The URL can be used to link to this page

02-15-95 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIO1.- WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1995, 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Rezoning 20.11 acres of property zoned RR,Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 20.11 acres into 20 single family lots, a variance to allow a 50' street and 20' front yard setback and a wetland alteration permit located on the south side of Lake Lucy Road just west of Willowridge subdivision, Ted Coey property, Mason Homes, Point Lake Lucy. 2. KKCM Radio for a site plan review and variance request for the construction of a 12' x 20' transmitter building. The new building is proposed to be located 5' from the north and west property lines. The ordinance requires a 50' front yard and 10' side yard setback. The site is located at 1451 Flying Cloud Drive and zoned A2, Agriculture Estate. 3. Preliminary plat the elementary school and recreation/park complex located at the southeast corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Bluff Creek Addition, Chaska School District and City of Chanhassen. 4. Preliminary plat to subdivide 37 acres of property into 49 single family lots and 5 outlots located on property zoned RSF,Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway,The Oaks at Minnewashta, Harstad Companies. 5. Zoning ordinance amendment to the landscaping section of Chapter 20 of the City Code to create buffer yard requirements. 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. C I TY O F PC DATE: 2/15/95 1 r CIIAAE N CC DATE: 3/13/95 CASE #: 94-13 SUB 94-6 REZ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning of 18.15 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family; 2) Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 18.15 I.., Acres into 20 single family lots, Point Lake Lucy; 3) Wetland Alteration Z Permit to Fill and Mitigate an Ag/Urban Wetland; and 4) a Variance to Q Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setbacks and a 50 Foot Wide Right-Of-Way LOCATION: South of Lake Lucy Road and West of WillowRidge Subdivision APPLICANT: Robert H. Mason, Inc. Ted Coey a. 14201 Excelsior Boulevard 1381 Lake Lucy Road Q Minnetonka, MN 55345 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District ACREAGE: 18.15 acres DENSITY: 1.1 Units per Acre-Gross 1.8 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Shadow Ridge Subdivision S - Lake Lucy Q E - PUD-R, Willow Ridge Subdivision 4 W - RR, Rural Residential District WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a single family residence and two detached L. accessory buildings. The majority of the site is wooded. It contains five wetlands. The (/) topography varies significantly throughout the site. A ridge bisects the site from the north to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density O_ UO O� J OM O O O OmD cA o ,_ O \ I IISi • • • 5 I I E N I IHI I • MAS I , . ima• • c'; ` ! �=1.17M.011%1 SIE - I LAKE NW 1 ! Zi* •s a 4á' >r t .�F,qRMSigillirro"Vrb.'-a,„ Oulle © 14:48_ IM � P,4RK . i J �' ma.tam Alum . it;4,:: •• kik ;c f ke PARK I' liar eiIg 0. i�j��, ,�• l� ��i` g c a " I irf r gI tafal EW 111 •PfIlIIIPL gifiam:::::::-TNIti it IRVAI 'J �" - :;, ..v ttsv-ilia marnamiletN t. -• .P '.% ‘Mif: -r--- � - �rarel ? b I (( _ 4!tkili. .1111:411, 1 ,L.A.,,iti.,A •illitmormigui FI .41: tviVifir k.\-*: Irr:Tv -.* —'\___.y 7 'p I .t rv ,4.E•g r111 ` , . .-,-._'.1• , vis0mi1I1aN1 V /��_i _ '= „jeo0, amu' • . ,; ,c./ Vl .III .__. :_� N' r*-,.• ;' LAKE LUCY ® a & �l �- Ii ''=% 4 - � I '4, '° -F . 4raktd -- iii at";•.-1.tdo vspg- re ria II--■ n ■ eau luiflU t �N� ,44.49';':::4 ,___ ,-N. REENW z,ii maludifieZitl• •• V 44; I:��; -ARK ,j��elil��ee►� �� i�� eat- �-� • - ,Atitillos �s��g EMeiMEADOW �Z � � ■, LAKE ANN ',1 GREEN PARK I ,�1. �iPA • - al :►�, ;-> Si E.c.." ea 14.0 4.-cil me OAT/ c gt%.�� OP _ I 1ANN ave' F0A° 1‘11.—rr. / Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 2 This application first appeared before the Planning Commission on January 18, 1995. At that time, staff recommended action on the application be tabled until changes have been made to the grading plan. Staff also felt that the applicant should receive feedback from the Planning Commission and neighbors to incorporate into the revised plan. The main issue the Planning Commission had centered on grading of the site. Some of the neighbors immediately to the east of the subject site requested the elimination of Lot 12. This parcel is a buildable lot and exceeds all the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. Consequently, staff cannot justify recommending elimination the lot. There have been numerous changes made to the plan. These revisions took into consideration changes requested by the Planning Commission, neighboring property owners, and staff. The applicant and his engineer met with staff several times over the past two weeks and the applicant has cooperated and made all requested revisions. A neighborhood meeting will take place on February 8, 1995 between the neighbors and the developer as requested by the Planning Commission and the neighbors to address any additional questions or concerns they might have. Due to the extent of the revisions done to the plans, staff is submitting a revised report. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 18.15 acres into 20 single family lots. The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential and the proposal requests rezoning to RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 35,924 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.1 units per acre. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road, north of Lake Lucy, and west of WillowRidge Subdivision. Access to the subdivision will be provided via an extension of a cul-de-sac (south of Lake Lucy Road) to service all of the proposed lots. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of a 90 foot width at the setback line. The applicant must revise the plans to meet the required frontage. At the January 18, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended a reduced front yard setback and a reduced width on the right-of-way to preserve wetlands, grades/slopes, and mature trees. This recommendation would apply to parcels adjacent to wetlands and steep grades only. The Planning Commission was supportive of this recommendation which the applicant has incorporated into the plans. The compliance table specifies the parcels that are recommended for the reduced front yard setback. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees throughout the site. Some of the tree canopy coverage will be lost due to grading of the site, however, the plans indicate that the tree removal will not exceed that which is permitted by ordinance. Through the revision of Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 3 the plans, the applicant was able to preserve an additional number of trees. Staff will be recommending some lots be custom graded in order to preserve additional trees. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed and consistent with the comprehensive plan and Zoning Ordinance. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the north is zoned Residential Single Family, to the east is zoned Planned Unit Development Residential, and to the west is zoned Rural Residential and is guided for Residential Low Density. 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 1.1 units per acre and 1.8 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. This area is within 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 an 18.15 acre site into 20 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.1 units per acre gross, and 1.8 units per acre net after removing the roads and wetlands. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 35,961 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 90 foot width at the setback line for lots located on a curve. The applicant must revise the plans to meet the required frontage. At the January 18, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended reduced front yard setbacks on some parcels and reduced right-of-way width to reduce the impact on wetlands and trees, and minimize grading. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant revise the plans accordingly. The compliance table will specify the recommended setback on each parcel. Lots 11 and 12 are served via a private driveway. The Zoning Ordinance states that the side yard setback for lots served by private driveways and/or flag lots is twenty (20) feet. In the past, staff has questioned the intent of the twenty (20) foot side yard setback on flag lots. When this section of the ordinance was adopted, the intent was to provide a means of creating a lot which did not directly front on a public street, while Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 4 at the same time providing a setback which would provide a sufficient distance between homes to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood. However, this setback requirement does not appear to be accomplishing its original intent. A lesser side yard setback would allow greater flexibility when locating a home on a flag lot. Our ordinance states that whenever possible homes should be located to face the existing street. When dealing with flag lots this is not always possible. Staff is considering proposing an ordinance revision which would reduce the twenty (20) foot side yard setback to a ten (10) foot setback. This would be consistent with the setback for all lots in RSF zoned districts, as well as provide the property owner with more flexibility to locate a home that blends with a preexisting neighborhood. Throughout our meetings with the applicant, we explained our concern over the height of the retaining walls on Lots 4 and 5. The applicant agreed to terrace the retaining wall as well as provide a fence along the edge of the retaining wall. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Additional minor revisions are required. WETLANDS There are 5 wetlands delineated on-site and they are as follows: Wetland 1 is a 1.16 acre shallow to deep fresh marsh located on Lots 13 through 18 along the east central portion of the property. The plan states that this wetland is an ag/urban wetland, however, the City's wetland inventory classifies this as a natural wetland, and therefore, the buffer strip width will have to be increased as discussed below under buffer strips. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the development. Wetland 2 is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR jurisdiction. This wetland is approximately 3.9 acres. The proposed plan shows the sanitary sewer going through a part of this wetland. The applicant must show impacted area so staff can identify the State Wetland Conservation Act's coverage on mitigation or exemption. If the fill area is less than 0.5 acres, the applicant may be exempt from mitigation. Wetland 3 is located on Lots 7 and 8 in the southwest corner of the property just north of wetland 2. Approximately 0.35 acres is on the property. This is classified as a natural wetland and is characterized as a deep fresh marsh. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the development. Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 5 Wetland 4 is a fresh meadow wetland located on Lots 4 and 5 along the west central portion of the property. Approximately 0.06 of the 0.28 acre wetland lies on-site. This wetland is classified as a natural wetland. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the development. Wetland 5 is a 0.03 acre seasonally to temporarily flooded ag/urban basin located on Lot 12 in the southeastern portion of the property between wetlands 1 and 2. This wetland will be filled as a result of the development. Mitigation for this wetland will be at a ratio of 2:1 and located on Lots 11 and 12 on the eastern side and the other part of the mitigation will be an extension of Wetland 3 on the southeastern side. The mitigation area is shown on the grading and drainage plan. The mitigation area will most likely be representative of a shallow fresh marsh with 0 to 6 inches of standing water. Buffer Strip The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. 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 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 Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 6 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. Since the water quality basin for this site is already in place these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. The proposed SWMP quality charge of $800/acre for single-family residential developments will be waived since the applicant is proposing to provide 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 will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 18.15 acres; however, 5.55 acres of wetland is not impacted and 0.49 acres is Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 12.11 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $23,978. DRAINAGE The site drains generally from north to south where the runoff eventually discharges into Lake Lucy along the southern boundary of the proposed development. The western third of the site drains into wetlands 3 and 4 and eventually into Lake Lucy. The northeastern portion of the property drains into Wetland 1 and follows a drainage swale through a small wetland (Wetland 5) and on into the wetland that borders Lake Lucy. Lot 12 lies within this existing natural drainage pattern. The stormwater quality pond was relocated from Lots 9 and 10 into the northern portion of Lot 12. The water quality pond will pretreat runoff from the streets and some lots before discharging into Lake Lucy. The natural drainageway to the west of the house pad on Lot 12 will act as an emergency overflow for the storm pond. The drainage from wetland 1 is being routed around this water quality pond since it does not need to be treated again. A stormwater pipe is being proposed between Lots 11 and 12 to carry the majority of flow from the storm pond and wetland. Staff also recommends that the stormwater quality pond be seeded with a portion of upland and wetland plants as recommended by a landscaper to tie into the natural vegetation. The stormwater quality pond has been designed with 3:1 slopes overall and should be redesigned with 4:1 slopes or provide a 10:1 bench at the normal water level for safety and maintenance purposes. It appears that there is drain tile that daylights on Lot 19 and continues to drain into Wetland 1. All drain tile systems found during construction shall be reported to the City Engineer and shall be re-located, reconnected or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 7 Storm runoff from Lake Lucy Road should be collected at the entrance of the development and conveyed via storm sewer pipe to maintain the drainage pattern and prevent an icy intersection. This can be accomplished by extending a catch basin to the west radius of the proposed street from the existing storm sewer in Lake Lucy Road. GRADING The site contains many trees, five wetlands and a variety of topographic changes, some quite significant. A ridge bisects the parcel from north to south. The existing driveway and proposed street alignment, for the most part, follows this ridge line. Extensive site grading is proposed in order to prepare the site for development. The applicant has incorporated some of staff's design suggestions in an effort to reduce site grading, preservation of trees, and minimizing impact to the wetlands. Site grading will still require 13 feet of cut at the existing house and up to eight feet of fill for the house pads along Lake Lucy (Lots 8 through 12). The revised grading plan has reduced grading limits along Lots 8 through 11 on the average of 50 feet. This is partially due to the relocation of the stormwater quality pond onto Lots 12 and 13. The plans also shift the street alignment slightly to the east adjacent to Lots 1 through 6 and reduced building setbacks from 30 feet to 20 feet on Lots 4, 5, 17, 18, and 19 which also resulted in reducing grading and the need for retaining walls on Lots 4 and 5. The applicant did not incorporate staff's suggestion on reducing the cul-de-sac length and serving the last four lots via private driveway. This is partially due to a resulting 10% driveway grade and the loss of Lot 12. The savings in site grading between the present proposal would not be significant over staff's proposal. Staff believes the grading plan as submitted develops the site in a productive yet sensitive manner. We also believe that Lot 12 for the most part should be custom graded at the time of building permit issuance in an effort to minimize grading and tree loss on the lot. Staff understands the westerly portion of the lot will need some grading for the driveway, utilities, and pond. 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 recommends that 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. UTILITIES Municipal water and sewer service is available to the site. Sanitary sewer service has been extended to the east property line of Lot 12 from the WillowRidge development. The plans propose on extending the sanitary sewer line from the WillowRidge development to service this development. The plans also provide for sanitary sewer extension to the next parcel to the west (Morin). The proposed alignment will result in unnecessary encroachment on the buffer Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 8 areas. The alignment of the sanitary sewer line through Lots 7 through 12, Block 1 should be modified to take the path of least disruption to existing vegetation and wetlands. The exact alignment shall be approved by the City as part of the construction plan and specification review process. Water service is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. Fire hydrant placement has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal. One hydrant should be added between Lots 6 and 7 and at the end of the private driveway unless these homes are constructed with automatic, residential fire sprinkler systems. Also, the hydrant between Lots 4 and 5 should be relocated between Lots 3 and 4. The applicant should be required to relocate and/or add fire hydrants in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with the final platting. Construction drawings shall be developed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In addition, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval of the platting process. STREETS Access to the site is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road is classified on the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Therefore, direct access to all lots should be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Lake Lucy Road. The typical right-of-way for a collector road is 80 feet wide. Lake Lucy Road currently exists today with 33 feet lying south of the centerline. The applicant is dedicating an additional 7 feet of right-of-way to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other subdivisions along Lake Lucy Road which have dedicated the necessary right-of-way. The applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide street right-of-way for the proposed street. The City ordinance requires a 60-foot wide right-of-way for this type of development. Staff is willing to compromise on the right-of-way width in this instance because we feel it is warranted to enable the houses to be built further up the hillside to minimize grading and limit site impacts. At the entrance to the development, an 80-foot wide right-of-way is proposed to accommodate a center median which staff has been convinced to retain; however, the travel lanes adjacent to the median should be reduced to 18- foot wide traffic lanes. The plans currently propose the inbound lane at 18 feet and the outbound lane at 26 feet wide. The "eyebrow" to serve Lots 2 and 3 has been deleted and the street realigned slightly to the east to minimize impacts to the wetlands and reduce grading. Street grades range between 1% and 7% which meets the City ordinance. Staff has reviewed the street grades and believe the plans minimize site grading. The applicant will need to provide cross-access/maintenance agreements for the use of the private driveway for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 9 Staff has recommended a variance in the setbacks on those lots where the road goes between the two wetlands or other instances which reduces grading significantly and/or tree loss. DOCKING ISSUES ON LAKE LUCY The issue of lake access has been considered and the following options are available for residents. According to city ordinance a riparian lot is entitled to one dock according to the following standards: 1. No more than one dock shall be permitted on any lakeshore site. No dock shall exceed six feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater of the following lengths - 50 feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of 4 feet. 2. Intensive removal or alteration of vegetation is not allowed. Furthermore, impacts to wetlands, if any, would have to be mitigated if the fill area is greater than 400 square feet. 3. Land owners can share a dock by placing the dock on the property line. 4. Any type of dock will have to meet City and DNR approval. Staff recommends that a common lot line and shared docks be encouraged to reduce the impacts to the area. Since wetland impacts are an issue, the DNR and the Board of Water and Soil Resources will have to be contacted to discuss the issues of dock structures (i.e. permanent or floating). PARK DEDICATION The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on January 24, 1995, and recommended full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 10 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Wetland&.Buffer Area Width Depth Setback Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 18,522 180' 200.5' 30'/30' Corner lot 207' 10' Lot 2 30,100 81'* 242' 30'/30' 10' Lot 3 27,900 74'* 250' 30'/30' 10' Lot 4 22,320 78'* 201.5' 20'/*** 60' 10' Lot 5 21,000 84'* 206.5' 20'/*** 60' 10' Lot 6 25,690 90' 248' 30'/30' 10' Lot 7 25,580 107' 297' 30'/*** 60' 10' Lot 8 83,850 122' 382.5' 30'/*** 60' 10' Lot 9 47,080 58'* 411' 30'/*** 60' 10' Lot 10 55,180 115' 447.5' 30'/*** 60' 10' Lot 11 68,945 132' 535' 30'/*** 60' 10'** Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 11 Lot 12 66,496 110' 552' 30'/*** 60' 10'** 40' WillowRidge W.L. Lot 13 35,260 78' on curve 246' 20'/30' 60' 99'@ setback 10' Lot 14 31,540 92' 274.5' 30'/*** 60' 10' Lot 15 29,020 112' 355' 30'/*** 60' 10' Lot 16 23,520 112' 391.5 30'/*** 60' 10' Lot 17 26,580 117' 397.5' 20'/*** 60' 10' Lot 18 27,780 114' 354' 20'/*** 60' 10' Lot 19 26,930 95' 276' 20'/30' 60' 10' Lot 20 26,350 84' on curve 212.5' 30'/30' Corner Lot 190' 10' Existing Lake 21,238 Lucy Rd ROW Additional Lake 4,550 Lucy Rd ROW Proposed Rd ROW 45,108 Wetland in Block 1 244,807 * Insufficient lot frontage. The applicant must revise the plans to reflect a minimum width of 90 feet frontage or 90 foot width at the setback line on a curve. ** Side yard and/or front yard variance required. Point Lake Lucy February 15, 1995 Page 12 *** Wetland & Buffer setback supersedes typical setbacks. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Tree Inventory Plan. The site contains significant tree canopy along the eastern and western sides of the parcel. Mature trees within the grading limits are concentrated in Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12. There is also a large number of trees within the proposed right-of way. A total of 12 of those trees ranging from 4 to 10 inches in diameter are scheduled for transplanting elsewhere on the site. Lots 2, 3, 4, and 15 also have 13 trees that will be removed and transplanted elsewhere on site. Grading will affect significant trees on all lots except Lots 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20. There is a special tree, designated as such because of its large diameter, located on Lot 16 very near the grading limits. It is a 42-inch basswood which should be given special consideration when grading. Two other significant trees, oaks over 40 inches in diameter, exist on Lots 12 and 13 within the grading limits. These trees will not be saved due to a stormwater quality pond on Lot 13 nd the proposed house pad on Lot 12. Tree preservation fencing should be incorporated on the final tree preservation plan and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council consideration. The landscaping and tree preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall include berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The landscaping plan submitted by the applicant needs to be revised to add additional trees and other plant material along the north edge of the site. Appropriate financial security will be required. The landscaping plan shows the type and size of trees proposed to be planted in front yards as well as along Lake Lucy Road. No berming shall be allowed within the right-of-way. The following constitutes our calculation of the required forestation and tree replacement: The existing baseline canopy coverage on site is 51% (6.5 acres). All tree canopy within a designated wetland is excluded from calculations. The required post development canopy coverage is 35% or a total of 4.2 acres. Since existing canopy coverage exceeds minimum required canopy coverage, a total of 2.3 acres may be removed without penalty. Proposed development will remove 2.3 acres of canopy, leaving 4.2 acres. Removal of tree canopy has not exceeded the minimum requirement therefore according to city code. Replacement plantings will not be required. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On January 18, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this application as recommended by staff. Members of the commission agreed with the overall concept, however, they shared staff's concerns on grading among other issues, and directed the applicant to revise the plans. The following is a list of issues that were raised at the meeting: Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 13 Issue: Will lake shore lots be permitted lake access and how many docks will be permitted or should lake shore lots share one common dock? Finding: Staff addressed this issue in detail earlier in the report. The homeowners will have two options. No more than one dock shall be permitted on any lake shore site. No dock shall exceed six feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater of the following lengths- 50 feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of 4 feet. Intensive removal or alteration of vegetation is not allowed. Furthermore, impacts to wetlands, if any, would have to be mitigated if the fill area is greater than 400 square feet. The second option is to have each two property owners share a dock by placing the dock on the common property line. Issue: The issue of eliminating Lot 12 was raised at the meeting. Finding: As mentioned earlier in the staff report, this is a legitimate buildable lot that exceeds the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff cannot justify recommending elimination of the parcel. Issue: There is a manmade wildlife pond (wetland mitigation area) located along the westerly edge of the WillowRidge subdivision and immediately to the east of Point Lake Lucy subdivision. The homes in WillowRidge maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the pond. Mr. Cook, a WillowRidge subdivision resident, requested the applicant maintain the same setback for his future homes. He also indicated that a neighbor within WillowRidge was prohibited from adding a deck because it encroached into the setback. Finding: Staff conducted a survey showing the location of homes in WillowRidge adjacent to the plat (Attachment#10). Staff believes there is a substantial setback between homes. The home on Lot 12 of this proposal will set approximately 10 feet below the homes in WillowRidge. We believe that there is adequate setback area between the homes in the two developments and the new homes should not negatively impact the homes in WillowRidge subdivision. The closest home in WillowRidge (Lot 13) would be approximately 140 feet away from Lot 12 in Point Lake Lucy. The issue as far as setback from the wetland comes from ambiguity with the PUD agreement. Staff interpretation of the wetland setback in this development was 40' plus a 10 ' buffer. The developer's interpretation of the setback was 10' buffer was included in the 40'. After discussion with the developer, staff allowed the 10' to be included in the setback. Deck or porch permits may have been held while these negotiations took place but no permits have been denied. No one has been prohibited from building as long as the 40' setback is maintained. The WillowRidge subdivision was given greater flexibility on the wetland setback and Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 14 alteration because it was proposed just ahead of the new wetland ordinance. Point Lake Lucy is being held to the city's wetland ordinance which exceeds standards applied to WillowRidge. Issue: Mr. and Mrs. Thometz, residents of WillowRidge, sent a letter questioned if the WillowRidge residents could petition for an Environmental Assessment Work Sheet. Finding: The WillowRidge residents may petition for an EAW, however, this subdivision is an environmentally sensitive development and would not support an EAW. The development is providing a water quality pond, minimizing grading, preserving trees, and replacing wetlands at a ratio of 2:1, all consistent with the city's best management practices handbook. Any request for an EAW must be sent to the Environmental Quality Board. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve action on the following: Rezoning of 18.15 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, (94-6 REZ), Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 18.15 Acres into 20 single family lots and one outlot with a Variance to Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setback and a 50 Foot Wide Right-Of-Way (94-13 SUB), and a Wetland Alteration Permit to Fill and Mitigate an Ag/Urban Wetland (95-1 WET). 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. 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. 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. 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. Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 15 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 will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts resulting from sanitary sewer installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement plan application. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned. Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 16 14. The proposed single-family residential development of 12.11 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$23,978. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 15. 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. 16. All lots shall take direct access to the interior system and not Lake Lucy Road. 17. The traffic lanes adjacent the entrance median shall be 18 feet wide. 18 A catch basin shall be installed on the west radius of the proposed street at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road to maintain the drainage pattern and help prevent an icy intersection. 19. The easterly half of Lot 12 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. 20. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. 21. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. 22. Building Department conditions: a. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. c. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. d. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 17 23. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Add an additional fire hydrant between Lots 6 and 7 and one at the end of the private driveway or have the homes constructed with built in, automatic residential fire sprinkling systems. The hydrant between Lots 4 and 5 shall be relocated between Lots 3 and 4. 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 safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. c. Submit street name for approval. d. Due to the close proximity of surrounding residential neighborhoods, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued. e. A turnaround for personal vehicles is recommended at a minimum at the end of the private driveway. 23. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 24. The private street shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's private street ordinance to serve the four lots in the southeast corner of the site. This private street shall serve a maximum of 4 single family homes. 25. The applicant shall adjust the frontage on Lots 3, 4, and 5 to meet the Zoning Ordinance frontage requirements of 90 feet. Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 18 ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated February 7, 1995. 2. Letter from the applicant dated February 2, 1995. 3. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Thometz dated January 23, 1995. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated January 9, 1995 and 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated January 11, 1995. 6. Memo from Jill Kimsal dated January 11, 1995. 7. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Thometz dated January 18, 1995. 8. Letter from WillowRidge Resident Alliance. 9. Planning Commission minutes dated January 18, 1995. 10. Location of homes in WillowRidge subdivision. 11 Preliminary plat dated December 28, 1994. 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: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: February 7, 1995 SUBJ: Update of Point Lake Lucy, Robert Mason Homes, Ted Coey Property 94-6 REZ, 94-13 SUB and 95-2 LUR Upon review of the revised preliminary plat drawings dated February 6, 1995 and the wetland delineation report dated December, 1994 prepared by Schoell and Madson, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS There are 5 wetlands delineated on-site and they are as follows: Wetland 1 is a 1.16 acre shallow to deep fresh marsh located on Lots 13 through 18 along the east central portion of the property. The plan states that this wetland is an ag/urban wetland, however, the City's wetland inventory classifies this as a natural wetland, and therefore, the buffer strip width will have to be increased as discussed below under buffer strips. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the development. Wetland 2 is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR jurisdiction. This wetland is approximately 3.9 acres. The proposed plan shows the sanitary sewer going through a part of this wetland. The applicant must show impacted area so staff can identify the State Wetland Conservation Act's coverage on mitigation or exemption. If the fill area is less than 0.5 acres, the applicant may be exempt from mitigation. Wetland 3 is located on Lots 7 and 8 in the southwest corner of the property just north of wetland 2. Approximately 0.35 acres is on the property. This is classified as a natural wetland Sharmin Al-Jaff February 7, 1995 Page 2 and is characterized as a deep fresh marsh. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the development. Wetland 4 is a fresh meadow wetland located on Lots 4 and 5 along the west central portion of the property. Approximately 0.06 of the 0.28 acre wetland lies on-site. This wetland is classified as a natural wetland. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the development. Wetland 5 is a 0.03 acre seasonally to temporarily flooded ag/urban basin located on Lot 12 in the southeastern portion of the property between wetlands 1 and 2. This wetland will be filled as a result of the development. Mitigation for this wetland will be at a ratio of 2:1 and located on Lots 11 and 12 on the eastern side and the other part of the mitigation will be an extension of Wetland 3 on the southeastern side. The mitigation area is shown on the grading and drainage plan. The mitigation area will most likely be representative of a shallow fresh marsh with 0 to 6 inches of standing water. Buffer Strip The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. 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 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 Sharmin Al-Jaff February 7, 1995 Page 3 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. Since the water quality basin for this site is already in place these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. The proposed SWMP quality charge of$800/acre for single-family residential developments will be waived since the applicant is proposing to provide 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 will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 18.15 acres; however, 5.55 acres is unimpacted wetland and 0.49 acres is Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 12.11 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $23,978. DRAINAGE The site drains generally from north to south where the runoff eventually discharges into Lake Lucy along the southern boundary of the proposed development. The western third of the site drains into wetlands 3 and 4 and eventually into Lake Lucy. The northeastern portion of the property drains into Wetland 1 and follows a drainage swale through a small wetland (Wetland 5) and on into the wetland that borders Lake Lucy. Lot 12 lies within this existing natural drainage pattern. The stormwater quality pond was relocated from Lots 9 and 10 into the northern portion of Lot 12. The water quality pond will pretreat runoff from the streets and some lots before discharging into Lake Lucy. The natural drainageway to the west of the house pad on Lot 12 will act as an emergency overflow for the storm pond. The drainage from wetland 1 is being routed around this water quality pond since it does not need to be treated again. A stormwater pipe is being proposed between Lots 11 and 12 to carry the majority of flow from the storm pond and wetland. Staff also recommends that the stormwater quality pond be seeded with a portion of upland and wetland plants as recommended by a landscaper to tie into the natural vegetation. The stormwater quality pond has been designed with 3:1 slopes overall and should be redesigned with 4:1 slopes or provide a 10:1 bench at the normal water level for safety and maintenance purposes. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 7, 1995 Page 4 It appears that there is a drain tile that daylights on Lot 19 and continues to drain into Wetland 1. All drain tile systems found during construction shall be reported to the City Engineer and shall be re-located, reconnected or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. Storm runoff from Lake Lucy Road should be collected at the entrance of the development and conveyed via storm sewer pipe to maintain the drainage pattern and prevent an icy intersection. This can be accomplished by extending a catch basin to the west radius of the proposed street from the existing storm sewer in Lake Lucy Road. GRADING The site contains many trees, five wetlands and a variety of topographic changes, some quite significant. A ridge bisects the parcel from north to south. The existing driveway and proposed street alignment, for the most part, follows this ridge line. Extensive site grading is proposed in order to prepare the site for development. The applicant has incorporated some of staffs' design suggestions in an effort to reduce site grading, preservation of trees, and minimizing impact to the wetlands. Site grading will still require 13 feet of cut at the existing house and up to eight feet of fill for the house pads along Lake Lucy (Lots 8 through 12). The revised grading plan has reduced grading limits along Lots 8 through 11 on the average of 50 feet. This is partially due to the relocation of the stormwater quality pond onto Lots 12 and 13. The plans also shift the street alignment slightly to the east adjacent to Lots 1 through 6 and reduced building setbacks from 30 feet to 20 feet on Lots 4, 5, 17, 18, and 19 which also resulted in reducing grading and the need for retaining walls on Lots 4 and 5. The applicant did not incorporate staffs' suggestion on reducing the cul-de-sac length and serving the last four lots via private driveway. This is partially due to a resulting 10% driveway grade and the loss of Lot 12. The savings in site grading between the present proposal would not be significant over staffs' proposal. Staff believes the grading plan as submitted develops the site in a productive yet sensitive manner. We also believe that Lot 12 for the most part should be custom graded at the time of building permit issuance in an effort to minimize grading and tree loss on the lot. Staff understands the westerly portion of the lot will need some grading for the driveway, utilities, and pond. 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 recommends that 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. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 7, 1995 Page 5 UTILITIES Municipal water and sewer service is available to the site. Sanitary sewer service has been extended to the east property line of Lot 12 from the WillowRidge development. The plans propose on extending the sanitary sewer line from the WillowRidge development to service this development. The plans also provide for sanitary sewer extension to the next parcel to the west (Morin). The proposed alignment will result in unnecessary encroachment on the buffer areas. The alignment of the sanitary sewer line through Lots 7 through 12, Block 1 should be modified to take the path of least disruption to existing vegetation and wetlands. The exact alignment shall be approved by the City as part of the construction plan and specification review process. Water service is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. Fire hydrant placement has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal. One hydrant should be added between Lots 6 and 7 and at the end of the private driveway unless these homes are constructed with automatic, residential fire sprinkler systems. Also, the hydrant between Lots 4 and 5 should be relocated between Lots 3 and 4. The applicant should be required to relocate and/or add fire hydrants in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with the final platting. Construction drawings shall be developed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In addition, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval of the platting process. STREETS Access to the site is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road is classified on the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Therefore, direct access to all lots should be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Lake Lucy Road. The typical right-of-way for a collector road is 80 feet wide. Lake Lucy Road currently exists today with 33 feet lying south of the centerline. The applicant is dedicating an additional 7 feet of right-of-way to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other subdivisions along Lake Lucy Road which have dedicated the necessary right-of-way. The applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide street right-of-way for the proposed street. The City ordinance requires a 60-foot wide right-of-way for this type of development. Staff is willing to compromise on the right-of-way width in this instance because we feel it is warranted to enable the houses to built further up the hillside to minimize grading and limit site impacts. At the entrance to the development an 80-foot wide right-of-way is proposed to accommodate a center median which staff has been convinced to retain, however, the travel lanes adjacent to the median should be reduced to 18-foot wide traffic lanes. The plans currently propose the inbound lane at 18 feet and the outbound lane at 26 feet wide. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 7, 1995 Page 6 The "eyebrow" to serve Lots 2 and 3 has been deleted and the street realigned slightly to the east to minimize impacts to the wetlands and reduce grading. Street grades range between 1% and 7% which meets the City ordinance. Staff has reviewed the street grades and believe the plans minimize site grading. The applicant will need to provide cross-access/maintenance agreements for the use of the private driveway for Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 1. Staff has recommended a variance in the setbacks on those lots where the road goes between the two wetlands or other instances which reduces grading significantly and/or tree loss. 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. 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. 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. 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. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 7, 1995 Page 7 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 will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts resulting from sanitary sewer installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement plan application. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned. 14. The proposed single-family residential development of 12.11 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $23,978. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 15. 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. 16. All lots shall take direct access to the interior system and not Lake Lucy Road. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 7, 1995 Page 8 17. The traffic lanes adjacent the entrance median shall be 18 feet wide. 18 A catch basin shall be installed on the west radius of the proposed street at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road to maintain the drainage pattern and help prevent an icy intersection. 19. The easterly half of Lot 12 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. ktm/jms c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:\eng‘diace\plannineptOduc2.pc ROBERT H. MA5ON _ HOM- Building new ideas is our old tradition. February 2 , 1995 Dear Neighbor, As you know, Robert H. Mason Homes is planning to develop Pointe Lake Lucy in the general vicinity of your home . We are excited to be creating a new neighborhood here, and look forward to meeting with you to get your input and feedback on our proposal. We have reserved the Chanhassen City Council Chambers on Wednesday, February 8, 1995 at 6 : 00 pm so as to discuss our plans with you. We look forward to seeing you then. Yours truly, ROBERT H. MASON HOMES ALLW Randy W. Travalia President RWT: kg CC: Sharmain Al-Jeff, City Planner V-XLCENE13 14201 EXCELSIOR BLVD. • MINNETONKA,MN 55345-4997 • 612-935-3486 JAN 25 '95 09:01 NORWEST INTL P. 1 6690 Mulberry Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 January 23, 1995 Ms. Sharmin At-Jaff Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Point Lake Lucy Dear Ms. Af-Jaff: One suggestion made at the January 18 Planning Council Meeting was to arrange a meeting between Mason Homes, the City Planning staff and representatives of the Wfllowridge Neighborhood Alliance before the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 1 . We would like to arrange such a meeting. We also have two ideas for your consideration. Is it possible for Mason Homes to donate Lot #12 to the City of Chanhassen, DNR or the Nature Conservancy to function as common access to Lake Lucy for the Point Lake Lucy and Willowridge neighborhoods? Or, would It be possible for the City of Chanhassen to purchase Lot #12 for this same purpose? Finally, it appears to us that under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (Minn. Stat. 116D and Minn. R. Chapter 4410) that Wilfowridge could petition for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Can you give us your opinion as to what value this may have in this case? Si erely, ,/ ,..&-eaeAcj — Alan R. Thometz Claire P. Thometz CITY OF 0, CHANHASSEN1 4 0l1, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II 4. ak FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 9, 1995 SUBJECT: 94-6 REZ & 94-13 SUB (Point Lake Lucy, Ted Coey & Robert Mason Homes) 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 . / Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department ,,f. and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of , the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types . These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process . I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations . Soils Report. In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes . Street Names . In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Sharmin Al-Jaff January 9, 1995 Page 2 Department . Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents . 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 . Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval . 5 . 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\memos\plan\ptlkelcy.sjl CITY OF :;-.-2 0 's 690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O_ BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 „,,. CHANHASSEN (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4:_coc. 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. FiA)or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to 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 Split 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. • sE- sEwo wo FF/ �p� t 1 -- dill , - - - - -- °'RLO III ----- 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. tuov PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF 1.)1,4 0 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: January 11, 1995 SUBJ: Ted Coey Property, Sesame Inc., Pointe Lake Lucy Planning Case 94-6 REZ and 94-13 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. Add an additional fire hydrant between Lots 5 & 6. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 3. Submit street name for approval. 4. Due to the close proximity of surrounding residential neighborhoods, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued. 5. If the revised plan showing a long private driveway is utilized, an approved provision for turning around of fire apparatus must be provided. However, if this is not desired, the turn-around provision may be modified if homes on the private drive are provided with automatic residential fire sprinkler systems. g:MafclYm(\94.6 CITY 4F CHANIIASSEN 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 Kimsal, Forestry Intern DATE: January 11, 1995 SUBJ: Point Lake Lucy Tree Preservation/Landscaping (Ted Coey and Robert Mason Homes) The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Tree Inventory Plan. The site contains significant tree canopy along the eastern and western sides of the parcel. Mature trees within the grading limits are concentrated in Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and especially 8. There is also a large number of mature trees within the proposed right-of way, however a total of 16 of those trees ranging from 4 to 10 inches in diameter are scheduled for transplanting elsewhere on the site. Lots 2, 4, and 16 also have 13 trees that will be removed and transplanted elsewhere on site. Grading will affect significant trees on all lots except 14, 17, and 19. The applicant will be required to replace trees as required by ordinance. There is a special tree, designated as such because of its large diameter, located on Lot 16 very near the grading limits. It is a 42 inch Basswood which should be given special consideration when grading. Two others exist along the southerly eastern side of the parcel. These two 40 inch Oaks are on Lots 12 and 13, within and outside of the grading limits respectively. Close attention and custom grading may save these trees. The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall include berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The plan must identify plant material locations along Lake Lucy Road as well as plantings within each front yard. Appropriate financial security will be required. This plan should show the type and size of trees proposed to be planted as well as the location of berms along Lake Lucy Road. A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost in excess of the minimum requirements due to grading and road extension. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal. Staff believes that the Lake Lucy Road Project will most likely include a streetscape plant similar to Minnewashta Parkway. Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 2 The following constitutes our calculation of the required forestation and tree replacement: The existing baseline canopy coverage on site is 51% (6.5 acres). All tree canopy within a designated wetland is excluded from calculations. The required post development canopy coverage is 35% or a total of 4.2 acres. Since existing canopy coverage exceeds minimum required canopy coverage, a total of 2.3 acres may be removed without penalty. Proposed development will remove 2.8 acres of canopy, leaving 3.7 acres. Removal of tree canopy then has exceeded the minimum requirement by .50 acres and according to city code, 1.2 times .50 acres must be replaced. Therefore, .60 acres of replacement plantings will be required or a total of 24 trees. However, a revised grading plan prepared by staff will save a large number of trees This is true especially of the southwest corner and south portion in general. An important implication of the revised grading plan is retention of the majority of woodland area on Lot 8. Originally, this lot's canopy area was heavily impacted by grading. With the revised grading plan, the removal of approximately .30 acres of canopy will be avoided, which could reduce the replacement requirement to .24 acres or 10 replacement trees. The applicant, however, should make the required calculations in order to confirm this estimate. JAN 18 '95 07:27 NORWEST -NTL P. 1 6690 Mulberry Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 January 18, 1995 Ms. Sharmin Ai-Jaff Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Point Lake Lucy Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: This letter is to express our concerns about the Point Lake Lucy development. Just over a year ago our family moved into Willowridge because of the natural beauty of the area and the environmentally sensitive nature of the development. Our property (Block 3, lot #13) contains protected wetlands. Among other restrictions that apply within the protected wetland, the Declaration of Covenants signed by our developer and now binding on us prohibit : (I) construction of any kind, (II) removing or altering any trees or vegetation, (Ili) excavating or filling, and (iv) activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation and wildlife. Although we are not opposed to Point Lake Lucy, we would hope that in the interest of preserving the natural beauty of the Lake Lucy area, the same restrictive covenants will apply to all the proposed Point Lake Lucy lots that contain wetlands. We are also particularly concerned about Point Lake Lucy Lot #12. The proposed plan indicates a house will be built closer to the wildlife pond than the Willowrldge houses on lots # 13, 12, 11 , 10, 9, or 8. These Willowridge lots all contain restrictive wetland covenants. Should the Point Lake Lucy development build in this wetland site when Willowridge residents agreed to preserve it? JAN 18 "+< 87:28 NORWES- -NTL P . We have two requests regarding Point Lake Lucy. The first Is that the same restrictive covanants apply to properties in that development as applied to Wlllowridge properties. The second is that the proposed Point Lake Lucy Lot #12 be left natural to preserve the wildlife pond. Sincerely, 411P /247661e1494fSP- Yc Alan R. Thometz afire P. Thometz cc. Robert Mason Homes MIT_,gasco3 A!!^PQM ENERGY COMPANY January 11, 1995 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94-6 REZ and 94-13 SUB Point Lake Lucy Robert Mason Homes Dear Ms . Al-Jaff: Enclosed are your prints for this project with the location of our gas mains shown in red. Individual service lines are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this property from the main shown. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless requested by a developer, builder or owner. The developer/builder should contact Terry Jencks, Minnegasco Residential Energy Services at 525-760739 , to make application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal . Sincerely, Richard J. ', ion, P.E. Senior Admi istration Engineer Engineering Services 612-321-5426 cc: Mary Palkovich Terry Jencks RECEIVED f ; _ 1995 C11 Y Of CHAIVNASSFJN MIIIIIIIMIIIIIII 700 West Linden Avenue P.O.Box 1165 Minneapolis,MN 55-140-1165 01x'1811995 11:39 6129518 INTEGRIS DATA 'VIC PAGE 01 I NTEGRIS LATA SERVICES 2801 4TH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408-1792 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: < TO: 5 V.o,,(vri� ORGANIZATION: FAX NUMBER: C - - 55c\ PHONE NUMBER: FROM: a6kn,I., NA-P-,) ORGANIZATION: Integris Data Services FAX NUMBER: (612) 951-8377 PHONE NUMBER: (612) 951- 2'S b NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: COMMENTS: IMPORTANT: THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED SOLELY TO BE USED BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION WHICH IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND OTHERWISE EXEMPT BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,OR AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS MESSAGE TO ITS INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREWITH NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION. OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE IMMEDIATELY AND RETURN THIS COMMUNICATION TO US AT THE ABOVE LISTED ADDRESS VIA THE POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. C31/10/1995 11:39 6129518:- INTEGRIS DATA 7 JIC PAGE 02 The WillowRidge Resident Alliance 1350 Heather Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 January 16,«Title»uFirstName»uLastName» «Address» «City» «Zip* Dear Title «LastName»: The purpose of this letter is to communicate to the Chanhassen City Council and Planning Commission concerns the undersigned have with the proposed Robert Mason Home/Point Lake Lucy development. We, the residents of the WillowRidge neighborhood that will be adjacent to the proposed development, have formed the WillowRidge Resident Alliance to collect and communicate our position. First., we would like to convey that we are supportive of the Point Lake Lucy development and pleased that a quality builder will be involved with the project. We do, however, have several issues that we believe need addressing before the development proceeds: 1 Water flow and drainage. The wetland encompassed by proposed Lots 14,15,16,17 and 18, as well as the pond in Willow Ridge located just east of Lot 12 have natural drainage through Lot 12 to Lake Lucy. We have been informed that wetland will be removed from Lot 12 to accommodate the proposed construction. While the area of this wetland will be replaced elsewhere in the development, we are concerned that modification to, or elimination of the natural drainage flow from these areas will negatively impact the quality and condition of the ponds and surrounding wildlife areas. 2. Tree canopy. The area proposed for the construction pad on Lot 12 is in one of the most dense tree concentrations on the existing property. Placing a house of the size proposed in this location will significantly impact the amount of tree canopy and natural buffers between developments. Additionally, the required pond area on Lots 10 and 11 will further reduce trees and natural vegetation. The resulting total impact on tree canopy within the proposed development.will be significant. 3. Wildlife trail. There is a trail used by a variety of wildlife, including a sizable number of deer, which runs through the above referenced wetland area and Lot 12. Deer regularly appear in the Wetland Protection area surrounding the adjoining pond. It is reasonable to assume that this wildlife will no longer frequent this area once the trail has been eliminated. 4 Fire Safety. The proposed house on Lot 12 will be accessible only by a narrow, twisting lane from the main cul-de-sac. In the event of a fire, it will be difficult to rapidly deploy equipment to the proposed house, thereby endangering the residents of the house as well as those in adjoining homes. 5 Inconsistent restrictions, WillowRidge was advertised and sold as an environmentally sensitive neighborhood. In order to meet the environmental standards in place in the WillowRidge neighborhood, all homes adjacent to wetlands are required to comply with Wetland Protection restrictions. All lots adjacent to wetland areas in the WillowRidge development are required to 001/1811995 11: 39 6129518" INTEGRIS DATA 'VIC PAGE 03 WillowRidge Resident Alliance Point Lake Lucy Development Page 2 comply with Tree Preservation Zone restrictions. It is inconsistent for the City to allow construction of a home on proposed development Lot 12 which has Wetland Protection restrictions and special building setbacks different from those required in WillowRidge (see attached"WillowRidge Exhibit F"). In addition to being illogical, this inconsistency prevents homeowners in WillowRidge from planting any vegetation that would provide privacy from the proposed development. This appears to be a double standard, especially in light of the difficulty experienced by Pat and Roseann Boran in receiving a variance from the City to build an attached deck that infringed on the Wetland Protection Zone behind their home at 1341 Heather Court. 6. Development Layout. The positioning of Lot 12 appears inconsistent with other lots in the Point Lake Lucy development and in Willow Ridge. In addition, the proposed Lot 12 house alignment does not have the "back-to-back" configuration typically expected. (Note: Future developments west of Point. Lake Lucy will likely have this"back-to-back" lot configuration). 7. Noise. Several WillowRidge residents can clearly hear summertime tennis court conversation on the existing Ted Coey property. Tree and natural vegetation removal will result in increased noise pollution for the seven (7) homes adjoining the proposed development, with no means for abatement due to the previously referenced environmental restrictions. In addition, noise on Lake Lucy road will be increased by continued future construction and resident traffic. 8. Lake Lucy Natural Shoreline Preservation. The proposed lake lots (8,9,10,11 and 12) are likely to create pressure on the natural Lake Lucy shoreline. Alteration of the shoreline and its vegetation should not be allowed on these lots. Current vegetation provides natural run-off filtration and wildlife habitat and should not be disturbed. Our second concern is with shoreline use and dockage. Given the increased population in the area (particularly families with children), it is reasonable to assume heavy traffic on the Lake Lucy shore. A potential solution would be the installation of a common community permanent dock (such as that provided at Lake Ann and Lake Susan) to focus this traffic. Our request is that the City modify the proposed development to address these concerns. Specifically, we request that the number of lots be reduced from 20 to 16. This reduction should allow sufficient reconfiguration to address our concerns. Our highest priority is elimination of Lot 12, and preservation of natural vegetation, wetland and lakeshore quality. These points will be raised by a WillowRidge Resident Alliance spokesperson in the upcoming January 18 Planning Commission hearing. Sincerely, The WillowRidge Resident Alliance Attachments 01118/1995 11:39 6129518" INTEGRIS DATA 5" 'VIC PAGE 04 WillowRidge Resident Alliance Point Lake Lucy Development Attachment 1 Name Address Signature kt e PA h /3 5/) HI u t" l' ecx,,,--1- •-:,--d._ ,-...A?1,fri_si.,„____ eo ce_cMi a �• ,.--- defttrika 1 ; N\1 t ' I Cte� 1'3 3} i rx4- C C f Ait-,/ 7U�..L-, ti %%\,t-,o,K. ° udi+i 32 i 0e LVt V1 L Ct. . .. r : (stile. i\iver } - `J ///(-4-,ado �4 Lt 693 ti� L . . // _ 'tr(--/ e:...R., oK.. n .,/,((/ C.;.( 5s- ,' 'it/ i 1-, -',/,- L f .. . ,._ _.. _k. - .......'"--.- i (4, ) Jca, 1 �+�S 1 fl u.( & dr t-. 4 ) 1 --'-----?)::-At-14--t - 1 * wo (PLAI 1 Li✓L L o_1(6-v {lam' r. )L-LL . ge/ (.:246-- 7 , . i:,/.......4 .., c.',.. :/-;., --..:-__ __-.,,, / ='('zr ._:,-...._- _ ge ciJc Su7V ShLuu*. 125-0 i-H�QthEr Cur- c-L-t; Oi - - • - - - 11-175frjf S C:., 1 -E,//y 6 71AI my 6e7 Cede LaA2-1. c'gvseri 1.4&71 'r ' � j 6*,h4Q., // • cc u . L _ .r . _ _ . i _ _ - Ot I' 7�m 'n Ifir, ,A4- _ .... D1/18/1995 11:39 6129518 INTEGRIS DATA "'VIC PAGE 135 WillowRidge Resident Alliance Point Lake Lucy Development Attachment I Name Address Signature STc- JE Akt'ZaN aki (0(0of rtLiz-NitiN C BAST , 3-------.4 `(� C.f t •enc.- G 4 GG ,y..J (1/7 :./• 1,1; isi,. n � • i &6.35- (� ter ClYrie i f ligi , y . / r Is 1" Thr, r 14 4, I, tr (i'tuq_ Y Ec-kiA±. 41i 'C V d, I/ . i% a ., • ,_ , ,1/.1/111. / D 1 wi 6(01,3 G(013 M 01 � Ci{ a ;c `1)>- - \-3.x,..r;41., ___Arb5 h 13100 Y -e.c4 e r au.(1 4,07j 1 o\\ ,\ wioq - \3 Lo WPALer G�w-a; J I 1. 1,2,5 -- T t;.x:',, C- V l-c i,'")37:5 b y-43;; rrt1 +^ J--- -1 S'rc,�� ,f), t. Ci rk.. =<< / .r r it 1-1--- J 0 riJo C. 1;64 13 Liv � ,- er• /X.. (i;rA:-- 1 (5..tic-i cs,,t)E / 39() il“,-i-k c (74- - tiaki. k_ 01/18/1995 11: 39 6129518 INTEGRIS DATA VIC PAGE __ WI LL.0WIZ.:1'DGL EX!IIL3II I • LAKE LUCY ROAD '1=7- 1---slit - , I - I IA- C � l ► O l l O! 1 • ,1 1 .: 1 �, '+, t' •ir,• 1 _ — _ _ _ �' ' �- - - - „��'- / i tiJ, :1 I \___) ► r 1 I t� " ~\ r� r I ! 'I" L�- ti -j' • i 4• M.., 1 1 .............„_:;_i___,..0 -0..... ..-- \ , / ., _. t / 1 I* I ( - ' 1 0 ` u, .� . 1 1 i f !i4 «� I. \ . %.f /� fR •\ • \• � >s - T - J /11 Q•••';''' ...."...).'.' f'• 11... / I ,_., :, / 1 , thiAf'-k. _-Al' e- - / "�$ ^v,/o �\� ,' '��. tis 'i'In r `1 1 \ \ Oiz n\\ , --a , , „\;y, \,\Ji_,r__--J If 1 \\,40.„0,,,_ ,•.:„..,., ; t; �- ,� // ti�ti tit t ........---'• 1 01 11 1 y � y ;/),„\ s\s, — , -.......„ ir ui--;;.;:4 1/ ‘‘ \ ,Sf) l• " . / o.n i \ 1 I yt , . �' �1, l_ Jl il71iL_ _4 „ti„ ,,,, 1 In the Declaration of Covenants for WillowRidge, Lundgren Bros . Construction has created general covenants affecting all of the lots in WillowRidge and special covenants affecting certain lots in WillowRidge. Those lots in WillowRidge af- fected by special covenants are identified as follows: O Denotes lot subject to subdivision entrance improve- ments easement i \ 1 1W 4 $ i 111p1 m � t . 11 hill ' ilh li ' � o . \\0, _ Iiiiiililti ! \ t; ;!i �.5-J .. 11 i O\ • 1 W '' i lit g �7I',`I ,< i !:I I©mss: 111[11011 .i -Y _.. , • .2.il2 i r \5 �J ri 1 ( ENp W, ;' +; , • iiiJ tti1i �o' \ 1'1'\-• % ` - ' – - — N : vi l j� J . ► _ _ 1 - - - ' _ ',`! � i 2 • L P `li in j� i w f- i\ �. ; �_ , � I t.s.--4 II, ' g .rte. I� 8 t v„.....,\..,\,.., • _jai ... .:,.......;_„,.21",..,..._ ,. , \ .. : , , , , ,__,---• --.1-k-,1.2.:, , - ..v, . iii—aT ,4 i \ • ., `. .--.\,&,..1 ,c P4 , `/, ��y�� -:1\\ \. N, \ .Do id __ I 1� i! ,_t w 12_, •• '—----* :y.v!...,__- v d .. ,,viva ___,-,.:.. 46.._ \. \. • ,. • --s, It .i z 1... t .,—\ :„.• -.4a.i. .- _,•-• •., , . . . 1.14;,A146.. 0, _:-..• . , . . , \ il . .. 5 -1Yr. .. . � • ��l.V. \ \..'tea \ \ 1 1 zs : --' . / f i k: .\ 14. ' `,`�` .�\�� ; \. � \ o Ot:i:; \i;7i -•,• / :\\• \\1\ -4` ��:,� ' � \ . •,\, \� 1, � 1! 1 0 =VSs • ."� .. �. t ` rte'/ � ffr . �\ 1� `11.: a \"•\J�� ?�f �fii \`I T Jij ; j-,\\( io, • • 0 i.\ - ‘', ,;.\N,..'• s, - I ii-..ik -. ‘ I , i if C. $ ‘1 \ \ ,t_,.\ ...A ,. 411/- . , . *: J.\ ! ?-i ' 1;i t• 1 ti \/ i\\\., • ,‘;,~i •X11\\11;1 i::-........./,r............... 0 Iiill -v,_ gig , ,; 'N._ • 4/44.:ply. fie.,71.10:4k.\4_:. ., . -,N, 1-<_------:-..„,-, _ i if jo, 111.3 ii I I* .0 :-''• &- --P.1- - ifhti b .,._ , : , :re:,.----- -\ ,. ' _ - -.1 . -= -_-_ _r_= I • - / t ; i'Clal�wni it r ; a 1I i' / 1. 111 LI iI L[1 3E' d DIA Ira 5Id931NI 8t96Z19 66 II 5662;8I/10 N. ____lam r E Wj • • , \ (CITY OE PLYMOUTI+ PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVED TURNAROUNDS ON FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS AS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA UNIFORM FIRE CODES, SECTION 10.207H Any of the following are acceptable turnaround alternatives: ACCEPTABLE 80'pIAMETER ALTERNATNE TO 1 29 R 1 120'HAMMERHEAD CUL-DE-DE-SAC2sm so 80' r•R .R $ TYP i TYP A.. TYP `„ 2S'R 20' TO'---} TYP • T / 0' 20' * 20 1 TYP 20• HAMMERHEAD le.—\ 201 ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO 120`HAMMERHEAD \,. �• ` I }W ` %11�,,�jc� 6' ,� ✓,rll - 111111 111111.1: I1'u(; : 1i1�1;I; ��. 5 t •1;11,:1. 1;I;;!1 1 1;l;,!1 I U - { i �0"• ~ 111�!eit!I !11111 I i7:!lli \1d, '+-AL o0 • II jJ'!jlilI 1t ; ,- < L l s• f j,r;il:II j,1!;I: Ilk 1 1 !l ilk:1A I,I,ii:l;;Ii I;il:lii i == z •co //J 11 • ry �� el. W 2 1� g o' ., II,1 ' Nun g •► - E r r O 1 • i L_____d_ _J / i• I • \ —� a l' y I U) • f ' C ii 'n 1 E CC UJ \ _ ----- . rte=-_ -- Y 1 m '\ II +' • ��` i'-.; �` - •-_-`1, I • / it ' = M L-`i-Y O \•`\ �__ __ `• .—i 1!i - ‘4,—.___40:,.... -ter- \\` ' 1�. �— \ E1 �� E `$ / \ _ ` - Y ,:-,.:.,;.. .... ".-... • � �\,. ` .• .•.,_ I I it # 0r �L ice; / • .• �- r/ '..:.<7:---;.:N am\ • ��,f: `. \ \ otz. ,', ./' .' / \ \\ 1 - `•' - ,4 ,gyp • c• .• - ` tn ' '+' •..k, / , .•1 'L1 r / ) - \ t]; •�\ J. 'a. It •�;\ fit. 1 � ,'// iy�'ii•� �� . .\ • 2 .0 =;1\ r I' - � \. „\vie. •V• • •\` ,I, //1'i, /,r.-' ,.1 W =Je i. '1/,' .'„.. . , 5, ) ll 2.1. '\ '' , . `-.' \n'il-11 7.' \ .-___ '.) • \, O - '•-•-7'-. ..."••••• - •. ^_ �.1,I!' ,1'' I 111 1� \�,s'�\�^ ' _' ) "11 -1, a I7 . - • •' L. - ...."1! /. / I1 -- \ / f r 4 .:\\:-.,-;:.-:--.1.:.-..--:-.-_---:.. f -- �� Illiii !\v% I_ t A ' t _ •�*`. — _ "{,III 1 I / j 'ONION A0/11 3111 �� SriliVd AY' -7 1 13 I I T 1 I i 111.1.1 Olio t- I 1111 g )- "Hi a 180 lli I \\‘‘. •, ,, 2 A 11111;111H1 MU ii ' i 111 3 z-I 1 - . 1,1 ? gi LLI -\\\\ • \ 1 : - I - i g i : E!/. 1 i 19.• 1 1 _ 1 I 1-g ,, i_ 1 i212 a. E i /I ;; '\, .-- / •, ' ...):- k\ t:(' ' - (' . \ 4007 ,D. .41,„ Ill 1! i l't•C , 'A • .."'''''....-.-----_ b;11 Li • 1! \ ‘A.\. - , .. __--- ------ • :-.' --- ---------_ _,__ _ Ilk' • 1 L1.1 7, I 1''•--. \ _., • _ 1 , •- P. is - 2 ' % I. '- \ v i - -- 5- 1•1 s 1;1 I 1;1 g Z , / — kn id , ill cn - / ^ 1 --- - --4 - ,. '---.1.4..... 5 -- - r 0 i / ill El i.L - 9 E. J a • ft .t......,„ ,! --. si yi , Ii J i!I . . . ( ( (• ._ • '' .. !(,V1-z-Z, --=__=.T. "4 ...',,,.. : • t;:Re- ;; cc w . \ \ - - '--" i %', -=:---frali.• Z.--ma;•-=-------., ..•••- --I----. / \ • (7 . ; ,- --- — -:.-32.--_--;.P.4, -,....-451 -: • / II ,11 0. ,6 ,. \ : ,. rr..... . . --T-_-. .... .= --g--,'" '`,,' • i '11 •• . \ • \ iti \‘•N,s-" : will ., 101 70t11111 1- - 4 Ck \:• • ' - ' ' - - ,,,,14)- •. l' V V. • \ ISM ",. -- .. ..„.; i 7--- . :et; '••••• - . ,‘, , ill g - ,,;_t ..... __dim •-•... i- ' •.. IN v ..,.\\\•„:". . , 1-i ONIP11-5-1.1-..r,kdomf4 , ;X',.‘;\,.. `,\ \ k. 1 -, - ----.....wAr4ft -'-'TP.,t;.-.' . AI "-..---. A • t+ 1 a I „41, , m. t, 3§ (" "N\ 114 -..\'‘\\\-‘----- --2- Fi ---•---, g-410-` set -\• , • "'•• •• - :',.. kEt -1, ) -..4.0x. "5,59: • „..-...r. -....44`. „. :,. -,\ ss i• 1 : C A \:---:_-_--- .:-. V- ,,.f :_,.,,,&6 po• ,ef \"-------2.7 - ', - ..r.0.•, '5;ifair-' •-•.,, ,;-.....:A- tt-C.. \;\ 1 i; '- ` ------ -;/tr":- •%'' vt• i 'V.-=,\\:: .... ..,.....\ \ , ci. '. ----"-• \ "..1166.."- . ikt- -iir.... ,-- -• .21," 't 1 I I; z - ti ,--M ., : i 4/,'Cti---.\‘• ,..k ..&,•01000.' \....1r41.--,4%, ..:.,:.:. k ‘ . i i \(: \il\ 71'11/. ;:. '<„.1 is\'\„'.\\\• ", <-N---''',.:.t;..V.4111,1*. "---....-, . ."-''')114.'''eZ*H1'...•tio,,T 2,,\ \I '', 1 .' : 2 Fa);'1E!i i\kill',/,' ' / , \N. • '.. '\ ...._ N.,'‘V.&,c' - . - ,1) •)'.. ..T.., s I - t 4:Egl'i, • / \ \\\ `.;1,\\ •*-%_. \.,. x, '..-/-/--- • " •: _ ,\\;, - 1 2u:,.. ,-. \....,: q• ; --. /i . J. , \s.„,.c6; ,,.: . -,„:, Aih, ;,01,. f.-=% -,• ",\ ;1_1.! .3=Z1,,:i7 ',/:-;',.. \ I'1%f'. :( 2,k,\\\\.:: :11.1111.:.\ ;‘,‘ \III 'fn.(117..,..ti :2/:::-.9(--;;;;I: fre:\i.- 1---l'''.1 r 2'.';•• :1 i..!i 11! jost‘ , 1, 1-/,-,r•----- 1 g wiri;.-. -... *V, \s,'\\, • N. '''// '';" '-.- r, ..1 • I 2-a .,.. ,, ,•..\ -.\,..„..w, •-,, ;v-01 . ' 7 •;i'i ( • 1 f ••1• 1, / r• o..1 .., IA • 'lilt 11""! i i i :'-'1i ri 1 I-: 1 u) ink ( r: l'•is, ,, v -----. s 1 t•, 11 1,4:"--, ' .\,1,;1 -s , 1\••: 1— I. ) , , ,i.•. vi,.\ '_.../.,,z. . .ik , -s\,,,•-•_ ----!..-_- - -11111,- - -,e;4'1; 8.-, ( '1, .i,A ___-,_:__: _, ,. / , 1; .. „No_\ .C.;....i'. ''-'1- 1 - ---- -7- 1(__nil ;" _:,---,-_-=.=_±.,--..,-,. „ .- . -- • ' . 4,\4,-.% • , - -7:_-:----;:r_-=_-_-- e'-' -I.- ------...-_--,---.--.. it; --gli `,. ,',-Zi---- ,-2f-,-,,_ 4. - • 'I' ta 1 ' fl ‘,-'-,• (I',- ..-zz..;;_s _ i 1.•.•':' .--111r-f.:. -0\- -- it 1'1 trier 'to ,/,—....„ - •',...\ 4, IA._ ilf , 4_4- . .• ` / liwillii'4. ...."="7 _ • •- ',:::---.7. . Wt.:- , - lt:-....-___- , -.'..-..--,67;----fr 11.- -7717-7-.7.,-:4-_,'"-.)_,:, / ,--- ..-t,E-- 11111 11111 i , :CIVOli AA •341 i : i ; r ..-1,-'' -"N. '•- ....%!----....---....---'' i J 1111111' -- Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING 20.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDWIDE 20.11 ACRES INTO 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50' STREET AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, JUST WEST OF WILLOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TED COEY PROPERTY, MASON HOMES, POINT LAKE LUCY. Public Present: Name Address Pat Boran 1341 Heather Court Scott Clark 6700 Mulberry Circle Ed Jannusch 6831 Utica Terrace Jeff Elder 6696 Mulberry Circle Joe Cook 1340 Heather Court Alan Thometz 6690 Mulberry Circle Pam & Mark Wagner 6735 Mulberry Circle Toni Cline-Andvik 6606 Mulberry Circle Suzy Shunk 1350 Heather Court Al Weingart 19XX Lake Lucy Road Jim Rea 6700 Mulberry Circle Lori Carsen Kelly 6714 Mulberry Circle Randy Travalia 14201 Excelsior Blvd, Mtka. Bob Christensen 1511 Lake Lucy Road Claudette & Jim Schluck 6800 Utica Terrace Mike Byrne 5428 Kimberly Road, Mtka. Cynthia Smolley 13603 80th Circle No, Maple Grove Ted Coey 1381 Lake Lucy Road Brian Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road Angie Lee 6637 Mulberry Circle Stephanie Morrow 6673 Mulberry Circle Doug Volkmeier 6691 Mulberry Circle Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay, good. Diane, do you have any comments? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Desotelle: Not really. I'm here mostly to answer questions as they come up. Scott: Okay. Questions or comments from commissioners? Okay, would the applicant or their representative wish to make a presentation? Randy Travalia: Good evening Mr. Chairman. My name is Randy Travalia. I'm President of Robert Mason Homes, the developer of this property. I'm sure all of you at one time or another have heard of our company. It was founded in 1953...I'm approaching 20 years myself. Our company's been founded on the concept of good quality land development with quality construction. We've done dozens of neighborhoods here in Chanhassen. We have done residential here for a number of years and some commercial projects lately. In Eden Prairie currently we're underway with an...Minnetonka, Bent Tree, Copperfield, Royal Hill, Royal Oaks, Abbey Hill, a whole bunch of them. Nearest to the city is probably our Waterford neighborhood in the city of Shorewood, immediately adjacent. That's another neighborhood that we started in the mid 1980's and are virtually complete with it at this point in time. This particular property presents some terrific opportunities to do a very high quality neighborhood and a very high quality development. It has all the type of amenities that we seek as homeowners. All that we as a developer can do is be a conduit from the raw property, the raw land and turn it into a high quality neighborhood. We consistently attempt to develop neighborhoods that...Whenever we build our homes...with the vision that our neighborhoods are something... This particular property has a number of amenities that most people do enjoy. Lake Lucy. A beautiful natural lake. A number of ponds, wetlands, the rolling terrain itself and the woods itself which... In any development that we do, we spend an awful lot of time trying concepts and thankfully tissue paper is available in huge rolls because we use up a lot of it in the attempt to develop a land plan that services both the property itself and the neighborhood fits properly within the property. But also respond to what the market is. Also respond to what the people want to purchase when they ...If we can create them to satisfy all planning desires, but unfortunately that may or may not satisfy what the market wants. We as developers and builders can influence the market perhaps but we can't create one. If people don't want to live in a homesite that's situated such and such, they don't want to live there and we couldn't sell it them. The difficulties within the property itself which create the opportunity to make it a very special neighborhood are the grade itself. The high point of the property is at about 20 feet and the majority of the grade through the middle of the property is about 10 feet and slope all the way down to 950 feet there. 50 to 60 feet of grade deviation from north to south. The majority of that grade deviation happens from about the Block 4, Lot 17 area down to the end of the cul-de-sac. That creates the difficulty of balancing effectively you want to think of the ridge that runs down there is much like 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 a saddle. There's a low side of each side of it and consequently in our discussion with staff, we asked to have the road right-of-way be at 50 feet rather than 60. The idea there is if you've got 60 feet of road right-of-way, 30 or 40 feet of front setback, to put in a house, pretty soon you're falling off of that saddle and you're getting the back yard built to where it's relatively unusable but not as comfortable for people with smaller children. Our neighborhoods typically attract younger families. We wind up with a lot of people who want at least some good, relatively flat usable area in the back yard and if you force yourself too light on that saddle, unfortunately the grades are too steep and you're going to find out that you don't have that opportunity. With the wetlands on either side, that exacerbates the problem inasmuch as it's our desire to stay away from those wetlands and preserve the pristine views. You know it's funny, 15 years ago a property like this, the development of a community at that point in time, the theory was, by gosh we've got to fill all those in because they're a health hazard. Our little children are going to run out there and fall in this black hole and they're going to drown. ...changed a little bit, and I think properly. The original proposal developed on this property called for 27 lots. We examined that proposal very carefully. It complied with the majority of the city of Chanhassen's ordinances. As we examined it, it doesn't really fit the kind of homes that we anticipate in developing here. And as we struggled with that doubled edge sword of trying to make sure the properties...public attracted to them and yet financially possible from our vantage point, we came to the conclusion that we needed to ration that number of lots down. What we've done is we've proposed that there be 20 home sites developed in this property. About 1 per acre. The average is just about 3/4, a little over 3/4 of an acre in size. The grading plan that we've established takes into account the idea that the majority of the grade again picks up from about a line approximately from where Block 4, Lot 17 are. We anticipate that we would need to cut through that soil area right there, 8 to 10 feet and basically start to move all of that back. You see the grading lines as we get down to Lots 6 thru 15. They get a little tighter there. At that point we envision that we would have 7% grading of a public street and climbing up to about 5%just before the cul-de-sac. I recognize that in a lot of instances where you have to, you can have grades that are steeper than that. Maybe it's just a personal idiosyncrasy of mine but we do our very best and never develop a home or a neighborhood where basically the street goes like this and goes downhill all the way into it. People...the mentality that I'm going down to our house. We want to go up to our neighborhood. So our intention is to have a fairly flat, slightly rising condition as you come into the neighborhood and then picking up the terrain as it drops. The majority of the grading, actually the grading lines, if you follow them carefully, you'll see that the majority of the disruption is actually in the back side of Lots 9, 10 and 11. What we have there is a NURP pond that required, a potential siltation pond. And at the back edge, the southerly edge of that pond is still approximately 8 feet vertically 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 above the elevation of Lake Lucy. One of the neighbors from Willow Ridge sent me a note and suggested that perhaps that pond should be moved around and to either side was their suggestion. To either Lot 8 or to Lot 13 and we're more than willing to look at that as a possibility. Notwithstanding that, in the grading plan, if you examine the houses on 7 and 8 and 15 and 14, you'll see that we're allowing the grade on the house pad area to fall with the street so we're actually going to have the street going downhill and the house will be able to do that as well. Actually...more level so we're going to allow the grade across the front yards of those homes to wind up with effectively a walkout...There's a number of existing spruce trees that are in the project now. They primarily were planted by Mr. Coey, who currently owns the property... Those trees now range in size from 4 inch diameter to 9 to 10 inches in diameter. In consultation with some of the large tree moving companies, they claim that they're going to be able to move all of those trees with a tree spade. We can tow them in, out of the way while we finish the streets and then we can plant them again. So we should...the lots and be able to utilize those trees in a responsible manner. We are asking that a private driveway be allowed to service two home sites. Lots number 11 and 12. There really is no other satisfactory method of getting to that point. There is a pond there that will require that we remove .03 acres, about 1,300 square feet, which I suppose is about the size of this room as to the size of that pond. It's characterized as a season...to temporarily flooded as an agricultural basin. Our intention is to mitigate that in a location as desired by the staff engineering. Probably on Lot 8 is one location that we suggest... We've had the question still remaining about the location of the detention pond that's currently on the back side, the southerly side of Lots 10 and 11. I would concur that that pond creates the most active view of grading work through there and we'd be happy to work with staff to attempt to move that either to Lot 8 or to Lot 13 and 12, like was one of the other suggestions and we're willing to look at that...explain to you, we talked this afternoon and it's very difficult to go over grading plans over the phone because I'm pointing at this mark and they're pointing at that mark and...same thing so our suggestion was to get together early as possible at the beginning of next week to examine the grading plans together to see if there isn't another approach that may be viable...to look at that I must also admit that we've utilized the services of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban as the land planning company on this, and Schoell and Madsen as the people who've done the consulting engineering work. I have complete confidence in those people... Given that we're in January now, I'd like to see us continue to move the project along as promptly as we can. We'll be able to start doing some infrastructure work... I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have and look forward to your approval of our request for this project. Scott: Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Ledvina: Mr. Chairman. I'd like the applicant to react to the proposed alternate or alternate that staff has developed. Randy Travalia: When I got the document and we talked over it this afternoon, and some of the grade numbers...in it were some were of existing grades, some were proposed grades and basically none of them were marked properly. None of them were identified so I didn't know which was which. Ledvina: On the city of Chanhassen map? Randy Travalia: Yes. On this plan. What happened was, as I reviewed what had been drafted and with the locations that were made on the staff copy, the grading did not work. We would have had, well...since had a conversation that said, well that's not the grades that we're really trying to put there. The grades as they were drafted were that the cul-de-sac would fit at an elevation about 1008 and 150 feet or so, which is kind of roughly the curve in the private driveway. The elevation at that location is 870. So 20 feet of vertical deviation and 150 feet horizontal, which is a driveway that's untenable, even disregarding yesterday's ice storm. That's a 20% grade roughly and that's not something that we would do. Since that, that was my original instinct as I reviewed through that. Since that time we've had a conversation, well that's not what those numbers were supposed to mean, and that conversation ended at about 4:45... The other part of the equation there is, again kind of going back to my earlier feelings about what the market will buy and what the market won't buy. We've developed a number of neighborhoods where we've had private driveways servicing a couple of home sites and they've been readily accepted by the marketplace. We've done one where there were 6 home sites on it and they were not readily accepted by the marketplace. So that's something that we've been cautiously wanting to stay away from. Particularly given that those are going to be the most valuable homesites on Lake Lucy, we want not to create a situation where the market doesn't appreciate. Ledvina: The situation with the grading. Have you done calculations relating to the earth balance? Randy Travalia: I think we should be pretty close. Our rough cross sections indicate that it will be pretty close to the elevations as we've established on our initial grading plan. If anything we'll be paying for a little bit of dirt. But our preliminary estimates are pretty close. Scott: Any other questions or comments? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Farmakes: There's a considerably amount of vegetation on that shore. It'd be the north shore of Lake Lucy. If these lots were developed, I believe wasn't there a resident that took the city to court in regards to tunneling through that vegetation and the city got into a situation where the DNR said the city had jurisdiction over tunneling through, I think it was like 200-300 feet of cattails. Aanenson: Are you talking about a wetland alteration permit for a dock? Farmakes: I believe the applicant was someone named Rivkin. Was on the other side of the lake and he wished to tunnel a channel through the wetland. Similar, that would have been on the northwest part of the lake. But it was several hundred feet to the lake through the wetland. And my idea being here is that is sort of being sold as lakeshore, is it? I'm assuming that these owners may wish to get access to the lake. Randy Travalia: Mr. Coey has a dock on the lake now. Farmakes: It's like a little board thing I believe. I'm familiar with the lake. You're talking currently, 1, 2, 3, 4 lakeshore lots. 5 lakeshore lots. Has the city addressed that issue? Al-Jaff: They would have to go through a wetland alteration permit to get a dock on the lake. Farmakes: I believe with a development of this size, haven't we been pursuing the issue that there's one dock for everybody. Aanenson: Well if they want to get a common dock, they'd have to go through the beachlot requirements which would require the 40,000 square foot lot for the association. Similar to what we did on the... Farmakes: As I recall, there's a significant amount of vegetation between the wetland edge to the water line, and even once you get to the water line, very poor quality water. The depth get to 4 feet at a considerable distance out. So I'm foreseeing potential problems there. Particularly if an owner wants to get access to the lake. Being we'd have 5 owners maybe burrowing a 60-70 foot channel through that wetland on each lot. Aanenson: Well there's a couple different ways you can handle that. One, obviously is leave it up to each individual person to ask for a wetland alteration permit. Require 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 that they do a beachlot, which would preserve one lot. You know state, ask if they'd be willing to state that they not have access through the wetland to use the lake. Farmakes: The reason I bring it up is I'm familiar with the lake and the lake is I think on the C or D list for recreation because of it's size. It does have a problem with turbulence in the water. It has a muddy bottom and the lake is I think on the criteria that they use for health, it's not a particularly healthy lake. We're getting a fair amount of disturbance in the wetland areas around the watershed of this lake and I don't think this will be adding to the health. That's why I bring it up. We usually touch on these subjects with Minnewashta and I don't see that being part of the report here. So I'll leave it at that. Randy Travalia: Did you have a particular preference between a common dock and individual set of docks? Farmakes: I'm certainly open to, at this point, since we're still into the hearing, I'm not going to make any comments in regards to preference. But I believe we've established some precedence in looking at these type of developments where there's a considerable amount of wetland area. I'm not sure what you grade the wetland area that's adjacent to the lake. I believe it's fairly high with cattails and so on. That we could lose a significant amount of that if each homeowner decided to tunnel through that wetland. I didn't see that addressed in the report. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Nutting moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was opened. Scott: The public hearing is now open. If any members of the general public wish to speak, please step up to the microphone and give us your name and your address and let us know what you have to say. I'm sure that there's some interest so take your time, but we are very interested in getting your thoughts. Yes sir. Joe Cook: Good evening. My name is Joe Cook. I live at 1340 Heather Court. I'm here representing the Willow Ridge group. The folks here and a few over here. We got together a week or so ago after these notices were sent out, to just kind of see what the feedback was of the neighbors and what they felt about the project in general. And overall everybody, you know they're real pleased with Mason Homes coming in there. They're, as was indicated, a quality builder and they have a good 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 reputation so we're real pleased with that. I was in and Sharmin and I have talked a couple times now, and most recently this morning. And I guess we sent out letters, delivered letters and did everybody receive those letters today? Scott: Is this from the Willow Ridge Resident Alliance, 1350 Heather Court? Joe Cook: Correct. Scott: Yeah, we just received it and I haven't had any time to read it, which is usually the difficulty when significant information gets presented at the meeting. But if you wouldn't mind touching on the high points, we'd certainly appreciate it. Joe Cook: That's fine. Quite a few of the issues that have been brought up here already. We're kind of focusing on some of those same issues that are concerns of our's. In the initial, what do you call it. The initial proposal that was on the table here a week ago. Not the updated staff recommendation. There was concern on our part about the water flow drainage from Wetland #1 through the alteration zone and Wetland #5. They wanted to eliminate the Wetland #5 and relocate that to a different part of the site. And we just feel that that's kind of was a natural swale over there that channels the water out into the water pond, through the lowland there and out into Lake Lucy. And they want to put a home basically right on Lot 12 which basically interferes or interrupts with that flowage. Obviously there are ways that it can be mechanically diverting that but we feel the natural flowage should be retained if possible. So that's one issue that we had a concern with there. Tree canopy is another area of concern and it's documented nicely in the staff report here, dated yesterday. And you know, especially Lots 12 and I believe 7 and 8 are heavily wooded sites within the subdivision. The home pads there are obviously... tree canopy. In addition to...there's been discussion about the location of that NURP pond and we feel, in looking to the proposal to move that up to the Lot 12, Lot 13 area and again...if I'm not mistaken, there's significant mature trees in that location of Lot 12 and 13. That was... The position where that, in the original proposal, again I believe there's less mature trees and a lot more of the scrub, you know the scrub willow or dogwoods or whatever. So again you're losing vegetation but now significant amounts of hardwoods and so on. So I don't know what the answer is to that question...concern with that pond issue. Of course that whole area is just teaming with wildlife and there's some natural deer paths and trails that cut through that area or parcel and again that's a concern with development of anything around here. It's going to put more pressure on the wildlife. So that's a concern. Fire safety was an issue with the private drive of Lots 11 and 12. I know it's the staffs recommendation that the staff report had the Fire Marshal is going to require either a large enough area to turn around a 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 fire apparatus. Does that mean a fire truck...? Okay. And/or, if that's not possible, require sprinkling system within the homes. Is that right? Okay. I guess you know, I don't know, I haven't costed it out but I would imagine it would be a fairly significant cost on the construction to put sprinkler systems in homes. But as far as the turn around lane, I don't see that that could be really accommodated. I would envision like a cul-de-sac turn around. Al-Jaff: These are examples of acceptable turn arounds. A Y, a T and the applicant would have to design something that would be acceptable but these are acceptable. Joe Cook: Now and like the Y or the T or the hammerhead, I suspect any one of those legs could be a driveway of the home? Or not. You know like you've got the Y going this way for instance. One of those Y could be the actual driveway. Al-Jaff: Yes they could. Joe Cook: So then you just need one extra short... I suppose that could be accommodated. Al-Jaff: Yes. Joe Cook: Alright. But again you know, in the original plan the private drive was feeding two lots and then this updated version it would be 4 lots. So there you have most of the problem... From a desirability standpoint, as Mr. Mason pointed out, that it could go either way. It could be less desirable to have that from just the appeal of the neighborhood... It might not present itself as well. Especially if you're considering the size and the value of the homes that he'll be placing is significant. Another point of contention I guess is the, we feel there's an inconsistency with the wetland preservation zones, and I guess maybe we just need some answers. In the Willow Ridge subdivision...Exhibit F here, it says a pond area at the rear and it indicates that there's a preservation, wetland preservation, tree preservation zone indicated by a dotted line with large circles going around it. Not much for a visual but it's all I've got. But at any rate, this preservation zone has, goes around this pond at some sort of concentric circle fashion and I would assume has something to do with both setbacks from the water's edge and also the elevation. Perhaps do you have any, or is there a specific formula that you guys work with on that, for that setback and how that line is determined. Al-Jaff: There isn't a required setback from a pond, a man made pond. However, as far as wetlands, natural wetlands, then yes there is and the applicant is meeting those 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 required setbacks. The covenants or ordinances governing the Willow Ridge subdivision were much more lenient. Aanenson: Significantly because we didn't have our wetland ordinance in place yet. So he's being held to a completely different standard than the Willow Ridge. Joe Cook: Yeah, well then I'm just wondering. Scott: We have a gentleman who is speaking at the public hearing and it's appropriate for members of the commission or members of staff to speak and if you would like to speak yourselves, which we would like you to do definitely, when this gentleman is finished, please step up and you can make your comments at that time. Please. Joe Cook: Yeah, I guess I'd like to know staffs requirement or footage or elevation for these lines then. And like he said, especially with a man made pond. I'm going back to how this line was established for Willow Ridge and since this is a totally man made pond, that they've set a pretty restrictive setback preservation zone. Aanenson: Maybe I can answer that. When Willow Ridge was developed, this was before we had the wetland ordinance. As it evolved we came up with three different standards. One is for ponds, man made ponds, which there is no setback from. The second is what we classify ag urban, and then excuse me there's four. Then we have natural wetlands and then we have pristine and they have different setbacks with different buffers. When this proposal came in we were just in the very beginning of developing that wetland ordinance so...buffering and setbacks so, it's before there was an ordinance and that's how that got put in place. We weren't sure exactly where we were going with the development of our wetlands. Joe Cook: Okay. Well then, that's fine but I guess the question I have is, this zone that protects this pond comes, there's a setback here and as it comes around, as it comes around the area, to this side of it, it comes right down to the edge of the pond with no preservation there. And from this line the people in Willow Ridge are required to stay back anywhere from that line, 30 to 50 feet from this protected zone around this pond. Aanenson: If I could address that. Actually if you wanted to pull out the Willow Ridge file, there's a lengthy history on that but a lot of that actually was wetland area that was filled. There was a significant amount of filling of wetlands. Again, this was before we had our ordinance in place and I believe that was part of the compromise. There was a lot of wetland in that whole southern area there that was filled. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Joe Cook: Okay, it was dredged out. Aanenson: Yeah. Actually almost all of them were either dredged or altered in that whole plat. But I believe that was part of that and we'd be happy to research some of that for you... Joe Cook: Okay. I guess, you know I'm not trying to dwell on Willow Ridge because that's history but what I'm trying to go forward is on Lot 12 there. You know Lot 12 borders right up to this pond within maybe 20 or 30 feet of the lot line, of the property line. And then they wanted, they've got a building pad that's right there within, what's the side yard setback, 15, 20 feet? 10? So that house would literally be within you know maybe 30-40 feet of the water's edge of this pond. And what I'm saying is that, that seems to be a contradiction from what we're, you know what the setbacks that we're required to be enforced on our side of the fence as opposed to their side. The Grant's tried to put up a deck and they were required to stay 50 feet back from that setback line and they had immense, at the time it was built, the builder was told 30 feet. Then it increased to 50 somewhere along the line, is the story that I got, and then so... came to put a deck up and obviously they had big problems trying to get the variances. But that's the thing that I'm trying to drive at here is, it seems like the new development going in has got, it's going to be much closer to this pond than we're allowed to be and it's the same pond we're talking about. Just the other side of the fence so that's an area of concern of our's. The development laid out in general appears very pleasing. Now you have the problem except for Lot 12, as a group are also concerned with the layout of that lot. Most subdivisions have fairly uniform back yard to back yard layouts. As you look down from Lake Lucy Road and you come down into the subdivision. The homes are going to be backing up to the back yards of back yards of Willow Ridge, and all the way along until you get down to Lot 12 and this is turned sideways and the back yards are going to be going against the house this way. It just doesn't seem to flow with the development and also future developments that are going to occur to the west of this, which will occur within the next, probably the next year. I would imagine you're going to see that the Planning Commission's going to want to see some uniform back to back layout. So it just doesn't seem to flow... And let's see. And as Ron pointed out earlier, there's concern about the shoreland. The shoreline impact. There's a lot of concern on our part. Each homeowner channeling their way through the reeds, the wetlands area to put a dock out there and as noted, the water gets very shallow there until you get quite a ways out into the lake. Each person can do something different and totally cut down stuff, we just don't know. So as a group we'd like to see you know something in place prior to this plan being okayed. Something in place in terms of how that can be handled. What kind of restrictions that the builder has to inform the buyers of. The buyers 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 coming in. People buying lakeshore. They pretty much figure they can do what they want with it but being the classification of this lake may not warrant that... use of that shoreline. Scott: You know Diane, it might be appropriate to talk a little bit about the wetland alteration process and then without making any guarantees as to the outcome of the process, based upon your past experience, you may be able to shed some light on how possible it would be for someone to get a permit to do the kind of alteration necessary to access the deep water. Desotelle: You need a wetland alteration permit to do any filling to excavating of a wetland. There's a certain minimum amount that...size and the length of the dock would be. Most likely they'd have to replace 2 to 1 what they take out. And unless they can somehow design some sort of a floating, there are some possibilities where they maybe can do some sort of a floating dock or something like that, that doesn't actually hinder. But the DNR also has administration over this lake and as far as like if people are concerned about people making beach areas or something like that on a lake that is heavily vegetated and then pretty mucky, I would be very surprised that anybody would be able to dump sand in there, if you're concerned about that. As far as maybe a dock or access, that may be a possibility but it's a pretty complicated process to go through and the next question would be, even if they get the permit, where are they going to replace the wetland? We try to have replacement on site or as near as possible. Even with that they're going to have to go, the further out they go, let's say they go somewhere within, you fill within the city or the watershed, they have to replace even more. So it's actually a kind of process that tries to actually discourage people from doing it. So as far as the number of docks and all that... Aanenson: Just as normal city policy, in the past what we've done on a lot of these too is encouraged common docks between property lines in trying to reduce the number of dock. But again, in areas where we have substantial wetland like this, we've normally discouraged that. The only one I can think of in the past is like Dogwood on the end of Minnewashta where we had boardwalk docks that were in excess of a couple hundred feet. Scott: So basically I think that maybe at least the sense that you may be getting from this is that if someone were to put a dock there, it would probably make the most sense for all of the owners of a lakeshore lot to put a single dock in. And then from a mitigation standpoint, then if it's a dock that services 5 lots, can they mitigate in that are or do they have to mitigate specifically within the lot that pertains? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Desotelle: No, they could do it within the project area. And all the encouragement would be to...possible so it'd most likely just be naturally...out close to the water. Scott: So there is, I know your concern is to see someone coming in and doing something. The DNR, any time you're getting involved with a state agency, it's not a pretty sight if you're not following the ordinances and I think that although logic sometimes does not enter into it, at least hopefully it's apparent that it's a long process and there are state and local ordinances in place that will cause people to be pretty responsible but I would think that maybe something you might want to suggest is to have something noted in the property records so that,just like when the people who purchased property in your area had to sign a document stating that they understood certain things. At least that a wetland alteration permit would be required for any alterations relative to docks. I think something like that would be a service for the people who are going to buy these lots. Farmakes: I go back to the lawsuit. The ruling was that, as I understood it, and this was a while ago. Now the legislation may have changed this but as I understood it, anything below the high water mark was under the jurisdiction of the DNR. Desotelle: Correct. Farmakes: The DNR said, we will allow this property owner a 50 foot channel access to the lake. Now he had to go through several hundred feet of muskeg and the economics of that were pretty staggering. He chose not to do it because of cost. In this case, would the city, this is below the high water mark, would the city's rules and regulations then apply or would the DNR say to each one of these 5 property owners, we'll allow you a 50 foot channel? And then with the city's rules and regulations in regards to this could be put on a shelf. Desotelle: The DNR regulations the high water mark would apply. But also the wetland alteration permit would apply because of the State Wetland Conservation Act and the city has a city wetland ordinance. So we would require them, if they would dig out a channel, to replace it if it's over the exempt amount, which is right now 400 square feet. Farmakes: That would add to the financial burden again to make it unfeasible? Desotelle: Right. Conrad: But Mr. Chairman, a riparian owner has the right to get to open water. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Desotelle: Right. Conrad: And so, Jeff your comments are right. Rivkin could have, he had that right and it was ruled in his favor so. The only question here would be, I guess I'd like Diane to just, when this comes back, just to update us a little bit on here's a case where 5, 4 or 5 separate lots would want access and are there, rather than one lot owner going at a time, would the DNR be able to control the one at a time access issue? The concern being, if the DNR knows that there's 5, that that one access, would they have the ability to focus that on one dock, one floating whatever it is versus 5 separate access points and it looks like they have to go quite a ways to get to open water. Farmakes: The other issue here...not only the access but what type of boating access would be to the lake. Once you get to this water line, it's still 1 to 2 feet deep and the base below that is nothing but muck. ...power boating through there would require dredging I think, at least 4 feet deep, and that end of the lake is quite weedy for the majority of the boating, so you're looking at extremely high maintenance for a marginal recreational lake. That type of lake is pretty conducive to canoeing and things like that but it would require even more extensive I think dredging once you got out to the lake. To get a power boat out. Joe Cook: Is there any horsepower restriction on that lake? Farmakes: There is not. Al-Jaff: There is a movement from the Park and Recreation Commission to make this lake non-motorized... Farmakes: There is a reason that there's a problem with this lake also is that, I think the average foot depth on it is like 6-7 feet or something, once you work it out so to have a power boat and if there's a mucky bottom below there, you really throwing up clouds of silt as you power around it. Joe Cook: I guess with these questions I'm kind of driving at the fact that, you know how do... You obviously it's not a Lake Minnetonka, hard sandy bottom beach. You know 10 feet deep at the end of the dock type thing. But I mean are they going to be pitched to the buyer as a municipal, full recreational lake. There's no horsepower restriction. You can bring your jet boats on there and do whatever you want because there aren't restrictions. Like you said, it's a shallow lake. Any kind of big engine on a boat is going to tear up the bottom and cause the silt and I would imagine do some 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 pretty good damage to the water quality. But that would be another issue of I guess for covenants of the property and what's being sold to the customer. The buyer or homeowner of it ultimately. I guess getting down to the request here that they had written up was to reduce the size of this development down to 16 lots. You know that may be a little bit aggressive but that's...kind of came up with. We felt that would, reducing the size would accommodate some of these concerns of our's. Less impact on the lake and so on. Specifically our request, you know if you take out 2 or 3 lots, whatever, but one lot, the main lot that we feel needs to be removed from this subdivision plan is Lot 12. Again it's fed by that long, narrow private drive which is not real desirable in the marketplace. As far as the lakeshore quality goes, or as the quality of the lot goes along there, I would say that it's probably lowest in the desirability, at least for a couple reasons I say that. It's because it has, the other lots, Lot 7, 8, 9 and 10, and I guess 11, all have a due south and southwesterly exposure with real good views of the lake. And also all the lots are walkouts, if I'm not mistaken, which is again a very sought after feature in today's market. Lot 12 on the other hand is in general quite a low lying lot. There's an existing...wetland on that parcel. If you make it as a lookout lot. The basement, just some daylight windows down there. And again it shows it on the plat that there's lake access there where it fronts on the lake but I don't know if the reality of that is questionable. And as Sharmin has in this staff recommendations has already reduced, taken one of the lakeside lots out. However, she did combine some of the other ones over, more up on this side of it and my opinion, our opinion as a group feel that this should be redesigned to make maybe a larger lot into two different lots that are large, have a back to back configuration and then you know, keep the lot over here. Maybe how that works out but just eliminate the lot over here and keep the lots over here if possible and then again, from a development standpoint, I believe that you can maximize the value of those lots by doing that. Again you're getting the walkout feature. You're getting lake views and the right exposure, the south to southwest exposure that everybody looks for so. I guess that's pretty much it, that I have anyway. I don't know if anybody else here has...but appreciate your time. Scott: Thank you very much. Does anybody else have any new information or additional information that they'd like to add? Yes ma'am. Joan Ahrens: My name is Joan Ahrens. I live at... That's the little cul-de-sac to the northeast of the proposed development. Over the last 4 years we've lived with constant construction around us, and I'd like to request that the city prohibit the staging of construction equipment in our cul-de-sac. I know it's an odd request. Scott: No, I think it's odd that you'd have to, I mean what? What's the deal here? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Al-Jaff: She lives on that little eyebrow and a lot of people would tend to use it for turning around... Joan Ahrens: It's not only Willow Ridge and... Scott: Is that a public safety issue? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: I mean that would just really tick me off. Aanenson: Yeah, that issue has been brought before the Public Safety. I believe they're looking at putting an island in there. Joan Ahrens: They're looking at putting an island in but we called the city in the past and the city has always said, well it's a public roadway. Well that's really stretching the idea of a public roadway. But we feel pretty beat up with the construction equipment in that little circle and it's amazing that they are doing the staging. The, I forget what ridge it is. Al-Jaff: Shadow Ridge? Joan Ahrens: Shadow Ridge. Over the winter they have parked repeatedly in that little circle and we have 9 kids who live between the 3 houses in that circle and all of our driveways go straight down into the road and of course it's dangerous. But we haven't gotten any help from the city and so. Scott: You've contacted the Public Safety Department? Joan Ahrens: He knows our names, believe me. Scott: Okay. Well I should have assumed that but I wanted to ask the question. Joan Ahrens: But is there a way to get it into the developer's contract that they can't use that area for parking...? Scott: Yeah. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Aanenson: And also like I said, I know this issue has been brought before the Public Safety Commission and it's my understanding that we're looking at putting an island in there to try to eliminate that. But that's certainly something we can address. Scott: That's an issue that you can, while I'm sure you're very familiar with how the process works so. Joan Ahrens: Well we'll follow up on the island but... Scott: Yeah, and public safety can, that's a little extreme use of parking privileges on a public street. Joan Ahrens: Well it's just the developers however. We also have snowplows that, I don't know what happens to the drivers but they abandon their equipment there running. Running, if you can imagine this. We have 12 year old boys who would like nothing more than to get into the snowplow truck. They just leave them there. They leave them for an hour. Scott: This is a city, city vehicle? Joan Ahrens: They say City of Chanhassen on them. Conrad: Joan are they, maybe this is inappropriate but when Willow Ridge moved in, you had some concerns I think, there were road alignments made and how did things work out? Joan Ahrens: We built a fence. It worked out fairly well with the alignment of the road but it was, there are some things that I'm not sure that we...particularly the landscaping along Lake Lucy Road. Conrad: It's your day in court here. Joan Ahrens: Pardon me. Conrad: It's just a good chance to get feedback. Some of the times we think we do the right thing...execution follows the plan. Joan Ahrens: Well, like I said, I think Lundgren did a, followed the rules as they...at the time, except for the landscaping along Lake Lucy Road. That's not what we had envisioned when I was on the Planning Commission and what we had asked for as far 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 as buffering. We were expecting, at least I was expecting some sort of boulevard effect along Lake Lucy Road with the trees. I don't know if you remember that Ladd. And now there's, I don't know, maybe 5 very small willow trees, which was also a surprise to me. Conrad: They grow fast. Scott: Not a lot of salt tolerance though. Joan Ahrens: Well we'll see about that. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to make a comment? Yes sir. Jim Rea: Jim Rea, 6670 Mulberry Circle. I had three basic issues I guess with the development. The first one is it appears along Lake Lucy Road that we're developing isolated neighborhoods. We have Mulberry Circle as it's proposed is not connected to the neighborhood. We have this new development that's not connected to a neighborhood. I understand that this plan, in lieu of a path through the neighborhood, they're going to pay money to the city and not put the path in. I own, if you could put up the yellow sheet. I own the vast majority of property from Lake Lucy Road up to about Lot 12, and I don't know if the topography works out but I would be very happy to talk to the developer about putting a path from my property through into his development. My concern is as we build these isolated neighborhoods, and kids get to know each other, their only road, their only place to go on bikes is on Lake Lucy Road and I'd like to assure that we try to connect these neighborhoods. So I'm very happy, again I don't know if it will work but I'd be very happy to talk about putting a path through there. So that's the good news. The second is, this is the first that I've heard Lot 13, about putting a pond on that lot. There are very mature trees on that lot. ...very tall spruce trees. I can't cut down trees on my lot. I have a very small back yard. Believe me, I'd like to put a swingset up back there and I don't think I have the space for it because I can't cut down any trees. I'm not sure why 20 feet on the other side of the property line they can do that so hopefully we're going to make sure that we preserve the trees on Lot 13. And the last is on Lot 12, which I'm sure is a recurring theme. I'm hoping that the city is going to, I'm sure that Lot 12 was of great economic value...to the developer but I'm hoping that the city is going to be concerned about the current residents as well, along this development. Just a little story of why it's a concern. The way that it's laid out right now, you've got back lots facing what's essentially a side lot. When you've got back lots between each other, there's plenty of space between houses. When you have a side lot to back lot, essentially some of my neighbors could have what could be a 2 or 3 story wall at the 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 end of their property and they will stare out onto that wall. I lived in Maple Grove where the city decided to change the Comprehensive Long Range Plan and the zoning to allow from residential to commercial, to allow a 3 story commercial building to be built in front of my house. I hated that thing. Every time I walked out the door, it got my blood pressure up. It took me 2 years to sell my house. I sold it at a great loss and I was happy to get out of there because that thing bothered me and my concern is if we allow a house, again to be built that close to other houses and it's essentially a flat wall because it's the side wall of a house, that my neighbors will have that same sort of view. Quality of their life on their property will be decreased because of Lot 12. I think in general it's a great development. I'm excited about the development. I'd like to have the development there. I think Lot 12 was shoe horned in to fit another lot that is probably not appropriate in that development... Scott: Thank you. Sir. Alan Thometz: I'm Alan Thometz and I live at 6690 Mulberry Circle. Just a very brief point or two to echo what Jim just said. Jim and I are neighbors. It's Lot 12 that really is the concern that I have. One of the reasons that we were attracted to moving into Willow Ridge is because there were the different setbacks and I don't know how the origin of how it all happened with the number of feet and what they are. It just seems surprising tome that we moved in there a little over a year ago and we were attracted to it because it was environmentally sensitive and because the area was setback from the pond. As I look at this plan, I see a house that can be closer to that pond than all of what the existing residents around that pond agreed to in terms of a setback. Or further away from than this house can be. That just doesn't seem fair. So I'm really concerned about Lot 12. Otherwise... Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to make some comments at the public hearing? Well seeing no more comments, sir. Joe Morin: I'm Joe Morin and we have the property immediately to the west of the proposed development. We bought the property about 9 years ago. We've been living there for the last 6 years. So our property extends from Lake Lucy Road all the way down to Lake Lucy. So it looks like we'll be having a lot of new neighbors. Actually we wish we could keep our present neighbor. Ted's been a good neighbor and one house on that property seems appropriate to us but realistically, if I were to choose which Twin Cities developer I would like to develop that property, I think Mason Homes would be first on the list. So I'm really pleased that it looks like we're going to be able to...development that is suitable for the natural terrain and is sensitive to the 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 trees and I think with the modifications that the staff is proposing, will minimize the grading impact on the area. One aspect of the proposal Pm particularly pleased to see is the removal of that eyebrow because that puts the homes on the lots immediately adjacent to our home further away. Reduces the impact on us. One thing that I'd like to point out, and I've already talked with Randy about this, is that we do have a walking easement around the pond to Lake Lucy Road. That's in our deed and I just want to be sure that that's a matter of record here. The other thing is that one of the proposed mitigation sites is right in that corner where our walking easement is and again, I talked with Randy about that. He's very flexible being able to move that but there is a grove of small white birch trees that I would like to be sure isn't impacted by where this mitigation site is placed. And I also talked with Sharmin this afternoon about that. The other thought I had in terms of the mitigation, and...but the pond itself is a rapid, well not rapidly but is gradually filling with vegetation and it is quite shallow now. If something could be done to improve that pond rather than building another next to it, I'd like to see that happen but I don't know if that's possible or not...and it did look quite shallow. So I think it would improve the habitat for wildlife but...You mentioned that Rivkin proposal and he did have to go through about 400 feet of cattails to get access to the lake. In front of our property it's more like 40 to 50 feet and there are some areas of open water where you could happen to get access to the lake without having to do any dredging. My neighbor and I share a dock, which is right on our adjoining property lines and that works well for both of us but should development occur further to the west, I would also like to have access to the lake myself and that would be a sixth dock possibly so you might want to consider that. There is a naturally occurring open area on my property...I do now have access with our canoes. My position on motorized access on the lake, I think people that are on there presently should be grandfathered in at the horsepower level that they're currently using. I'm using 4 horsepower, okay. And the reason I need a motor at all is because of the point that Jeff raised, is once you get beyond the cattails there's another maybe 20 feet of foxtail that's very hard to get through. And so I like to have that 4 horse motor to get through that. After that the lake drops off to 17 feet out there so it is a pretty nice lake once you get past that barrier. Do you have any question for me? Farmakes: The area right in front of your property there's a hole. There's a hole there. As you go farther to the east, it gets much more shallow. It's not 17 feet. Joe Morin: It gets shallow as you go into that lagoon area and then once you're in the lagoon, it drops down to 12 feet. 36 • Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Farmakes: Right. But the lagoon area that we're talking about, the lake area in front of 12 and 11 and so on, that's much shallower. Joe Morin: As you go to the east, you're right. And then we have to get around that little island. And then later on it gets up to 26 feet on the other side of the island. Farmakes: Again, I believe the average depth of the lake is below 7 feet I think. Joe Morin: Well we measured it one year. It's 26. Farmakes: That's out in the middle of the lake though. Joe Morin: Yeah it is, right out in the middle. Scott: Any questions or comments? Good, thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes sir. Ted Coey: I just want to, I'm Ted Coey. I just want to clarify a point about the lake and that's that, I've lived on the lake for 13 years and all I've ever used it for is canoeing... It's not a boating lake. And the reason is, you can't get out to it. There's no public access. So if they put 5 lots or 500 lots on my property, you can't get to it. I mean you can't put a road through there. The DNR would stop you. You'd have to pick up a boat and carry it, a 2,000-3,000 pound boat out there... So I don't know what everybody is worrying about. You couldn't get a boat. All you can get out there is a canoe or something you can physically carry. There's no public access on the whole lake. So that pretty much solves that problem. Scott: Good, thanks. Anyone else? Seeing no other folks interested in speaking, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion caned. The public healing was closed. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: First of all I'm going to start off, I have property on this lake but I'm going to make comments on it because I think there's a precedency. We've had commissioners who have been on Lake Minnewashta I believe have stated that I don't think in this case, this would change my mind on how I would vote on this. I can't see this property from my property. I'm on the other end of the lake. I think this is a 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 nice development. The physical property, because of the wetland to the east really sort of precludes any type of turn around coming back out of the development if there's a second entrance. The concern though is as these properties develop, and I think this is a classic case of these properties developing. A lot of these lots are narrow going down to the lake. I believe some of them to the west are 4, I'm not sure what your property is but I think it's 4 or 5 acres. Something like that. Ted Coey: 5 acres. Farmakes: Right. But there are several of those so as time moves on and people move on, these properties will be developed so what I envisioned, there are going to be a lot of cul-de-sacs, single road cul-de-sacs going down to access this property. The majority of these landscapes are kind of ridged and pretty treacherous down to elevations down to a little wetland or something before it hits the lake. So a lot of the contours of where these roads can go are certainly defined by contours of property and I think this particular property is a pretty classic example. Kind of meandering through a couple of wetland areas on either side. We did not deal with this issue with Willow Ridge on connecting the additional property. It's been a while since we did Willow so I'm not sure where that discussion led. Maybe Ladd can fill us in on that. Following our direction, I believe it was 1,000 feet, this is what a 1,000 foot cul-de- sac? Aanenson: Yeah. We did look at that with Willow Ridge. Farmakes: Right. Because of the wetlands, I don't see how we can come up with another way out of there but I'm not sure if we have a policy of how we're going to do that with any additional property as you go along down to the west there on Lake Lucy Road. I'm going to support staffs recommendation on negotiating an issue on the elevations... The issue of property, having riparian rights to the 5 lots that are currently, that the applicant's designed, as I stated before this lake is on the C or D list for recreational access. The DNR essentially does not wish to put any money into the access unless the city gives them the property because of the recreational level of the lake. The lake is sick. It has been sick for years. It doesn't read out well on a meter reading and so on and primarily it's because the amount of silt that's already in the lake. Because of the farming that has taken place in the watershed. It has a huge watershed out to the west. Much bigger than the lake itself. I think Mr. Schluck ran a rod down to silt in the middle of that lake 20 some feet before it broke, to give you an idea of how much silt it sitting out in this lake. As a matter of practicality, cutting through these reeds and so on is thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. However, if you look at these lots, the minimum access that the DNR will give them 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 will be 50 feet. And if you cut 50 feet on all of these lots, you really virtually destroy that wetland so potentially it could be destroyed by allowing that access. Typically if you ask for it, they will give you 50 feet unless there's an extraordinary reason why not because of what Ladd said. The State's position is if you have property, unless there's an extraordinary reason, you're allowed access. And in fact, you can do it without a permit if you choose to remove it by hand. I believe they allow you to remove a certain amount by hand without asking anybody. Certainly because of the nature of this lake, it would certainly be a good idea to deal with it as a community access, and this has not been addressed at all. I'm not sure how that works into the lot situation. Or how that would work into type of covenant situation. That really hasn't been addressed in our report. But perhaps when we reconfigure in that situation, that you can look at that. This lake is also subject to a lot of unstable shoreline. Floating bog problems as well because the level of the lake going up and down. On occasion large chunks of muskeg break off and float around depending on whether the level goes up or down. Also the area on that, that would border 9, 10, 11 and 12, it's quite shallow out for a considerable distance before you get to what I think the DNR has navigable at 4 feet in depth. And it extends much farther than what is shown on the map as being navigable. I'm not sure where it stands on the issue of motor but I do know that if Christmas Lake is a precedent, I think it's the only time that the DNR has made a precedent. Where they grandfathered, for a period of time, a difference in the horsepower between public use and lakeshore use. And otherwise their policy is, whatever applies to public applies to the homeowner on the lake, which is fine. I don't boat on the lake, by the way. I've had a little boat down there that's been sitting there in the reeds for years. It's not a very pleasant experience. You feel like you want to take a shower after you're done boating out on the lake. There's a lot of stuff living. But I think anything that's reasonable, certainly if we use this precedent of how we've handled Lake Minnewashta, I think that there were a couple developments that went through a considerable amount of wetland. Certainly if there's something that could be done there. Failing that, if the criteria is such that it came between destroying that wetland, which I've been over on that side of the lake because of the DNR actually gave us stuff to spray for purple loosestrife with the Lake Association, so I've walked over in that muskeg actually and there is a lot of wildlife in there. It's pretty much a pretty pristine area. I would hope that we could find a way not to destroy that, or to assure that that won't be destroyed. The rest of the lots certainly, I'm not sure if 16, or I'm not even going to recommend an amount at this point because I think that this configuration still needs to solve some other problems other than a count situation. Certainly the amount of property applied to each pad is more than what we typically see. And if it wasn't for where these wetlands fall, and some of the other situations that are caused by the topography of the land, this would certainly be an asset as it's being proposed now. But I would like to see those 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 problems solved. And I was willing to wait and see how those come back. I'll leave it at that. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I like the development also. I support staffs direction. I guess the only thing I would add as this process develops is if we can, the Willow Ridge neighbors, the developer and staff address the Lot 12 issue and see if there is some accommodation to be made or perhaps it makes sense to remove Lot 12 for a whole host of reasons that have been mentioned. I'm not saying it has to end up that way but I'd like to see that process evolve so that hopefully the developer and the neighbors can come up with a workable solution. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: As it relates to Lot 12, I also see quite a few problems and I'm not going to go through discussing those. There's a number of things here that have to be resolved before that area becomes a buildable area and right now I'm not convinced that it works the way it's laid out. So I'll defer that to staff and the applicant and the representatives of Willow Ridge, if that works. Looking at the wetland situation, I was looking at the grading plan here and I see that, as it's designed, there's quite a bit of grading within, grading for the construction of this pond within the wetland setback area. And typically we don't allow grading in the wetland setback area. Is that correct? Desotelle: As I understand the ordinance, this is a natural wetland so the buffer would be an average of 20 feet with a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 30. Ledvina: Okay, so a minimum of 10 feet then. Desotelle: Right. Ledvina: So as it's proposed, the grading really can't take place as we see it. Desotelle: As the ordinance says. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. And just expanding on that a little bit more. When we, in those buffer areas and in the wetland itself, the ordinance prevents the vegetation from being cut in that area. So I think you would have to actually come in with a variance 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 to the wetland ordinance for anyone to construct a dock out to the lake. Let alone what the DNR would say or other types. Farmakes: That was the point of the ruling. The point of it is below the high water, the State has jurisdiction, not the city. Aanenson: Right, but what Diane said is that they would still have to get a permit through us. That's what I'm saying, and we have the stakes that we put up that says you can't, no alteration or you can't do anything within that buffer. Farmakes: It's a setback. Aanenson: Right. So that's what Diane indicated. They still would have to get a permit through the city and the other agencies. Ledvina: Well it wouldn't be just a permit. It would be a variance to the ordinance. Aanenson: Because it was conditioned already on this, right. And still get a permit probably on top of that, correct. Desotelle: I assume if that storm water pond, if that's still there, that would be the other... Ledvina: Right, that would be a variance scenario as we've laid it out here and that's not identified in our report right now so, is it? Desotelle: I thought I addressed that issue. Ledvina: Well it's not a condition. As a specific variance to the city ordinance, we usually have a condition regarding that. I might have missed that in your discussion but, and I think some of the ideas here were maybe that pond works best on Lot 12 and maybe that's an alternate. Or other places, but again I would like to see that, the buffer areas for our wetlands be strictly upheld and make sure that no grading takes place within those areas. I guess just in general also, as I look at some of the house pads and I see the house, the lines for the house pads are actually kind of skirting right along the erosion control protection and I know when you're building a house, you're going to be driving heavy equipment around the house pad so you have to account for that. You have to account for the movement of a bulldozer or a backhoe, a large sized backhoe completely around the house pad. I don't think there's any other way of doing it. I'm sure there are but not in standard construction techniques so I'd 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 like close attention paid to where the setbacks are and where we're actually putting the house pads. And I think, I guess I would agree with staff in terms of the efforts that, or the suggestions that they've made regarding the 20 foot setback. That's pretty tight. I think maybe 25 would be more appropriate. You know variance from 30 feet but I think it can be done. I don't know, that's a hard one to visualize. Let's see, the situation I think with the common dock, that might be a reasonable possibility and maybe Lot 12 can work into that, although that doesn't look like the best spot for access to the lake. But at any rate, I'm not going to say anything more on that. Regarding the grading issue, I understand the difficulty in working with the slopes and we do have our city ordinances relating to the slopes of the streets, etc. I do think that there can be some additional improvements made to the plan as it's laid out and I think the staff alternate is heading in the right direction certainly. And I think it's conceptual at this point and when we, I think once we get together with the applicant, we can work on the grades and make that type of scenario work. Eliminating the eyebrow, shortening the cul-de-sac, all seem to make good sense to me. I think it would be a good idea to add a condition, or at least discuss with the applicant the possibility of linking some pedestrian access through to Mulberry Circle, is it. And also I would be in favor of adding a condition regarding the staging of, or prohibiting the staging of construction equipment in that eyebrow. Curry Farms, is that right? Aanenson: ...Hills. Ledvina: That's it. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: Very little to add. Just summing up some points that I've heard that I agree with. It's a good development by a good developer.I think it should be tabled for the refinement that staff's recommending. I do agree with the staff recommending the reduced right-of-way and the reduced setbacks. I don't think that numbers of houses is an issue on this parcel. It's just not. I don't care if there's 10 or 20. I think the issues are the topography. We saw those. There's enough property to do what the applicant wants to do but it's looking at the sensitivity to the land that's most important to me. When this comes back I would hope that when the staff is making recommendations on certain things to preserve, I guess I need a sense of what we are saving. So if we're reducing something from 20 to 19, or we're changing something, I just need to know that we're going to save more than 1 tree. And that's what I don't see right now. I don't know what we're doing. So that has to come back. So if we make an alteration to the developer's proposal, I guess to change it, I'd like to see what that's changing and what it's saving. As I talked to Diane about it, I need to know what the 42 Planning Commission control is front end fry to open water from this development. I'm rea here. I do like beachlots but Pm not in favor of here. t. It's not in the plan. I'm comfortable with that you get 5 lots to open water without dredging 5 d: going to do it because of cost but somebody's going to .ss I'd like to see what we have. What controls the D\: final issue, a lot of thing's been said about Lot 12. I 7-ight now I'm no place on Lot number 12. I want sta still is a buildable lot for these reasons, or it's not bec- ,, neighbors brought up that we forgot to consider. TIL Scott: Okay, thanks. I :now that we've got setbacks from side to side and back t- ':ses an interesting situation where we've got a back to a t think our ordinance really addresses that. If it do me at some other time. If it does not, I think we need to _ get some of these lines, thin ones coming in, we may run like to have a number where we can say, this doesn't w But that's the only comment I have. I'd like to hear :. Ledvina: Well I woul._ :emission table the proposed development, Case #94- - that's rezoning, Case #95-1 which is Wetland Alteration. Conrad: I second that Scott: It's been moveL the issues as mentioned. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Con: . Commission table action on the Rezoning of 18.15 aciu gal Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family #9.1-6 1 .:vide 18.15 acnes into 20 single family lots and one on a 20 foot front yard setback and a 50 foot wide Right-of- :tland Alteration Permit to fill and mitigate an Ag Urban oted in favor of tabling the item and the motion carne, Scott: When can we in February or. Planning Commission Meeting - January 18, 1995 Aanenson: We need the turn around time. Scott: Yeah. I guess we'd like to see it as soon as possible to move it ahead so put it on the schedule and thank you all very much. We always appreciate citizen input and it's especially good when you're as organized as you are, so thank you very much. Come back, see us again and follow your issue all the way to the City Council. VISION 2002 UPDATE - FRED HOISINGTON. Fred Hoisington: What I would like to do is to be as brief as I can and talk to you a little bit about the summary of, my instructions are to kind of give you a summary of the survey completed some time ago on the Vision 2002 and then talk a little bit about what the Planning Commission might do or might think about or might consider doing in the way of implementing or even to put some pressure... I won't spend a great deal of time. I don't know if any of you are privy to Bill Morrish's presentation to the city probably about 2 months ago but these were some of the findings of that particular survey. Joe raised a good point that...that there are no dollars...with any of these so it's a lot easier for folks to suggest that they approve them or support them... This was kind of interesting though because there was a high level of familiarity... and that's attributable of course to a lot of people having been involved with it. A lot of media coverage and so forth so there were lots of folks that knew about this and 63% said that they received a copy of the newsletter. Well it's sent to every household in the city of Chanhassen. So some folks...it was folded up and didn't realize what they had. Some probably threw it away. Some probably didn't want to believe that they received it. It's a normal human response and consequently...indicated that they had received it. 45% of the total sampled were familiar with the idea suggested, and according to Bill Morrish that was a very high percentage. Extremely high percentage...he's done so many surveys around the metro area, and we were very high on that particular question. Now some of the things that people say, they favored an activity center. 63% are either somewhat or strongly favored an activity center...recreational center, community center and so forth and...define what that is except there seems to be some fairly strong...come from younger families. The people that don't participate and did not participate in the...so there's kind of a silent group out there that happens to have young children... As far as the activity center timing...is we had a couple of options. Either 3 years, 5 years, or never and 74% said they ought to be built within the next 5 years. The city commons consisting of City Hall, library and senior center, was reported at 75%. Those who favored...and most of you know the history of ...monuments and...and the city of Chanhassen hasn't been particularly certain that that could work...so strong support there...I would hope that was because there's an understanding that maybe this downtown really has to be different than what 44 C ITY 0 F PC DATE: 2/15/95 \ CHATHASE1 ' CC DATE: 3/13/95 r CASE #: 95-1 Site Plan By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review and variance request for a 12 x 20 foot transmitter building for KKCM Radio I- Z LOCATION: South of Assumption Seminary and south of U.S. 212 (Flying Cloud Drive), 1451 Flying Cloud Drive - SWl/a, SW1/4, Section 35 V J APPLICANT: KKCM Radio P.O. Box 357 a.. Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 496-1530 PRESENT ZONING: A2 - Agricultural Estate District ACREAGE: A 3.67 acre easement over 9.92 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2 - Agricultural Estate S - A2 - Agricultural Estate E - A2 - Agricultural Estate W - A2 - Agricultural Estate WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site QPHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is located south of Flying Cloud Drive. The soil and vegetation found on the site are indicative of a W wetland. F- 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Parks/Open Space. 1 ' I 'S'icF4j1 _ L_____ I LA 14k :144 ; ._._.____ _. ct1QQ. • 0 . 1 . I . . < 4_ ± ..V; CL. cr 41 wipi 4 1 .) e• w o o o -2 o o -1 c.,ile w o 41 "S- I ct 0 - - -..... o' -----1---- / /. 14 olt Al .■IIIIIIk 1,76.) V ' „ ri, .-illgr •Ai 46-\ I i ilk 4 ---7-\,N/ -- \\1117‘711" 1\. b N i 1 t-C- /el . \ \ tS, KKCM Radio Site Plan and Variance February 15, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a 12 x 20 foot building to house a new transmitter. The site currently contains the station's broadcast towers and transmitter. A site plan review is required to expand and locate a building on this site. In addition to the site plan review, a forty-five (45) foot variance from the front yard and a five (5) foot variance from the side yard setback requirements are being requested to locate the 12 x 20 foot building at five feet from the north and west property lines. This variance would allow the applicant to minimize the impacts on the wetland. The proposed building would have an approved roof with a cedar plywood exterior. A steel double door will be located on the north side of the building. The applicant's original proposal entailed leaving the existing transmitter building on the site for storage of old audio equipment and the current transmitter, which would be used in emergency situations. However, in recent discussions with city staff, the applicant indicated they will most likely remove this old building. Staff is recommending the old transmitter building be removed from the property to reduce visual clutter of the site. BACKGROUND KKCM, formerly KSMM Radio, has leased this 400 x 400 foot parcel of land since 1961. The original site was an existing nonconforming use. Commercial communication transmission towers are permitted as a conditional use in the A2, Agricultural zoning district. In December of 1986, KSMM Radio requested a conditional use permit (CUP 86-5) to install a second transmission tower and bring the site into conformance with the zoning ordinance. On January 26, 1987, the City Council approved the conditional use permit. The subject property is located outside of the MUSA and is currently guided for park/open space. Future use and land use designation will most likely remain park or open space because the majority of the land south of Flying Cloud Drive is mapped either wetland or floodplain. The existing use would probably be the ultimate or best use for this property. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed building will store the main transmitter, a small back-up transmitter and associated audio equipment. Because this is not a public building and will store equipment only, conditions and standards pertaining to parking, circulation, water and sanitary utilities, etc., should not be an issue. KKCM Radio Site Plan and Variance February 15, 1995 Page 3 Wetland vegetation dominates this site. The site plan attempts to reduce filling of the wetland by making use of the current access point and by keeping the building as close to the road as possible. Cedar siding on the proposed building should help blend the building with the natural features and vegetation. Because of the abundance of vegetation on the site, additional landscaping would do very little to soften the impact of the building in this "natural area." In addition, the elevation of this building in relation to the roadway helps to buffer and screen the building from surrounding properties and Flying Cloud Drive. The proposed location for the new building is considered a wetland based on a preliminary field inspection and the marsh soils indicated in the soil atlas. The State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) does allow activities that result in the draining or filling of less than 400 square feet of wetlands per year per landowner without mitigation. The applicant is proposing a 12 x 20 foot building and should document the total area impacted due to both construction and the building pad. Since the City of Chanhassen is the local government unit administering the WCA, an exemption form will need to be obtained from the city. Because of the marsh type soil found on the site, the City Building Official is recommending that the slab be designed by a structural engineer to ensure the slab on grade does not break up as it moves throughout the seasons. ACCESS Access to this site is provided via an existing drive off of Flying Cloud Drive. The drive will be used once a week for inspection and maintenance of the transmitter. This drive should be adequate for the limited use it will receive. LANDSCAPING No additional landscaping is being proposed. Because of the elevation difference between the roadway and the building, landscaping would do very little to buffer the building from the highway. GRADING/DRAINAGE The applicant will need to document the total area impacted due to both construction and the building pad and verify that this area does not exceed four hundred square feet. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE One sign on the building would be required by the F.C.C. which alerts the public to the contents of the structure including the equipment which produces high voltages. The proposed sign is 18 x 24 inches in size. KKCM Radio Site Plan and Variance February 15, 1995 Page 4 VARIANCE APPEAL The applicant is requesting a forty-five foot (45) variance from the front yard setback and a five (5) foot variance from the side yard setback for the construction of a transmitter building. The variance would allow the applicant to place the building at five (5) feet from the north property line and five (5) feet from the west property line. Applicable Regulations 1. Section 20-575(5)(a) states the minimum setbacks in an A-2 Agricultural District for front yards shall be fifty (50) feet. 2. Section 20-575(5)(c) states the minimum setbacks for side yards in an A-2 Agricultural District shall be ten (10) feet. Analysis Staff is recommending the Commission approve a five (5) foot variance from the side lot line and a thirty-five (35) foot variance from the front lot line based on the findings listed below. Staff believes a greater setback from the front property line (Flying Cloud Drive) can be maintained without significantly increasing the impacts on the wetland. Findings The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The applicant has demonstrated a hardship in the location of the existing towers and the wetlands on the property. A five (5) foot side yard and thirty-five (35) foot front yard variance would help minimize the impact on the wetland by reducing the amount of fill needed to build and access the building. The variance would also allow the applicant to place the building closer to the existing drive reducing the need for additional fill. KKCM Radio Site Plan and Variance February 15, 1995 Page 5 b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: This is an existing use. A variance is being requested to minimize the impacts on the wetland. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The variance is being requested to update the existing equipment and building, and to continue to utilize the site for broadcasting purposes. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Minimizing the impact on the wetland is not a self-created hardship e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The surrounding property is low and wet. A 12 x 20 foot building five feet from the property line should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. A reduced setback should not obstruct the view of the traveling public or negatively impact the use of the highway, because the building will be approximately ten feet below the grade of the highway and would be located approximately forty feet from the edge of the pavement. The variance should not increase the congestion of the public street or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or impair property values. KKCM Radio Site Plan and Variance February 15, 1995 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: I. Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review 95-1, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain all required permits or approvals from the FCC and the Army Corps of Engineers. 2. A wetland exemption form shall be obtained from the city. 3. Plans submitted for the building permit should include an engineered foundation or slab. 4. The existing transmitter building shall be removed from the property. 5. No advertising signs shall be allowed on the property. H. Variance Request "The Planning Commission recommends approval of a five (5) foot side yard and a thirty-five (35) foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a 12 x 20 foot shed at fifteen feet from the north property line and five feet from the west property line based on the following findings: 1. The wetland on the property prevents the placement of the shed at 50 feet or more from the front lot line and 10 feet or more from the side lot line. 2. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 3. This,petition for a variance is based upon a desire to have a reasonable use of the property while minimizing the impacts on the wetland." KKCM Radio Site Plan and Variance February 15, 1995 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS 1. Application dated January 13, 1995 2. Letter from the applicant dated January 16, 1995 3. Memo from Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator dated January 31, 1995 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated February 6, 1995 5. Public Hearing Notice. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: 4N�C Ni Rf,(-1,0 OWNER: I �CF`�h-Ac`r m kus-V-1,C Lid ADDRESS: CDO 1 K D7 ADDRESS:`�� I ` /piny //1.!, fir / ,I ct �EQ._ -6-379 C Gv-,l��sen TELEPHONE (Day time) 1ciLv` 1t)30 TELEPHONE: f -s-/ - -s'(1(1.c""e) 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Y 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. --v-- Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W' 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 e•-k.) i-k_t ldLn LOCATION ( 45-1t-i� C�c r LEGAL DESCRIPTION ex) ce.r'Qc. C5+r\Q MCC- cedesr- D1 occ tv ; 1l cu �� v'�C'� c_1 bO cLSY. 1 ha -R F i n Z S ,r`? \ •tczr1I-Ir:.\-CJvv- Cb\DiS , PRESENT ZONING K-2, REQUESTED ZONING 5'?7, '" PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST A'-fn ! S k'kt- 9\an '; J c'tl;L 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 dont returned to City Hall Records. i ( ( (CP \\4"--‘ I)i3 Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on / 347-- Fee Pa: 4/0 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. KKCM-AM 1530 Christian Talk for the Twin Cities and Central Minnesota P.O. Box 357 Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 496-1530 ? h a`J Li o� ��g H1G / Edge -ower gp4.00 Ev.) P. 6("414" - ->: .•.olePExIstIng (Assuw«dista Bu 1 I d 1 ng Proposed New D 12x20 Transmitter Building Existing Towers A 0 .a a 800.00 KKCM-AM 1530 Christian Talk for the Twin Cities and Central Minnesota P.O. Box 357 Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 496-1530 January 16, 1995 Mr. John Rask City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Dear Mr. Rask: On Friday, Jan. 13, I personally delivered an application for a site plan review, along with a setback variance and the application fee of$410. As you requested, here is an explanation of the project: KKCM, formerly KSMM Radio, has leased a 400 by 400 foot parcel of land from Chanhassen Springs Co. located at 1451 Flying Cloud Drive since 1961. This site is used by the station as a location for our broadcast towers, transmitters and phaser. The site was approved by the Federal Communications Commission and is maintained by its rules and regulations on a weekly basis. The towers are located in a wetland area because that type of soil allows good ground conductivity, which is important in AM broadcasting. KKCM has recently purchased a state-of-the-art, solid-state transmitter which must remain dry and be easily accessible for weekly maintainence. Therefore, we are asking for consideration from the City for permission to build a 12 foot by 20 foot single-story, framed structure to house the new transmitter. The structure would have an approved roof with cedar plywood on the exterior. We will also use verticle board and batten trim at 16 inch increments. The exterior would be stained earthtone colors. The north side of the structure will be where we will install a steel double door for the only entrance on the building. There will be a skylight for additional inside lighting on the east side of the roof. The structure will be insulated to protect the transmitter and other equipment from extreme temperatures and drywall will be installed on the walls. Because the structure will store our main transmitter and a small, back-up transmitter and associated audio equipment, there will be no need for any other utilities except for power and telephone. The current transmitter building will be kept for storage of old audio equipment and the current main transmitter, which will be used in emergency situations only. This building, like the current transmitter building, will have a helon fire extinguisher installed. a North Star Broadcasting, Ltd. station page 2 KKCM hired Hedlund Engineering to survey the lease and draw the site plan for review. It was their recommendation to use the northwest corner of the lease as the site for the new structure because it is about the only part of the lease where there was no wetland, thus the water would run off and not stand like it does at times around the current building and the fact there is a small area where a car can pull off highway 212 and park out of the way for the people needing to service the building and its contents immediately closeby. Placement of this building in this location is within the setback requirements, however, as you have mentioned in our discussions, it is far enough off the road that there would be no interference with traffic on the highway nor with ajoining landowner activities. The only signage on the building would be one required by the F.C.C. which alerts the public that the contents of the structure include equipment that produces high voltages. That sign is 18" x 24 ". Enclosed please find a list of property owners within 500 feet of our tower site provided to KKCM by Carver County Title and Abstract. If there are any further questions, please feel free to telephone me. Sincerely, John Hull General Manager -- KKCM a North Star Broadcasting, Ltd. station CITY QF ,.. _.,„_,_ A.. 0;'_ i CHANHASSEN5 r'/ k „ o A = f , ._:-?,-,, 0e -.,.� _, e 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask, Planner \` FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator • � ��'`�', , DATE: January 31, 1995 SUBJ: 95-1 Site Plan Review Upon review of the site plan for the KKCM Radio transmitter building, I offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS The proposed location for the new building is considered a wetland based on a preliminary field inspection and the marsh soils indicated in the soil atlas. The area is also near the national wildlife refuge and, therefore, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been notified for comment. STATE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT The State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) does allow activities that result in the draining or filling of less than 400 square feet of wetlands per year per landowner without mitigation. The applicant has proposed a 12 by 20 foot building and should document that the total area impacted due to both construction and the building area will not exceed 400 square feet. Since the City of Chanhassen is the local government unit administering the WCA, an exemption form will need to be obtained from us. If, on the other hand, more than 400 square feet are impacted, a replacement plan will be required and the area will have to be mitigated. CITY WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The City of Chanhassen also requires a wetland alteration permit; however, if the applicant is exempt from the WCA, then a wetland alteration permit is not necessary from the City. FEDERAL SECTION 404 PERMIT Since this project is less than 0.5 acre of impact to a wetland, then it should qualify for a nationwide Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act. This permit process is administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and, therefore, it is recommended that they be notified of the project. c: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director g`eng\dianelplanningkkcm spr 4i CITY OF ti CHANHASSEN r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official .d .lc* DATE: February 6, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-1 SPR (KKCM Radio, John Hull) I was asked to review the site plan for a proposed structure at 1451 Flying Cloud Drive. Background: The applicant had a building permit (#6842, expired 1/30/95) to replace the tower guywire anchors. The Carver County Soil Survey indicates the soil type on the property as being a marsh soil. Analysis: The occupancy classification for a storage building is M, and as such it may be constructed as a slab on grade building in any type of soil except peat or muck. Marsh soil, however has a building site rating of 10 which is the least desirable rating. In order to insure the slab on grade does not break up as it moves throughout the seasons, the slab should be designed by a structural engineer. There are no design requirements for the rest of the building. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Plans submitted for the building permit should include an engineered foundation. ga\safety\sak\memos\plan\kkcm.jrl � wcs r e` s 0,. 21,DO" NOTICE OF PUBLIC ;"'Lr I lip,S11 HEARING 4,40 0., INN. NI PLANNG COMMISSION I�� 411Fir c'9 MEETING r �� Wednesday, February 15 i � bY at 7:00 p.m. 0.r.)City Hall Council Chambers 5 0' - 690 Coulter Drive Go $911V.- Project: Site Plan Review and Variance Request , /�� C ! ' �,opo oa\gc il col Developer: KKCM Radio p / — Location: 1451 Flying Cloud Drive Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant (KKCM Radio) is proposing a site plan review and variance request for the construction of a 12' x 20' transmitter building. The new building is proposed to be located 5' from the north and west property lines. The ordinance requires a 50' front yard and 10' side yard setback. The site is located at 1451 Flying Cloud Drive and zoned A2, Agriculture Estate. 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 John at 937-1900, ext. 117. 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 February 2, 1995. 3 (6 .eland Gohlike Chanhassen Springs Co. Irene Pahl [1661 Myeron Road c/o Elliot Feinberg 13056 Johnson Memorial Dr. itillwater, MN 55082 4725 Excelsior Blvd. Rt. 3 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Shakopee, MN 55379 fames Sowle, Jr. 1817 Lark Spur Lane Edina, MN 55424 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 2/15/95 CHA1HAS EN CC DATE: 3/13/95 CASE #: 93-24 SUB By: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: The Chaska School District and City of Chanhassen propose to preliminary plat for a 107,690 square foot elementary school and recreation/park complex, LOCATION: The property is located at the southeast corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard Q (Co. Rd. 19) V APPLICANT: Mr. David Clough City of Chanhassen CL Chaska School District #112 110600 Village Road Q Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 42 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 5 S - Timberwood Estates E - Vacant W - Galpin Boulevard WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has been in an agricultural use and contains several �— drained wetlands. Bordered on the east by Bluff Creek. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Single Family or School Site of - -- --- :: V ( I I ' i1` LAKE ANN 11/ _ = .r z �11111111nti ' ``•: s/111111111, L Alai illif# .___-__ __= ANN PARK i - ftk Ili) j t / ARBOR �' 8OULEVARD L I yei 07 . W .... c,c ` ilill iiiia , ''.=`,r YC�cGLYNN ROAD .., ,, Witv.‘11.0 o- I 11_4? TIM:ERW OD on. *te, 611.11„ ,4,. . $. - 4- iiiiiiir r' POND tai ROGc' f'` 4 con oh 1 0 ..._ kim.. al ct k all E 'C,�1\t, / .=.7*- r �,, Q STDNEc-EEK w 41 ti 1th A AFLIta.SI i* ` . DR vE• I 11110 all 1.4 CD 11111112 milk B 1 VAN �` PARK ..Q �,�� `I� V �+,�� aIle► VALt ins Vig* 10 11149. Ed Lj q- leVill , __ , Vir/ 1474. 'lig • . - ... , . y p •• , ~moi , P -• + , ,. PARK �piltr •\ a�,rI6'V ►" 7. A .mss 49nr LiI s ,h. School Subdivision February 15, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL\SUMMARY This is a joint request by Chaska School District#112 and the City of Chanhassen for approval of a subdivision. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the site plan, rezoning and preliminary subdivision for this project in January of 1994. The school purchased the property through a metes and bounds subdivision consistent with city ordinances. The new elementary school and city community center is currently under construction on this parcel. The site plans and preliminary plat for the school were approved over a year ago, however, the preliminary plat at that time was not finalized due to the negotiations between the School District and City on the building's configuration and the exact placement of the property line. Since then, negotiations have been finalized and the roadway alignments have also been determined. Therefore, at this time, the platting of the parcel is actually a formality since the site plan review process is actually completed on the school site. The School District and City are the applicants and property owners of the parcel. The City will be retaining ownership of Lot 2, Block 1 and the outlots. The School District will retain ownership of Lot 1, Block 1. BACKGROUND On January 5, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended site plan, rezoning and preliminary plat approval for the proposed elementary school. On January 24, 1994, the City Council approved the rezoning and the plat for the school site. On February 7,the City Council approved the site plan. On March 22, 1994, the City Council awarded a bid for grading the site. The rough grading has been completed for the most part. Interim storm drainage ponds have been constructed on the site to accommodate storm runoff until the permanent downstream ponding facilities are created later in 1995 in concert with the McGlynn Drive Improvement Project. On April 11, 1994, the City Council approved the School District Purchase Agreement, Joint Powers Agreement, Lease Agreement and Plans Specifications. On June 29, 1994, the City issued a foundation permit for the school/community facility. On October 12, 1994, the City issued a shell permit. On December 13, 1994, the City issued a finish permit for the building. Anticipated completion of the school/community center is July, 1995. Based on the construction drawings and the plat documents, the building and parking lots meet the setback requirements for this type of land use. Utility service has been extended to the site from Galpin Boulevard. The street (McGlynn Drive) will be constructed in the spring of 1995 for direct access to the site. School Subdivision February 15, 1995 Page 3 SUBDIVISION The proposed subdivision will create 2 lots and 2 outlots as well as dedicate property to the city for right-of-way. Lots 1 and Outlot A are owned by the school district. Lot 2 and Outlot B will be owned by the city. The plat provides the necessary easements and street right-of-way for the proposed street improvements along McGlynn Drive and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19). No additional right-of-way is being reserved along Trunk Highway 5 at this time due to the fact that the widening and alignment is unknown. An area has been provided on the north portion of the site for the expansion of Trunk Highway 5 so as not to impact the ball field areas. The plat does provide a drainage and utility easement over a wetland on Lot 2, Block 1, however, the area has been filled for ball fields. Previously, the City had obtained a wetland alteration permit to fill this and therefore, the wetland and drainage and utility easement should be deleted from the plat document. COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance OI Lot 1 Lot 2 District Minimum Lot Size 15,000 square feet 15.6357 acres 16.9115 acres Lot Frontage 75' 700 +1- feet 570 +/- feet Lot Depth 150' 1000 +/- feet 1000 +1- feet RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve preliminary plat for the Chaska School District #112/City of Chanhassen Recreation Complex, subject to the following conditions: 1. The wetland and drainage easement indicated on the easterly portion of Lot 2, Block 1 should be deleted from the final plat document. ATTACHMENTS 1. Final plat dated January 21, 1995. CiygPC DATE: 2/15/95 HAllArx CC DATE: 3/13/95 •�,. CASE #: 93-11 SUB By: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.83 Acres into 49 Single Family Lots, 5 outlots and a Neighborhood Park I- Z LOCATION: North of Kings Road, west of Minnewashta Parkway to the Victoria City Limits V 1 APPLICANT: Harstad Companies 2191 Silver Lake Road Loucks and Associates New Brighton, MN 55112 7200 Hemlock Lane Q Maple Grove, MN 55369 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 35.83 acres (gross) 25.89 acres (net) DENSITY: 1.4 units/acre gross 1.9 units/acre net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family S - RSF, Single Family E - RSF, Single Family W - Victoria WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has a varied topography with the high point running north and south through the center of the plat. I -• There is a significant stand of trees in the northwest corner of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential The Oaks at Minnewashta February 15, 1995 Page 2 SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 35.83 acres into 49 single family lots, 5 outlots and a 2.13 acre park. There are three underlying parcels in the proposed subdivision - Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla. The property is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The City of Victoria borders the western edge of the development and Lake Minnewashta border on the eastern property limits. ANALYSIS Harstad Companies had received preliminary approval from the City Council on July 11, 1994. This plat is different from the previous approved plat in two ways; the location of Kings Road and a city park. The applicant has chosen to relocate the park from the previously approved subdivision. On January 24, 1995, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision. They recommended the park be located at the corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. Because this plat is inconsistent with the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation, staff is recommending denial of the plat. Further analysis of the plat at this time is unnecessary. The city has the ability to establish the appropriate park location. Therefore, the subdivision as proposed does not meet the city's conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending denial of the plat for failure to locate the park as required. ATTACHMENTS 1. Preliminary plat dated January 17, 1995. CITY of ClIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II DATE: February 7, 1995 SUBJ: Buffer Yards/Transition Zones PROPOSAL SUMMARY This item is a follow up to the work session the Planning Commission held on January 4, 1995. While this item was noticed as a public hearing, staff's intention was to bring this item forward as a discussion item to explain the concept of the ordinance and to receive Planning Commission and public input on the draft ordinance. After any proposed modifications, another public hearing will be held. BACKGROUND The city currently has language in the ordinance which requires buffering between different intensities of uses and a buffer requirement is part of the comprehensive plan. However, there is no defined standards for either staff or developers to determine what constitutes appropriate and adequate buffering. At the Planning Commission meeting on December 7, there was discussion about what is a transition zone and how could it be applied in situations where there is a change not only in uses but densities. The commission directed staff to research this item. The Planning Advisory Service sent information regarding buffering and screening ordinances. They included ten jurisdictions. Of the ten, staff has incorporated a hybrid of two of the ordinances: Lake County, IL and Clemson, SC. These approaches to transition zones provide buffering standards that are easy to interpret and apply. The ordinances provide charts that include all zoning districts and abutting districts giving the required buffer setback and landscaping intensity level. Since Chanhassen has not zoned all property consistent with the land use plan of the comprehensive plan, we are specifying the use of the land use designation in determining appropriate buffer yards rather than the zoning. Planning Commission February 7, 1995 Buffer Yards/Transitions Page 2 Staff intends to provide additional analysis regarding the proposed ordinance including a cost estimate, review of the ordinance vis-a-vis existing landscaping buffers, and further refinement in the required landscaping illustrations. However, before proceeding too far, we are requesting some feedback from the commission. RECOMMENDATION Staff has drafted a buffer yard ordinance for your review and consideration. We request that you provide us with direction in finalizing this ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Kate Aanenson to the Planning Commission dated 12/29/94 2. Draft Transitional Buffering Ordinance CITY OF ,,i ti CIIANHASSEN ,,- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 •t. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: December 29, 1994 SUBJ: Transition Zones BACKGROUND At the last Planning Commission meeting on December 7, there was discussion about what is a transition zone and how could it be applied in situations where there is a change not only in uses but densities. The commission directed staff to research this item. Staff has reviewed the literature and contacted the Planning Advisory Service, which we are a member of as part of the American Planning Association located in Chicago, for information. They had very little information on transition zones, but provided us with standards on buffering and screening from other communities. Transition zone is not standard terminology used in the planning field. Transition zones have two meanings: one is buffering between two types of uses and the other is changing from one zoning to another. Staff believes that the approach that the planning commission had was how do you make the change in one lot size to the other. We have done some research and taken slides representative of different lot sizes, different densities and intensities of use adjacent to each other throughout the city and have prepared a brief analysis of that information for your review. ANALYSIS_ One of the few books that directly talks about transition zoning is a book called, "The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook" by David Listokan and Carol Walker. They cite in their chapter, site design regarding circulation system design, that the building placement of all types of residential development should be based on topography, privacy, building height, orientation, daylight needs, drainage and aesthetics. Conventional wisdom has been that spacing between buildings varies depending on building types. For example, apartments next to single family should have some kind of buffer. They also state that mixing different Transition Zones December 29, 1994 Page 2 housing types without buffers or transition area when done carefully "can result in significant benefits in terms of promoting the concept of community." The authors recommend a building setback, rear to rear, of 50 feet minimum. In the case of Lake Ann Highlands/Windmill Run subdivisions, the setbacks exceed this standard. The rear setback requirement in the city is generally 30 feet, so rear facing homes are a minimum of 60 feet apart. The book defines single family housing to include single attached housing and multi-family housing. These housing types have been classified in different ways by the number of dwelling units per building, by the dimensions of a building (e.g. a 4-story building as a garden apartment, midrise townhouse) or by relating structures to one another (e.g. attached, detached or row). The book states that by using a generic classification alone to describe the housing type a problem arises because terminology varies from location to location. In some areas, a townhouse refers to a specific identifiable design solution and in others it is used to describe individual adjoining units within another entity, for example, a one bedroom townhouse inside of a garden apartment. In still other instances, it is used to distinguish for sale housing from accommodations occupied by tenants. They go on to define single family attached as townhouses, plexes including duplex, triplex, fourplex, patio home or a court garden house and on to multi-family. So there is such a thing as single family attached and the term is used commonly in the planning field. That is the way the city's comprehensive plan is set forth. When talking about density ranges, we are not necessarily designating attached or detached housing. Although as stated in the comprehensive plan, the predominant housing type in this city is single family detached. One of the other sources of information that we use to review transition zones was the practice of local government planning. This is a green book put out by International City Management Association, ICMA, and is viewed as a guide for local governments. In this book, we could not find any discussion about transition zones in the practice of local government planning. Although they talk about transition or buffering in the design of a PUD and the different approaches of clustering and separation of different types of uses under the PUD guidelines. The only other discussion we could find about transition zones regarded through different design applications whether it be a PUD, clustering, allowing for greater setbacks, requiring increased vegetation or landscaping to create a buffer. There is also a lot of discussion about applying this sort of transition as it relates to the continuity of neighbors. Again, you are trying to create a sense of community, where you want neighborhood identity but not necessarily isolation. The Planning Advisory Service sent information regarding buffering and screening ordinances. They included ten jurisdictions. Of the ten, 6 seemed appropriate approaches to buffering. Lake County, IL, Clemson, SC, Raleigh, NC, Bellevue, WA, Daytona Beach, FL, Fairfax County, VA have similar approaches to transition zones providing buffering standards that are Transition Zones December 29, 1994 Page 3 easy to interpret and apply. The ordinances provide charts that include all zoning districts and abutting districts giving the required buffer setback and landscaping intensity level. As a note, the city already has a buffer requirement that is a part of the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and city code. I believe the city standard exceeds the other community standards. However, none of the ordinances require buffering between duplex and single family homes. The Lake Ann Highlands project proposes substantial landscaping between the single family area and twin home project. The article in the zoning report is informative regarding transition zoning, but again it does not address different lot sizes within a single family development. Again, I believe Chanhassen has looked at buffering between different uses as a part of different land uses and made provisions for buffering as a part of the comprehensive plan and city code. Staff took some slides showing applications that we have in the city, some close to City Hall, South Lotus Lake, Kurvers Point, Saddlebrook subdivision; some adjacent to Timberwood with Stone Creek; some in Lake Susan Hills where we approved medium density adjacent to homes in that area: some in Sunrise Hills and the adjacent Bluff Creek Estates. Another application is where we approved Red Cedar Cove PUD adjacent to single family homes in the existing Lake Minnewashta area. We will review these slides as a part of our discussion Wednesday evening. In all of these circumstances, staff feels that the design has worked not as a detriment to the neighborhood, but rather as an enhancement to the surrounding property. At one time, there was a discussion from the planning commission at the stepping down of lot sizes where you have the large lots. Instead of going down to the 15,000 square foot, maybe there is a transition from a 212 acre lot down to a 1 acre lot down to a 15,000 square foot lot. This goes back to the discussion that the reason there are 21/2 acre lots is those lots that were built under the premise of exclusion from urban services, and they therefore, need to be that size to handle the two drainfield sites and a well. I am not sure having larger lots with no urban services makes a lot of sense long term. Although some people may want to live on larger lots to say they need to be an acre and a half or one acre minimum may be excessive. In addition, it was felt that when you have a 212 acre lot there is already a large buffer and by putting another large lot next to it, what are you buffering? The transition zone or the transition requirement when you are planning another subdivision was never implemented. Staff still stands by the fact that there are other ways to create transition besides requiring some arbitrary number of square foot lot in between and that can be accomplished through landscaping or additional setback. Transition Zones December 29, 1994 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided this information for your review and consideration and is not recommending any changes to the city code at this time. If you would like to give us some direction for consideration, please let us know. Transition Zones December 29, 1994 Page 5 Bibliography 1. The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook, David Listokan and Carol Walker, 1989, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. 2. Residential Development Handbook, Urban Land Institute, 1978, ULI. 3. Practice of Local Government Planning, 2nd Edition, ICMA, 1988, ICMA. 4. Zoning ordinances: Clemson, SC Raleigh, NC Bellevue, WA Daytona Beach, FL Lake County, IL Fairfax County, VA 5. Zoning Report, Vol. 5 No. 12, October 19, 1987, "A Tool for Better Neighborhood Zoning, A Small Scale Transition Office Zone," Charles Reed, AICP. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL FOR TRANSITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance, subsection (f) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses and between a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard. The buffer yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. The amount of land and the type and amount of planting specified for each buffer yard required by this ordinance are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road. The planting units required of buffer yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to "buffer." (1) Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending to the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Buffer yards shall not be located within any portion of an existing public or private street or right-of-way. (2) To determine the buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels or between a parcel and a street, the following procedure shall be followed: a. Identify the proposed land use of the parcel and the land use of the adjacent parcel based on the City of Chanhassen Future Land Use Plan. b. Determine the buffer yard required on each boundary, or segment thereof, of the subject property by referring to the following Table of Buffer yard Requirements and illustrations which specify the buffer yard required between adjacent uses or streets. c. Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard and the number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Each illustration depicts the minimum buffer yard required between two uses. The plant unit multiplier is a factor by which the basic number of plant materials required for a given buffer yard is determined in accordance with the selected width of the yard. d. Whenever a wall, fence, or berm is required within a buffer yard, these are shown as "structure required" in the buffer yard illustrations. The erection and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the higher intensity use. Whenever a wall is required in addition to a berm, the wall shall be located between the berm and the higher intensity use in order to provide maximum sound absorption. e. All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development or storage of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or organic material shall be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained free from junk and debris. Dead or diseased vegetation shall be removed and replaced with healthy vegetation. The responsibility to maintain, remove or replace plant materials shall be that of the landowner on whose property the plant material needing maintenance or replacement is located. TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS LL/L MD HD OFF MIX COM PUB ACT PASS OFF/ D I`D LIJLD NA B C C C E B B A H MD A A B B C E B B A H HD B B A B C E B B A G OFF B B B A B B B B B B MIX C C C B B B C C C B COM E E D B B A C C C B PUB B A A B C E A A A F ACT A A B B B C A A A F PASS A A A B B C A A A F OFF/IND F E E B B B F E E E ROAD B B B B B B B B B C 2 (The land use of the proposed development is across the top of the matrix. The land use of the abutting property is along the side of the matrix.). The land use abbreviations are as follows: L/LD - large lot and low density residential; MD - medium density residential; HD - high density residential; OFF - office; Mix - mixed use; Com - commercial; Pub - public/semi-public; Act - active park/open space; Pass - passive park/open space; Off/Ind - office/industrial; Road - collector and arterial road. (3) Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total buffer yard plant material requirement. (4) Buffer yards may be used for passive recreation and they may contain a trail provided that no plant material is eliminated, the total width of the buffer yard is maintained, and all other regulations of this ordinance are met. Utility easements may be included within buffer yards provided that the utility requirements and buffer yard requirements are compatible and canopy trees are not planted within said easement. (5) Where front, side and rear yards are required by this ordinance, buffer yards may be established within such required yards. (6) Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary deciduous trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. (7) Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1995, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) 3 BUFFERYARD A REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' • I Canopy Trees 2 Understory Trees 3 Shrubs tf3 Evergreen Trees/ Conifers Plot Unit 100' Multiplier .4 25' • .6 20' .8 IS' •••214., C)CIa CI 1 .0 lo's a 153 �4 • BUFFERYARD B REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/IDOL 2 Canopy Trees =fit 4 Understory Trees 0 6 Shrubs d Evergreen Trees/ IT Conifers • Plant Unit 100' Multiplier 4 30' „ .6 25' dd .8 Ls .•••;�: .0 4 .1 hq)d) 930 AtAll st BUFFERYARD C REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 3 Ccnopy TreesAt 6 Understory Trees 0 9 Shrtbs Evergreen Trees/ >b Conifers Plant Unit Multiplier L 100 Structtre Reed .6 30' -75-0 dpci33 414 • • 25' .a•in' 093 `"Ci..prfet • 1 .0 20' =16.0 cfP is • , 000 1)-1:- • Lower ImensIty Use •+ •. 10'1 4yw�saca%trl K .nt t/� 11 C y + I Hlgher Intensity Use 3UFFERYARD D REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 5 Conopy Trees = qV 10 Understory Trees 0 15 Shrubs d Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Platt Unit100' Structire Multiplier 1 Regwed .6 30' 74.*4• coo 6Do „of< e) • qt e. - ter - •�.- F2 p Lower Intensity Use ::'^'moi 3 Higher Intensity Use BUFFERYARD E REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' 4 Canopy Trees �t 6 Understory Trees 24 Shrubs Plant Unit • too' Structure 12 Evergreen Trees/ >D Mt.tiplier Required Conifers 7,` +� , o .6 40' •11$1 • _ y0 cr.bcs .830cS dd a d i at • 2"71":4 aI Ir 04,44. b ��.. • YiNt ti'.j. 20. a y ♦ , w w� . F3 • Lower Intensity Use .1% F4 Hig`r Intensity Use • 3UFFERYARD F REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' 5 Canopy -Trees 7.5 Understory Trees 0 30 Shrubs c!3 15 Evergreen Trees/ tib Conifers Plant Unit loo' Structure Multiplier 1 f Rewired 11 0 a Ate. +• + �' � .6 50. ..V.:091 C-4 a 4 � -A I] ,, � N p .8 40 ;+.".% + r ky.zle.r.a 7-77 '14" F3 • • �tstB 1 .0 30 �� / +11/��+�*+��/,` 2 OreltAtErigie 4 Lower Intensity Use T • .6 20. ;WA ;�'�-rte=.�i��Ca • F . r��l� . lam 4, Higher Intensity Use _ - 3UFFEYADG Plcnt Unit100, Structure Multiplier t f Rewired REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/1001 4, 6 Conopy Trees =.i a�o d _1J., �� . /� '1'-may. _1! . 9 .9 Understory Trees .6 75' .�' ad m ® 0 e936 Shrubs d V� .;% d6 te , .: a0d :if tri OD 60 18 Evergreen Trees/ a ca Ccnifers ' 0- - d „ :i^' d as �� :. 3 w i..•a l VI , a B2 'A _1440 1-e-i i t's. .e-1�= Or • .45g.<11.1. _..L:r iyt�e fi i of W47:747 7441 i.j;j .7 5 :► � -'' :t- :,:.� \ F =/t`ina z � • .as Ilp�all 141I4IHMI/. Lower Intensity Use / 'r dna ._ • : a sr'e .6 , � .0 _�� ' F y Higher Intensity Use • 3UFFE � Y-A � D H • REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 4, 8 Canopy Trees 12 Understory Trees Plant Unit Structure iMultiplier 100' Required 48 Shrubs d fi I 24 Evergreen Trees/ Conifers 1# D 0Q0 gd .. ri 'a 4 4..4a Or a� _1,, a .' ' - moi` •: as 11- • —�1r� Na►•ft!a 3 50' � :;;1a?�fi. r-�'�'�.� . 0 r �as • a > �� tf4tatritikaeaaF6 Lower Intensity Use T 6 30' s1'f' �'1•!%�- '��ya.��J` •' A/2 .; :.,,,eta D Y V • Higher Intensity Use FE \ CES TYPICAL MINIMUM SYMBOL HEIGHT MATERIAL OPACITY • F, 44" - - -- - 1 25% I Wood Rail AAnnn ^nnnnnnnn ^ eVN F2 48" 50% Wood Picket s'''" \`..\♦ 1."\\."""\"\\"`"""`"\%N\ F3 6' 95% F4 81 Wood Stockade l I 1 1I 11 1 111- Fs 6 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 95% 1 II III 1 111 Fs 1 1 1 I 1 _ IST I l I l 1 1 Masonry Wall (Required) (Poured Concrete. Cement Block. Brick, etc.) 4-72 BERVS SYMBOL HEIGHT MATERIAL BI 41 EARTH . B2 B3M 4r 41 " • . g BER V WALLS SYMBOL HEIGHT BW, 4' BERM w/6' MASONRY WALL BW2 5' BERM W/7' MASONRY WALL BW3 6' BERM W/8' MASONRY WALL LESS! , MORE INTENSIVE INTENSIVE • .44 r � CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 1995 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Diane Harberts and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina and Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD; PRELIMINARY PLAT ONE BLOCK (46 UNITS - 13 TWIN HOME BUILDINGS AND 5 FOURPLEX BUILDINGS), AND 2 OUTLOTS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY OSHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY). Scott: Prior to the staff report the applicant would like to make a brief set of comments so he can get to a previous commitment, so sir. John Peterson: Thank you very much Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. John Peterson. I'm the President of Good Value Homes. Just for your, well I guess...I have a conflict, I have with me Derrick Passe, our engineer who works very closely with us on a good share on this project and he knows the in's and out's of this better than I do so he will be staying and representing our company's interest. Just a couple things. The reason I took the liberty to ask for this early appearance is that we agree with the staff report in it's entirety. No. We agree with the staff report with one exception, and I don't know that it really is to directly. I don't think it does. The Park Board recommended that we pay a park fee, a trail fee and build the trail with no reimbursement from the city, and it is my plan to contest that at the City Council level, and I don't believe that's...beyond what would be normal. Otherwise the staff report, this is the result of a lot of time. Over a long period of time between us, our engineers and surveyors and your staff and we are prepared to move forward with all the recommendations. Just one brief comment, the units, if you wanted to see a similar type development. You can go to Eagan at the intersection of 35E and Pilot Knob Road. South on Pilot Knob. It winds around a lake and then there's a lake on the left as you're going south and there's a pond on your right and we have 29 units. Our model has been constructed and we sold our first unit last night in that development and they are a similar situation in that we have a substantial number of walkout townhomes, in that case to a pond. In this case to a wetland. But it would be virtually the same type of units. Have an 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 opportunity to stop and visit our model and you will get a good idea of what we've proposed. The one unit we sold last night, the unit was sold for $169,000.00. There were some additional optional features added on so that's going to be in the $170 range. We're suggesting, we don't know all the costs involved in the construction of a collector street and so on with this project, but we think we'll be offering a product between $120,000.00 to $200,000.00. And the reason there's quite a wide range is some of these homes will have basements in the walkouts to the wet lowland and some will be on grade and there's just a natural difference there. And the values will also be quite different with a unit near the collector street as opposed to looking out over the wetland area. So we're estimating at this time $120,000.00. The square footage on the units is between 1,270 square feet and almost 1,900 square feet. I think it's 1,896. Each of the units will have a master bedroom on the main level... So with that little bit, Derrick Passe from Passe Engineering can answer other questions that you may have, unless you have one for me quickly. I mean not quickly but at this point. Scott: Any questions for the applicant? Mancino: I do. On the recommendations, recommendation number 16. Do you have the report in front of you John? Where it talks about your waiving all due process for special assessments. John Peterson: Yes. That's a question at this point inasmuch as the city does not have the bonding capacity to do this as a city project. If we're going to do this project, we will be, we and Betty O'Shaughnessy will be responsible for 100% of the cost for a very expensive collector road that qualifies for MSA. Frankly it's going to weigh heavily on the feasibility of this project but the bottom line is we, the city doesn't have the bonding capacity so there will be no assessments for the construction of it. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Anything else? Okay, thank you sir. John Peterson: Thank you very much. Scott: Bob, staff report. Bob Generous presented the staff report at this point. Scott: Any other questions or any comments from staff? Questions from commissioners. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Harberts: I have one. Or two. I don't know who the appropriate person is to speak to. They spoke in the staff report about the frontage road and it's going to be some kind of a...road or something for the Opus, future Opus development or collector or something. Given the density, considering the frontage road and the proposed future development of Opus, what considerations or were there considerations with regards to the traffic? Hempel: This alignment for the frontage road is on the city's comprehensive plan. It's also been documented in the city's traffic study that was done. The Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. It has designated the type of road and the width of street to be built to accommodate the land use proposed. We feel that it's adequate to serve this neighborhood and also the industrial park to the west. Opus Corporation will also have a right-in/right-out onto Trunk Highway 5 which will alleviate some of the traffic from cutting through. Harberts: And that right-in\right-out was confirmed by MnDot then as allowable? Aanenson: They wanted, if I could just comment. They wanted a full access with a signal and we said at a minimum, we didn't want, at a minimum it should be a right-in/right-out to allow for those turning movements. But just to go back to comment, since it is a collector there's no direct access from the individual units, which is feeder streets going onto that, right. And then this alignment has been tied down based on the fact that the city is working in trying to assemble a large passive park right through here so we did do some work to try to find the best alignment for this road based on the wetlands and the sensitivity. To try to get it through the most, where there's the most upland and the less impact to the wetland but it's designated, as Dave indicated, as a collector street and we believe that it will function to carry the traffic for both uses. Scott: You know Bob with that, you mentioned the comment about, because of the density transfer that there's going to have to be a city ordinance change but I think I remember from the, comprehensive plan change. Aanenson: Right. Scott: How do you think that process is going to affect the timing of this development? Generous: The way the code's set up, you can go forward, as long as the city says that they'll come back and make that amendment, there shouldn't be a problem. Scott: Okay. Whenever I see amendment to the comprehensive plan I always go well. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Generous: They're actually under the low density residential density. It's just procedurally it has to go through that way and I don't believe the Met Council will put up a fight over that. Aanenson: We've done one or two of these minor amendments for the Met Council. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Ladd? Conrad: Yeah, I guess that may have just cleared it up. We're amending the comprehensive plan? Normally when we do a PUD the point is to take a look at the entire site and we're really only looking at a portion of the site. Aanenson: Originally this came in as one big piece and then it got to be too complex so Mrs. O'Shaughnessy, the underlying owner, is going to be coming in forward shortly with the development,plan to the north. What we did under this PUD, why we recommended the PUD, as Bob indicated, we're trying to get some area that, what we consider choice passive park area to be left undeveloped so we're taking that density and transferring, which is the only mechanism we can make that happen under is the PUD. So what we're doing is clustering some of those units that would be in another area where we want to preserve trees and interesting topography and putting those units over here. As Bob indicated, we're still way under the density requirements at less than 4 units an acre so we feel it fits with that. With the comprehensive plan. Mancino: Well not only transferring for that but you can't get to that other upland area anyway. There's no way for the developer to have access to that area, is there? Aanenson: Well that was an issue. As far as. Generous: They'd probably need a wetland alteration permit but if we left it in there, the contention could be that they do have developable land and they have to, the city would have to provide, allow them some type of a reasonable access. Mancino: Or they could sell that piece of land to another developer west of them and add it onto their parcel. Generous: Well that's possible but there's still wetland fingers over there and there's a wetland alteration permit. Scott: The soils are pretty bad too. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Generous: Yeah, through some of the wetland area. But this is actually a nice upland portion. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Conrad: So you're both very confident that Outlot A can develop, even though it's part of the PUD, it can develop separately and what we do right now is not going to be impacted by? Aanenson: We've seen a tentative layout in that area so we want to make sure that we're consistent with the Highway 5 standards and we looked at that when this originally came in, if you recall. The orientation of the buildings and again, the look from Highway 5 and Mrs. O'Shaughnessy, who will be developing that, has been working with the staff. And actually, as the applicant indicated, it kind of ties back together because they're going to have to do the road together because as it appears now, the city won't be in a position to do this as an improvement project. So actually what's going to happen is they're going to end up being built together because of the timing of the road. So he can't go forward until the road is built so, in effect it probably will be going together. Mancino: But I have a feeling Ladd you're thinking conceptually, that you'd just like to see the entire PUD and how it lays out. Conrad: Typically that's what we like to see, yeah. Mancino: Because it's very hard to see pieces and how it's all going to fit. Aanenson: Well you have two things going on here. You have two different zones. Two different land use densities for the comprehensive plan. So in that fact they could be separate. And then the other thing is, we have been looking at it as a whole because we've been working on the park issue and looking at the park issue, we've taken this as a larger piece. Now it just so happens that you've got two separate owners that have different market niches that they're going for. But we've looked at this in a comprehensive fashion. One, to get the road through. And secondly, for the park issue. Trying to find what would be the park design and what areas we would want to preserve. The tree preservation areas and wetland enhancements. So that has been done in a comprehensive perspective for both parcels and Mrs. O'Shaughnessy's aware of that. As well as Mr. Peterson. What areas we want so some of those overriding things I feel like we have looked at. Yeah, you're going to see two different products but they're both going for different market niches. Generous: That's also why our recommendation is that the rezoning be only, to PUD be only for this section. The remainder would remain A-2. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Mancino: I'd like to ask one last question on that, to make sure that I'm understanding it and that is that what we're going to see next that comes in is Outlot A. Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: This is wetland. This is Outlot B, but is buildable too, correct? Generous: Yeah, it's upland but there's some very severe soil problems on that. Mancino: So when we see the rest of this PUD coming in, it will be for this and for this area, correct? Generous: Yes. Mancino: Okay, it's not just here. Generous: And at that time I believe we'll go in. We're trying to negotiate the purchase of that middle portion right now. Mancino: Right here? Generous: Yes. Mancino: The city is? Aanenson: Right, for the park. Right. Mancino: I'm making it very clear. Harberts: Could you again explain regarding the...index in the comprehensive plan. This is PUD division is subject to that approval by the Met Council? Did I understand that? Generous: Yes, the land use map amendment would be subject to their approval. Aanenson: Originally the break of the zoning fell in where the road, and we had to move the road so it makes sense to make this and not break the project by artificial lines. When the road moved up, or moved around based on the fact that we had to for the wetland, we felt that was a natural break in the product, or the market. So we felt comfortable. And again, looking at the densities, we think it's consistent. We're under the 4, which is low density. 1 to 4 units an acre. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Mancino: Mr. Chair, is it okay? I'd like to ask Dave some questions but I can wait until we have the presentation. Scott: If you'd like to continue the applicant presentation sir. Go ahead. Derrick Passe: The plan that I just put up on the board is the original plan that we brought to you about 3-4 months ago and it does show what was proposed for the other side of, we prefer to call it a parkway rather than a frontage road. Harberts: So do we. Derrick Passe: We have been meeting with Betty O'Shaughnessy because she is interested in developing the other part of her property and she agrees that she wants that to be a product which is not the same as this but does blend in with this product of Good Value Homes...and we look at it as being a complimentary situation rather than a competitive situation because they are looking for... As far as the parkway construction, we are putting together some costs in here and we have a meeting scheduled with Mrs. O'Shaughnessy next week to go over the costs for that parkway. One thing, the construction of the parkway will...There's nothing that we have done which makes it more difficult to develop the other side of her property there. One roadway access which roughly corresponds to this access here. We are also working with Betty in regards to construction of the...for the overall project rather than one... I'm here to answer any questions that you may have or questions that staff may... Scott: Okay. Did you have some questions? Mancino: May I see your drawing please of the. Can you tell us a little bit about them as far as variations, what you can do architecturally and if you have samples of brick and siding, etc. Derrick Passe: Okay, the siding is all maintenance free siding. The colors are generally earth tones. The three different units are, the end unit is, there are generally 3 different units. This is the...unit. It's a 2 story unit and it is one of the end units that is situated, it's approximately 60 feet deep, 2 car garage. It has a loft overlooking the, I take that back. It has a great room at the rear. Optional 3 season porch and... Mancino: And there are 13 of these townhomes, correct? Derrick Passe: 13 buildings? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Mancino: 13 of the twin home or the townhome and is there any difference in their, you said that there were 3 versions people could buy. Derrick Passe: There's 3 floor plans. There are, the only unit that has to be one of the units is the middle unit has to be a, what's called a Prescott and that is a two story unit and it has a basement. A basement walkout. The other units are the Sterling, which is an end unit. It's a two story unit with a basement. The first, the one I showed you is a rambler unit and what's shown here has a basement or a walkout...from the road, it has what we're proposing is to use the rambler unit on the ends. The Prescott is just a two story in the middle. A Sterling on the end. So there are three different types of units. Mancino: Okay, but they're being sold as just two together, correct? Derrick Passe: No. They're combinations of 4 and 2. Mancino: But there's only 5 that are fourplexes, correct? Derrick Passe: Right. Mancino: And 13 that are twin units. Generous: Twin units. Derrick Passe: And that's because the middle unit is not generally the one that's sold. The end units are the preferable. Everybody wants to have an end unit. Mancino: Not a middle unit. Okay. And who are the demographics for this? Derrick Passe: The demographics, usually it really varies. Most of the units will probably be sold to empty nesters. People who have sold... The other type of...especially in this market area would be young couples that are just beginning. Not a whole lot of families. There may be some single parents. The rambler unit does... Mancino: Can you kind of help me visualize, to the east here there are 3 or 4 homes that are parallel to the development and then I see, it says retaining wall. What is that going to look like? The back of these homes and then down in the development. How high is the retaining wall? What's kind of happening in that area? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Derrick Passe: What happens on the site is the site slopes away from Galpin Boulevard all the way down to the wetland. The reason there's a retaining wall, it's a narrow area and to put the road in...and what happened is, this site, the retaining wall in that area... Mancino: Bob, have we heard anything from those neighbors that are abutting this property? Generous: No. Mancino: I know I stopped by...and they didn't seem too concerned but I just wondered. Aanenson: This is an area that Dave spent a lot of time reworking the grading. This is why it got tabled a couple times. This was a sensitive area that we felt we could get a little bit better on. Hempel: We've gone back and moved the road actually further away from the property line to get some buffer between this driveway and the existing homes and try to flatten the topo out so that the retaining walls weren't going to be as high then. Plus retaining walls are about 10 feet off the property line. Before they were right adjacent to the property line so we tried to soften that area a little bit better. Mancino: Another question. As you so well described the retaining wall to me, can you tell me a little bit about the feel, the berming and the planting along the frontage road because I know that you're probably very concerned with the people who are going to be living here. Can you tell me a little bit about how you see the berming happening there and what kind of year round buffering those residents will have. Derrick Passe: The berming is curving along the frontage road, or parkway. The end of the units are all set back from the parkway at least 50 feet...2 to 3 feet above the rear of the... parkway will be going down all the way from Galpin Boulevard to the north, to the west side of this plat to the wetlands. The idea is to put in a berm there...what's needed between to shield most of the tire noise from the cars going by. As far as a year round screening, there is a fairly substantial planting of both of balsam fir along that berm which will keep the green...year round. And if you're looking at the landscape plan...visual barrier through there 2 to 3 trees deep... Mancino: Okay, thank you. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Good, thank you very much. This is a public hearing and can I have a motion please to open the public hearing? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was opened. Scott: Let the record show that there are no members of the general public who wish to speak at this public hearing. So may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was closed. Scott: Diane, do you have any additional comments? Harberts: No. Scott: Okay, Ladd? Conrad: I'm okay with it. Just one, for the engineer. One quick question I should have asked when he was standing up but the exterior colors. What are the choices? You had three designs to choose from but how many colors do they have to choose from? It was a siding, was it a metal siding? Is that what you said? Derrick Passe: I believe it's vinyl siding. Conrad: Vinyl siding. And the colors offered are? Derrick Passe: ...one building will be one color. The buildings will vary... Conrad: Based on the buyer's preference? I guess the only question I have would make sure, and I don't dictate colors at all. I just want to make sure that colors are available. More than one. Aanenson: Well I think you should make that a condition. That there's a variety of colors. That you want to leave it neutral but there's a mix of colors. We should probably add that as a condition. Conrad: That's all. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: Dave, I have some questions for you on the frontage road and that is, I'm looking at this from a taxpayer point of view. And I look at the frontage road and I say that the 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 developer is paying for or is funding the frontage road up to the wetland. Once it gets to the wetland, the city, it's the city's because there was no benefit to the developer. Once it gets to the wetland...state funding or different mechanisms which we pay for anyway. At that point, and if we also buy parkland, it is for the city to fund, correct? Hempel: There's other funding mechanisms out there I believe. With the industrial park to the west, there may be capabilities including this area into a TIF district. By the time the road is extended, there may be MSA funds available for it's construction. Those types of funding. Mancino: Well I guess my thought is, or my concept is, is that I would like to be darn sure, if I were on City Council that, to know how much it would cost and how much it's going to cost the city to go from where the wetland starts to where the developer on the west starts paying again. You know how much that is and maybe it would be better to stop the road at the wetland. Have that part of the whole park area and not continue it through the wetland where it will be more expensive because of the unstable soils, etc, etc. So this just opens up my questions of continuing the frontage road through, I would think a fairly expensive way to do it. And I just throw that out to, I think it's something that needs to be thought through and how much and. Hempel: I can respond to that a little bit. The roadway alignment chosen there is the least impact. The soil borings actually did show better soils in this area. Instead of 20 feet of excavation, or soil corrections, I believe there's 10 feet so half the amount. I believe it's pretty critical that the continuity of this frontage road be maintained to connect these two areas for traffic patterns in the area. Mancino: You don't think there could be, once you get to the western part, the right-in, right- out will do the trick? For that area over there and this area on the east side. Just use this roadway. Aanenson: Can I comment on that too? I think it goes back to the same discussion we had on the north and that's the continuity of those local trips. We don't know when Highway 5 is going to be upgraded. They say post 2000, and depending on what the Opus Gateway piece does. We see this having the same connections. For those people that don't want to get on TH 5, that just want to make a local trip, to go to the school, the residential area, or people working in there, that they don't have to go back out onto TH 5 to make that connection. Part of this, when we looked at it for park too, the Park and Recreation Director looked at this road coming through as also an area where we see some of the marginal soils as an area to put a parking lot area too. This would give us access into some of that area. Open it up as a trailhead area too. I understand the sensitivity of the question that you raise but we feel 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 the continuity, just like on the north side for the local trips for people can take that traffic off Highway 5 is very important when you look at this scale of development. And that would be for mass transit, you know school buses, everything else to avoid that Highway 5 route so. Mancino: And how does the Park and Rec feel about having a frontage road through a passive park? Aanenson: Well that's what I'm saying. They want the trailhead that they've designed a parking lot off of this road. So as Dave indicated, we had someone look at soil borings to try to pick the best window to come through with that road and we feel like we've got that. Mancino: Okay. Well I still would raise the question financially. Aanenson: That's a legitimate question, sure. Mancino: I just had a couple other questions. Bob, in recommendation number 2. You had given how much the water quantity and quality fees would be. Of $21,997.00, $10,517.00. When I look on page 8 under water quality, and water quantity on page 9, there are different figures there. So I'm not sure which ones are correct or if I am reading them incorrectly but on page 8 it says that the water quality charge is approximately $14,119.00 and on page 9, the water quantity charge, connection charge is approximately $29,430.00. And those are not the same that are in number 2. Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, maybe I can address that. You're correct, there is an error there. I believe the condition number 2 is the accurate figure but we can certainly verify that to the text of the report and make sure there's a conflict. Mancino: And there's also a conflict about developable acres. It says 9.2 whereas the, on the other preceding pages it's 12.2. It's based on 12.2. The 6.9 is the duplex acres and the 5.3 is the townhome acres. So that should be corrected. And I just had a procedure question on 18. Recommendation 18. Is it true, I mean I hadn't realized this. That the applicant, the developer provide sanitary sewer services for those three homes. It's not the city? Hempel: That's correct. The developer will be installing the improvements in the site and with each site we require the developer to extend the utilities to the next property line so the property owner needs to extend that service to their property. Aanenson: It's to the property line. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Mancino: Okay, got it. Thank you. Because it says to the existing three homes and I thought, wow. Okay, so it's actually to the existing three property lines. Thank you. Part of the Highway 5 architectural guidelines that I think we passed into an ordinance was that we do request for those developers on Highway 5 to bring with them actual samples of construction materials and we'd like to see them and feel them and touch them and do all those kind of things. I just kind of wondered where they were. Generous: I can tell you what John told me when he came in. He forgot them in his office in his rush to come here tonight. Mancino: Okay. I would ask that they certainly be brought to the City Council so the City Council can look at them and also with Ladd's comment, showing the actual different color feeling that you were going to be offering would be very helpful to the City Council. I have one more question from staff and that is, the other suggestion or the, I don't know if it was part of the ordinance on the Highway 5 corridor was asking for sight lines. Views from Highway 5 and we were going to ask for that for each development that comes on Highway 5 and we don't have that here again. Aanenson: Well I guess we felt that, because the other one's probably going to block most of this, but we certainly will with the next project. When this originally came in, we did have all those perspectives. Generous: We do have that under condition 20 that they provide that. Mancino: Thank you. That's all. Scott: Good, Jeff. Farmakes: My apology. I came at the old time. I've got a couple of comments. There's an awful lot of outlot space here compared to what the development is. I see we're being asked two things. One is to look at this as it is rezoned to PUD. And this is a conceptual issue. Not only are we looking at the spaces being planned for PUD...in all practicality looking at the entire issue as being PUD by the time it comes in here. I'm guessing. I don't have anything to back that up but I'm assuming that's what's going to happen. Aanenson: You mean the piece to the north being a PUD? Farmakes: Yes. Aanenson: There's a possibility, sure. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Farmakes: Yeah. Anyway, I'm looking at this. Didn't we see this, we saw this once before. Aanenson: Correct. Farmakes: In various guises. I believe at one time it was a PUD in it's entirety, was it not? Generous: Yes. Farmakes: I believe we got hung up on the issue of what the development was like next to the highway and we had some conceptual drawings... If I was looking at this as a PUD, for it's entirety issue so we're talking about the highway and then we have several other issues on how it fits into the criteria of what the city gets in return for the PUD. It's much harder to see what that is now when they're taking a slice of that. What you're looking at is a piece of it now. It's much harder conceptually for me to look at that and see what we're really looking at here on that entire piece of property because only a slice of it is being applied for now. So if we're looking where it says the use of a PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses. Internal transfer of density, construction phasing and the potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectations that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and for more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with another more standard zoning district. It's hard to see that in relationship to the big picture with this small piece. So it's hard to see how that relates to whatever else is going to be going around it. I don't particularly see within that small piece exactly what the necessity of the PUD is from a design standpoint. Or what more we're getting versus a traditional development there. Although is someone spell it out, I don't see that there but it bothers me that we're looking at an overall large development that borders the highway and then we have problems with that. I think actually when we set this corridor, did we not, and the city put a hold on it. Aanenson: No. Generous: The developer did. Farmakes: Okay. But anyway, if I was to bring this back, and we were having trouble with that, well we'll just take a piece of that. We'll take a piece away from the highway and get that going. Aanenson: I think you're misunderstanding what's happening here Jeff, I think because you came in late. There's two separate market niches that are happening here. That's why they've broken it out. Now the city's not in the position to do the road so both developments are going to end up going together because of the cost of putting the road in. One project really 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 can't bear the burden without the other project going so in effect what it's doing, both projects are going to end up going in together. But they're both addressing different markets so you have two different developers. Two different markets that they're going for so they both are coming in with different proposals so you're reviewing them separately. Farmakes: But if it's the conceptual review, why would one go forward without having the other one? Aanenson: They just learned this in the last week or two. And he was supposed to be in a couple of months ago. We tried to rework, tried to resolve some of the grading issues. That was one reason. Then the last time he was one, actually over a month ago, he didn't show up. Then last time the agenda was full so we bumped him off so now things has happened and the city has gotten projects lined up, we realize that they're probably going to have to put the road in themselves. So that time came together by forces outside of their own. So there wasn't a hidden agenda to try to separate these. Farmakes: No, I wasn't saying there was a hidden agenda. What I'm saying is for a practical standpoint, without knowing what else is going to go around it, it's difficult to assess what the city is looking at here for a PUD development. In other words, what are we getting in return. This is maybe. Generous: Well 10% of the entire chunk. Farmakes: 10%, so it's difficult to see the big picture is what I'm saying. It would be helpful if both, if there's another proposal out there for the rest of some of this property, it would be helpful. Aanenson: But that would have to go on it's merits itself. I mean you would have to review that one separately on it's own merits,just like you would if we had two separate subdivisions. You weigh them on their own merits. Farmakes: I understand that, but this is probably the smallest PUD we've seen in here in the last 4 years. Aanenson: I don't think it's any different than you've seen on Lake Susan, Prairie Creek. Farmakes: The Lake Susan issue was an older PUD and again that was a section, was it not, but additional development section of some development that took place earlier. Or a second phase...but again, what I'm saying is, in looking at that just as a development by itself, it's difficult to see what the city is gaining from a PUD. Going to line 6. I'm trying to 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 understand that provision. I understand the provision in there but when I read it, it doesn't say much. Mancino: What page are you on? Farmakes: Page 5. The provision of housing affordable to all income groups is appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The price of the for sale units that has not yet been determined. Staff believes that these properties will be sold at market rate. How does that relate to 6? Generous: This isn't affordable housing. Aanenson: Exactly. It's one of the things under the PUD that may be affordable housing. We're saying this one isn't affordable housing. We believe it's going to be sold at market rate. Generous: It's market rate and the developer presented that he's looking at $120,000.00 to $200,000.00 a unit. Farmakes: Is line 6 saying that we, every time we have a PUD we are looking at. Aanenson: There's a laundry list of things and some of those are going to apply and some aren't. And so what we do is we go through all of them and tell you which ones. I don't think on every project you're going to get all of these issues. I mean some are and some aren't. Farmakes: But the revision that we did on the PUD requirement is not required there, correct? That's what you're saying, a laundry list. Aanenson: Not every project is going to have energy conservation on the units. Not every project's going to be affordable housing, no. Not every project's going to meet all of these 8 items. So what we've done is the ones, we've gone through and put findings on the ones that you meet that. Again, one we felt on this one was the parks and open space. The transfer of density. We think that this is going to enhance this project. Farmakes: The proposal is looking at coming in down the line would be how much remainder of this property? What percentage? Generous: I think it's like 13 to 15 acres of upland on the north side of the road and then the outlot which the city is in the process of negotiating the purchase for. The wetland area. The uplands west of the wetland. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Farmakes: So if you just took a rough guess on the percentage, if this is 10%, what would the remaining building... Generous: 15% to 20% of the total land area. Scott: You know if you look at this we're about, you say there's 90 acres we're talking about. About half of that is non-buildable anyway because it's wetland so we're down to 45. Then we've got 12, roughly 12 acres here. And we've got roughly another 12 over there so it's kind of like, yeah the whole project is not a lot. I think of what's buildable it's 25% maybe. Something like that maybe. Because I was looking at that too and I thought, well that's pretty significant and then I think how much of it's actually buildable and then you're talking about the city negotiating the purchase of some of the other area for a passive park. It starts to whittle it down to really not a whole lot of property. But I share your point because whenever I see PUD I always think of the same thing. What are we getting out of here? We're giving someone the ability to transfer density. What's the flip side? Generous: We're getting that permanent open space of that 2 acres and the parks department is requiring them to build the trail without credit. Or that's their recommendation. Farmakes: How many acres are yet to be developable on the remainder of that property? Generous: Let's see, I have that. Well it's all of the rest of the outlots would be technically looked at for development but it's only the portion in the northeast corner of the site that will be developed, and that's between 13 and 15 acres. I don't remember the exact number. Scott: So basically 50% of the non-wetland property. You start with 90. Cut it in half because of wetland and then figure that we've got a 12 acre parcel and a 14 acre parcel, that's basically all that's left to develop. So really we're only talking about between a third to a half of what's actually going to be developed. It's going to be a PUD. Then shouldn't there be a stipulation in there that somehow limits the amount of area that should be considered for development? Farmakes: No, I'm not saying that. First of all, I'm not against having this be a PUD. I'm not against what the display is here or the applicant's proposal. All I'm suggesting is that under the way that this is being brought forward, and the fact that the adjacent development next to it and how it first came forward. Mancino: They're splitting it in half. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Farmakes: Correct. It would be preferable if we were looking at this from a planning standpoint, to see all of it together. I realize there's a technical application. Having two different applicants here but from a reality standpoint, if it's all under PUD, and we don't know if that's going to happen but that's my guess. Aanenson: It doesn't have to be a PUD. They can come in and do a straight subdivision to the north. We can't force them. I mean I guess you can say, it has to be rezoned, or the guide has to be rezoned. It's at A-2 right now. I guess you could deny it and say we feel it needs to be a PUD but they could come under our straight subdivision up to the north. Generous: R-8. Conrad: Yeah we're not giving, Mr. Chairman, we're not giving up anything here. I think we're splitting hairs. I'm not sure we're talking about anything that's real relevant. If we're worried that the other land that's going to be developed has some missed opportunities because it's not tied together, then there's some valid points. I think we raised these issues earlier, or at least I did. Concerned with coming in with a small parcel when there's more land but the Planning staff has said they're pretty comfortable with that. That's their job. They've been looking at all of the parcels. The road alignment is pretty well set. So when you take a look at the elements that we try to control under a PUD, it's looking pretty good. We still have the control on the Highway 5. Yeah, this is a little bit different but from my standpoint, this doesn't bother me because again, if we're looking for what are we getting. Well what are we giving. We haven't given anything, a great deal here in my mind. It's zoned 4 to 8 units. We're not giving up anything. Staff feels it's administratively the smart thing to do to put it under a PUD. I'm real comfortable with it. Mancino: It's guided low density. Farmakes: That's not what I'm talking about. Pm not talking about this particular development. I'm talking about if we, in the future, get applications for conceptual review and we deny them for whatever reason and those applications come back where 10% now of that property conceptually has been redeveloped away from the problem area. Are we creating? Conrad: I don't think we're setting a precedent. I think we have, you have total control right now. Farmakes: ...something we haven't seen yet. Aanenson: This project's never been denied by the Planning Commission though. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Farmakes: It wasn't part of the packet and to be honest with you I can't remember. I remember that it came forward and there were some problems on TH 5 with this particular piece of property. Scott: Well there was also a problem because the first applicant that we saw here was planning, for them to make the project work financially, they had to put some buildings on that high land that we're now leaving open for density transfer. I think they were talking about putting more units on and then there was a question of how do we build the road from this section through the wetlands to access the other piece and I think there were some other issues that the developer actually... Farmakes: Well I don't think the issue that we were talking about at that point in time was even an issue...talking at that time about how the issue was related to Highway 5. But again... I just want to make sure when we run into these type of things that we don't get into that because it seems to me...the overall picture in relationship to those developments were because often an applicant may have several developers within an area...It's hard to see the overall picture. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay. I don't have any additional comments. In the motion,just as long as we agree upon how many acres we're actually dealing with, I really don't have any comments. Mancino: Mr. Chair, I just have one last one and this is one I just want to put on public record I guess. And that is that I have no problems with this development but I do think that it is one of these wonderful little areas that would be great for an area for the city to have considered for affordable single detached housing. That it is across from the school that we have. There are several demographics show there are a lot of people out there that would, and need, affordable single family housing and I think this would have been a perfect spot for it. So that is not what's being presented tonight. I'm just saying that. Harberts: I could comment on that one. Conrad: I might too. Go ahead. Harberts: I think we have to keep in mind that when you think about affordable housing, it's not just a matter of putting in a cluster or collection of x number of buildings, detached, attached, whatever and zero them in or identify them as affordable housing. I mean we don't even know what that means. But I think there's opportunities within any subdivision to come up with strategies to make housing affordable, even if it's a $200,000.00 average pricing. You can buy down. You can finance or whatever. If there's different financing opportunities that the city or someone. I don't know maybe the developer. I don't know. May be able to 19 • Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 look at. It's not just, I just want to make certain that you have to have a cluster of homes. It could be 1% of the entire subdivision is targeted at whatever is termed affordable housing so I think we need to keep our minds open. I don't know what the answer is, or what the mechanism and how to achieve it but it's not just a matter of putting a collection of houses or apartments or whatever and saying this is our affordable housing area. It deals with more financing than it is the type of building. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: I agree with most of what Diane said. We don't know what affordable housing is. Affordable housing is a $70,000.00 house and we ain't going to do it here until we figure out how to do it here and that's why we asked staff last week, or a couple weeks ago to take us through an exercise so we can know what it is. And I think some of Diane's points are real valid. We really do have to figure out if we mix them in or if it's a zone. If it's going back to houses with allies on 8,000 foot lots. Those are the options to bring. You've got to bring the land costs down first and then the housing costs will follow. But you know the real questions are, do we mix them? Do we separate them? What do we do? Harberts: Excuse me Ladd. It might even be a matter of, and again I have no idea exactly what the answers are. That perhaps the city's involvement may be the forgiveness or lesser consideration of fees or whatever. Again I don't know what the mechanism is. I think the opportunities are there but it's going to take, well it's going to take leadership from the Council as well as some innovative staff ideas in terms of how we do it. So again it's not just clusters. It's not areas. It's something, it's goals to be achieved not through areas but more I think through the financing techniques. Scott: Well before I ask for a motion on this particular item, what I'd like to suggest is, I think we can make the assumption that there will be a mandate, an unfunded mandate of some sort from the Met Council to do this so I think we can assume that. Number two, we have the PUD process which allows us to get and give relationship with the developer so perhaps this creative means of introducing affordable housing as part of a PUD could be that what we do is we allow the developer density, increased density in exchange for affordable housing. That allows the developer to help, obviously more density equals more money. And then perhaps we could negotiate some other units and I also subscribe to the belief that Diane has, that you don't cluster them together. It's something that needs to be spread out. But anyway, could I have a motion please. Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion with Bob's help. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the conceptual and preliminary planned unit development to rezone 11.4 acres 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 from Agricultural Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD. Bob, you've got a sentence that you wanted to put in after PUD I believe. Generous: For that property south of McGlynn Drive which is shown as Block 1 and open space. Conrad: And the balance of the staff motion stands with all the staff reported motions, 1 thru 17 with an addition to 18 where it reads the applicant shall provide sanitary services to the existing property lines of the three homes and the balance of the point of the staff report. From 19 thru 28, those items are the same in the staff report. Point number 29, a variety of neutral colors for siding be made available and presented to the City Council along with the proposed building materials for the construction of this complex. Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendment and that is that staff review recommendation number 2 to make sure that the costs are correct. Scott: Would you accept that amendment? Conrad: Yeah I would and I guess I'm just, not only cost but numbers in there. There were some disparities in numbers. Costs and numbers but I don't want to make a motion. Well I don't know. They'll fix it. Scott: Okay. Can I have a second to the motion as amended. Mancino: Second. Scott: Is there any discussion? Harberts: I do. I'd like the, and I don't know what the proper way to forward this to the Council. If it's another motion or if it's just comments. That before any PUD comes before us, I'd like staff to be able to look at the PUD and be able to maybe identify some opportunity for whatever affordable housing means. In terms of a trade-off. In terms of maybe some forgiveness or lesser fees collected, I don't know but I'd like to send that message to the City Council. I think our opportunities are becoming slimmer folks and I'm not, I don't have the magic answer but I'd like to see the next PUD with some type of options or something, a demonstration in terms of what's going on. Mancino: And that would include a definition of affordable housing. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Harberts: Yeah, I think we can certainly come up. I mean you've got the, you've got poverty guidelines. You have the working poor guidelines. We know what the average wage in Chanhassen, a majority of the industries can be. I think we can pull some type of general understanding here. You know and I guess the real challenge is going to be to insure that there's a mechanism in which that type of population that's being targeted really has the opportunity to participate so. You know I don't think you can just finance. I think it's just insuring that the opportunities exist for a good share of the people. Scott: Okay. Farmakes: Is this an add on to the amendment or is this. Scott: Well this is a discussion. Conrad: I think that was a discussion item and I think that carried it's, made it's point. Harberts: Yeah, I don't know how it should be carried forward to the Council, but I see Mr. Mayor's out there. Farmakes: It's certainly a form of entitlement. Without knowing what that entitlement is or how it's brought across, without defining that, how could anyone address the issue. It has yet to be defined from the State level. Not from any want of anyone asking. Harberts: Well but here's an opportunity that we can maybe suggest parameters in terms of what affordable housing is just within our community because of what's here. In terms of the environment. In terms of the wage scale. In terms of the land costs. Things like that. It's a complicated issue I know but at least let's start looking. I know there's things happening in Eden Prairie as part of a housing subcommittee so I'm just looking for I guess some way to get the ball rolling because the opportunities are going to become a lot slimmer as these developments move forward. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 11.4 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, for that property south of McGlynn Drive which is shown as Block 1 and open space, and preliminary plat creating one Block with 47 lots, and two outlots and associated right-of-way for a residential low density development consisting of 46 dwelling units consisting of 13 twin homes and 5 fourplex buildings subject to the plans dated December 20, 1994, and the following conditions: 22 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 1. Depending on scheduling of the frontage road, the applicant may incorporate construction of the retention pond into the overall development plans and receive credits towards their SWMP fees. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology along with pre and post runoff conditions shall be submitted to city staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. 2. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity and quality fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed development would be responsible for an estimated water quantity and quality fee of $21,997.00 and $10,517.00 assuming 9.2 acres of developable land. The applicant may be credited against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system or water quality improvements they install as a part of the overall development in accordance to the City's SWMP. Staff will review the final construction documents and determine the applicable credits, if any. 3. The applicant shall petition the city to construction the frontage road within the development from Galpin Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall site improvements. The frontage road shall be constructed in accordance to State Aid standards. Plans and specifications will be submit to review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, State Aid office. The applicant shall dedicate to the city at no cost the frontage road right-of-way. 4. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the city receiving the necessary permits and approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of Engineers for extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parcel and awarding a bid. 5. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 6. The applicant shall design and construct the street and utility improvements in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to city staff for review and approval. 7. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City and shall be filed at the County with the final plat documents. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 8. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 9. The applicant shall apply for an obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MnDot, and Carver County Highway Department. 10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. 11. 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. The site may also require additional erosion control fence on the slopes and/or temporary sediment basins. 12. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the site grading and restoration. 13. The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDot's State Aid office approving the street alignment for the east/west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised accordingly as a result of the State Aid review process. 14. Wetland delineation along the western portion of Basin A should be re-evaluated. 15. The applicant must meet City, State, and Federal permitted requirements for wetland alterations. Staff recommends that the wetland permit applicant combine the proposed project and the frontage road as one project. 16. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessment resulting from the City's public improvement project for construction of the frontage road including but not limited to hearing requirements and claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 17. The private streets/driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private driveway ordinance for low and/or medium density zoning. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 18. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer services to the existing property lines of the three homes on the west side of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant shall be reimbursed their fair share of the cost to extend service to these homes when the parcels hook up to the sewer system. 19. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of bus stops/ shelters within the development. 20. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree preservation calculations and a Woodland Management Plan, perspectives from Highway 5 towards the development and building materials, textures, roofing treatment, and color schemes. 21. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance. 22. The applicant shall dedicate a 20 foot easement for tail purposes as identified on the preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge dated October 18, 1994. 23. The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide asphalt trail per city specifications within the trail easement. This construction shall be completed in conjunction with street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director and City Engineer. 24. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final plat approval. 25. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This must be done before preliminary plat approval. 26. A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9.1. Fire hydrant placement shall be submit to review by the Fire Marshal. 27. The canopy coverage calculation needs to be verified by the applicant in order to determine the adequacy of the proposed Landscaping Plan. The tree preservation plan must be revised to accurately reflect existing tree canopy and proposed tree removal. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 28. A legal document shall be recorded combining the proposed 2.19 acres of dedicated open space to Block 1 of the development. This document shall also specify that all development rights for the dedicated open space have been transferred to Block 1 and that no future development of the dedicated open space area, with the exception of public trails, shall be permitted. 29. A variety of neutral colors for siding be made available and presented to the City Council along with the proposed building materials for the construction of this complex. All voted in favor and the motion carred. NEW BUSINESS: Mancino: Before Bob goes, I have a question. Scott: Is this new business? Mancino: Yes. Is now the time to speak? Scott: Yes, this is the new business portion of the agenda. Mancino: One of the questions I had tonight, and Bob you worked so much on the tree preservation ordinance, is how long ago did we pass that? Has that been a year? Generous: May. Mancino: Just May of'94? Generous: Yes. Mancino: Okay. At some point I would like to see the results of it. You know we pass ordinances and we want to see what's the result of them. I haven't seen a woodland management plan at all. I haven't seen, I mean it doesn't have to be where I go out to a subdivision but I'd like to see what we are getting. What kind of woodland management plans we are getting as a result of this ordinance. Generous: I can show it. The Minger Addition does have one and you missed it. When we did that presentation on transitions. The next set of slides was on tree protection. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Aanenson: We were running late. Mancino: Well I was there during the transition. Aanenson: Yeah, but we ran late. But I think that's one of the things that we can maybe do in our work session that we talked about maybe going out and looking at some projects. Looking at some of the management plans and then going out in the field and looking at them to see how they worked. Mancino: Yeah, because I'd like to see those. If they're working or not. Generous: The Minger Addition I believe is the only big one. Yeah, Coffman but those were more written right into the development contract. Mancino: But they're things that we never see here as a Planning Commission. Aanenson: Yeah, I think we were talking about going out and looking at projects. Things that we're doing, are they working? Are we spending a lot of time on something that we're not getting enough results out of so I think that was. Mancino: Or does the ordinance need to be changed. Aanenson: Sure. Mancino: Changed, sure. I think the year anniversary date might be a good to look at it because we have no idea what's going on. Aanenson: Just on that same line. We are putting, Bob's working on the transition zone based on the slides that we talked about and I think as we've gone through this, what we've found out, if it's going to further define, and we say streetscape, and this goes back to what's excessive grading. What's excessive protection of slopes so we're coming up based on those ordinances that we looked at as part of the transition. We're putting that together and that's going to help further define. When we say streetscape, this is going to give a percentage and quantify that as well as those buffer areas. So we're planning on putting that on the next Planning Commission. Mancino: On some of these things that we're looking at for the first time, we're going to have some time review them? Come and ask you? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Aanenson: Right. We should have asked for a work session first. It was noticed but I don't think we're going to get through it in one meeting. We don't expect you to. To take comments and redirect us and that sort of thing. So yeah. Mancino: I just wanted to get you before you left. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scott: Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes of the last meeting. Harberts: I thought we were noting them. Aanenson: Roger's opinion was that it has the same bearing. You can always go in court and say, but what I really meant was. Harberts: Who said that? Aanenson: The City Attorney's position. Scott: Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes of the last meeting. Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 18, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: On January 9th the City Council had the following actions. They approved the extension of the preliminary plat for the Hiscox Addition. That's on Lotus Lake. They're trying to get title cleared to go on that. They selected the southern alignment for the access boulevard on Highway 5. Mancino: I have some questions on that. Aanenson: Sure. Let me go through the rest of them and let's go back to that. Okay, the approval of the preliminary and final for the Cunningham Addition. I had preliminary in here but it was preliminary and final plat. They approved the interim use permit for the excavating of wetlands. Those are the ones that Diane had brought in. Those were further clarified as far as, I think she did a good job explaining the smell and that sort of thing so I think that Council has a good understanding of the scope of the issue there. And they 28 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 approved the first reading of the amendment regarding the erosion control and grading. That was to put the escrow, additional escrow in place. Conrad: Oh they did? Aanenson: Yeah. There was quite a bit of discussion about the financial but again, we feel strongly as far as trying to get that resolved so. Mancino: You know it was very odd, and I was at that meeting because you know how we're all assigned to a specific meeting. Council meeting and I think a lot of the discussions on all the points at that Council meeting, that particular Council meeting, were ones that we had brought up as Planning Commissioners too. Well, now wait a minute. Sometimes people come from different perspectives and it was very interesting to me that that's the tone of the questions were exactly the same questions that we asked. You know I kind of thought, did they read the Minutes but anyway. And it tells me sometimes how our thinking is and whether we are in alignment at all or if they think things the same way. And I was just surprised that it took very much on a lot of things that came up were the same discussions that we had. And I don't think the answers were any different. Aanenson: Now that the alignment's been selected, then we'll go forward with some of the zone. There were some recommendations for modifications to the zoning ordinance on some of those land use parcels and the 1995 study area. So the comprehensive plan will be amended. So that will be the next phase to go through that process. You know we did adopt an overlay standards but this would be another element to that document. Farmakes: What mechanisms are available, they decided to go with the southerly alignment once they go from Galpin to TH 41. From a practical standpoint, do you think that that may come up again for discussion? Aanenson: I kind of thought so. I think it's still a strong possibility. There seemed to be a lot of movement to push it to the north. Again, staffs position has always been that if it's been to the north, you're going to be able to get development to pay for it. Such as Lake Ann Highlands. They're willing to build it. If it goes to the south, I'm not sure what the timing is going to be as far as that goes but. Farmakes: Well you know that I lobbied for the southerly alignment. Mancino: You did? Aanenson: Yes. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Farmakes: Well, just let me qualify that. Half. The other half I do believe should be to the north so the reason I'm asking is. Aanenson: It could still be brought up. Farmakes: If that could still be brought up. Aanenson: Yeah, at the next meeting. I think that was the issue too, and I believe that was the Mayor that brought up that issue as far as when it gets to Galpin, staying north. On the northern alignment over to TH 41 and that avoids Swings because right now you do go through a significant portion of the Swings. Farmakes: Okay, and there was some topographical reasons for doing that I think that weren't in the first section. Aanenson: Right. And there was the perception that those development parcels aren't big enough to do anything but a lot of those are 40 acres and plus. We're seeing a PUD tonight on 11 acres. That's plenty of room to do something creative in those development parcels I'm talking on the west side of Galpin so. Just so you know, Lake Ann Highlands is going to the City Council on the 13th. They're leaving their plat the way it is and they're just saying, we're willing to dedicate the corridor to the south if that's where you've chosen it but our plat still, that's still the project we want to go forward with. Scott: How are they going to trans, because I think when we saw it it had the access boulevard to the north. Aanenson: Right. That would just become a local street. Scott: So they're going to put it in anyway? Aanenson: Well yeah. That was my point. So now we're going to have two streets. Farmakes: Was there any discussion? Mancino: There was no discussion. Farmakes: About the issue of the development that was proposed by Mills? Aanenson: They got up and spoke, sure. 30 • Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Farmakes: But the comment I read in the papers is that they're still envisioning taking a position of some sort with development out that far to the west. As far as I know, up until now there has been no vote. In fact the votes have all been whatever to zero that contemplating any commercial development out there. Aanenson: Correct. The land uses that we were looking at don't include large commercial development. That's what I was saying. That would be the next component now is to go back and implement the comprehensive plan. Or amend the comprehensive plan to show those land uses that we looked at as part of that document. And we looked at, well you know that was the other reason that Lundgren wanted the road. Lundgren Bros got up and spoke. They wanted the road to the north too because that worked for their development because it provides a nice transition between what they're trying to do with the continuation of the Meadows at Longacres and the Woods at Longacres. The continuation of that. Then the frontage road made a nice break and transition for a different product again between those two frontage roads. So, I tried. Scott: Okay. Any other City Council update items? Aanenson: No. Scott: How about Ongoing Items? Aanenson: Okay. We did have our meeting with the Park Commission. I think that was kind of exciting to see what they're doing. Again they're having their town meeting on February 7th and you're all invited to go. They put ads in the paper. Mancino: I didn't get to the Park meeting and I just. Aanenson: What we did is we rolled out the aerial map. Mancino: Oh, I saw that at the other meeting. Aanenson: Maybe Joe, you were there or Ladd, you can tell them. Farmakes: I had wanted to bring up a point and I was not able to get to that meeting but I wanted to badly. I've been talking about this before. I had seen the surveyors going through the property to the north and to the northwest, which is Prince's property. Going through there. I'm wondering if what plans they're looking at or what at various times has been shown as a park addition and preserving what is probably, as far as I know, one of the larger stands of red oaks in Chanhassen. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Aanenson: I believe that was part of their, wasn't that part of their plans? I mean if they could ever get it, they want to have the park go all the way around that lake. Conrad: Right. Farmakes: And currently there's a property inbetween the two lakes, at least a significant part of it is not developable anyway but once you get to the other side it certainly is. It's premium land. Aanenson: Well that continues all the way down to Lake Ann. They want to get that portion of, so the park goes around that side. Farmakes: And then I think the last concept plan that I saw for it did show there was a greenery element there that shot up towards Minnewashta Park and I'm wondering how much of the, if that maintains as a passive preservation of that forest area. Or if that's seen as an 80 foot setback from the lake or something like that. Aanenson: Well let me just tell you what they're looking at doing is they're trying to map all the parcels. Put a wish list together of everything that they'd like to acquire or be interested in and then they go down and they put a value to that and they come up with what they feel like they can actually bond for and then they put a priority to those and try to purchase those. Maybe the ones that are under the most pressure for development or most significant environmentally or whatever and put that together. That would kind of be the priority for acquisition. So they're not even to that point yet. Right now they're just going to go and see if there's momentum to do this. Get a group that would kind of put that list together. So this map was kind of just to walk and talk about areas that the Planning Commission may be interested or just show kind of what we were doing. Farmakes: Currently there are, and have been for decades, trails through that property. It's not posted. Prince has not posted and if you walk around the lake, which currently the city owns connecting to Greenwood Shores Park, those trails continue to the west to be unpaved. But they continue through that forest area and then go back down to I think, is it Gorra? Aanenson: Yeah, that would be Mike Gorra's property. Farmakes: Yeah. It goes around the west and actually the city actually has in place. Well I shouldn't say the city because it's private property but it's never been developed. It looks to be in a pristine state except for where, I think it's Larsen who was the previous developer or owner that owned the property back in the 60's, cut trails through there. Had a couple cut trails through there and it's really premium, flat forested land. It's quite beautiful. But it is 32 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 pretty much left as it was. The mature trees in there. And it must be at least 50-60 acres worth of forest in there. Conrad: I think the Park, they raised... Farmakes: ...to the future, Lake of the Isles. Conrad: Their point was, if they don't do anything now, then the opportunities are gone. Farmakes: Well I saw surveyors in there. That's why I brought it up because once that's gone, if the city envisions 10-15 years the thought of having a walkway around that lake like they do at Lake Calhoun or Harriet or whatever, it's not as if it was for taking I guess at this point being that there are no homes within blocks of shoreline. Mancino: What...? Farmakes: Well, a wish list. Aanenson: Just a couple other update items. Diane, tonight met with the Watershed District to try and leverage them for more money for our Bluff Creek study. As we indicated, we've got some from the DNR so we're really actively working on getting that. So I think that's an exciting project and she's got a tight window on that. We hope to have something in place by July. Actually have someone working to get a development plan so that's exciting. And that really dovetails back into what the Park and Recreation is looking at too and maybe identify some areas for acquisition and that sort of thing so that's exciting. I mentioned where they had that transition zone to you. Next Planning Commission meeting and then just on affordable housing. We are working, staff is working in conjunction with the City Manager, working on a couple of sites that we've identified and meeting with potential people to put some things together. I think that's exciting. The next step is, Diane will be presenting these ideas to City Council to get some direction first so where the staff should be taking it and as soon as we get that, then we'll be back to tell you some more information about that but we are looking at it. I think Diane raises the point, kind of the direction we're looking at. There are opportunities in every project that comes in and there's different ways to make it happen instead of one big project. I think part of it too is when we do see a PUD, to try to encourage some different types of products and that's again one of the thing of the PUD is we're getting a lot of the similar product. It would be nice to have some variations. Farmakes: I talked with our State Senator and he says that there's confusion as to what the definition is. If we sit back and allow the State to decide that through the HUD funds that they get from the Federal government, how or why or what. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Aanenson: We're not doing anything like that Jeff. Farmakes: I know that but in the meantime, if in their wisdom they decide that they will do a mandate as to what that will be, either funded or unfunded, what will that do to our own initiated program? Aanenson: Well I have to go back kind of what Diane was saying. We've always identified housing to meet our needs. We've got 7,000 employees in this city. I mean there's a different cross section of people here that work here and it provides an opportunity for some of those people to live here and that's what we're looking at. What are those income stratus. Working with the people that own businesses here in town to work with us to provide that opportunity. To set up a Housing Board. There's some real exciting opportunities that you don't have to get all these other jurisdictions involved in it. That we can be creative and do it ourselves, but that's always been our goal and yes, there may be some pressure outside making us do some of these things but I think a lot of it too is that we're trying to meet a goal that's in our comprehensive plan. Farmakes: So these would be privately funded then? Aanenson: Yes. Farmakes: So any issues of equity transfer then would be at the risk of the private institution then? Aanenson: There might be some city involvement as far as tax increment. Some of those sort of things, sure. Or the County HRA, sure. And similarly like we're doing with senior housing. Farmakes: Well the humanity organization I know deals with the issue of the equity transfer in subsidizing the mortgage on the house because that's the touchy issue that you come up against. If it's an entitlement based on a monthly payment where the city remains in ownership of the home, that gets to be quite an issue. Currently right now the money comes from the County, which gets it from the State, which gets it from the Federal government. But the issue of transfer of equity, if you're taking tax dollars and you're handing it out to somebody, that becomes a real hornet's nest. Whereas the issue of the humanity, as a private fund and they hold the mortgage. If they go sour on the payments, they're holding the bag for them. That's a fundamental issue I think once they define what it is that the customer that they're serving is. What that income is. Scott: Okay, thank you very much. How about Lake Management Plan. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 LAKE MANAGEMENT PLANS. Kimsal: I'm Jill Kimsal, the Forestry Intern. Hi, thank you Mr. Chairman. As she said, Diane Desotelle is at a Watershed meeting tonight. In the memo Diane put in your packet she kind of gave you a little background and update on the lake management plans we're working on. Currently there's actually about three aspects to this. The newsletters, the management plan and then we're planning to hold workshops on each lake. The most currently update on all those things are, first the newsletter. Officially today we finished the Lotus Lake newsletter. That was in your packet. We filled in all the blank spaces and had the final proof reading and stuff like that. So that's on it's way to the printers. We hope to get that out in the mail sometime this month because that will also have on it the invitation for the workshop to be held for Lotus Lake. Mancino: Do you have to live on Lotus Lake to go? Kimsal: No. Mancino: Are other people, who gets this? Kimsal: Well right now on the mailing list for that are people who live on Lotus Lake or have access to the lake. But we've continuously invited people to join on the mailing list in all the city newsletters that go out each season. Mancino: I think that's good because you send out a lot of general information here. What is a watershed? A little bit about wetlands too that I think would help. Kimsal: Right, right. So no, it's open to the public. We send them to the people that we think would be most interested at this point, and anybody else too. Conrad: The purpose of the work session with the lakeshore owners is what? Kimsal: Do you want to wait? I'll get to that. Conrad: Oh, sure. Kimsal: So the newsletter's going to be mailed at the end of this month. For all three lakes and on there we'll have the workshop date for each lake. And Diane and I had talked and we'd like to suggest to you or encourage that maybe each of you could take an interest in one of the lakes. Maybe one that's near to you and get on the mailing list so you can get this and the management plan and stuff like that. So if we could have all three lakes represented here, 35 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 that'd be great. And also tonight in front of you, you have the lake, Lotus Lake Management Plan. This is the technical report that takes in all the data and the surveys we sent out and kind of puts it all together. Talks about it a little bit and then suggests possible plans. Water quality improvements and such that could be done on the lake. Either by homeowners or by the city. It kind of incorporates everything into it. And along with the suggestions for getting on the mailing list. If you choose Lotus Lake as the lake you want to be interested in, or whatever, you can keep these managements. Otherwise I have to ask for them back. So we have to still do a few things with those. The workshops are scheduled for March 20th, 21st and 22nd. For Lotus, Riley and Minnewashta respectively. They're going to start at 7:00 p.m. They're going to be held here in the Council chambers and we are going to go over basically kind of a lot of stuff that's in the management plans right now. Just give people a little background data on their lake. What's happening with it. What state is it in. Go into more detail than the articles and the newsletter are in and bring up some lake projects. We plan to invite people either, or, and from the Watershed District and the DNR. Give them a little update and any relevant information that they're working on with our lakes. And basically kind of just have an open forum after that for people's concerns, questions and things like that. So that's where we're at right now. Conrad: So how are they invited to that? Kimsal: There's on the newsletter is a little blurb about when the workshop will be held. We also plan to put things in the paper. Conrad: And it says why you should attend? Kimsal: It just says, on the newsletter all it says is that there's going to be a lake workshop and to call the city for details. We figure either people will come or they'll call us and ask us questions about it. We plan to put an article in the newspaper informing everybody. Conrad: Yeah, they won't come. I live on Lotus Lake so, the best way to do it is to get a hold of the President of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association and get a calling tree working. And the other thing is, if the smart thing for their association to do is make that an evening. They've gone through some of these things so they know some of this stuff but even when we talk about milfoil, some people aren't attending anymore because they say, well it's done. It's in. Can't do anything about it. So more information probably is not what they want to hear. But if the homeowners association makes this like their, they always have a spring meeting, then you'll get a lot of attendance. So I'll take that one. Are other lakes meeting that same night or is it just for one lake at a time? Kimsal: One night. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Conrad: So the right thing to do, and I'll try to help a little bit, is make sure that the homeowners associations get their calling tree going because they really won't attend a workshop. They just, they won't do that. But if we also hold a homeowners association meeting that night, then you'll get 30-40 people here. Aanenson: I think too what we're trying to look at is the bigger picture as far as the watershed and talk about a storm water management plan. What things we're doing as a city to try to improve that so we're looking at the bigger picture. But yeah, I think your comments. Conrad: You're selling but they're looking at what's in it for me. Aanenson: Oh absolutely. It's an education thing... Conrad: You've got to give them the benefits. You've got to sell them and hey, I've got something for you kids. Mancino: The teasers with the benefits. Conrad: That's right. You know balloons. Magnets. Mancino: A little packet of fertilizer. Scott: Okay, we got that settled. Farmakes: I have one question about the management plan. In the past our consultants told us that the chemical runoff from lawn fertilizer was negligible to this problem. That seems to be changing, or at least some of the things I'm reading...Is that in academia that's changing, or what is it? Kimsal: I believe so. Aanenson: That's one of the things Diane probably, you might want to address to Diane. Kimsal: In our surveys you know we ask people if they used lawn fertilizer and we only got a 30% response from the entire lake but it was, you know the responses were scattered and that was the highest response rate we got for any of the three lakes. But yeah, out of all the people that responded, like 80% use lawn fertilizers and herbicides on our lakes. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Farmakes: What I meant was, is that our original consultants that were working on water issues on the stuff that I saw or when they came in for their presentation, and the question was directly asked. Mancino: When was this? Farmakes: Oh this was 2 or 3 years ago. And they were asked directly what were the results of bagging of leaves and what was the result of putting lawn fertilizer on because I'd assume that that would be a big contributor and they said that it wasn't. It was a negligible issue. Kimsal: That's what I'm trying to get at. Is that there are a lot of people using it and it is changing. The attitudes about that are changing. You know your pollution in the lake, your runoff, there's fertilizer, there's sediments from the bottom. There's development contributions and those are kind of the big ones so yeah. It is changing a lot. We are concerned about that and that's part of the one of the workshops is teaching people that this really does affect your lake and think of it in the big picture rather than just your yard and what you put on it. Farmakes: The reason that I got confused is that I understood that they had worked in inner suburbs that are already mature communities so that lawn care would have been an established situation. And if these are water engineers, I'm assuming that when they discussed the issue, they were talking about percentages of contributions. When they're talking, this would be prior to us doing the storm water tax situation. And it wasn't just that we were an immature community and how much we were putting on but just the category itself. And are you saying that that consideration is changing, whether it's here or Edina or that category itself is being rethought out? Kimsal: I believe so but that's one of those things where you might want to ask somebody like Diane or somebody in the Watershed or the DNR. I'm just familiar with this community basically. Farmakes: Okay. Well it's interesting because we purposely did not address that issue. We dropped it. We dropped putting any type of regulations or pursuing that in the discussion. Mancino: I thought that was a given. Scott: Do you have a motion sir? Conrad: I move that we go home. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995 Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 39 ON-GOING ISSUES February 1, 1995 ISSUE STATUS 1. Highway 5 Corridor Study and City Council hearing date set for January Land Use Recommendation 23, 1995 to select road alignment. Subsequently the City Council will review land use recommendations including northern 1995 study area. 2. Southern 1995 Study Area: BF Staff is proposing to study the remaining District and remaining city land land outside of the MUSA. We will be uses outside of the MUSA Line. studying property in conjunction with the Park and Recreation Commission open space study. We will also be recommending land use by the end of 1995. In early 1996, we will begin evaluating the timing for the Planning Commission hearing process and determine how much, if any, area should be brought into the city's MUSA area. 3. Slope Protection Ordinance. The City Attorney is working on an ordinance that will further define the preservation of slopes. 4. Revise PUD Ordinance. The standards of the PUD ordinance do not necessarily merit the increase in the flexibility it allows. Staff believes the PUD should be a process. 5. Bluff Creek Study Staff is working with the Watershed District, DNR and Metropolitan Council to secure funding and to study and develop standards for the protection and enhancement of the Bluff Creek Corridor. 6. Joint Meeting with Park and Request from the Planning Commission. Recreation Commission This is a good opportunity to meet and review the Park and Recreation Commission's Comprehensive Plan and plans for preservation and future park sites. Meeting was held on 1/24/95. 7. Affordable Housing Staff is exploring the affordable housing issue. We are examining what affordable housing is in the metro area and how Chanhassen fits into this issue. We are also monitoring the Metropolitan Council's new blue print as well as the 1995 Legislature for any housing mandates. 8. Train Depot The Planning Commission requested staff explore the possibility of moving the old train depot to the City Center, especially in light of the train that is providing the rides which originate in the city. 9. Transition Zone The Planning commission requested that staff develop an ordinance for transition zones between different densities and intensities of use. Ordinance amendment tentatively scheduled for February 15 PC meeting. 2 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION i CITY OF ,.. CHANHASSEN .-- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: February 8, 1995 SUBJ: "New Urbanism" I received the attached press release regarding Michael Lander's idea of "new urbanism." I thought you might be interested in the principles of his concepts. I think Chanhassen is well on its way to implementing a majority of these principles. IC Kurschner Communications February 6, 1995 Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen Planning Department 690 Coulter Dr., P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minn., 55317 Ms. Aanenson: If you are looking for a lively, free-thinking speaker to spark interest in looking at your community in an entirely new way, Michael Lander is your man. Lander can present the idea of"New Urbanism" to groups in your city that are interested in the subject of planning. The Minneapolis architect and developer is presently talking with several Twin Cities communities about implementing New Urbanist planning right here in Minnesota. What exactly is New Urbanism and how will affect our communities? Please review the enclosed explanation of this new planning concept that is picking up popularity across the nation. You will also find a listing of current New Urbanist projects throughout the country, plus background on Michael Lander and his company, The Lander Group, Inc. Lander will tailor his interesting and visual presentation to your group, and can make it as long or as short as you would like. I will call you within the next couple of weeks to determine your interest in learning more about New Urbanism. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please call me at (612) 861-5854. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tracy...-Jl _Kurschner, Public Relations Specialist, Kurschner Communications (Encl.) Kurschner Communications,5710 First Ave.South,Minneapolis,Minn,55419 phone:(612)861-5854 fax:(612)861-7823 NEW URBANISM GOING BACK IN TIME TO FIND A NEW WAY OF LIFE IN BOTH THE CITY AND THE SUBURB For generations, most Americans were fortunate enough to belong to a community. They knew, cared about and often cared for their neighbors. There was always a familiar face at the corner grocery store. Kids who lived next to one another were in the same classroom together, and that classroom was within walking distance from their homes. How things have changed! Today very few suburban residents can tell you their neighbors' names, much less their profession or their favorite sports team. Kids no longer walk to school; the bus picks them up before dawn to take them miles from home. If Grandma would like to move near her children, forget it. Zoning restrictions prevent the kind of housing Grandma can afford. Enter New Urbanism. The concept is simple: re-design our neighborhoods so your entire life, from work to worship to school and shopping, is within a ten-minute walk from your home. In addition, neighborhoods would not be segregated by economic status. A $300,000 home could exist next to a tastefully done but affordable four-plex. The New Urbanism theme is picking up steam nation-wide. Future-thinking planners and architects have already built a half-dozen such communities across the country (see enclosed listing of projects). According to Twin Cities architect and developer Michael Lander, "This is not a design trend, it's a set of principles on which we should build our communities." Lander is part of a group of New Urbanists who wants to see suburbs and urban areas recreated to fit the needs of people, not the demands of cars. According to New Urbanists, the days of segregated suburbs and three-car garages facing sidewalk-less streets should abruptly come to an end. We should get back to basics like front porches perfect for greeting passers-by as they walk in their neighborhood. And those pedestrians should have someplace to go, like work, the store or a community gathering. Leave the car in the garage to the rear of the home, and get to know your neighbor. HOW TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF NEW URBANISM 1. The car --Changing the way people think about the way they live is no easy task. A difficult change would be to ease our constant reliance on the motor vehicle. The solution is to keep the amenities we need within walking distance of our home. (more...) New Urbanism pg 2 2. The Job --"How would I get to my job that's downtown or in another area of the metro?" would be a raging question for many. Answer: build walkable New Urbanist communities connected by a transit network of buses or light rail. --Another solution to this problem is to create more jobs in neighborhoods, which works in perfectly to the New Urbanist concept. Build office space next to the stores which are next to the schools, churches and housing areas. With modern technology like fax machines, modems and tele-conferencing, clean, information-based businesses can be re-integrated into the community. 2. Government Restrictions --Local municipal leaders and residents need to be empowered to take the future of their communities into their own hands. Zoning restrictions need to be eased to allow residential areas to intermix with commercial and municipal zones. 3. Desegregation -- Right now, millions of Americans live in homogenous societies based on their age, income and race. The perception by many that this is a good thing needs to be broken down. We need to see the benefits of living near those older or younger than us, those more or less economically advantaged than us, and those who come from different ethnic backgrounds. PRINCIPLES OF NEW URBANISM 1 . All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities. 2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. 4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. 5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents. 6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network. (more...) New Urbanism pg 3 7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses. 8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, parks and greens. 9. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as wildlife corridors, that are permanently protected from development. 10. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully- connected and interesting routes to all destinations. --###-- NEW URBANIST PROJECTS Seaside: The first and most developed project. It is a resort community on the Florida coast, and has been the most widely published project. Kentlands: A new suburban community outside Washington, D.C. that includes a variety of housing types, a grade school and future retail. Right now, it is about two-thirds completed. Harbor Town: An in-town community on Mud Island, which is located in the Mississippi River in Memphis. It has a wide variety of housing types, a marina, a school and future commercial space. This project is widely published and well regarded. Laguna West: A new suburban community outside Sacramento, Calif. It features a variety of housing types, office buildings, a community center and future retail. Windsor: A high-end development on the coast of Florida. Literally dozens of other projects around the country are now in the planning stages. The closest, a project in Madison, Wis., is scheduled to go under construction within the next 12 months. PLEASE NOTE: LANDER CAN PROVIDE SLIDES OF SEVERAL OF THESE PROJECTS DURING HIS PRESENTATION -###- MICHAEL LANDER Michael Lander is president of The Lander Group, Inc., a full service consulting and real estate development firm based in Minneapolis. He is also a licensed real estate broker and holds the CCIM (Certified Commercial Investment Member) designation from the National Association of Realtors. He is a past president of the Minnesota/South Dakota CCIM Chapter. Lander's 17-plus years of experience in architecture and real estate development include land acquisition, market research, land planning and architectural design, securing public and private financing, and overall development conception. The Lander Group, Inc. specializes in the redevelopment of older, historic properties. Most of Lander's recent projects are located in the Uptown area of Minneapolis. In 1991, his firm completed and sold an award-winning, adaptive reuse conversion of a 1906 fire station into five residential lofts near Lake Calhoun. The firm won a local design award for the new Dunn Bros. Coffee at 34th Street and Hennepin Avenue and right now, the company is constructing a new six-unit townhouse at 35th Street and Hennepin Avenue. The homes designed by the Lander Group, Inc. have traditionally been a great attraction on the Minneapolis/St. Paul Home Tour, drawing as many as 1,000 visitors each year. Lander studied liberal arts at Arizona State University and the University of the Pacific in Stockton, California. He began his real estate career 17 years ago in Sausalito, California, by designing, building and selling houseboats. In 1986 he returned to his native Grand Forks, North Dakota, to help redevelop a part of that city's downtown, including an 1895 structure built by his grandfather. Lander moved to Minneapolis in 1990. Lander is married and lives in the East Isles neighborhood of South Minneapolis. His 17-year-old daughter, Wren, is a student at the University of San Diego. Lander enjoys reading, biking, traveling, music and time with family and friends. -###- . (affoidableIb9eiles areStudy finds most day-cal lis state and regional officials debalewhetser to ened laws and programs ,000.........4,po s 1e throughout °°°�metropolitan centers don't measure u staff has identified cava l ab l ty of affordable housing. Researchers defined aiffordabte housing as shelter that would 0r'"°, "�r'0pe30 rmontd""`,-orhofe valuearned Youngest children receive poorest car -520,000—rents d t300 per month w loss,—or homes slued •lower than 860,004 • Tib Est looks at Twin Cites communities oriel populations Of more then N.chingion Posi These centers also paid their teachers The researchers also conch, 5,000,ranking Mem by the percentage of housing units considered poorly The average hourly wage for children in higherqualfy e: recently stat- affordable. N ashingion.U.C. teachers in the centers studied was fit sOeully and inlellectualls fore low-in- The vast majority of the 5 million S72?.and assistant teachers earned more positive view of th developing C S children who spend their days in 55 70. The researchers found that and are more likely to share The counties fi.m..y with their teach, Amxa 22% .614 child care centers arc receiving meds- several factors improved the quality relationship Mee Veer the perces- ' ocre care, and one in eight are in of care including a higher number of tar,followed ace ddbra•de^as poor-quality settings where their teachers per group. higher teacher The researchers observed 40 • debate by Mg In tie 7 health and safety are threatened,ac- education and a more espenenved in the four states The center DFL-Menne- pgp hoe desk,. 65,167 cording to a multiyear study of hun- administrator.Centers that were re• include traditional preschoo n 6,610 quired to meet certain standards ro• children attend only ors from the )utas bear nue- H•m•pin deeds of centers in four sta:cs. p pan or r first-ring -,bend affordable �w s . . vided better quality. as did those and part of the year The s _ Igen. 17%. ' A team of academics at four universe- with sources of funding other than conducted by researchers at '' ei • Is ties in California. Colorado. Con- parent fees. Benny of Colorado at Des cities would '.,, Cary . whew neeticut and Norah Carolina rated University of California. L. scally if the .. lust one in seven centers as good Centers with access to additional les,the University of North• ided a more - �2e% 709,934 785 quality.where children enjoyed close funds. such as employer subsidies. and Yale University. egion's low- D.aosa Metro area relationships with adults and teach. pay higher wages and have higher 3,926 leoeOrr. en focused on the children's individ- staff-to-child ratios and teachers who The report recommended it 19% -sr oat needs have been on the lob longer Re- implement higher standards year that itsearchers found a wide variation care and that governments so for new 17,700 11 The study. which is scheduled for among state licensing requirements private sector spend more s from sub , - 7 SJ1 715040 release today. said that problems and said there were fewer poor-quails families pay for child carr rease their '•s'" - were most prevalent in care for the ty centers in states with the most prose staff training using -:-.City-by-cityyoungest children,and 40 percent of stringent standards. Infant and toddler rooms received 1t10USly Percent ofaoW housing wets ;.NnlDer d anordede housing tints poor ratings. Researchers used the same standards tncil's new + ••••�•••- , . issued by the National Association that spread. m�....•."r1�Ao0s. ." 73.094 ° ' "The level of quality at most U.S. for the Education of Young Children. t8-is a vel . StulPe ' 48,509'>• child care centers, especially in in- which recommends staffing ratios of rad that the .we.........•.....t - . . - rant/toddler rooms. does not meet one adult for every three to four A HOr 1- WS commit- ��a,�.!�I; Forest Lake.. 976 children's needs for health, safety, infants.One adult for four or five?• low-income ,�+/a1l Fttkon Hebtrts.�719 warm relationships and Ir armng' 104-7 a and one adult for eight to verbs. ��1 said the report,which several major 10 4-yearThe organization rec. �� $rt''' .Chaska% 1,503' foundations funded. While quality ommends that day care teachers at illenge as a ' Anoka-. 2 • vanes widely,the report concluded. least have a'Child development eel'.We • have to ' ......•..:ete .. we . ; most child care is"sufficiently poor ,fate," which usually requires a muntttes to r Sank SL Paul 2.568 to interfere with children's emotional nine-month study program.and that /�Tf-l� and how to ®es•.•..•.•..•.•.... 1101.111111. and intellectual development." directors have at least a bachelor's I SA Y Y 1 lOR to come to 444,444.44.21:= 2,687 degree in a related subject and three ib• where and m Hastjnds 1,677 The findings come as Congress de- years ofespenence Lade ••Canadaai• 1,220 bates whether to require millions of Pnn�� !��EMI single mothers on welfare to work, The study found that quality was '• i xp+'11.J1 F utiiously be- r'."a_ Mounds Vlew 1.437 which would increase the need for higher in centers where more teach- rntrosersial ��}}we.��.e...••+•••«•••.nr child care dramatically at the same en had college degrees (- S E x teiis r 1 i suburbs C• '' Lake Elmo 521 time federal funding for such care me notion E � lye Paul111111111111 2.365 may be reduced. • .dc regional (404 g Expanse Sr_Paul Park m485 The study."Cost.Quality and Child _ Outcome,in Child Care Cennen."is { fcior of the C °tile H°'QMs 2,114 one of a handful of comprehensive & Except iol eta-regarded ©- Blaine 3.416 day care studies. It follows by less slfo�eapi 61'Se(e , cls. He-Is wires............. than a year a study by the New York- Fait&{fmterMerchandise' q .-yam until by IR Nom ^ 2.180 based Families and Work Institute - I <4 Exenf pl c f vetoed Or- Fr{d{gy 2.768 that found comparably poor levels of would have .....+..East".... arc evadable m"family day arc," _ Now50y0 O••• & Expedie1 � rums to in- in which children arc cared for in a ; tg.Johnson Rj{eld 3.696 person's home rather than a center. Dov tie staff for r; DG��ons ; BtiExperienc his chief of ;,'. _.•�1,� Together, the studies paint a bleak Seth 8 France r� nths of last - picture of child care, a subject of Designers & built - �� Faliu 921.1694 �n�' 1,:� •. --- ---- ----- who are always v • Park 5.118 intense interest m the of mothers Stiles, (3•rOOiCYT1 where more than half of of Excited �1�_•`.. Stillwater( NM 1.097 young children are employed. ATTENTION!!!! ercent, or Mr" house- SL 844. Connie Bell.esecutive director of the BUSLtirESS OWNERS... when you c a I I u s Arrttsorly.:. hey can at- Greater Minneapolisn rc p,n Day CaAsso- Ayew acccg 1154/51P.,.hC from yr , Ainneapolis nearly half Wrier Grove HeightsSpetn Lek0 Park1.531 1,851Minneapolisclarion. said poor quality day care svuwrcn ro itwruve twuness 533-0352 y centers may not be as serious a prob- sates/profit,c,aomcr cm•e i a'----' O shies al- .+.. - Iran m Minnesota. HasjuuL'tlsoo.een Nhoiurlung t" u' " forE ce1len ef sic reach of �h� �� OR 4uis know wlw t,:a0 Home Remodels tarchen re- North St paul'^�999 - ''I think we are ahead of the game because...there was a real wakeup Dnrs.our present hiSIC mscouni rale � � Maplewood 2.551 call (a few years ago! that infant seem to.high"" F- 7 writ of the "'"""'""H"� 218 '• toddler care was the weakest part of Ceh at"d+y and le'us+m"rr ywr •/jy was judged our child care system.'-she said."I a1C91Onv •+;�� Id y.A pit• Wee II us think Minnesota has worked hard on USB MERCHANT SERVICES yl n 2 i 17 S,"c e .tied Maple © quality(improrement''• Minneapolis all -2245 t the City RobWrodele 1.157 tdbtocks in New Hope1,696 Minnesota is ranked third in the na- ' ARE YOUC1a se housing lion for the number of accredited 'uitd it. s„�,• und" 606 child care centers through the Na- READY q T fi St.'�. Vs40rsals Heights !00 ousel Association fur the Education FOR THE • @b• f using qual. --' of 1 oung Children.Bell said. ie Dakota Rostrata iiimini 2.463 Prepare with THE HUNTINGTON ADVANTAGE rnelopmenl .. . Brooklyn Center- 2,037 Barbara Willa.spokeswoman for the .t week be.in � - National Association fur the Educe- '34 hours of instruction refused ; L 's 3•622 tion of Young Children in Washing- •Small class size,cert fled teachers •-unit town- ME .D.C.also called the new repos •4 full-length ACT practice tests holds that Lakeville t�ftt tona wakeuD call "As a mews,we have t •Huntington Personal Study Plans to target the exact CorOoran a 228 not paid enough attention to the dar aeras that Iced improvement w Dlished a Arden Hilts w 514 ly environment of 5 million of our Rldgedale Southdale lin s has preschool children."she said. CALL TODAY! 546 0067 922-3000 :his cntia _11111111111 1552 Among employed mothers with cid- THE HUNTINGTON EXAM PREP CENTEI study de. • •��.t!1� dren under age 5. )) percent use as costing cm C."oon esapros -2,604 family day care,28 percent use day A Pvwm of THE HUNTINGTON LEAK L+G C�+TFA. t the Stan• care centers, 28 percent juggle their • e�.n."w..w ia...`s..e,w �Oe��_ iunal re• Burnevele 2.932 schedules so children can be cared V C WhheBear Lake 1,336 fur by the parents and IU percentc30th [7�11n('1 `n i R7 arrange for care t their own homes �,Ll�(\(��a�(` 1 arty half of m.....•Bloontington111111111111111111111111111114.368 with a nanny. nine of its Apple Arley 1111111 1,442 - FEBRUARY 6 THRU 15 .sensed Al The study found that parents greatly alify for a ®••�" Shoreview 1,134 overestimate the quality or care their "� nnuraoon Prior Lake la 430 children err receiving U( parents 2. ii LIG E, gram. But ' surveyed•gr percent rated oat hie I �'% ren would Golders wwvalley 942 taints programs as very good.whsle I� more than oeo, • apan 1,786 teamed obseners found that most of . DISCOUNTS t �_ house. Et.t"•.•••.•.•E ti.. the same centers were poor no meds• ''� m White Beer Twp. 1297 erre. ■ /1Y T� ncsl's deft- 'Lino Lakes' 197 - to/ TO 70% �[f the 'pan- �' "Parents need to be much better m- 0 G en Prairie Champlin IR 466 formed consumers," said Suzanne • i BFI I TI t in Wood- ..•...................• Helbum, an economist at the Um. • Th /er 1 i, A'L 1s.HTERFC Edina and mSavage 1 236 vcndy of Colorado and principal in- t�,e(a(,4,{.� 1,(/LL/ .- ' 1-{1'NOG Region needs more affordable housing = : . S A shortage of affordable housing exists throughout the Distribution of single-family homes region—in its two central cities,its suburbs and out- �� pi varies dramatically lying areas.In 1990,more than 200,000 households • -,, riii4 Moe than60 communities in the n.'gion half o.Tr spent more than 30 percent of their income for hous- v. � 90 percent or their housing as detached,single-family ing.About a third of these spent over half their income - * •- horning.Hoo es,er,doe distribution dsi gte-family IIu homes vanes dramatically throughout the region.In on housing.The region also needs more diversity of �� 1990,the region's swage e horsing units thio',.''ft' housing types beyond the traditional,detached single- n -04,6; doe detached single-family Ove was s9pen-ent rte'"":: C� Only 44 amass o1Mineapolis'housing stock and family home,especially in rapidly developing suburbs. - ii ' 49 percent d4 Paull is single-famdy. These are among the findings of a new Metropolitan 1 r--1 Under 65%single-family Council report that profiles the amount and type of I 65-74.9%single-family • housing for the region and individual cities. . _ 75-89.9%single-family — 90%+single-family The report,based on the 1990 census,is a"snapshot" of housing and demographic changes affecting the s".' y need for affordable and"lifecycle"housing needed ing must be patched together,often from a complicit- Opening the door to life-cycle r s"- by people at various stages of their lives.(Housing is ed variety of public and private sources.The Council `and affordable houslln _ jam»Sys considered affordable if it consumes no more than plans to rt the use ofpublic funds to develop • g r .4 support mss.„ J � r' •r 30 percent of a household's monthly income.) and rehabilitate affordable housing,including working w ff p eroed t i the council has identified to create a"metropolitan enterprise fund"for housingt 'i c'tag Po P ways --- '''un/e lifecycle and affordable The Council prepared the report rehabilitation in distressed areas. rng, 'ree0ltrt•tenda ions for local •action. • to help the region's cities .- • .u•-z r x` a co,- better understand their Twin iii,„ housing , Other findings Land Iasi. he1:644developmentgoesupwhen r housing needs and to vs. tc,ti .-de,.r vibes d�tsitta large lot sizes.large •59%ofregrorr'sFranr_sarc'....-,...,..r."...;.; -- . see their housing pat 59%ad,7's 17,,, a. • Despite the high proportion of traditional min .�dod2teas and uirements:Zoning terns in a regional 22%of households have •``_ single-family homes,the demand for alterna- '� * r B� !� below 210.000 - .•- -, B Y !_bamer3�y'Tsbrn from rPsuderuts'[oncerru about the context.The report .65%d ha$child$have incomes be five forms of housing is growing.In the 1980s r on roads;water and sewer will be accompanied -. -r $20.000 and pay more than 30 pe cert ., strong growth occurred among three groups. .c..�-:•- •.....•. capacity schools,�property values and the character d Useir income for hawing by related reports on �,�%do..rrer«crrpird ann were married couples with no children under 18 l.;oFruerghbOrhot>t. v;, ..--:!7T-;:-:.:ft.,...: az challenges to afford- -. built before 1960 and could need " (up 25 percent);single-parent families(up 39 r .,^se '� ""iy y�ii able housing(see side- ' r"alor tea" - . percent);and single and unrelated persons living - taattnples dlo�al actiote Mahe zoning require_ 'sex -bar)and and a housing index together(up 31 percent). mentsmore 116031e;viaease density allowances and".; focusing on updated inforrna- -:s.- '+... _reduce lot +-T". • sizes� oxius ben-mei developing 5tlnlglrer tion for individual cities and clusters of •Most of the region's households with incomes densities allow for mixed-use-developinerrt;allow for - cities.The information will be used as a baseline below$25,000 are located in Minneapolis,St.Paula vanelyof housing types;exempt or provide reduced •, s for cities to measure future changes and progress in and bordering suburbs,primarily to �`ges{pr lousing;have developers` %_ providing affordable housing. r'- the north and south of St.Paul, i a fee into 5 Snapshot:.- POY hopsingtrust fund;sirnplufycarrrpkx, a sample and north and northwest d �o r-corwmttrtgpennit processes n The report is part of a larger Council effort to suburb's housing. .; Minneapolis. - Vis" - "` - reduce the effects ofpovertywhich drain y roy-_:lt+ `l s`, it 'r resources from the region's olI economic •4�of suburb's homes•are k with the al singe-family.- » - • Over one-fourth of �p oo agencies Ito matte use of local fiscal potential.Affordable housing is a key goal • 13%of f a sed olds have arcual the region's households 6pp15 sticll as housing reverwle bonds tax incrertrertt me below$2"Ca ' ✓ - in the Council's Regional 8leeprint,a set ::77% paid more than 30 d haxetnlds base inrmnre• firwnarg,f+edeial grants for rehabilitation and of long-and short-term strategies in sever- below$20000 that n 7 g f B •pat^• percent of their incomeyk , al areas to strengthen the region as a 30%d annib in 1989 for housing a ,•w� whole and target economic strategies as a built before 1960 and mold creed . , i"-'-,aa.--1,7-...;',ai4 s - eg This included 40 percent Anodrerprobl-,- .iesheera-rrtplerlyand fi7 am regional priority. •maim e-0'rr. ;,-.1.- .' • of renters and 17 percent of otior m te5r �fes.pct gy homeowners. �a - - kom everts wit as the Mtnrtesrita Flatsrng Flossie r 'This report re-establishes for the Council the impor- err '•Ys, �•/lgerrcy tgiwade throughYrready a dozen different� = tante of affordable and life-cycle housing throughout •Many rural and freestanding cities had more than 45 s- atlabte`furdin programs_ ''+' y e`.s '=` the metropolitan area,"said Regional Administrator percent of their renter households paying more than )1,_ .,e v 'M'ers '"". gr s 2 lim Solum. "It puts everyone on notice that the 30 percent of their income for housing.By contrast r dc4a le most ` ,.• ',,cam the central { `, Council is going to be serious about housing in its the highest proportion of homeowners paying r to r+*-t- s 4e-.� 4 mast knew pix gre`in�fe devetoping suburbs. 1 review responsibilities,in technical assistance and in over 30 percent of their income on housing were fi Aelio$te Participate iii a reverse commute program; • using the Metropolitan HRA to be of whatever help it in third-ringsuburbs to the north and northeast of `."w`44ri5 r.- wrdl busrriesses b uft'a training and retram- can with communities." Minneapolis and St.Paul,and south,southwest and a.S.ix'r +; Po +;�^g ior_fosY-itloorne allow affordable duvet .. ;`,,:;:ileitis-1k ,::�,:, 1e-:. west of Minneapolis.Some lived in cities with the .-j sgrt(D be baikdose b nei etR loyment sites.- __ Affordable housing is one tactor the Council will use highest-cost housing in the region. i.—. x in its evaluation of the need to construct the Elm Creek Public c s:A'kat-In-My-Bad-Yard" - • sewer interceptor in the northwestern portion of the •Rental units affordable to people with low incomes - attihide s"106eS the door when translated into local ' _ region,and to evaluate requests for expansion of are distributed widely throughout the region. .-ordinar»that inhibit construction of affordable' - _ sewer and highway service in Cottage Grove and However,the largest cluster of cities with the lowest hou3ing.Actioee Piepare materials and programs to elsewhere.The Council plans to look favorably on number of rental units at affordable rates is west s- abaR affordable housing;establish • , cities that establish clear objectives to increase of Minneapolis. -:housing commissions Or task forces to work on . affordable housing. affordable horsing issues._ ,- - • . rs For a copy of the report,Opening Dooto Affordable j . "Obviously it takes resources to do affordable hous- and Life-cycle Housing,call the Metropolitan Council For a copy of the report Opening Daws to Affordable , ing,"Solem said,-and that has to be part of what we Data Center at 291-8140(TTY 291-0904). • and-Life Cycle Housing call the Council's Data Centert.. continue to work on."Because of a shrinking pool of • at 291-8140(TTY,291.09041. • :- '.�?+Y(1S ' federal and state funding,monies for affordable hops- ` v: CITY OF CHANHASSEN Yr. • 'f-�>% 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Park and Recreation Commission /Planning Commission Public Safety Commission Staff Members FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director (' / r DATE: January 25, 1995 SUBJ: 1995 Minnesota State Bicycle Conference For the past three or four years I have attended the Minnesota State Bicycle Conference. Each year, upon conclusion of the conference, my only regret is that other Chanhassen city officials were not in attendance. This conference examines the transportation habits of our society, inspiring one to look beyond conventional motor vehicle travel. The message is refreshing, ranging from an inspirational keynote address to hard fact informational work sessions. I encourage you all to consider attending this worthwhile conference. Please contact me by February 15, 1995 if you are interested. us-t as automobilists � n e early 19Os were a r, driving force in the evolution - of that „ j ' .. t� • • era 's transportation system , today's bicycling communit has an im •ortant role to • la in realizing the vision of ISTEA. 1995 Minnesota State Bicycle Conferenu BIKES -95: BE A P IIIOF THE SOLUTION ) ) ) _ . , .„ ., ,. , ‘ , . . , -, , , ,. . . r ._„.), Featured Speakers • Keynote Address - Friday 9:00 - 10:15- . - ' Bicycling? So.What? Telling Your Story So It Will Be Heard . Bruce Benidt, Vice President, Mona, Meyer, McGrath & Gavin We all know the benefits of bicycling. But why isn't bicycling a more integral element-of our culture? Perhaps the message of bicycling's benefits hasn'tbeen heard. In this interactive address, Bruce Benidt probes.the process of truly effective communication. By "frontload- ing" our communication, focusing on results and-benefits,_our real message is heard up front before it gets mired in jargon and the tra- ditional processes of talk. As Vice President of a major public rela- tions firm, a communications troubleshooter for twenty years, and a bicyclist (he still rides the same Gitane he bought in 1967), Bruce ) brings a unique and thought-provoking message to the 1995 State I. • ( Bike Conference. Special Presentation _ • • Friday 5:00 - 5:30 Peter Davis, Executive Director, Bicycle Museum of America - Do you remember your first bike? Most-of America does, and riot with- out great fondness and a rekindling of long-lost memories. As Peter Davis will show us, those memories can be recaptured at the Bicycle Museum of America, where cycling's rich history can be contemplat- ed as a precursor to a future role in the continuing evolution of trans- portation. Amid elegant antiques, 40s and 50s balloon-tire classics, • banana seat and high-rise handlebar bikes of the 60s,the bicycle's role in transportation, art and advertising, and social history is on dis- play for all bicycling enthusiasts.to appreciate. Be sure to ask Peter about the "No Ride Ride!" s Featured Speakers (continued) Legislative Reception • Hors d'oeuvres and Cash Bar - - "Friday 5:30 - 7:00 Hosted by the Minnesota Coalition of Bicyclists - Come meet your legislators! In a well-established Minnesota tradition, democratic with a small d, bicycle enthusiasts and professional - policy makers can mingle with legislators at this reception hosted by the Minnesota Coalition of Bicyclists. Here's your chance to talk with our policy makers in an informal environment after a challenging day of workshops and seminars. See you there! - Live Via Satellite, From Central America, It's-Dan Buettner! Saturday-10:30 - 11:00 am Dan Buettner, Expedition Leader, MayaQuest-- From the heart of Central America, World record cyclist, writer, and national lecturer Dan Buettner updates us on MayaQuest. This unique, student-direct- ed, satellite-linked bicycle trek through the jungles of Guatemala, • Mexico, Belize and Honduras-is in-search of the secrets of Mayan cul- ture. Always a favorite at the conference, Dan's riveting and poignant adventures via bicycle as told through his acclaimed multi-media pre- ' sentations have become media and National Geographic Explorer favorites. Don't miss this chance to talk with Dan and to be a part of MayaQuest. • Special Panel Saturday 11:00 to Noon• ISTEA's Future: NEXTEA Bill Wilkinson, Director, Bicycle Federation of America; Martin Olav Sabo, 5th District Congressman for Minnesota; Richard • Braun, Chairman Metropolitan Airports Commission, Former Com- missioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation; Moderator: Gary Sjoquist, Project Coordinator, Minnesota Coalition of Bicy- clists - ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991) was designed to allow greater flexibility in satisfying state and local transportation needs. ISTEA's impact on bicycling has been huge; prior to it being passed, 14 million had been spent on nonmo- torized transportation projects. In the less that four years since the passage Of ISTEA, the amount spent has exceeded 350 million dol- lars! What is the future.for ISTEA under the new reality of Republican leadership nationally? Hear the late-breaking news and views from Washington in this important panel discussion about funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel in the future, and.strategic guidance for the bike community from Minn_esota's preeminent transportation personality. Now more than ever; a A 1 A-The Minnesota Statewide Transportal call to action beckons us I Plan and You: Making Modal Choice a Rei Jonette Kreideweis,Acting Director,Intermodal Poli] :toward this vision...a vision - tion,Mn/DOT;Jill Jacoby,State Bicycle Advisory Board; Friday, Randy Halverson,Deputy Commissioner Mn/DOT-As required by ISTEA,Mn/DOT has generated a StatewidE :ognizing choice as inkier- March 3 Transportation Plan.A draft version of the plan will be sented in this workshop:followed by reaction from thi ent to the concept of per- 10:30 - 11:45 State Bicycle Advisory Board.How the content ofthe t can be influenced,and the plan's importance relative t future of bicycling in Minnesota wilt be the focus of th sonal mobility...a vision that session. - . . yields a healthier populace, 2A-Common Goals: Design Concepts That - 12 Work-Greg Pates, Transportation Planner,Mn/DOT more livable comunities, , the imminent completion of its Bikeways Design Mani . Mn/DOT is establishing new guidelines to increase saf( and cleaner air. Friday, standards for all cyclists.This workshop shows how th practical guide can help propel bicycle planning into tt March 3, mainstream of traffic engineering as well as urban des The challenge is to move By combining sound engineering principles with practi i:30 applications,roadways,off-road paths,and ancillary fa beyond promises to perfor-- ties can make bicycling a sustainable alternative trans( tion sys;embased.on one of life's most basic needs-c mance, to design the needs , - - - of bicyclists and pedestrians - . into tomorrow's transporta- 3A-City of Minneapolis Bicycle Lanes: Dei • 3 opment and Implementation-Tom Becker;As. tion realities to a c k n o w l- tant Director of Transportation,City of Minneapolis-T yCity of Minneapolis recently completed incorporating I Friday , miles of bicycle lanes on downtown streets.The clever( edge their presence a s keyment process of these.lanes,from initial concept throe March 3, , implementation,will be featured in this presentation. e o m p o n e n t s of a healthy Detailed specifications,intersection treatments,parkin 2■30 - 3:30 concerrs,signing,etc.will be examined.Proposed adc and enriched lifestyle -tions,recent bicycle counts on the new lanes,public re y tion;and recommendations will also be discussed. Join us at the St. Paul ' - ' 4A-Traffic Calming and Bicycle Riding--Ste Sheraton M i d w ay on March 4 Stackhouse,Senior Research Associate,Human Factors Research Laboratory,University of Minnesota-Current 3rd and 4th to discuss, methods of directing vehicular traffic can pose hazards pro- Friday, bicyclists.The practice of"calming"traffic patterns wt bicycles,buses,trucks,cars,and pedestrians all must o pose, and -respond to the March 3, can work to reduce these hazards.This workshop focu on methods such as increasing vehicular control at low emerging roles of bicyclists _ 3.45 - 5:00 speeds,promoting the visibility of bicycles,accommoel ■ bicyclists,reducing the amount of vehicular traffic,anc i idevelop- encouraging the use of alternative modes of transport.and pedestrians n less threatening to bicyclists _ Ing multi-modal transporta- ' SA-Transforming Community Visions into 5 Transportation Realities:Toward Organizr tion systems. Effective, Person-to-Person.Advocacy-Jet y Brown, Citizen Bicycle and Pedestrian Representative, Saturda , Arrowhead Area Transportation Partnership(ATP);Jim - March 4, trade,State Bike Coordinator Mn/DOT Dave Ekern, Mn/DOT District Engineer,Duluth;Lynn Moratzka,Min to State Bicycle Advisory Board;Gary Sjoquist, Project 9■00 10■15 dinator,Minnesota Coalition of Bicyclists;Moderator:F ■ ■ Moeller;Minnesota State Bicycle Advisory Board-Advc ing for bicycle-friendly streets and roadways is ostensib about transportation planning and funding.At a deep( - level,it's about people and relationships,and changing • aural priorities.When individual advocates'efforts take place within organizational contexts,those efforts can become highly leveraged and synergistic. • This workshop will debut a proposed 'constitution which to organize Minnesota bicycling's"human intros ture"and will begin the process of ratification.Finally, case studies of citizen success in effectively connecting transportation executives will inspire broad emulation. other bicycle enthusssts,activists,and community leac in build ng a powerhouse for Minnesota bicycling. - • "The biggest challenge facing bicycling today is ge• organi • zed."-Don Smith,NFL Consultant,State Bicycle Conference'87 B C 1B-Bicycle Education for Law Enforcement . 1C-Let's Get Physical:Healthy Choices Can Be Officers-Peter Flucke,Presidentof WE BIKE-Thei Habit Forming-Linda Feltes,Marketing Manager, xment of laws relating to bicycling is.an important Melpomene institute for Women's Health Research-In this in promoting safe bicycling.Yet the vast majority of video game/television-saturated world,physical activity both police officers receive little or no bicycle specific training.If on the part of children and parents is becoming a thing of police officers haves better understanding of bicycling and the past.This two-part presentation examines the question its related issues,they will be better equipped and more "Why be physically active?" Barriers to physical activity will\ likely to effectuate a positive change in the bicycling envi- be discussed as well as suggestions on how to incorporate roriment.Specific points to be discussed include why and physical activity into our busy lives.The second portion where people bicycle,accident investigation and reporting, examines the relationship of adults'physical activity and bicycle theft,registration,police bike patrols,crash types, that of their children,and identifies how parents can • and enforcement - encourage their children to be physically active. 2B-Bikes on Buses:The Duluth Experience- , 2C-Bicycle Safety Education•A Community Dennis Jensen,General Manager;Duluth Transit Authority- Based Philosophy and Application-Cynthia • In the first program of its kind in Minnesota,Duluth McArthur,Minnesota Community Bicycle Safety Project;Jill installed bike racks on more than half of the Duluth Transit Heins,Minnesota Injury Prevention Program;Larry Thornhill, Authority buses this past summer.The design,installation, Police Officer; Waseca Police Department-Whether a law and operational considerations of the DTA's program in ' enforcement officer,a teacher,a youth worker,or a civic Duluth will be examined in this presentation.Driver and group who conducts a bicycle safety program,it is the passenger orientation,promotional material,and ridership involvement or combination of.a community based philoso- statistics will also be reviewed. ' , phy which will best meet the goals of both the organization and the community.This workshop demonstrates and dis- • cusses successful components of community based bicycle . safety-educationat programs.Participants will learn how to • access a variety of approaches to diverse audiences and evaluate their goals.This seminar will provide an excellent foundation for the Bicycle Helmet seminar. • 3B-Making Communities Pedestrian-Friendly- 3C-Bike Safety Helmets-Do's and Don'ts of Bill Wilkinson,Director;Pedestrian Federation of America- Promotion Techniques-Cynthia McArthur; Minneso- This workshop will review current developments related to to Community Bicycle Safety Project;Jill Heins,Minnesota planning and facility design focused on pedestrians,With injury Prevention Program;Larry Thornhill,Police Officer; the passage of ISTEA,pedestrians may finally get the care Waseca Police Department-This workshop will discuss the -end attention they deserve in the context of transportation components of a successful bicycle helmet program.As a sv tem planning,design,and operation.Learn more about supplement to the previous Bicycle Safety Education Semi- 'o bring this"forgotten"mode into the transportation nar,participants will learn to incorporate media,schools, .,tream. worksites,and the medical community into their community bicycle helmet program.Other topics will include financing, obtaining sponsorships,coordinating with other bicycle safety activities,and using volunteers. 43-Paving a Trail to Success: Finding Funding 4C-Bicycling as a Health Modifying Behavior Sources-Kevin Arends,Manager, Willard Munger Trail; A Personal View-Robert Northcutt,MD,Citizen Mem- Dan Daily,President,Save Cedar Lake Park;Laurie Lundy, ber, Minnesota State Bicycle Advisory Board-Bicycling as an. Executive Director,Save Cedar Lake Park;Dan Collins,DNR invigorating modality for both recreation and transportation Trails and Waterways-Getting trails completed in a corn- will be discussed in this personal testimony to bicycling's munity often requires cooperative strategies and dogged- healthful benefits.The question of risk inherent in bicycling pursuit of multiple funding sources.This panel discussion will be addressed,particularly in light of social conventions will focus on the remarkable success these two trails have • that stress the virtues of being risk free.Improving public had in finding and tapping into multiple funding sources. educational processes as they promote both the health and hazardous aspects of bicycling will also be examined,as will the fun vs.sport vs.work contradictions that exist in the public consensus about bicycling. SB-Medical and Safety Preparation for. • - SC-.Now That Your Trail Is Funded,What's Cycling Events-Jon Ridge,Executive Director;Hostelling Next?-Mark Anderson,Planner;Mn/DOT Office of Envi- International Minnesota-Successful bicycle.events do not ronmental Services;Larry Peterson,Engineering Design happen by accident...they are created!Careful planning and Supervision,DNR;Dan Collins,DNR Trails and Waterways- preparation go into each event to make it successful both in Securing funding sources for a trail doesn't necessarily lead _ terms of fun and safety.This workshop will look at the safe- to completion;following sometimes complex procedures is ty message communicated in your ride-where it begins required.In this workshop panel discussion,DNR and and where it ends,and how important the communication Mn/DOT guidance will be offered on the step-by-step pro- process is throughout the entire event. - ject development processes necessary to complete a trail. • • • 1995 Minnesota State Bicycle Conference Conference Schedule • - Friday, March 3, 1995 8:00-9:00 Registration, Coffee&Rolls in..BIKES -95: BE A PARI Reception Area � 9:00-10:15 Opening Session Welcome: Tom Guettler, Vice Chair; Minnesota State Bicycle Advisory Board _ OF THE soLuTioN ,. Opening Remarks:lim Dustrude,State Bicycle Coordinator .Keynote Address:Bruce Benidt,Vice President, Mona, Meyer, McGrath&Gavin The Minnesota State—Bicycle Conference;is coordinated under the auspices of the State 10:15-10:30 Break 10:15-12:00 Media Cafe Open_ , Bicycle Advisory_Board, and sponsored by the Minnesota Department of 10:30-11:45 Session 1 Workshop 12:00-1:15 Lunch,Northstar State Bicycle ' Transportation...enabling Minnesotans to travel their different ways.of life...with the Awards Presentations ' assistance of the Department of-Natural Resources, the Department of Public Safety, the 1:30-5:00 Media Cafe Open 1:30-2:15 Session 2 Workshops Minnesota Bicycle Dealers Association, the Minnesota Coalition of Bicyclists, and other 2:15-2:30 Break 2:30-3:30 Session 3 Workshops .• ' participating agencies and organizations. _3:30.3:45 Break - - 3:45-5:00 Session 4 Workshops . 5:00-5:30 Special Presentation:Peter • - Executive Director; Bicycle Museum of America Exhibit Space ' 1995 State Bicycle Conference 5:30-7:00 Legislative Reception,cash bar; A limited number of exhibit spaces are avail- Planning Committee . _ sponsored by the Minnesota Coalition of Bicyclist able at a cost of$50.00,payable to the Min- Jack Benson, Mn/DOT 6:00-8:00 Media Cafe Open . nesota Bicycle Dealers Association. For further Dan Collins, DNR information,call Jerry Hiniker at 612/757-8679, Jim Dustrude, Mn/DOT- Saturday, March 4 12 Noon to 8 P.M. M-F. Tom Guettler,State Bicycle Advisory Board 8:00-9:00 Coffee and Rolls • Mike Miller,State Bicycle Advisory Board 9:00-12:00 Media Cafe.Open Hotel Reservations Gary Sjoquist, MCB - 9:00-10:15 Session 5 Workshops eraton Inn Midway Nancy Franke Skala, Public Safety 9:00.10:15 Special Law Enforcement -J0 North Hamline Marsha Soucheray,State Bicycle Advisory Board- Roundtable _ St.Paul, MN-55104 • Larry Thornhill,Waseca Police Dept • ,10:15-10:30 Break • Phone:(612)642-1234 Bob Works, Mn/DOT : 10:30-11:00 "Live From Central America" -Fax:(612)642-1126 - • . With world record cyclist, Dan Buettner - Guaranteed Room Rates and Availability Graphic Design: Mn/DOT Graphics Unit 11:00-12:00 ISTEA Panel:NEXTEA Through 2/9/95:$60 Single, $60 Double Audio Visual:Gary Ruud, Mn/DOT 12:00-1:30 Lunch, Bicycle Advisory Board- Announcements,and Special Address:Bill indoor Bicycle Parking Available Conference Questions? Wilkinson, Director; Bicycle Federation of Post credits will be available for police officers .Call Jack Benson at 612/296-5269 • . America ' . - 1995 Minnesota State Bicycle Name: _ Title: _ Conference Registration Form - Company/Organization: _ Address: .- Complete and mail one form per person,with. City/State/Zip: . - . your check or purchase order payable to: -Phone(W) - Phone(H)- . 1995 State Bicycle Conference - • do Jack Benson . Please Check Your Business/Profession: ❑Park and Recreation ❑Transporta- Registration Mailstop 450,Room 214,Transportation Building tion Planning•Engineer ❑Landscape Architect ❑.City/Regional Planning fee Includes 395 John Ireland Blvd - - ❑Bike Shop/Industry 0 Bike Organization/Advocate ❑Elected Official Lunches, St.Paul,MN 55155 ❑Police Officer 0 Health/Medical 0 Teacher/CommunityEducation 0 4H Continental Breakfasts, FAX 612/296-3311 PH 612/296-5269 _ StaffNolunteer ❑Other Youth Organization 0 Media/Public Relations Reception ❑Other: - . - - and Coffee Breaks zgistration fees are non-refundable. Mail-in . • - - , registration must be postmarked by February Please check one box: Postmarked by 2/22 Postmarked after 2/22 Thank You 25.After that,please phone and we'll arrange Full Conference Registration: ❑ $70 ❑$80 for Being A for registration at the door. Government pur- Saturday Registration Only: 0$25 ❑$35 Part Of The Solution! chase orders must be received by February 17. 0 I request vegetarian meals