4 Paws, Claws & HoovesCITYOF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952,227,1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952,227.1160
Fax: 952,227,1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952,227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952,227,1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952,227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952,227.1300
Fax: 952,227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227,1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www, ci.chanhassen,mn.us
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
July 14, 2003 ~'~'- '
SUB J:
Paws Claws & Hooves Subdivision
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant wants to divide the property to create two separate lots. One lot will
contain the kennel and the other will contain the stable. The applicant is requesting
a variance from the 26-foot wide private street width to allow them to use the
existing 24-foot wide driveway for access purposes. While staff had originally
recommended approval of the variance for the 24-foot private street width, the
Planning Commission felt strongly that the road should be upgraded at this time.
Originally, staff had recommended that the applicant apply to amend the
existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A copy of the approved Conditional
Use Permit is attached. The City Attorney has advised us that we could
accommodate the conditional use permit by specifying the conditions of the
CUP that will apply to each lot.
The conditions of approval in the staff report have been modified to reflect the
Planning Commission's recommendation. An additional motion has been added
to deny the variance. The Findings of Fact were also modified to reflect the
denial recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION S~RY '
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 17, 2003, to review the
proposed development. The Planning Commission voted tO recommend approval
of the plat since it meets the requirements of the zoning ordin~ce, but to deny the
variance for the private street width and require that the road be improved to
26 foot pavement width. The summary and verbatim minutes are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
As outlined in the staff report, the City Council should adopt the two motions as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
g:\plan\bg\development review\executive summary paws claws & hooves.doc
The City of Chanhassen · A ~rowJng community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
CITY OF
STAFF
REPORT
PC DATE: May 6, 2093
June 17, 2003
CC DATE: July 14, 2003
REVIEW DEADLINE: 7/!3/93
By: RG, LH, TH, JS, MS, ST
Z
.<l:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for subdivision approval with a variance to divide a parcel into two lots,
Paws, Claws & Hooves, Inc. '-
10500 Great Plains Boulevard 0~a~
Paws, Claws & Hooves, Inc.
10500 Great Plains Boulevard
Chaska, MN 55318
(952) 445-0503
William C. Griffith, Jr.
Larkin, Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431-1194
(952) 835-3800
PRESENT ZONING: BF, Business Fringe District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
ACREAGE: 13.16 acre DENSITY: NA
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to create two lots from
one with a variance from the private street ordinance to permit the existing 24-foot wide pavement width
rather than the required 26-foot wide pavement width. Each lot would contain one of the buildings
currently located on the property. The site is bordered by Highway 212 to the south and Highway 101 to
the west. Access to the site would be from Highway 101 via a private street.'
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed
plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these
standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The owners of the property want to divide the property to create two separate lots. One lot will
contain the kennel and the other will house the stable. The owners are requesting a variance from
the 26-foot wide private street width to allow them to use the existing 24-foot wide driveway for
access purposes. Staff has no objection to the granting of the variance since no additional
development is proposed as part of the subdivision of the property. Should the owner, or future
owners, expand either of the uses or redevelop the site, staff is recommending a condition that
would require the private street be widened.
Staff reviewed the Conditional Use Permit attached to this application and determined that this
permit needs to be amended if a subdivision occurs. The reduction in the area of the property on
which the stable is located reduces the number of horses that may be stabled from 35 horses to 27.
Some of the animal enclosures from the kennel are located on the south side of the private street
in parking spaces which will be located on the stable property once the subdivision is completed.
Due to the potential for a change in ownership of the lots, the ongoing commercial operations
will need to be located on the corresponding building lot.
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
N - A-2; large lot single family residential and abandoned Railroad Right-of-Way used for a
regional trail
A-2; Minnesota River Valley
BF; Used car sales
BF; existing Brooks Motel and Bluff Creek
This property is located outside the current Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) and is
scheduled to be brought in to MUSA in 2015.
There is a natural wetland located along the south edge of the site. Bluff Creek is located to the
southwest of the site which drains into the Minnesota River Valley (Wildlife Refuge). The site is
covered with mature trees and brush. There are bluffs along the northern portion of the
commercial kennel building. The building maintains the required setback from the bluff.
Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision, subject to the conditions of the staff report
which include upgrading the private street and storm water system to comply with the subdivision
ordinance and the dedication of a roadway and utility easement to facilitate the future extension of a
road system should this area redevelop.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
May ':
June 17, 2003
Page 3
Site Layout Sketch Plan
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 1988, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Contractor's Yard
on this site. Conditional Use Permits expire within one year unless substantial work/construction
has taken place on the site. The applicants had delayed their construction of the improvements due
to anticipated changes in their operation specifically for recycling.
On February 27, 1989, the same application appeared before the City Council for an extension. The
City Council moved to deny the extension.
On September 12, 1994, the City Council approved Interim Use Permit (94-1 IUP) to provide
outdoor storage for commercial dumpsters. Since then, the applicant sold their solid waste business
and the site remains vacant. They stated at the time that they intend to start a new business;
boarding animals, and therefore, they are proposing to build a commercial kennel and stable.
On September 23, 1996, the City Council approved 1) Site Plan Review for the construction of a
8,152 square foot commercial stable and 12,936 square foot commercial kennel; 2) Conditional use
permit to allow a commercial kennel and commercial stable in a Fringe Business District, and a
conditional use permit to allow more than one principal building on a single lot; and 3) the City
Council also approved the variance for the stable building being of metal construction, and denied
the variance for the kennel building being of metal construction and approved a pylon sign in a BF,
Fringe Business District.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 4
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations are as follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands): 12.9 ac.
Baseline canopy coverage: 13% or 1.69 ac.
Minimum canopy coverage allowed: 10% or 1.29 ac.
Proposed tree preservation: 13% or 1.69 ac.
The developer meets minimum canopy coverage allowed.
UTILITIES
There is no municipal water and sanitary sewer available to the site. As such, no utility
improvements are proposed. The existing site is served by a well and septic system. An individual
sewage treatment system (ISTS) schematic has been prepared for Lot 2. The results of the soil
borings and percolation tests for the two ISTS sites on the easterly lot must be submitted to the city
for review. The on-site sewage treatment located on the westerly-proposed lot is an experimental
system. This system is required to be monitored annually by means of inspection; the results ofthe
monitoring/inspection were to be submitted to the City of Chanhassen. To date, we have not
received any information regarding the monitoring or know if any monitoring has been done to this
point.
STREETS
The site is accessible from State Highway 101 through an existing private 24-foot wide paved
driveway. The plan proposed using the driveway to service both lots. The common portion of the
driveway will become a private street which will require a 26-foot pavement width, built to a 9-ton
design, and 40-foot easement per City Code, section 18-57 (o). The applicant is requesting a
variance from this requirement to permit the continued use of the existing driveway. Subdivision of
the property will require extending the common portion of the driveway pavement to the east
property line of Lot 1. This will add additional impervious area to the site. A cross-access
easement and maintenance agreement for both lots will need to be prepared and recorded for the
common portion of the private street through LOt 1.
As part of the original review of the development, the Engineering memorandum dated April 10,
2003 included the following condition of approval: "The private street easement width shall be 40
feet, the pavement width 26 feet and built to a 9-ton design."
The applicant is requesting not to change the existing pavement and to keep it 24 feet wide with a
street easement of 40 feet, which will require a variance. Staff is fine with this since the use on the
site is remaining the same. Accordingly, staff recommends the following condition of approval:
Paws, Claws & Hooves
Mai,' 6, 2993
June 17, 2003
Page 5
"The applicant must revise the private street width to bring it into compliance with City Code when
there is any change in the use of the parcel and/or addition to any existing building."
To ensure proper access for future development, City Staff recommends that an easement for road
and utility purposes be dedicated across the property. The easement would be 40 foot wide in the
approximate location of the proposed private drive and extend to the east lot line of Lot 2. This
easement would allow for construction of a public street if determined necessary at a future date,
but would not have setback issues for the current proposal.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has stated that additional access to Trunk Highways
101 and 212 will not be allowed. Any site reconfiguration must use the existing access to Trunk
Highway 101.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Area in sq. ft. (acres) Frontage (ft.) Depth (ft.)
Code 20,000 (0.459) 100 150
Lot 1 125,521 (2.88) 256 456
Lot 2 435,601 (10.0) 1,275 446
Outlot A 3,097 (0.71)
ROW (Highway 101) 14,505 (0.333)
Total 578,724 (13.28)
Setbacks: Front - 25 feet, side - 10 feet, rear - 20 feet, bluff- 30 feet, wetland - 40 feet from
buffer edge with a 10 - 30 foot buffer, averaging 20 feet in width.
(Note: This area is guided for Office/industrial Uses in the Comprehensive Plan. When urban
services are extended to this area, currently in the 2015 Metropolitan Urban Services Area
(MUSA), the site could be rezoned to Industrial Office Park, IOP, and developed in one acre lots.)
WETLANDS
There is one jurisdictional wetland on site. This wetland has been classified as a natural wetland in
the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Its classification is based on delineation on the site
conducted in 1992. The notes from this delineation classify the wetland condition as excellent
seasonally flooded and wooded wetland, a possible example of pre-settlement wetland. It also
notes a wide variety of wetland vegetation with five dominant sp~ies and sightings of 18 different
plant species. The delineation indicates the source of water as surface water runoff and the route of
outflow is a culvert to the Minnesota River. The size of the wetland according to the SWMP is 2
acres.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
May ~:.,, ~an~~ ,,,, .
June 17, 2003
Page 6
City ordinances require a 10 to 30 foot buffer strip with an average of 20 foot width for natural
wetlands. There is also a 40-foot setback from the buffer strip so the building setback should be
from 50 to 80 feet averaging 70 feet away from the edge of the wetland. The current kennel and
stable appear to conform to these setback requirements; however, the wetland buffer and wetland
setback should be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed
and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland
buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City
$20 per sign.
BLUFFS
It appears that there are bluffs on-site. All areas meeting the City's definition of a bluff should be
shown on the grading plan. The toe of the bluff generally follows the 760 contour on the eastern
side of the property and the 750 contour on the western side of the property.' In addition, the
bluff impact zone should be shown on the grading plan. The alteration of slopes and vegetation
in bluff areas is regulated by City ordinance.
GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL
There are two existing buildings on the lot that are to be separated into two proposed lotS. No
grading and erosion control is proposed. The site sheet drains to the south toward the existing
storm pond for treatment before discharging to a wetland along the south side of the property. The
applicant should be aware that any additional impervious surface will require stormwater
management improvements and storm pond sizing calculations to review before final plat approval.
Existing stormwater runoff rates from the site must be maintained.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates.
Easements
Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, buffer areas and
storm water ponds.
Erosion Control
If construction occurs on-site, Type llI silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be
preserved as buffer. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be
immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded
within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 7
Surface Water Management Fees
Water Quality Fees
The water quality fees for this proposed development are based on commercial development rates
of $7,008/acre. Because the lots are oversized to accommodate individual on-site sewage disposal
and water systems, the charge for each lot has been reduced to the charge that would be imposed on
a one-half acre lot. Therefore, the total water quality fees are $7,008. If further subdivision of the
property occurs, an additional charge will then be imposed less a credit for the charge previously
paid.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
citywide 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.
Commercial developments have a connection charge of $5,171 per acre. Again, because the lots
are oversized to accommodate individual on-site sewage disposal and water systems, the charge for
each lot has been reduced to the charge that would be imposed on a one-half acre lot. This results
in a water quantity fee of $5,171 for the proposed development.
The total Surface Water Management Fees, due at the time of final plat recording, are $12,179.00.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The subdivision proposal to divide one 13.16-acre lot into two lots at Paws, Claws, and Hooves
results in the creation of one "new" lot. This new lot is subject to park fee collection. In
consultation with the City Attorney's office, it was determined that the smaller of the two lots will
be assessed the charge. This method of calculation results in a significant savings for the applicant.
The current 2003 park dedication charge is $7,000 per acre. Lot 1, Block 1 is 125,521 square feet
or 2.88 acres. As a condition of approval for this application payment of a $20,160 park dedication
fee charged against Lot 1, Block 1 is required.
PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS
In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist:
(1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to
construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 8
of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of
wetlands.
(2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the
public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or
to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural
resources including wetlands and forested areas.
Finding: The existing development of the site makes it unfeasible to construct a public street on
the property due to the location of the existing buildings. Adjacent properties currently have
access to the trunk highways. The provision of a public street, under the current development of
the site, is not warranted. Should these properties come in for future subdivision when urban~
services are available, the city will re-evaluate the need for a public street. Dedication of a
roadway easement will guarantee the ability of the City to meet a future demand for public
access. The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain the existing driveway pavement width
(24 feet), rather than upgrading the private street to the 26 feet standard. Should the existing uses
expand or the site is redeveloped, the applicant will need to upgrade the access to the private
street standards for commercial property which requires a 26 foot wide, nine ton pavement
design within a 40-foot easement. An encroachment agreement would be necessary for the
private street located within the roadway easement.
SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the BF, Business Fringe District.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans.
o
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified
in this report.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 9
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by individual wells and septic systems. The
storm water ponding and private street will need to be upgraded to city standards should
impervious surface be added to the site.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will
expand and provide all necessary easements.
The proposed subdivision is not premature, A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate roads.
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with a private street, public roads abut the
subdivision, individual sanitary treatment systems, and wells. The storm water system and
private street will need to be improved to city standards.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
Section 18-22 states that the city may grant a variance from the subdivision regulations as part of
the plat approval process following a finding that the following conditions exist:
1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
~d ......... ~ +~ ~v;~+; .......... + ...;~+~. ...... ~d ~. ...... +;^~1~ Subdivisions re-ulreq,
that private streets have a minimum 26-foot ~avement width.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 10
2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land;
There are no restrictions that would preclude a 26-foot pavement width.
3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property; and
Findings: a-h,~ ~;,o ~ ....... ,~., .4 .... 1^_.,.1 .,,1,1.,, .... k,,;1..1;_.,. T .... ~- .,11~r11.,1o1~.
........ v~--, ..................... -~ ............................ u visions must be
accessed by either a public or private street. Private streets are required to have a
minimum 26-foot pavement width.
The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and
is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance
and comprehensive plan.
.1.~ ~ .~ .... 1.--~ Developmen~ shall incorporate ~1 necessary improvement,
including n~essa~ street widths.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
A. Subdivision:
"Approval of the two lot subdivision (2003-4 SUB) ..,;,u a"-'4 .... ~^~ **.....4...,~ ~,~.~, ........
...;~,~, .... ;, ,~ ...... ~,~ ~;.,;.~ ~n c~, ~ ......... ~r Paws, plus
......... v ............................ ~ ............. ~ .~. Claws & Hooves, ~c.,
prepped by J~es R. ~I1, ~c., dated Janu~ 30, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
.*.,I-,1,~ ...4r...^ .U~ ~-;* ....... .-1;.. *k~ .q..1 --1~* The appropriate conditions for the
kennel shall apply to Lot 1. The appropriate conditions based on acreage for the
horse stable will be applied to Lot 2 and staff will make those modifications as it
Paws, Claws & Hooves
May 6, 2993
June 17, 2003
Page 10
2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land;
There are no restrictions that would preclude a 26-foot pavement width.
3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property; and
de e!cp d +u~. ,u ....... * 'q ~.a~" ...... ;' ~ ~*~'~ S bdt isio must be
access~ b~ either a public or private street. ~iva~ stree~ are required to have a
~nimum 26-foot pavement width.
The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and
is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance
and comprehensive plan.
n n si .......... e .................. z
.~,~ ~ .~n .... ~.~n Developmen~ shall incorporate all necessary improvement,
including nec~sa~ street widths.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
A. Subdivision:
"Approval of the two lot subdivision (2003-4 SUB) with a ;'mdanco far the p.d;'ato .~%t pavement
· ,,iath t .... ;~ ~h ...... f~ ~;~+1~ OA C~+ A~ ......... far Paws, plus
......... v ............................ ~ ............. ~ .~. Claws & Hooves, Mc.,
prepped by J~es R. ~11, hc., daed Janu~ 30, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant must amend the Conditional Use Permit for the commercial kennel and
stable prior to the city recording the final plat. The appropriate conditions for the
kennel shall apply to Lot 1. The appropriate conditions based on acreage for the
horse stable will be applied to Lot 2 and staff will make those modifications as it
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 11
moves to the City Council. (Staff has divided the appropriate conditions for each
lot.)
Lot 1, Block 1, Paws, Claws and Hooves Addition, if continued to be used for a
commercial kennel, shall comply with the following conditions:
a. All structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles II
b. Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least two hundred
(200) feet from any neighboring residential structure used for human habitation.
c. The proposed chain link fence which will surround each dog compartment shall be
sturdy to keep dogs confined.
do
Accumulations of feces shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any well.
The applicant is showing a waste water holding tank located 180 feet from a well
location; however, they have not shown the location of feces accumulation. Such
information must be provided.
eo
All accumulations of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no
leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to
become unsightly.
f. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight (8 p.m. to 7 a.m.).
g. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel employee(s) is
not present at the subject property.
h. Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as defined
by the City Code or Nuisance Ordinance.
Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such
screening and buffering may be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt
planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography.
j. The following conditions must be upheld in regard to the site's animal quarters:
· Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and
ventilation.
· Animals kept outside must have continual access so animals can get in and out
to shelter and protect them from sun, rain, and snow.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
May ~
June 17, 2003
Page 12
If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so not to
become entangled with chains of other dogs.
· Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to mm
around fully, stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable condition.
· The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degrees
Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures.
· Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors, and
disease hazards.
· Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against
contamination and deterioration.
ko
All dog runs must maintain a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland area,
50 feet from public or private road right-of-way, and 200 feet from an adjacent single
family residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side or rear lot line, whichever is
greater.
1. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the
commercial kennel.
i. The commemial kennel shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent the
running at large or escape of animals confined therein.
The commercial kennels shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any
' time.
o. No outdoor speakers are allowed.
p. Only animal carcasses are permitted to be cremated. A temperature monitor must be
attached to the crematory. The City may require testing of the ashes.
no
The applicant must supply the City with a waste tracking log submitted on a monthly
basis. Such log should be signed by the landfill operator where the feces are being
disposed of.
r. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the site plan review #96-8 and
variance #96-8.
Lot 2, Block 1, Paws, Claws and Hooves Addition, if continued to be Used for a
commercial stable, shall comply with the following conditions:
(a) All structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles 1II.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 13
(b)
Minimum acreage for two horses shall be one and one-half acres and for three horses
shall be two acres, and an additional one-third acre shall be required for each additional
horse. The site has an area of 10 acres allowing a maximum number of 27 horses.
(c) The area where horses are kept shall be enclosed by a sturdy wood, metal, or electrical
fence which will keep the animal or animals confined within.
(d) The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it will not be a
harborage for rodents, flies and insects.
(e)
Keeping, storing, stabling, or maintenance of horses shall not directly contribute to the
pollution of any public body of water. Covered, containerized solid waste storage is
required. The operation will be generating large amounts of solid waste. To prevent run off
from the site, waste awaiting disposal should be covered to protect it from rain and snow,
and contained within barriers to keep it consolidated in a designated area.
(f) Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred feet from any well.
(g)
All accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no
leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become
unsightly.
(h) The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the commercial
kennel and stable as regulated by the City Code.
(i) The commercial stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent the
running at large or escape of animals confined therein.
(j) The commercial stables shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any time.
(k) No outdoor speakers are allowed.
(1)
Five trailer parking spaces shall be provided. The applicant shall show proof of parking
for the remaining seven spaces. Should the need arise for the additional spaces, the
applicant will be required to provide them. Adequate turnaround for vehicles with trailers
attached to them shall be provided. The turnaround shall be approved by the Stable
Inspector. All parking spaces shall be screened from views from Highway 212, as
required in the site plan ordinance.
(m)The applicant shall show the location of hay storage.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 14
(n)
The applicant shall show the area where horses will be allowed to graze and exercise
outdoors. The current trail located north of the site does not allow any horses. The
applicant shall meet with the City's Stable Inspector prior to issuance of a building
permit.
(o) Spreading of manure on site shall be in conformance with the recommended methods of
on site disposal subject to staff approval.
(p) The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the site plan review//96-8 and variance
#96-8.
o
o
o
10.
11.
Extend the common portion of the private street pavement to the east property line of
Lot 1.
Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant
and recorded against Lot 1.
A 40 foot public road and utility easement shall be dedicated from Trunk Highway 101 to
the east property line of LOt 2. An encroachment agreement for the private street shall be
signed by the applicant. The applicant must revise the private street width to bring it into
compliance with City Code --'~'~- *~"~
........... ~v;.,:.. ~...;~a:..~. Pavement design will be redesigned to a 9 ton
design and 26 foot wide street.
All plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
Add silt fence along the south side of the widened driveway.
Any additional impervious surface will require storm water management improvements
and storm pond sizing calculations be reviewed before final plat approval. Existing storm
water runoff rates from the site must be maintained,
If any additional impervious surface is added, the developer shall submit before and after
hydraulic computations for both the 10 and 100 year rainfall events, existing and
proposed drainage area maps, and storm drainage plans verifying that all existing
drainage patterns and systems affecting MnDOT right-of-way will be perpetuated.
Submit the results of the annual on-site sewage treatment system monitoring plan as
required by the conditions of the on-site plan approved in 1998 for the existing septic
system. The monthly reports shall be submitted to city staff prior to City Council
consideration.
Submit the results of the soil borings and percolation tests for the two ISTS sites on the
easterly lot.
Pursuant to city ordinance, the applicant shall pay a $20,160 park dedication fee charged
against LOt 1, Block 1 as part of the recording of the final plat.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 15
12. If additional grading in excess of 50 cubic yards is proposed or occurs, all areas meeting
the City's definition of a bluff should be shown on the grading plan. In addition, the bluff
impact zone should be shown on the grading plan.
13. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs under the
direction of city staff and pay the city $20 per sign.
14. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all existing wetlands, buffer areas
and storm water ponds.
15. If construction occurs, Type 1II silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be
preserved as buffer. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall
be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket,
or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook.
16. Because the lots are oversized to accommodate individual on-site sewage disposal and
water systems, the charge for each lot has been reduced to the charge that would be
imposed on a one-half acre lot. The total Surface Water Management fees due at the time
of final plat recording are $12,179. If further subdivision of the property occurs, an
additional charge will then be imposed, less a credit for the charge previously paid.
17. The applicant shall ensure that a registered survey is done on the driveway to make
sure that the driveway is centered in the 40 foot easement to Lot 2.
B. Variance:
"The Chanhassen City Council denies the variance for the private street pavement width
to permit the use of the existing 24-foot driveway, rather than the required 26-foot
pavement width, based on the findings in the staff report."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation
2. Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated 6/17/2003.
3. Development Review Application
4. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat
5. Reduced Copy of Existing Conditions
6. Letter from Robert Generous to William C. Griffith, Jr. dated 3/31/03
7. Letter from William C. Griffith, Jr. to Bob Generous dated 3/26/03
8. Letter from Robert Generous to William C. Griffith, Jr. dated 3/18/03
9. Letter from Sharon Anderson to Robert Generous dated 3/23/03
10. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List for 5/6/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 16
11. Letter from Steve A. Kirchman to Paws Claws and Hooves dated 5/21/98
12. Email from Neal J. Blanchett to Bob Generous dated 5/23/03
13. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List for 6/17/03 Planning Commission Meeting
14. Letter from Neal J. Blancher to Bob Generous dated 6/10/03.
14. Site Plan, Variance, & Conditional Use Permit Special Provisions dated 9/23/1996.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 17
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
Application of Paws, Claws and Hooves, Inc. for Subdivision approval.
On May 6, 2003, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to
consider the application of Paws, Claws & Hooves, Inc. for preliminary plat approval of property
to subdivide one parcel of 13.16 acres in to two lots. The Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Fringe Business District, BF.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial uses.
3. The legal description of the property is: (see Exhibit A)
4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven
possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our
findings regarding them are:
(1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
(2) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and
regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Paws, Claws & Hooves
June 17, 2003
Page 18
(3)
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography,
soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation~ susceptibility to
flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
(4)
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements
required by this chapter subject to the conditions of the staff report;
(5) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
(6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but rather
will expand and provide all necessary easements; and
(7) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any
of the following exists:
ao
Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate roads.
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
o
Section 18-22 states that the city may grant a variance from the subdivision
regulations as part of the plat approval process following a finding that the
following conditions exist:
a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Subdivisions require that priVate streets
have a minimum 26-foot pavement width.
bo
The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical conditions of the land. There are no restrictions that would preclude a
26-foot pavement width.
Co
The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not
generally applicable to other property. Subdivisions must be accessed by either a
public or private street. Private streets are required to have a minimum 26-foot
pavement width.
do
The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public
welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance,
the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Developments shall incorporate all
necessary improvements, including necessary street widths.
Paws, Claws & Hooves
May 6 ~nn~.,,.
June 17, 2003
Page 19
The planning report//2003-4 Subdivision dated May 6, 2003, prepared by Robert
Generous, et al, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
Preliminary Plat with the variance for the private street width.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of June, 2003.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
BY:
Its Chairman
Secretary
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CONCERNING PAWS, CLAWS & HOOVES
JUNE 17, 2003
SUMMARY FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Sacchet: It does go to City Council on the 14th. Can we quickly summarize for council where we are at
with this? The main concern is that overall the Planning Commission believes that the conditions are
appropriate and in some cases we even put a little more edge to them. We want the conditional use to be
specific to the lots. One to the kennel, one to the stable, We believe the fees are appropriate. We want to
solve the road problem now rather than postpone it, And we want it to be surveyed that we're clear that
what goes to council or presents clearly what's actually there, plus we want the missing switch repons to
go in by then. Anything else?
Slagle: Commissioner Lillehaug feels strongly about this.
Sacchet: Commissioner Lillehaug feels strongly about this.
Feik: I'll second his strength.
Sacchet: Alright, I guess that's our summary. Thank you very much for coming in with this.
VERBATIM MINUTES:
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH A VARIANCE TO DIVIDE A 13.16 ACRE LOT
INTO TWO LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BF, BUSINESS FRINGE AND LOCATED AT 10500
GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, PAWS, CLAWS & HOOVES.
Public Present:
Ns_me
Address
Mike Spiess 470 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska
Sacchet: Questions from staff. Who wants to start?
Feik: I can start.
Sacchet: Okay, go ahead Bruce.
Feik: Kate, I want to talk about the easement for the road and the road itself is a private road that' s going
in.
Aanenson: Pardon me?
Feik: I'd like to ask you a couple questions regarding the private road that's going in. You are
recommending, well normally it'd be a 26 foot wide private street. You're saying 24 might be adequate.
If this were, in your opinion, to be redeveloped at some future date, would you believe that the new public
road that would line that right-of-way would be on this existing road bed? Hello?
Aanenson: Yep.
Feik: Okay. We see time and time again.
Aanenson: I'm listening.
Feik: Okay. Owners that come in where issues have been partially resolved with previous owners and
they have certain expectations. Do you, I'm wondering, I'm guessing a reasonable owner, a second
owner might come in here and say geez, we've got a 24 foot road. It's going to be adequate. It's not
going to need to be rebuilt. If we're going to ultimately cross this hurdle, I'd rather cross it today than
later. And if we cross it today, what is that impact? If we stick to the 26 foot. Were there some setback
issues?
Aanenson: Yes. Actually it more affects the storm water pond. The proximity to the storm water pond.
The buffer. The buffer there.
Feik: So you don't think this is a concern I'm guessing.
Aanenson: If we make it 26 instead of.
Feik: Well if we insist on 26 then we don't have to do battle so to speak with the unsuspecting purchaser
5 years from now. If you're going to make this a condition of redevelopment, somebody's going to have
to address this so either we address it now or somehow we attach it to the title so that when a purchaser
reviews it, they know that they're going to have to do something so they don't get side swiped by it.
Aanenson: Correct, and any other use that would come in at such time that urban services or a change in
use would still have to come back for site plan review.
Feik: But urban services is 2015.
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: And it could be subdivided beforehand.
Aanenson: It could be further subdivided. It could be a different change in use but any different use that
would come forward would still have to come before you for a site plan review. As part of the criteria of
a site plan review it has to meet the standards. So you could still attach it then. But that's certainly an
approach is what you're saying. To do it now is certainly an approach and we did weigh that.
Feik: Okay. And then one more question for you real quick on the page 2, second paragraph, last line.
Talking about ongoing operations that need to be relocated to within the confines of the lot so to speak.
Ongoing operations will need to be located on corresponding building lot. There's stuff that needs to be
moved I understand, am I reading that correct?
Aanenson: I'm sorry, what paragraph?
Feik: Second paragraph page 2. Last line in the second paragraph. Due to the potential for change in
ownership lots.
2
Aanenson: That ties into the conditional use. And that's why I'm saying I think we need to clarify that
with the horses have their criteria, how many they can have goes with that parcel. We'd attach it with that
parcel and that we attach to the .... right.
Feik: Okay, that's where you find it, alright.
Aanenson: Right. That's what we're trying to get you.
Feik: Okay. That's it for now, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Rich, any questions?
Slagle: Just a couple. Kate, this gets into a little bit of legalese. But I mean is it safe to say that the
request for the 40 foot easement, public road and utility easement and perhaps the park and rec fees, are
those two of the key issues? I mean from maybe the client' s standpoint.
Aanenson: I'll let them speak to that. I believe that in our opinion they're you know, we're willing to
acquiesce on the 40 foot as far as, I guess we're looking again kind of bring it back to what Bruce is
saying. The extension in the future. If you have a utility easement, even though the road' s not built, we
felt that might be onerous to build the road but at least we've secured the easement and that goes back to
what Bruce is saying but even that may be onerous at this point. We're willing to back off of that. But
we believe there is the appropriate extraction with this, the park and trail fees, that we couldn't get in the
future. Or may or may not get in the future if the parcel's never further subdivided.
Slagle: Okay, I just wanted to hear your thoughts.
Aanenson: But again the adequacy, let me just make sure, yeah the adequacy going back to what Bruce
was saying, if they come in with a commercial site and they need that size road, that's going to be a
criteria of the site plan review so we could get that additional road width. Where if they didn't subdivide,
we couldn't get the park fee or the storm water fee.
Slagle: Okay. That's it.
Sacchet: Bethany, any questions?
Tjomhom: No.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: Yes, I do have a few. I'm going to hit on this conditional use permit again. Is this something
that we need to amend at this point as part of this subdivision? And I'm not quite clear on that yet.
Aanenson: Okay. Again, the issue on that is, if this were a fast food restaurant and then they split that,
would you get two fast food restaurants? So there's some complexity in that we're trying to understand,
if that makes sense to you. Because a conditional use goes across the entire property. So if you split it,
do you get two? Because there's existing buildings we're saying that we want to resolve it. In fact we
want to define those uses that the kennel has this operational standard and that the horses have this
operational standards, and we think that would resolve.
Lillehaug: And I understand that but so do we need to do something tonight as part of this subdivision?
Aanenson: Yes. What we should do is put standards in place, instead of saying they need the conditional
use, that you put standards in place for the kennel operation and for the horse stable operation.
Lillehaug:
Aanenson:
Lillehaug:
So they're not part of the conditions then, right?
No.
So we need to add them.
Aanenson: Correct. The original conditional use had those in place and that was the operational about
rendering, how many horses, that they couldn't be outside, and we would still keep those same conditions
with each use. If that makes sense. We'd call them parcel 1 or parcel 2 or,
Lillehaug: And then to make this easier later, do we have specific conditions that you'd recommend
adding?
Aanenson: I can do that.
Lillehaug: Because I guess I'm not totally clear on what conditions I would add at this point. I kind of
have an intent of what I would do but I'd like to hear you guy's opinion.
Aanenson: Sure. I'll find the original conditions of approval for you.
Lillehaug: I can come back to that too. I'm going to hit on something else here too. It's a leading
question and it gets working off of what Brace is talking about and that's driveway. My first question is,
when I'm looking at the existing plan, at existing conditions plan in front of me. I'm seeing a note that
stands out to me in the bottom left comer and it says topography furnished by City of Chanhassen and
modified by James R. Hill Incorporated to show existing conditions. So that is telling me that that
driveway is not a surveyed driveway in there, but we're assuming that the easement, or the driveway fits
in the easement that is sitting on the plat and in my mind that's a bad assumption, and that's going to lead
to problems in the future. Did you grab all that?
Aanenson: Yep. The 40 foot that they used the existing drawings. Again, that's how it's functioning
today.
Lillehaug: Right, but I'm saying that it doesn't appear that the driveway here, based on that notes on that
existing conditions plan, that it's not a surveyed driveway.
Aanenson: I'd have to ask maybe Mak if he wants to comment on that.
Sweidan: As to the topography, the city is in charge of the so far the contour lines but nothing charting
the street location. So this hasn't been surveyed by the city, and we can't rely on it as being surveyed by
the city.
4
Lillehaug: So you would concur that as the easement is drawn up on the plat, I can call that a plat right?
That is what it is.
Aanenson: Yes.
Sweidan: Yes.
Lillehaug: That it's probably not accurate. May not be accurate because it's not a surveyed driveway.
And the whole intent is to have that driveway centered in that 40 foot easement.
Sweidan: Maybe but you know according to the existing driveway access he is applying that easement so
we assume that what we need is a 40 foot width of easement. Now the location of it, he has to verify that
to our surveyor.
Lillehaug: In my mind I guess it should be verified at this point already because they're supposed to be, I
know this is comment but they're supposed to be providing a registered survey and a registered plat at this
point and to my mind I'm not confident with what I'm looking at here.
Sweidan: We could check on that but you know, even he has changed even the width of the easement he
is showing because he is showing 26 foot.
Lillehaug: Yep.
Slagle: Well why don't we just ask for that?
Lillehaug: Yep, I'll ask that.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions Steve?
Lillehaug: Gee, he just ended me abruptly here.
Slagle: Actually it was, more if I can Mr. Chair, I was almost raising the question out loud is.
Sacchet: How do we solve it?
Slagle: Or do we go any further tonight?
Lillehaug: Let me ask another one here and it's regarding monitoring of the ISTS, on site sewage
treatment system there. It looks like the applicant is asking to have a 24 foot wide driveway instead of a
26 foot wide driveway on the intention that if something were to happen in the future they would widen it
to 26 feet. There were previous conditions that weren't adhered to. What can we do to insure that the
previous conditions are adhered to as far as that monitoring, as well as anything we were to set forth and
put as a condition tonight?
Aanenson: Then we have to bring it back in front of you for revocation. We have had issue on this
project before that we did try to resolve so.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's good for my questions. Thanks.
Sacchet: Listening to the questions that came up so far, I have one main question. Is my understanding
that we're down to the wire with the time line for this application.
Aanenson: I was going to make that point.
Feik: If it's complete.
Aanenson: You have to make a motion of some sort tonight.
Sacchet: So we have to make a decision tonight?
Slagle: Only if it's complete.
Feik: If it's complete.
Slagle: One could say without having a surveyed.
Sacchet: But we can't table.
Aanenson: You have to move this forward. You cannot table it. You either, you could recommend
denial or you can recommend approval. You have to make a recommendation. Unless the applicant
wants to give you an extension.
Sacchet: That's a possibility.
Aanenson: That's a possibility.
Sacchet: Okay. That was my main question. But I do have some less significant questions as well.
Maybe that's an applicant question. Why is Lot 1 such a funny shape?
Aanenson: The railroad tracks. The way they split it?
Sacchet: Yeah. I guess that's an applicant question. In terms of the legal concerns, you're confident with
the conditions the way they currently are?
Aanenson: With the modifications?
Sacchet: With the modifications.
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: We'll get to you in a second. In terms of the hardship, the development is currently served by
24 foot wide driveway, which appears to provide adequate access to the site. Should we expand or the
site be redeveloped the adequacy of the existing pavement width will be questionable. I don't see really
the hardship identified. Is the hardship is that they're not currently doing any construction? Is that a fair
assumption? I mean because what's in there doesn't talk about hardship. It just talks about something
pretty different.
6
Aanenson: Well again, if you look at how this site is being used. Actually the stable is not, there are no
horses in the stable right now so that, correct me if I'm wrong Neal but that's not the horse stable is not,
while it's licensed there are no horses being used on that site, or stored.
Neal Blanchett: I believe that's correct.
Aanenson: So how it's being used right now doesn't appear to be the intensity.
Sacchet: Well we can come back to that one. I share the question that was raised and from my personal
taste it really hasn't been answered. When we amend the conditional use permit and you said you may
have some suggestions.
Aanenson: Yep, I've got the conditions...
Sacchet: You'll put those in front of us at some point? Is this a good moment for that?
Aanenson: Well the horses were limited to 35 and I think it probably, there's specific standards that
relate to the kennel as far as number of dog runs and the square footage so it' s probably best if I just have
Sharmeen run up and copy, give you all a copy of it real quick so you can see what those were.
Sacchet: So you'll have it written down actually, okay. So we'll deal with it that way. Now we have
conditions in here that talk about plans much be signed, the silt fence needs to be put there. At this point
we're not really looking at any construction proposal. We're just subdividing so why would we ask for
silt fence or, I guess I can see why we need the signed, a signature to address Steve's concern if, to make
sure they're accurate.
Sweidan: It was because we had requested at the beginning, the first time we reviewed it for 26 width of
pavement so that's an additional.
Sacchet: So if we widened the road we need silt fence.
Sweidan: If we widened, we need the silt fence.
Sacchet: If we don't, we don't need it. Okay. And it seems like there is an agreement in place how the
sewage treatment system will be monitored. I think there's a letter attached here that was actually signed
by the applicant, is that correct?
Aanenson: Yes, and there have been some discussions between Bob and the applicant's attorney
regarding the status and trying to clarity on what was missing. So they are trying to get that resolved. It's
getting the ISTS reports in.
Sacchet: That's my questions. With that, we already have our applicant up from. If you want to give us
your presentation, state your name and address for the record please. And if you can talk into the
microphone, that's preferable.
Neal Blanchett: Thank you Chair. I'm Neal Blanchett. I'm with the Larkin, Hoffman law firm, 7900
Xerxes Avenue South in Bloomington. We represent Paws, Claws and Hooves. As Kate said we have
been working on this with staff. Let me answer your last question first which is the question about the
ISTS monitoring. I think there were some miscommunications in the past. The system was originally
authorized in 1998. There was a requirement to conduct monitoring. That monitoring happened, and the
septic company didn't send those results in, for whatever reason. They had copies of letters. They knew
of the requirement, but they didn't send it in at that time so they do have the monitoring results. In 2001
there was another series of correspondence and there were a couple of phone calls. My client Paw Claws
said, called us back if you do not have the information because at that time they were told there was some
information here at the city and they didn't receive a call back so they do have the information and they
will work to get that to you. The main concern there is just to make sure that the system is working fine
and it has been pumping and it is working fine so there are no problems with that. In working with staff,
our main concern, looking at the conditions, was to make sure that the conditions when they're
appropriate, are tailored to what's happening on the site. It's not really appropriate to look at the time that
the city has in terms of, staff made the assertion that this is the time that the city can get some of these
exactions. The argue is, and we believe the legal view is, the appropriate time to impose the condition is
when the impacts happen. So as the city engineer pointed out, when new impervious surface is
constructed, that's the time to talk about silt fence, erosion, grading plans and those things. When new
construction happens, that's the time to talk about many of these conditions. We are, we suggested to
staff and are working with them and view it as progress that they would look at the conditional use permit
changes if there are any to a current development agreement rather than re-opening that conditional use
permit, conducting public heatings and going through that entire process. So we're willing to work with
them in a development agreement. On the easement, I understood from staff that they're also willing to
work on that. Again we recognize the potential for development in the area in the future. We're not here
to block that obviously. We just don't view right now at the time to give that easement because there's no
new construction out there. There's no need for a new 40 foot roadway that would justify that. The two
remaining conditions that Ms. Aanenson talked about, the park dedication and the storm water fees.
Again the site has a storm water pond constructed. It treats it's own storm water and was in fact required
to construct that pond as a condition of earlier approval. We do not connect it in any way to the city's
storm water management system so again we view the appropriate time to pay those fees is at such time
as it connects the system. Not now when it treats it's own storm water. With regard to park dedication,
similar argument. The park dedication really is designed to address the need of people and business
owners to use parks. When these two lots are configured with 10 acres and 3 acres approximately, we
don't believe that creates a need for a park. The real rationale for park dedication is you're putting a lot
of houses on the property. People need open space for kids to run around and for families to have an
outdoor space to play in. So that's not happening now. No new construction's happening now so we
think the appropriate thing to do is to postpone thOSe conditions and impose them again when things,
when the property develops 2015 when the utilities are placed and the property can intensify. So my list
was to ask for removal of condition number 1 which we talked about, with regard to the development
agreement. Removal of 2. 2 1 think goes to again not adding impervious surface. The request by the city
is to extend the pavement to the lot line. Our view is that the pavement ought to cover the common lot.
We shouldn't be adding impervious surface because that brings forward all of those silt fence, erosion
control, a lot of onerous requirements. Remove condition number 4 which is again the 40 foot easement
and which staff has indicated a willingness to work on. Number 11 which is the park dedication fee. We
don't believe there's a basis for it now. We believe that at some time in the future there will be a basis
but that time is not today. And number 16, which relates to storm water management fees. We would
modify condition number 6 along the lines of the City Engineer has outlined that if impervious surface is
added, the silt fence is needed. Condition number 13. Again, another condition that comes into play only
if there's new impervious surface or new construction. And condition number, now on number 14. The
modification. I would request a modification so that we're making sure that the drainage and utility
easements overlie the drainage facilities. The ponds that are out there so we can grant new easements.
We'd like the city to claim old easements if in fact the pond is not occupying an area that has an easement
over it currently. With regard to your questions, the documents will be signed by a registered engineer.
We'll make sure we know exactly where the driveway is and it will be surveyed. We'll work with the
city engineer to do that. Otherwise I think the staff has addressed your concerns. I can address whatever
hasn't been addressed but I ask you to move forward. Again staff has noted that the proposal meets the
conditions. Meets the standards for approval so I'd ask you to move it forward to the City Council with
the changes that staff and I have suggested.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? Steve, any questions?
Lillehaug: ...I have one real good question here. You indicated that it's not time to implement a lot of
these conditions. Why is it time to subdivide this property?
Neal Blanchett: Well obviously any property owner's got a right to subdivide at any time. I think the
decision here, as far as I know it, is just to put the kennel use on one lot and the stable use on another lot.
Slagle: What efficiency, I mean what do they gain from that, I'm just curious, in your opinion.
Neal Blanchett: I think it's just an easier separation of the uses. It gives them more flexibility in dealing
with the property in the future. If for instance there was financing, the financing can apply to one lot and
not to the other. Just because the two businesses operate differently, what they've founding their
experience, they do operate significantly differently and so they'd like the ability to unhitch one from the
other. Not have them tied together as they are being on the same lot.
Sacchet: Any more questions of the applicant?
Feik: Yes, I have one. What licensing is required to operate a kennel or a boarding, a horse boarding
facility? Over and above the conditional use permit. What kind of licensing does the operator have to
have?
Neal Blanchett: That's a good question. I don't have all the answers for you.
Feik: There is a license that they need to have, is that right?
Aanenson: There' s a stable permit. It' s inspected. If you look at the conditional use there' s a number of
other inspections that they are required to do.
Feik: Part of that is.
Aanenson: Rendering reports. Let's see, there was some other health, in looking through it, I gave you a
copy of.
Feik: But those are all city driven or.
Aanenson: No, no, no, no.
Feik: Or are they of a higher regulatory licensing type body?
Aanenson: I believe most of them are probably referred to the county and then the city and state's own
inspector.
Feik: So if we didn't change for just a moment here, bear with me. If we didn't change a conditional use
permit but we required them to re-license, would that give you the assurance that what's operating on this,
we're not doubling the intensity of what's going on there. See where I'm going?
9
Aanenson: Yes. The issue is the complexity is that they're allowed a number of horses based on acreage,
so the original site plan, they were all tied together so you had 13 acres. Now there's 10 acres so we
actually dropped the number of horses.
Feik: Unless of course you put horses on the other side.
Aanenson: Right. Right.
Feik: Which unless we change the conditional use permit would be permissible.
Aanenson: Correct. So that's the ambiguity that we're trying to figure out if you wanted to amend the
condition use, so they're actually dropping down so it may be 24 horses, 25 horses instead of the 35 so.
Feik: See where I'm going with this? Does it make sense where I'm going with this? That would solve
sort of two problems as far as the concern about what' s on what lot and the density of the animals that are
confined on the lot. And would that, I mean we wouldn't necessarily have to split the conditional use at
this time because the conditional use would be overlying both parcels, but they'd have separate licensing
requirements to operate. And.
Aanenson: Except we wouldn't really license them per se. The only thing we would give is for the stable
license.
Feik: There's no license for the kennel?
Aanenson: No. No, it would just be the conditional use which we would do the inspection of so.
Feik: Alright. Never mind.
Aanenson: Well we have people, yeah I'm not sure how that would work though. I'm not sure.
Feik: Because now the inspectors would come out and'say well you know, Lot 1 is too small if you're
going to have other animals and you just can't have a stable. Period. Because it's not going to be big
enough.
Slagle: Let me ask a question, if I can to staff. If this makes sense. Kate, this is sort of the gist of
simplistic question. It seems to me that there's some concern, and I don't know if it's just from me or
others, of what's going to happen on this property. The attorney representing his client don't know, don't
have any knowledge of future plans and that's okay. But if we are to go ahead and approve your
recommendation with the conditions, or even send a modified conditions per the attorney's request, I
mean are we really creating a liability for ourselves in the future, or are those things that we really can
handle as they come up? I mean if the answer is for the most part things come up and they'll have to go
through us and we can pretty much take care of any concerns.
Aanenson: The bottom line is through a subdivision it allows for conveyance of property. So now either
one of the properties could be sold off. So it allows for conveyance of separate parcels. So that's why
we're trying to say what goes with each parcel and that's.
Feik: Is the conditional use permit transferable to the new party? The new, a new owner if they sell
Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 6 months from now?
10
Aanenson: That's the complexity of the legal finagling between the attorneys in saying how do we
resolve that? That's why we want conditions to go with each parcel.
Feik: So you're saying it is transferable, right? The conditional use would transferred if they want to go
sell it to Buddy and Floyd.
Aanenson: That's his position. I'm not so sure about that.
Feik: The conditional use would transfer.
Aanenson: Right. I'm not so sure about that.
Feik: In which case we could have, in my mind, we could have a party right now who we could be
having a constructive discussions with to resolve this, or we could have an unknown party at a future date
that might not be willing to have such constructive...
Aanenson: I'll go back to my original premise. If you have one use on there, and you split the property,
do you now get two?
Feik: I think you do.
Aanenson: ...now have 35 horses on the 3 acres, right. That's my concern and that's why we're saying
what we want to do to address that is to split the conditional use so each, the kennel has limited number
and the stable has limited number. To just to kind of control that through the 25 to 35 horses or the
standard...
Feik: Let me ask a question of the representative here. If this body determined that we felt a need to split
the conditional use, is your client amenable to that at all?
Neal Blanchett: Well there's certainly no problem with having limited animal units on the kennel as
opposed to the stable.
Feik: So that's not a deal breaker?
Neal Blanchett: We're on the same page, absolutely.
Feik: Okay.
Aanenson: But we're qualifying it to the lot.
Feik: Right. Are you willing to qualify it to the lot?
Neal Blanchett: I believe so. It's not a question that I have put in so many words to my client. I don't
think there's any problem with it. The understanding is the stable use will go forward, The kennel use
will go forward with the appropriate number of animal needs for the size of the lot.
Aanenson: Okay, in the matter of simplicity then.
Slagle: We like simplicity.
1!
Aanenson: Okay. If you go to the animals involved section it gives conditions for a stable permit, so if
we say that lot and block must comply with the stable permit, it's Lot 2. Then I think, and then make the
other conditions applicable under the CUP.
Feik: And Lot 1 shall not have stable facilities?
Aanenson: Correct. And I think that would resolve it and still follow the original conditional use which
we gave you 96-3 and I think...
Neal Blanchett: That's correct. The conditional use permit actually breaks them out separately, kennel
and stable, so it's easy to do.
Sacchet: Do you have more questions Rich?
Slagle: No.
Sacchet: Bethany?
Steve? Okay, do you have anything to add? From your end.
Neal Blanchett: One final point on the park dedication. Park dedication's computed per acre, so if it's
the city's decision to levy that at this time, it should be the park dedication for that acreage going forward.
Feik: For the entire park dedication.
Neal Blanchett: Right. For the acreage that is deemed to cover, it should cover that acreage to the extent
that it is developed further.
Lillehaug: So you're saying you want to pay more at this time then?
Neal Blanchett: No.
Feik: That's what I heard.
Lillehaug: What you want to pay for the full acreage instead of half acreage?
Neal Blanchett: No. As I understand that the city assesses the park dedication based on an acreage, a
specific defined amount of acreage. So it would be our request that if that acreage, if the park dedication
is paid for a certain number of acres, that that apply to those acres essentially in perpetuity. Park
dedication's been paid for the land. It shouldn't be paid twice.
Feik: So it's a partial.
Aanenson: Further subdivision wouldn't be extracted again.
Sacchet: So we would know basically which acreage the park dedication fee applies to specifically?
Neal Blanchett: Or really just that it wouldn't be double counted.
Sacchet: Right.
Aanenson: In the future, right. That makes sense.
12
Slagle: We don't double dip here.
Sacchet: We try not to.
Slagle: And by the way, welcome. Brace and I were, you were a guest speaker at the St. Paul
Technical...he was the attorney who presented.
Aanenson: Now you're giving it back to him.
Slagle: No. But welcome.
Neal Blanchett: We talked about these points.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. So I invite anybody who wants to
comment to this to come forward. State your name and address for the record please and let us hear if
you have any comments? This is your turn. Anybody want to come forward? I don't see anybody.
Going once? Going twice? Alright, I close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners.
Comments from the commissioners. Anybody?
Slagle: I can start.
Sacchet: Want to start Rich.
Slagle: You know I think as an overview, I am okay with what appears to be a request to modify this
conditional use permit, which we just received copies, and Kate you can walk us through that. I'm okay
with that. I don't necessarily have a problem with what I consider to be the compromises between the
representative and staff on certain conditions. If we are going to do the park dedication fee, I'm for that
as well. I guess the thing that I just want to make sure that we're all on the same boat is that, let's all of
us try to remember this meeting because I do believe that we will see these parcels or a parcel in front of
us at some time. So with that I'm in agreement with working out something here with them.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Brace, do you want to go next?
Feik: Sure. A lot hinges on this road, and if we assume that this is the only access to 101 to this lot, it
can't move north. It obviously can't move south. North, east. Then I'm inclined to say, do the 40 foot
easement. Have a full and complete survey necessary to do so, and move forward. If we think at all that
that lot could, that that road could change to make what, the tail end of that extreme western comer may
be buildable or something, be able to carve another lot out of it or two, and that that easement could shift,
then I'm of a mind to agree that we probably don't need the full width. We probably don't need a silt
fence. We probably don't need the asphalt. We probably don't need a lot of stuff. So I'm either thinking
we either get a 40 foot easement where it's going to go and put it in stone, or deal, or just deal with all of
it, all of those portions at a later date if it does get divided. I like the idea of splitting the conditional use
permit. And then there's the last fee which was the, or the fee for surface water management. If we are
indeed, the applicant is indeed treating all of the water currently, under the current use and it is
satisfactory, it doesn't need to be increased for any particular reason today, I see no mason to want to
impose fees.
Slagle: Point of clarification. Is Engineering in agreement with that? That they are.
Feik: If it's satisfactory to the use.
13
Aanenson: I'll speak for Loft, and that was her opinion and that, not all the water stays on their property
so in some management part of the whole system. I mean you just can't avoid that.
Slagle: But for the most part.
Aanenson: I'll go back to, we felt the fee was appropriate.
Slagle: Okay.
Aanenson: We did reduce it, if you look at the number that they could have been charged, we felt that
we'd just...it seemed very onerous to take the entire parcel and use those numbers so that's, we seemed a
more fair baseline as far as. And again, you know if it was horses, there's issues there.
Sacchet: Is that it?
Feik: That's it.
Sacchet: Bethany.
Tjornhom: I think everything's been said quite well and the...
Sacchet: You're fine with it? Steve.
Lillehaug: I have a strong opinion about this. The applicant is subdividing this property and like staff
indicated, the subdivision allows for the conveyance of the property and it's very important now to
implement all the conditions recommended by staff. Not later. They need to be insured that they're in
place now for future property owners and that should be a mandatory, mandatory conditions to insure
that. I have strong feelings on that. There should be, like I indicated before, before this goes to council I
would like to see a registered survey done there, as well as a registered plat submitted to council for
approval. That's not the case here. As far as the monitoring system results, it's the applicant's
responsibility to provide that to the city. I don't think the city miscommunicated anything in my mind
and it simply should have been provided to the city. So part of this goes to insuring that everything meets
the subdivision. I'm not clear of why it's being subdivided at this time, but I am clear that these
conditions need to be implemented. Just to hit on a couple, a condition here that I'd like to elaborate on.
Condition number 4. I'd like to add to that that a pavement design will be redesigned to a 9 ton design
and the roadway, or the private driveway will be widened to 26 feet at this time. Now's the time to do it.
Slagle: So is that part of your motion?
Sacchet: We don't have a motion yet. Comment.
Lillehaug: No. That's comment. Showing you my position.
Sacchet: Any more comments Steve?
Lillehaug: You broke my train of thought again. And the reason I say redesign is because they show
pavement design here and I think it' s inadequate. I' m not quite done yet.
Sacchet: Take your time.
Lillehaug: I just want to make sure I hit on everything. Okay, that is it. Thank you.
14
Sacchet: That was it, alright. Couple of comments. I don't have tremendously much to add. I already
touched on my sentiment about the definition of hardship with this. I do believe there is a hardship. The
hardship is that currently there's no construction and so to ask for things that do require construction, I
think that's the hardship but that's not expressed like that in there. I definitely, overall I believe that the
conditions are appropriate for subdivision. I mean if the applicant comes in and wants to subdivide, we
have to apply the rules that apply to subdivision. Now we have an extraneous circumstance that it's not a
subdivision that is linked into construction, which is somewhat unusual. And it calls for some special
considerations that have been addressed at some extent. The conditional use I think needs to be clarified
as to what happens on the two parcels and we do have some rather aluminous verbosities here in front of
us that I hope Kate will explain to us a little bit when we get there. But I do believe we need to do
something about the conditional use so that it comes out right. I don't necessarily agree with the
representative of the applicant that quite as many of the conditions are inappropriate. I do think some of
them can be adjusted or even deleted. To be specific I think staff expressed that they're willing to work
on the 40 foot public road and utility easement. So I would propose that we put that into that context.
The applicant shall work with staff on that to find solution. Since there isn't any construction, I don't
think we need the condition number 6 with the silt fence. And I would want to leave in that it has to be
signed by registered engineer or somehow assure that this is accurate. Accurate plat. Accurate survey, as
Steve indicated. For the sewage treatment issue, I would simply request that the past reports are
submitted to the city. I mean there's point of trying to has out who should have done what. I mean we
are where we are, and apparently the reports are in existence so they can get submitted and we can move
forward and hopefully receive them regularly. I do believe that the fees, the park dedication and the
surface water management fees, staff made an effort to reduce those to make them appropriate rather than
apply it to the whole thing as they normally would in a subdivision so I think there has been an effort to
adjust them. I would want to accommodate the request from the applicant that we somehow specify at
acreage specifically the park dedication fee is for to avoid any possible double fee there. Other than that
I think I'm very much in agreement with staff's proposal here, and would be willing to take a motion.
Who wants to try to make a motion here?
Slagle: I' m looking at Commissioner Lillehaug.
Lillehaug: I thought so.
Sacchet: Alright Steve, do you want to give it a crack?
Lillehaug: Sure. I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the two lot
subdivision #20034 SUB with the variance for the private street pavement width to permit the use, no. I
don't want to say that. Let me start over. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
two lot subdivision g2003-4 SUB.
Sacchet: Cross out the variance?
Lillehaug: For Paws, Claws, cross out the variance, yep. For Paws, Claws and Hooves Incorporated,
plans prepared by James R. Hill Incorporated dated January 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions 1
through 16. Revise number 4. To add pavement design will be redesigned to a 9 ton design and 26 foot
wide street. I want to keep in number 6. Number 9 1 would like to add that this shall be completed prior
to presenting for council consideration.
Sacchet: Again?
15
Lillehaug: I want to add to number 9 that submittal of the results of the monitoring plan will be
submitted.
Sacchet: The monthly reports.
Lillehaug: Monthly reports will be submitted to staff prior to presenting to council for consideration.
Slagle: Point of clarification. Steve, did you, on the request to have that driveway survey, where was
that? Before council.
Feik: Number 4? Or do you just want to add another one?
Lillehaug: Yep, that would be 17. The applicant shall insure that a registered survey is done on the
driveway to insure that the 40 foot, that the driveway is centered in the 40 foot easement. That shall be
provided all the way to the Lot number 2, is it? Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay. That's it?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Do we have a second?
Feik: I'll second.
Sacchet: Do we have friendly amendments?
Feik: Anything about the park fees?
Sacchet: Friendly amendments?
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the two lot subdivision (#2003-4 SUB), for Paws, Claws
& Hooves, Inc., plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated January 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must amend the Conditional Use Permit for the commercial kennel and stable prior
to the city recording the final plat.
2. Extend the common portion of the private street pavement to the east property line of Lot 1,
3. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and
recorded against Lot 1.
4. A 40 foot public road and utility easement shall be dedicated from Trunk Highway 101 to the east
property line of Lot 2. An encroachment agreement for the private street shall be signed by the
applicant. The applicant must revise the private street width to bring it into compliance with City
Code when there is any changein the use of the parcel and/or addition to any existing building.
Pavement design will be redesigned to a 9 ton design and 26 foot wide street.
5. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
6. Add silt fence along the south side of the widened driveway.
16
Any additional impervious surface will require storm water management improvements and storm
pond sizing calculations be reviewed before final plat approval. Existing storm water runoff rates
from the site must be maintained.
If any additional impervious surface is added, the developer shall submit before and after
hydraulic computations for both the 10 and 100 year rainfall events, existing and proposed
drainage area maps, and storm drainage plans verifying that all existing drainage patterns and
systems affecting MnDot right-of-way will be perpetuated.
o
Submit the results of the annual on-site sewage treatment system monitoring plan as required by
the conditions of the on-site plan approved in 1998 for the existing septic system. The monthly
reports shall be submitted to city staff prior to City Council consideration.
10.
Submit the results of the soil borings and percolation tests for the two ISTS sites on the easterly
lot.
11.
Pursuant to city ordinance, the applicant shall pay a $20,160 park dedication fee charged against
Lot 1, Block 1 as part of the recording of the final plat.
12.
If additional grading in excess of 50 cubic yards is proposed or occurs, all areas meeting the
City's definition of a bluff should be shown on the grading plan. In addition, the bluff impact
zone should be shown on the grading plan.
13.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs under the direction of
city staff and pay the city $20 per sign.
14.
Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all existing wetlands, buffer areas and
storm water ponds.
15.
If construction occurs, Type III silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved
as buffer. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket, or sodded within two
weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
16.
Because the lots are oversized to accommodate individual on-site sewage disposal and water
systems, the charge for each lot has been reduced to the charge that would be imposed on a one-
half acre lot. The total Surface Water Management fees due at the time of final plat recording are
$12,179.00. If further subdivision of the property occurs, an additional charge will then be
imposed less a credit for the charge previously paid.
17.
The applicant shall insure that a registered survey is done on the driveway to insure that the
driveway is centered in the 40 foot easement to Lot 2.
All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Sacchet: It's 4 to 1. Reason for my naying is, I pretty much made that clear where I stood in terms of
some of the additional little amendments there. This goes to City Council on July 14th. This is not a
majority.
17
Lillehaug: Can I say one more thing here?
Sacchet: Hang on, since we didn't do the variance, where do we stand Kate?
Aanenson: Well the condition remains then as a conditional use. I guess we were saying that we would
agree to amend it but you left your motion as it is so it would go forward with that recommendation.
Feik: We can change it.
Aanenson: The person who made the motion can.
Sacchet: Condition 1 says the applicant must amend conditional use permit.
Aanenson: Correct. And what we're saying is instead of doing that we would reference conditional use
permit//96-3 as stated, except for the following and that would be that they need to follow Chapter 5
regarding the acreage for horses, because right now we dropped the acreage down which would be
approximately 27 horses.
: So it has to be amended to be in line with the acreage?
Aanenson: Correct, and that each use, the conditional use would follow. The standards of the conditional
use would be split for the appropriate.
Sacchet: Facilities.
Aanenson: Facilities, thank you. And you would clarify that in a motion as it moves forward to City
Council.
Sacchet: Correct. So since we did not do a variance, does this have to go to council?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: Because a subdivision goes to council. So this goes to council on July 14~?
Aanenson: Yes.
Lillehaug: How do I get this added in there now that the motion was already passed?
Aanenson: ...you have to rescind the motion and then have whoever seconded...
Sacchet: Let's deal with it. Do you want to deal with it?
Lillehaug: Yep. Step me through that again though.
Aanenson: Repeal your motion.
Lillehaug: Repeal?
Aanenson: Yes.
Lillehaug: I repeal my motion I made.
18
Sacchet: Do we have to make a motion and vote to repeal it?
Aanenson: Yes. Whoever seconded that motion.
Sacchet: Okay he made the motion to repeal.
Feik: I'll second.
Sacchet: Second to repeal.
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded to repeal the previous motion. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: Alright we repeal, so we start over?
Aanenson: Correct.
Lillehaug: I make the same motion with the same conditions.
Sacchet: Plus.
Lillehaug: Plus I want to add the condition as Kate just indicated.
Sacchet: Could you clarify what that was Kate?
Aanenson: Condition number 1 shall be amended to state that the appropriate conditions for the kennel
shall apply to that lot, which is Lot 1. The appropriate conditions based on acreage for the horse stable
will be applied to that, and staff will make those modifications as it moves to the City Council.
Feik: I second it again.
Liilehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the two lot subdivision (#2003-4 SUB), for Paws, Claws
& Hooves, Inc., plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated January 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant must amend the Conditional Use Permit for the commercial kennel and stable prior
to the city recording the final plat. The appropriate conditions for the kennel shall apply to
Lot 1. The appropriate conditions based on acreage for the horse stable will be applied to
Lot 2 and staff will make those modifications as it moves to the City Council.
Extend the common portion of the private street pavement to the east property line of Lot 1.
Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and
recorded against Lot 1.
A 40 foot public road and utility easement shall be dedicated from Trunk Highway 101 to the east
property line of Lot 2. An encroachment agreement for the private street shall be signed by the
applicant. The applicant must revise the private street width to bring it into compliance with City
Code when there is any change in the use of the parcel and/or addition to any existing building.
Pavement design will be redesigned to a 9 ton design and 26 foot wide street.
19
5. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
6. Add silt fence along the south side of the widened driveway.
Any additional impervious surface will require storm water management improvements and storm
pond sizing calculations be reviewed before final plat approval. Existing storm water runoff rates
from the site must be maintained.
If any additional impervious surface is added, the developer shall submit before and after
hydraulic computations for both the 10 and 100 year rainfall events, existing and proposed
drainage area maps, and storm drainage plans verifying that all existing drainage patterns and
systems affecting MnDot right-of-way will be perpetuated.
Submit the results of the annual on-site sewage treatment system monitoring plan as required by
the conditions of the on-site plan approved in 1998 for the existing septic system. The monthly
reports shall be submitted to city staff prior to City Council consideration.
10.
Submit the results of the soil borings and percolation tests for the two ISTS sites on the easterly
lot.
11.
Pursuant to city ordinance, the applicant shall pay a $20,160 park dedication fee charged against
Lot 1, Block 1 as part of the recording of the final plat.
12.
If additional grading in excess of 50 cubic yards is proposed or occurs, all areas meeting the
City's definition of a bluff should be shown on the grading plan. In addition, the bluff impact
zone should be shown on the grading plan.
13.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs under the direction of
city staff and pay the city $20 per sign.
14.
Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all existing wetlands, buffer areas and
storm water ponds.
15.
If construction occurs, Type III silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved
as buffer. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket, or sodded within two
weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
16.
Because the lots are oversized to accommodate individual on-site sewage disposal and water
systems, the charge for each lot has been reduced to the charge that would be imposed on a one-
half acre lot. The total Surface Water Management fees due at the time of final plat recording are
$12,179.00. If further subdivision of the property occurs, an additional charge will then be
imposed less a credit for the charge previously paid.
17.
The applicant shall insure that a registered survey is done on the driveway to insure that the
driveway is centered in the 40 foot easement to Lot 2.
All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
20
EXHIBIT A
That part of Government Lot 4, Section 36, Township 116, North Range 23 West of the 5th
Principal Meridian, Carver County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the southerly right-of-way
line of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company (formerly Minneapolis and St. Louis
Railway Company) and the northerly of the northerly line of State Highway No. 169 and No. 212,
EXCEPTING therefrom that part contained in the following:
That part of Government Lots 3 and 4, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows:
Commencing at the West Quarter comer of said section; thence South along an extension oft.he
west line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 1'4.65 feet; thence northeasterly deflecting to the
left' 106 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds, a distance of 1327.05 feet to the actual point of beginning
of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing northeasterly along .last described course
I70.35 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 89 degrees 15 minutes, a distance of 50 feet
to a point marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence continuing northwesterly along last described
course, a distance of 473.2 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Northwesterly
deflecting to the left 63 degrees 38 minutes, a distance of 40 feet to a£point marked by a Judicial .
Landmark; thence southwesterly deflecting to the left 25 degrees 30 minutes, a distance of 146 feet
to a point marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence southeasterly 545.52 feet to the actual point of
beginning, a point being marked on the last described course by a Judicial Landmark; distant 50 feet
northwesterly of actual point of beginning.
And except that part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 116,
Range 23, described as follows: Starting at a point on the North fight of way line of Trunk
Highway No. 169 which point is 50 feet North of the center line of the pavement at a point 1487.4
feet Northeasterly from the West line of said Section 36 as measured along the center line of said
pavement and running thence North 13 degrees 32 minutes West or at an angle of 89 degrees 15
minutes with said pavement a distance of 473.2 feet; thence North 77 degrees 10 minutes West, 40
feet; thonce South 77 degrees 20 minutes West, 146 feet; thence Southeasterly 501 feet to the North
right of way lineof said trunk Highway and thence Northeasterly along said right of way line 171
feet to place of begirming.
And EXCEPT that part of said Government Lot 4 lying easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the West Quarter comer of said section; thence South along an extension of the
West line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 14.65 'feet; thence northeasterly deflecting to the
left 106 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds, a distance of 1487.40 feetto the actual point of beginning
of the line to be described; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 89 degrees 15 minutes to the
south line of said Chicago and North Western Railway Company and said'line there termir~ating.
Abstract Prol~rty.
POBOXlO
· MN 56318
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
,,~ppIICAN-r: Paws Claws & Hooves, Inc.
· ~)DRESS: 10500 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318
TELEPHONE (Day time) 952-/~z~,5-0503
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Same as Applicant
X
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
. Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign PJan Review
Site Plan Review*
Notification Sign
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 C U P/S P I:~V..aC~P/M etes
and Bounds,(~.~.00 Minor SU,.~
TOTAL FEE $ 550.00
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application. *To be supplied by City
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
"Twenty-six full size .folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8Y2" X 11" reduced copy of
~ each plan sheet.
"* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
ND'rE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME Paws Claws & Hooves
].OCATION 10500 Great Plains Blvd.~ Highways 101. and' 169
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See plat drawin_~s
TOTALACREAGE 13.16
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENTZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
× YES
Business Fringe
No change
NO
PP~SENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
]REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Split
one building per lot rule.
Office - Industrial
No change ' ·
stable and kennel areas into two lots. Comply with
-i'his 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.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
nolice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
']'hi~; 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 applicat, ion should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
1he City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of-Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I wa 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
r~y knowledge.
The c'~y hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
signature
Signature of Fee Owner
Application Rece]ved on c~//~)/0 .~ Fee Paid
Date
Date
Receipt No.
'The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the'meeting.
if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
I'OUl 'II!H '8 satuer '~ ',
z ~_Lq
Dqq 'SMAOOH ([NV SA~VqO 'S~tVd
J,Vqd ASYNIINlq~id
S.~AOOH (INV SAiVqD 'S~tVd
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO 8ox 147
C~anr~assen. MN 55317
Adminislration
Pi~one: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
P~:one: 952.227.1180
~:.~x: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952227.1160
F~x 952 227.1170
Finance
F%~e: %2227.1140
F._.×: 552 227.1110
Park & Recreation
P~r.?.¢: %2.227.1120
r',~.x 952.227.1110
~e.-'r~zt;ion Center
2~,~, C.:ul~er Boulevard
??,e~ 952227.1400
=:, 952 227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
f- .,y q~2.2271130
~,,: ~i:L.' 227.1110
Public Works
!5,4: P~rk Road
s"or:e: ~'c2 227.1300
F.~:: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Pi-:o~e: 952.227.1125
F~!;,: 952227.1110
Web Site
,~,.,. ~;i chanr~assen.mn.us
March 31, 2003
Mr. William C. Griffith, Jr.
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431-1194
Re: Paws, Claws & Hooves, Inc. Application for Lot Split
Dear Mr. Griffith:
In the city's judgement, Minn. Statute § 15.99 does not apply to this application.
Since you believe that it does apply, we are processing the application, regardless
of the completeness of the application. However, due to the delay in beginning
the review, the city will be unable to complete the development review process
within 60 days of the original submittal (submitted March 14, 2003). We are
therefore notifying you that the city will be taking up to an additional 60 days to
complete the development review for the project, which would extend the review
period to July 13, 2003.
Additionally, you will need to install a development proposal sign on the property
and pay a $50.00 rental fee and $100.00 deposit. Once the fee and deposit are
paid, you can go to the city's public works building at 1591 Park Road to pick up
the sign for installation.
The project has been scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on May 6,
2003. If acted upon by the Planning Commission, it would be sent to the City
Council May 27, 2003.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (952) 227-1131.
Sincerely,
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
The City of Chanhassen, A gro',~ ~,9 ccrr::~;;:v'/,,, '.;, ,:.:.. '.,,. ~ 2 ', <!' ', ...... ,'~' ' ',
.... . ..... , .... t ,., 90wfitC',Vll lgrlVlfld DUS!fi;;S~.~e5. ,'~'lflC P~; trails g~iO oe3itJl}iu uarks A ~rea[ p,ace To live. work, and play.
ROBERT L, HOFFMAN
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
EDWARD J. DRISCOLL
JOHN D. FULLMER
FRANK I. HARVEY
CHARLES S, MODELL
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
L~NDA H, FISHER
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN
JOHN E. DIEHL
JON S. ~NIERZEWSKI
THOMAS J. FLYNN
JAMES P. QUINN
TODD I. FREEMAN
GERALD L. BECK
JOHN B. LUNDQUIST
DAYLE NOLAN *
JOHN A. COTTER *
PAUL B. PLUNKETT
KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN
GREGORY E. KORSTAD
GARY A. VAN CLEVE *
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
MICHAEL W. SCHLEY
TERRENCE E. BISHOP
GARY A. RENNEKE
CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL
KENDEL J. OHLROGGE
BRUCE J. DOUGLAS
WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH~ JR, *
JOHN R. HILL
PETER J. COYLE
LARRY D. MARTIN
JANE E. BREMER
JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN
MICHAEL J. SMITH
ANDREW F. PERR[N
RONALD S. LONDON
FREDERICK W. NIEBUHR
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (952) 835-3800
FAX (952) 896-3333
WILLIAM G. THORNTON
DOUGLAS M. RAMLER
LYNN M. STARKOVICH
STEPHEN J. KAMINSKI
THOMAS F. ALEXANDER
DANIEL T. KADLEC
ADAM S. HUHTA*
SUSAN F. BULLARD *
KENNETH COREY-EDBTROM
ANN M. MEYER
JAMES M. SUSAG *
DANIEL J. BALLINTINE
JEFFREY D. CAHILL
JOSEPH J, FI~rANTE. JR.
THOMAS J. OPPOLD **
CYNTHIA M. KLAUS
MARK D. CHRISTOPHERSON
NEAL J. BLANCHETr
TAMARA O'NEILL MORELAND
JAMES A. MCGREEVY. lit
THOMAS A. GUMP *
TODD A, TAYLOR
CHRISTOPHER J. DEIKE
GENEVIEVE A. BECK
DIONNE M. BENSON
JEREMY C. STiER
JOANI C, MOBERG
CHRIS M, HEFFELBOWER
MICHAEL A. ESSIEN
ANNE M. OLSON
OF COUNSEL
JAMES P. L~RKIN *
JACK F. DALY
D. KENNETH LINDGREN
· ALSO ADMITTEO IN WISCONSIN
· * ONLY ADMITTED IN IOWA
March 26, 2003
Mr. Bob Generous
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Paws, Claws and Hooves Application for Lot Split; Our File 22,253-00
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 2003. We have reviewed Paws, Claws, and Hooves existing
approvals, consisting of a conditional use permit, site plan permit, and variance issued September 23,
1996. These approvals do not prohibit a lot split, nor do they require a new CLIP in the event of a lot
split. The prior approvals specifically reference the site plan, grading and drainage plan, erosion control
plan, and building elevations. None of these specifically-referenced plans are proposed to change. There
is no indication that a new conditional use permit is required.
With regard to the other requests, please note that no changes are propoSed to the improvements on the
property, nor have the owners made alterations to the natural features present for prior approvals. We
have reviewed the City Code § 18.40, setting forth the required data for plat applications, and we have
included that information with the application.
We therefore request the City's acceptance and review of the subdivision application without a new
conditional use permit application, and without imposing additional requirements beyond those in the
City Code. State law governing the review of applications provides that the City's review period begins
when the City receives an application "containing all information required by law or by a previously
adopted rule, ordinance, or policy." Minn. Stat. § 15.99. We are including the original application with
this correspondence so that the City may continue review and schedule the appropriate public hearings.
Please notify us when this matter is scheduled for hearing.
Mr. Bob Generous
March 26, 2003
Page 2
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
2~~th, Jr., for ')'
~>ARtdN, HOFFMAN, DALY & ~'DGREN,
cc: Patrick and Nancy Lee Blood
845016.1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952,227.1100
Fax: 952,227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952,227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952,227,1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952,227.1140
Fax: 952,227,1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952,227,1120
Fax: 952,227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Ph6ne: 952,227,1400
Fax: 952,227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952,227.1130
Fax: 952,227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227,1300
Fax: 952,227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227,1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
March 18, 2003
Mr. William C. Griffith, Jr.
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431-1194
Re: Paws, Claws & Hooves, Inc. Application for Lot Split
Dear Mr. Griffith:
After review of the materials submitted for Paws, Claws & Hooves, Inc.
application for a lot split, I am writing to notify you that the application is
incomplete and cannot currently be scheduled for review.
The following informatiOn must be included as part of the development reView
application:
A revised development review application including a request for a
Conditional Use Permit amendment (CUP) with an additional fee for the
CUP. The existing CLIP encompasses the enti3e property. The number of
horses permitted as part of the stable is based on acreage of the site.
Additionally, parking may be impacted with the lot split.
· A wetland delineation report or a verification of the existing wetland
delineation report.
· Show the bottom and top of the bluff located on the site on the plans.
· Provide 10-year and 100-year, pre- and post-development storm water
calculations for the subdivision.
· Show the existing primary and secondary drain field sites on the existing
site conditions and site plan.
· Locate and label all outdoor structures including dog runs, fences, kennels,
sheds, tanks etc. on existing conditional use plan and site plan.
· Provide an 8.5 inch by 11 inch reduction of the existing site conditions
sheet.
The City of Chanhassen "A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming (]own[own, [nr~wng businesses, windinc~ trails, and beautilul parks A great place to live, work, and play.
Mr. William C. Griffith, Jr.
March 18, 2003
Page 2
Private streets for commercial and industrial development must be 26 feet pavement
width, nine-ton design within a 30 foot easement (sec. 18-57). Please provide the typical
road section for the private street and show the private street on the plan. If the
applicants are requesting a variance from the standards, they will need to incorporate that
in their development review application with payment of the applicable fee.
I am returning your check as well as the development review application form. Please resubmit
the application with the appropriate fees and revised plan sheets. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please contact me for the application requirements, Lori Haak,
Water Resources Coordinator, for the wetland and bluff information, or Matt Saam, Assistant
City Engineer, for the storm water and private street information.
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
C~
Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator
Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
Enclosures
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
April 23, 2003
Mr. Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Generous:
SUBJECT:
Paws, Claws & Hooves Plat
Minnesota Department of Transportation Review #P03-040
E of TH101/N of TH212
Chanhassen, Carver County
Control Section 1013
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in
compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please
address the following issues:
Additional 'access to Trunk Highway 101 or Trunk Highway 212 will not be allowed. When access
points increase along a highway, they degrade its capacity and safety. If any site reconfiguration
should occur the design must take advantage of the existing access to Trunk Highway 101.
The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm
water is discharged from the site must not increase). The City or project developer will need to
submit before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events, existing and
proposed drainage area maps, and storm drainage plans verifying that all existing drainage patterns
and systems affecting Mn/DOT right of way will be perpetuated. Please direct questions concerning
these issues to Katie Heinz (651-634-2407) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section.
Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way must be justified and requires a permit. Please direct
questions regarding permit applications to Keith VanWagner (651-582-1443) of Mn/DOT's Permits
section.
Please send a copy of the final plat for Mn/DOT review to the following address:
Bruce Wetherbee
Mn/DOT - Metro West Surveys
2055 N. Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Phone: (763) 797-3110
An equal opportunity employer
CITY OF OHA HASSEtV
City of Chanhassen
April 23, 2003
Page 2
Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to:
Paul Czech
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of
other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2)
copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and
response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the
necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete
submittals.
Sincer, ely,
Sharon Anderson
Transportation Planner
Cc:
John Freemyer / Carver County Surveyor
Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer
James R. Hill, Inc.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL:
Subdivision Request
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Paws, Claws & Hooves
10500 Great Plains Blvd.
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Paws,
Claws & Hooves, Inc., is requesting subdivision approval to divide a 13.16 acre lot into two lots on property
zoned BF, Business Fringe District and located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard,
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and 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 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this hearing was published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 24, 2003.
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
:;~IN SNOW OR SHINE GOLF LLC
~276 SCANDIA RD
tVACONIA MN 55387
STATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR
TAX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT
500 LAFAYETTE RD
ST PAUL MN 55155
Use template for 5160®
BERT A & BONNIE LYNN NOTERMANN
812 CO RD 78 E
SHAKOPEE MN 55379
~KIP S COOK
15526 VILLAGE WOODS DR
-'DEN PRAIRIE MN
55347
ROBERT E & BETTY J DRURY
575 FLYING CLOUD DR PO BOX 193
SHAKOPEE MN 55379
MICHAEL S SPIESS
470 FLYING CLOUND DR
CHASKA MN
55318
~TATE Of MINNESOTA-DNR
FAX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT
700 LAFAYETTE RD
~T PAUL MN 55155
JaCk BRAMBILLA
550 VALLEY PARK DR
SHAKOPEE
MN 55379
LARRY HOPFENSPIRGER
2720 QUAKER LN N
PLYMOUTH MN
55441
~KIP S COOK
15526 VILLAGE WOODS DR
:-DEN PRAIRIE MN
JOHN & DOLORES MALZAHN
10551 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
3HASKA MN
55347
55318
U S FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
1 FEDERAL DR
ST PAUL
STATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR
TAX SPEC. ~ BUREAU OF R E MGMT
500 LAFAYETTE RD
ST PAUL MN 55155
DEBRA L WENDORF
BISHOP HENRY WHI; 740 VOGELSBURG TRL
MN 55111 CHASKA
ALLEN R ROTHE
750 VOGELSBERG TRL
CHASKA
MN 55318
MN 55318
~,ILEY PURGATORY BLF CRK WS
.~/O RAY HAIK
~.22 S 9TH ST #3300
vllNNEAPOLIS MN 55402
=CH DEVELOPMENT LLC
10500 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
3HASKA MN
55318
TIMOTHY P & JAMI L BUSBY
2510 BRINKHAUS ST
CHASKA MN
55318
NORMAN & KAROLINE L MONROE
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
565 LAKOTA LN PO BOX 115
CHASKA MN 55318
JON ROHS CONST & REAL EST INC DEVAL U & DATTA D MEDH
600 S HWY 169 INTERCHANGE TOV~ 535 LAKOTA LN
ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426 CHASKA MN
55318
rHOMAS W& BEATRICEIZWIERS
)390 267TH ST
.AKEVILLE MN 55044
JAMES A & BONNIE B SWANSEN
615 LAKOTA LN
CHASKA MN 55318
P R KELLY PROPERTIES LLC
550 FLYING CLOUD DR
CHASKA MN
55318
~TATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR
taX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT
700 LAFAYETTE RD
ST PAUL MN 55155
VERNE L & SUSAN B SEVERSON
675 LAKOTA LN
CHASKA MN 55318
Address Labels
Laser
5160®
C OF
CHA EN
690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937. I900
General Fax 612.93Z5739
Engineering Fax 612.937.9152
Public Safqy Fax 612.934.2524
Web www. ci. chanhassen, mn.u~
May 21, 1998
Paws Claws and Hooves
Mr. Pat Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee
10500 Great Plains Blvd.,
Chaska, MN 55318
Re: Experimental ISTS
Dear Pat and Nancy:
I have reviewed the design submitted by Swedlund Septic Service for the proposed ISTS at
the kennel site. I have also made a site visit.
As I have explained, there is no criteria available
Your ISTS will be an experimental system
Sewage Treatment Systems Standards,
should be aware of include:
imal waste. For this reason,
requirements of Individual
standard you
the
timize the
may be
area sizing,
again,
facility. ~Wed'iU~ Septic 'service estimates 90:g~d flo.~ baSed ~h ~um~ing
histo~. ~ estimated 600 gpd~ wher~ appro¥in~g the holding tanks prior ~o
c~nstmct~on of the facility. My estimate was based ori water use of other,
.... .:~:...:::?!:glmilar facilities in ~he area. Your recorded use is significantly !ess, but
~:,'"':?!i. ii?ii:!i.~nerease: As :the facility reaches full capacity sewage flow will increase; and
'":"¥: ili;};i~ater Use is 'likely to increase when the ISTS makes pumPi~lg unnecessary,.
"?~g~ment are~:-Si:z., ing ~hOuldbe baSed on aJlow of!80 gpd. This will provide
for pxohibitively
DistribUt~6~:~
Because it can't b~
break down, steps
installed at the
in the septic tank to
[~lid waste is another unknown.
~-: ,~imal hair and solid waste will
A filter must be
~ ~tr, and an alarm must be installed
filter. In addition, the septic tank must
The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, qualiqy schoo& a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
Mr. Pat Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee
May 21, 1998
Page 2
be inspected and/orpumped annually until the rate of accumulation of solids
can be accurately predicted~ r~'~c~ o~z.e~.,~e, ~o-s~'~e,.
Mitigation Plan. 7080.0910 Subp. 1G. A mitigation plan is required for an
experimental system. The purpose of the plan is to provide an acceptable
option for treatment and disposal should the experimental system fail. I assume
in your case, the mitigation plan would be to go back to using the holding tanks.
Water Meter. 7080.0190 Subp. 3aA. The volume of liquid distributed to the
treatment area is required to be measured. This measurement is useful when
evaluating system performance. For this purpose, an event counter or water
meter must be installed. With the hard water commonly encountered in
Chanhassen, meters often clog up. It may be desirable to install an event
counter that will record each time the pump is switched on instead of a water
meter.
Distribution of Effluent. 7080.0190 Subp. 3aB. The trench system must be
designed so that no single portion takes over 25% of the average design flow.
With this distribution, failure of one trench will not cause failure of the entire
system. Distribution of effluent as specified by the code will require four
trenches.
o
Monitoring Plan. 7080.0190 Subp. 3aD. An experimental system requires a
monitoring plan. The requirements specified in item #1 above constitute the
elements of the monitoring plan.
Results of Monitoring. 7080.0190 Subp. 3aE. The results of the annual septic
tank pump and/or inspection, the results of the annual treatment area inspection,
the status of the septic tank filter(s), and the reading on the water meter and/or
event counter must be submitted to the city annually in late spring. Filter clogs,
tank alarms or any malfunctions must be reported as they occur.
Some of these items require a change in the design; others require your agreement. Submit
a revised design incorporating and detailing applicable requirements listed above. You
may sign and date in the area provided below to signify agreement to the following
conditions one through five.
1. We agree to have the ISTS design revised to:
Indicate an average design flow of 180 gpd.
· Provide four trenches.
· Provide an alarm in the septic tank.
· Provide a filter in the septic tank.
2. We agree to resume pumping as needed to mitigate a failure of the experimental ISTS.
3. We agree to install a water monitoring device.
Mr. Pat Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee
May 21, 1998
Page 3
4. We agree on a monitoring plans that consists of inspecting and/or pumping the septic
tank annually and inspecting the treatment area annually.
5. We agree to submit results of the monitoring annually in late spring.
I will be happy to discuss these requirements further with you and/or your designer. Call
me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Kirchman
Building Official
pc~
Jeff Swedlund, Designer
Building file, 10500 Great Plains Blvd.
We agree to comply with conditions one through five listed above.
signature ~ - name (print or type)
~(~,~ ~ ~.a~-.-~~ Nancy Lee
signature ~ name (print or type)
date
date
Message Page 1 of 3
Generous, Bob
From: Blanchett, Neal J. [nblanchett@lhdl.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 10:54 AM
To: Generous, Bob
Subject: RE: Paws, Claws & Hooves Subdivision
Dear Bob:
By this correspondence, we are granting an extension of the time to review the application until July 14th, 2003.
Neal J. Blanchett
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
Suite 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, MN USA 55431
Telephone 952.896.1553 (direct)
Fax 952.842.1735
E-mail nblanchett@lhdl.com
Secretary Carol Wendt
..... Original Message .....
From= Generous, Bob [mailto:bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent= Friday, May 23, 2003 10:36 AM
To= Blanchett, Neal J.
Cc= Aanenson, Kate; Burgess, Teresa; Gerhardt, Todd; Haak, Lori; Knutson, Roger; Sweidan, .Mahmoud
Subject.' RE: Paws, Claws & Hooves Subdivision
Dear Neal:
After review of the hearing dates, I discovered that I can not reschedule you to the June 17th Planning
Commission meeting unless I receive a signed statement that the applicant is waiving the deadline for action by
the city. At a minimum, we would need an additional 30 days, until August 12, 2003, to assure that the Planning
Commission and City Council have adequate time to review the application. We don't want to drag the review
process out any longer than necessary, but the postponements have thrown our review process off schedule.
Please let me know today if your clients agree to this waiver.
Bob Generous
..... Original Message .....
From: Blanchett, Neal J. [mailto:nblanchett@lhdl.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 3:54 plVl
To: Generous, Bob
Cc: Aanenson, Kate; Haak, Lori; Hoffman, Todd; Sweidan, Mahmoud; Burgess, Teresa; Knutson, Roger;
Gerhardt, Todd; Griffith, William C.
Subject: RE: Paws, Claws & Hooves Subdivision
Dear Bob,
Please remove Paws Claws and Hooves from the June 3, 2003 Planning Commission agenda and place
it on the next Planning Commission agenda, which I understand to be June 17th, 2003. Please notify me
if my understanding is not correct. Thank you.
5/27/2003
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE17, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL:
Subdivision Request
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Paws, Claws & Hooves, Inc.
10500 Great Plains Blvd.
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in yourarea. The applicant, Paws,
Claws & Hooves, Inc. is requesting subdivision approval with a variance to divide a 13.16 acre lot into tWo
lots on property zoned BF, Business Fringe District and located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and 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 227-1131 or e-mail bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies
to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 5, 2003.
®09T. S
THOMAS W & BEATRICE I ZWIERS
9390 267TH ST
LAKEVILLE MN 55044
ALLEN R ROTHE
750 VOGELSBERG TRL
CHASKA MN
55318
slaqe'l ssaJppv
JOHN & DOLORES MALZAHN
10551 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHASKA MN 55318
DEVAL U & DATTA D MEDH
535 LAKOTA LN
CHASKA MN 55318
THOMAS W & BEATRICE I ZWIERS
9390 267TH ST
LAKEVILLE MN 55044
ROBERT E & BETTY J DRURY
575 FLYING CLOUD EIB BOX 193
SHAKOPEE MN 55379
NORMAN & KAROLINE L MONROE
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
565 LAKOTA LN PO BOX t 15
CHASKA MN 55318
MICHAEL S SPIESS
470 FLYING CLOUND DR
CHASKA MN
55318
SKIP S COOK
15526 VILLAGE WOODS DR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347
JON ROHS CONST & REAL EST INC
600 S HWY 169 INTERCHANGE T£
ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426
P R KELLY PROPERTIES LLC
550 FLYING CLOUD DR
CHASKA MN 55318
LARRY HOPFENSPIRGER
2720 QUAKER LN N
PLYMOUTH MN 55441
TIMOTHY P & JAMI L BUSBY
2510 BRINKHAUS ST
CHASKA MN 55318
STATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR
TAX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT
500 LAFAYETTE RD
: STPAUL MN 55155
BERT A & BONNIE LYNN NOTERMANI~
812 CO RD 78 E
SHAKOPEE MN 55379
VERNE L & SUSAN B SEVERSON
675 LAKOTA LN
CHASKA MN 55318
PCH DEVELOPMENT LLC
10500 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHASKA MN 55318
STATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR
TAX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT
500 LAFAYETTE RD
ST PAUL MN 55155
JAMES A & BONNIE B SWANSEN
615 LAKOTA LN
CHASKA MN 55318
JACK BRAMBILLA
550 VALLEY PARK DR
SHAKOPEE MN
55379
U S FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
1 FEDERAL DR BISHOP HENRY W
ST PAUL MN 55111
RILEY PURGATORY BLF CRK WS
C/O RAY HAIK
222 S 9TH ST #3300
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402
SKIP S COOK
15526 VILLAGE WOODS DR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347
RAIN SNOW OR SHINE GOLF LLC
8276 SCANDIA RD
WACONIA MN 55387
DEBRA L WENDORF
740 VOGELSBURG TRL
CHASKA MN
55318
STATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR
TAX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT
500 LAFAYETTE RD
ST PAUL MN 55155
STATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR
TAX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT
500 LAFAYETTE RD
ST PAUL MN 55155
~09ZS Joj aleldtual aSrl .,slaaqs paa:l q3ootus
®09T.~ .mSe'l
U S FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
I FEDERAL DR BISHOP HENRY W
ST PAUL MN 55111
slaqe'l ssaJppv
®091:S JOl eleldme~, asa ~zs~,eeqs peal qlooms
Lar~xn Ho~£man 6/10/2003 3:08 PAGE 2/7 RightFax
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-11G4
TELEPHONE (g52) 835-3800
FAX (952) 896-3333
June 10, 2003
Chanhasscn Planning Commissioners
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147
Re: Paws Claws And Hooves Subdivision ApplicatiOn; Our File 22,253-04
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We represent Paws, Claws and Hooves (PCH) with respect to this application. PCH is proposing to
divide its property into two lots. No new construction or change of use is proposed. Despite this, the
staff report of May 1, 2003 (the "Planning Report") states numerous new restrictions. New restrictions
are not necessary, nor are they legally supportable, since PCH proposes no change to the site. For the
reasons sot forth in this letter, we ask that you eliminate the restrictions discussed below and recommend
approval of the PCH proposal.
The Application Meets The Standards For Approval
As the Planning Report has noted, the request meets the standards for approval as set out in the City Code.
The subdivided lots are of sufficient size, have adequate frontage, and can be adequately served with
utilities. The subdivision does not change any of the site's impact on its neighbors or on public
infrastructure. Therefore, thcrc is no now impact that justifies new rcstrictions.
The Recommended Conditions Must Be Modified or Deleted
The Planning staff, while recommending approval, adds 16 recommended conditions in the Planning
Report. These conditions are attached for reference. They should be modified or deleted as follows.
There is no legal basis upon which to re-open the existing Conditional Use Permit. Both the
kennel and stable are authorized by the Conditional Use Permit issued by the City September 23,
1996. That Fcmtit applies to thc entire site and authorizes all site improvements both before and
after the subdivision. It includes a lengthy list of conditions, but nowhere does it specify it must
Larkin Ho££m&n 611012003 3:08 PAGE 317 RightF~x
LARKUV, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDOREN, LTD.
Chanhassen Planning
Commissioners
rune 10, 2003
Pat~e 2
be re-opened for subdivision or any other approval. In fact, it provides separate conditions for the
kennel and for the stable, making it easy to apply the appropriate condition to the appropriate use
after subdivision.
The City Code does not authorize the City to re-open a Conditional Use Permit whenever a
landowner seeks another City approval. In fact, there are no provisions in the zoning or
subdivision sections for re-opening a Conditional Use Permit at all. Minnesota law provides that a
Conditional Use Permit remains in effect so long as the conditions are observed. Minn.Stat. §
462.3595, subd. 3 (1990), Northpointe Plaza v. Cit'v of Rochester, 465 N.W.2d 686, 689 (Minn.
1991) The existing Conditional Use Permit cannot lose effect so long as PCH complies with the
conditions.
Extending the private street pavement unnecessarily adds impervious surface. The stable is served
by a gravel drive for a short length. Staff acknowledges that a private street is appropriate, but
recommends adding a few feet of pavement. There is no need to extend private street pavement
beyond the kennel access point, since the road is only a driveway to the stable beyond that point.
Private street standards apply ordy to the portion of the drive serving both kcrmel and stable.
PCH will provide cross-access easements and maintenance agreements as recommended.
Staff requests a 40-foot public road and utility easement across the entire property from Highway
101 to the east line. This public casement is a subdivision exaction, and must meet the legal
standards for such exactions. Minnesota's subdivision statute allows the City to require dedication
of property only where that dedication is required as a result of the approval of the subdivision,
Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2b.
The U.S. Supreme Court has examined precisely this situation in Dolan v. City of Tigard, (512
U.S. 374 (1994)). The Court adopted a two part test, commonly referred to as "the Dolan test."
To satisfy the first part of the test, the City must make an "individualized determination that the
required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed
development." Id~ Stated another way, the City can require a property own~ to give up property
without compensation only if that property is necessary to alleviate some impact of the owner's
new development. The "city has the burden of proving the required relationship between the
property development and tho city's need for land dedication." Kottschade v. City of Rochester,
537 N.W.2d 301,307 (1Vginn. App. 1995).
In this case, there is no new impact. Therefore, there is no justification to require a new 40-foot
right-of-way easement across the entire property. The Kottschade case provides an illustrative
example. In that case, a developer proposed a major commercial development creating substantial
traffic impacts. The traffic impacts were great enough that a new highway interchange was
necessary. The City could require the landowner to give up the land necessary for the new
interchange, as a condition of approving the new development that created a need for that
interchange. In PCH's case, there is no new traffic and therefore no need for a new road. Because
there is no legal justification to require a new public road easement, this condition must be deleted.
Larkin Ho££m&n 6/10/2003 3:08 PAGE 4/7 RightF&x
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINIng, LTD.
Chanhassen Planning
Commissioners
June 10, 2003
Page 3
5. PCH will ensure that plans are signed by a registered engineer.
6. No re-grading is proposed.
7. No additional impervious surface is proposed. This condition should be deleted.
8. This condition also applies only if new impervious surface is added.
9. PCH has adequately inspected and maintained the septic system; records will be provided.
10. PCH will submit documentation that the proPOsed new septic sites are adequate.
ll.
There is no justification for a park dedication fee, since, unlike a residential subdivision, this
subdivision creates no new need for parks. The need for park dedication may arise upon further
development, and the City could impose it at that time. Any requirement should be deferred.
Even if there was a justification for some dedication, PCH would consent to it only if it was the
only dedication required for the area comprising Lot 1, Block 1.
12. PCH will submit bluff impact information if any grading is proposed. No grading is proposed.
13. PCH will work with the City to properly designate wetlands.
14. PCH will cooperate with the City to grant drainage and utility easements over existing wetlands,
buffer areas, and stormwater ponds, and to eliminate unneeded easement areas.
15, No construction is proposed.
16. Thc site is not connected to thc City's stormwatcr systcm. In fact, PCH was rcquircd to construct
storrnwater ponds for its stonnwater, which it constructed and continues to maintain at its own
expense. The suggested condition to fund the City's public system must be deferred until such
time as that system serves thc sitc and provides a benefit to PCH.
The Site has limitations which would affect any future redevelopment. The Site is not served by public
utilities. It is currently designated "Business Fringe" and only limited uses are allowed. Staff's suggested
development conditions are directed toward future redevelopment. If the Site is redeveloped, the City
will have an opportunity to impose those conditions when reviewing that redevelopment. The conditions
should be imposed when the Site is redeveloped, rather than now, when no new construction is proposed.
Sincerely,
Neal J. BlancheR, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
L~rkin Ho££m~n 6110/2003 3:08 PAGE 5/7 RightF~x
LARKn~, HOFFMAN, DALY & L~WDOREN, LTD.
Chanhasscn Planning
Commissioners
June I O, 2003
Page 4
cc:
Pat and Nancy Blood
William C. Griflith, Jr.
860852.1
Larkin Ho££man 8/10/2003 3:08 PAGE 8/7 RightF&x
[Excerpted from City Planning Report dated May 1, 2003]
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ad,pt ~he following motion:
~he Planning Commission recommends approval of the two lot subdiviSion for Paws, Claws &
· Hooves, Inc., plans prepared by James R. Hifl, Inc., ~tpfl January 30, 2003, subject to the
following conditions: '
The applicant must amend the Conditional Use Pemait for the CommeIcial Kelm¢l alld
Stable prior to the city recording the final plat_
Extend the common portion of the private street pavement to the east lno~ line.of Lot 1,
A 40 foot public mad and utility easement shall ~e dedicated from Trunk ~ighway 101 to
the east proper~line of Lot 2. An encroachment agreement for the private street shall be
Signed by the applicant. The private street shall be built 26 fee~ pavement width and built to
a 9-ton .d~ign.
All plans must be signed by a ~gisten~l engineer.
Add silt fence along U~ south side of the widened driveway.
Any additional i .mpe~ious surface will require storm water mm~agem~t improvements and
storm pond sizing calculations be review before final plat apXn~v~, Existing storm water
.runoff rates from thc silo must be m.gAntainccL
The developer shall submit before and after hydraulic computations for both the 10 and 100
year rainfall ewnts, existing and proposed drainage area m~, and stoma drainage plans
verifying that all existing drainage pattens and systems affecting lVin/lX~ fight-of-way
Submit the results of the annual on-site sewage treaUneat system mordtoring plan as
requirexl by uhe coaditions of the on-site plan approved in 1998 for ~c existing septic
,sy~em.
XO.'
Submit the resulls of the soil borings and percolation tests for thc two IST$ sites on
easterly lot.
L&rkin Ho££man 6/10/2003 3'08 PAGE 7/7 RightFax
il.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Pmsuant to city ordinance, lhe al~lic~t shall pay a $20,160 park dedicati°n fee charged
Lot 1', Block 1 as part of lhe re~ording of the final plat.
All areas meeting the City's definition of a bluff should be shown on thc ~g plan. In
addition, the bluff impact zone should be shown on the grading plan.
Wetland buffer areas, shall be preserved, surveyed .ami staked in accordance with the City's
wetland o~nance. Th~ applicant mUSt install wetland buffer edge signs under the direction
of City staff and pay tl~ Cirri $'20 per sign.
Drainage and utility easements shall be dedi~ over all existing wetlands, buffer awas
and storm water ponds.
If construction occur~ Typ~ III silt fenc~ should be provided adjacent to all areas to be
preserved as buffer. AH upland areas di~ as a xesult of construction afffiviti~ shall b~
~mmediat~ly restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a Wood-tiber blanket or.'
sodded '.W.~ two'w -_e~ ~o[. ~ct~!_e~_~n of'each aclivity in accordanc~ with the City's Be~t
Management Practice Nan~k
Because the las am oversized m accommodate individual on-site sewage ~
water sys~ms; the charge for each lot has been reduced to the charge that would be imposed
on a one-half acre lot_ The total Smface Water Managem~t Fees,.due at the time of final
plat ~cording, are $12, 179.00. If fu~er subdivision of the prope~ occurs, an additional
charge will then be im,r~sed less a credit f~ the charge previously pai~~
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SITE PLAN PERMIT #96-8
VARIANCE #96-8
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #96-3
SPEC!~AL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated September 23, 1996, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, (the "City"), and Nancy Lee and patrick Blood, d/b/a Paws,
Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, ('the "Developer")~
c~nditional
Request for Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a site plan,
use permit, and variance for Paws, Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding (referred to in this
Permit as the "project"). The land is legally described in exhibit A.
2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the site plan and conditional
Use permit on condition that the Developer enter into this Permit and furnish the security required
by it.
i 3. Development Plans. The project shall be developed and maintained in accordance
With the tbllowing plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans vary from the
Written terms of this Permit, the written terms shall control. The plans are:
Plan A--Site Plan, Grading and Drainag~ Plan, and Erosion Control Plan, dated June 14, 1996,
p~'epared by James R. Hill, Inc.
Plan B--Building Elevations dated June 14, 1996, revised on September 18, 1996, prepared by
I_Jester Buildings.
1
4. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required landscaping by JUly
30, 1997. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the Ci.ty. If an extension
is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the DevelOPer to reflect cost
increases and the extended completion date.
5. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Permit, the Developer
shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ("security") for
site restoration (landscaping) at the
calculated at 110% of the actual price.
10% of the value of improvements.
time of Certificate of Occupancy. The amount shall be
If the improvements are in place, the applicant shall provide
6. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either
hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered
mail at the following address: Ms. Nancy Lee and Mr. Patrick Blood
P. O. BoX 94
Shakopee, MN 55379
(612),445-0503
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or
mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address:
Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone
(612) 937-1900.
7. Other Special Conditions. (This section to include conditions of approval from
the site plan review, conditional use permit, and variance.)
Site Plan Review 96-8 for the construction of an 8,152 square foot commercial
stable and 12,936 square foot commercial kennel with'a variance to allow a pylon
sign in a BF, Fringe Business District, as shown in plans dated June 14, 1996,
hereby approved with the following conditions:
The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering
any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not
the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated.
All construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock
construction entrances only. Haul routes shall be pre-approved by the
City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the
streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any
damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the
responsibility of the applicant.
Type 3 erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetlands. Type
I shall be installed on the remainder of the site. Additional silt fence or
rock filter dikes shall be constructed at the culvert inlets. Erosion control
measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has
been fully restored, revegetated, and removal is authorized by the City.
Storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer to
verify culverts are sized correctly.
The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the
regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, MnDOT, and the
Chanhassen Building Department.
The access drive shall intersect Trunk Highway 101 at a 90° angle. All
drive aisles shall be paved with a bituminous surface a minimum of 24-
feet wide. The curb shall be a rolled bituminous and the drive aisles shall
be constructed to a 7-ton design up to the kennel. The gravel portion past
the kennel shall also be constructed to a 7 ton design and may be 22 feet
wide and inspected periodically. The maximum grade for the drive aisles
shall be 10% (Section 20-1118).
e
The waste water holding tank and/or proposed drainage swale shall be
relocated to avoid potential contamination of the stormwater runoff.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the
10.
11.
12.
13.
Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The
plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type 1
erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the
construction limits and Type 3 erosion control along the pei'imeter of the
wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at
all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two
weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
The applicant shall provide a storm water runoffplan that does not drain
directly to the wetland. A water quality pond to pretreat stormwater shall be
constructed adjacent to the wetland outside the street right-of-way. The
pond shall be designed in accordance with "NURP" standards. Detailed
pond calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. A
wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and
around the wetland.
The applicant shall retain a professional wetland delineator to determine the
wetland edge and, if necessary, adjust the development accordingly.
Building Official Conditions:
12-a.
Install holding tanks(s) to directly receive wastewater and toilet
room waste, with tanks sized and monitored in a manner approved
by the City.
12-b. Obtain a feedlot permit from Carver County.
12-c~ Provide covered, containerized onsite storage for animal waste in a
manner approved by the City.
12-d.
Provide copies of solid waste disposal contract(s) to the City.
Contract(s) must provide for continuous disposal of all solid animal
waste generated.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
13-a. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length
shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around
14.
15.
16.
17.
of fire apparatus. Pursuant to UFC Section 10.204 (c). Submit
radius tums for the west driveway on the stable.
13-b.
Fire lanes signage in accordance with Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991 shall be installed on
the service road starting at the west end of the kennel to the east
end of the stable. This is to assure that fire apparatus will have
access in the event of a fire.
13-c.
Driving sUrface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and
maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall
be provided with a surface as to provide all weather driving
capabilities pursuant to UFC Section 10-204. (b) Submit road
design to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Submit radius tums from the driveway off State Hwy. 101.
13.d.
Comply with Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992
regarding premise identification. Additional numbers will be
required at the driveway entrance. Number size and location must
be approved by the Fire Marshal.
13-e.
Timing of insulation on fire protection including fire apparatus
access roads for fire protection, is required to be installed. Such
access road shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and
during the time of construction. Pursuant to UFC Section 10-502.
The applicant must install tree protection fencing at the grading limits near
any existing trees. Fencing must be installed at the time of the silt fence
installation.
A complete sign plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The applicant shall provide proof of parking for 38 parking spaces. The
City has the right to require the applicant to provide these additional
spaces if staff determines that additional spaces are needed. All parking
spaces shall be screened from views from Highway 212, as required in the
site plan ordinance.
Building material for the Commercial Kennel shall be consistent with the
Site Plan Ordinance requirements (wood, stucco, brick, cut face block or
5
tilt up panels with architectural relief). The Commercial Stable shall be
constructed of metal construction.
18.
Five trailer parking spaces and six vehicle parking spaces' shall be
provided by the Commercial Stable. The applicant shall show proof of
parking for seven horse trailer spaces and six vehicle parking spaces.
Should the need arise for the additional spaces, the applicant will be
required to provide them. Adequate turnaround for vehicles with trailers
attached to them shall be provided. The turnaround shall be approved by
the Stable Inspector. All parking spaces shall be screened from views
from Highway 212, as required in the site plan ordinance. Screening shall
be provided in the form of vegetation and berming.
19.
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the conditional use
permit #96-3.
Conditional Use Permit 96-3 to allow a commercial kennel and commercial stable in a Fringe
Business District, and a conditional use permit.to allow more than one principal building on a
single lot; as shown on plans dated received June I4, 1996, with the following conditions:
Ail structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles II
and III.
2. The following criteria relates to commercial kennels for dogs and cats:
(a)
Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least two hundred
(200) feet from any neighboring residential structure used for
human habitation.
(b)
The proposed chain link fence which will surround each dog
compartment shall be sturdy to keep dogs confined.
(c)
Accumulations of feces shall be located at least two hundred (200)
feet from any well. The applicant is showing a waste water
holding tank located 180 feet from a well location however, they
haVe not shown the location of feces accumulation. Such
information must be provided.
(d)
All accumulations of feces shall be removed at such periods as will
ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the
premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly.
(e)
All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors ovemight (8:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.).
(t)
All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when th~ commercial
kennel employee(s) is not present at the subject property.
(g)
Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a
nuisance as defined by the City Code or Nuisance Ordinanc6.
(h)
Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened
and buffered. Such screening and buffering may be accomplished
by using berms, fencing, a green belt planting strip (evergreens), or
natural topography.
(i)
The following conditions must be upheld in regard to the site's
animal quarters:
Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample
heat, light, and ventilation.
Animals kept outside must have continual access so animals can
get in and out to shelter and protect them from sun, rain, and snow.
If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so
not to become entangled with chains of other dogs.
Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to
turn around fully, stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable condition.
The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than
50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower
temperatures.
Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation,
odors, and disease hazards.
Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food
supplies against contamination and deterioration.
The following criteria relates to commercial stables for horses:
(a)
Minimum acreage for two horses shall be one and one-half acres
and for three horses shall be two acres, and additional one-third
acre shall be required for each additional horse. The site has an
area of 13.16 acres allowing a maximum number of 35 horses.
,?
7
o
(b)
The area where horses are kept shall be enclosed by a sturdy wood,
metal, or electrical fence which will keep the animal or animals
confined within.
(c)
The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that
it will not be a harborage for rodents, flies and insects.
(d)
Keeping, storing, stabling, or maintenance of horses shall not
directly contribute to the pollution of any public body of water.
Covered, containerized solid waste storage is required. The
operation will be generating large amounts of solid waste. To
prevent mn off from the site, waste awaiting disposal should be
covered to protect it from rain and snow, and contained within
barriers to keep it consolidated in a designated area.
(e)
Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred feet
from any well.
(f)
All accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods as
will ensure that no leaching or Objectionable odors exist, and the
premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly.
All dog runs must maintain a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from
wetland area, 50 feet from public or private rOad right-of-way, and 200
feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty feet
from a side or rear lot line, whichever is greater.
The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate
the commercial kennel and stable as regulated by the City Code.
Both commercial kennel and stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such a
manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined
therein.
Both commercial kennels and stables shall be open for inspection by the
City authorities at any time.
The applicant is showing light fixtures shielded under the roof canopy.
All light must meet ordinance requirements. Only shielded fixtures are
allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than ½
foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A
8
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are
requested.
No outdoor speakers are allowed.
The applicant must apPly and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory
agencies such as Lower Minnesota Water Shed, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County, etc.
Only animal carcasses are permitted to be cremated. A temperature
monitor must be attached to the crematory. The City may require testing
of the ashes.
The applicant must supply the City with monthly waste tracking log
submitted on monthly bases. Such log should be signed by the landfill
operator where the feces are being disposed of.
Five trailer parking spaces shall be provided. The applicant shall show
proof of parking for the.remaining seven spaces. Should the need arise for
the additional spaces, the applicant will be required to provide them.
Adequate turnaround for vehicles with trailers attached to them shall be
provided. The tumaround shall be approved by the Stable Inspector. All
parking spaces shall be screened from views from Highway 212, as
required in the site plan ordinance.
The applicant shall show the location of hay storage.
The applicant shall show the area where horses will be allowed to graze
and exercise outdoors. The current trail located north of the site does not
allow any horses. The applicant shall meet with the City's Stable
Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit.
Spreading of manure on site shall be in conformance with the
recommended methods of on site disposal subject to staff approval.
The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the site plan review #96-
8 and variance #96-8.
Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public
heating for violation of the terms of this permit.
19.
Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized
construction has not been substantially completed or the use connenced, this
permit shall lapse, unless an extension is granted in accordance with the
Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
20.
Criminal Penalty. ,Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a
criminal misdemeanor.
Variance #96-8 to allow metal buildings in connection with the construction of commercial
kennel and commercial stable facility on property located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard.
The City Council conducted a public heating on the proposed variance
which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council
heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak. The City
Council granted the variance to allow the metal building for the
commercial stable building. The applicants' request for a variance to
allow the construction of a metal commercial kennel building is denied.
Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed
construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall
lapse.
8. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Permit are attached as Exhibit "B" and
incorporated herein.
CITY OF'CHANHASSEN
Nancy Mancino, Mayor
Don Ashworth, City Manager
t0
company
DEVELOPER:
Paws, Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding, LLC, a Minnesota limited liablility
BY:
Nancy Lee
AND
Patrick BlOod
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
· Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted
by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OFMINNESOTA
11
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~
day of
19m by Nancy Lee and Patrick Blood d/b/a Paws, Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liablility company.
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell, Knutson, Scott
& Fuchs, P.A.
1380 Corporate Centers Curve, Suite 317
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 452-5000
NOTARY PUBLIC
12
CONSENT
Owners of all or part of the subject property, the developmem of which is govemed by the
foregoing Site .Plan Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance, affirm and consent to the
provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of
the subject property owned by them.
Dated this ~ day of ,19__
APPLICANTS/DEVELOPERS:
Nancy Lee
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Patrick Blood
)
(ss
· COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
19, by
day of ~
Campbell, Knutson, Scott
& Fuchs, P.A.
1380 Corporate Centers Curve, Suite 317
Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000
13
NOTARY PUBLICDRAFTED BY:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SITE PLAN PERMIT
EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL CONDITION
1. Right to Proceed. Within the site plan area, the Developer may not grade or otherwise
disturb the earth, remove trees, construct improvements, or any buildings until all the following
conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed
with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the site
plan has been recorded with the County Recorder's Office of the County where the project is
located, and 4) the City Planner has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied
and then the Developer may proceed.
N~5~ 2. Maintenance of site. The site shall be maintained in accordance with the site
approved
plan. Plants and ground cover required as a condition of site plan approval which die shall be
promptly replaced.
3. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City in conjunction with site plan development.
4. Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any building permits are
issued, the erosion control plan, Plan A, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City.
14
The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas
disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the
completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed
shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas
shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties
recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with
the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City
may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The
City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the
City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No
development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless there is full compliance
with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control shall be maintained until vegetative cover
has been restored. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no
longer a need for erosion control, the City will authorize removal of the erosion control measures.
5. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean,
on and off site, dirt and debris, including.blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that has
resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
,,X~.~. Warranty. All trees, grass, and sod shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and
disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the
time of planting. The Developer or his contractor(s) shall post maintenance bonds (Miller Davis
15
Company Form No. 1636 or equal) or other security acceptable to the City to secure the warranties
at the time of final acceptance.
7. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred
resulting from site plan approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify
the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which thc
City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees.
B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this
Permit, including engineering and attorneys' fees.
C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations
incurred under this Permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not
paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction. Bills
not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year.
8. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work as
shown on Plan A, to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work
and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided
the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance.
This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a
16
Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in
addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. ~
9. Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job
site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer. Trailers shall be removed from
the subject property within thirty (30) days following the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
B.' Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in
accordance with the local Postmaster's request.
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Permit.
D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Permit by the Developer shall be
grounds for denial of building permits.
E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or
phrase of this Permit is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Contract.
F. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no one may occupy a
building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent
basis until the private street needed for access have been paved with asphalt in
accordance with the approved plans and gravel to support emergincy vehicles.
17
Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a
waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments
or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written
resolUtion of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to
enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
Recording. This Permit shall nm with the land and may be recorded against the title
to the property.
Remedies. Each right, power or remedy
cumulative, and in addition to every other
herein conferred upon the City is
right, power or remedy, express or
implied, now Or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any
other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or
otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order
as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to
exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
Construction Hours. The normal construction hours under this contract shall be
from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays,
with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays.
Operation of all internal combustion engines used for construction or dewatering
purposes beyond the normal WOrking hours will require City Council approval.
Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall
clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative
18
sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the site plan
process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit.
Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and
replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a
building permit.
Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the site
plan the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the
following authorities:
Mo
.N.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
City of Chanhassen;
State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions;
United States Army Corps of Engineers;
Watershed District;
Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions;
Carver County, its agencies, departments and commissions.
Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence
satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for
deed purchasers too enter into this Development Contract.
Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no
representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its
fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the
Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing: body members,
officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if-
any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or
pollutants were caused to be there by the City.
Soil Correction.. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work On the
property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature
of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which
may exist.
20