO 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. et 4v PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER STATE OF hi DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FIE NC) April 17, 1995 199F) Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties, City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City#95-1 LUP, 95-2 REZ, 95-4 SUB) Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received March 28, 1995) for the above-referenced project (E1/2, SE1/4, Section 16 and SW1/4, SW1/4, Section 15, T116N-R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required. However, it appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. You should be aware that the project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2. The project site does not appear to be within a shoreland district. 3. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to a wetland. In two of the settling ponds, the pond outlets appear to be very close to stormsewer outfalls. We recommend that an engineer examine the design of the settling ponds to ensure that the stormwater treatment by the ponds is maximized. 4. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the city and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 5. The project site is not within a FEMA floodplain. However, each of the wetlands and stormwater ponds will have a 100-year flood elevation. All the structures that are built for this project should be built above the 100-year flood elevations of the wetlands and ponds on this site. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Robert Generous April 17, 1995 Page 2 6. 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 (Dan Sullivan at 296-7219). 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 c: Hazeltine-Bavaria WMO, Bill Monk U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 600 East Fourth Street, Box 6 Administration Arior Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Parks CARVER Phone (612) 361-1010 EngineeringHighway Maintenance COUNTY Fax (612) 361-1025 Surveying&Mapping April 11, 1995 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties Following are comments regarding the Southern Oaks Preliminary Plat transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated March 27, 1995: 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended • 100' 120' 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 19 (Galpin Blvd.)is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The minimum right of way needs for this corridor include a 100 foot width. The corridor as shown would not meet the minimum recommended needs for an urban four lane undivided roadway. The other platted properties along this corridor have included a preserved right of way width of 50 feet from centerline or a total 100 foot wide corridor. It is expected by Carver County that this plat will not be approved until that dimension is reflected in the plat. The reconstruction of CSAH 19 is scheduled for 1995. We would ask that Carver County has an opportunity to review any proposed lot configurations on this property abutting CSAR 19 (Galpin Blvd) prior to approval of the plat. There may be a need to make minor roadway alignment changes at the intersection of Lyman Blvd. to facilitate the reconstructed intersection. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on 10%Post-Consumer Recycled Paper • 2. The accesses being proposed to CSAH 19 from this subdivision will need review and a permit from Carver County. No direct non public road accesses to CSAH 19 will be approved by the County from this subdivision. 3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 19 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAR 19 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-of- way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in"as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the CSAH 19 intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right- of-way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. 7. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 19 will increase. The increased traffic will generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement project, if necessary, to be the responsibility of the City or the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for the proposed development. Land-Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Under 100,000 Residential Right City or town Population (single-family) Comm'l Ind'! Public Inst'1 Parks of way Aiken,S.C. 20,000 - 65%(60%) 9% 1% 25% 9% 16% NA Ambler,Pa. 6,600 63 11 10 16 3 4 9 Asheville,N.C. 62,000 69(62) 12 5 14 9 5 NA Bellevue,Wash. 88,000 65 (57) 10 4 18 7 11 NA Carlsbad,Calif. 51,000 57(40) 5 9 29 3 17 9 Carrollton,Tex. 33,000 39(34) 30 17 15 5 10 NA Columbia,Md. 78,000 43(32) 20(combined) 37 NA NA NA Costa Mesa,Calif. 88,000 51 (30) 12 15 22 13 9 NA Elgin,Ill. 72,000 37 5 4 54 10 12 32 El Monte,Calif. 79,000 57 15 15 13 5 1 7 Evanston,Ill. 72,000 45 (30) 7 4 44 10 8 26 Fishkill,N.Y. 15,000 24(20) 4 1 70 25 33 12 Frisco,Colo. 1,600 38 13 3 45 NA NA NA Galveston,Tex. 62,000 25(21) 5 25 44 19 25 NA Highland Park,Ill. 31,000 53 6 0 41 4 18 19 Hoffman Estates,Ill. 45,000 46(37) 10 2 41 3 15 23 La Verne,Calif. 27,000 67(58) 11 3 19 19 NA NA Lynnwood,Wash. 29,000 56(46) 22 3 19 13 6 NA Manassas,Va. 22,000 52(41) 8 12 28 26 2 NA Midway, Ky. 1,400 54 7 1 38 24 NA 14 Montpelier,Vt. 8,400 51 (45) 6 6 37 7 15 15 Mount Prospect,Ill. 58,000 65 (57) 6 16 13 4 9 NA Northbrook,Ill. 32,000 46 7 8 39 7 13 19 Oak Creek, Wis. 20,000 37(27) 8 12 43 6 23 14 Olathe, Kan. 49,000 52(43) 7 6 35 14 9 12 Prescott,Ariz. 26,000 74(50) 8 4 14 NA NA NA Pompano Beach,Fla. 67,000 44(25) 10 17 39 4 17 8 Redding,Calif. 53,000 64 11 12 13 8 5 NA St. Peters,Mo. 38,000 72 12 4 12 NA NA NA Sedona,Ariz. 7,300 74(71) 15 0 12 11 1 NA Skokie,Ill. 60,000 34 6 13 47 12 3 32 Versailles,Ky. 7,200 50 9 19 23 9 NA 14 Wakefield,Mass. 24,000 54(52) 5 3 38 8 6 24 West Hollywood,Calif. 36,000 42 (8) 22 3 33 3 1 29 Ratio Averages ,�"� � 52% (41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA NA CV&`\ P...-- ` tic( ,' SOO 5y 7 ► ,`t 90 6 '90 \./ 90 2s % How Land-Use Ratios Have Changed in Small Cities Over the Years Residential Year of survey (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'l Parks 1992 52% (41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA 1983 48 7 8 37 13 5 1955 42(36) 2 8 48 11 4 Pr' , PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT JOHN FISHER PROPERTY Fri NW CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD. Fri AND LYMAN BLVD. =C; PREPARED FOR: MR. GARY SCHERBER ROGERS, MN 55374 CeZ Fri CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEE JUN 011995 ENGINEER DEPT) CIMia rim Pnacle ENG ri .,INC. H 4.9 Regional Geologic and Hydrologic Setting Surficial geology of the area consists of post glacial terrace deposits of sand and gravel laid down during the Pleistocene (Late Wisconsisan) epoch. The elevation of the site is approximately 950 feet above mean sea level. (Meyer, Gary N., et.al., 1993 / USGS, 1967) The first aquifer expected to be encountered in the area of the Property is the water table aquifer. Groundwater is presumed to be found at approximately 920 feet above mean sea level (approximately 30 feet BGS) and reported to be flowing southeast towards the Minnesota River. (Gary N., et.al., 1993) 1 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Pinnacle has performed a Phase I Environmental Property Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 of the north west corner of the intersection of Lyman Blvd. (County road 18) and Gaplin Blvd. (County road 19) in Chanhassen, MN 55317 (Property). The walk-over survey revealed the following concerns: (� • Area 1: Inadequate protection of the compost pile. I� • Area 2: 1 250-gallon Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) and light to I moderate staining on ground, possibly water. Gardneer Inc., a permitted hazardous waste generator, may use a common practice for lawn\landscape personnel to fill large truck mounted tanks with a mixture of water and fertilizer when planting or fertilizing. There was no odor associated with the stain. Pinnacle recommends that soil samples obtained and tested. • Area 3: 25-30 tires. Incorrectl discarded tires are considered a special Y P waste. Pinnacle recommends the tires be disposed of in accordance with recommended waste tire management procedures. • Area 4: 1 250-gallon AST, light to moderate staining on ground below the AST. Pinnacle recommends that the tank contents be determined and soil samples be obtained and analyzed. • Area 5: 1 1000-gallon diesel #2 AST, 1 500-gallon diesel #2 AST, 1 250 gallon unleaded gasoline AST. All AST's and a pump are located in a catchment basin. The ground next to AST catchment basin is heavily stained and has a diesel odor to a depth of at least six (6) inches. There is a breach in the catchment basin. The potential environmental impact of possible leakage from the catchment basin to the groundwater beneath the Property is a concern, Pinnacle recommends that soil samples from PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. PHASE I 8 beneath the catchment basin and the stained area adjacent to the ASTs be obtained and analyzed. • Area 6: 30-40 old tires. Incorrectly discarded tires are considered a special waste and Pinnacle recommends they be disposed of in accordance with recommended waste tire management procedures. • Area 6: Various used and unused landscaping ties. Treated landscaping ties may present an environmental concern. Pinnacle recommends suspect ties be tested and disposed of by recommended hazardous waste procedures. • Area 6: 2 5000-gallon unregistered Underground Storage Tanks (UST), 2 1000-gallon USTs, 1 500-gallon UST are located on the Property. The potential environmental impact of possible leakage from the USTs to the groundwater beneath the Property is a concern, Pinnacle recommends that soil samples from beneath the USTs be obtained and analyzed to determine if contamination exists. • Area 6: 25 car and motorcycle batteries exist at the site. Incorrectly stored and discarded batteries are considered a hazardous waste and an environmental concern. Car and motorcycle batteries should be disposed of or recycled in accordance with recommended procedures. • Area 6: 3 250-gallon ASTs. The potential environmental impact of possible leakage to the groundwater beneath the Property is an environmental concern. • The Property is not connected to municipal water and sewer lines and no listing could be found in the MGS County Well Index for T116, R23, Sections 15 & 16. The CWI review did not reveal records of any wells located on the Property. Notification of any current or abandoned wells on the Property should be made to the Minnesota Department of Health. A well exists at the residential dwelling. • Pinnacle recommends additional investigation to resolve the magnitude of the possible sources of contamination identified in the preceding paragraphs. PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. PHASE I 9 ; -- tu 1 II F . � s) ' 3' I . ! D , , . / , / , lII , c a 2,' . \ ♦ . . . . . . . ♦ . . . . o .'.' Ill 2 1 \; o •6; U E . \ \ \ . \ \ VI / , 7.'♦ f--- B as a. II AM MINL R3 C7 I I iLyman Blvd. (County 18) I Building - 1 .------------...---)\ Area ,`,`!`!`/`,`,` \ . ♦ \ . S. 1 Pinna Figure 2. Area and Biulding Location cle John Fisher Property i Engineering, Inc. Norwest Corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd. Intersection 4 Chanhassen, MN, 55317 lir I Unit B Date: Prepared By: 117601usten Circle 5/31/95 S. Thelen Maple Grove, MN 55369 : Reviewed By: (612)428-4842 Scale: K. Francis 1 : A .. , 1 P A ,:•••.: . . . -4. ,.: 1.• ! i .1.,-) it\ .., , el I •• ... I \I—I. AE Ak , -s• : I ce _ -- z A) . ' 01 2... ..„. I i •i° r 's.... • -1 .... i \ / i 4 , - ....i VP! .. I ' •\ --.. a, N. ,., p.,.t:-• __ •', .1) , ... ,.. , II- la / - 1 ' IIIII8 L r 11: E ._._‘ 1.....---' s . . A .. :• \ i z.14T/44* ). 1.0 ti 0 1 i .4 0111.113 a* \ i /0 1 tai4. L. ., t i 1 imps co ; : . .... It. : ._iitt __L- 4,vd\ fr. .., (... • • , I , i ----'• i i • % r'Z3' 0, .. aI / lilt\ 0 /, i : 0 ‘ --% \ •---,- ‘,...(t ..4 - __i '. f oc• .....111111.1%...73:7.ir 6 I s•• • ‘ i -' •" '...' ft : 111: ln ‘ \ „ . Irr-';fi,'!..a' . (i• U.1 g°: 11 , . ——— 41. 1. .' 1*.`:41:1;‘; 1 '1''.0 i!: V3 : • ....4:11 • ----: g (..., Ill — , AYA. ROO t _.,r.... • ...:5, /f., ip . ..,,.,.. 1:213H1110S 4741) ,.."r•..Z.:1;', ,..., . .., .... a ,t PO . r..) :• • 1' .• • . 10' -.- t •.. 'I : ,. . . 'I • .• "" ,we ...... St _. .- 1 k.v k-- -k-D„ -----c-., -TA P-- P P ci_ rri --t- •••••••.... 1 F....3r To • ...5 111/41s11111.11111111F1' IA,111rH111: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ip PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesda 19 1995 - ` Wednesday, July 6 at 7:00 p.m. ___ 4 City Hall Council Chambers ' u 690 Coulter Drive - Lic . or Project: Southern Oaks `t, Developer: Scherber Partnership 41/�i� r 41.4 :;"..ft--� Properties >� IR Location: 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the LOCATION ii;;;;;21 :TI, S ,,«_ northwest corner of Galpins' "Pur `' Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.) II LYMAN BLVD •= 1--_ � ��� - I I I o o P i -( Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from office/industrial to residential low density; Rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Single Family Residential; preliminary plat approval for 59 single family lots and 2 outlots and associated right-of-way on 46.27 acres; and a wetland alteration permit on property located at 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.), Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties. 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 July 6, 1995. 7 fps :raid & Lois Gustafson Roger & Gayleen Schmidt Earl Holasek 41 Galpin Blvd. 8301 Galpin Blvd. 8610 Galpin Blvd. tanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 !ne & Lisa Schroeder John & K. Sumners Joel H. Lehrke .37 Boulder Road 2333 Boulder Road 2329 Boulder Road lanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 !lly Morlock Chad J. Gniffke Douglas & S. Hipskind 125 Boulder Road 2321 Boulder Road 2317 Boulder Road ianhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ans Hagen Homes & erle & Jane Volk Gregory K. Ziton Don & Ann Esping lite 300 2334 Boulder Road 2330 Boulder Road 11 Hillwind Rd. NE Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 idley, MN 55432 nomas & Lisa McKenzie Jeffrey & Karla Althoff James & J. Larranaga 322 Boulder Road 2326 Boulder Road 2318 Boulder Road hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 onald & Cathy Borgman Scott & A. Weldon Lisa Kilpatrick 308 Boulder Road 2292 Boulder Road 2360 Stone Creek Drive hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 )hn & L. Sullivan Peter & M. Cunningham Stephen & N. Dragos 346 Stone Creek Drive 2332 Stone Creek Drive 2318 Stone Creek Drive 'hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Villiam & M. Nason John Moran Trotters Ridge of Chanhassen 361 Stone Creek Drive 2150 Boulder Road 2765 Casco Point Road 'hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 4ark & C. Fisher Rodney & Janice Melton New Creations Ind. Inc. 407 Bridle Creek Trail 2413 Bridle Creek Trail 708 Main Street 'hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Elk River, MN 55330 leven & N. Cavanaugh Daniel & Dona Lee Scott M. Welsh 441 Bridle Creek Trail 2451 Bridle Creek Trail 2461 Bridle Creek Trail ;hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Craig & Nina Wallestad Arvey & Marlene Eeg Dennis & Carol Medo 6566 France Ave. S., #1001 2479 Bridle Creek Trail 2420 Bridle Creek Trail Edina, MN 55435 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edwin Susi Ken & M. Hollrah Stephen & M. Pittorf 2430 Bridle Creek Trail 2450 Bridle Creek Trail 2305 Boulder Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeffrey Palm Todd & L. Noteboom Christopher & Susan Barnes 2301 Boulder Road 2279 Boulder Road 2338 Boulder Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lewis Engineering Co. HTD Assets of Oshkosh, Inc. Conopco, Inc. 4201 Norex Dr. 4275 Norex Drive c/o VanDenBergh Foods Co. Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 2200 Cabot Drive Lisle, IL 60532 The Nordick Group, Inc. Willard Morton Chaska Watertower Mini Storage 701 12th Ave. N. 4035 Norex Drive 149 Jonathan Blvd. N. West Fargo, ND 58078 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Glen Pauls & Teri Pauls Family Limited Partnership 5441 Zumbra Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 July 6, 1995 NOTICE OF INFORMATIONAL MEETING SOUTHERN OAKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND LYMAN BOULEVARD) CITY OF CHANHASSEN You are cordially invited to attend a meeting on Thursday, July 13, 1995, at the City of Chanhassen Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed single family residential development for the NW quadrant of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard (in lieu of the City's proposed industrial development plan). Information will be presented as to the proposed single family residential development and its relationship to the neighboring community. All interested parties are encouraged to attend this meeting. Craig and Gary Scherber Scherber Brothers Partnership RECEI VED 199b CITY OF CHA;VhI DLIV CITY TF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: July 13, 1995 SUBJ: Autumn Ridge/Frontage Road - Wetland Alteration Permit 95-4 BACKGROUND The total parcel is 89.59 acres. There is a wetland which is 43.8 acres through the center of the site. The property that is suitable for development will be split by the extension of the collector road that will eventually connect Audubon Road with Highway 41. This road is part of the City Comprehensive Plan and the alignment was refined in the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The connection will also serve as an access to the open space park proposed on the west side of the large DNR wetland. The extension of the collector road must cross a portion of DNR protected Wetland 10-210W,however, the road will not be below the ordinary high water mark eliminating the need for a DNR permit. The collector road has been moved to the south to accommodate the school site east of the project. The final alignment on the west end must be determined in conjunction with the development of the Opus site. The City and Betty O'Shaughnessy, property owner of the Autumn Ridge development, have combined the Autumn Ridge development and Highway 5 frontage road construction into one project for the wetland alteration permit. Since a large area of open space was dedicated as park and half of the wetland impacts are the City's reponsibility, the City agreed to process the wetland alteration permit. Wetland Impacts The attached figure shows the site with the proposed wetland impact areas. The Autumn Ridge developer will be filling a 0.3 acre ag/urban wetland (wetland 3) as a result of the construction of multi-family units. The extension of the southern alignment for the Highway 5 frontage road will be performed by the city in conjunction with the Autumn Ridge development. As a result, approximately 0.06 acre of a 0.3 acre ag/urban wetland (wetland 2) and approximately 0.3 acre Don Ashworth June 6, 1995 Page 2 of the large DNR natural wetland (wetland 1) will be filled by the city. All of the supportive documentation on avoidance,minimization of impacts, and replacement are in the file for review. The mitigation for the project will come from the bank of wetland restoration and creation credits that the City is building this summer. One project is the wetland south of Lake Susan and the other is on the Jerome Carlson property just south of the new Lake Lucy Road extension. ANALYSIS Staff thinks that this project has been reviewed carefully and replacement of wetland loss will be provided at a ratio of 2 to 1 as required under the Wetland Conservation Act(WCA). All the necessary parties have been notified of the project in accordance with the WCA, and the City permit will reflect those conditions. The wetland in the Autumn Ridge development cannot be saved as a result of the development since the drainage patterns will be altered. The impacts occurring along the frontage road were reduced to the maximum extent possible by designing the road location at the narrowest crossing of the large DNR wetland. The DNR wetland has been drained and altered as a result of years of agricultural practices, and therefore, there is potential for designing some wetland enhancement and restoration on this wetland as well. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Wetland Alteration Permit 95-4 be approved and that staff pursue the possibilities for wetland enhancement to the large DNR wetland under the following conditions: 1. Wetland Conservation Act conditions are met. 2. General Permit 17 under the Army Corps of Engineers is applicable and should be completed by the City. 3. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the wetlands. Additional erosion control may be necessary around the DNR wetland. 4. Verification of permit exemption shall be received from the DNR. 5. Wetland bank necessary for the project is completed in accordance with the WCA. 6. A feasibility study and design is included to enhance the DNR wetland if the plan proves to be efficient and acceptable. Attachment c: Charles Folch, City Engineer gNeng'diane\wetlands' ermits\autumn.cc 4.7 61\ ii/ a ti = ,e}. ..,..„„'4% ` moo M�° Y. II ' W / 14% .�. t I ,y L\j`1J'( I •• <s... -- • "4'._Y^` ter+ i►!I' I * YJ' ItI /mor Co 7J/0Qd Vat Lir' ��� 7M ' =a // 4 i ii;i1 iiiI 1s. 04., •` .iii 1 //J I 1 ;...,s.., 0.,‘,. SI/, , i ..........1 /1, I ` ` \ * / I j r / aaQaPoaa : _ / AC iI . o/e O, aouraoma < i�-'�� I N l r-• l ?no7U St bu souo pang] (�—J t.\� f E8/9i/t O. 1} I1 77£b=MNo I / /— cc AnAO:HOI9 ros _•I \ �; `— / AH 1 to � J \ ` II; / / ( el''n \ / 'f UI tl / C6/91/v ONRIIHAIIONa aOOALLS3.1 • - \ / �— AH asx s s.Lmri aNVU.Y-�1 a1e� ;r-`"/ , , J.//// \ _:,- 71 I zra AO 1� to ,z Nowt=a rine my re ONVILIA JOY oo O/ , : / \\ / { / 'OHL 'NOSaVII 5' TIZOHOS I I I { J AH U2DIVIS SLII[I'! al'iV U Al I r� •ONI 'NOSaVY[ V TI3OH3S : \ . / / \ AH UM3IVLS S.LUIPI aN'Y IJ AI ,r• I 1 \ f. \ Ja \\ Al �d \ \ i � : • -o \ / 1 i w / \ \��� Na I �' ) / , / / I \ F -� vl `�� 11 j I\ 1 d 3 1�' / / \ \ n a co I I / / I� \ -31 i \ c---- / \�\ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m and gave an opening statement regarding the procedures of a Planning Commission meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Farmakes, Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, and Craig Peterson. Ladd Conrad arrived after item number 3 on the agenda. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting and Bob Skubic STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 1.38 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION, PERKINS FAMILY RESTAURANT, GUY PAYNE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you Bob. Do any of the commissioners have questions for Bob? Or staff at this point. Would the applicant like to approach the Planning Commission please. Guy Payne: I'm Guy Payne with Perkins Family Restaurant...and after the last meeting we, and in meeting with Bob also after the meeting, we incorporated the recommended details... and columns that were provided...and hopefully that meets everything requested. That's pretty much it. If you want to ask questions. Comments. Mancino: Thank you. Does anyone have a question for Mr. Payne? Farmakes: I maybe do. Do we have, are those from last time? Mancino: This was from last time. These were the same. We should use these as visual references Mr. Payne for what we see? Guy Payne: Yes. Mancino: This is, Jeff I'm not sure you were here but this is what we received last time. Guy Payne: That's just...the striped awning. The other one is the, that actual prototype, that second photo. And that's a photograph up to the elevations of that same building that we're 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 planning to provide. That doesn't have the view of the, the back two views...so we have to look at those building elevations and try to see how that's going to incorporate. Mancino: Excuse me, I have a couple questions. Peterson: Can I ask a question please? Mancino: Sure. I am looking at your A-3. I don't know if you have one, do you have one in front of you? Guy Payne: No. Mancino: Okay. Which says right side elevation. Bob, is that right side elevation facing south or Highway 5? Am I understanding that right side elevation? Generous: That would be the Highway 5 elevation. Mancino: Okay. My question on that elevation is, as I look at the new drawings that we have and I see where the columns are going to go. I am assuming that those columns will, excuse me Jeff, have the detail in them that are on this photo and that means that there's some recess in the middle of the column. Guy Payne: Right, that's correct. Mancino: That's correct? They will still have those. Guy Payne: Right. Now they have two different colors in it so it will break up the... Mancino: Okay. So they won't be plain, thank you. My other question is, that around this particular prototype building there is a sidewalk so that when there is a parking lot around the building everyone, when they get out of their car, goes to the sidewalk and then goes to the entrance. Will this Perkins have a sidewalk around the building much like there is on, the only reference that I know that's around here is the Sydney's on Highway 7. It has parking all around it. When you get out of your car, you go to the sidewalk. It surrounds the building and it makes it. Guy Payne: This basically has sidewalk around two sides, which is where the majority of the parking is. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Don't we have parking on all sides of the building? Surrounding the building on this. Generous: Yes. Mancino: So when people get out of their cars on the two sides that don't have parking, can you show me Bob how that works? One of my issues was being pedestrian friendly and getting people into the building safely. Generous: The primary customer entrances are I believe in the northwest corner of this site so they do have access from the northwest and east on the sidewalk system. I'd anticipate, since the south elevation has a service entrance, that that's primarily where they'd have their employee parking. And they do have the short sidewalks right into the building at those points. But people would generally have to walk across the parking lot to get to the sidewalk on the north. Mancino: But there is a sidewalk there to collect people and I know...to that sidewalk on the north side from what I'm seeing here. That is correct? Aanenson: Right. Mancino: And I also, I think what I see is an apron or a sidewalk also on that east side where there is so much parking that faces Target. Generous: There is just the end of the sidewalk. It wouldn't be on the side of the building I don't believe. Mancino: This is from last week's plan that weren't included. Generous: You mean the perimeter one? Or the one down Target Lane? Mancino: As you come here and park and you walk up here, you're on a sidewalk that takes you to the entrance of the building. Generous: No. I don't believe there's anything proposed on the east elevation. Guy Payne: No. We're really trying to do some landscaping since on the north and south we're sort of high. On the south there's virtually no room to even put a sidewalk. Then the east we were really trying to put the landscaping along the side and then people would walk along, up until they get up to the north sidewalk and tie in there. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: So people again are going to walk kind of kitty corner through the parking lot to the front entrance versus coming up here to the sidewalk and. Guy Payne: Yes. Mancino: Can you drop people off in this area? Is there enough of an apron area? Guy Payne: Sure. Mancino: For people to be let off. Guy Payne: Sure. Mancino: Okay. And are there places for bikes, etc to park? Guy Payne: There could be on that east side. Peterson: How many feet of landscaping is there? What's the scale? Quarter inch. As far as the landscaping around the building on the east side. Is there room for a sidewalk and landscaping or not? Guy Payne: On that side? Mancino: On the east side, where the main entrance is? Guy Payne: That'd be very...put a sidewalk. That would take up almost to the end of that building there. Since we're so tight on the north because normally we would have more in the north and the south where we could scoot it down with the landscaping on the north side but then the configuration of the lot as is, we really could...And there really will be more landscaping than what's shown on the east side. That's not totally complete. Right now it's showing... Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Payne at this time? Farmakes: I have...again what the primary reason is to come back before the Planning Commission versus the previous? Guy Payne: It was a recommendation to increase metal roofs and other ornaments to the building on the...side so that's why we come back and resubmit it because it was suggested there wasn't enough architectural treatment. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Farmakes: If by that, the previous building as I understand was stucco? Guy Payne: Same materials. All the same color materials... Farmakes: Am I, I have the older plans and I'm seeing different materials drawn on the outside of the building. Is that? Guy Payne: Different material? Farmakes: Well, it's showing stucco and so on. Guy Payne: Same thing on the building. Farmakes: Same thing. Generous: The primary difference was that had the massive roof on the top and it was a slightly bigger building. Actually 500 square feet larger I believe. Guy Payne: It was 1,500 square foot larger building. Farmakes: In going to the awning situation. On the awnings that we approved before. Mancino: Were not striped. Farmakes: Were not striped, but they were not all yellow either. They were green and yellow, were they not? Guy Payne: No. They were all yellow. Farmakes: They were all yellow? Aanenson: But they were not to be back lit though. Farmakes: Did we discuss the issue, and it's been a while since we approved this so I'm trying kind of...memory to go through this. There was a question in the previous one about neon and what we discussed about how that fit into what the PUD covenants were. Aanenson: Well the first one didn't have neon on it. Generous: No, it didn't have neon on it. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Aanenson: Well the back lighting we said we couldn't allow. The awnings. Farmakes: Okay, we have neon striping on the plans that I see in front of me. Aanenson: Yes. Farmakes: And how does that relate to the covenants of the rest of the building in the general area? I don't believe we have any other buildings in Chanhassen with neon striping on it. Generous: Not that I'm aware of. Mancino: No, we don't. Farmakes: Does that single it out within the covenants of the Target and the outlot? Generous: Not within the PUD it wasn't addressed either way. Farmakes: So that wouldn't be substantially different than from the surrounding building? Generous: I don't know. Not substantially I don't believe. You have the other buildings in the downtown that have their large sign areas that are back lit and that acts the same way. It gives off that blue or green or red glow. Mancino: Bob, that's only the signage area, isn't it though? Generous: Yes. Mancino: It's not surrounding. It doesn't run the perimeter of the entire building so this would set a precedent. Farmakes: The reason I'm bringing it up, and since I believe in your report it talks about bright bands or, and we never did address the issue. I was talking about colors versus neon and that's...in the report. So I'm trying to establish, because I couldn't recall whether we had discussed it on the previous page or not. Generous: I don't remember discussing it. Farmakes: Because I understood it wasn't an issue. It wasn't submitted as such. This is different. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Generous: Well it wasn't submitted. They did have the neon banding around and it was mentioned in the report but I didn't, you know, feel that that was a big issue. Guy Payne: And we had basically the same neon wrapping all the way around the building on the previous submission. Farmakes: I noticed that, since this is back and forth, I've noticed in looking at the Perkins in Hopkins, which I drove by today, all the awnings on the building are green except for the yellow one that's in front of the entrance and I'm just wondering what consistency Perkins has in regards to it's awning maker. Guy Payne: This stripe is the standard. 3M's our...company and we worked it with 3M in developing this new awning and as a matter of fact, I talked to the 3M rep yesterday and they already produced 100 of those stripes for us and we've already used them all up so that's our standard. We've tried it in probably 4 or 5 locations of the different awning. The yellow and green. That's a test basis and basically this yellow with the stripe in it is our standard. So there's quite a few being, either done or being done in the Minneapolis area right now to our existing restaurants. Farmakes: So you're familiar with the Perkins I'm talking about? Guy Payne: I am, however I'm not sure. We had one other scheme that was being done. That may be the same one. It had. Farmakes: This has arched windows. Guy Payne: Right. And it had a green awning with a yellow stripe in it and then the others were yellow with a green stripe. That's probably what you saw. Farmakes: No. I saw, all the arched windows had green awnings. Solid green, and the color scheme of yellow was in front of the entrance. Guy Payne: That's probably that same one. It should have a little yellow stripe around it. It's only a small, you may not even notice it. Farmakes: The reason I'm asking you this is that we've had this discussion before. I think with Taco Bell and some others who came in with color schemes that they're supplying and the obvious question we have is how consistent is this and so on with what we're seeing because they change. They seemingly change from store to store. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Guy Payne: Yeah, but that's not true in this case even though out of 200 awnings or so put up, about 3 or 4 have that yellow and green one whereas all the others are doing striped. Farmakes: The garbage collection area is leaning towards the most predominant junction. CR 17 and TH 5. Will there be any banners placed on? Guy Payne: Banners? Farmakes: Banners. We've had some other. Guy Payne: Banners on the dumpster? Farmakes: Yeah. No, on the shield. We've had some retail operations here in town that have been doing that. Guy Payne: No. We want to de-accentuate it. Not call attention to it. And that will be done in the same stucco to match the building so it will blend in as well as possible. Farmakes: The coverage on that. What would you determine on the landscape that we're looking at there? What type of real coverage would we have? Generous: Percentage of site? Farmakes: Well, the sizing of the trees and so on. I'm just. Generous: ...not showing the ones on the west elevation. I thought we had pretty good. Farmakes: The three I think indicated on the plans? Towards the southwest. Generous: Right. And what you don't see is the city also has their planting scheme. Farmakes: I saw some of those, yeah. Generous: They blend in. Farmakes: There's a row of evergreens and so on. However the elevation is such that you're sort of looking over that currently. Generous: Well currently and as these mature, the southeast corner will eventually disappear from view as you're driving down Highway 5. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Farmakes: So you feel that within say 5 years or something, we're going to get some real coverage there? Generous: I believe so. Especially we're doing in depth planting in Outlot A as part of the city's plan. I don't know if the applicant's would like it but we're going to screen the whole site. Farmakes: I have no further questions at this time. Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Guy Payne: Thank you. Mancino: Can we have a motion to open the public hearing? Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone wish to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Meyer moved, Fannakes seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: Well, I'll continue talking. I don't have any serious concerns about this building. I'm not wild about this striped awning. I'd rather see them green. I can understand why they want them yellow. It's a lot of yellow for me but fairly nice materials for a retail restaurant and the signage is not osentacious elsewhere. I think it's a reasonable nice building. I don't feel, the drama that you're seeing there, the skyline I think is a combination of some... I don't feel it's going to have as much drama on the entrance as is showing there. My preference of course would have been to have seen that maybe a little higher...angle of the building. Mancino: How do you feel about the neon? Farmakes: Essentially there aren't going to be that many more restaurants going into the area. I'm concerned I guess about the precedent that we're going to be looking at lit up buildings that essentially become a sign and I've talked about that before. Where they've said it's not how the building looks but whether or not people are going to see it from 10 miles away. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 We're really a low impact area. I mean as far as, you're driving fairly slow and you're in town. You're not competing with a lot of buildings so the question is, these buildings need to be seen well but they're not playing in the same field as they are at Southdale or Mall of America and so on. You don't have those kind of sight lines. It's just using some common sense in this area. I don't feel as a matter of practicality that if we allow that, that we're going to see a lot more of if. There aren't that many lots left so my preference is, would not to be seeing it. I don't feel though that it's probably justified in citing the real case that is going to cause a lot of destruction at this point. Mancino: Do you think other buildings will want it...? Farmakes: I don't envision Target or Byerly's or anything like that, if that's what your question is. My real concern with the building is that this is another building that's probably in the most predominant area of town. It's open 24 hours a day. They're going to see it. It's going to stay lit up and the neon actually, you know pin striping neon actually can be attractive but the point is that once the cat's out of the bag, you never know what's going to happen. But like I said, we've only got what, one other lot available in this property and unless we invent more commercial property. Mancino: We don't have any more lots. Aanenson: This is the last one. Mancino: This is Perkins, Taco Bell and Boston Market. Farmakes: I thought there was one more. Mancino: That's it. Farmakes: Alright. Well all the more reason then. Unless things really change on the Ward property, I don't see that happening. I thought perhaps when I was talking about the issue of the covenants. We were talking, there's an overriding covenant I believe in the downtown development that talks about how...significantly different and the comment about the brightly colored bands is referring to the general bright striping. Orange...book stop retail outlets that you see. I don't feel probably that this falls in that place. So I'm not going to make a big issue out of it. Mancino: Okay. Craig. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Peterson: I guess I really concur with Jeff's comments regarding the neon and the yellow. I think it's overkill in many ways. Again I don't feel strongly enough to advise... The only thing that I would add that I would like to take the developer's word that the east area be landscaped more than it is now with just grass as it's shown. With shrubs, etc, etc. If you can't put a sidewalk there, I think it'd be very conducive from a landscaped standpoint to put some significant bushes and stuff in there so. Mancino: Mike. Any comments? Meyer: I think we've pretty well covered it. No additions. Mancino: Good. I don't think I have any other new ones to add. My concern before was that I think the applicant addressed with the new plans was the side that faces Highway 5 and also the sidewalk and I see that as a condition, number 13. So I'm just very comfortable with it. Do I have a motion? Meyer: I'll make a motion. Mancino: Okay. Meyer: I make a motion that the City Council approves Site Plan #94-6 prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 13. Mancino: Do I have a second? Peterson: Second. Meyer moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Site Plan #94-6 prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The sidewalk shall be relocated to access the service drive where the stop sign is located to provide safe crossing movements for pedestrians. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the erosion control on the site until the site has been fully revegetated. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 3. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of this site including, but not limited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, Health Department. 4. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. 5. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 6. Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and/or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. 7. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways. 8. The landscape plan needs to be revised as follows: add three red oaks on the west side of the parking lot, add one hackberry in the southwest corner of the parking lot, and add one black hills spruce to screen the dumpster area; revise plant schedule to specify 4 skyline honey locust, 3 sugar maple, 4 black hills spruce, and 12 clavey's dwarf honeysuckles, delete red splendor crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete spring snow crab (unless used for foundation planting), and delete snowmound spirea (unless used for foundation planting); and provide foundation plantings per city code. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figures 11-2, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. 9. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15% of the wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted. 10. The maximum size of the flag shall be limited to 80 square feet. In addition, the flag pole location shall comply with sign placement limitations. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 11. One additional "No Parking-Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the building. In addition, where "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yellow. This should be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants. 12. The applicant must provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the plans must be made before issuing building permits. 13. The applicant shall provide a five foot wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk on Powers Boulevard to the northwest corner of the parking lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 122.29 ACRES INTO ONE LOT OF 2.53 ACRES AND AN OUTLOT OF 119.76 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED NORTHWEST OF WEST 96Th STREET AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, TIM ERHART. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions of staff from commissioners? Meyer: Kate, the number 5. That will be incorporated into the deed? That's a private agreement. Aanenson: Correct. Meyer: Okay. Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to give a presentation? Tim Erhart: Thank you for the invitation and I'd like to say...being up here on a nice summer evening. I put in my 6 years. I just want to say that we've lived here 14 years and we're not leaving the area. We're going to buy a house on Lake Riley so we're staying in Chanhassen. That means I'm still eligible to be on the Planning Commission again. Other than that, I think it's in line with it I think. I've always been concerned about the property, that whatever we do with the property, in 14 years, we do it consistent with the future plan and so the ghost plat really fits with what we've been thinking all along. I think it's logical... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Any questions for the applicant? My only question is, are you going to let the new owners cut down any of those trees that you planted? Tim Erhart: I don't think so. No, they wouldn't do it there. I'm getting very successful at selling a few. Mancino: Are you? Tim Erhart: Yeah. A lot of them are 14-15 feet high now. It's amazing once they get a couple feet high, how fast they grow...Kind of a fun project. My heart wants to stay at this place but my wife and three kids, there's just not enough room in the house. Not logical to stay there. She found a really pretty house with lots of room for the kids. Mancino: So you're going to move on. Well, thank you. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing please. Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone wish to come up and speak on this issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Craig. Comments? Peterson: No concerns. Everything seems to be addressed. Mancino: Okay. Mike. Meyer: Nothing. Farmakes: No comment. Mancino: No comment. Do I have a motion please? Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #95-9 as shown on the plans dated June 5, 1995, subject to the following conditions 1 thru 5. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Do I hear a second? Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision #95-9 as shown on the plans dated June 5, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The smaller lot shall be labeled as Lot 1, Block 1, Name of Subdivision, and the larger lot shall be labeled as Outlot A. 2. The following easements shall be provided. a. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. b. Cross access easement over the existing driveway to provide access to the existing residence. 3. Show the location of two proposed ISTS sites. This must be done before final plat approval. 4. Demonstrate the existing ISTS is not a failing or noncomplying system. 5. An agreement stating that when the outlot is developed, Lot 1 will be required to access from the public street and the private drive eliminated. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE OUTLOT A, BRENDEN PONDS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Kate, I have one. As I read through this I was a little confused. I want to make sure that I got it right. At the beginning on page 2, the first paragraph. Lot 1 it says is a single family residence and Lot 2 is the well house. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Later in the report on page 4, under grading it says that Lot 2 is proposed as a walkout house. So is Lot 2 the well house or. Aanenson: No. You were right the first time. Lot 1 is the building lot. Lot 2, next to the wetland is the well house. If you look on the plat, which is on the overhead. Mancino: This is where the house is going to be? Aanenson: Correct. The one, if you look on the plat, it shows the 20 foot interceptor easement on it. That's the lot with the house on it. Mancino: Okay, the western most one. Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Thank you. Aanenson: Sorry about that ambiguity. Mancino: I wanted to make sure. And is Lot 1 the house that's going to need 10 feet of fill? Or is Lot 2 for the well house the one that's going to be graded so excessively? Hempel: Lot 1 will require the additional fill material for the house pad. Mancino: Unless we recommend that it be a rambler. Hempel: Restrict the dwelling type to a rambler or rambler lookout versus... Mancino: Or lookout, okay. If, excuse me Dave. If we do, as a condition, instead of putting so much fill in over the wetland, etc, suggest or make a recommendation that it be a lookout or a rambler, how much less fill will there be? How much will we be messing with the topography? Hempel: Approximately about 4 feet of fill less. So you still would require up to 6 feet of fill. Mancino: 6 feet of fill, okay. 16 • Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Hempel: It will also require filling for the well site. As you continue to the east there, the slopes are even steeper so there will be some filling involved with the well site as well. Mancino: But the well site isn't a walkout or. Hempel: No, right. Mancino: I mean we won't get into as much. So we would be at 6 feet of fill instead of 10, okay. Thank you. Any other questions? This is a public hearing. We don't have another applicant do we? It's the City of Chanhassen. Aanenson: Yes. We're working with Gestach and Paulson on this. But because the city is initiating it for the well site, we're really the applicant because we're the one that's requesting the plat go in at this time so we're taking the lead position on this. But it's the Gestach- Paulson property. Mancino: Okay. And they're not here to make a presentation? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please? Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public healing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone that would like to come up and talk on this issue may. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Fa rinakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public healing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no comments on this. I will vote for it. Mancino: Okay. Craig. Peterson: No comments. Mancino: Mike. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Meyer: Dave, do you see any problems with the 10 foot of fill that...It seems like sometimes logical from an engineering standpoint, should it be something we're concerned about? Hempel: It's always desirable from a builders standpoint to have a walkout type homesite. It's the most desirable. It appears the filling in there meets the wetland setbacks. It's not imposing in the setback and so forth. I guess we could go either way. Meyer: Okay. Mancino: Kate, I have just one comment and that would be. It's peculiar to me that on this particular, the whole Brenden Pond, how many lots do we have on the collector? We have quite a few lots. Aanenson: Actually on the north side, I think we have, I think there's just 2 or 3 on the other side. Mancino: Okay. So we're going to have 5, a total of 5 driveways on Lake Lucy Road. Aanenson: Right, right. Except the well. Hempel: If I could clarify. The lots to the north side do have shared driveway access points so we have eliminated one or two on the north side. And the south side will have two though. Aanenson: And the well, I'm not sure much activity will be at the well. Mancino: Will go on, okay. My other question is, I've never seen this done but just asking. As the property to the south of this land develops, is there potential for this particular Lot 1 to get access if it develops to the south? I mean that's hard to put in as a condition but it makes a lot of sense for one house here. Aanenson: It could except that just off the top of my head looking at this, to get another road there, to get another lot, you'd almost have a lot that would be double fronted. Unless you did a cul-de-sac but that wetland is kind of big right there. Unless you came in from the other direction, I think it would be, it's a tough call. I think you'd almost make it a double fronted lot in order to do that, even if you brought a cul-de-sac in. It could possibly but we usually try to look at that but that piece is so big, the property to the south, I think they have a lot more options. I think that'd be a really good point if this was a narrow piece and didn't have as much design flexibility but I think that piece is large enough that we've got quite a few options. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Okay. And is there some way to word it so that you can just look at that and obviously. Aanenson: You mean a private drive or something? Mancino: Yes. Or something. To see when the southern property does develop, if there's some way that the access could be off that. If it can't, it can't. Hempel: I think the topography to the west and south of the proposed house pad is severe enough that you need additional filling to put that driveway in to the street so. Mancino: Well I just, yeah just look at that. I'd appreciate that. Those are my comments. Do I have a motion? Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 dated June 21, 1995 for Brenden Pond 2nd Addition for 2 lots and one outlot with a variance for a side yard setback along the easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1 as shown on the plans received June 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions 1 thru 14. Mancino: May I have a friendly amendment? Farmakes: You sure can. Mancino: And that is that, and I'm sorry I didn't bring it up before. That number 2. That the plat approval still subject to the approved landscaping plan for Brenden Pond 1st Addition. I would just like to make sure that that landscaping is revised so that there is landscaping on the collector. Buffering that single family home which we did not think would be there. Farmakes: Do you have a particular way you'd like to word that? Mancino: That staff and, the staff as being the applicant, review the existing landscaping plan on the collector and add buffering landscaping as they see fit. Farmakes: That'd be fine. Mancino: And is compatible with the existing plan. Can I have a second? Meyer: Second. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond 2nd Addition for two lots and one outlot with a variance to the side yard setback along the easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, as shown on the plans received June 13, 1995, 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 (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with side slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 2. The plat approval is still subject to the approved landscaping plan for Brenden Pond 1st Addition. Staff, as being the applicant, review the existing landscaping plan on the collector and add buffeting landscaping. 3. Building Department condition - The footings of structures proposed on Lots 1 and 2 shall be engineered. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee compliance with final plat conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDot and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100 year high water level. 7. 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. 8. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10 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 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. 9. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 10. The applicant will be responsible for a water quantity fee of $440.00 and a water quantity fee of $990.00. 11. The applicant's grading and erosion control plan shall be in conformance 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 in conjunction with final plat review. 12. 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. 13. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and wetland areas lying outside the right-of-way. The MWCC easement shall be increased from 20 feet wide to 30 feet wide centered over pipe. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPING SECTION OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE TO CREATE A TRANSITION ZONE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you, very much. Any questions of staff? We can go back and ask after the public hearing. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing. Fannakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hewing was opened. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Does anyone wish to come up and approach the Planning Commission on the impending buffer yard ordinance? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Discussion with commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: I hope this will solve the continuing problems that we seem to have with this. I'm not sure that we'll, not 100% sure. I guess I'm close enough to get to the point where maybe we should try it. I still have a problem with the word buffer and I still have a feeling that the Council's going to wrestle with this anyway maybe. I know we talked about it the other night. There are winners and losers in this thing, which goes beyond the intent of just putting up trees inbetween houses and perhaps something like this coupled with looking at the problem in general of that and what placing two types of development do to one another where they meet up. I guess I'm willing to trust staffs judgment in this regard rather than nit pick whether or not we've got 3 trees or 4 in trying to apply some quantifying tool to try to alleviate the problem. That's all. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: I'd like this to go to City Council. It does make things more predictable. Less willy nilly. I don't see the need to buffer single family detached from single family attached. I'm concerned a little bit about the cost implications and would be interested in City Council's perspective on the cost implications. I'd be interested in knowing that City Council understands the draft. The wording should be so clear in terms of how to interpret so the staff shouldn't have to lead the developer or an applicant through the process. It should be clear. So my perspective is, send it on. My perspective is to recommend that they not have buffers between single family attached and detached. Interested in their perspective on the cost implications, which I'm sure staff can address. And interested in their understanding of this ordinance that is easily interpreted by... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The following is transcribed from a poor quality recording.) Peterson: ...question really would go back to cost. What are the developers going to...or is it, as you inferred, is this standard in other cities say in Minnesota. Are we going to stand out as a city that they have to spend double on landscaping to get property developed, or is it so close there's not an issue. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Generous: We did send a copy of this to another community who was looking at having a landscape... Peterson: They may be copying us and having the same problem. That's my only question. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: I think from a planning standpoint it makes a lot of sense. Whether the cost is a problem I guess Council will have to decide that but...your perspective, it's going to make your job easier and their job as a developer coming in knowing what they're up against right away...so I'm in favor of it. Mancino: Thank you. ...I am assuming that this is not added onto the tree preservation ordinance...using some of these funds to... Generous: Right. And saving trees can reduce the amount of planting that they...Those examples that we made, I can run a cost analysis of... Mancino: And they can also...I also agree with Ladd's comments about the buffering...I think it should go up in it's entirety. My thought is or my concern has been on collector and arterial streets first...I'd like to hear their comments. So do I have a motion. Conrad: Yeah, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the zoning ordinance revisions concerning landscaping and tree removal for transitional buffering between uses. Generous: ...resolution. Conrad: I'm going to make that motion...but I would footnote it. I want the entire motion going forward. The entire ordinance going forward as drafted. Then I'd like to challenge the City Council to review the following factors. Whether they really would like buffering between single family detached and single family attached. The Planning Commission may not feel that that's...would like to see if they feel that the cost implications are excessive. And if they do, then it would return to the Planning Commission for review. I'd like their input as far as clarity...understand this ordinance as drafted...It's more of a participative ordinance than it is a requestive ordinance. I'm really sending this up to see what they think versus saying we... Farmakes: As a matter of practicality... 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Do I hear a second? Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the zoning ordinance revisions concerning landscaping and five removal for transitional buffering between uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: One little side bar I would add to that is, what you talked with us about Bob is..I mean how hard are the negotiations to get what we think is right for these kinds of scenarios with developers? Generous: Well it depends on the developer. Some of them are real easy and then others are like pulling teeth. Mancino: That's something that I would...90% is just pulling teeth all the time and it's so hard... Aanenson: ...and I think it's our job to look at those kind of issues...and I think we've seen an increase of the...that people are willing to do a good job. We have a hard time saying, and that's where we rely on you... We rely on our forester... Obviously when the neighbors see it, they want as much as they can but it's going to mature. It's going to grow and we've got to make sure it's the appropriate scale then...so I guess that's what we were looking at too when this...make sure we're not over crowding a site too. There's safety issues there too. As Bob indicated, at a minimum, I think streetscape is something we definitely could do a better job... improve the visual. The view from the road issue... Farmakes: ...we had the discussion about doing things that aren't necessarily...somebody's going to want to build here. The ultimate cost of everything that's done in real estate... Ultimately that cost doesn't go to the developer. It goes to the person who buys the house from the developer. Whether it's indirect or direct, ultimately it's paid for by the consumer, and the question really comes to then, the individual that lives in the community either wants to foot the bill...and since we do this already, I'm not sure that this is a question that we're burdening the business person or simply defining...and I don't know what the response would be but I'm hoping... Conrad: ...Jeff's comments... 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Staff, thank you for your work. NEW BUSINESS. Aanenson: ...I've been looking at a couple different designs, I'll pass it around. This is going to come before you as a subdivision. I just wanted to let you know what we're looking at here. As you look to the, if you put the street at the bottom so you're facing north. West 79th Street is at the bottom of the page. To the west or to your left would be Americana Bank. To your right, or to the east would be...bowling alley. What we're looking at doing, the City is doing this, is dividing into four parcels. We tried to pull the development of two restaurants close to the street. Put the parking behind. What kind of drove this is there's a piece of property between Highway 5 and West 79th Street that a Tires Plus came in and wanted to go on that location. We felt like that really should be left open and enhanced as you look across that piece so we worked to try to put them on a site, on the parcel behind and buy that parcel out and make it vacant so it's really an amenity. You have the pond next to it that the city already owns so it'd be a nice view. Looking across that landscaped area. And then you would look at two restaurants right on, fronting on West 79th...not parking in the front. This is one I think we'd have some good control on and I believe these two will probably be the tenants there. Applebees...We're having somebody put together a plat. You'll be seeing that shortly and probably the site plan review for a couple...so I just wanted to let you know that that was coming forward. We're trying to tie this in again so you can see... Farmakes: I'm just curious. How does Tires Plus as a retail... Aanenson: They've gone together in other projects in Eden Prairie... We felt it would work good for them to be...not as visible with the restaurants in front...They're the ones that kind of drove this whole project... Farmakes: I guess the only other place I can think of that there's a tire operation next to a retail restaurant is over in Eden Prairie. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. There's one in Eden Prairie. Farmakes: It's the only one I can think of. Aanenson: There are some other ones in Apple Valley and... Farmakes: Right off from...I think there is an Applebees there in a smaller shopping center. Peterson: Southtown has got an Applebees too...tire store. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Farmakes: Typically the auto stuff is grouped together. Aanenson: Well we think this mix works good because what you're having here is it works good for parking and we think that's a plus because what you do is the tire store does require some parking but the hours work different and we think it's kind of a good mix...Friday and Saturday night. You have less use at the tire store. It actually makes a good mix. We're making good use of parking and reducing the amount of parking which we're trying to look at now is not over parking the downtown. So actually as far as uses, we looked at that play and I think it's going to make a good mix. As you can see what's indicated on there, how many parking stalls they need. I think it's going to work out really well as far as the balance of the site. And again the retail, the other building is 4,000 and 2,000 square feet... Again, the city is looking at getting the property platted...I just wanted to let you know. Mancino: Thank you. And is the city the applicant? Aanenson: For the subdivision, correct. Mancino: Good... Any other new business? Aanenson: The only other thing I was going to mention is the Planning Commission, Matt Ledvina was the HRA representative or liaison. I think that there should be someone else from the Planning Commission to attend the HRA meetings. Those are once a month. I believe on the fourth Thursday of the month. It's this Thursday so it'd be the third Thursday of the month. So if you would like to maybe think about picking someone for that. Mancino: Is there anyone who would like to volunteer? Aanenson: Or if you want to rotate it or something. Mancino: Or rotate it or have a back-up. I was the back-up for Matt. Not a lot of people go so...and I think we'd also like to, as we do...Would anyone like to volunteer for the HRA? Farmakes: It usually goes to the newest member. Peterson: I'd like to know what the initials stand for before I go. Mancino: HRA. Let's see, Housing and Redevelopment Authority. I would certainly be a back-up. Peterson: I would be willing to do that but I can't go this Thursday. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Farmakes: I would...this Thursday the park task force...Thursday is a bad day for me so... someone who wants to go or...I have a long term commitment on Thursday nights... Aanenson: I can mention that to Todd too. That is their regular night you're saying? Farmakes: Until August. Mancino: I will actually, I'll change... Aanenson: Maybe Ron or Bob might be able to go too. Farmakes: I think rotating it... Mancino: Well the park and recreation...short term. The HRA is longer term. The HRA we could rotate... Aanenson: I can put a schedule together except that Mike and Jeff couldn't make Thursdays but I could put Ron... Farmakes: What times does it start? Aanenson: 7:30. (There was some discussion that could not be heard on the tape.) Mancino: So Mike, you're going to go to the HRA starting tomorrow for, we'll rotate... Aanenson: Yeah, I'll put a schedule together. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated May 17, 1995 and June 7, 1995 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: The last City Council meeting, we believed we would not have a quorum. Colleen had her baby, although she did show up for the meeting, so we had cancelled all the items that were on the agenda, except for those that were on Consent. So I really don't have much... 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 The taped portion of the meeting ended at this point. The Planning Commission had open discussion regarding seasonal/temporary sales, including Christmas trees, sidewalk sales, etc., and conceptual review of the Villages on the Ponds, Ward property, located south of Highway 5 between Great Plains Boulevard and Martel Boulevard. The meeting was adjourned after open discussion. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 28 CITY OF ClIANBASSENy t4i, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: July 12, 1995 SUBJ: Director's Report At the July 10, 1995 City Council meeting, the following action was taken: 1. The site plan review for Perkins Restaurant was tabled because the applicant was not in attendance. 2. The preliminary and final plat for Tim Erhart was approved. 3. The 3 lot subdivision for Brenden Ponds 2nd Addition was approved. 4. First reading of the "glitch code amendments" was approved. Included in your packet is the recently adopted legislation, Roger Knutson's legislative summary and a PAS memo regarding sighting for cellular towers. Law summaries continued _.. . and employees on government data section is clarified to apply to residen- where the required notice is not practices and records retention laws. tial rental projects not restricted to provided. This law becomes effective Various effective dates apply. persons age 55 or older and provides on August 1, 1995. that if an issuer fails to issue obliga- - tions equal to all or a portion of the Metro area comprehensive planning • allocation received within 120 days or ` codifications returns the allocation to the commis- t/ Chapter 176 was sponsored by the NHit sioner,the amount is cancelled and Metropolitan Council to review local �� , returned for reallocation through the water management plans. Metropolitan rill ® i_l�__l housing pool. The total amount of municipalities are required to review allocation for mortgage bonds for one and update their comprehensive plans l city is limited.Obligations must be by December 31, 1998 and are prohib- �J Housing issued within 120 days or the authority ited, after August 1, 1995,from Metro Section 8 Housing Program will be cancelled and reallocated. The adopting fiscal devices and local Chapter 112 authorizes the remaining balance in the small issue controls which are in conflict with their Metropolitan Council HRA to operate pool on the effective date,up to$20 comprehensive plan or any metropoli- joint Section 8 housing programs million of bonding authority, is tan system plans. Plans may contain cooperatively with local jurisdictions in transferred to the housing pool except intergovernmental coordination and the metro area. The authorization is that the Minnesota Housing Finance economic development elements and effective the day following enactment. Agency may accept applications may designate redevelopment areas. between June 1 and 7, 1995. Various Land use plans are required to contain J Procedures changed for allocating effective dates. water management plans. Local bonding authority for city housing governmental units are required to programs and planning t" review and,if n_cessary,amend their • Chapter 167 significantly affects ` f 'L entire comprehensive plan along with cities with independent or joint housing ;;7its fiscal devices and official controls + programs. The law adds a provision . _. - '�zrV1-4by December 31, 1998 and at least that new assisted housing be located in --.- '_:, , .. . once every 10 years thereafter unless •a city that has entered into a housing ,'.;' : an extension has been obtained from affordability agreement with the the Met Council. A report from the Metropolitan Council, under which a Met Council to the legislation on the city may make loans financed with the Land use/planning/zoning need for local technical and financial proceeds of mortgage bonds for the Notice to municipalities required assistance is due January 15, 1996. purchase of existing housing. Applica- prior to licensing of certain youth tion to the Minnesota Housing Finance detention facilities Metro area surface and groundwater Agency for single-family housing Chapter 12 requires the Commis- management program bonds are made due from June sioner of Corrections to give munici- Chapter 184 provides for the 15 to June 30(currently July 1 to July palities 30 days written notice prior to revision of metropolitan water manage- 15). Allocation amounts to be made issuing licenses to detention facilities ment plans on a priority schedule to be by the commissioner to the small issue for delinquent youth. The notice must developed by the Board of Water and pool are reduced from$65 to $55 be given before the first issuance of a Soil Resources. Watershed manage- million while amounts going to the license and annually thereafter only if ment organizations will have 24 housing pool are increased from$46 to the municipality requests annual months from the date of notification to $56 million. Application fees for notification. Notice is not required for revise and submit a plan for review. projects of entitlement issuers will now facilities with a licensed capacity for They may receive a one-year extension have to be submitted to the commis- six or fewer persons and occupied by from the Board. The plan should sioner with the notice of issuance of either the licensee or the group foster extend at least five years but no more bonds, notice of use of mortgage credit home parents. State funding that would than 10 years from the date of Board certificates,and notice of carry otherwise be made available to the approval. Consistency with adopted forward.The housing pool allocations detention facilities must be withheld county groundwater plans would be LS 10 1995 Law Summaries Law summaries continued required within two years after adop- $4.5 million available annually for tion by the county. Draft plans, in grants and loans. The Mosquito addition to county,conservation _. kik" ; ' `` Control District's levy authority and ;I: --1:..).-' .,1= 1 their HACA payment are reduced by district,town and city review,will be �,,,, I21i,� , subject to a 60 day review and corn- = ��� ~i— { 4. the amounts received by this program. i' .v" .i `'r—)' A third program is intended to assist in ment period by the Met Council,the ,11=,iii1 ■ w 1"�ssosi=:l P g state review agencies, and the Board of cleaning up polluted lands in the metro Soil and Water Resources. Watershed Metropolitan area. Money to fund this program will management organizations are required 1/Metropolitan Livable Communities come from funds set aside by the Met to respond in writing to any concerns Chapter 255 is the new Metropoli- Council to help local governments expressed during the review process tan Livable Communities Act which purchase rights-of-way when building within 30 days. Effective August 1, creates an economic vitality and roads and from the fiscal disparities 1995. housing initiative primarily for the pool made up of a portion of each metro area. A Local Housing Incen- metro city's commercial-industrial tax Sex offender residential programs tives Account program is established as base. More specifically,the program not a permitted use a voluntary program for cities. While taps a pool that dates back to the Section 79 of Chapter 224 modi- cities can choose not to participate in construction of the Mall of America. It Pies the state override of local zoning the program,they will not be allowed is estimated that the pool would pay for state-licensed residential programs to apply for state grants to clean up about$5 million per year to the serving six or fewer persons and contaminated sites unless they can program. provides that a residential program show that they spent money on Finally, an urban homestead whose primary purpose is to treat affordable housing as if they had been exemption program is created to juveniles who have violated criminal participating.Cities designate an provide income tax breaks for up to statutes relating to sex offenses or have amount for affordable housing equal to five years for persons moving into been adjudicated delinquent on the the cumulative amount they would certain blighted neighborhoods in the _ basis of conduct in violation of have spent had they participated,or metro area. The Met Council will criminal statutes relating to sex offense they agree to deposit their share into a designate certain areas as urban ' shall not be considered a permitted use. regional pool . The program would revitalization and stabilization zones by Effective May 26, 1995. require a portion of property taxes on September 1, 1995. The maximum high-valued homes be used to build exemptions would equal $10,000 for Permit deadlines more affordable and"life-cycle" singles, $12,500 for heads of house- Chapter 248,Article 19 addresses housing for certain groups at various holds, and$15,000 for married couples state agency and local government stages of life (for example,singles, filing jointly. Various effective dates deadlines for issuing zoning,septic young families,the elderly). Cities apply. system and metropolitan urban service choosing to participate in the program area permits approvals. Permit would negotiate housing goals with the applications must be determined Metropolitan Council. estfik !-I complete or incomplete within 10 A second program is the"livable business days.The application must be communities"demonstration project 4 acted on within 60 days or it will be program which would allow cities to deemed approved. A city may receive obtain grants and loans from the Met an automatic 60 day extension by Council for certain projects. To pay for Personnel/pensions providing the applicant written notice this program,the Met Council is Public pension plan provisions containing the reason for the extension authorized to levy a tax up to 50 modified within the 60 day period and specifying percent of the current Metropolitan Chapter 141 is a 58-page law how much more time is required. Mosquito Control District's levy and making several changes to the public Other extensions are possible with the also provides an annual HACA pension plan provisions including the applicant's approval.Effective July 1, payment equal to 50 percent of what requirement of suspending or forfeiting 1995 and applicable to any written the Mosquito Control District receives. benefits for certain felonious deaths, request submitted after that date. In total,this amount could equal nearly recodifying the IRA plan, making 1995 Law Summaries LS 11 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Thomas J.Campbell (612) 452-5000 Andrea McDowell Poehler Roger N.Knutson 452-5550 Matthew K.Brokl Fax612 Thomas M.Scott (612) Marguerite M.McCarron Gary G.Fuchs George T.Stephenson James R.Walston June 9, 1995 Elliott B.Knetsch Ms. Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Legislative Summary Dear Kate: For your information, the following three bills were recently enacted by the legislature: 60-DAY REVIEW REQUIREMENT (CH. 248) (copy enclosed) • Effective July 1, 1995, the City must either approve or deny an application "relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area" within 60 days or the application is deemed approved. • The 60 days starts to run upon submission of a completed application. An application is considered complete unless the City gives applicant written notice of deficiencies within ten business days of its receipt. • If application requires prior approval of state or federal agency or in cases where a statutory process makes it impossible to act within 60 days, the 60-day time limit does not start to run respectively until prior approval is obtained or the last step in the statutory process is completed. • City may extend the initial 60-day period up to an additional 60 days upon giving written notice to Applicant stating the reason for the extension. AMENDMENTS TO LAND PLANNING ACT (CH. 176) (copy enclosed) • Requires review of comprehensive plan by December 31, 1998 and at least every ten years thereafter. REGEiyEp .j 1995 Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Ea ftii,Y, f WI'2 June 9, 1995 Page 2 • Prohibits the adoption after August 1, 1995 of an official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. • Requires that the zoning ordinance be brought into conformance with the comprehensive plan as part of 1998 review (prior law provides that if conflict between zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan existed, zoning ordinance controlled.) • Expressly permits the comprehensive plan to include an intergovernmental coordination element, economic development component, and designation of redevelopment areas. • Requires that the plan include the municipality's water management plan. • Requires that local water management plans being submitted to the WMO for approval also be given to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES (CH. 42) • Increases the maximum duration of a temporary on-sale liquor license from three to four days. Please call if you have any questions. Best regards, CAMPB LL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FU S, P.A. By: Thomas M. Scott TMS:slc Enclosures 27 ARTICLE 18 28 DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION 29 Section 1. (15.99j (?IME DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION. ) 30 Subdivision 1. [DEFINIT_ION. ) For purposes of this section, • 31 "acency" means a department, agency, board, commission, Cr other 32 9rouo in the executive branch of state government; a statutory 33 or home rule charter city, county, town, or school district; any 33 metropolitan acency or regional entity; and any other political . 35 subdivision of the state. 36 Subd. 2. (DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE. ] Except as otherwise Article 18 Section 1 83 CHAPTER No. 248 S.F. No. 1246 1 provided in this section and notwithstanding any other law to 2 the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a 3 written request ielati:ly to zonir.a, septic systems, or expansion 4 of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or • • 5 other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency • 6 to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the reouest. If 7 an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the • 8 reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request. • 9 Subd. 3. (APPLICATION; EXTENSIONS. ] (a) The time limit in 10 subdivision 2 begins upon the agency's receipt of a written 11 request containing all information required by law or by a 12 previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency. If 13 an agency receives a written reouest that does not contain all 14 required information, the 60-day limit starts over only if the 15 agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the 16 request telling the requester what information is missing. 17 (b) If an action relating to zoning, septic systems, or 18 expansion of the metropolitan urban service area requires the 19 a;,prnval of more than one state agency in the executive branch, 20 the 60-day period in subdivision 2 begins to run for all 21 executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all 22 required information is received by one state agency. The 23 agency receiving the reouest must forward copies to other state 24 agencies whose approval is required. 25 (c) An agency resoonse meats the 60-day tine limit if the 26 agency can document that the response was sent within 60 days of 27 receipt of the written request. • 28 (d) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state 29 statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to occur 30 before the agency acts on the request, and the time periods 31 prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or court order • 32 make it impossible to act on the reouest within 60 days. In 33 cases described in this paragraph, the deadline is extended to • 34 60 days after completion of the last process required in the 35 applicable statute, law, or order. Final approval of an agency 36 receiving a reouest is not considered a process for purposes of • Article 18 Section 1 84 CHAPTER No. 248 S.F. No. 1246 1 this paragraph. 2 (e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if: (1) a 3 request submitted to a state agenr.v recuire9 orior approval of a 4 federal agency; or (2) an application submitted to a city, • 5 county., town, school district, metropolitan or regional entity, 6 or other political subdivision recuires prior approval of a • 7 state or federal agency. In caeca described in this paragraph, 8 the deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the 9 required prior approval is aranted. 10 (f) An agency may extend the timeline under this • 11 subdivision before the end of the initial 60-day Period by 12 providing written notice of the extension to the applicant. The 13 notification must state the reasons for the extension and its 14 anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved 15 by the applicant. 16 Sec. 2. (EFFECTIVE DATE. ] 17 Section 1 is effective July 1, 1995, and applies to any 18 written request submitted after that date. % • CHAPTER No. 176 • H.F. No. 833 • . AN ACT NOTE 1`:,ta° •,-f This is the final version ::f 1I'tt*,iit that will be *' •ti Ir.!ns;zi;tee.to the governor's !~.'" -• 4,• ce:.k.Check 1•f ur:;I::�'<Derartiren, . for upda:ad sta: 2 1 • 2 relating to local government; modifying certain 3 provisions relating to comprehensive municipal • • 4 planning in the metropolitan area; amending Minnesota . . 5 Statutes 1994, sections 1038.235, subdivisions 3, 5, 6 and by adding a subdivision; 462.355, by adding a • 7 subdivision; 473.858, subdivision 1; 473.859, 8 subdivisions 1, 2, and 5; 473.864, subdivision 2; and 9 473.867, by adding a subdivision. 10 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 11 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 103B.235, 12 subdivision 3, is amended to read: 13 Subd. 3. [REVIEW. ] After consideration but before adoption • 14 by the governing body, each local unit shall submit its water . 15 management plan to the watershed management organization for 16 review for consistency with the watershed plan adopted pursuant ,:•:.•:: " 17 to section 103B.231. The organization shall approve or - 18 disapprove the local plan or parts of the plan. The 19 organization shall have 60 days to complete its review_ . . 20 provided, however, that the watershed management organization - 21 shall, as part of its review, take into account the comments 22 submitted to it by the metropolitan council pursuant to 23 subdivision 3a. If the organization fails to complete its 24 review within the prescribed period, the local plan shall be 25 deemed approved unless an extension is agreed to by the local . 26 unit. 27 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 1038.235, is 1 • CHAPTER No. 176 H.F. No. 833 , 1 amended by adding a subdivision to read: • 2 Subd. 3a. [REVIEW BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. ] Concurrently 3 with its submission of its local water management plan to the 4 watershed management organization as provided in subdivision 3, 5 each local unit of government shall submit its water management • 6 plan to the metropolitan council for review and comment by the • 7 council. The council shall have 45 days to review and comment 8 upon the local plan or parts of the plan with respect to 9 consistency with the council's comprehensive development guide •• • 10 for the metropolitan area. The council's 45-day review period 11 shall run concurrently with the 60-day review period by the 12 watershed management organization provided in subdivision 3. 13 The metropolitan council shall submit its comments to the 14 watershed management organization and shall send a cool of its 15 comments to the local government unit. If the metropolitan 16 council fails to complete its review and make comments to the • 17 watershed management organization within the 45-day period, the 18 watershed management organization shall complete its review as 19 provided in subdivision 3. 20 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 103B.235, 21 subdivision 5, is amended to read: 22 Subd. 5. [AMENDMENTS. ] To the extent and in the manner 23 required by the organization, all amendments to local water 24 management plans shall be submitted to the organization for 25 review and approval in accordance with the provisions of 26 stbdivision subdivisions 3 and 3a for the review of plans. 27 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 462.355, is 28 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 29 Subd. la. [PLAN UPDATE BY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES. ] • 30 Each municipality in the metropolitan area, as defined in 31 section 473.121, subdivision 2, shall review and update its 32 comprehensive plan and fiscal devices and official controls as • 33 provided in section 473.864, subdivision 2. 34 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.858, 35 subdivision 1, is amended to read: 36 Subdivision 1. Within three years following the receipt of 2 • CHAPTER No. 176 H.F. No. 833 1 the metropolitan system statement, every local governmental unit 2 shall have prepared a comprehensive plan in accordance with • 3 sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 • 4 and the applicable planning statute and shall have submitted the • 5 plan to the metropolitan council for review pursuant to section 6 473.175. The provisions of sections 462.355, subdivision 4, • 7 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 shall supersede the provisions • 8 of the applicable planning statute wherever a conflict may 9 exist. If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with 10 the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance zespe:aedes-the 11 pier- shall be brought into conformance with the plan by local 12 government units in conjunction with the review and, if 13 necessary, amendment of its comprehensive plan required under 14 section 473.864, subdivision 2. After August 1, 1995, a local 15 government unit shall not adopt any fiscal device or official 16 control which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan, 17 including any amendments to the plan, or which permits activity 18 in conflict with metropolitan system plans, as defined by 19 section 473.852, subdivision 8. The comprehensive plan shall 20 provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption 21 of official controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged 22 development and redevelopment consistent with the comprehensive • 23 plan. For purposes of this section, a fiscal device or official • 24 control shall not be considered to be in conflict with a local 25 government unit's comprehensive plan or to permit an activity in 26 conflict with metropolitan system clans if such fiscal device or 27 official control is adopted to ensure the planned, orderly, and 28 staged development of urbanization or redevelopment areas 29 designated in the comprehensive plan pursuant to section 30 473.859, subdivision 5. • 31 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.859, 32 subdivision 1, is amended to read: 33 Subdivision 1. [CONTENTS. ] The comprehensive plan shall 34 contain objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide 35 public and private land use, development, redevelopment and • 36 preservation for all lands and waters within the jurisdiction of 3 CHAPTER No. 176 H.F. No. 833 1 the local governmental unit through 1990 and may extend through • 2 any year thereafter which is evenly divisible by five. Each 3 plan shall specify expected industrial and commercial 4 development, planned population distribution, and local public • 5 facility capacities upon which the plan is based. Each plan 6 shall contain a discussion of the use of the public facilities • 7 specified in the metropolitan system statement and the effect of • • • 8 the plan on adjacent local governmental units and affected 9 school districts. Existing plans and official controls may be 10 used in whole or in part following modification, as necessary, 11 to satisfy the requirements of sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 12 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. Each plan may contain an • 13 intergovernmental coordination element that describes how its 14 planned land uses and urban services affect other communities, 15 adjacent local government units, the region, and the state, and 16 that includes guidelines for joint planning and decision making 17 with other communities, school districts, and other 18 jurisdictions for siting public schools, building public 19 facilities, and sharing public services. • • 20 Each plan may contain an economic development element that 21 identifies types of mixed use development, expansion facilities 22 for businesses, and methods for developing a balanced and stable 23 economic base. • 24 The comprehensive plan may contain any additional matter 25 which may be included in a comprehensive plan of the local 26 governmental unit pursuant to the applicable planning statute. 27 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.859, 28 subdivision 2, is amended to read: 29 Subd. 2. [LAND USE PLAN. ] A land use plan shall include 30 the water management plan required by section 1033.235, and 31 shall designate the existing and proposed location, intensity 32 and extent of use of land and water, including lakes, wetlands, 33 rivers, streams, natural drainage courses, and adjoining land 34 areas that affect water natural resources, for agricultural, 35 residential, commercial, industrial and other public and private 36 purposes, or any combination of such purposes. A land use plan • 4 CHAPTER No. 176 • H.F. No. 833 1 shall contain a protection element, as appropriate, for historic 2 sites, the matters listed in the water management plan required 3 by section 103B.235, and the matters listed in section 473.204, 4 and an element for protection and development of access to 5 direct sunlight for solar energy systems. A land use plan shall 6 also include a housing element containing standards, plans and 7 programs for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet 8 existing and projected local and regional housing needs, 9 including but not limited to the use of official controls and 10 land use planning to promote the availability of land for the 11 development of low and moderate income housing. 12 Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.859, 13 subdivision 5, is amended to read: 14 Subd. 5. (URBANIZATION AND REDEVELOPMENT AREAS. ) The 15 comprehensive plans may designate, when appropriate, five year 16 urbanization areas and shall specify in the capital improvement 17 program the timing and sequence of major local public facilities • 18 and in the implementation program official controls which will 19 ensure that urbanization occurs only in urbanization areas and • 20 in accordance with the plan. 21 The comprehensive plans may designate, when appropriate, • 22 redevelopment areas and may, as appropriate, specify in the 23 capital improvement program the timing and secuence of local 24 public facilities and in the implementation program the fiscal 25 devices or official controls that will ensure that redevelopment 26 occurs in accordance with the plan. 27 Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.864, • • 28 subdivision 2, is amended to read: 29 Subd. 2. By December 31, 1998, and at least once every ten 30 years thereafter, each local governmental unit shall review and, 31 if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal 32 devices and official controls. Such review and, if necessary, 33 amendment shall ensure that, as provided in section 473.865, the 34 fiscal devices and official controls of each local government 35 unit are not in conflict with its comprehensive plan. Upon • 36 completion of review and, if necessary, amendment of its 5 CHAPTER No. 176 H.F. No. 833 1 comprehensive plan, fiscal devices, and official controls as 2 required by this section, each local government unit shall 3 either: • • - 4 (a) submit to the metropolitan council the entire current 5 comprehensive plan together with written certification by the 6 governing body of the local government unit that it has complied 7 with this section and that no amendments to its plan or fiscal 8 devices or official controls are necessary; or 9 (b) (1) submit the entire updated comprehensive plan and • 10 amendment or amendments to its comprehensive plan necessitated • 11 by its review to the metropolitan council for review; and 12 (2) submit the amendment or amendments to its fiscal 13 devices or official controls necessitated by its review to the • 14 metropolitan council for information purposes as provided by 15 section 473.865. 16 Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, local 17 governments shall consider, in preparing their updated 18 comprehensive plans, amendments to metropolitan system plans in 19 effect on December 31,' 1996. For metropolitan system plans, or 20 amendments thereto, adopted after December 31, 1996, local 21 governments shall review their comprehensive plans to determine 22 if an amendment is necessary to conform to the metropolitan 23 system plans. If an amendment is necessary, the local 24 government shall prepare the amendment and submit it to the 25 council for review by September 30, 1999, or nine months after 26 the council transmits the metropolitan system plan amendment to 27 the local government, whichever is later. 28 The periodic review required in this subdivision shall be • 29 in addition to the review required by section 473.856. 30 The metropolitan council may grant extensions to local • 31 government units in order to allow local government units to 32 complete the review and, if necessary, amendment reouired by • 33 this subdivision. Such extensions, if granted by the • 34 metropolitan council, must include a timetable and plan for 35 completion of the review and amendment. 36 Amendments to comprehensive plans of local governmental 6 CHAPTER No. 176 • H.F. No. 833 1 units and to capital improvement programs of school districts 2 shall be prepared, submitted, and adopted in conformance with • 3 guidelines adopted by the metropolitan council pursuant to • 4 section 473.854. 5 Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.867, is 6 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 7 Subd. 6. [ASSISTANCE FOR PLAN UPDATES. ) The council shall • 8 sive priority for the use of loan and grant funds available 9 under this section to local governmental units for review and 10 amendment of local comprehensive plans and fiscal devices and 11 official controls, as required by section 473.864, subdivision • 12 2. The council shall consult with affected local government 13 units to evaluate the need for technical and financial 14 assistance. 15 Sec. 11. (REPORT TO LEGISLATURE. ) 16 The council shall report to the legislature by January 15, 17 1996, on the results of its consultation with affected local 18 governmental units on the need for technical and financial 19 assistance as recuired under Minnesota Statutes, section 20 473.867, subdivision 6. 21 Sec. 12. (APPLICATION. ) 22 This act applies in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, • 23 Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. • • • 7 CHAPTER No. 176 H.F. No. 833 This hill was passed in conformity to the rules of each house and the joint rules of the two houses as required by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. if 1 - awl Ilk • "I• 11 ' * Irvin . Ander o Allan ". Spear Speaker of the House of Representatives. President o the Senate. Passed the House of Representatives on May 11, 1995. ,— /-1.4-2re2<cidedA014 ward A. Burdick Chief Clerk,House of Representatives. Passed the Senate on May 8, 1995. �r S7 1r l/ Patrick E. Flahaven Secretory of the Senate. This bill is properly enrolledenandndwas presented to the Governor on sl, ► i5 1995. . it 9C1 . (11111 3 Harry M. Walsh " 'h Revisor of Statures. Approved on MO3.%. \'t , 1995,at y c Q . M. Arne H. Carlson ,. ,--,. Governor. Filed on 1-1x47 17— , 1995. L4/271 / / ' Joan Anderson Growe Secretary of Store. 8 JUNE 1995 ZON/NelliVeWS AMERICAN I' •, PLANNING ASSOCIATION A. Local Planning Issues in end of last year.That,in turn,has expanded the number of cellular transmission sites to 17,920 last December from just Siting Cellular Towers 384 a decade earlier. In response to both the increasing demand for mobile By Michelle Gregory communication options and a very aggressive lobbying effort by the industry,the FCC opened another portion of the airwaves for In coming months,communities may lose the right to regulate the industry use.On March 14, the agency completed the biggest siting of cellular telephone towers,just as that industry is emerging auction in U.S. history,lasting three months and costing as a major player in the larger telecommunications industry.The telecommunications carriers$7 billion.The airwave rights were Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) filed a divided geographically into 99 licenses that went to commercial petition with the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) mobile radio service(CMRS)carriers nationwide.The licenses last December that asks for federal preemption of local zoning were awarded to the highest bidders-among a combination of powers over cellular transmission facilities.This issue of Zoning older and newly formed companies.The FCC will auction more News aims to acquaint local planners with the impacts,real and licenses later this year CO accommodate private mobile radio perceived,of cellular towers.Local siting regulations,staff reports, service(PMRS) carriers,which serve freight transporters,public and telecommunications plans from 15 jurisdictions were reviewed safety entities,citizens band radio,and ham operators.The newly to provide a summary of siting considerations. licensed carriers are already acquiring sites for towers and their Planners should understand that some jurisdictions regulate accompanying equipment buildings.Where a market exists for cellular towers specifically,while others have regulations that cellular communications,local government must be prepared to apply to"communication towers"generally.Wherever possible, __._— deal with siting issues. we have tried to cull examples of regulatory techniques specific eCamot� ed cellular The industry's growth to cellular technology.These varying degrees of specificity also „ g has outpaced many local tower:a solution to abilityto exist in the regulations of many state communications and �► governments' aesthetic zoning issues understand the impacts of public utilities agencies.Planners should learn their state's P bureaucratic structure and its definition of communication ; -- - - cellular towers and, towers before drafting local regulations. r •aAv therefore,to properly site Representatives of the cellular industry were also consulted • .y. and regulate them.The is further for this article.In contrast to the tone of the CTIA petition, IVE'r•'' ' ••e,o, -,,• Va. • jb situation many expressed an eagerness to work with APA and local V&A �al ti; complicated when residents, communities to educate planners and citizens toward the 4'f' ._ +1!^ ea.L- • ' expressing alarm over the development of safe,fair,and informed regulations..:.;; •:.i. r "t* aesthetic and reported : ,;a;`1`--. _ health-related effects of e�'` s. Cellular History ,ii..,� cellular towers,prompt In 1974,the FCC expanded the radio spectrum available to the • hasty, reactionary public in order to make room for budding cellular telecommu- 4 regulation.To avoid writing nications technology.Through the mid-1980s,the industry bad law,some communities worked to develop higher-quality transmission devices. Cellular have instituted siting technology was first marketed to consumers in the form of themoratoriums until they have car phone.It presented local governments with the phenomena _ ample opportunity to of cellular telephone antennas and the towers on which they are • research and formulate mounted—towers that had to be erected somewhere in the regulations that are fair to community.Unlike ground-wired telecommunications,cellular ' both the community and technology made it possible for a caller to travel while commu- the industry. nicating with someone at a conventional telephone or with Both trends have put another mobile user. Cellular technology,explained in greater g carriers on the offensive. detail below,operates on a fixed number of channels that share I Thwarted by local"learning the same radio waves.As a mobile user passes through"cells" curves"and"regulatory that parcel the landscape into a transmitting grid,the caller's barriers"in their efforts to break into new markets,they have connection is"patched"from one cell antenna to the next. sought powerful remedies.The CTIA petition argues that the Twenty years later,personal communication services(PCS) supremacy clause(section 332)of the 1934 Federal have expanded to include hand-held portable phones and Communications Act authorizes preemption of state and local paging systems,and they are everywhere.A survey in the regulation of cellular tower siting.APA,in a letter to the FCC, January 1993 issue of Consumer Reports reported that cellular expressed opposition to such preemption. In March,executive technology added an average of 7,300 uftrl pada itt L992, director Michael Barker told the FCC that local communities bringing the U.S. total to about 10 million.Tjiase 'nuttibers and planners are in the best position to balance their concerns have continued to grow, reaching more than 24 millio by the with the needs of the cellular industry.The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and and lattice,or self-support towers,which have three or four Administrators,the U.S.Conference of Mayors,the National sides of open-framed steel supports.Some cellular antennas can League of Cities,and the National Association of Counties have occupy space on other types of communication towers when the filed similar objections. engineering is feasible.This is known as using a donor site to troubleshoot a small gap or dead spot within the grid.A micro- Nature of the Technology cell or repeater facility is installed on a preexisting tower to Low-power mobile radio communication, also known as cellular ensure that transmissions within that area are clear.Antennas communication, is accomplished by linking a wireless network can also be placed on rooftops and other building features if the of radio wave transmitting devices(portable phones,pagers,or building's height can accommodate their service area.In car phones) CO the conventional ground-wired communications addition,antennas have been mounted on silos,water tanks, system(telephone lines) through a series of short-range, windmills,and smokestacks.As cellular use proliferates and the contiguous cells that are part of an evolving cell grid. technology improves,the trend toward shorter towers and less For example,a portable phone transmits a signal to the obtrusive mounting fixtures is likely to prevail. r. nearest cellular antenna.The call is relayed from the antenna to Antennas are of three types:omnidirectional, directional,and the nearest land-based telephone line or microwave dish,and microwave.Omnidirectional antennas,also called whip then to a central switching computer.From there,the call is antennas,serve a 360-degree area. Directional antennas,also sent to its destination,either a land-based telephone via the known as panel antennas or rectangular antennas,are used to land-based line or another mobile communication device via the achieve transmission or reception in a specific direction. closest cellular antenna. Microwave antennas are used to link different types of Calls can originate or be received from a wireless source telecommunications facilities,such as when a portable phone because antennas share a fixed number of frequencies across the user calls a conventional telephone number. cellular grid. In other words,while a caller may dial her destina- T. tion number from within the radius of one cell antenna,she may Screening, Landscaping, and Setbacks travel into the radius of another during the call.The call proceeds The most common objection to cellular towers and antennas is uninterrupted as the transmission is"patched"from one antenna their aesthetic impact. Residents,many of whom use the to the next.While the caller is moving,the cellular antennas are technology,do not want to see the towers cluttering their automatically locating an unoccupied frequency on the next landscape or degrading property values. Planners and industry antenna, thus enabling continued transmission. professionals have gone to great lengths to screen,conceal,and When a caller cannot successfully place or maintain a call, set back towers and their associated buildings.All the either he is out of range or the nearest antenna is at full ordinances reviewed contain some sort of requirement for capacity.Cellular tower technology differs from satellite, maintaining existing vegetation or installing landscaping for the microwave,or land-based communications in that it is based on purpose of screening the base of the tower and the storage a network of short-range cell sites with a fixed capacity. If the building.Towers can also be camouflaged to blend with the cells are not linked by cellular towers,microwave dishes,or surrounding environment through the use of color,materials, ground-wired towers,transmission will fail.Similarly,if a cell is and design. For instance,Jefferson Parish,Louisiana,requires crowded by too many users, it must be"split"into two cells, that all cellular towers be disguised as trees: • each having its own radius; thus,only the cellular antennas of I.The entire facility must be aesthetically and architecturally separate carriers can share space on the same tower. It is compatible with its environment.The use of residentially physically impossible for a single carrier to deliver service compatible materials such as wood,brick,or stucco is • successfully if its antennas are not dispersed. required for associated support buildings,which shall be Most local regulations require that all technically available designed to architecturally match the exterior of residential space on existing towers within the jurisdiction be used before structures within the neighborhood.In no case will metal new towers are erected. In other words,cellular carriers must exteriors be allowed for accessory buildings. lease space to other carriers on their towers; the cellular industry 2.The tower itself must be of such design and treated with an considers this leasing arrangement to be a less-than-ideal architectural material so that it is camouflaged to resemble a -, solution.As the demand for cellular telecommunications woody tree with a single trunk and branches on its upper part. increases,cells in a given area must be subdivided,or additional carriers must be permitted to operate there.The end result is the Setback distances can be guided by aesthetic and safety need for more towers. concerns.Most are expressed as a percentage of the tower = height. In the Pensacola, Florida,ordinance,the setback serves a Towers and Antennas primarily aesthetic purpose: Towers may need to range in height from 50 to 200 feet so that [T]he distance between the base of the communications towers k antennas can overcome the challenges posed to communications and any residential zoning district or any historical or by local topography.The required height is usually proportional to architecturally significant building must equal 20 percent of the a combination of the distance antennas can cover and the demand tower height. - within their radius. Higher towers generally cover a larger geographic area,but have a lower service demand,and are known Safety-oriented setbacks establish a clear zone for falling .," as coverage sites. Shorter towers,known as capacity sites,cover tower debris or the worst-case scenario,the tower's collapse. smaller areas with a more concentrated demand.Tower height can Falling zones for towers vary with their design.At most,they also vary according to engineering requirements for a specific site will collapse to a distance equal to their full height,but many or the technical capabilities of the antennas being mounted. are designed to collapse first toward their base.The Oldham .- In addition to dedicated, free-standing cellular towers County, Kentucky,setback provisions are designed with falling r' (monopoles), there are guyed towers(anchored with guy wires) zones in mind: 4,- :,.• 2 • Towers 100 feet or more in height shall be located on the lot so watts, the typical cell site emits 100 watts of power or less, that the distance from the base of the tower to any adjoining sometimes as little as 10 in urban-areas. property line or supporting structure of another tower is a It should be noted that some ordinances,like Multnomah minimum of 100 percent of the proposed tower height.No County's,include provisions that automatically apply more variance shall be granted from this minimum setback stringent standards if those are ever issued by the federal requirement.Towers less than 100 feet in height that cannot government. For more information about the relationship of satisfy this 100 percent setback requirement may be approved by the board,provided that the applicant present a certification cellular communications to EMFs,planners may consult the from a registered engineer that the tower will withstand winds Electromagnetic Energy Association, 1255 23rd St.,NW, of 100 miles per hour. Washington,DC 20037;202-452-1070.EEA is a nonprofit group representing corporations and individuals associated with Some communities also determine setbacks by what are industries that use non-ionizing EMFs. considered acceptable levels of electromagnetic radiation. Oldham County;Jefferson County,Colorado;Multnomah For More Information County,Oregon;and King County,Washington,all have I specific provisions related to the electromagnetic fields(EMFs) on EMFs • • • generated by the new tower.The Jefferson County ordinance requires a complete non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation ( r (NIER) analysis with every tower application. o assistlocal governments in developing I regtatiins for siting cellular towers,the American Electromagnetic Fields atnil Standards Institute has published the The health risks associated with EMFs have been the second Land ds of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics greatest source of community opposition to the siting of cellular Engineers in IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic phone towers for reasons related to both personal safety and the _fields,3KHz to 300 GHz, 1992(ANSI/IEEE C.95.1-1992 perceived impact on property values. EMFs are divided into two IRedeignation as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-19911).Another basic categories. Ionizing radiation includes X-rays and gamma useful ANSI document is Recommended Practice for the rays.Non-ionizing radiation,the category to which cellular Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic communication devices, radio and TV broadcasting antennas, Fields-RF and Microwave(ANSI/IEEE C95.3-1992). and satellite stations belong, is considered less powerful because Order from American National Standards Institute, 11 it does not strip the electrons from atoms and molecules to form - - W.42nd St:,New York,NY 10036;212-642-4900.Also highly reactive particles known as ions. Instead, it harnesses see the IEEE position statement,"Human Exposure to energy gen-erated from the vibration of molecules to convey Radiofrequency Fields for Portable and Mobile Tele information or, in the case of microwave ovens or electric phones and Other Communications Devices, 1992." Though it predates the advent of cellular communi- blankets,to create heat. cations,a good source for general information on the Since 1979,scientists have conducted more than 1,000 regulation of radio and television towers is PAS Report studies,some of which have linked non-ionizing #384,Regulating Radio and TV Towers,by Beverly electromagnetic field sources to higher incidences of cancer Bookin and Larry Epstein(Chicago:American Planning among children living in close proximity to an EMF source. Association, 1984).For more information on EMFs in However,these studies,often cited in opposition to the siting of leneral,consult PM Report#435,Electromagnetic power lines and communication antennas, have also been foundds and Land-Use Controls,by David Bergman,Louis inconclusive because theywere unable to isolate their findings ',h.-,t; an. Matthevy Connelly(Chicago;(,merica to a single EMF source.This is because most homes are g r`'•ng .ovation,9891). arG ilable t ough'"� °-'' Pl. sers Boolcs 22$.Mi*In A�je., uite --- -. equipped with a variety of modern appliances that generate .<+t=_C ''.;o 60603;312 3' 9S ) varying EMF levels. No scientific study has shown a specific t correlation between cancer and the NIER levels generated by a _ ., cellular communication facility or device. Likewise,no scientific E , 4�i'Y " research has proven them to be completely safe. > The cellular radio system operates in the 800-900 megahertz (MHz) ultra-high frequency band,formerly used for UHF Other Standard Provisions television broadcasting.Currently there are no general federal Colocation.In order to minimize tower proliferation,most guidelines for what is considered acceptable public exposure to communities require applicants to exhaust all possible avenues radio-frequency-emitted radiation.The U.S. Environmental for sharing space on existing towers, usually in a section of the Protection Agency is developing such standards,but,in the ordinance on colocation or shared use.Factors that determine meantime, many communities are relying on the American feasibility include available space on existing towers,the tower National Standards Institute for professionally acceptable radio owner's ability to lease space,the tower's structural capacity, frequency emissions standards for all types of communication radio frequency interference,geographic service area towers(see box on page 3). Many of the ordinances we reviewed requirements, mechanical or electrical incompatibilities,the incorporate the ANSI standards into their review process and comparative costs of colocation and new construction,and any approval requirements.Though too detailed w list here,they FCC limitations on tower sharing. present acceptable levels of NIER exposures from towers Many ordinances name the regional or state communications operating at various frequencies. division responsible for tracking the availability of suitable Of all transmitting facilities,cellular towers typically operate sharing space on towers. Local regulations should be developed at the lowest power levels.While a television tower emits up to in tandem with such agencies. In Palm Beach County, Florida, 5 million watts,and commercial radio stations up to 100,000 tower applicants must send a certified mail announcement to all 3 other tower users in the area,stating their siting needs and/or Where the site abuts or has access to a collector and local street, sharing capabilities in an effort to encourage tower sharing. access for maintenance vehicles shall be exclusively by means of Applicants cannot be denied or deny space on a tower unless the collector street. mechanical,structural,or regulatory factors prevent them from Parking requirements generally do not apply to cellular sharing. In other words,competing carriers cannot lock each towers. For those communities that require parking,the other out of territory.The ordinances for Jefferson County, provision applies to an overall"communication tower facility" Oldham County,Multnomah County,and Palm Beach County ordinance in which spaces are required only when the offer detailed examples of sharing provisions and leasing terms. equipment building is staffed. Structural Integrity and Inspection.Most ordinances require Lighting and Security.Lighting for communication towers is that any new or modified towers be certified by an engineer accord- required when the tower is tall enough to concern the Federal ing to structural standards for antennas offered by either the Elec- Aviation Administration(FAA).Jefferson Parish acknowledges ironic Industries Association or the Telecommunication Industry FAA regulations and the privacy of neighboring property owners: Association.Inspection schedules seem to vary widely according to When lighting is required and is permitted by the Federal the type of tower,as in this provision from Jupiter,Florida: Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority,it shall be oriented inward so as not to project onto surrounding Inspections—The town council may require periodic inspections of communication towers to ensure structural integrity.Such residential property. inspections may be required as follows:a)monopole towers—at Others,in more urban areas,may require full review and least once every 10 years;b)self-support towers—at least once certification of the tower application by their local airport every five years;c)guyed towers—at least once every three years. authority.This provision is from Palm Beach County: Inspections shall be conducted by an engineer licensed by the state of Florida.The results of such inspections shall be provided Prior to the site plan certification,the applicant shall provide to the director of community development.Based upon results of documentation that the proposed communication tower has been an inspection,the town council may require repair or removal of reviewed and is not determined to be a hazard by the FAA... a communication tower. (via)the Palm Beach County Department of Airports....The PBCDOA shall review the communication tower application to Equipment Buildings and Lot Sizes.Cellular towers are often determine if it is a hazard to any FAA flight paths. accompanied by a small,usually unstaffed storage building that houses transmitting equipment. Some ordinances treat them as Some ordinances also require fencing or signage.Jupiter accessory uses or structures,while others specifically state that requires a six-foot safety fence with a locked gate. If high voltage they are not. Most require some setback from adjoining is necessary,signs must be posted every 20 feet,saying, property lines; the required setback is usually proportional to "Danger—High Voltage."The operator must also post"No the area's density.Oldham County seeks to discourage more Trespassing"signs. intense use of the site: Abandonment. Most ordinances also restrict the time in [T]hese facilities may not include offices,long-term vehicle which an unused tower may stand to between six and 18 storage,other outdoor storage,or broadcast studios,except for months,with some requiring the tower applicant to cover the emergency purposes,or other uses that are not needed to send demolition costs. or receive transmissions. Application Requirements. Perhaps the most telling section of any ordinance is its application requirements.Although some Lot sizes for cellular sites are usually the minimum for the communities do not list these separately,doing so lets the • district in which they will be built. applicant know exactly what must be provided and indicates Maintenance and Parking.A few ordinances include how much the community knows about the impacts of cellular standards for facility maintenance and parking.The phone tower siting.These requirements should be clearly stated Multnomah County ordinance has the most extensive treatment and not impossible to fulfill.Jefferson County offers an of maintenance impacts: excellent explanation of what it requires from any tower Equipment at a transmission facility shall be automated to the applicant,and its provisions demonstrate serious research by the greatest extent possible to reduce traffic and congestion.The planning department and other local agencies. Review of this applicant shall describe anticipated maintenance needs, ordinance and its accompanying"Low Power Mobile Radio including frequency of service,personnel needs,equipment Communications Land Use Plan Addendum"is recommended • needs,and traffic,noise,or safety impacts of such maintenance. for anyone dealing with cellular siting issues. Meeting the Challenge Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Any cellular carrier seeking to locate in a community is prepared Subscriptions arc available for S45(U.S.)and S54(foreign). to deal with siting controversies. Some corporations have even Michael B.Barker,Executive Director;Frank S.So,Deputy Executive Director; William R.Klein,Director of Research. gone so far as to pay for retaining a third-party consultant to Zoning News is produced at APA.Jim Schwab,Editor;Michael Barrette,Dan Biver,Fay review anything they have helped draft.These firms target sites Dolnick,Michelle Gregory,Sanjay Jeer,Beth McGuire,Marya Morris,Chris Smith, for acquisition based on their topographic efficiency,their Reporters;Cynthia Chcski,Assistant Editor;Lisa Barton,Design and Production. accessibility by road,the availability of electric power and land- Copyright©1995 by American Planning Association,1313 E.60th St.,Chicago,IL based telephone lines, their leasability,preexisting vegetation and 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. screening potential,existing zoning,compatibility with adjacent All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any land uses,and their ability to transmit to the largest area. form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording, If local governments show that they can meet most of these or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing needs while preserving their community's aesthetic integrity, from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber health,and safety,they should be able to avert federal and 10%postconsumer waste. ® preemption of their local rights and responsibilities. 4