The URL can be used to link to this page

01-18-95 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1995, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Northstar Restaurants, Inc. for a site plan review for a 3,000 square foot building, Boston Chicken, to be located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. The property is zoned PUD and located in the southeast corner of the intersection of West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard. 2. 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 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. OLD BUSINESS 3. Vision 2002 Update - Fred Hoisington. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 4. Chanhassen Community Profile. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. CITY Q F PC DATE: 1/18/95 � CHANHASSE1 CC DATE: 2/13/95 CASE #: 94-8 Site Plan -f �;• By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 3,100 square foot building, Boston Chicken, to be located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. I— Z LOCATION: Southeast corner of the intersection of West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard 4 0 J APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen Boston Chicken Cl. 690 Coulter Drive Northstar Restaurants, Inc. Chanhassen, MN 55317 10925 Valley View Road, #100 Q Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 996-6644 PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: 0.95 acres INTENSITY: 0.7 F.A.R. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - General Business, BG, vacant, West 78th Street Q S - Highway 5, Perkins Restaurant (proposed) E - PUD, Target, Taco Bell (proposed) Co: W - R12, ponding area, Powers Boulevard 1.3 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site w I... PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is bordered by 3 major collectors, Hwy. 5, West 78th, and Powers Boulevard. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial .. _ . MEA DOW J1i!J I!'!? l��I�� Pia l� r� �;��do ��t ,- �� ANN GREEN PARK 4----p 1�� ►., ,ge s,qv 0 so. \\ °IvAllir 62,10 %It& bin ,, .; vs% nigh s'. - -;= -,4 -- 41eitte* 01 c-4411. witiral 5 ishitv,w4;1-4.47.,: . • • _.____ „ IAA wil gei Mg !ill.il OS ear 4......-..4,t Iv Calt �� .. ,, .I� _ may`:' • �:� � . ANN grk. K In • A SNI NI .1�� %� I► i PA rhi - irnotriorno dila= W iiirfAIIIIPIAll .1.71-116:163/1011.• L_ 4� ' m■ a© Ion ■Q le�w- �WQ W� '; �n tet] �M �v LOCATI • N ®®®®®® 1 Fim :,► :� el© I MI .1 11Ji �1 •►. • it: :dam�i �d III SOUL EVA RD san �Viina' _ ej `� lftwIli. ,r., „ ,,,,„„ ”in ifil RT MR _____ iTiorri i it k m'' ✓' IIIw '"IMMPw" gO'D , iii: "Tam , \\ \ .2 ,a +� slip RR. —man 16 Sill oRIvSTA,E HIGNY jraftiti O * st 0 gt)* LI; 1°' MI 0 40 „ TI: IIA - -•:: . PARK I 1 '0Z t 1 ,�,1 ibi �N C ° kms// 9'.,-fr O r IPS' /. 7 -- _ - )1 ": i1K1_t:-e J(`Q`V4 • � „ JFcOK.-.�Iey frf.�i.�' ,- _ --1\ SINN • orf �` '' E J\ .\QPQ` ��4', :��. � Zr �,�3 1 CIRCI 1 �► o - i4 LAKE SUSAN A w gel or ii /III es. r - RI 4w: am ow Ism IN 111:Pla rti% vA041 MA Ii mi ., .1 Q f- ,_-_-- ' , hy % , . idliill sit Al,1\04ko PI41 Wars* ,,-,;=-__ -=-_-.--,,,,_______,.____;________.- ,lor w .‘, ot q P; zatikr lr.14*.a%:40 "AT • - 4111111V. •"" i !! 1!1i ,i 44 \\I %A.-1k41 NI 01.-6„ 100 411‘1119P 111111W- 4 ---'47-4-DAW f ai i'�"� :iceir. , �nup.. �.� 1 ` �`•^�i �- ? * 40 iram KO ..i4'4- 00.'••- NA r!g :a• - ' FL•MWGO DR Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a 3,100 square foot Boston Chicken restaurant on 0.95 acre lot in the Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. The building orientation/entrance is to the south facing the Perkins restaurant and Highway 5. The applicant believes that their primary presence is on Highway 5. However, staff was concerned that the developer also provide some presence along West 78th Street. To this end, the developer has added windows and an awning to dress up this facade. A drive-thru window is located on the western elevation of the structure. The primary color of the building is Boston Chicken Grey (color number UT61-54-8-2-5). Accent bands are provided along the cornice of the parapet and at the bottom of the awning in Boston Chicken Red (color number UT61-54-8-2-6) and at the top of the awning elevation in Boston Chicken White (color number UT61-54-8-2-4). The finished surface shall be a sand pebble textured stucco. Aluminum framing for windows and doors is in black. Red gooseneck lighting fixtures shall be provided over the awning. The lights are similar to the lighting with the Market Square project. The applicant is proposing a fabric awning over the southern, and portions of the western, eastern and northern elevations. The awning is proposed to incorporate multicolored vertical banding with wide stripes of white and black separated by small red stripes. Staff believes that the awning feature provides important architectural relief to the building, however, we are concerned the awning color scheme may be excessive. The applicant has revised the building elevations from their original submittal providing a pitched roof element to screen roof mounted equipment, providing architectural relief to the north elevation, and reducing the amount of colored awnings, breaking it into two segments on the southern elevation and shortening the length of the awning on the east and west elevations. The applicant has worked with city staff to create a landscaping plan that both meets code and is compatible and enhances the landscaping of the surrounding development. The finished floor elevation is approximately 2.5 feet below the elevation of West 78th street directly north of the building. This difference in elevation should be minimal, but will permit some screening of the utility structures located on the north of the building. The project appears to comply with all applicable codes and guidelines for development within the PUD standards and the Highway 5 corridor design criteria. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan for Boston Chicken subject to the conditions of the staff report. BACKGROUND At the time of conceptual review for the Target PUD, Ryan Construction had proposed 3 alternatives for Outlot B. Version 1A of Outlot B included 4 buildings and 26,000 square Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 Page 3 feet. Outlot Version 1B included 5 buildings and 29,100 square feet of building. Outlot B Version IC includes 6 buildings and 25,000 square feet. Numerous negotiations were held between Ryan Companies and the city to review how Outlot B should be developed. The city always intended to have some form of gateway on the property. In addition, the impervious surface requirement was exceeded on the Target site and this would have to be balanced on the remaining portion of the outlot. The city has decided to retain a larger portion of Outlot B and sell that portion that can be platted into three lots. Staff is pleased with the results considering where development of this parcel started. At one time there was under consideration six building sites on Outlot B. The three lots that were platted as part of the Taco Bell/Perkins project allowed the city to landscape the perimeter of the development, lessen the intensity of development and meet the impervious surface requirements. The Taco bell - Perkins site plan was approved in September 1994. Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition The city platted Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition. This subdivision was the replat of Outlot B, Chanhassen Retail Addition. Outlot B was created with the "Target" plat for future development. The city created two outlots with the Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition. Outlot A was retained by the City for landscaping and gateway features. Outlot B was sold to Ryan Companies. The platting of Outlot B established the development parameters for the site. Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition Ryan Companies platted Oudot B, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, into 3 lots for a Perkins, Taco Bell, and future restaurant. The Perkins on Lot 1, Block 1 is 1.37 acres and includes a 5,000 square foot building with 85 parking stalls and Taco Bell on Lot 3, Block 1 is 0.84 acres and includes a 1,800 square foot building with 34 parking stalls. The HRA is also considering a gateway treatment on a portion of Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail Second Addition. The HRA has had Hoisington Koegler Group working to develop gateway treatments for three entrance areas in the city. The city council is currently reviewing some cost and maintenance considerations. When developed, these plans will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Since the approval of the PUD for Chanhassen Retail Center, the city has adopted the Highway 5 Overlay District. The standards of the overlay district include: 1. Parking and building orientation: Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 Page 4 • The building setback needs to be 50 feet from Highway 5. The site meets this standard. The parking setback needs to be consistent with the overlay district which is a minimum of 20 feet. The site parking meets this requirement. 2. The architectural design is consistent with the overlay standards. The building is stucco. • The materials and details of the buildings are consistent with the Hwy. 5 standards. 3. Landscaping around the perimeter will be done by the city including the gateway. The interior landscaping needs to be revised per staff recommendations. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the City shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 Page 5 c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design guidelines established as part of the Target PUD, and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous development in the area. The site design is compatible with the surrounding development and enhances the open space and landscaping being established as part of the development of Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. The site design is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Following Development standards were approved with the first phase of the Chanhassen Retail Center. These standards are to be used for the entire PUD or any additional phases. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD commercial/retail zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 — Page 6 The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the City's CBD development goals. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. 1. Day Care Center 2. Standard Restaurants 3. Health and recreation clubs 4. Retail 5. Financial Institutions, including drive-in service * 6. Newspaper and small printing offices 7. Veterinary Clinic 8. Animal Hospital 9. Offices 10. Health Care Facility 11. Garden Center (completely enclosed) 12. Bars and Taverns 13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) * * Drive thru's should be buffered from all public views FINDING: The use is permitted in the PUD district. c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of-way, parking along right-of-ways shall be set back 20 feet. Street Building Parking Setback Setback West 78th Target 55 feet 20 feet Block 1 50 feet 20 feet Powers Boulevard 50 feet 20 feet Hwy. 5 Target 120 feet 20 feet Block 1 50 feet 15 feet FINDING: The proposal meets these standards. Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 Page 7 d. Development Standards Tabulation Box USE Lot Area Bldgs Bldg Sq Ft Parking Coverage Target 10.29 ac 1 117,165 585 76.3 Outlot B 2nd Add 4.62 ac. 0 0 0 0 Outlot A 1.46 ac. 0 0 0 0 Landscaping Perkins 1.37 ac. 1 5,000 85 Taco Bell 0.84 AC. 1 1,800 34 Boston Chicken 0.95 1 3,100 52 TOTAL 16.31 4 127,065 756 66 * Cumulative Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1 is 68 percent impervious FINDING: Complies with the development standards established as part of the PUD. e. Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 '' Page 8 6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for the Target store shall have a parapet wall for screening. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 8. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as Target. (Target will be the first store to build and they will establish or set the theme.) 9. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line. FINDING: The development meets the building materials and design criteria established as part of the PUD. The applicant has provided a cross section from Highway 5 and West 78th Street which shows the views of the rooftop equipment from the roadways. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Based on comments by the Planning Commission for the Perkins/Taco Bell sight plan, staff has requested the trash enclosure be attached to the building. The applicant has provided this in the northeast corner of the building. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways. The applicant has revised the building elevations from their original submittal providing a pitched roof element to screen roof mounted equipment, providing architectural relief to the north elevation, and reducing the amount of colored awnings, breaking it into two segments on the southern elevation and shortening the length of the awning on the east and west elevations. Section 20-1454 (e) provides the following prohibition within the Highway 5 corridor: "As building element, combination of elements, or another site structure that acts as a conspicuous building emblem or signature. Examples include garish elements (e.g., orange roofs); use of bricks, blocks, or tiles to turn a wall into an outsized sign or logo; and other attempts to use a building or wall as advertisement." This section would appear to prohibit the use of the brightly colored striped awning as part of the building. f. Site Landscaping and Screening In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 Page 9 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3. The master landscape plan for the Target PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. FINDING: The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan for the development. Such plan exceeds the minimum landscaping requirement for tree quantities. The landscaping plan compliments the landscaping in the adjoining development and will be coordinated with the entryway treatment for landscaping in Outlot A. In order to provide a seamless transition between the city's landscaping and the development, staff has approved the placement of trees within Outlot A. The applicant shall be responsible for providing irrigation to any development trees located in the outlot. Such irrigation piping shall be located entirely on Lot 2. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figures 11-2, if separate irrigation is provided, or 11-3, if separate irrigation is not provided, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. g. Signage One freestanding pole sign be permitted for Target and one for the other buildings in Outlot B. All buildings in Outlot B should be limited to monument signs. 1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 `" Page 10 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. FINDING: The applicant has met the intent of the PUD standards for the site. However, the applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. The parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. The monument sign shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. h. Lighting 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 'fi candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. Light poles shall be Cortex, shoe box light standards. FINDING: The development complies with the lighting requirements established in the PUD. Lights shall incorporate photoelectric cells for automatic activation. ACCESS Access shall be provided via Target Lane. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The developer shall provide cross access easements for the use of the common driveways. The site was first reviewed under the Chanhassen Retail 2nd and 3rd Addition preliminary and final plat submittals. The proposed parking lot access appears compatible with the previously approved site plans for Perkins and Taco Bell. Since these driveways/streets will be private, the applicant should be aware that cross-access easements should be provided by the property owner to provide access across the other two lots within the subdivision out to Target Lane. One of the Planning Commission's concerns was for pedestrian traffic through this subdivision. A sidewalk is being provided on the east side of Taco Bell to connect with the existing sidewalk along West 78th Street. Considerations for a sidewalk extension to this lot from West 78th Street should also be explored. Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 Page 11 According to our records, the final plats for Chanhassen Retail 2nd and 3rd Additions have not been filed yet with the County and therefore a condition should be placed that site plan approval is contingent upon filing of these plat documents. There does not appear to be any public improvements to be installed as part of the site plan; however, the plans do propose to connect to the City's existing infrastructures and some boulevard grading. Therefore, the applicant should provide the City with a $2,500 letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee boulevard restoration in connection to the City's infrastructures. According to the plans, it appears the trash enclosure is located within the drive aisle and the drive-thru aisle. Staff believes it will be very difficult for a garbage collector to facilitate access to the trash enclosure. Staff believes the trash enclosure should be relocated or the median between the drive aisle and drive-thru aisle be depressed to allow for the garbage container to cross the drive-thru aisle out to the main aisle where the garbage hauler is able to access it much easier. UTILITIES The site does have municipal sewer and water available. Since all of the proposed utilities will be private, inspections of these services will be performed by the City's Building Department. Appropriate permits will need to be applied for and obtained prior to construction. GRADING AND DRAINAGE As part of the final submittal for the Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, a storm drainage and grading plan was prepared. The applicant's plans need to be modified to incorporate the storm sewer design which was approved for the Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. Site grades may also have to modified to accomplish drainage to the appropriate storm sewer system. The applicant should also secure easement rights for use of the drainage system which serves this site through the Perkins' site. MISCELLANEOUS According to the landscape plan, miscellaneous plantings are proposed outside of the lot within the City's outlot. Staff does not believe this will pose a problem as long as the landscaping materials are planted outside the City's drainage and utility easements in such a way to avoid impacting maintenance to the City's utility lines. Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 Page 12 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #94-8 for Boston Chicken as shown on the plans dated January 11, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. Relocate fire hydrant approximately 90 feet south and 22 feet east. 2. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and paint yellow the corresponding curb. Contact the Fire Marshal for specific location. See Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 3. Address numbers shall be installed per Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 4. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The developer shall provide cross access easements for the use of the common driveways. 5. The applicant shall install aeration/irrigation tubing, see figures 11-2, if separate irrigation is provided, or 11-3, if separate irrigation is not provided, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for providing irrigation to any development trees located in the outlot. Such irrigation piping shall be located entirely on Lot 2. 7. The applicant shall supply the City with a $2,500 financial guarantee (letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee protection of the existing public utility facilities and guarantee boulevard restoration. The applicant shall supply the City with a $8,000 financial guarantee (letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee a minimum landscaping budget for the project 8. All internal streets and drives are considered private. The applicant should be aware that they will need to enter into a cross-access easement for the use of the common driveways with the other two property owners. 9. All proposed utility lines within the site are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all of the necessary agency permits associated with the site plan development including but not limited to the Watershed District, Health Department, PCA, and MWCC. Boston Chicken, 94-8 Site Plan January 12, 1995 Page 13 10. Construction access to the site shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and/or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. 11. Landscaping materials may be planted within the City's outlot as long as the plantings do not interfere with maintenance of the existing utility lines. The applicant shall provide a revised landscaping plan showing the existing utilities in relation to the proposed landscaping materials. 12. Site plan approval is contingent upon the recording of the final plat documents for Chanhassen Retail 2nd and 3rd Additions. 13. The grading and drainage plan should be revised to be compatible with the overall site grading development plans for Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event shall be submitted for review and approval by City staff. 14. The developer shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 15. If permitted by the electrical code, the electric meter box on the north elevation shall be lowered by two feet." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 12/29/94 3. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous dated 12/30/94 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 1/9/95 5. Letter from Richard Pilon to Robert Generous dated 1/9/95 6. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 7. Figure 11-2 8. Figure 11-3 9. Tree Guide, from A Guide to Field Identification: Trees of North America, C. Frank Brockman, Western Publishing Company, Inc., 1986 10. Site Plan dated January 11, 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Boston Chicken OWNER: Northstar Restaurants , Inc. ADDRESS: 10925 Valley View Road , #100 ADDRESS: Eden Prairie , MN 55344 TELEPHONE (Day time) ( 6 1 2 ) 996-6604 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. x Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 4 8 0 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full slze folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" 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 Chanhassen Retail Center LOCATION Southeast Quadrant of 78th Street East LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1 Chanhassen Retail and Powers Blvd . 3rd Addition Carver County Minnesota . PRESENT ZONING PUD REQUESTED ZONING No Charge PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Commercial REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Commercial REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 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 part. -- whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof L ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. z Signat of • 1110 ant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on 11/-.;(/`5"1 Fee Paid 4 y.5L. Receipt No. 2-�� -; (1-1:-0(14 •5 2) 1 z 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. tr : fall (-1.) ,-CCJ i i A - R I ; .� •ggti 4,r� �=L 1 ,R1 !i1 I -I oes D ":^ 1 ii -- � �s;,, pp r b b �-i I e� 3 To, A '731 - q I v ( �� a N li _. _�161`' 15 910: E9 ] Bore t ARD —- - i- / mi. MU l - - I _ I / - or1 %tor,_ ' i / / bIi9 } II L— ri tico 1 _ ________ — ::t,- / r = :I- D , :f. Y D — nen itE'.' w / I C • - \ _ j V AP -) J - ! em ==u 1._ / . . TARGE T ( ` ~` (ANf i Z; / 11.-0. D sO aaA -i"NV'1 1>-I MI'1 .`..)ow7)C / , -I _ C I woaf90 •-•r--.1'0 `n-�or I C -/i m xxA XX <<- N ><]Z z I 4- VI ...r —NN'-•1'1 0w I-CI G+ZZ �� !! fM - 11:1. aa` oD N 7JTNrtl r,C 7C NH ND N,r,ZO ,TI ].j.Cr, L 1441. „, '' • Z • 71' n normo, A —x0 A - . 3 n a Z ✓, i I CI CI y I'1 Z b f i - D —fn COin•I 1• ,w VI G,OO N eel 2” VV�� rrO•n A �) LA ,IL1l^ob 1 rro m GI II N vm II ' I (� ANN. S Z II 7J.Z7�1 0 Z ,1 a� o v .'i N II N Z m 0000 ..: mP --1 m tao-•o- o��. C N(4 N l C R r V ;� t; I'i o% R-ac; v, _ _ .m `a �� ,�PORTFOLIO s § � �QN CHICKEN = g J**7 s Et_rjtl ¢=i(3 �• 1 E Fg`-S,i tit. e K i'F"- I:.II,»,It" OESICH SERVICES :-:r a 4'HANHA33El! Qttii•1�, 161[iwN-ilei I.2012N00-IIM gi,Ie 3ITE PLAN I 000c, q 0 3�� 2 N cn R C 0 AA N N Z — N eo Fi F' F- e_F t " i pp 61 I 11 yy s3 rt f f70 1 . l9 .0 n; )Y 1 111111 !'►4 F F 111J IIII oo n •%%' libil [�* eb p �� to :1 [}• zm ] r �i3md xr.• irn rn D �1: iiin til Tis• D-- — �11 MI Fr �� —1 1� I I I I [jr— \Zl • iri T _J aOW. :. _ i.m _ro ) iii e- 1i I m cat " 1Vq VII i O. li iiilli� —0 RQ , r V1x -- .min rit _ 4 -O lie El i."s5 — .1il 4. 1 " n (� ,11 s I II M wZ 11.1A i PCI n c2 I a �EF . — __ 11. i : p 1- . ( --1,---= --o it p � e. F i. IN a 1aerii.S 13 r3 >r_ 14 it /g 0 I. I- - 11111 M c x , • g ©o® ID BBC)0 glifip peii€=e j Iii ! ! f t!:f ltI! 1 !! o a{ /1g!i1s3 'laBa A 111.1 0;1!1 1' Ta i3' § 1 4$ r 4'R3 30-1 r.i B" b =6 XI r !NI i� oi Z 9 V .3 9 RR`R 2 g8 @48 Z 1 i . ' n 5* z g--1 all ,S e :013 a iv., y fi Y vaae![im Pir AIT i E'/ tl�DIICHIhalf•Ei. Ya 1�r ,a- a --i u - Ir..r e•s,•II I I 1 DESIGN CER ICESspin sei•gig! 1s 1e e 4 0 y R r`rY� (.12 a-e.ez reile.el.q-eM .111;1� r rr.�.. ,;e��i EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS —I 000 C, c. I i R (1) e 'Si rs - A z -- - iiia =�lCD - iii 15 f;l t 1 19: Li 13 ;I Ttil}R . •I A -iiR� . -1 123 x i _ " - iii i m ill) -1,` I I r i im Y '\,) ri 3. qO r O 12 TE •• 1R if _ - I111 "II 111.1� _ R ( i �_' _z III II/ er '= 1� p li - Q L. ig 5ii 3 - 0 - MI •' ' Ji - Y i ggpF1 iblipi — 1 i ' F.F 1I I SAE IIli-t1F- --:\ �77�0111r ill ;3;,,i,y o © o >+ :,? ¢ MI U— LJ ' tAtli ; ISI �_u PI iii — +I o L-- MUT I_ a ,> ,r1-'1 4 `15 $b'J _ 350 A: Ag P. b 1. ooo1111 A444 A. ys11 4 ► IiI. 1. T? R g 3 r 41(g -8";3 'I Z Iy — �e §f .AXA r °oA °�3�11 1 = 9 sx r .RR p CI Ri pi X Z SSSY 5`ps$ Z L'a X5 5 T9 'p f-gE 6 gF g ; e -9 1 "41 i6P u0 V a4 fl o x a , 1 �'�i1 A= ' E/0 TOP4I CHICKEN a i - �'�� 11F PORTFOLIO -_F b1_`„ v i:_ Ymi u,,iss,1leii 1m :N -�p� POI i `ib .4I CHANHA3SEN 1� t nlzl.e.-.n: a.:w..-.:.z .fit;bb EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS a CITY OF \ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ms MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: December 29, 1994 SUBJ: Site Plan review Boston Chicken Planning Case #94-8 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with Chanhassen Fire Department fire codes and policies, and have the following requirements: 1. Relocate fire hydrant approximately 90 feet south and 22 feet east. 2, Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and paint yellow the corresponding curb. Contact the Fire Marshal for specific location. See Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 3. Address numbers shall be installed per Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 8:\safety'm1\44.8 1ti CITY a , ),./.4 ,. ,..„ .-,.. ..„,,i .,,,,,, , _ ,,,,, CHANHASSEN - -'.--, V i' - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE — 1 . Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer ' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. /\ 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5. Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel . 7 . Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. - 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 , ‹ri-)7 /21 Date: 1/15/91 Revised: - Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 If tmi«rr PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 4 CITY of :,,, 4,,,,. . -,-•• •,...),:sk-dm-;_ii - . ..,:„.,...„.„1„,..,, _,;,,,.::::,,, C II ANHA S sr N __ _,.,, ,-,., 4,,r.,„ „ ,„„.., .,.!rt ,-,-..7 :.e. ; 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ;'�` (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. 4, rei Other Requirements-General L 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color fromthe background. ` . 2. Numbers shall not be In script 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street,additlonaf numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must still be met S. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Residential Requirements(2 or less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be flnaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department. Commercial Requirements 1. Minimum height shall be 12". 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. r. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 - _ - - Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Sayfty Director Page 1 of 1 `0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER � tll r PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE (612)361-1010 600 EAST 4TH STREET,BOX 6 FAX(612)361-1025 CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 ln'NES�� COUNTY Of CQVEQ December 30, 1994 TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer l SUBJ: Northstar Restaurants, Inc. Planning Case: 94-8, Site Plan We have reviewed the information submitted by your memo dated December 19, 1994 for the Northstar Restaurants, Inc. site plan. The proposed development will not directly impact the County Road system. The development occurring as part of this proposal does not abut the County Road right of way. Considerations should be given to the impact of this development on the CSAH 17 / 78th Street intersection. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. RECEIVED Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF CHA(1hASSEN Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste CITY OF 0 ti, . 10,„ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -A% MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ' . • e DATE: January 9 , 1995 SUBJECT: 94-8 SPR (Boston Chicken, Northstar Restaurants, Inc. ) I was asked to review the site plan stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, DEC 19 1994, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project . I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\boschick.bgl Minnegasur A PlePllM ENERGY COMPANY January 9 , 1995 Mr. Robert Generous Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94-8 Site Plan Boston Chicken Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition Dear Mr. Generous: Enclosed are your prints for this project . Also enclosed is a copy of our section map for the area showing the location of Minnegasco' s natural gas mains . Some individual services 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 Ron Hall, Minnegasco Commercial Energy Services at 525-7639, to make application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal . Sincerely, Richard J. JR on, P.E. Senior Administration Engineer Engineering Services 612-321-5426 cc: Mary Palkovich Ron Hall RECEIVED #,tj N ; 1995 CITY OF CHANhA5sEN 7(10\Vest Linden venue PO. I3ox 114;5 \linnealiotis. AIN r)5-I40-I11i5 11111 its WI e a" IJi1 — q� ' S= tid Ire 4 &kV :rat, ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING a Car 44110 Immo aro ce • As ......; 4- Ell . ; 1 r 1 ki 1 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGg P s A �. eIJ,.q k �§ Wednesday, JANUARY 18, 1995 ®�® �� '(J 7:30 P.M. LOCA I • N City Hall Council Chambers 1111111d1li=1 ;ti 690 Coulter Drive 61 °'t. Project: Boston Chicken Restaurant -' p W Developer: Northstar Restaurants, Inc. 111111 W Y Location: SE Corner of West 78th aa. Street and Powers Boulevard WESaN 111111447-E— .- - t i�v Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is requesting a site plan review for a 3,000 square foot building for a Boston Chicken Restaurant to be located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. The property is zoned PUD and located in the southeast corner of the intersection of West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard, Northstar Restaurants, Inc. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 5, 1995. `j 1, . � r- Dayton Hudson Corp T-862 Beddor Enterprise/E. J. Carlson Beddor Enterprise/E. J. Carlson Property Tax Dept. 6950 Galpin Blvd. c/o Victory Envelope Nicollet Mall Excelsior, MN 55331 1000 Park Road, P. O. Box 159 1Rinneapolis, MN 55402 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eckankar T. F. James Company P. O. Box 27300 Suite 500 New Hope, MN 55427 6640 Shady Oak Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 i. truck. Rock up to the bottom of the covers reduces debris collecting in the planter. ' t. ; i - Hardware cloth (coarse metal screening)under the covers has been used to keep rats - .:. out; but the wire must be inspected frequently to prevent girdling. — i. Perforated PVC pipe (100- to 125-mm, 4- to 5-in. diameter and 0.6- to 1-m, 2- to 3-ft long) is commonly put in two or four corners of a planter opening for .4 aeration and irrigation. As the people in Europe learned, dead-end aeration holes 1 %- in the soil are seldom adequate. Connecting the bottoms of two or more of the vertical aeration pipes, however, allows air flow through the tubes, greatly increas ing the oxygen concentration and aeration effectiveness (Kopinga 1985) (Fig. 11-2). . •I • itt i •. c . • �• civ ., - rY _ ter.. `S `'_ •t /+_sir, " :.{,57r .. ^� -;- J"'-_;c k"7-':•:.--4;•;1747,7-1;=: .,,,.."7-:.,' n 1. <�tC •-.1%-•____:=-----7.--••-"S•02;•-•:';'- Fj ,-=='� ifs. ' '- - •�y .s4.c�Y1�.i �� % .. - .as k.�' �.�•i� 111 l `'t'. :; �/ r I \`Lei .fI:SY.;w • �{i ,`v.••�:\ ..:7; • :•"'—',4• 11140 !..9::_zsi:.-";E", ;:,%f-.2.--,-;„‘i •t I dS• T.: • 1. _ ::� rn.n.Lx71•104 ri:lft.\:W+'. ,..• ,,.•, `'`. • Figure 11-2 Aeration in pavement plantings can be increased by joining •`',' two vertical aeration pipes across the bottom of the planting hole,one pair _•!• each near opposite sides of the planting hole. Oxygen concentration in the pipes will be ten times greater than in vertical pipes alone (Kopinga - I ' ' 1985). Aeration could be further increased by having aeration risers as ` shown in Fig. 11-3 also serve as protective stanchions for the tree. 'j�j' ' • If the soil is compacted around the planter opening and under the pavemen', •r f �- - _ aeration may also be increased and roots directed downward by drilling or wat ' t''^;1 :. jetting sloping irrigation and aeration holes under and out from the root ball an, ,:. •c•• under the pavement. Within a year or two the holes are filled with roots. t:� �. : �� Another pavement-planting scheme is also being used in the Netherlands•','�.�� r *, ' sentially, a planting hole is established within a planting hole (Kopinga 1985,m;'�� _ . _ m"�, roximately 0• 1 ,;. ---: ' ' ') fled by Urban's [19891 survey) (Fig. 11-3). Excavate a hole app • - > ;--1 a I. t.r '�►-{�j.j (2 ft)deep to a volume of 3.5 m (120 ft')or more.The shape of the hole will depend �:�.yc- . i f', 1.1 (1 to 1.2-m, 3 to.r �' a i on the space available. All but the finished planter opening "is �� <z y i•'1 ' diameter or square) will be paved over. The outer portion of the hole filled :1 .S' [3-6 in. diameter) and `tree soil' _ ;; : ' I .; a mixture of coarse lava slag (80-150 mm, I' -;1.i'. ratio of about 2:1 (volume:volume, v/v)" (Kopinga 1985). A tree is planted in �'" £ ; ;, : l °~ ``�' ,' a' v.:-.i ` Chap- 1 1 Special Planting Situ s-s;w .:i:� r: • , 248 t.. ". �[rF°' f`g`` � S�'to.i .�; `�a4i it _ . . • - y} mo .. n.1 •.•��r yrs- tti Y -•- , 4 _I. . 11 i P, ' . • i' Ila 1 ., • iiIiiij I • t - ti �c'. - 11 -,- it, - .,,,.;.,11.-.1.,i `' i ' I. �' : ... . . ...,.- .. .. .. ._, . _ , .� may) 1014A Vti`:• :i.: -11:1074.4 ► Ate... it ?•":";i: F►11► P Ara li ,...0 .. X10 -' - ��--•�', - ice fit! +.. Q 1.f�. i :_ . _` '_ :. r I' :111:•".. 1.7 .- !: 'r� its=E-CFf� f; �3f�.it+rt"..:• : 1:- 1 • t Key r • — . _irat NryI::,; . �, ° : �:= .�v, .' lit •Ili , • ' ..1.0;d.1.13...'"...•:•,•.:::•,'.., 1 r', .-'1R - i• • fl i- Figure 11-3 ' Favorable soil conditions for pavement plantings can be ob- 1k' a, tained b y re lacin ' ' wi Ir.::p g 3.5 m (120 ft ) of soil 0.6 m (2 ft) deep tth coarselava slag and soil mix before installing pavement. The shape of an excava- i ';tion depends on the space available. Aeration can be further enhanced by ! 1 placing an aeration system as shown; the horizontal portion can be either - ii. rP. y PVC pipe or flexible tubing. The risers are of heavy metal pipe with addi- • 't t� ftional support (not shown) to protect the tree and to withstand abuse. it 1i if 11• .; • it. } l center of where the planter will be. The rock-soil mixture is lightly compacted to -it- give a solid surface of lava with soil filling the voids. The pavement can then be installed. This provides a firm base for the pavement with no further compaction _+� and because of the porosity of the lava(about 48-50 percent v/v)an optimal supply : ;';.1! of oxygen for tree roots (Kopinga 1985, citing Terlouw 1981). Tree roots should ?I- i! - • , grow out into the soil among the lava. Rocks other than lava could also be used '.4.; I ` • i though the aeration would not be as good. . r-i~ ri Urban (1989) examined thirteen 11- to 27-year-old plantings in tree pits sur- ! rounded by pavement in locations from Boston to Virginia. One of his conclusions ! l 3 is that "any planting site with less than 100 cubic feet (3 m3) cannot sustain long- 1- ..:I A.=- term tree growth." Beyond a depth of 0.6 m (2 ft), increase in surface area is more ' ,. it beneficial than increase in soil depth for all but large-growing trees. Depending on• 11., ��" ' priorities and adequacy of summer rain, an irrigation system may need to be in- ',.1 ±'=t• ` rt:,,,1 i -'� stalled. is}: Cluster and linear tree and shrub plantings are becoming more common along ,' center-city streets and in plazas (Fig. 11-4). These provide more shared rooting =..4 t f. space and exposed surface for aeration and rain deposition. In Europe and America, ; • i II `T some planters are joined with channels of quality soil under the paving. For the soil . 1 • channels to be successful, it would be wise to have at least one perforated aeration 1..”, n pipe in each channel which is connected to vertical risers in each of the planters. .i,.. ci. This is an extension of aeration system shown in Fig. 11-3. `,; 2- ... • J , M. i---.i n - Planting Trees in Paved Areas 249 ..*1't. e c .. 1. C 0 V). . u OO w •N ',1,k 5 0 11110.,,Illk el 0 ma C W 10411,4k ~ ,-_' t = _ ^T 1 f 1 o f ti yt W (I( • 3 0 � r\ `\ oa'o� u E a° 3 o �• ojcuYq.4# tjJJ 7u^ Q c c �1� - `r T _L 3-t o o c 3 . t•{'moi. 1 • gI P2 - - c 7 a E �. -\ 1 E o ft. •Oa-A0/.. .4,_i- ♦.5+, `D # " t t t. �. L 0 I4 ,.- 1,' , 'Stitt. • t 10,..,,„,64 1 44.; I' s .b I1 1-0m L c= 1 O C _ C v °_ . m 0_•N O . O { -2 y- : a= ; a;i o+ ->-' T OO vO ° No o ` a_ E g ° 0 Oo-o� ? `^rte »-o ?� c a ° I LA oc E _ ' N � a°° v vo7. E '13 .=,,,-, " E3. 020vo °' - ' � .a 4,.2 a^• cVm ^ . 0a c 4, �° ° - ° O ' 0 t ° el,, co .,,° vOsE cL ° »1 � f L . L AL Vg337 0 -,C-0 V -_c,E 0 00 . ° E VOFO O f9 C » » I3° » ° C0 > c E a.Eo ° a 7 a „ C •EM Y E a .E 1 o ; ; ° a a u ca+ ° da rC G ,O °m Lv >' ° O p Cd D O C E Y -0 c-0 d.c N U L - O•_ O - O=o01` 06 ° v O •DO O_l[ O L. ONa o O -0 a. yo4oro 3 d E aa O '50 • y 0 0Q a ° C » d O, O ; 'y�•.L r O > O , ' d ° » a3 ° ELE'-0c � 0 v0 � v oa-' °vu � �v E tt )^ - ca3 ,..t.- � 3Eo u0 ,.. 0 --•_--0") c0 aco .0 • ' E of u :' o a ozE c uo i • { Q 04 4 0 r Y Y Y zr. J' -�� 0 0 1 4 N ~O oet it ): W N / ti'5 i a )14\ 4 N In . r‘-, .. ___ ....tr. 1rj i TAY.i_ '` 1 i 10f / pp> ' Si( -.....26.- � 1� /M / IN _ . , ,. ,.. • .,/ i 4 � f fYL.�r on F111/ li ti .� _ h .....a.,rel.-: 0 4 d u . d`- ' 0 - — 8 7, �c o ° oC-6 °.,HUII!111I a=ji s ° € o c . - c vv ao a ; v c c-oc o �•- �°`o = ivv° c .2 • E °>NQ o °z_ yv ° a3oE oc. o E : d ° `ac o° Eo ° 'n E s N ° - ov > 4Jo- ° - a ` or— v vv -L „ 0 E : ._ E '%� dcyo Zc uvr c` d ,"6-.v_o vvL � C � O ra.1 o L C d o-0, O O r _a C 0 fN d L o C ° O °4. oc v ° a -co c- aOc° 0 b y o^ - o a ° v •- _m - auv° °oa - L u 0d 2- o °< C ava ^ °a•- v � -- o o mo °: ° vL v C otab v ° 4,,E •- o •N L Y a+ �'Q C— _ 3 a V ° 1 O O ^ N O O CN ix ycsO `� dO ^OUc_0O NNfa6� Q ° uL-CyL 0 pL LL � L O 6° — c '— > a °hg V0O'n ° VoCC °zOc O L el ° T, L, c ° u u c=Ln 0 - C v m E » °' )L, v • Q O O o o • �' LdOG� OL '^ N `°Qy '• a ~= ~ O Q C/YOQ °-'OL N� N _ Q. � m e> _ V Y `•_ O CV E OupdJ - 0O . Y s OLL yO N_D•LS °-0y �— >,- ° , � hg -to c 13 od °• 0.c-0 ~ °4v3 0 °oj1 :HJi1L ci Au Ow v ;O > 33 ,0cKMOc"' 0. v= co Q� ° a Cc'naLr ' o Zr7v °ix j cO� vc inoM ooOo� > ° `= Ol-OIYi o v ' . 0 ° o T.• n ° 0 Z > co, Q O NLNE^ u oLQL ° U6ouoov °v Zhcuvvc�h pEc 1.,- 7_ d L C ? OZ o 3 ° O =0 3 m 13_0 rOO w O0 ° c 14-oE c. a ° Nvr- ° rr. Z ^a -i a -ks:441- -....] .. -4)a.• ' ve,wit . -,,,,,, ------- ...... ,:, . II .... ,,, . ... ,- go . . ' :-] ..- . e IL { 7i W ilikli 4 X N lt J a. G y, a r • O O a" •� O A� 4 r 4 p� e = + •. _ 0 ier W • • .: _ ,rte { N. , '111111114144ititaitaptitit: -- -"... ., - ',.. -,.. lir • , - :3..ti1X-*-,. :. a- •••••' boll' if ...1.`N- ' - as' ` ' ; '',4 �•• a a c *S t . f ' Acr Nc11%.1 ` -4....!"1, 44 6,441, E 4' c_c ow v .- o 'c._ , .r. o f'7 r C a ° c' ` Q, w= c - N ° - O V - • a 0 o ; 0_ 0-0 « '41 C o LO OoO oO EO" •E ' � vl a 0 01t ' L a as - o p- c - T 0 o E o ao >• 606 oE u a, N � acvod - « i c '0c ' v6" n « � ' �mva ° > O E ' c d ° v ° � °° 'E a ° -0-, — O :"s d E . °o-0 v o-0 «` c ° oN oc, a-o o ° ov0 c . o' 6ic-C.- ° . c.?-.E - ' ri .2c E %' ,_ °v aC , • - cac > Lv E- ao3- p6 0a° a « > n ° � o vEo ` acv ° > aO O"a oO o-c Y 0 0 0 C •- c1 ` ° Ca, O � ac'a� � opso ocoo> E ° .0 , ` E �v_ a, ▪ v � E - -, � 3v u - ` o rn w - > > ° o. aoc > 5. O, ;V .N- O V .- 6 y L a' a, V 7 VO3 ° « c y h ` O Q ` 02Q >•0c , p0Y 06, 0028 ,- Q> „ ar d - 'o a c >• Oa y0 « Ca=_. D O O h a 0 a ` , uo,> E Na OOp�t0 «a, .; ca « ` -0. c °...0 MoE Ov °c u.y M .� i.- • dL �• 8-0 .42 O E c.S a' c-c cc a O. 7 - -0 (:) .- D O C. Y -0 _«r •a C ▪ E aEr Oo , ° a > ° terc D0 ' oa « 6., W o- V « a, E n. 'a' «o4 ° m � ov .J 7 - U-« a L.- aa'Tdat aa h L 'C L” L dc a. E •n-,•- . EXo a « v a, o f da cm N d 2_^i•••- ° avva� 5 yN `° > a « M° a a,v o . ` o - E « a. 1 • °, a, v c o. p c.Ea ^ E.o u °oo ` „ cL •c E 0 a ° z a= ° ° o,° a � O ` o, 0 4 _ ° _co " E ; ° ac '' a ” dv 2 a L' O '^ - v c ° v ° co, c= ° o ? c aE w d V 3 QE . 3d v > rn «= a E E d � _ ti r ; � a a a c'� a= a 0 a - o'< m)_ ' ca „ c ° ' u Er Ec3L- QEE 0 0 0- - o sMs - 3a ° � a� P.o2 a 0 v `> �= o a~ ° .' 3 EO1v ° o Er h v� c a .d.`-' 4a'9 «a X ° p O U E •� > 0oa v -0 ° LU � dQ Ln• t.` x o E ° c � o ° v a pao .Qa � a , o Z-E .2 m- « U o c - .4 CI 0.4 _ -/ ir �t t - ) 44. Id/ -mi l N I « 14 x I yy• W f "' rlid N' o in 3 41 W . 1411‘ )14 *1 '14: r A-- ..... 4 ' '. 1 `'f: v --47-k It V �! ‘ •4,-. . - _, .,„•.- -,.-itev-, - .. Pi 3 - 7- ; # 1'4 T t 1 7C 1 • i4ii1-till H' 1il �� ; r a ' � � Otu �0 o';,CET:=:0 c = NoL3v'vcaTa Nv• 03Eaw ^ aT'p. ar—M13O 0a)- O r C °Z C y L^ v o - ~ o Zi; 3 a! O t « UuoLavO '« C3u m `cc- S--r o c s 0 a, 0 a, cacTLu5E mac ' oau ° ' . 0 0/ C(2. 1 ... • .Oap « yp0, 8o �. 0c'-0 E � � c0 a 0, adv^ c ocTo ° 04+ME cE `-0 . - 30 E c � v0 0 0 . acoo ° o=L'c T 0 0 � ao � v'o ov °c E v- � 0a 'a4 '' u0v0 .7_ - V E im' d v •- 4 � ..,. JD :_ E .... 4, o 3 0cc V v D «._ « a0 ` O .` "_ -=CO L p ^ OOyVEO= C Vaaaaa • « v.9o cY ` _ OcvaT aQ - - 0 0 3r p- Ea u C ° -E L y aM •M 1 u « 2 « ««L05 a, a.` c 3'-.F- ry_0 c 0_0oo-oro0 o,cmo d ° oo ° ~ a ; " u ° u P. ) . oom > E—a v •v a M �ccr.c_ u�� ° E o acMLe) c ° o c ; 0 cv o a` : Ya —.5 ° co t' inu ° c.ic0'Og-a ^ o .E� a�� o o �. � OC,E C « O °u ca C ° u ,-.... 0.••= 0E._ ., n, 'c 6^N N •C Nv u .- Coaa0 Z� P. a� uL. 3-a�.o 3 o °oam o °o� a ao 3 cot E- ix o E ac,t oc o ..Gu ET « >.— dvo ( a+ OaO V a O = .nCCCO, • 70 t-U a ► uxc =N OLaau . Ea3 O v _0.-L o.« C Z ' v034, aoaIc . EO 00 .3 raf6 , O� aT ° °a17, djo 47, 0 73 II- -. Q <W G • W J • ( -1— 1 ) „P.7.-4. : 1 ✓ S VY t - = \4s-!-•1‘. •ten H Q , 1 a o �\.f��' W Z Y • ; 0... __ . cc � a ^ _-` 1' : • _ • :.� ~e i'; x • „.. ,.. .. .„,„ • ,..... ., . .,.4.% . ?"1:0611.--.. *- • (, cis ,, , tiff" I` 1 w, t+- ,r • .. �' 4Ta" .� o f` -..„.„....•' t= '� "4 ' iiiiii ..c ::‘-"d#1.111471? ..._ , -..i,-, , , itt ..., . _. . O el T-0 T y p 12 a1 0, 0, C p T 2` `� L C•C" da ^ o ° > .t1,4 C ° N L 7-° o. a ° O•°O 0 .g.- ; L x L Qu.L ooa •= ° > 0 3 c -�C °+ C+ C —o 3 70 .'• a to E O a 0:,,e,L C , 00a ° a0a, ` OL 0 0 a L '" a N — T > y > o " vd rnQQ v a E °, 0 .4 a O - ° ^ u: 0) L d0- 0OaQ0 Q ° LL2 0,— 0, 0, • CCO• O C >'. •- C71 dO- " aO • 0 C— ° da a o6 ?....2Q - oOorn r . 15 LV , 7 `13 ° a, 0 ) C O 0OV1 > O > oc o Q V - C 0 N a, a._ c_° OY ° � o u, 3 CZ; caa > O p mTL ° E ° O ` un ; Coyo � vav '^ 2, ° ° ` � m0Qrn.° O `° ~ ° -a --a-- c° `.ac vc :cy a 0 a O c o p • � 0 �b O E `N .L-, D 02_06 . 12 O 0 ° 0C E �c2° a3� 3 a y Z. a o O > ,• ° O 'n 3 E O c yv _ _ D : 2-c "' 0 ° a=•V `0 3x :43y. O o o 2 a a o v rn° E u ° ao v ,NLCL OadVc3 C" 6, O ri t7 C NC N V ° a C ^ 7 ya oo `. C a� E Nc 0o C E° CO ° rnC > vCC xc ° V v a c ° 3 � • av 3 o o L E ; �'�docE mv • C °, o° o0v ° , r.� a- °a a L a Ooo o 3 E l'----&—" ° ° d LL 0 C N ' aC0 a c o Lc3 .... d E w E L L ° 7 . O • OO —Oa .g ›-.1)•C N3• c 0 -0 ti*2 x0 ,- d0, O u-—-•> 0 'O •13 a vQQ43v6-2ci' C ° > ut adO -- Hr °O ,i o, o _ °L _ 6d dDo"a NN o E^` >- O O 32c4 at H G° = L °13d N O"E ; _ TW ° L °L _, , Si-u4r0L 0, 0 1 '5 S a EO Cu; Oc 0-D H S " 7 ~ 0 O aVaL d • • h o -o -L d Z aa.� Q-C .- VI0E yd o oy E v v d m a ' o a a �� OvE° - QLumE Cp rvaoa« o Ti,, vo QcCQ d md ' O - aY_c v E aL :II " 0, Woo 3 • a ° E W j ° ''-2 O L- a V L ° 02 aN O N - Cov3 °'n '' v V) 1".'1' .' > _ ° ac ~ a v ° .° .a .a ' .Eo oEov 3 t 'o o v0c'� o3 ° ' ; .-2._•Ea _ � ° o00 _ ceLL0043 a '^ E T0 ' a c E a3 N .coFa- n aL �o CQ 3 - a s - ao E 2 •- - co d o E c 1, u ` • a rn.a a 01 VC v - • W . 0'0 m m -60 oCC M1 o• ' . c 0• ° v �, -° • o s� `tic,_ O, Q tl 15 -o 07 w L-- .,.sL,.0 3 1 .3r .. a� �( cc ar'i� .y, cv CITY O F : :::: :8:955 , , `�\1 CHAIHASE1 `1:� CASE #: 94-13 SUB 94-6 REZ 95-1 WET 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 Acres into 20 single family lots and one outlot, Point Lake Lucy; Z 3) Wetland Alteration Permit to Fill and Mitigate an Ag/Urban Wetland; and 4) a Variance to Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setback and a 50 Foot 0 Wide Right-Of-Way LOCATION: South of Lake Lucy Road and West of Willowridge Subdivision a' APPLICANT: Robert H. Mason, INC. Ted Coey < 14201 Excelsior Boulevard 1381 Lake Lucy Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 Chanhhssen, 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 W - RR, Rural Residential District d WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. Lii PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a single family residence and two detached I-- accessory buildings. The majority of the site is wooded. It contains five wetlands. The (75 topography varies significantly throughout the site. A ridge bisects the site from the north to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density 1I J I LILAC LANE I I I •, •RE . • • • _ CHR/STMAS IMO / Mall". .7- CIR L-Ma pule idivssormpoir I LAKE Pc sETP:1111211MOM Wirt' Ott °MOW ......t. 4_,4K109,1 -4.1r PAL las. 4144;• Aug mi ■1 s-r[(/_tel 'ON•1;1rr: a#;Iii � , :..amt �= a = Iris �asen-lifitapp. _mg II IN Likmii �1 ,q : Irl r: ��_ � PARK0114111740:41PIZr,. � �' �� - i4! r . „ PH/ . � Ida Vla 0 . i IMP ar" cam\ �y t A fiat v! �•` ��a�\��,4��j�� ` . `� � "Orr a WM° c"(t"'as iii .v& "' vi, -or Li. - ... epo ......4 mil A 4 ! liiiiire _ . . .iimmitit 0111111111Mho • 0,"/!N. a dringill V:- &filit - :: 1 Lr,k'1r �I fgym -rMD°111111E42-4‘ Bi' \ ______ irr "6 - Airlifting mi:FirlplItillt .\_. ilk Si, . -,,,quimmirylir. MI 41: r-r-s%1" Irr:Mba :\ 111D' Mak ra 1... - ,c 4,„, 40----- • inakt rb.1.11 - \vi v. ha . - .A- • uer,-..4 it . _ , . .411,. . .. ., ,.._, .4FASIntii fiAlt to ,2aoraa`...,;14 slat".L. N:- j, , ,. - /), ga s ttt . ii x 41„ _______J , 1ihI !A i' I 'D _R LAKE LUCY B!��° -- ':# f! ��`rana� an 21:441, _ r AvAltifi -_,-i- ___, tele ZJE • ^ =1111Mi♦ EL ► ; :_ - Ulit • AVM �\ REENW* # ,t4,,,,,. ti, .. a i A"------ ----77-- allinialliri.1375: ra Iwo• ig0 vlifitbsP •i �':s" . : SHORES c �.... .�� MU ARK %��II�II�,�III�� l !1111! �IIIIIII�� .4,- � ��53� 1��.141111 ��gE •11 LAKE ANN EEN PARK ,� ,i�� 1�♦ ' "� t ,s . 0 Iwo 4ow ----/:!_°: 40t, to ,- 8 -,-__)- . - _------- -' iiii .: =I %Ire 1114 =1, ra l AKE` o �Or1 VII; .. IANN r I_•.A • ' 04" , Point Lake Lucy January 18, 1995 Page 2 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 35,961 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 8 and 9, Block 1. These lots do not meet the 90 foot width as required by ordinance. 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. Staff worked with the applicant have made many revisions to improve this subdivision, however, we feel that there is room for additional improvements. Staff has prepared a revised design which will result in minimizing grading significantly and potentially eliminating the need for retaining walls, minimizing tree loss, reducing the length of the cul-de-sac,and preserving the site character. The one downfall is the loss of one lot. We are recommending tabling action on this application, however, we felt that it would be beneficial for the applicant to get the Planning Commission and the neighboring property owners comments to include in the revisions. 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 in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Point Lake Lucy January 18, 1995 Page 3 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 8 and 9, Block 1. These two lots do not meet the required 90 foot width at the setback line. Staff has developed a revised plan that will result in the loss of one lot, however, there will be numerous advantages to this revision. All lots will have an adequate frontage. Four of the lots will be served via a private driveway. Grading will be reduced drastically. Retaining walls will either be minimized or eliminated, and a larger number of trees will be saved. Staff is also recommending the applicant be permitted to utilize reduced front yard setbacks on lots adjacent to wetlands. This will minimize grading and allow for a larger building pad. Another recommendation is the reduced width of the public right-of-way from the required 60 feet to 50 feet. Although the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, we believe that revisions will have to be made to preserve the natural features of the site. 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 on-site and will not be impacted as a result of the development. 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 January 18, 1995 Page 4 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 in two areas. One part of the mitigation will be an extension of Wetland 2 on the eastern side and the other part of the mitigation will be an extension of Wetland 3 on the southeastern side. The mitigation areas are shown on the grading and drainage plan. The mitigation areas will most likely be representative of a shallow fresh marsh with 0 to 6 inches of standing water. Buckthorn, a common nuisance shrub will be removed in some of the mitigation areas. 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 Point Lake Lucy January 18, 1995 Page 5 treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. 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 17.66 acres; however, 5.47 acres is unimpacted wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 12.19 acres giving a water quantity connection charge of $24,136. 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. Staff recommends that the stormwater quality pond be relocated into the northern portion of Lot 12. The water quality pond will pretreat runoff from the streets and some back lots before discharging along the natural drainageway to the west of the house pad on Lot 12 toward Lake Lucy. The drainage from wetland 1 should be routed around this water quality pond since it does not need to be treated again. The house pad for Lot 12 would not have to be altered too much since it lies on a flat area. Minor grading will be necessary to make sure that the drainage goes around the house to the east. The 100-year storm flows through Lot 12 should be routed carefully away from the house. A stormwater pipe may need to be considered to carry the majority of the flow off the lot. By relocating the stormwater quality pond shown along the natural wetland (below Lots 9, 10, and 11) will reduce slope impacts and tree loss. 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 pond should be designed according to the criteria discussed in the r... SWMP section above. Point Lake Lucy January 18, 1995 Page 6 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 relocated, reconnected or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 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 proposed grades will require up to 16 feet of cut at the existing house and up to 12 feet of fill for house pads along the lake side. Staff has thoroughly reviewed the site grading plan and found some alternatives which reduces grading significantly and retains more of the site characteristics (Attachment 1). Relocating the street easterly 10 to 15 feet along with the house setback reductions will enable to the house pads to move up the hill closer to the street, thus reducing the amount of fill required. Staff proposes relocating the storm pond to Lot 12, reconfiguring the street alignment to move 10 to 15 feet easterly and shortening the cul-de-sac along with a private driveway to serve 4 lots. This, along with setback reductions, will significantly reduce site grading and minimize impacts to the site. One drawback, however, is the loss of one lot. Staff recommends that the applicant incorporates staff's suggestions on the street configuration and site grading and resubmit plans accordingly. EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan must be incorporated on the grading and development plan and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff recommends that the applicant use the city's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. Type 3 erosion control is recommended 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). Water service is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. Fire hydrant placement will be subject to Fire Marshal review. These types of reviews are typical performed at the time of construction plan and specification review. The applicant should be required to relocate and/or add fire hydrants as necessary in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Point Lake Lucy January 18, 1995 Page 7 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. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant dedicate 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 build further up the hillside to minimize grading and limit site impacts. However, staff also believes the applicant should compromise on the entrance to the development where an 80-foot wide right-of-way is proposed to accommodate a center median which staff does not believe is warranted in this situation. Outlot A is being provided for monumentation and landscaping as an entry monument. Staff recommends that the right- of-way be reduced to 50 feet at the entrance and the median deleted. Staff also reviewed the "eyebrow" to serve Lots 2 and 3. Staff believes that the eyebrow may be able to be eliminated with the realignment of the street. Staff recommends the applicant work with staff in possibly eliminating this eyebrow. Street grades range between 1% and 7% which meets the City ordinance. Staff has reviewed the street grades and believe further adjustments can be made in an effort to minimize site grading. In addition, staff believes the use of a longer private drive at the end of the cul-de- sac to accommodate access to 4 lots would be prudent in an effort to minimize site grading. These 4 lots adjacent to the private driveway could be custom-graded to also minimize impacts to the site. The applicant will need to provide cross-access/maintenance agreements for the use of the private driveway. 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. With all these compromises by the City, the applicant should also be willing to incorporate changes suggested by staff. Point Lake Lucy January 18, 1995 Page 8 PARK DEDICATION The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this application on January 24, 1995. Staff will recommend full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Staff has not prepared a compliance table at this time since all the lot lines will shift resulting in lot area changes. 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 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 Lots 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. The following constitutes our calculation of the required forestation and tree replacement: Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 9 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission table 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). The following issues, comments, concerns, and recommendations must be addressed: 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 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 Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Y Page 10 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. 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. 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 and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. 10. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 11 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned. 15. The proposed single-family residential development of 12.65 acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $25,047. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 16. 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, 17. The applicant shall redesign the plat drawing to incorporate staff's recommendations and resubmit revised drawings accordingly. 18. All lots shall take direct access to the interior system and not Lake Lucy Road. 19. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road. 20. The entrance median and eyebrow shall be eliminated and the right-of-way narrowed up to 50 feet wide consistent with the rest of the plat. 21. 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. 22. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. 23. Building Department conditions: Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 12 a. 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. b. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. c. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. d. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. e. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 24. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Add an additional fire hydrant between Lots 5 & 6. 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. 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. 25. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 26. 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. Point Lake Lucy January 11, 1995 Page 13 ATTACHMENTS 1. Revised plan designed by staff. 2. Letter from the applicant dated December 27, 1994. 3. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated January 11, 1995. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated January 9, 1995 and 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo 5. Memo from Mark Littfm dated January 11, 1995. 6. Memo from Jill Kimsal dated January 11, 1995. 7. Preliminary plat dated December 28, 1994. I. IN3WHOdlld ,'...,,`` I I; ";I ;ii; Ili,,; VI••• 1 11 !1.1 I 1 0 \\•`'I` 1'..„, . 2+-A • • J it -' g 11;II411I 11P'III1111;11i 6 H a I !11 111 IIII , l'!1 1 - , k L E li{III;!;IiI.II!ieII!:IITI � I I!1 iii liil I.I:II Iii I.hid!'1 T Z 1 \I I I I a , . .1 S . 1 ��W y I , s 4 F I I '•,u w a d t i I -- _ g ♦R J v i / I I �g O 1 i L ,,I MIN • I i Y Q mim (_7 \ • \ `) • A I I 1 I •IMF I ¢ CC Z 0 4i \••-/ ': .J Q ;s l;, CI ---• `\ - - 1 ; •; I1,. .I Of 1:i ; Ili ci N :� Q. �\ - i p \1 o jsg� \/� W W Zu –-,:_: •,-,t -!•. — - \ ; ' \ _1. V\• \ • i V. ) 2'1 La 1*- , p _ . _ ,l ti`scL •,�:a N .L g �1 •/-"-•fir,/ --- ., ; ....••.7,./ >" .„..) •-......r.... •••;2:1/4 -•.-.„:-//, ally 1 _ - ",►1l. 11 ' / \ ' , l':::::-- 1 .• c�' i7VOtl A�fll 3)P/1J .� s i;IL ! ---_�---_T,IJ_� 3 r_ I swwiAftno I ! I ',,. ROBERT H. MASON .HOMES Building new ideas is our old tradition. Dember 27 , :? = Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, UN 55317 Dear Us. Al-Jaff: With this letter, I have enclosed the requested information for the City' s review of our proposed new neighborhood on the shore of Lake Lucy, "Pointe Lake Lucy" . Robert H. Hason Homes is a long established ( since 1955 ) custom home building and land development company. Over the past forty one years, we are proud to have created twenty five new neighborhoods . Our focus has been, and will continue to be , to create a high quality neighborhood, with appropriate care and sensitivity shown to the existing topography and vegetation. Pointe Lake Lucy is a special parcel of land, with several wetland areas, and of course, the shore of Lake Lucy. In our preparation of the preliminary plat for this neighborhood, we have carefully examined the existing vegetation and topography. The views of the lake and the wetlands will be spectacular, and by careful orchestration of architectural design, we anticipate an extremely high quality environment for our building clients. Prior to our involvement with this parcel, another proponent had advanced a plat to the City Staff for review. This plat contained 27 lots and, in our estimation, represented an overly aggressive land plan . As you see, our plat contains only 20 homesites . Because of our desire to intelligently develop this parcel, we will require the use of a private driveway to service two lots . •14201 EXCELSIOR BLVD. • MINNETONKA, MN 55345.4997 • 612-935-3486 REALTOR 0 Mr. Coey, the current land owner, has planted a number of spruce and pine trees throughout the property, mainly along the current driveway. It is our intention to move these trees within the proposed new neighborhood. This will be accomplished in conjunction with the overall grading stork in the Spring of 1995 . We very much look forward to creating a fine neighborhood within the City of Chanhassen. We look forward to your approval process . Yours truly, ROBERT H. MASON HOMES i Randy W. Travalia President RWT: kg Enc . 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!I) David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 11, 1995 SUBJ: 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 December 27, 1994 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 on-site and will not be impacted as a result of the development. 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. Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1995 Page 2 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 in two areas. One part of the mitigation will be an extension of Wetland 2 on the eastern side and the other part of the mitigation will be an extension of Wetland 3 on the southeastern side. The mitigation areas are shown on the grading and drainage plan. The mitigation areas will most likely be representative of a shallow fresh marsh with 0 to 6 inches of standing water. Buckthorn, a common nuisance shrub will be removed in some of the mitigation areas. 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 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 Sharmin Al-Jaff .— January 11, 1995 Page 3 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 17.66 acres; however, 5.47 acres is unimpacted wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 12.19 acres giving a water quantity connection charge of $24,136. 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. Staff recommends that the stormwater quality pond be relocated into the northern portion of Lot 12. The water quality pond will pretreat runoff from the streets and some back lots before discharging along the natural drainageway to the west of the house pad on Lot 12 toward Lake Lucy. The drainage from wetland 1 should be routed around this water quality pond since it does not need to be treated again. The house pad for Lot 12 would not have to be altered too much since it lies on a flat area. Minor grading will be necessary to make sure that the drainage goes around the house to the east. The 100-year storm flows through Lot 12 should be routed carefully away from the house. A stormwater pipe may need to be considered to carry the majority of the flow off the lot. By relocating the stormwater quality pond shown along the natural wetland (below Lots 9, 10, and 11) will reduce slope impacts and tree loss. 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 pond should be designed according to the criteria discussed in the SWMP section above. 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. -- Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1995 Page 4 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 proposed grades will require up to 16 feet of cut at the existing house and up to 12 feet of fill for house pads along the lake side. Staff has thoroughly reviewed the site grading plan and found some alternatives which reduces grading significantly and retains more of the site characteristics (Attachment 1). Relocating the street easterly 10 to 15 feet along with the house setback reductions will enable to the house pads to move up the hill closer to the street, thus reducing the amount of fill required. Staff proposes relocating the storm pond to Lot 12, reconfiguring the street alignment to move 10 to 15 feet easterly and shortening the cul-de-sac along with a private driveway to serve 4 lots. This, along with setback reductions, will significantly reduce site grading and minimize impacts to the site. One drawback, however, is the loss of one lot. Staff recommends that the applicant incorporates staffs suggestions on the street configuration and site grading and resubmit plans accordingly. EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan must be incorporated on the grading and development plan and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff recommends that the applicant use the city's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. Type 3 erosion control is recommended 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). Water service is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. Fire hydrant placement will be subject to Fire Marshal review. These types of reviews are typical performed at the time of construction plan and specification review. The applicant should be required to relocate and/or add fire hydrants as necessary 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. Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1995 Page 5 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. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant dedicate 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. However, staff also believes the applicant should compromise on the entrance to the development where an 80-foot wide right-of-way is proposed to accommodate a center median which staff does not believe is warranted in this situation. Outlot A is being provided for monumentation and landscaping as an entry monument. Staff recommends that the right-of-way be reduced to 50 feet at the entrance and the median deleted. Staff also reviewed the "eyebrow" to serve Lots 2 and 3. Staff believes that the eyebrow may be able to be eliminated with the realignment of the street. Staff recommends the applicant work with staff in possibly eliminating this eyebrow. Street grades range between 1% and 7% which meets the City ordinance. Staff has reviewed the street grades and believe further adjustments can be made in an effort to minimize site grading. In addition, staff believes the use of a longer private drive at the end of the cul-de-sac to accommodate access to 4 lots would be prudent in an effort to minimize site grading. These 4 lots adjacent to the private driveway could be custom-graded to also minimize impacts to the site. The applicant will need to provide cross-access/maintenance agreements for the use of the private driveway. 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. With all these compromises by the City, the applicant should also be willing to incorporate changes suggested by staff. 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 Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1995 Page 6 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. 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. 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 applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. 10. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. Sharmin Al-Jaff January 11, 1995 Page 7 11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned. 15. The proposed single-family residential development of 12.65 acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$25,047. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 16. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 17. The applicant shall redesign the plat drawing to incorporate staffs recommendations and resubmit revised drawings accordingly. 18. All lots shall take direct access to the interior system and not Lake Lucy Road. 19. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road. 20. The entrance median and eyebrow shall be eliminated and the right-of-way narrowed up to 50 feet wide consistent with the rest of the plat. ktm Attachments: 1. Plat redesign. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:,eng`,d iane\p lanning'pt Ikluc.pc • /------).. _ i ili$ .1 — F COY FARC .t �� _ __- -=--�--� t ? _ f I _LAKE LUCY ROAD i 1 t —V \ !' 1 • • ftp .v_ /t til \ __ N I , : ' 1-ti�3; T •�� . . i (i'1I - �� J, /' ' .'� - ick t I ' iilIf _--_. It )•., �A •� e `1 iii - _ � �' ' _ i% ;�`/- -� ;��-_ - � `� `- 41111 - • 1 - - C :C1.'r �� i (n \r \ e >-al 1. ��,•v, _iso : `: Y. 33 0 •°';Zlit \ - . z 1 1 1 1 11 lit 1 1`• 1 - �' -- rein �, v n ti i i i !; 1 � � z Iii ' ` •.\ ' 1 i Illi III , w �` 1111 iii y \13 t, r�\\-- F • 10 0 13 f Z • x i m m j I .� • CSC i , • d1 z� s i E4! Y Y 1 ri ! a ti' f f c, i I. • F i 111i�11�x)111 Ilil'.I 1:!;11"11g 1.11141 III , ; _ I!Ililjil i'!11;1111 I�I.111.11.11: n •' 1 1 7C 1114 1 I it I I I!i1sn111s 4r ii '-\„ k 11. il. .••• 1 , �. 3 m I 111 'Il 1.1 :i ii 41'1 \t3. 1111 ,111 ;hi 11' i ..+, a. o le ik r � ii.::'i I iiti�•i 1 f. i 14,- I ,Ilu. i liy%lil I S 1 li;:gt 1 !glti I N' r 1 If 1l' I ATTACHMENT 1 { CITY OF CHANHASSENi ..i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -4•C 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 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 .i' 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 QF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -''mow MEMORAN BUM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might he helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. PLO o:PLO Designates Prom Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with tile 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. r SE R SEWOWO FLO - , - - - - -- orRLO 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. worr PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY QF i •1111CUANBASSE : 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. esafecymw4.6 4 CITY of ,o, 0 ,- tilir 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 P 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. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 4, 1995 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Ron Nutting and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF APPROXIMATELY 1.8 ACRES OF LAND INTO THREE LOTS LOCATED AT 6240 RIDGE ROAD, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CHRISTMAS LAKE ON THE SHOREWOOD-CHANHASSEN CITY LIMITS, WM. PATRICK CUNNINGHAM, CUNNINGHAM ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Paul & Sharon Graef 855 Pleasant View Road Gordy & Patsy Whiteman 825 Pleasant View Road Pat Cunningham 855 Pleasant View Road Jack Fess 6280 Ridge Road Susan & Pam Price 6250 Ridge Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners? Would the applicant or their representative care to make any comments? Yes sir. Step up to the microphone and let us know who you are and your address and let us know what you have to say. Pat Cunningham: It seems my hearing aid isn't doing it's finest... Are you going to ask any questions? Scott: Oh! If you want to make a presentation or anything. If you don't, that's fine too. Pat Cunningham: Well there's a letter that you all have. Scott: Yeah we just got it just a few moments ago. Pat Cunningham: And that's the...what I'm doing. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: And that was part of your packet you had the initial letter. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Mr. Chair, I do have a question. Can you hear me okay? Pat Cunningham: Yeah. Mancino: And Bob, you may be part of this question that I have. One of the recommendations is about conservation easements on the west side of the three lots. And when I took my scale and drew them in to show where the conservation easements would be, they come very close to or up to where the housepads are so I was wondering if one, Bob is that correct? And two, if Mr. Cunningham feels comfortable with that. Pat Cunningham: ...neighbors because when they built their homes it was decided at that time Ridge Road was not going to be changed and it would keep going the way it is. So if they put a 60 foot road in there, it would almost hit one house and Jim Meyers who just remodeled his, it would be practically under the eaves. Mancino: Okay. This is the conservation easement that we're asking for. It's condition number 3. Generous: It's on the western portion of this site. The tree preservation area that we recommended as a condition of approval. Pat Cunningham: About that 30 feet that... Generous: No. There's one, it's 100 feet. Mancino: Can you come up so I can show you. I want to make sure that you understand what we are requiring and that is down on the western edge there's 100 feet of a tree preservation or conservation easement and you have a house pad here. The house pad from this drawing is in that conservation easement area. Scott: Yeah, I think when you put it on the overhead you can see what, Bob do you need this? Patsy Whiteman: Does this have to do with the trees? Aanenson: Right. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: Okay, the conservation easement would not permit you to do any development on the western part of the property except for putting in like a trail or walkway down to the lake. But you wouldn't be able to build within that area. Pat Cunningham: You're speaking about Lot 1 now? Generous: It's on all three of them. It's condition number. Pat Cunningham: Oh I see what you mean. Generous: We had talked about one of the ideas behind this whole thing is you wanted to preserve the trees as much as possible. Aanenson: And the slope. Generous: And the slope so that's one way that we can do it by having an easement recorded over it so that once you no longer have control of the property it would be in the record of the property of this lot that they cannot build in that area. Pat Cunningham: I imagine they would like to connect... Generous: Well they could put down like a walkway. Pat Cunningham: I'm sure they'd have no intention of building there...Oh, does it extend up into here? Mancino: According to my calculations it does and that's something that I'd like you and Bob to work through and I just wanted to bring it up. Scott: Yeah because we don't want to have a conservation easement that's going to keep the person who buys this from building the house. Patsy Whiteman: This one it would not...and this I do question whether it's a little too punitive. Scott: That's why we want to make sure and I think probably what it is, it's just a matter of adjusting the conservation easement so that, yeah. Mancino: But this shows it visually. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: But Commissioner Mancino took the time to sanity test it and we'd rather deal with it now before it gets a lot more expensive months from now so that's our attempt to make sure that things actually work. Pat Cunningham: Well I'm sure that once they're home is here, I don't think they'd build it down here. Scott: Well that's the reason why we have a conservation easement so that...and what we'll do is, I think it'd be logical for us to alter the condition that talks about the conservation easement to direct staff to work with you people to make sure that the conservation easement doesn't preclude the owner of the subdivided parcel. To keep them from building a house on it. Okay. So that's what we're doing here. Good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Hearing none, thank you Mr. Cunningham. Pat Cunningham: That takes care of that. There are six different problems in there. Which one are we on now? Scott: The conservation. What other. Pat Cunningham: Well that would take care of that. Then I'll sit down and if you want me back for the second or third or fourth, whatever it is. Scott: Okay. And if you want to go through those. Yeah, if you guys want to go through those. Aanenson: Well there's 13 conditions of approval. I'm not sure if he had a concern about any of those conditions. Nutting: The question is that he's got a letter of six... Aanenson: ...copy of the letter from the building official answering the response to that. I think what Bob is saying is that the building official is willing to work with him on the issues yet but. Generous: Right, he's just going to need a plumber to do the work... Scott: So from the letter of January 23rd, 1 is fine. 2 is fine. Number 3, it appears as if there is. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: I believe that the only question is the city doesn't take bonds for that type of work. Harberts: What do they do? Generous: Letters of credit or cash escrow. Harberts: Well isn't a performance bond similar to a letter of credit? Generous: No. You have to go through a legal process to actually collect the money and that's only after a certain timeframe so. Scott: What about the comment number 6 about the 30 foot easement? Generous: The 30 foot easement, Dave might want to address that. Scott: Okay, please. Hempel: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. It's essentially our only opportunity to obtain the right-of-way for a future road if it goes in. If it never goes in, then that 30 foot wide road right-of-way could be vacated. However if in the future we do, or if they would wish to petition the city to upgrade the roadway, we'd have to go back and acquire or purchase this property for the roadway so, it's very typical of every subdivision that we require that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way for roads, utilities and those kind of items. Scott: What if, can the neighbors also petition the vacation of the easement? Hempel: The property owner may do so, yes. Adjacent to the right-of-way. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Mr. Chair I have a question. Dave, when the city owns this 30 feet from the center over, does the city maintain it now that the city owns it? Hempel: We would not maintain it until the roadway is brought up to city standards. Right now it is a narrow bituminous private driveway essentially and we do not maintain it. Mancino: So even though the city owns it, it doesn't maintain it. It doesn't have the responsibility for plowing? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Hempel: That's correct. We do have our sewer and water lines through there. Through the private driveway at this time. Aanenson: It would be left natural. In it's natural state. I mean there'd be no improvement to it so it's just like a large boulevard area. They could continue to use it. Mancino: But it does give the city all the legal rights with the street? Aanenson: For a road. For road purposes. Generous: And they have to pick up the other 30 feet on the other side and the rest of it to make it work. Patsy Whiteman: We have a question about this one. Scott: Yeah, questions from the applicant, this is still applicant time so please step up. Pat Cunningham: I indicated in that letter what I would prefer doing is selling Lot 1 and 3 with the understanding if the city asks to put the 60 foot street in, they would be obligated to furnish the 30 feet...if they did it in my lifetime, I would furnish the 30 feet. Beyond me it will be written in the family trust that whoever is in charge of the trust would be obligated. There's a reason, two reasons for that. One of it, there's going to be a wailing of protests if the city decides they might put that street in. And I thought it would be better if after that was decided they still would be obligated so you'd never have to pay on any of the land on those three lots. But it would be the people could keep right on using it until such time as they had to give it which may be a generation or two away. Scott: Okay. Well I know when the lots are finally platted, the potential easement or the easement will be shown on that so anybody who's going to purchase a lot, that will be part of the legal record so. Pat Cunningham: And also in my suggestions it also says that one of these people that buy that lot sells to somebody else, the obligation will run with the land. Scott: Which usually is the obligation of the fee title owner of the property to provide the easement in case that's needed by the City. Yes? No? Hempel: No. We have no legal grounds to require that. This is our only means to do it without purchasing it from a future property owner. The road will continue it's present use. We have no plans of upgrading it. If the future property owners adjacent to the road wish to 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 further subdivide, then there may be a need at some future date to upgrade that road with widening curb and gutters and storm sewer facilities to accommodate the additional traffic. At this point we have no plans to and for the next 20 years it will remain the way it is. And...they also have the opportunity to petition the city at that time to request a vacation of that roadway. So there's no plans to disturb any of the trees that are on the existing roadway. It's just a way of getting the easement at this time while we're able to at no cost. Scott: So the neighbors would, that's the single event that would cause that road to be improved. If the people who live along the road petition the city to do it, then that's what's going to happen. Hempel: That's correct. When either that or further development occur. Scott: Yeah, subdivision would require it. Okay. Sir, are you with the applicant? Jack Fess: Well a neighbor. Scott: Okay. Yeah, what we can do is after the applicant section is finished, then we'll open up a public hearing and then members of the general public can speak. Okay, great. Pat Cunningham: I haven't quite understood. If I sold I and 3, would they have that, they would own that land with the proposition that should the city build this street, they have to give this free. Generous: That's not our recommendation. If we would take the right-of-way right now, the road would not be improved but you could sell the properties and that's one of the things in there that you would have to provide them with the cross access agreement to use that private road. But the city would actually take that title of the 30 feet. Pat Cunningham: If I sold those 2 lots they would be 30 feet short? Generous: Yeah. They'd have 30 feet less property. Pat Cunningham: They'd have 30 feet less. Generous: Correct. Pat Cunningham: And my idea would do what? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Hempel: Legally we can't. Mr. Cunningham, legally we can't go back to the next property owner and require that even if you have it in your deed. The city couldn't do it. Pat Cunningham: Okay, thank you. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Conrad: Well I think, Pat have you read the staff report? Pat Cunningham: Yes. Conrad: Are there any points that you'd like to bring up about the staff report or the ones listed in your letter, have they addressed the staff report? Pat Cunningham: I didn't mention in the letter why I wanted to continue to take the water out of the lake. We would have an erosion problem from now on if we had to go down 6 feet to run a water line down to this cabin. They call it a dwelling. It's not a dwelling. It's just...Sunday afternoons to have some fun. And if that were the case...and for all that work and all that money and it's probably only going to use about 200 gallons a year. And we drink bottled water or pop. So actually all it's used for is...they got to have it for the toilet. That's the extent of what that's going to be used. That's the reason it's important to me, both from a preservation standpoint of the good bluff and to have it come out of the lake... Scott: Okay, good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Conrad: Patsy, have you read the staff report? Patsy Whiteman: Is that what I read today? Pat Cunningham: Yep. Conrad: Okay. Patsy Whiteman: I do have. Scott: Oh, could you step up to the microphone so we could get it on the videotape. Patsy Whiteman: I just do have a question about how it's written. I can't remember, is he given the leeway to work with the DNR to come up with a satisfactory plan... 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: Not the way the condition's written, no. Patsy Whiteman: Could it be done that way legally? He does have some legitimate concerns...rather than. Harberts: Hook up. Patsy Whiteman: Yeah. Dad has taken care of Christmas Lake since he was a child and he has some real strong feelings about the hillside and...knows the land and I think he's got some viable options that he can come up with. So I hate to see us... Scott: Which? Generous: Condition 5. It could be possible to amend that condition to put in or come out with an understanding with the DNR that they can continue to use it. Scott: Yeah let's, whoever makes the motion let's. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject. These codes go beyond the city. I believe it's a State Health Code as far as the water and sewer and septic so they may be a little more out of our hands and at a state level. I think the building official put in some alternatives if they didn't want to hook up to water and sewer and one method would be to remove the plumbing fixtures from the dwelling, such as you have a dwelling. I'm not sure if that meets it. Scott: But then doesn't that, because we have our city ordinance that it would become an accessory structure which is against our local ordinance so. Generous: There is a note on page 3, under water service. It is possible that the lake water use in the dwelling may be probable but it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate it's probability on a continuing basis. Aanenson: So I think what your original recommendation then is that we're saying number 5, that we can maybe modify that to work out if there's a way to compromise it. Whether it be working with the State or our own ordinances and try to see if there's some other alternative. Generous: And it may be using that language. Scott: So that's something that then the applicant and the city and then if there's a state official, can get involved and that's something we don't have to take care of in this venue. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Right. Scott: Okay. Good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Hearing none, I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Any members of the general public who would like to speak, give their opinions on this particular item, are invited to step to the podium and all we ask is that you let us know who you are, where you live and we'd like to know what's on your mind. Jack Fess: Good evening. My name is Jack Fess and I'm about 4 houses down towards Pleasant View from Pat's property. I've lived there about 14 years and built a new home there which Pat had supported when my piece of property was subdivided. I guess the only question I have is, first of all we currently right now there's about 6 or 7 homes in there and I also manage for the neighbors that road that we live on. And so the city understands, that's a very expensive road to maintain. It's fully serviced with sewer and is completely the opposite. You cross the chain at the Shorewood line and the Chanhassen line. The major difference is the Chanhassen line has all the city services and the Shorewood side does not have water. For instance if there's a fire that needs to be fought on all those expensive homes on the other side of the chain, they need pumper trucks. Now what we don't understand is, we don't want to precedent, or at least I would not want to see a precedent set on Pat's property that has not been set on the others, the homes. Now we have homes, we have property on that ridge. My house is 14 years old and I do not believe, unless the city planner or someone else would want to look up my property, it's 6280, but I do not believe that I have any easement which I have given to the city of Chanhassen to potentially widen that road. Number one, it's not in the best interest of the city of Chanhassen and it sure as heck is not in the best interest of us because where is the road going to go? It cannot go into Excelsior into Shorewood because Shorewood, they've asked to try to have that road widened over there. First of all there's been houses in there for 50 years. It doesn't meet the city restrictions. There's been new homes built over there. This has been brought up before the Shorewood City Planning within the last 8 to 9 months and under no circumstances will the City of Shorewood even consider looking at the opposite side of Ridge Road. What I'm basically saying, I know of two houses that would probably, if that road was widened for some reason, would take part of one house and the front lawn of another and probably the front lawn of mine. There's been two new homes that are being built on this same side, the Chanhassen side. One is 2 years old and one currently is going up next to me. I don't believe there's anything in those easements which the Planning Commission has requested. So what I'm basically asking the question is, I support Pat's subdivision 100%. I mean the 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 man's paid taxes on his property for many, many years. He's lived here for 80 some years. It's a valuable piece of property. He needs to break up his estate to be taken care of here and I'm only saying why would we ask Pat Cunningham for an easement to be given free to the city of Chanhassen for someday, i.e. to potentially when maybe I'm dead or this lawyer over here is 70 years old, decides that somebody in the Planning Commission or City Council wants to start another hiatus that we just had out here with the Frank Beddor problem. That it comes up and somebody gets a bright idea we're going to widen Ridge Road, which the city does not even sweep one single pebble of dust off that road. We never see the city. We maintain it. We pay for it and I guess I'm at the point, after 13 years with the taxes we pay there, they deliberately wouldn't go one foot off of Pleasant View to even clean the dust off the road when they bring the sweep or something. So my position is pretty simple. If the City of Chanhassen wants an easement on Pat Cunningham's property, they ought to pay the man for the easement number one. Number two, he's been unjustly treated because by forcing that back, Nancy just brought up that you don't want the house to go back if you're worrying about the hill. Well where's he going to build the houses then? I mean we've got homes that have been built there. Precedent's been set. Why would we want to do this right now? Why not allow that property to go through as it is. Under the proper zoning conditions of Chanhassen and then the Planning Commission... Why start a hiatus now about 30 feet of taking this property over, because it is going to set a precedent and I sure as heck wouldn't want to be living there, telling a perspective buyer of my property that by the way, the city has not taken 30 feet of property off the street which means they might condemn the property down the street to widen the road. Who knows? But that's something that us 8 or 9 neighbor people are very concerned about. It has nothing to do with subdividing the property, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think that's fair to Pat Cunningham. Scott: By the way, David Hempel is our City Engineer. Well you just got promoted. Harberts: Are you sure it's a promotion? Scott: Well I think so. Hempel: There were some valid points brought out there. The reason that we get it is again, strictly with the intent that some day maybe future lots in there are subdivided again and where do we draw the line. There's 6 to 8 houses on that road right now. There potentially probably could be twice that with the number of lots that could be subdivided based on the current zoning regulations. Right now there's not sufficient turn around room up there for fire vehicles, emergency vehicles and so forth. That's the purpose of additional right-of-way. To upgrade the street and provide the avenue for these vehicles to maneuver. The 30 foot right- of-way will not affect the building setback of the proposed subdivision. There's adequate front yard spacing. The house pads will stay as they're proposed. And again in the future the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 right-of-way, or 10, 15, 20 years from now is not needed, it could be petitioned to be vacated. Harberts: Dave what has been the, is that the practice of the city to, when they look at the future traffic needs or public safety needs, is that the process that they usually follow? Or is it that when they see the need or have the need they just go in and purchase at that time. What's usually been the practice? Hempel: The usual practice is with the platting or subdividing of the property to do it. We have a number of projects underway where the city has had to go in and purchase additional property and that raises assessments which in turn the property owners who benefit from the project end up paying for it so the long run this subdivision is going to benefit because they've already dedicated the necessary right-of-way and will not have to pay for it in the form of assessments. Harberts: So from what I'm understanding then...future homeowners or builders or whatever kind of make them aware of what the situation is with regards to what's available in terms of easements and whatever. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: And when you're talking about benefit, is that loosely calculated as fronting on an approved road? Or if you're on the road and it gets, if you're on the road and it gets widened or the services get improved, you're going to pay for it because you own the road. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Okay. So what you're saying is that in the long run, if the easement can be dedicated as part of a subdivision, that reduces the assessment which means that the people who are living there when and if the road gets widened, will be paying less in assessments. Hempel: That's correct. Mancino: Now I have a what if question. You'll love it. Okay, future. 5 years from now. One property, two property owners decide to subdivide and you get 4 more houses there. At what point will the city require, for public safety reasons, for the road to be updated? To be widened to use city standards. To current city standards. Hempel: That's a very good question. Our current ordinance that deals with private driveways limits home sites to 4 for private driveways and they've already exceeded that in this situation. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: That's why we had the variance. Hempel: That's why we had to approve this variance and it was approved. Now public safety would then come into play in this situation and I believe the City Fire Marshal might have to say which number of homes or vehicles would trip it from a public safety standpoint. We have other streets in town that are similar, like Dogwood and Tanadoona out in the western part of the city that is a similar scenario but potential for subdividing is much greater and much more homesites than Ridge Road. Ridge Road will be limited to the amount of homes potentially servicing by it but again it's just our normal practice. It's part of the ordinance of subdividing that we acquire the necessary right-of-way through the planning procedure at no cost. Mancino: So the current homeowners that are there now will need to keep watching the process so that if someone does subdivide there, that they need to come to City Hall and find out if that's going to, if the city would look at upgrading the road. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: And that would be a public hearing and they'd be duly noticed. But couldn't, because this road extends into Shorewood, couldn't that trigger point happen because it's a development that actually occurred in Shorewood? Hempel: We haven't done joint projects with other adjacent communities. At this point I'd have to say no. Scott: Okay. My concern is that if somebody subdivides in Shorewood. Hempel: Right now there is a gate and lock and there's no thru traffic. That is considered a dead end street I believe. Only for emergency purposes can the gate be opened. Scott: Okay. That I wasn't too sure of. Yes sir. Jack Fess: Since we work the snowplowing on the Shorewood side, I don't know if the staff has had a chance to really walk up into, and walk in the Chanhassen side, the Covington side but they'll notice that as that property gets subdivided on the Silver Lake side, on the Christmas Lake side, there's more and more homes in there and there's only been one new house up until last year. There's been no...on the Chanhassen side was mine, which was 1982 so most of the folks that are here, these lots have been here for many, many years. You know residents for many years. I questioned that myself and Bruce Benson, who is a Councilman in Shorewood and was on the Planning Commission, many of the people when 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 this building started to boom in the last 3 years, they actually went to the Shorewood Planning Commission and to the City Council to seek help on this issue we're talking about. Number one, is there a safety problem on the Shorewood side of that chain? Now we have the chain up because if we left that chain open we would have another Pleasant View Road. We would have a way to cut from Covington so we have very strict limitations. We only allow the chain up and down while a truck's going through for a house being built, heavy loads. The builders on the Shorewood side do not run any trucks through there unless they get permission from me and my neighbors, which we have given them a key. The Fire Department has a key, the garbage man, etc. And it's becoming a major concern to all of us because of the building that's going on and trying to maintain that road. Now they just spent $12,000.00 of neighbors money just to resurface a quarter mile of that road and we have about $50,000.00 on the Shorewood side. Now our side, it drains very well so we haven't had those type of road expenses but you can imagine last year when 3 new homes were going in over there and all of a sudden they want to run trucks to save money. The contractor's off of Covington Road, or I mean Pleasant View Road, off our road. Tear our roads up and then go over there. So we've had our own little neighborhood hassles over this but I can assure you that Shorewood, even when those folks went to Shorewood and said look. We've got too many houses here and we have, for safety reasons number one. They don't have water in the street so I don't know who would want to build a new house without property water protection from the fire department, but they do. They would use the hydrant that's in front of Pat's property to fight a fire down in Shorewood. That's where they have to hook in, or else use the pumper truck. The last house that caught on fire burned to the ground. So I don't see that happening because Shorewood would have to literally not only tear the road up there, they would have to spend so much money on that because they've got the steep hillside on the Silver Lake side, which we don't have on our side. Plus it doesn't even have water rights in there okay. So I think the question is good. My only question is, if we start doing that, and since there's a new home going up right next to me on the corner of Pleasant View right now, which is a very million dollar house...Dr. Joseph to give up that 30 feet which he just started building in September and directly across the street from him on the 2 acre lot, which was built on only a year and a half, which is on the opposite side. Did we ask that homeowner so we have two new houses that have gone up in a year and a half and I'm just basically saying, have we asked this question before when they went for building permits. Now they didn't subdivide but has the city said hey, we need to do this because there's the corner of Pleasant View and if you didn't take 30 feet there where you'd have to make a turn off of Pleasant View, why would you take it at the end of the chain where it goes. Aanenson: You made the point exactly. They didn't subdivide it. The law, we have to legally, we cannot require easements. Only when we subdivide and that is what Dave is saying. It's because it's a subdivision. There are lots of record out there. Now it may be additional building but when somebody comes in for subdivision, that's what trips it. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Jack Fess: So in other words, if the city did decide for one reason or another to widen the road, they would have to just condemn the 30 feet of property in front of my place and everybody elses? Aanenson: Right. Scott: Could I have a motion to close the public hearing please? I'm sorry, did I miss? I'm sorry, go ahead. State your name and your. Susan Price: My name is Susan Price and I live at 6250 Ridge Road and I wanted to comment also on this 30 foot easement. I think if you take 30 feet off the front of property, you take out my house so I guess I'd like to be on record that I would like to continue to think that this road is not going to be... We will maintain it as a private road so that it is... own our road all the way to the center and people have half and this side owns the other half so the whole idea of having one piece out of that road different from the rest of the road does set kind of an edge that makes me feel safe coming off...chose to condemn 30 feet off the front of the property. So I'm supporting Pat on that... Scott: Okay, thank you. Could 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 canied. The public hearing was closed. Scott: The public hearing is now closed. Ladd. Conrad: No comments. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I guess I would certainly be okay with modifying condition number 5. As I understand the report that the building is not being lived in. Right? Lot 2? ...is that your understanding? Generous: Well yeah but it is a dwelling. It is a dwelling whether they live in it or not. Scott: I think what we're going to want to do is want to modify the condition number 5 to get the right parties together because this is a unique circumstance and we need the right parties together to figure out an equitable solution. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Yeah I think there's not, we need to modify it maybe then what...demonstrate that it's not being used yet and it's just being used as a spot. So I guess I would be open to that but if it is a dwelling, I guess my bottom line here, it has to meet State and City codes. And so whatever modification is available to do that, fine and it sounds like the applicant is willing to sit down and chat with whomever is responsible so I guess that's really the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Well in that regard the Department of Health, to their water well requirements they have variance processes that can be gone through and that's certainly acceptable to me if the applicant wants to pursue that route. The situation with the right-of-way, I certainly understand the residents' concerns as it relates to property but I think overall in terms of planning and the issues of safety in the future, I think a 30 foot easement is appropriate for those lots that are subdividing. I think one of the most important things though that we really haven't talked about relates to the variance for frontage and we have a requirement normally for 90 feet of frontage at the street side of the lot. Is that not correct, 90 feet? Generous: That's correct. Ledvina: And we're easing that requirement and I don't really understand why. We have a situation where we have a private drive that seems to be fairly taxed in terms of it's traffic capacity and essentially we're adding an additional lot up and beyond what we really normally would allow by Code and I don't see the rationale for that there. The variance process is a fairly well defined one in terms of the hardships that must be proven and I've always petitioned that we should have a rigorous analysis of that variance process. I think that in this situation and it's more important again because we have the private drive situation so I'm very concerned about that. I think the lots are large. I know that and the applicant has been very willing to work with the city in terms of the conservation easements and I appreciate the ecological approach that the applicant has for this parcel. That's very important and those things somewhat offset this variance scenario but again I don't feel comfortable at this point in passing it along tonight without more rigorous analysis of that variance, so those are my comments. Mancino: Bob, can you take a minute and explain the variance a little bit. As I'm looking at Lot 1, Block 1. Generous: Basically as Matt said, they don't have sufficient frontage, the required 90 feet of frontage at the front. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: From the house to the road. Generous: No. From the south line to the north line of that front lot. The width. Ledvina: The width is inadequate at the road. Mancino: From here to there, oh. From here to there? Generous: From the north line to the south line of Lot 1 there's not sufficient distance. Mancino: And if we moved the lot line of 2, could we get it? Generous: No. Aanenson: They're all at the minimum. Generous: Yeah. 2 and 3 are right at 90 feet. Now I didn't look at it from the perspective of if we move it 30 feet back, what does that do to the lot line. Scott: Well, as I understand the second lot is going to be in a trust for an extended period of time. Is there, I mean you discussed that being an outlot. Something that would be unbuildable. Is that an option? Aanenson: Because it has an existing structure on it, I'm not sure it would qualify because right now that's the lot that's existing. Ledvina: Yeah, you can't create a variance. Mancino: But you're saying at 30 feet back. Aanenson: Back it meets the 90 foot frontage. Mancino: It does have a 90 foot frontage. Generous: Well I'm not sure. I'd have to scale it off. Ledvina: No it doesn't. It's narrowing as you go to the. Conrad: The whole property is expanding though. And then there's a job. The thing that didn't bother, that didn't bother me a great deal because it sort of looks like an artificial jog 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 and when I saw the artificial jog there, you know there's 10 feet so in my mind I said it's okay because we're talking about, on paper it's wrong but literally there is space there and it's not being used by, it's there. So that variance I felt pretty comfortable with simply because of that jog. Mancino: Does that make any difference to you Matt? Ledvina: I guess that's one thing but again I want to see a more detailed evaluation of variances as they come before us. I understand your point Ladd but I think that process is fairly well defined and I think we've got to follow it so. Mancino: There is rationale on the comments here. Ledvina: Yes. Yeah, I want to see the whole thing on it and I think it's important for the record in terms of what we're doing. What we'll do in the future. Conrad: And that's real valid Matt. Aanenson: We've got a comment as far as another design option that we could have considered. Generous: If this was a flag lot they wouldn't have had that variance request. Aanenson: We could have looked at it that way. Generous: They could have pushed it back and had the frontage back. The front of the lot back where it widens up in there the 30 feet, it wouldn't have been a variance because Shorewood requires them to have 120 feet of width at the building setback so that's one of the reasons that we have the jog in the southern line. Ledvina: But we're in Chanhassen. Generous: But they don't have, in Shorewood they don't have sewer so they wanted the extra area. Or they don't have water, I'm sorry. Mancino: Kind of like Deephaven. Bob a question for you. The only one that I have at this point. The DNR, in their memo to us, made a recommendation about, let's see. Their letter dated December 15, 1994 and it's on the back of the page. It says, the structures in the subdivision should be screened from view from Christmas Lake using topography, existing 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 vegetation, color and other means approved by the city. You didn't include that in your recommendations I don't think. Generous: Well that's the conservation easement. Those trees would screen those two new houses. Mancino: Right. That's what I wanted to ask. Thanks. Generous: And that also keeps it above the bluff. That was one of the rationale for making that width like that. Mancino: Thank you. That's all my questions. Ledvina: I had one more comment I forgot to make as it relates to the bluff. You mentioned the lot with the tennis court on it. I think that's Lot 1. Generous: Yes. Ledvina: Now did we check to see, I think you called out a specific contour. Does that, are we, does this building pad meet that setback requirement. I don't think it does, the way I look at it here. Generous: It encroaches into that but that 60 x 60 pad is just the possible area. There's not a whole lot of. Ledvina: But if it's possible and it's within our setback, it's not possible. Generous: Yeah. They wouldn't be able to build but by designating the contour we have them on notice that you're going to have to be 30 feet back I believe from that elevation. Ledvina: Okay. Do we need anything in our conditions to rectify that in terms of the plat that we have versus, you know the plat map versus the language? Are you comfortable with the way... Generous: Well we're not going to permit Lot 1. Shorewood is and I don't know if we can really control what they do. We have to inspect it to make sure that their plumbing complies with our code because they're connecting to our city sewer and water but other than that we don't issue the permit. Ledvina: Okay. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Generous: So I wasn't as stringent on that. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I guess I don't have any comments to add. I'm a little, if I were in the position of the other neighbors on the issue of the right-of-way I think I'd have the same concerns. I also though feel from the standpoint of public policy and consistency of application that my hands are tied unless I hear or see something different from that being a condition as a part of this project. So I think I'm prepared to...as modified. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: ...modifying 5 that approves the variance. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Conrad: I would make the motion. Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision #94-20 with a 11 1/2 foot lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Cunningham Addition, subject to the plans dated December 6, 1994 with the conditions as listed in the staff report with 3 alterations. Point number 3 would add the note, and I'm not sure how it changes the conditions but would add the note that the staff will review the easement to insure that there's an appropriate area for building sites and I think we are particularly talking about Lot 1. So that's the addition on point number 3. Addition on point number 5, and I'm going to make it an addition so the words still stand but I would like to add the following comments. That the applicant will work with the DNR and the city to evaluate other alternatives as detailed on page 3 of the staff report and also on the letter received from Mr. Cunningham dated January 3rd to look for alternatives other than demolishing the structure. That's the end of that point. Point number 14. Staff to document the rationale for the variance. Scott: Is there any discussion? Harberts: Second. Conrad moved, Halberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision #94-20 with a 11 1/2 foot lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Cunningham Addition, subject to the plans dated December 6, 1994 with the following conditions: 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 1. All structures shall be built within the Shorewood city limits for Lot 1, Block 1, Cunningham Addition with the exception of fences and the driveway. All appropriate permits shall be applied for from the responsible jurisdictions. 2. The following contours are designated as the top of bluff: Lot 1 - 974 contour, Lot 2 - 978 contour, Lot 3 - 980 contour. A minimum 30 foot building setback must be maintained from these contour lines. When building permits are applied for, the applicant or future builders shall provide a survey showing the appropriate contour elevation and the minimum 30 foot setback. 3. The following conservation easements shall be recorded over the property: The western 100 feet of Lot 1, Block 1; the western 140 feet of Lot 2, Block 1; and the western 180 feet of Lot 3, Block 1. Within this conservation area, only minimal shoreland alteration as provided in Section 20-482 of the Chanhassen City Code shall be permitted. The staff will review the easement to insure that there's an appropriate area for building sites, particularly lot 1. 4. Tree protection fencing shall be incorporated on the site during construction to protect all trees that are to be preserved. 5. The existing dwelling on the property must connect to city sewer and water or demolish the structure. This shall be done prior to the issuance of any building permits for Cunningham Addition. The applicant will work with the DNR and the city to evaluate other alternatives as detailed on page 3 of the staff report and also on the letter received from Mr. Cunningham dated January 3, 1995 to look for alternatives other than demolishing the structure. 6. The applicant shall inform the builder of Chanhassen permit and inspection requirements. This shall be done prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 1. 7. The applicant should revise the garage floor elevation on Lot 3 to 996.5 and/or employ the use of retaining walls to minimize grading impacts. A variance to the 10% driveway grade is recommended on Lot 3. The maximum driveway grade shall be 12%. 8. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the city for each lot. The City Engineer shall review and approve the plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. The applicant shall be required to pay the surface water management fees in lieu of constructing downstream stormwater improvements. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 10. The applicant shall enter into a joint powers agreement between the cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen for providing utility service and billing for Lot 1. 11. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat one-half of the necessary street right-of- way for Ridge Road. The final plat shall dedicate the easterly 30 feet of Lots 1, 2 and 3 as road right-of-way for Ridge Road. The final plat shall also dedicate the necessary side, front, and rear drainage and utility easements per city ordinance. 12. The applicant shall obtain and convey the necessary cross-access or driveway maintenance easement agreements to provide access to the newly created lots. 13. The applicant shall verify that there are no wetland impacts to the site. 14. Staff shall document the rationale for the variance. All voted in favor, except Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Scott: And your reasons were, due to the variance? Ledvina: The situation with the variance and I guess it doesn't reflect at all on the position of the applicant here but I think that we should see the analysis as well and I hope that that can get in there before City Council so they have that. Scott: So that'd be acceptable to have the analysis forwarded as part of the packet? Ledvina: Yes. Scott: Okay, good. Well the motion carries. I'd like to thank Mr. Cunningham, or the Cunninghams for coming in and all the neighbors who took the time to speak at the public hearing. This goes to the City Council on the 13th of February? Generous: No this is the 23rd. Scott: Oh I'm sorry. 23rd. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 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 HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY). Public Present: Name Address Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I'm not sure if the applicant's here for this one. Aanenson: We need to make sure that there's somebody here for the applicant. Scott: Okay. Are the speakers turned on out in the hall? Okay, I'll yell real loud. Conrad: We can table it. Ledvina: Why don't we work on it? Conrad: Without the applicant here? That's sort of invalid I think. It's their problem. Ledvina: Well I have some questions on it. Scott: Shall we move it, let's move it back to the end and see what happens. And then if they don't, if they're not here we table. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO SPREAD APPROXIMATELY 5,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EXCAVATED WETLAND MATERIALS ON THREE SITES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND GALPIN BLVD, AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND POWERS BLVD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Name Address Bruce Mattson 2020 Crestview Scott Mezzenga 6731 Galpin Blvd. Steve Mironov 6605 Mulberry Circle East Denise St. John 6605 Mulberry Circle East Larry Kerber Bob Peterson Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: I have some questions. On each of the sites on Galpin, where exactly will this excavated land or the excavated wetland be spread on those properties? Hempel: I do have a couple aerial topography maps that shows the proposed location. Unfortunately they don't make very good copies. Essentially they are hillsides adjacent to the property. On Galpin's it kind of the back slope. Again it's a hillside or heavy rolling meadow area. There's no tree loss and no trees lost involved in this grading. It's all filling the wetland. Mancino: Okay. And the terrain, how will it alter the terrain? The topography. The natural topography. Hempel: It's not intended to alter the terrain more than a few feet. We're not showing any kind of large mound or stockpile areas. It's going to be blended into the hillside. Mancino: Okay. Do these homeowners, three homeowners get paid for this? Hempel: We are not intending on compensating any of the homeowners for this. This was done just merely to accomplish some filling on the property to make the land more useable 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 and to give the city an opportunity to dispose on a site near by the excavated area to reduce trucking costs, which are very expensive. Mancino: What happens when these homeowners, this is an assumption of mine so a question for you. When they go to subdivide and is this what you consider unstable soils so when they have to go in and do some soil corrections, is that going to be a problem in the future? Or if we want to widen Galpin Boulevard, is it close to Galpin and if they go in and subdivide in the future, will that be a problem for them with this excavated fill? Hempel: Those are very valid concerns. Both fill areas are nowhere near any future roadway extensions or widening projects. The fill material would be considered I believe unbuildable. Basically if it's topsoil, organic type material. If you start excavating though, the material may turn into a clay like and may become fill material that's qualified for structural. We don't know at this time until they actually start excavating. We assume that it's going to be an organic type material which you find in the wetlands. Farmakes: Site 2 has been used as a fill site for other projects, has it not? Hempel: I'm not sure. Site 2 is Scott Mezzenga's property. Mancino: That's on the corner of Lake Lucy and Galpin. Farmakes: I saw them dumping fill there over the year. Hempel: I believe there's some landscaping business operation there. I'm not certain. The property owner is here...could address that. The other site, Larry Kerber's site on the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard have had a grading permit in the past to do grading and filling on that property. Mancino: But do these homeowners know, I mean I'm assuming that they do. They know that this is a possibility that in the future if they go to subdivide, which I know the homeowners on the corner of Galpin and Lake Lucy will do in the immediate future, that it could present a problem for them, or an additional expense. Hempel: It may create additional grading for whoever, if they decide to build a home in that location. On the side of the slope though like that, it's possible it may be a back yard area. The homesite is not right at the peak of the slope. It's more in the down slope. One of the sites looks like there was an erosion area. Possibly a ravine that's being leveled off with the fill material. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: Okay. I just want to make sure that the city had gone over that with them and said, this is a possibility. Just so that an educational process has been part of the agreement on both parts so they're aware of it. Scott: Could I see that map? Mancino: I don't want to make a big deal about it. Hempel: A couple of the property owners are here this evening. Maybe they'd like to address that... Farmakes: Is 2 in the Lake Lucy watershed or Lot 3 and 4? Hempel: 4 would be in the Lake Lucy watershed. Or 3, I'm sorry. 2, 3 and 4. Farmakes: That lake has problems. Is this type of transfer of material going to create any problems for that lake? Hempel: No. We intend to revegetate immediately. Farmakes: ...problem? Usually that type of material that close... Hempel: Again, once we start excavating the material to determine what types are actually in there we would... again, with the weather conditions we have, the freezing and so forth. Farmakes: I know on 3 and 4...home on there. Ledvina: What's the depth of these fill materials to be in place? Do we know? Hempel: I believe we're just going to be spreading it out in a uniform basis. I don't believe it's going to exceed 2 to 3 feet. Ledvina: Okay. So that would reduce the concerns potentially of getting into foundations where you're placing foundations on these soils. Maybe for a walkout you might have that situation but for a standard look out or a basement you wouldn't have a concern then because the footings would be on native soils. Mancino: Would I want the silt in my garden? Ledvina: Yes. I would. I don't need 5,000 yards. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: Dave, my last question for you. When is the date that the event will terminate? That's one of the conditions. Hempel: That does depend on weather conditions. They intend on starting the project at the end of January. Depending on weather conditions, they hope to have it done, I would imagine, within 30 days. Mancino: Okay. So if we put a termination date in our recommendations of. Hempel: I would give it to say July 1st. Ledvina: Do we need that though? Just in case there's some delay. Mancino: Well it says, the standards for interim use permits are as follows and number 4 is the date of the event. Aanenson: We can always come back and ask for an extension if it's a problem. Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Any other questions or comments from commissioners? This is a public hearing so may I have a, is there anybody here who'd like to speak at the public hearing? Great. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Conrad moved, Halberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Public hearing is now open. If you'd like to speak, please step up and give us your name and your address and we'd like to hear what you have to say. Steve Mironov: My name's Steve Mironov. I own the property right behind Site 2. 6605 Mulberry Circle. I have a couple of questions concerning odor. Since this is done...very clay like material that's going to be coming from this site and what type of problems, or what type of remedy is there if there is an odor problem? And how long before a remedy would be... Scott: Well I don't have a clue. I'd have to. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The odors would be from the decay of materials deposited or the grasses and brush from the initial excavation and the peat or fibrous organic materials. That would subside or be eliminated once it's been revegetated with growth in the 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 spring. I wouldn't envision you'd have any kind of odor smell with snow cover until you'd have the spring meltdown. Steve Mironov: So the time that this is going to be happening this year currently at the end of January? Hempel: That's correct. Steve Mironov: And it would go for 30 days is the initial plan. Hempel: It's our intent to complete the project within 30 days, weather permitting. Steve Mironov: Okay...with the vegetation, how long does that procedure take and would that be started and...if there were odor problems, we'd have to rectify the situation. Hempel: Seeding dates on the project, we could dormant seed it right away after it's been leveled off yet this winter for spring germination or it could also wait, we could wait until the spring growing season which is about late April I believe. Steve Mironov: Okay. What type of revegetation...? Hempel: The seed mixture we use would be the standard MnDot 500 mix which is a mixture of grasses. Fast growing to revegetate the area. Steve Mironov: I'm not familiar with where the excavation material will be coming from but is that sort of like farmland? Is it something that will be tested at all before it goes to this site? Hempel: The excavated area is located right in the Carver Beach. Scott: Can you put that map up? Hempel: Area number 1 there located, Bob if you could point it out. Which is within a residential area. Is a wetland, wooded meadow land. It's not been farmed. It's a typical slew, wetland area. Steve Mironov: ...soil reports laid out. Hempel: If I could ask for, testing for what? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Steve Mironov: Well you know, whatever the normal... Hempel: We do not intend on testing any of it. We're not aware of any kind of buried hazardous material that would be there. If something would be exposed in the excavation, we would be obligated to test the material and notify the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Steve Mironov: Okay. It would at that point then... Hempel: That's correct. Steve Mironov: I've got a, the amount of material that's going to go into that site versus sites 3 and 4, is there any sort of position that's been thought? Is it 1/3 equal between the 3 sites? ...is that the assumption? Hempel: I guess we'd be working with the homeowner at their direction once they received enough material. If they were satisfied. Maybe the homeowners that are here tonight, they can address it... Harberts: But we're understanding that this was on a volunteer basis. Hempel: That's correct. Harberts: They're not made to accept this. Scott: No. Please, continue. Steve Mironov: I was just going to say the existing grade would pretty much...that's going to be a few inches higher. Hempel: It would be a couple feet, couple three feet higher than the existing grade. Steve Mironov: 3 feet higher. And how would that be leveled off towards the back of the property? The existing trees, how would they be affected? Hempel: There's no plans to remove any existing tree vegetation. The fill would be feathered into the existing slopes. Steve Mironov: Is there a way of knowing how far that would go in proportion to that property line? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Hempel: The drawings that I have here I guess do not show any filling very close to the property line. Ledvina: Just for a perspective. If you have 5,000 cubic yards and you spread it a foot thick, you've covered 3 acres. So I don't know if that helps. Steve Mironov: Well that helps a little bit but I'm just trying to get a perspective of where... Dave Hempel explained to Mr. Mironov the plan. Steve Mironov: Where would the, and this may be something that the property owners would have to let us know of, is where would the truck traffic be entering the site and where would it be... Hempel: The two access points I believe is Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. One would be off of Powers Boulevard where there's currently access to the site. The other would be from an existing road for access to be provided... Steve Mironov: Okay. The main concern I have was with the odor problem, and I don't know if there's anything that can be done to address that if there's problems. If I, as a homeowner speak to the property owner...where I have to go to voice my concern on that. Scott: I would guess, I'm thinking since the spring winds and summer winds are usually prevailing from the west and southwest, probably a little bit of an advantage there. But I believe that odors are considered to be a pollution, a form of pollution. I don't know, I know we have noise ordinances or nuisances. I would suppose that would fall under our nuisance ordinance which basically covers just about anything. Hopefully, I mean it sounds, at least to me anyways, that the City of Chanhassen is undertaking as much as they can do with grading, reseeding, and then doing the work in the winter time to minimize that. But as a citizen, what I would suggest, is if you have any other questions or if you determine that there is a problem, is just to call these folks. What we found with other residents, and I hope you do too, is that they're very reasonable individuals and they work for you so just keep that in mind. Steve Mironov: I know this is kind of a more of a subjective thing but where would that threshold be where it'd be considered a nuisance? Is this the right place to ask that question? Scott: Well I'm not an attorney. My guess is, at least for me, if it bothers me it's a nuisance. So that seems like a personal call. But hopefully it won't get to that point. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Steve Mironov: Okay, thanks. Scott: Well thank you very much for coming. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Sir. Please let us know who you are and let us know what's on your mind. Bob Peterson: I'm Bob Peterson. I live near site 2 and Larry, on Kerber, the owner of site 2 is here tonight and I don't know what to ask except that the questions may have been asked. I didn't hear. On site 2 I'd like to know how that filling will relate to the driveway that comes in past the barn house there? If that will throw more drainage towards that driveway. And the depth of the filling area is a curiosity to me. I didn't hear that. Can I get an idea of how much is to be filled so I can take a guess as to how a new drainfield is going to. Hempel: The drainage in all three sites will be maintained as it exists today. Bob Peterson: And what's the purpose for the fill? Just so the city can get rid of the stuff? Hempel: To get rid of it, and also to accommodate the homeowners to fill in portions of their property to utilize it for potential development. Bob Peterson: So it's an advantage to these homeowners to have their site's filled? Hempel: I'm assuming so or they probably wouldn't allow us to do it. Bob Peterson: Okay. Did you have a map there that you showed the other gentleman? Dave Hempel showed the map to Mr. Peterson. Scott: Good, thank you sir. Yes sir. Larry Kerber: Yeah, I'd just like to make a comment. Scott: Yeah, please step up so we can get you on tape and so the folks at home can see you. Larry Kerber: Yeah, my name's Larry Kerber. I own site 2 and they were getting a little carried away here but I don't know if anybody's figured out how much we're going to raise the grade. If they spread over all the area and gives me a third, it's going to raise the grade maybe 4 inches. If we spread it over the area they've got designated and I get one-third of the fill. So when you're dealing with a 4 acre piece like mine, like he made the comment before, how much it's going to raise and if you divide that by 3 people so you take the 12 and divide that by 3 and you get 4 inches. So as far as the odor thing goes, I've lived here a long 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 time and farmers spread manure all around and nobody did anything with that. I can't see we're going to have an odor problem or any problems with this. That's all the comments I have. Scott: Okay, thank you. Would anybody else like to make a comment? Yes sir. Bruce Mattson: Good evening. My name is Bruce Mattson. I live at 2020 Crestview Drive. It's north of some of the designated fill areas. A number of years ago, probably 12 to 15 years ago the city made an attempt to fill in a deep swampy ditch area that is adjacent to my property, right next to Galpin Boulevard. It has never been satisfactory and every time it rains, it remains water there for a week or two and although it's not my property, I do believe it's city property and I maintain it by mowing that and it makes it impossible to mow it. I thought this would be a good opportunity for the city to rectify that problem and fill in that additional and put in some black dirt over it and reseed. There's also a drain in place there which is higher than the other wetland where the water sits. The water can go nowhere because of the actual level of the property is lower than the drain that's in place. This just seems to me to be a very good opportunity to rectify that. Scott: Yeah. I think that'd be something that if you wanted to give Dave Hempel a call, because he's with the engineering department, and then he can help coordinate that. I mean if it's something that, if you guys think it makes sense, I mean these are the kinds of things that you know if we're going to have someone working in the area, we could take advantage of that. So I mean we appreciate you bringing that up. You can contact Dave Hempel at the city. Bruce Mattson: Okay, thanks very much. Scott: Sure. Thank you very much for coming by. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Halberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion caned. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments. Jeff. Farmakes: Support the staff recommendation. Scott: Ron. Nutting: Support the staff. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I do too. I just have one question for Dave. On recommendation number 7 about hours. Instead of saying to dark, because this may happen in the spring and in the summer, or until July 1st. Do you have any problem with saying 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.? Or 6:00, regular construction hours. Scott: Our noise ordinance time. Mancino: Yeah. So it's 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday. Thank you. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: No further comments. Scott: Ladd? Harberts: Zero. Scott: Okay, could I have a motion please? Mancino: Yes. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve Interim Use Permit #94- 3 as described herewith and shown on the attached figure subject to the following conditions, 1 thru 6 exactly as they are. 7 would read, working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday with no work occurring on holidays. And number 8 being that the termination date of this interim use permit to be July 1, 1995. Scott: Good. Can I have a second please? Farmakes: Second. Ledvina: Friendly amendment? Mancino: Sure. Ledvina: I would add a condition number 9 that the applicant advise property owners regarding the unstable properties of the fill material in relation to building construction. Mancino: Thank you. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Good. Any other friendly amendments? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #94-3 as described herewith and shown on the attached figures, subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained. 2. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to site grading and be maintained until the site is fully restored and removal is authorized by the city. 3. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District. 4. Since the applicant is the city, all fees associated with the permitting shall be waived. 5. Haul routes will be designed and approved by city staff. 6. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only. The city will be required to keep haul routes clean of dirt and mud, etc. Any damage to streets, curb or other public facilities shall be repaired by the city. 7. Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday, with no work occurring on holidays. 8. A termination date shall be set for July 1, 1995. 9. The applicant shall advise property owners regarding the unstable properties of the fill material in relation to building construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES $500.00 CASH ESCROW OR LEITER OF CREDIT TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED TO GUARANTEE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN'S EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Scott: I didn't see anything in here, is it part of the development agreement when certain events occur and the city goes in with a crew and puts the fence in and fixes the fence. What's the event? Is this something that maybe John Rask is involved with from a code enforcement standpoint? He visits a site, notices a, b, and c and then a work crew comes out and then the city draws against that letter of credit. Is that, it's not in the ordinance but is that something that those conditions would be in the development agreement? Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Okay. Any other? Aanenson: Yeah, let me just clarify that. Actually erosion control involves a lot of city time in the summer. You're aware we had the problem on Kurvers Point where we actually had sod wash into Lotus Lake and into people's garages and actually this eats up a lot of time in the building department. And then they have to go back out to recheck and they are so taxed as far as time and actually they actually use our forester, Jill to go out and inspect. Actually anybody that's out in the field. They're all obligated to, we take it upon ourselves to inspect erosion control. It's a really critical issue in the city when you've got a large subdivision underway and erosion control measures aren't up. And you have to monitor it daily because what happens is, there's constant deliveries onto a site and it's much easier for the person delivering the trusses, the shingles, to back over the erosion control and not put it back up. Then what happens is it turns around and the builder says, well I'm not there. I didn't know the delivery was made so what we're trying to do is, instead of trying to figure out who's problem it is, if the erosion's down, and we need to solve the problem immediately, we've got the money there to just go ahead and fix it. So everybody is involved in erosion control. Anybody that's out in the field takes upon that responsibility. Scott: So you can hire a subcontractor to go in and fix it or whatever you want to do. Aanenson: Yeah. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Is $500.00 enough? Hempel: We believe it is for each individual single family lot. For every permit. Harberts: Oh each family lot. Scott: Yeah, each building permit. Aanenson: It's not each subdivision. Now when you have one builder in an area and we seem to have a better control of it. Where you have a builder-developer. You have a little bit better control because there's a working relationship out there. Where we seem to have more problems is when you have individual builders going in because you lose a little bit of control. Scott: What about a situation where there's, well how many building permits would be issued let's say in a fourplex? One or four. Aanenson: There's four separate building permits but you've got one builder. Scott: Okay. Yeah, I was just thinking if it's a different type of a housing. Okay. Aanenson: Right. And again this goes back to what we're really trying to do, and adjacent to a wetlands is we're trying to preserve equality of the wetlands and our lakes. And when we don't have the erosion control up, it's running into the streets. It's running into the storm system and then we're back into the wetlands and it's very frustrating for the staff to go out there. We have all these conditions when the plat comes in. Everybody feels comfortable that yes, I'm going to do this. And then we're out in the field and it's not happening and we've tried, as Dave indicated, we looked at a lot of different options. We've spent a lot of time with the public safety and said, how do you think is the best way to handle it because we've put the burden on them because they're out in the field more. So we really feel like this gives us the immediate response to go out there and solve the problem. Scott: But is it enough? I mean is $750.00 a better number? $1,000.00. Aanenson: We think $500.00. Scott: Okay. Aanenson: What you're talking about is. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Well it's the time. Aanenson: Well the fencing and the haybales and the silt fence. Harberts: But you're just talking materials but are you incorporating the time? Hempel: Well right from the onset the developer and the builder is required to put up erosion control measures. The material's going to be on site. It's going to be up. It's for those times that the delivery truck knocks it down or subcontractor or something like that where it just needs to be replaced or if we go through the winter months here and it's totally obliterated next spring. Aanenson: Or the homeowner, we won't release it until the vegetation has taken place so like Dave indicated, sometimes that happens towards the winter and now you've got the homeowner in there and for some reason they take it down for site reasons, whatever but we need to make sure that the vegetation's established before we allow that to come down so sometimes as Dave said, it has to go through the winter. So maybe the builder's out of the picture. He doesn't want to take responsibility so then it still stays with that homeowner until vegetation's established. Harberts: Does the $500.00 deal with the fact about the developer being responsible for cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer? Does that get tied to that as well or is that considered separate? Hempel: We have a separate agreement that covers that. We have a maintenance bond. Aanenson: That's part of the development contract. Harberts: When does that, what is the cost of that? Hempel: For the total cost of the public improvements. Harberts: Oh it is, okay. Mancino: And how come that's a 2 year period? Hempel: We used to do 1 year and the defects would show up 2 years later typically in our clay like soils. Compaction and settlement. Plus the 2 years it takes to build out a subdivision typically is 2 to 3 years. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino: So is it 2 years after the subdivision is completed or, when does this start? Hempel: After acceptance of the street which is approximately a year after the utilities are accepted. A year after building permits have been started. Mancino: So do we need to put that in? When it starts. When the 2 year period actually starts. Hempel: That will be incorporated into the development contract. We have that language. Scott: And is there something that's required in an information source so that the homeowner understands that they can't remove the erosion control? Aanenson: Right. That's similar to how we have it right now. There's a letter that they have to sign. Whoever's taking out the building permit, that requires that they sign that they acknowledge that they have to plant at least one tree and that there has to be revegetation of all disturbed areas and they have to sign that letter and post the escrow. What we do then was modify this letter and explain that they also need to maintain the erosion control and how vegetation's established and released by the city. Scott: So the homeowner is going to be. Aanenson: Whoever takes out the building permit. Scott: Which may not be the homeowner in most cases. Aanenson: Right, yeah. Well sometimes the homeowner would still put the escrow up. But again, that's something, again if you have a builder such as Hans Hagen, Lundgren Bros, Centex, throwing any of those names out, they lots of times will put in a large escrow because they're taking out numerous permits and that's fine. They may release it to the homeowner. They may hold onto it themselves but then it's their ownership to make sure you know that it's revegetated so they can get their money back. Scott: Okay. Any other questions? Harberts: I guess my comment is that I think that the $500.00, if that's considered enough, that it should also be able to cover time as well as material, especially in the event that there's a irresponsible developer. So I guess I would like to see that the city have opportunity to collect on some time. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Ledvina: You mean staff time? Harberts: Yes. Nutting: Well you're saying right now that for the most part the materials are likely to be there. It's the time. Aanenson: Right. Nutting: But there are exceptions where materials will be needed because what was there... Conrad: So what's the intent, time and materials? Aanenson: That's what it covers, we believe it covers right now. Conrad: Time and materials? Aanenson: Yes, exactly. But I guess what Diane's saying, she wants to make sure that that's enough and we'll certainly revisit that before it goes to Council and make sure. Mancino: Make sure the developer knows that too. Conrad: Kate is this, excuse me Matt. Go ahead. Is this a significant penalty to a big developer? Is it a lot of money for them to escrow? Aanenson: Well we hear complaints that they think $250.00 is expensive for one tree and that $750.00's expensive for sod. I mean what you're looking at is a total now of $1,200.00. That's a pretty significant amount to put on, when you're coming in for a building permit,just to hold in escrow. Harberts: Per lot. Aanenson: Per lot. That's punitive. That's on top of everything else you've got to pay for when you come to pick up your permit. It's an important issue. I guess we don't want to make it heavy but we feel like this, it puts enough pressure on somebody to make sure that they get it done in a timely manner and that's really what we're trying to get. Is get it done in a timely manner. Scott: If it were working we wouldn't need the ordinance and it's not working. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Exactly. And you know we're really concerned about water quality and our wetland quality and we're having problems out there, especially when we've got these large subdivisions and you get a large segment that doesn't have any vegetation in it. One flash flood and you can have significant. Conrad: Is every house in that development equally liable for this kind of pollution problem? Typically one side of the development is close to the wetland so what we're doing is we've got a $500.00 penalty for every house. And again, I'm playing with the escrow amount. It's a lot of money and I support, I'd increase it $500.00 if I thought we needed it but on the other hand I guess it's a big penalty for a big developer. Aanenson: Yes it is. And the other thing too, even though you're not adjacent to the wetland, if your drainage goes into the street, what you're trying to do, still your front yard could wash into the street which goes into the storm system which eventually ends up somewhere too so. Harberts: We're putting our money where our mouth is. Aanenson: Yeah. Ledvina: Question for Dave. Does this apply to every building permit? Like if I'm building a deck. Mancino: Good question. Scott: Or commercial structure. Ledvina: Because if I'm Matt Ledvina and I'm putting a deck up and I've got a building and I'm not doing any erosion control, I certainly don't want to...another $500.00. Aanenson: Well you've got established vegetation too. Unless you're taking out existing vegetation, the same thing comes up when someone has trees. If they demonstrate, if they've got a wooded lot, we certainly don't take $250.00 because they've already met the criteria for the tree on their lot. So we evaluate that and that is a good point Matt and we certainly could look at if you're disturbing soils or not but that would be a criteria and that may be something we want to look at. Scott: What about a building permit for a commercial structure? Or building an addition or something that's pretty big. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Hempel: Those are typically handled with your site plan. Scott: Okay. So this is specifically residential. Okay. Ledvina: So would you add language to the ordinance? Aanenson: Yeah, I think that's a good point Matt. I think we should look at how much disturbing because really what we're trying is to get established vegetation. Now if it's an above grade deck, you probably would have minimal disturbance of vegetation and that may not be necessary so we should probably develop some criteria for that. That's a good point. Scott: Any other comments? Ledvina: On the ordinance, item (c). We're looking at to minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas, restoration of ground cover shall be provided within five (5) days after the completion of the grading operation. That's not enforceable. That's not going to happen. I don't know what the number is but I know that you're not going to have ground cover restored in 5 days. I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong but. Mancino: I thought if you seed or whatever it is supposed to be. Ledvina: Can someone expand on that? Because there's weather. There's. Aanenson: Actually we should probably modify that so it's more consistent to what we have in the ordinance right now. We do have something that gives you a window depending on the growing season. If you build within a certain timeframe, then you've got that growing season. If you pull a permit in the fall, you have until the next July to get vegetation so we should modify that so it's consistent with what we have right now for revegetation. Ledvina: You're putting in the incentive that the homeowner would want to revegetate as soon as possible so they can get their escrow released. So what this seems to be, I don't know where it's coming from but I don't know that it's enforceable. Aanenson: That's a good point. Scott: Could I have a motion then. Open the public hearing, I'm sorry. This is a public hearing and is there anyone here for the public hearing on this particular item? Seeing none, can I have a motion to open the public hearing please. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hewing was opened. Scott: Public hearing is now open. Let the record show that there is no people from the general public here to speak for this item so I would like to have a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: What? Scott: Would you like to issue a comment about the motion. Mancino: Oh, the upcoming motion. Scott: Comments. Or if you like. Mancino: Oh, oh. No, I'm sorry. I don't have any comments. Scott: Would any of you like to make any comments about this particular item? Farmakes: I support staff recommendation. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please. Conrad: I do have one comment. I would like to see a procedure developed that tells the developers how this works. If you're taking $500.00 out of their pocket, I think you need some kind of staff procedure that says, we will make one phone call or two phone calls and we will take. Aanenson: That's what we do right now with the sod. As they're getting close to that deadline, we send them a letter. We have a...and that's part of what John does and Jill does. Is they go out and inspect as we get close to that window and that's kind of how we handle this. We try to give them an opportunity to rectify it. If we go out there and we notice that it's down, we can certainly develop a procedure that says you need to get this up in 2 days or something. But the problem is, you need to get immediate response. If you tell somebody 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 you need to get a tree in in 30 days, that's not critical...flash flood. But I agree with you. We try not to be immediately punitive. Conrad: Well my point, I'm concerned that we're doing this because it says people aren't responding and we're taking ownership of the problem and we're going to penalize them so if the city's taking the job on, they should jump and I guess this may make them jump but literally if there's an erosion problem, you don't have 24 hours to solve it. I know construction a little bit and I know when a superintendent says, do something. The subcontractor's have to do something right then. So I'm a little bit bothered that we're not getting that response so. Aanenson: That's why we got to this point. Conrad: ...solution, that's okay but we're taking the responsibility away from somebody who should have it and they should be jumping. So I don't know that we have the right solution but if there's a problem out there, this is certainly going to financially take care of it but I guess I'm just assuming they're taking care of it within 24 hours Kate, and I'd be really disappointed. I'd close the job, I'd close it down. Seriously. And I think that's easy for me to say. Aanenson: We looked at that. Scott: It doesn't work though. Aanenson: We looked at citations but what you do when you start kicking in the police powers, it really, you're bringing a lot more people in and you're still not necessarily getting the problem solved. We looked at what is the easiest way, because really our goal is to get the problem solved. We want to stop the erosion. Scott: We have the money and you can do it. Aanenson: Yeah, otherwise they bring in their attorneys and. Conrad: So then the city's taking it over, you know. Scott: We're the people though, the city and the residents are the people that take it in the shorts in the long run with water quality so we might as well fund it and take care of it. Mancino: I agree with that process. There needs to be a standardized process. Scott: Well they'll need to know that here's the deal. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Ledvina: But there's a level of indifference that a contractor will have. If there were no dollars, it's not going to do it. If it's $200.00 they're going to say, well maybe I'll do it. If it's $500.00, they're going to say I'm going to be out there so I can get my $500.00 for the project and he'll do it right away. Scott: It gives them an option. Ledvina: It reinforces his motive to do the job right. Mancino: But I only think not only money but I also think time as we said before. There's only a 24 hour period or 12 hour period. If they don't react, then we move in and that's it. Conrad: I really want that detail and I obviously have different levels of problems so maybe this is a whole gray area but they've got to jump. Scott: We'll send that along to the Council. Aanenson: Yeah, I think what we can do too is when we get that, our form letter that they sign, run that past you so you can see what that procedure is but again, that's why we put the $750.00 in for the seeding because we found out people just weren't seeding. You get a homeowner in and they need drapes, they need this and they wait and wait and wait and unfortunately we had to put, and it is punitive to someone that buys a new home and has $750.00 sitting there. But what we found is, they'll put the seed in or put the sod in and that's really what our goal is. Scott: Can I have a motion please. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the, is this a new ordinance or is this a modification? Okay, amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding erosion control based on the staff report and the discussion that we've been having. Scott: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Scott: Any discussion? Mancino: I just want to make it real clear that not only the financial but the timeliness is as important to me as the financial part. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Okay. Is there any more discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance implementing an erosion control escrow be adopted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Let the record show that the applicant for public hearing item number 3 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 HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY). Scott: Let the record show that the applicant for public hearing item number 3, Good Value Homes, Autumn Ridge, is not in attendance. Therefore this item will be noticed for the next Planning Commission meeting? Is that, Kate is that what we'll do with that? Aanenson: I think what we should do is table, make a motion to table it because that other, the agenda for the next meeting's already been published so I think we'd want to table action on this. Scott: Okay, so the appropriate handling of this would be to make a motion to table. Aanenson: Correct. Harberts: Do we want to have some discussion first? I think Matt had some comments and I don't know if. Ledvina: We could do it outside of that, if you want. Aanenson: That'd be fine. Mancino: We do have someone in the audience. I don't know if you want to make comments. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Sure. Sir, would you like us to open up the public hearing. If you have comments you'd like to make for the record, we can certainly do that. Roger Schmidt: Not at all. I was just here for informational purposes. Just a quick question. This is being tabled and will be brought up at another time. Scott: Yes. Roger Schmidt: Will I get a notice of that? Scott: If you're an adjacent property owner. Roger Schmidt: Well I got one for tonight. Scott: Oh great, okay. You'll be noticed again. Aanenson: Well that's what I was going to say. If you table it, we wouldn't automatically renotice. That was the purpose of my telling you because it's already been. The agenda for the next meeting, your next meeting has already been published. Mancino: So it might not be for 2 meetings. Aanenson: No. You can table it until the next meeting so we wouldn't have to notice it in the paper but if you would like us, we could still notice everybody within 500 feet again so they would know but we would make it. Conrad: Maybe you should just get his name. Aanenson: Sure. Scott: You'll get a phone call from the Planning Director. Ledvina: So do you want us to continue or to table it? Roger Schmidt: It's on the sheet. But okay, so what is the schedule? Is it going to be for the next meeting then or? Scott: Will it fit? Mancino: Is the meeting long next time? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Yeah, actually the next few ones are. Yeah actually you've got two subdivisions and a site plan for next time. Conrad: What's our obligation for process? Aanenson: You have until March 2. Generous: Yeah, or April. Beginning of April. Ledvina: But don't they waive some of that with not being present this evening? Or whatever. I don't know. Harberts: Well then why don't we just delete it off the agenda because the applicant isn't here because the applicant isn't here because does the process start there or did the process already... Aanenson: Once they submit, once they have a complete application. Generous: They have the 120 days. However, you have 45 days from opening your public hearing to make a decision. Scott: Well we didn't open the public hearing. Aanenson: He didn't open the public hearing. Yeah, you're just going to motion to table. You never opened it. Harberts: So it's not going to be the next meeting, it's going to be the following meeting. Conrad: Then it will be listed. Aanenson: Exactly. It will be in the paper and there will be notices. Ledvina: I would make a motion that the Planning Commission table Case #93-5 PUD, Autumn Ridge. Harberts: Second. Ledvina moved, Harbeits seconded that the Planning Commission table Case #93-5 PUD, Autumn Ridge, due to the applicant not being in attendance. All voted in favor and the motion canied. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: Scott: Now last time we were talking about electing Chair and Vice Chair. If you would mind just telling me. I was not around when the interviews were going on. I mean are there candidates for the City Council. Aanenson: On Monday's meeting before the City Council, it's on your Administrative Presentation. The Council made a recommendation to wait until the new person is seated so then they'll probably set up a work session to decide if they want to interview incumbents or just the new people. So that decision hasn't been made yet so. Scott: So we really can't elect a Chair and Vice Chair. Aanenson: You're all on until such time that they make a decision. Harberts: Is there a staff recommendation? Aanenson: No, we don't make a recommendation. So it will be up to what the Council decides. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, would you mind serving? Scott: Not at all. Not at all. I mean I saw what happened to Batzli last time so. So basically about the only thing we can, I suppose we can talk about liaisons. Aanenson: Yeah, we can adopt the By-laws though too. Scott: Okay. Did everybody have a chance to read the By-laws? Conrad: Yeah. Are they new? Aanenson: They're the ones we adopted last year. Conrad: Were they? Scott: I was quite interested to see that Section 7-2, the commission may suspend any of these rules by unanimous vote of the members present. So if Ron and Jeff happen to come and there's not a quorum, they can suspend that rule and still vote. There's a section in here that says a quorum is 4 but. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Farmakes: I believe it's referred to as the DFL Rule. Scott: Thank you very much. So I mean I thought that was interesting because I was under the assumption that we couldn't do anything. Ledvina: You can't have a vote unless they have a quorum so. Scott: But they can do everything except the vote then. I mean that would be pretty unusual but. Conrad: You can meet but you can't vote. Scott: But I'm saying, if that is a rule, that can be suspended... Mancino: I've got one so I want to talk about that 1.2. Preparing a comprehensive plan for future development amendment. One of the things, are we still talking about, what are we talking about? Scott: We're talking about By-laws. Aanenson: You're kind of required to adopt, review and adopt them every year so since this is the first meeting... Scott: Yeah, at this meeting. You are correct. So has everybody. Mancino: I move that we adopt the present By-laws. Harberts: With the addition that they're made in a gender neutral. Scott: Yes, thank you. Ledvina: That was mentioned last year too. Mancino: And in 2.2-C it says his. Scott: So Chairman will become Chairperson and in it's absence. Mancino: The pronouns, they're all generic or male. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Okay, can we genersize that. We'll neuter the English language here a little bit. But I think that sets up a point. That's a point well taken and since you're going to be Chairman next year, you'll be a Chairperson. Ledvina: How sacred is the 7:30 meeting time? I'd like to start at 7:00. I mean that doesn't jive with everybody else. What does the Park and Rec do, 7:30? Aanenson: I'm not sure. I can check on that. Scott: Yeah, what do you guys think? Ledvina: I like 7:00. Scott: I could go for that. (There was a change of tapes at this point in the discussion.) Conrad: ...but really, there really shouldn't be dialogue amongst us, and we do it all the time. We have a consensus, we draft our motions together. Now there's some real good things that come out of that. I think we come up with some decent motions but, and Mr.Chairman this is your call on this so you're the one that either enforces this or relaxes it but I think it's just good to review the rules because we really don't follow them. And especially (f) and (g). And literally a developer or an applicant can call us for, they could take us to court on those because we are not following the guideline. They won't. Typically they won't do it for this but I just think it's a good thing to note, and Mr. Chairman you're the one that makes it happen or loosens it or tightens it or whatever. Scott: That's why I'm real tight on (g) but then on (f) is the one where we're. Conrad: Again it's control. It really does give you control. Scott: Yeah I think there's a time when we're issuing our comments prior to having a motion where there's some good dialogue but I think if there's someone who is, like someone who's speaking and then there's comments going back and forth and it gets kind of distracted but otherwise I read through this stuff before I started running the meetings and what I, at least my attitude has always been we, there are developers who have been to Planning Commission meetings before so they are always expected to toe the mark and when the public hearing is closed, I mean sure there's plenty of times we've seen it and maybe I was a little bit crass but the public hearing is closed with them. That's it. With members of the general public I've tended to be a little bit more, I'll give them a little bit more leeway because a lot of these 50 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 people have never been to a thing like this and I'm trying to make the process user friendly. But anyway, the next chairperson needs to review these and interpret them as tightly as they see appropriate. Are there any other comments on the By-laws or any suggestions for their interpretation? Then, let's vote on the motion as amended. All those in favor of accepting the By-laws as amended, signify by saying aye. Mancino moved, Harbeits seconded that the Planning Commission approve the By-Laws as amended to make the document gender neutral and to change the meeting times to begin at 7:00 p.m. and end at 10:30 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: They're accepted and if you could give me a redrafted copy and then whoever the Chairperson is. Aanenson: Yeah, we'll give everybody a redrafted copy. Scott: And Diane, you've got the meeting on the 9th. Let's see what else. Nutting: Are we supposed to receive the full packet or just the agenda? Aanenson: Whoever is the liaison should get the full packet. It's been going to the Chairman but really what it should do is it should go to the liaison. And for some reason that got screwed up but at the first of the year we will change that. The Chairman should get a copy of the agenda but the person going to the meeting should be the one that has the reports. Ledvina: They put me on the spot and I didn't have a copy of the stuff and I didn't remember exactly what transpired. It was a very convoluted motion that was made, as sometimes occurs, and yeah. I didn't have the stuff to review and I felt like a dope. Here I'm standing up there and no, that wasn't what you said. That's not what it was like so I really, if I'm going to be at a Council meeting, I want to have the stuff. Scott: And I think we'd all agree that we want to rotate. Aanenson: Yeah, I put a list back. If you have a problem with that meeting, we'll post this list so the secretary doing the City Council agenda gets the agenda to the right person but if you do have a problem making that, if you'll let us know before the packet goes out, we'll make sure that we can get it to somebody else. Scott: That idea of not having a Planning Commission meeting around the 4th of July, like holidays, is a great idea because that's the only one I miss. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Let's just eliminate it. Aanenson: Right, well that's what my question was. Because I think it'd be very difficult with the next day being the 4th to get, or the day before getting a quorum so. Farmakes: I have a question. We've discussed in the past of making...some of the time consuming things that take place. One of them that seems to be reoccurring, if there's a disagreement with staff in the report and developers coming in and going down 30 points of order and get into a 2 hour...at the same time they're to cut compromise in a specific point made by staff. I would prefer that if they have to deal with...that you as the Chair to cut them off. Ask them to deal with that compromise and allow staff to respond in our packet rather than in an open meeting as to what they can live with, what they can't live with. The reason being is we're not able to get staffs input often in that forum. Aanenson: That's our objective... Scott: And then when documents are presented at the meeting. And I think that that's something that if they're presented to you, I mean you guys can, and should say well if you'd like these to be included in the packet then we'll just move your item back to the next available spot. If this is not important, then we won't talk about it. Aanenson: And it's happened too when we haven't gotten information and you have and I think that's, it's hard for us to always interrupt but we feel really comfortable if you stop the meeting and ask us, have you seen a copy. Do you have comments? I mean that's what we're here for and if we say no. We'd like to have time to review this, then I think as Jeff indicated, that maybe you say we need to table it to resolve it. Scott: Or if something comes up, because it's very easy for me or someone else to assume that maybe you have the information. So also too, if you see something happening then say excuse me, we don't have that information. We would like you to consider tabling this item so that we can work with the applicant and I'm sure we would go, oh. Okay great, let's do it. Mancino: Well and there's a third party involved in this. Not only the applicant and us but there is also the concerned citizens who may live adjacent to the property and they've done, looked through and done all their work preparing for it and then all of a sudden the applicant comes with new information and that is very premeditated and it happens all the time. And then the concerned homeowners, landowners don't have that knowledge and so they can't come prepared. So it's not only us. It's not only staff. It's also our neighbors. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Farmakes: I think if we hold to our guns on that, it happens over and over again with a few developers and I think the problem... Mancino: Well it's certainly a strategy that is used. Aanenson: Yes. So does everybody understand about the binders? That was one of the other issues on this one. Scott: Oh yes. Good idea. Aanenson: I don't know if you were here during that part Jeff but you just leave your binders here and then we'll refill them. Now if you miss a meeting, if you want to drop the binder off, fine. If you can't get it, if you're out of town for a week or something and you can't drop the binder off, we'll just go ahead and send the packet without the binder and you can just put it in. We hope this is a little bit, we won't put the staples in next time so it's a little bit easier. I know the suggestion about the tabs, we'll try to do that too, so I hope that's a helpful way for you. Mancino: So if we want to take something, like the reports on transition, we should take that out tonight? Aanenson: Yep. Take it out tonight and then just leave the binder here. Anything you want to take is your's. Go ahead. Scott: Okay, any other organizational items that we need to speak about? Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Nutting: Joe, on page 46. It indicates that you and Ladd opposed the motion and it carried 4 to 2. I recall that I opposed the motion. I question whether it was really 4 to 3 here or were you in favor of that motion. I opposed it. I guess that's. Scott: I didn't oppose the motion so. Aanenson: Right, it was the other way around. Scott: So it should be Nutting and Conrad. So thank you. So let the Planning Commission meeting Minutes dated December 7, 1994, page 46 in the Harberts motion with that change to 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Nutting who opposed the motion along with Conrad and Scott voted in favor of the motion. Thank you. Any other comments? Harberts: I would feel more comfortable Joe noting the Minutes rather than approving the Minutes. I don't read them that thoroughly in terms of catching everything and what I'm afraid of is because it's public record, that someone might be able to come back and say well see. It was approved. The Minutes were approved versus if it was noted. That's just my comment. Scott: Well I know that's not something that's dealt with in our By-laws. Aanenson: We can get a clarification on that. Scott: Sure. What does approval constitute. Aanenson: Yeah, what the legal implication is. Harberts: Yeah, that's just it. Scott: Well then we will say that they're here. Ledvina: Or you can abstain. Harberts: Well and I will but it's on all the Minutes because I, as part of my daily job I have to, we count on the Minutes as public record and position. And I have to make sure that they are correct so that's why I'm just uncomfortable. It's just a comment. Nutting: I didn't read everything. I just skimmed it. Ledvina: Well no, I mean if you go through the motions and make sure that the motions are right anyway. Mancino: But you can sometimes though, with public record like that, in terms of what the intent was during the discussion. I mean we've moved state laws. Changed them because of the intent of committee hearings that happened 10 years ago. Ledvina: Well there a lot of things that are missed in the Minutes too so then if you get into that. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Conrad: We used to spend hours on that kind of stuff then we went to noting them. No lie. But I guess it would be nice to hear back what the legal implications are. I think I agree with Diane but I don't know why. Harberts: Well I'm just looking at my procedures and...so you have a motion on the floor. Nutting moved, Scott seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 7, 1994 as amended on page 7 changing the vote to Nutting who opposed instead of Scott. All voted in favor, except Halberts who abstained, and the motion carred. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: Okay, this goes back to the last meeting on December 12th. They approved a metes and bounds subdivision on Orchard Lane, which is adjacent to Highway 7 Minnewashta Park area. A one lot split. They reviewed the concept plan for Tower Heights and they concurred with the Planning Commission and continue with litigation and not consider the proposal. They also approved the Delwiche Addition, which you reviewed, on Pipewood Curve. A portion of the lot was in Victoria and a one lot split. And then they recommended approval of the sign ordinance so that was exciting. Ledvina: Much kudos to the Planning Commission and the Chamber for all the work that was done. Aanenson: Yes. The Council really appreciated all the work, because you guys did spend a lot of time. And I appreciate it. Staff, we all appreciated the extra work that you did and spending the time. There were just a couple of comments of clarification that we made so they'll be after the second meeting on the 9th and then once it's published, we have the new sign ordinance in place so that's pretty exciting. Scott: Okay. And then the goals and ongoing issue. Aanenson: Yeah, I had some ongoing issues I just wanted to run past you. In the previous packets I'd kind of gotten away this, what we had put in the back of the agenda ongoing issues just to kind of give you what the issues are and where the updates so we're going to go back to that. Now that we're at the end of the year and we've kind of laid out, if you remember back in October, I believe I wasn't here that week and the meeting went very late. I had put out in a memo to you and I don't think you got to it. I hope you had a chance to read it. Some of the projects I had proposed as part of the budgetary for the City Council so what I've done here is kind of outline those for you and kind of tell you where we're at but this is kind of what I see as kind of the big work schedule that we'll be undertaking on the 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Highway 5. Those of you that weren't here at 6:30 we do have the EA hearing set for the January 23rd City Council meeting so we'll finally get the determination on whether the road goes to north or south. After that determination, then we'll go through and look at the land use recommendations and start that process. So that will be kind of the early part of the year we'll be working on that. We are undertaking the 1995 study area. The northern, or the portion adjacent to Highway 5 we've kind of already looked at. The alternatives based on the road alternative but we committed to do the business fringe district. What that really means is what's left, you've got Halla. There isn't a lot inbetween so really what we're looking at is the rest of the city. What we're doing is putting it in, in conjunction with what the Park and Recreation Commission is looking at and they're trying to block out some areas that are natural resources. Some park areas that they want to preserve before we even look at development issues so that will be kind of the first component. But what we'll be doing then is how we see this being laid out. The framework will be to look at what the possible land uses should be and then consider MUSA. So that's really a two prong thing. We don't anticipate bringing any areas into the MUSA this year. What we really are looking at is looking at potential land uses and get some recommendations and then have the neighborhood hearing process and then go through the Met Council. So that could be a 2 to 3 year process. Harberts: But when you talk about bringing it into the city MUSA line, what you're doing is asking the Met Council to expand the MUSA area. Aanenson: Absolutely. But what they're saying, we're not looking at for at least a year, to 2, 3 years down the road. So we've got plenty of development issues. Plenty of things we need to get controls on first. And then one of the other things we're looking at is the slope protection ordinance. We've turned this over to the City Attorney's office. We've given them some research. They're doing some additional research and we hope to have an ordinance on that shortly. Come back with that. Ledvina: In addition to the bluff ordinance? Aanenson: Yes. What we found with the Ryan plat is that there are areas that have unique topography that really don't fall within the bluff protection area and is there another way that we can define slope or preservation of natural features that has some definitive terms instead of just saying natural features. Define further between bluff and slope and that sort of thing. We may find that may not work but what we're trying to do is put an ordinance forward and kind of see how it flies. Again we're out there where there isn't a lot of other cities that have something like this so we're kind of, again we're kind of out ahead of everybody but we've got some creative ideas and we'll just have to test the waters and see how they work. Kind of what we do with the tree ordinance. We kind of came with 2 or 3 different models and actually I think we've got something that's pretty unique and pretty workable. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: You know what would really be helpful too is then to say, okay this is the new slope section of the bluff ordinance. This piece of property right here on the corner of such and such, here's the thing and then we can say, oh. We can see like a physical. That's one of the things I didn't do with the bluff one and I had a little big of trouble understanding... Aanenson: Right, I think with this we're going to have to do some diagrams because what's going to happen is we have some dialogue and applications on how that's going to work, absolutely. Scott: Yeah. And then just apply it to a piece of property that has something we want to preserve... Aanenson: Right, that's kind of testing the waters. You'll have to apply it. Scott: Then we'll have a test case, okay. Aanenson: So one of the things we were looking at as far as that goes is, I found an article where they did for scenic easements along highways and what they said is, you put a density factor in and they're based on slopes. So what you're doing is kind of to stay away from the slope, you force the density into a different category. Again it gets us back to making larger lots. So you may not be able to say x slope. That may not work but you may come in in a different direction and say when you have slopes on there, then you need to do a PUD or you need to do larger lots. Yeah, density transfer. So it may end up to be something like that so we're kind of coming at it with a couple different approaches and we'll just have to work through it like we did the sign ordinance and say does this make sense. What happens if we do this. Scott: Which kind of comes back to something you and I have discussed is what, we need to do two things. We need to gain control so that we can have control of the way the building's going to look. The way the architectural standards and so forth. But then again, in order to gain that control, what we need to do is we need to offer the developer more flexibility so that it's more of a negotiation. Which kind of brings me to the point of making more use of the PUD because if you make more use of the PUD, bluffs can be taken care of and slopes and building materials and so forth. Aanenson: Which brings us up to the next one and Bob and I have had problems with the PUD ordinance. As you know we haven't used it too much since I've been Director and the problem is, when we did the Bluff Creek study, it became very apparent that everything that we're doing to the PUD ordinance were required anyway. I mean we're saying we're getting tree preservation. Well we require tree preservation anyway. Well we're getting slope 57 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 preservation. Well we require that anyway. So what we're saying is we need to revisit the PUD ordinance and say it should be a process. Okay. It shouldn't be a zone. We already have the zoning in place and the standards in place but what it is is a process. So you really are getting higher quality because we're not right now. All we're doing is giving them different lot sizes. I'm not sure we're getting anything for it. Mancino: We're giving them variances. Aanenson: Exactly. That's what we're giving them and we're not getting anything that we wouldn't require in a normal subdivision process so I've been uncomfortable. Scott: Because then once again that kind of defeats the purpose of planning. If you're micro managing lots, you're not looking at, not only are you not looking at the development as a whole but then when you're focusing on lots, it's also you kind of forget. Well what about these people who live on the other side of the property line. Aanenson: The only thing we are getting in some projects is architectural control. But under a standard subdivision, we don't normally look at architectural control because each, generally each home is different in a normal subdivision. Each homeowner picks a different type design. Now we know that we do have projects that come in and they're all the same. You may have a townhouse project or some other duplex type where they are similar. But you can't, you know we want to change that process so Bob and I have some good approaches to that so we'll be working on that right away too. Mancino: Actually I thought that some of the material that you gave us for the transition was very good about open space and PUD's and in multi-family areas, etc. Aanenson: We're giving them the variances but we're not requiring the open space and shame on us for not doing that. Mancino: Kate, when did the bluff ordinance pass City Council? Did it? Aanenson: Oh yeah. But that's only 25%. But what I'm saying is there are areas that don't meet that but they're still maybe unique. Mancino: And the new slope ordinance would be retroactive for all preliminary plats? Aanenson: Well we're hoping to get it, again because there isn't a lot of literature out there, it's kind of hard to try and draft one because we're out there kind of by ourselves so we'll try to get something right away. The next thing we'll be working on is the Bluff Creek study. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Diane is going to the City Council on Monday to, we're going to take some of our seed money, it's a small amount from the storm water plan and we're going to leverage the Watershed District, the DNR and Met Council to get some additional money and we're hoping to get someone hired. They may not be working in this building but they would be working on the study. And again it ties into the natural features. Kind of what we did with the Bill Morrish study. Trying to enhance the quality of the wetlands. So we think that's going to be at least a 1 to 2 year project too. And then the last thing is a joint meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission. As you know they're going forward trying to do, looking at a bond referendum to acquire properties and this also ties into what we're looking at as far as future land uses outside the MUSA. So as soon as you would like to meet, they do have a meeting, a town meeting on kind of the park issues set for February 7th. But I think it'd be a good opportunity for the Park and the Planning Commission to meet to kind of get a common basis of issues that they're looking at. As I indicated earlier, Todd's really been doing a great job as far as trying to acquire natural features on some of the projects that we've had in. Heritage most recently. Treed areas there. Ledvina: What... Aanenson: That goes to the Council on Monday. We thought we had concurrence with the developer but now it looks like we may not. I guess we'll find out Monday night. We want the 3 acres. They want, it's the amount of compensation too I think. I think that's kind of what's coming down is how much they compensate us. So hopefully we'll get something. But anyway, if you want to pick a date. If you want to come to one of their regular meetings or if you're flexible, I'll try to work something out with Todd. Let him know for the next Planning Commission meeting. Nutting: When do they normally meet? Aanenson: I believe, fourth Tuesday. Scott: Yeah, I think since we're kind of visiting, maybe we should piggyback on one of their meetings. Aanenson: That would be the 24th. Scott: Of? Aanenson: January. Harberts: Is it the 24th or 26th? 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: It'd be the 24th. Harberts: I have a commission meeting so I won't be here. Aanenson: We'll try to shoot for the 24th and then if that changes, I'll let you know. We'll try to maybe get this taken care of at the beginning of the agenda. I'm not sure what other action... Harberts: Doesn't HRA meet that day too? Aanenson: No... Ledvina: Third Thursday. Scott: Speaking of the HRA, what sort of headway has been made on the facelift for the Filly's and the bowling upgrade and Chez Pauly's and all that stuff? Aanenson: I think they're kind of revisiting the facade issue and they may go with something different. So if they do that, they'll be back before you certainly. Harberts: I have a couple of comments too Kate, on your priority with Council. What is the position of the Council with regard to some regional issues as it deals with clustering more density in terms of development and also affordable housing? Aanenson: There's a lot of ongoing issues that I didn't put in here and that's our relationship with you know Southwest Metro. There's our relationship with the Southwest Coalition. Affordable housing. Senior housing. I didn't put all those issues. These are kind of specific, kind of comprehensive plan issues. If you want me to put those in there, but I didn't address all of those but there are a lot of other ongoing issues. We also still are actively involved in environmental issues as far as working with the county on, I was working on the collective waste. Generous: Organized collection. Aanenson: Organized collection. And what we're doing with hazardous waste and those sorts of things. So those are kind of ongoing things that we do. But I guess what this really was more kind of comprehensive plan sort of issues. But affordable housing may fall into that. We are working on that. The City Manager and myself have met with, and we're trying to get some projects going on that so. And the senior housing project, as you're aware, we're trying to, you'll see that project. Not the project itself but the density transfer will be on your 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 next Planning Commission meeting. On the Oak Hills/Oak Ponds. As you recall, the property adjacent to Saddlebrook was the rental property. What they're going to do now is change the density allocation and come in with all owner/occupied and they're going to reduce the density on that. Do the density transfer over to 70 units for the senior housing. So we'll have the same number of units. It will just be transferred to the senior housing and then lowered on the other side. Scott: And it's like a multi, you're saying like a 3 story. Aanenson: Yes. So you won't be doing the site plan review but you'll be looking at the density transfer and site plan review only on the townhouse project. Scott: Okay. When is the neighborhood meeting...that's going to be. Talk about yelling and screaming. Aanenson: Yes. What we're trying to do with that then is, obviously the density transfer is going to, we'll know whether or not the senior, if they don't want to approve the density transfer, and the Council doesn't approve it, then it pretty much kills the senior housing project. Scott: Why did that change? I mean I don't know where I read this or head it but was there some sort of a financial difficulty in putting the deal together for that property as it was proposed? Because that's a pretty radical change from what the neighbors were sold across the pond. From maybe 1 or 2 story single family or rental property to a 3 story. Aanenson: Well actually it's going to sit up quite a bit higher and then that's part of the issue is to work out a design acceptable with the neighbors so that's part of the process that, while we're not doing the site plan. We're not at that point yet. That's when you bring the neighbors and try to look at, maybe you step the building back or try to reduce the scale through a design. Scott: Who's the applicant going to be on that, City of Chanhassen? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: Okay. Well I would be really careful about not falling into the same mode of operation as some of our friendly developers are when they're kind of, I mean you're going to have to get the neighbors involved right away. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Well that's part of the reasons why for next week, if you're transferring the density and if the density, and we're approving that for 70 units of senior housing. Now if that's unacceptable when it goes through this process and the City Council, then we don't transfer the density and it stays the way it is currently. Scott: Well as long as it's an early, early public hearing. Aanenson: The neighbors we had a meeting a couple of months ago and the neighbors were informed and invited to that to hear a presentation about the senior housing project to get some ideas. Scott: How was it attended? Aanenson: Very well attended and they have legitimate concerns about the scale and that's why we're saying we're going to meet with them to review and try to work closely with the neighbors. Mancino: A question. I'm not sure I could make a decision on density transfer without seeing the site plan. Aanenson: We do have some typical models and I guess we can show those in part and parcel. Harberts: I'd like to be involved from Southwest Metro's perspective because transit's going to be a big element for that and with our new buses, we need to make sure that we've got enough. Aanenson: We can talk about that at a cursory level. Just kind of show you what we're looking at as far as that. And there is a scaled model that we do have here and try to give you an idea of what it could look like. That's certainly again a legitimate issue. We're not ready to go forward with the specific model yet but if you're uncomfortable that may be an issue that you want to see them both together. He's ready to go with the rest of the project and the other one, the senior housing one is not quite at the same stage so I understand what your concern is. Conrad: Vision 2002. In terms of our plans. Is there any implications for us this year? Aanenson: Implementing any of that? Conrad: Yeah. Taking what is decided and. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Aanenson: Did you all get a copy of the results of that? Scott: The survey? Aanenson: The survey. Mancino: I did because I was at the meeting. Scott: I could talk about that for a while. I'm not a marketing research expert but I know enough about it that I would, I don't think I'm going to be too far out of line saying that was pretty bogus. The way the questions were asked and the whole thing that was the most bogus thing about it was, would you approve this. Yeah. If you have to pay for it. No. And then that was misinterpreted. Misrepresented and the Villager was the worst. So I mean that was, I was very upset about that. And I think from the giggles of the other folks who have experience in the advertising biz, I don't think I'm. Conrad: Well what's the process? I guess I'm real curious about the process. It's been done. It's been paid for. Aanenson: You know it's outside of kind of our arena. It was really done through administration so I'll find out if there's some implementation things that we need to look at. There was some land use recommendations on it... Conrad: And I may disagree with some of the things that came out in the study but that doesn't matter. I think the issue is, are there anything that we should lay the ground work for right now. And to make sure it happens. I don't know who's going to make sure things happen. Aanenson: Well Ladd maybe the best thing to do is just have Fred come and just do the whole summary presentation of what. Conrad: That's a real good idea. Let's bring him in. Aanenson: And kind of the conclusions that he had and where we're going. Conrad: Without harassing him. Just hear what he's got to say. Mancino: ...for everybody to look at the survey questions and see the information because we need to do quantitative research. The whole thing is built on the survey questions. On how they're asked, etc. Whether they lead. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: Is there a plan for a community center too? Aanenson: Is there a zoning? Harberts: Is there any planning being done for a community center? Aanenson: Yes. That was one of the recommendations of the Vision 2002. Harberts: But is the planning being done now? I know it was a recommendation but there was a comment made once that was of interest to me by a Council member that said that the community center would be done by next April or something like that. And I just thought whoa, what? Aanenson: No. Not to my knowledge. Harberts: They don't have any funding in terms of, they'd have to go for a bond referendum or something like that. Farmakes: Somebody take this stake out again. Harberts: I don't know, this is just what I heard. Aanenson: No, there was a provision for that as a land use in the plan. Harberts: But there isn't any active planning. Aanenson: Not to my knowledge, no. Harberts: Or financing the HRA or anybody. Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. Ledvina: What about the project to rehab the bowling with the... Aanenson: That's the one. It's my understanding, the status of that is they're rethinking the facade and they may go with something completely different so honestly I have no idea until I see it again. We only looked at it as a conceptual thing. It has no standing so. Farmakes: I heard from our State Representative and our State Senator that the issue of affordable housing will be a contentious issue as the legislative session gets started here. Is it 64 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 the intention of the city to continue developing their own attitude towards that exclusive of the... It's rather baffling to me as you look at the subject matter, it doesn't seem, as I said that you can find a solution to the problem until you define the problem. It seems like there's several definitions for this problem depending on who you talk to... Mancino: Well there's no question that we went to the, was it low income housing seminar that the Metropolitan Council. When we go in 1995 or 1996 to extend the MUSA line, no question. They're going to come back and the Met Council, the speaker said in no unquestionable terms. Now, one of the things for us to look at, as the city wants to expand the TIF districts. Looking at those districts right away and seeing if those will hold affordable housing because that's the only way it could be done right now. Harberts: But TIF dollars, can they be done for affordable housing? I thought TIF dollars... Mancino: That's what they did in Edina. Edenborough Park, etc. Harberts: But those are all TIF. Scott: There was actually some private and public monies and then there's a real unusual kind of a sale, lease back. Yeah so I mean it's a hybrid but that's about the only way that's going to be done. Aanenson: But that is something certainly that's on our work load and we are looking at it so we are working with some people and trying to come forward with some sites. And even private developers to try and give them some incentive to try something creative. Harberts: Well when I think though what's to our advantage is that there isn't a clear cut definition on what affordable housing is so it would be real easy for us to define it in our own terms rather than wait for somebody... Aanenson: Well what the Met Council is trying to look at is they're trying to call it life cycle housing is really what they're looking at. And that's part of the senior housing. We do have a demand for senior housing here. So you'd have entry level housing. You have upscale housing. So that's kind of what the term that they're using now...correct term is life cycle housing. And what they're looking at when you come in for the MUSA line is that you demonstrate you have that life cycle housing. The rental. When you're first out of school or your first job and then you move your way up. Harberts: Can we annex Carver or something and mitigate out there? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Farmakes: One of the things that it seems to me that we're seeing is sort of the direction that's very similar to the group home situation. And it will, I see that as how it's being engineered by some people in St. Paul. I am wondering how much the residents of the city are going to be involved in the process. Aanenson: Well you have to realize too, we already have something in our comp plan that says, we have a goal to provide a mix and varied housing. We've already adopted that and that was. Farmakes: We had to...mixed affordable housing is. Aanenson: Well I think it's defined in the code. I think the problem is we always look the other way. As it was indicated, you know we have all these densities. We've had high density in the city for a number of years. It just so happens that financially it's difficult to come in with that density. For whatever. To get mortgages, for the tax implications and those sort of things. We can't affect the market. I mean if the market's not there, if the zoning's there, there's nothing we can do I mean to make a developer come in and try to make a profit if it's not there. But we do have a goal to try to provide that and what we've seen, when someone comes in at the zoning, it seems like unless we beat them up and make them drop a few and come under, then we're not happy. Because every project that we've had come in is always under the density. And maybe that's good, if it's for environmental reasons, whatever. I don't know. Maybe it makes sense. Maybe it doesn't. But even on Lake Susan, that was always. That was a PUD. When that was thought of back in 1987, there was some thought that along this collector where it was topographically separated from the rest, that this may be an appropriate area to have some higher densities. Now when they came in, they were way under what we originally thought back in 1987 and we still had to beat them up a little bit to drop some things. Yeah, we got a good quality design but they could have been a different type of product and they still would have met the density requirements. Farmakes: But if you're dealing with issues real estate stability, which is one thing that's market driven. And it depends on market conditions. And you're dealing with another issue of social engineering and politics, which is a different goal altogether. You're going to get certainly in two different directions. Scott: There's also an interesting development that's going on in Eagan where someone, a developer wanted to put in some affordable housing and the Eagan Planning Commission nixed it and then Dakota County is in the process of suing. Aanenson: No, Dakota County HRA was the developer. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Scott: Okay. And then now the county is suing the city to build the, so I mean our politics perhaps are a little bit different in this county but I think that does underscore the, I mean we are way out in front on a lot of other areas. Harberts: But affordable housing doesn't necessarily mean clustering low income in terms of however you want to. I think there's different processes or procedures or opportunities in terms of how you reach the goal. Aanenson: Well this is something, Nancy brought this up a long time ago and we still need to see this somewhere in the city, is that we have small lots and that's again going back to our PUD. We all got hung up on this 11,000. We can't have anybody on a lot less than 11,000 or something terrible's going to happen but why can't we have single family detached on small lots somewhere in the city that are affordable? I think there's appropriate places. Harberts: And it could be intertwined with larger lots. Aanenson: And a PUD with cluster development. Scott: Because see that's the thing I like about a PUD is that first of all, anytime you're doing something that is anti-market, you're asking for trouble. The great thing about a PUD is that you can say okay, here's a mix of housing Mr. or Ms. Developer. We'll give you extra density over here... Aanenson: But the standards we applied didn't work because we said they have to average 15 and you can't go less than 11. Well what we end up with, we end up with the same vanilla subdivision where we allowed some of the lots and we didn't get anything for it. So that's what we're saying under the PUD. I think we need to go back and revisit that so we can be a little bit more creative and get something because I think there is some great sites to do some small lots. Single family detached housing. Affordable housing. Conrad: We should explore that. Smaller lot is the solution? I don't think that's the solution. Scott: Zero lot line. Conrad: That's part of our economic deal but boy, that's certainly a long way from affordable housing. Aanenson: But you have to make sure that you get affordable housing. What happens sometimes is you get someone that puts a huge house on a small lot. Well that's what happens with the 11,000. We're not getting, we're getting big homes on those small lots. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Conrad: Good subject. We should lead the way before somebody tells us what to do and it probably should be down here. Another thing, and I don't know. We should talk about this sometime but I think Byerly's made Chanhassen almost a destination and I've heard this from a lot of people outside the area. It's sort of a, I'm just laying this out there. I don't know what I want to do with it but I think it is going to change the demand for retail space in Chanhassen. I guess it's just interesting to think about. Are we going to be taxed? Do we have the space? Are we comfortable with what we've allocated to downtown? Are we comfortable with what's going to be built across Highway 5? I don't really have an agenda on this one. I don't really have a yea or nay. Aanenson: I think that's why we have to go back and look at the 2002 because that's one thing, and whether or not it's biased but that was one thing that came out is that people liked about Chanhassen is the concentrated downtown, and I think that's one thing that's unique. Conrad: I'm just hearing such great reviews of Chanhassen. Another thing. The train was here for that weekend deal. Any interest? Anybody pursuing them to continue that type? Aanenson: We said that they could do it 4 times a year. They're kind of testing the waters themselves. We would like it. Conrad: Can we encourage them? Farmakes: We've got a depot. Aanenson: Well that's the other thing is we would like to... Conrad: That's kind of neat. Aanenson: We've talked to them about that. That's certainly something we'd like to see too. Work with them on that. Conrad: Is that a planning issue? Aanenson: Sure. Conrad: Can you put that on an agenda just to trigger some. Aanenson: And maybe it's something we meet with the HRA and get them involved. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 1995 Harberts: We're looking at it. We're looking at that tracks as a way to get people downtown. We are. Scott: Well, is there anything else? Mancino: What are we going to do with transition, that we met about earlier tonight? Where do we go from here? Aanenson: Well if you'd like, we can come back with some recommendations for implementation of some of the ideas. If you want to give us some more direction. I think what, at this point I think our conclusion is that we have a transition zone requirement. What we need is better standards within that so I think we'd like to come back and say, the landscaping or buffering standards, what those should be. So right now I think they're pretty loose. So we'll take that packet and if you want us to add anything more to that. Mancino: I would support that. Scott: Yeah, that's something and then if we can get a definition of what affordable housing is, I think we need to have a work session on talking about that too. I get the feeling the only reason we're not out in front in affordable housing is that we all understand tree canopy, bluffs, you know but we don't know what. But I think once we put the stake in the ground and say this is what affordable housing is, I think we can work session something and get out in front because it's going to be ugly. It's going to be real ugly. Farmakes: I think what makes it ugly is how it's being discussed as an economic...and it turns out to be like the other developments in the past, not only other cities but Minneapolis itself, it certainly isn't going to be very palatable here. The objectives in the private sector are certainly being utilized much better to achieve that. Scott: And I don't think we need any unfunded mandates either, which is basically what we're going to have, anyway. Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 69 CITY QF 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: January 11, 1995 SUBJ: Report from the Director On January 9, 1995, the City Council took the following action: 1. Approved the final reading for the sign ordinance. 2. Approved the code amendment for gazebos on recreational beachlots. 3. Approved a preliminary plat extension for the Rogers Dolejsi - Lundgren Bros. 4. Approved the preliminary plat for Creekside Addition for 44 single family lots. This includes the Park and Recreation and Planning Commission's recommendation for the 2' acre park area. 5. Lake Ann Highlands subdivision request was pulled from the Council agenda. 6. The Council will have a work session to interview the new applicants for commissions beginning on January 30. The Council's intent is that new commissioners would be selected and begin serving their appointments in April. At that time, the Planning Commission will have to amend the bylaws to state that April will be the time to select officers and officially adopt the bylaws. Joint Work Session The Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission will have a joint work session on Tuesday, January 24, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ON-GOING ISSUES January 18, 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. 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. — 2 CITY OF to; CHANHASSEN .-`. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 `--s MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, AICP, Planner II DATE: January 11, 1995 SUBJ: Chanhassen Community Profile Please review the attached profile. I will discuss this item in detail at the meeting. If you have any other ideas for this document, please let me know. J LONGER VIEW t - Toward a Longer slip, View and Higher r _:.,. , ,. _... Dutyfor L .. == Planning Commissions David J. Alloy Planning is the guidance of future action. In a world of intensely conflicting interests and great inequalities of status and resources,planning in the face of power is at once a daily necessity and a constant ethical challenge(John Forester 1989,3). y work in training planning commissions concerns procedural as- pects.In advising planning commissions with whose communities I am not familiar, I tend to avoid the underlying, but deeply felt and potentially divisive, substantive issues. I deceive neither myself nor my clients into believing that we can perceive and resolve such issues dur- ing short training sessions.This essay permits me the liberty to comment on certain values that are given form by the decisions of local planning commissions. Over the last eight years, I have been fortunate to benefit from the recurrent admonition of my frequent partner in planning com- Allor,AICP,is a professor in the School mission training, C. Gregory Dale, to seek the "bigger picture." I do so of Planning,and a Fellow at the Center here,taking the opportunity to construct a broader agenda for local plan- for the Study of Dispute Resolution, ning commissions. University of Cincinnati. He is the au- thor of The Planning Commissioner's A History of Turbulence Guide: Processes for Reasoning Together (APA Planners Press, 1984). He con- I have sensed in many planning commission members an emotional ducts planning commission training exhaustion and social-psychological battery as they recurrently experi- sessions at APA national,regional,and enced and witnessed contentious behavior in public hearings, working state chapter conferences, and serves as a consultant to planning commis sessions, and deliberative meetings. Despite their conscientious efforts, sions. many feel chat the times are peculiarly difficult. Some are discouraged by the sense that they no longer are making planning decisions, but are Journal of the American Planning Association,vol.60,No.4,Autumn merely refereeing continuing rounds of unresolvable disputes. Yet, as 1994.cAmerican Planning Donald A. Schon and Thomas E. Nutt point out, the entire history of Association,Chicago,IL. planning reflects an "endemic turbulence" (1974, 181); local planning APA JOURNAL•AUTUMN 1994 1,:i37 DAVID J. ALLOR commissions have always operated within the very of dependency on public assistance. As local planning center of that turbulence. commissions concentrated on creating new communi- Many of the early independent planning commis- ties, American society split apart. — sions were established and much of planning enabling In the next decade, the 1960s, the longer view was legislation was enacted in those very turbulent years, nearly lost. One assassin's bullets cost the nation the the first three decades of the twentieth century. vision of a "new frontier;" another assassin's bullets America then was a nation of immigrants, many from made evident what a long road lay ahead toward racial rural backgrounds, who had to adapt to the physical equality. The hope for a"great society"was lost in the squalor and political corruption of the rapidly indus- carnage of international military conflict and domes- trializing American city. The varied groups, vying for tic political division. Local planning commissions the benefits believed to await them as Americans, found themselves embattled participants in the con- brought ethnic and racial prejudices to bear against flicts over housing integration, school desegregation, each other. Economic speculation overwhelmed con- and equal employment opportunity. Accused of con- siderations of public health, occupational safety, and plicity in institutional racism, they struggled to environmental responsibility. Despite all these obsta- broaden citizen participation. The issue underlying cies, it was in that period that American planning this charge against planning commissioners was seri- commissions, those small bodies of "informed citi- ous. Some consequences of planning,although indeed zens,"which were appointed in staggered terms of of- adverse, were unintended; redress was possible. If, fice and granted only limited control over however, adverse effects were covert and intentional, development,first sought to give their severely divided the credibility of planning was in jeopardy. Demands communities a more long-range,coherent,and equita- that the deprivations resulting from planning be corn- ble vision of the future. pensated joined with pressures for local empowerment The deprivations of the Great Depression and and gave rise to community-based advocacy planning. World War II certainly aggravated poverty and internal Despite the merits of the claims by advocacy planners, migration. Prejudice erupted against German- American society grew weary of social concerns and Americans, Appalachian Americans, and African- less tolerant ot;government programs to reduce dis- Americans; most egregious of all, the internment of crimination, poverty, and unemployment. Japanese-Americans reflected a long-standing, deep- During the last decade, as recurrent stresses arose seated prejudice far more than an immediate, prag- in the American economy, the society put its faith in matic need for national security. Local planning economic pragmatism. A shorter view dominated commissions frequently found themselves criticized planning processes, replacing comprehensiveness with simultaneously for fomenting communism in their a focus on narrower and more immediate strategic op- communities and for imposing fascism on them. The portunities. Local plans no longer reflected a sense of planning commissions struggled with marginal re- community need; instead, they were bent to serve en- sources,little professional support,and very little pub- trepreneurial opportunity. Local communities, which lic support. Fortunately, however, the federal courts had always resisted any form of regional cooperation, handed down decisions that established planning as a now competed against each other more vigorously function of local democratic governance. than ever, to secure independent economic develop- At midcentury, the work of local planning corn- ment. Planning decisions took on the character of missions helped to create wholly new communities— project negotiations,with deliberations limited to the the suburbs, which for many embodied the vision of short-term balancing of vested interests.Communities the future America.The new homes, new schools,new that promoted "public sector-private sector partner- parks,and new roads all came into being through mas- ships" soon found themselves considered as just an- sive federal subsidies that underwrote the tradition of other corporate interest in the negotiations, and their local comprehensive planning. Despite highly touted planning staffs viewed as parr of the municipal bar- and hotly debated programs for urban renewal in the gaining team. Local planning commissions, especially central cities, overt public sector disinvestment was those that advertised themselves as "developer- matched by covert private sector disinvestment, friendly,"found themselves reduced to a role appropri- blockbusting, and redlining. The building of the new ately described by C. Gregory Dale as a "development suburban society left behind the poor, the unskilled, processing commission." When a planning staff the old, the minority, and the nonveteran. Remaining sought to impose too stiff a set of restrictions,or alter- in the central city, they suffered the indignities of natively, offered too weak a set of incentives, develop- forced relocation, of placement in public housing,and ers sought"better deals"before planning commissions 438 APA JOURNAL•AUTUMN 1994 4 TOWARD A LONGER VIEW AND HIGHER DUTY FOR LOCAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS and boards of zoning appeals, sometimes described as commissions, in step with the planning profession, _ "committees of compassion." If a planning commis- have long found safe ground in promoting functional sion imposed restrictions that developers found too values, that is, improvements of physical well-being 4 harsh, they shifted the negotiations to municipal loosely associated with the common good, general 1 councils or boards of county commissioners. welfare, or public interest. Though no doubt sensitive With this last decade of the century, two increas- to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of reli- • ingly significant concerns have turned attention in gion, speech, and assembly, planning commissions 1 planning back toward a view both longer and broader. have maintained the separation of church and state i The first concern recognizes the fundamental restruc- mostly by pursuing secular,usually material,values.In turing of the economy, away from the long manufac- doing so they have promoted cultural homogeneity, ' turing tradition and toward a more technologically revealed in commonly shared values that would pro- based service economy. The effects of this rescructur- vide a foundation for planning decisions. There are ing will be dramatic and long lasting, touching the now indications that this strategy is failing.Assertions work and lives of future generations. of varied religious preferences and diverse claims for A second concern is the growing awareness that cultural recognition have brought new stress to plan- both the scale and the intensity of urban-industrial ping commission decisions. In this context,two points development have severely damaged the environment require the patient attention of planning commis- 1 and irreversibly altered ecological systems. Local plan- Bions. ping commissions must consider the very high envi- First, the historical perspective shows the nation ronmental costs of transportation, sanitary sewer, to have entrusted itself to an abstract monotheism, as 1 solid waste,and hazardous waste disposal systems. As demonstrated by the imprint on its legal tender and at the opening of the century,environmental degrada- expressed in this century in the pledge of allegiance. tion is linked directly to decline in public health; yet The founders of the nation were acutely aware, how- ` local planning efforts targeted toward "sustainability" ever, of Europe's history of unrelenting, violent, and and "livability" accommodate larger ecological sys- selective suppression of religious faiths. Religious tol- • reins only marginally. Perhaps even more embar- erance and, in consequence, cultural tolerance were rassing CO the planning profession is the realization necessary for a nation begun and built by successive - that local planning commissions have approved devel- waves of immigrants. In actuality, though, the domi- opment in dangerous places. Communities are now pant religious note in American public life since World imore vulnerable to drought, earthquake, flood, hurri- War II might be said to be a mild Protestantism, tem- cane, and tornado, because planning commissions pered by the gradual acceptance of Catholicism and have permitted and often encouraged population Judaism but on less than equal terms. Neither this de- growth in such areas. Moreover, it is clear that locali- scriptive history, however, nor the nonspecific mono- ties in vulnerable areas have failed to establish and/or theism expressed by the founders defines the United to enforce subdivision, land use, site design regula- States as an exclusively Christian nation, although ad- tions,and building codes adequate to minimize recur- herents of some Christian groups are vocal with that rent "natural" disasters. Short-sighted planning has claim. Their insistence that American society and pol- placed many in harm's way. ity give precedence to particular sectarian values is, I As the millennium approaches, I do not expect believe, an unfortunate misrepresentation of the con- that the turbulence endemic to planning will subside. stitutional framework that the founders hoped would There is much to suggest that instead it will focus keep the nation free of religious imperatives. When upon certain fundamental issues within American such claims are forwarded in local politics, planning communities: religion, family, and property. commissions may find it difficult to maintain neutral- ity on sectarian issues and identify the common values Religious Preference and Cultural that give continuity and direction to American coln- muniries_ Pluralism The increasing cultural pluralism of America also Among the most difficult decisions made by a complicates, in other ways, the effort to deliberate planning commission are those tied to issues of reli- within a framework of common values. Until recently, gion and culture. There is evidence of a present re- the nation's historical record has not included recog- emphasis on religious values in American society, and nition of either the religious preferences or the broad concern is also rising chat American communities need cultural values—or both—of, for example, Native to be more tolerant of cultural pluralism. Planning Americans, African-Americans, Appalachian Ameri- APA JOURNAL•AUTUMN 1994 439 DAVID J. ALLOR cans, or Hispanic-Americans. These cultures, now re- effort to create the American nuclear family (Ozzie surgent, demand recognition, apology for historical and Harriet and David and Rickie, living in a single- insult,and compensation for discrimination.The ada- family residence in an R-1 zone) was a compounding - mant public expression of such claims may nor always disaster. By dividing the society intergenerationally, be comfortable to encounter. These current forms of often abandoning grandparents in either the central turbulence may well make it more challenging for city or the rural countryside, the new nuclear family planning commissions to conduct public hearings or pattern severed kinship ties and weakened ethnic tra- even their deliberative sessions, as they consider deci- dition. Whereas once the old, the ill, and the dying sions with implications for deeply held religious and were cared for within extended families, planners now cultural values. find it a struggle to place congregate-living residences, Second, a view of the future suggests that identi- elder apartments, nursing homes, and hospice facili- fying the commonly held values in American commu- ties in nuclear-family residential areas, as if such uses nities will only become more complex. Even within the were inherent nuisances.The segregation of American national monotheistic tradition, the increasing neces- society by income,by ethnicity,by race,and by genero- sity to accommodate adherents of Islam, who them- tion has been horrifyingly successful in producing selves comprise very diverse ethnic groups, is likely to both social isolation and cultural banality. If contem- be for many Americans a disconcerting experience. porary planning commissions have to work so hard to New residents of American communities, the adher- reconstruct a sense of community in America, it is be- ents to Sunnite, Shiite, or perhaps Black Moslem tra- cause antecedent planning commissions shared corn- ditions, may be from among ethnic groups who have plicity in rendering the American community an migrated from anywhere along the broad band endangered species. stretching from the Strait of Gibraltar, across all of Future planning commissions must not only ac- North Africa, the Middle East, India, and Southeast commodore the alternative definitions of "family" Asia, to the Philippines. Even more unfamiliar are the honored by the diverse cultures that make their polytheistic, spiritualistic, ancestral, or animistic reli- homes in America, but also recognize the longer life gions of Africa, India, China, Southeast Asia, Japan, expectancies of present generations. An increasing northern Brazil, and the Caribbean. Yet these are pos- proportion of the current and future members of sible religious preferences for many of those who will American communities will live two decades beyond in the future be American. Planning commissions will retirement.They will become the senior members of a have to "internationalize" themselves, not only by society stretching across four, possibly five, genera- broadening their composition but also,and more crici- tions. Providing for their continued residence and, tally, by broadening their individual and collective more importantly, their active participation is essen- minds. tial to the continuity and the vitality of American communities. Family and Community The American nuclear family, while widely recog- nized,was an artificial construction of post-World War Architectural Conservation and II economic policy and planning process. Throughout Community Design the history of the nation, the descendants of new ar- In many American communities, planning com- rivals have sought to maintain extended family strut- missions have sought to strengthen the physical imag- ture, multi-generational kinship, and ethnic identity. ery of their communities through architectural The deprivations of the Great Depression and World conservation of existing structures and design regula- War II undoubtedly constrained the occupational, res- tions for new construction.Although these programs, idential, and educational opportunities of at least one which are often enacted as overlay zones to the zoning generation. That generation's pent-up demand to en- ordinance,may be administered by an architectural re- joy the bounty of peacetime (albeit cold war)America view board or design review commission, they should profoundly changed the countryside. Economic devel- serve the larger purposes of community planning. In opment policy, strongly supported by the processes of some communities there is a significant historical and local comprehensive physical planning,led to the sub- architectural heritage meriting special protective regu- urbanization of America. Scattering the population at lotion. In ocher communities, however, style-based so low a density across so vast a continent segregated design regulations serve simply to wrap modern con- American society not only by economic class and race, struction with a cultural veneer. The current popular- but also by generation. The inordinate and sustained icy of "neotraditional" planning reflects a perceived 42j0 APA JOURNAL•AUTUMN 1994 TOWARD A LONGER VIEW AND HIGHER DUTY FOR LOCAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS failure of modern design to express community in a ulations are imposed, the economic costs associated meaningful way. Neotraditional planning often is no with compliance should not be so severe as to raise the more than a random assemblage of conventional de- suspicion of discrimination. — sign details. Neither the local planning commission nor members of the community are able to recognize Property and Community any underlying"tradition." Planning commissions recurrently confront a cen- Planning commissions should be especially careful tral dilemma of the American polity. Modern citizen- in adopting style-related design regulations, whether ship is predicated upon the guarantee of certain rights honestly seeking to conserve a design heritage or,more that attach to person. Historically, however, effective modestly, to borrow one. Architectural styles carry citizenship has been defined in terms of property own- Connotations of the parent cultures'attributes.While ership,and in some communities continues to be.For certain of those attributes may be seen as worthy of some, property ownership is the material proof that commemoration and perhaps of emulation,others are one holds an interest in the community. Conversely, problematic. Many communities in the eastern and persons who do not own property in the community southern United States have chosen not only to con- are not accepted by some as real members. A number serve but also to extend the design of their communi- ties in colonial,federal,or ante-bellum style.Whatever ship are frequently demonstrated in the hearings and the aesthetic attributes of those styles,the histories of deliberations of planning commissions: renters are in- their parent cultures include the slaughter of native ferior to home owners;apartment living is morally ob- populations, the enslavement of African-Americans, jectionable; prefabricated housing is inferior to "real" persecution of religious dissenters, and the denial of homes; the out-of-town developer is dishonest, while political and civil rights to women.Similarly,although the local contractor is reliable.A planning commission one may recognize the positive attributes of Hispanic does have the responsibility to assess the differential colonial design,one should bear in mind that the par- impacts of development upon land;yet ownership of ent culture persecuted native peoples,vilified persons of mixed blood, suppressed religious dissent through property,or the lack of it,does not alter the responsi- bility of the planning commission to treat all persons the Inquisition, and subordinated women in social, appearing before it with fairness, reasonableness, and political and economic affairs. In adopting style- objectivity. dependent design regulations,a planning commission In the future, full ownership of land will become should examine which of the underlying cultural val- less important in American society. As the economy i ues it is thereby promoting. shifts toward rapidly advancing, technologically ori- / There are two more troublesome problems with ented, service and information-based industries, dis- community design criteria.The first is that the choice posable income will move away from property 1 of style expresses an underlying exclusiveness based on investment to human resource investment. The adult cultural ethnocentrism. Persons seeking to enter such working population will have to commit income to re- a"designed" community are expected not only to live currently upgrading skills or retraining for career behind compatible facades, but also to subscribe to changes.Similarly,for their children,far more income compatible values and behave in compatible manners. will have to be committed to carry them through ad- Those unable or unwilling to do so are dissuaded from vanced technical training or graduate professional de- community membership.The effect is not to build the grees. Persons planning for retirement will choose community as a whole,but to fragment it.The second, investments other than real estate to support their equally dangerous possibility is that the intention of continued quality of life. community design is disingenuous, in the sense that Communities that have dedicated themselves nar- architectural conservation and design standards are rowly to"up-scale" residential development may soon imposed to raise economic barriers to community find themselves doubly restrained. The transition to membership.Community design regulations can serve the service economy will bring salary levels below to implement economic discrimination. those of the previously dominant manufacturing sec- In the future, planning commissions should rely tor.The younger working population will have to post- more on design regulations that do not specifically pone home ownership to secure their training and limit style. Guidelines that offer options in siting, career paths. They will find it much harder to save form, signage, construction methods, materials, and enough for the down payment, or may not choose to colors would be less constraining in the culturally plu- commit their earnings to large and long-term mort- ralis tic communities that lie ahead.Where design reg- gage debt even at low interest rates.Moreover,occupa- APA JOURNAL•AUTUMN 1994 441 DAVID J. ALLOR tional ascent will require geographic mobility, further population. A growth control policy should incorpo- diminishing investment in real property. At the other rate not only the sentiments of the community but end of the age scale, the elderly may seek to divest also the constraints of ecological systems, the funding themselves of property, thereby eliminating tax and limits for public infrastructure, and the operating maintenance costs and reducing expenses while con- costs of essential public services. Planning commis- serving capital assets.Where a community has not en- sions should have policies on education, recreation, couraged a range of residential options, retired and and open space; on environmental conservation and elderly residents may have to move, even in the ab- historic preservation; on transportation, public ser- sence of immediate buyers. Although providing "af- vices, and public infrastructure. Policies are crucial, fordable housing" within communities is now because they both incorporate the larger values of a discussed at length, local planning commissions have community and establish reasonable and equitable resisted approval of housing not only for low-income processes by which to realize them. families, but also for young people and the elderly The third point is that—amazing thought!—plan- with limited incomes. In consequence, a community ping commission policies should be meaningfully inte- committed to stringent guidelines for single-family grated in an officially adopted, regularly updated, residential land use may find itself unable to provide long-range, comprehensive plan. The horizon of that for its mature residents and unable to attract the ris- plan should never be less than the full term of the long- ing generation. est general obligation, capital improvement bond is- sue, and it should be implemented through a capital Toward a Broader Agenda improvements program coordinated with both subdi- If, in the coming century, local planning commis- vision and zoning regulations. It is disappointing that sions are to recapture the longer view,they must adopt few communities have capital improvements pro- a broader agenda. Four points are critical. grams; instead, capital improvements are funded First,local planning commissions should avoid ac- piece-meal through compulsory dedications, exac- quiring labels. A planning commission chat proclaims tions, and development fees. Local planning commis- itself "development-friendly" may be seen as having sions that narrowly tinker with the land-use pattern sold off its impartiality in assessing community needs. through zoning regulation condemn themselves to re- Conversely, planning commissions that narrowly es- current, parsimonious land-use disputes. If the mem- - pouse "growth controls" are seen not so much as bers of a planning commission are embarrassed, development-unfriendly, as seeking to control admis- frustrated,and bored by such disputes,the problem is sion into the local democracy.A number of prejudices of their own making. against renters, the elderly, and the working class are Fourth and finally,if a local planning commission suspected to lie behind calls for controlling growth. truly pursues the longer view, it must invert the order Planning commissions must understand that neither of its business to reflect that priority. It must clearly longevity of residence nor extent of property owner- and consistently signal to those who come before it ship confers special privileges on citizens.The last per- with specific applications that the general plan and son to have entered a democracy does not have the public policies guide deliberation and decision. The right to close the door to those who follow. Similarly, New Business section of every planning commission planning commissions that promote preservation of agenda should begin with issues related to the com- "community character" may be suspected of further- prehensive plan, followed by consideration of policies, ing economic and cultural discrimination. Large-lot followed by review of the capital improvements pro- subdivision regulations, low-density residential zon- gram,followed by amendments to the subdivision reg- ing,and style-based design standards may not work so elation and zoning ordinance—and only then consider much to "improve the quality of the community" as specific applications. No doubt, planning commis- to exclude some persons from enjoying it. sions adopting such an agenda would be seen in the The second point is that to avoid such pitfalls, short run as less compassionate to the community and planning commissions should have policies. Planning less friendly to developers. Nevertheless, the central commissions should have explicit policies on eco- responsibility of the planning commission is to pro- nomic development that relate community needs to vide collective good judgment and intelligent direc- market viability, to occupational diversity, and to em- tion in service to the future of its community. The ployment opportunity. Residential development poli- commission must learn to reserve for itself both time cies should provide a range of density, style, and and priority to deliberate fundamental issues, to in- tenancy options appropriate for income levels of the corporate these into plan and into policy, to imple- 442 APA JOURNAL•AUTUMN 1994 TOWARD A LONGER VIEW AND HIGHER DUTY FOR LOCAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS ment them through incentives and regulations,and to members with mental and physical disabilities. That decide specific applications reasonably and equitably history reflects the admirable struggle of American co- in accord with the plan. ciety to expand opportunities, to assure equal rights, ` 1 and to promote tolerance. I ask that local planning I Looking Backward to the Future commissions do those same things. In closing,I ask planning commissions to be aware AUTHOR'S NOTE of their place in history. Their decisions, although most frequently recommendations, if they are imple- I wish to acknowledge the critical comments on the draft of a mented irrevocably alter the lives of the members of this essay by C. Gregory Dale,AICP,past APA Ohio Chapter 1 the community and even of generations yet unborn. president,and by Anne F.McBride,AICP,current Ohio Plan- ningThe decisions of planning commissions shape the pat- Conference president. terns of social interaction: of residence, work, educa- REFERENCES tion, and play. Local planning commissions cannot escape the responsibility co maintain both the longer Allot, David J. 1984. The Planning Commissioners Guide: Pro- view and faithfulness to higher duty. They must un- cesses for Reasoning Together Chicago: Planners Press. Forester,John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: t derstand that their judgments are assertions of values. University of California Press. The present century opened with the extension of Schon,Donald A.,and Thomas E.Nutt. 1974.Endemic Tur- E voting rights to women.In the century's third quarter, civil rights, voting rights, and economic rights were bulence:The Future for Planning Education. In Planning In America: Learning From Turbulence, edited by David R. I assured to minorities. In its closing decade,guarantees Godschalk.Washington, DC:American Institute of Plan- of nondiscrimination were extended to community ners, 181-205. I 1 •:- -7,-... THE URBAN EXPERIENCE i�4 , - .:2:i ..:yam : tie.. Af-::5'MC;7- , r '•.• Streets City on the Edge ._` � G Critical Perspectives es on °44 .. .- �; P The Transformation of Miami �� ` Public Space ALEJANDRO PORTES '_,,%Y s F 9-r `s.-- Edited by ZEYNAP �ELIK, and ALEX STEPICK i`= = DIANE FAVRO, New in paperback—"Through and RICHARD INGERSOLL demographic data, newspaper Living Introductory Essay by Spiro Kostof articles, interviews with black, This collection of twenty-one essays, Jewish,Anglo, Cuban,and Nicara- Downtown written by colleagues and former guan leaders,and their own re- The History of Residential students of the architectural histo- search, the authors reveal how the Tian Spiro Kostof(1936-1991), Cuban success story has transformed Hotels in the United States presents case studies on Kostof's the character of Miami while PAUL GROTH model of urban forms and fabrics. delineating more sharply the identity Living Downtown is the first Focusing on individual streets of other ethnic communities." comprehensive social and cultural around the world and from different —New York Times Book Review history of life in American residen- historical periods,the collection is "This book belongs in the hands of de tial hotels. Creatively combining an inviting overview of the street as everyone who cares re»ph about evidence from biographies, build- an urban institution. South Florida s future. ings and urban neighborhoods, S40.00 cloth, illustrated —Miami Herald workplace records,and housing 51 .00 paperillustrated policies, Groth provides a definitive At bookstores or order toll-free 1-800-822-6657. analysis of life in four price-differen- tiated types of downtown residences. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS $35.00 cloth, illustrated BERKELEY LOS ANGELES NEW YORK LONDON APA JOURNAL•AUTUMN 1994 L443