7. Tandem Properties: Interim Use Permit.•
CITY OF
� CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 7/6/94
CC DATE: 7/25/94
CASE #: 94 7 2 IUP
By: Al- Jaff/Hempel
_-
Sy
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit / Earthwork permit of 130,000 cubic yards of
material for the grading of Mission Hills Planned Unit
Development site
LOCATION: East of Highway 101, and north and south of West 86th Street.
APPLICANT: Tandem Properties
7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310
Bloomington, MN 55439
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: Approximately 61.62 acres(gross) 37.78 acres (net)
DENSITY: Single- Family 2.24 u/a Multi - Family 7.13 u/a (net)
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N- RSF, Residential Single Family/Horse Farm
S Hwy
212 ROW/RSF, Residential Single Family
E- RSF, Residential Single Family/Rice Lake Manor
Subdivision
W- Hwy. 101/RSF, Residential Single Family
WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water will have to be extended to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site can be characterized by its rolling hills. It is
currently being farmed. It contains two wetland areas.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use (Commercial -High Density Residential),
Medium Densitv Residential and Low Densi
R esidential
�1
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
On June 27, 1994, the City Council tabled the preliminary plat for Mission Hills Subdivision.
The plat will result in the creation of approximately 16 single - family residential lots and 192
medium or high - density residential units. These will access by an internal street connecting
to Trunk Highway 101 (86th Street). Gaining final plat approval on this project has been a
long process due to the complex issues that are being dealt with in the feasibility study for
extending utilities to the site as well as storm drainage issues. The applicant had hoped to
have the lots available for construction this year but at this point in time this may or may not
occur. Another public hearing before the city council has been scheduled for the end of July
to consider proceeding with the trunk utility improvements to service this site. One of the
conditions of approval is contingent upon the city authorizing a public improvement to extend
trunk utility to the site.
The preliminary plat for the Mission Hills Subdivision is expected to be brought back before
the City Council for consideration on July 11, 1994 after the Park and Recreation
Commission has had a chance to review the subdivision. It is most likely that construction of
the utilities to the site will not commence until fall of 1994 at the earliest. The applicant
' desires to be in a position to develop the property as soon as possible, possibly late this fall
and/or next spring and therefore is requesting that the city authorize a grading permit to
commence site grading at this time. Staff has reviewed the proposed grading limits and
' believe that they still need modifications. The grading plan proposes numerous stormwater
ponds as the grading plan indicated for the preliminary plat. Staff has indicated that there are
too many ponds proposed with this subdivision and that they should be consolidated to a
' regional approach connected with a series of storm sewers. The applicant has been working
with city staff to amend the plan to reach a comprehensive storm drainage plan. However,
we still have not resolved this issue and therefore the grading permit should be subject to the
applicant resolving the stormwater ponding issue for the development first prior to initiating
site grading.
The proposed grading will involve realigning or modifying existing West 86th Street east of
Trunk Highway 101. West 86th Street currently exists today as a 20' - 24' wide gravel street
' which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards or blacktop and
concrete curb and gutter. The city does not have dedicated right -of -way or easements over
86th Street. However, the city has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over six
' years, therefore, the city has established the right to use the street for public travel. The
grading activities will interfere with ingress and egress to Tigua Lane. The plans will have to
make provisions to maintain ingress and egress to Tigua Lane for both the general public and
' emergency service vehicles at all times.
Based on the applicant's narrative, approximately 130,000 cubic yards of earth is proposed to
be moved as a result of the overall site grading. The applicant has indicated that all
a.
Mission Hills IUP y
July 6, 1994
Page 3
earthwork will remain on site and therefore off -site trucking will not be an issue. The site is
devoid of trees and is currently in agricultural use and therefore trees will not be an issue on
this site. The grading plan does for erosion control measures, however, additional
erosion control measures should be installed along the north perimeter of the site. In
addition, the site does contain two large wetlands lying south of 86th Street which should be
protected with Type III erosion control fence. According to city ordinance, these wetlands
(Ag/Urban) shall be further protected by providing a minimum of a 10 -foot buffer of the
natural vegetation. Therefore, grading limits should be held back to a minimum of 10 feet
around the wetlands.
i approve '
As previously indicated, the applicant is waiting fo r the city to appr o f the trunk utility
project to extend utilities to service this site. A public hearing for the public improvement
project is scheduled for July 25, 1994. It is recommended that this grading permit approval ,
be conditioned upon the city authorizing a public improvement project to extend trunk utility
service to the site. Without the trunk utility improvements, development of the site is
premature due to the lack of city water service to the site.
All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best '
Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to pursue
acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices.
Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not been approved, therefore
the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion control plan
including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in accordance with the I
City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to minimize erosion off the site.
Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. 1
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING
ORDINANCE
Section 7 of the City Code provides a series of standards which an interim use permit must '
be in compliance with.
Section 7 -40 - Fees i
The ordinance allows the city to determine the fee schedule for each permit and that
each permit must be annually reviewed by the City Engineer. Section 741 provides for
an irrevocable letter of credit that will be required to ensure compliance with conditions
of approval. I
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 4
' Finding
Staff is proposing that a $92,025.00 letter of credit be required to ensure compliance
with conditions outlined below (see Assistant City Engineer Memo). The letter of
credit will cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures, site
restoration and driveway maintenance to Tigua Lane. In addition, a permit fee from
' the Uniform Building Code will be applied requiring a permit fee'of $630.00 to be
paid and that all city staff and city attorney time used to monitor and inspect the
operation shall be paid by the applicant. Staff time shall be paid at a rate of $30.00
per hour. Staff will document the time on a monthly basis and bill the applicant
accordingly.
Section 7 -42 - Setbacks
The ordinance requires that a setback of 100 feet from existing street rights -of -way and
i 300 feet from adjoining property lines be required for mining activities.
I Finding
This condition does not apply. It was intended for mining operations only.
Section 7 -43 - Fencing
' The ordinance requires fencing for areas which will be converted to steep grades or
where on site ponding exists if the Council determines that a safety hazard exists.
Findin
This condition is not applicable since slopes are 3:1 or flatter.
' Section 7 -44 - Appearance and Screening
The ordinance requires that the visual impact of grading and mining operations be
minimized and that where necessary, screening be provided.
Finding
This is a temporary excavation process which will be creating building areas for a
future multi family building and will immediately be restored with topsoil and seed.
Therefore, the visual impact of the grading will be minimal and screening will not be
necessary.
0
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 5
Section 7 -45 - Operations, Noise, Hours, Explosives, Dust, Water, Pollution, Top Soil ,
Preservation
A. Maximum Noise Levels as measured at the perimeter of the site shall be within ,
limits set by the MPCA and by the Federal EPA.
Finding ,
Staff does not feel that the excavation on the site will be excessive beyond the
activities being experienced in the area with development of residential sites in
Chanhassen Hill Subdivision area. To ensure that the noise levels do not become
excessive, a condition is being provided that noise levels not exceed MPCA and EPA
limits. If noise testing is required by the city, the cost shall be paid by the applicant. '
B. Earth work is permitted only during the hours of 7 :00 a.m, to 6 :00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays.
Finding,
The hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturdays and no work on national holidays or Sundays as stated in the ordinance.
C. Operators are required to use all practical means to eliminate vibration on
adjacent property from equipment operation.
'
Finding
Staff does not feel there will be a problem with vibration on adjacent property. This
condition was intended for mining operations.
D. Operators shall comply with all applicable regulations for the protection of water '
quality.
Finding
The applicant is providing erosion control surrounding the site to retain any runoff ,
from the site. There are two wetlands on the site. Grading shall be prohibited within
10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall be installed outside the 10 -foot
buffer as well. Interim sediment basins are also being required.
v Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 6
�I
11
E.
Operators shall comply with all regulations for the protection of wetlands.
Finding
Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall
be installed outside the 10 -foot buffer as well.
F.
Operators shall comply with all requirements of the Watershed District where the
property is located.
'
Finding
The site is proposing erosion control measures to meet requirements of the Watershed
District. Watershed District approval is required.
G.
All top soil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the site has
taken place according to the restoration plan.
Finding
A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon
as the excavation is completed. The temporary topsoil stockpile area shall be designed
on the grading plan.
H.
Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke and
fumes caused by the operations. When atmospheric or other conditions make it
impossible to prevent dust from migrating off site, mining operations shall cease.
Findin
Staff does not anticipate a problem with these impacts with the site's location and
precautions that the applicant is providing for the excavation. The applicant should be
providing water trucks for dust control and street sweepers.
I.
To control dust and minimize tracking of sand, gravel and dirt onto public
1
streets, internal private roads to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt
or concrete for a distance of 300 feet to the intersection of the public roadway.
Alternate means of controlling this problem may be accepted by the city.
�I
11
Mission Hills IUP J
July 6, 1994
Page 7
Finding,
All materials will remain on site. The applicant is required to construct and maintain
gravel construction entrances during the grading operation. The applicant is also ,
required to provide street clean-up on a daily basis or as needed.
J. All haul routes to and from the site shall be approved by the City and shall only
use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic.
Finding ,
The materials moved will remain on site.
,
Section 7 -46 - Restoration Standards
The ordinance provides a series of standards outlining site restoration. These are
i
reviewed below.
A. The plan must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
Findin
The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this area as residential mixed density and '
neighborhood commercial and the applicant's proposal to grade the site is in
conformance with the intended use of it being a residential site. Therefore, staff
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning '
Ordinance.
B. Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after
extraction operation has moved.
Findin
Restoration will be completed immediately after the excavated material has been
removed. Staff will be maintaining a letter of credit to cover the restoration costs in ,
the case that the applicant does not or is unable to restore the site in a timely manner.
C. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the restoration plans
submitted with the permit application.
�II
�J
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 8
Finding
Staff is recommending that an as -built grading plan be provided at the completion of
' the project so that staff can confirm the volume of material that has been removed and
that the site is restored as proposed.
' D. Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate top soil to
secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary
until it is self sustaining.
' Findin g
' The topsoil is being preserved on the site and will be respread after excavation of the
clay material. The topsoil will then be seeded to ensure ground cover for stabilization
of the area. Erosion control blanket will be required on all slopes 3:1 or steeper.
E. All water areas resulting rom excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of
g Po
the site.
Findin
Other than sediment ponds shown on the plans, there will be no water areas resulting
from the excavation of the site, therefore, this condition is not applicable.
' F. No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space
or agricultural shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for
' connection sanitary or storm sewer.
Findin
The finished grade of the site is at an elevation that will allow for the connection of
municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer.
' G. Provide a landscaping plan illustratin g reforestation, g round cover, wetland
restoration or other features.
' Finding
The Planned Unit Development application reflect the excavated areas will be spread
with the topsoil and seeded immediately after excavation. The site will also be
landscaped with trees and hedges.
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 9
INTERIM USE PERMIT STANDARDS
Mining operations will be allowed as an interim use permit. The ordinance provides that
interim use permits are reviewed under the general issuance standards established for ,
conditional use permits, Section 20 -232, of the ordinance. The following constitutes a
compilation of the general issuance standards and staff's findings for each.
1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the ublic health safety, comfort '
P � Y� �
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
The proposed excavation is a temporary operation. The grading of 130,000
cubic yards will provide topography on the site which will be compatible with
proposed residential uses and therefore it will not be detrimental to the public '
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the city.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and this
chapter.
* The excavation will be maintaining the site in a form suitable for multifamily ,
residential use which is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and this
chapter.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will I
not change the essential character of that area.
* The proposed excavation will be maintaining the site, compatible appearance
with existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The slope will be
leveled but will not be changing the essential character of the area. The land
will be restored to a natural state once excavation is completed and will remain '
as such until development of the site.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. ,
* With the conditions of approval, the activity will not be hazardous or disturbing
to existing or planned neighboring uses. '
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of
the proposed use.
I �
r ,
.i
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 10
* The use is temporary which does not need to be served by public facilities and
services. The finished elevation will allow the site to be served by sanitary
sewer and water once it is developed in the future.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will
' not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
* The activity will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors,
rodents, or trash.
i
* The proposed excavation could result in additional traffic, noise and fumes.
The conditions of the approval will provide standards by which the activities
should be minimized/controlled.
I 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
* The applicant must obtain an access permit from Minnesota Department of
Transportation. This will provide for traffic control for vehicle entering and
leaving the site. Staff has also added a condition making the applicant
responsible for maintaining ingress and egress to the existing residents on
Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles at all times.
' 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic
or historic features of major significance.
* The proposal will not result in any significant impact to natural or historic
features.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
* The area proposed for excavation, once completed, will still be aesthetically
' compatible with the surrounding residential/neighborhood commercial sites.
1 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
LI
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994 ,
Page 11
* The proposed use will not have a long term impact on surrounding property
values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. ,
* The proposed excavation application is meeting the standards prescribed for the
District.
Staff feels that the application is complete and will minimize potential impacts. With the
conditions proposed, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council ,
approve the project with appropriate conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 6, 1994. The following issues
were raised:
* An area resident stated that there was a row of trees, three feet wide, along the r
northeast corner of the property. He requested the trees be saved. The Planning
Commission added the following condition: "Trees and shrubbery along the east ,
property boundary shall be saved with this grading activity.."
Part of the berm located along the southern edge of the property encroached on private ,
land. The Planning Commission added the following condition: "Grading activity for
the berm along the southern property boundary shall be contained within the property."
* Hours of operation were a concern to the Plannin Commission. The following
P g g
condition was amended to limit the starting time on Saturdays: "Hours of operation
are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no work on national '
holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limited to 9 :00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. If complaints from residents are logged with city staff regarding Saturday
operation, the hours shall be reviewed by the City Council." '
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this application.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council approves Interim Use Permit #94 -2 for Mission Hills Planned Unit
Development site subject to the following conditions:
I �
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 12
1. The applicant shall provide the city with a letter of credit in the amount of $92,025.00
to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures, site restoration
and driveway maintenance to Tigua Lane.
2. The applicant shall pay the city $630.0 in grading permit fees as required by the
Uniform Building Code and pay for all city staff and attorney time used to monitor
and inspect the grading operation. The inspection fees shall be computed at a rate of
$30 per hour per person.
' 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the watershed
district, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and MnDOT.
' 4. The applicant shall work with City staff in revising the proposed grading plan to an
acceptable stormwater management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan. This may result in consolidating ponding areas and loss of units.
Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not been fully
approved, the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion
control plan including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in
' accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to
minimize erosion off the site.
5. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant shall supply the City with a mylar
as -built survey of the grading prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the
state of Minnesota upon completion of the excavation to verify the grading plan has
been performed in compliance with the proposed plan.
6. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to
pursue acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices. A stockpile
' must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the
excavation and site grading is completed. Topsoil and disc- mulched seeding shall be
implemented immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the
' City's Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise.
7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA
' regulations. If the City determined that there is a problem warranting testing, such
tests shall be paid for by the applicant.
' 8. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
no work on national holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation on Saturdays are
limited to 9 :00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If complaints from residents are logged with
9. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the
,
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 13
city staff regarding Saturday operation, the hours shall be reviewed by the City
Council.
9. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the
,
grading operation. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining
ingress and egress to the existing residents on Tigua Lane as well as emergency
vehicles at all times.
10. The applicant shall enter into an earthwork permit with the City , and provide the
necessary security to guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval. All
grading work shall be completed by November 15, 1994.
11. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading
operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The
applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon
completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine the appropriate time and
authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures.
12. The applicant shall notify the city engineer of all drainage tiles encountered during site ,
grading. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or rerouting
of all existing draintile systems.
13. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perimeter of the
site. Erosion control fence surrounding the wetlands shall be the City's Type III '
version.
14. Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall I
be installed outside the 10 -foot buffer as well.
15. This grading permit approval be conditioned upon the City authorizing a public
improvement project to extend trunk utility service to the site.
16. The grading permit shall be conditioned on approval of the preliminary plat for
the Missions Hills PUD by the City Council.
17. Trees and shrubbery along the east property boundary shall be saved with this ,
grading activity.
18. Grading activity for the berm along the southern property boundary shall be
contained within the property.
■
I �
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 14
19. The applicant shall maintain the access road to provide all weather access to the
residents in the area.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission minutes dated July 6, 1994.
2. Memo From Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer dated June 29, 1994.
3. Breakdown of security for site grading in Mission Hills.
4. Plans received June 9, 1994.
g:'piar �sa\missiup.cc
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST TO GRADE 46.56 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS ,
LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS,
TANDEM PROPERTIES. '
Public Present:
Name Address ,
Jim Ostenson 7808 Creekridge Circle, Bloomington
III
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
'
Dick Putnam Tandem Properties
Dennis Marhula Westwood Engineering
Dave Nikolay 8500 Tigua Circle
Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: I have a question for staff. Maybe this is a Kate question. Do we usually, the
Planning Commission, get these grading plans?
Aanenson: Yes, we've done on it projects where there's timing ... Byerly's. We did it on
Target.
Ledvina: Oak Pond.
'
Aanenson: Where they're in to keep the project moving.
Y trying P P
Farmakes: There's been some movement on, since we sent it forward. There appears to be I
fewer units to the south, is that correct?
Aanenson: He may want to comment, that is yes.
Farmakes: City Council. I
Aanenson: Tabled it their first, to wait to get the Park recommendations...
Farmakes: But the plan ... moved over to the east it looks like and enlarged. It looks like
there's fewer units there.
III
25
I I
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Aanenson: That's what they're going forward to the City Council with.
Mancino: But the City Council has not approved the preliminary plat.
Farmakes: Okay, I was wondering where that came from. That came from City Council's
comments?
Aanenson: Direction, yes.
1 Harberts: But if the Park Commission is waiting to review and comment on this.
Aanenson: They met ... based on that. The City Council tabled it because they wanted the
1 Park and Rec Commission's. They met on the 27th. Park and Rec met on the 28th so they
have commented on it ... so they're moving forward with that...
Harberts: So this reflects comments from Park and Rec?
Aanenson: I don't believe so, no. What we're talking about specifically in Dave's report is
the grading itself. We're not talking about the site plan.
Harberts: But wouldn't the grading plan then if there's something significant in the Park and
Rec report, wouldn't that have an effect on how grading occurs? In a particular area of the
plan.
Hempel: That's correct. In the one location where they do show the play lot where a lot is
proposed. That is one area that we feel a pond is not warranted and can be accommodated
with another pond on the site so we feel conditions can be worked out between staff and the
applicant. We need a little more time to do that. The applicant is on a time line here to try
to get the site—will take them some time to move that volume of earth work. So they're just
trying to stay ahead of the game.
1
Harberts: Would you have we have a complete proposal here or understanding? I guess I'm
a little uncomfortable with approving something that I don't know if they incorporate all of
the necessary conditions there or whatever, but you shared with us though that you felt that's
an avenue that can be taken care of between staff and the applicant?
Hempel: That's correct. What's before you this evening, the interim use permit for grading
the site. Conditions listed in the staff reporL..If there are additional issues that need to be
resolved with a grading plan but we feel they can be massaged to work.
�1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Harberts: Oh alright.
Mancino: Anybody else have any questions for staff?
Farmakes: I just have a general comment. I think it's an improvement over what we sent.
Mancino: Applicant like to address the Planning Commission.
Dennis Marhula: Well I can maybe address some of the questions you have. I'm Dennis
Marhula with Westwood Engineering and you're right, we have changed the plan and ... park
and staff as occurred with the changes that we show here. Basically you can see we've
changed the smaller totlot that was configured in this location, we've shifted some of the
units slightly and we created a larger totlot, play lot over here which meets the approximate
acre and a half that Park and Rec were looking for. And we also, an ... that we showed Park
and Rec was to create a totlot open space in this vicinity but this was their first choice of
those options. So we have reconfigured this area a little bit and picked up some of the units
that we've lost in reconfiguring this park. So I think the site plan I believe and it
does—approval of Park and Rec and I'm confident that it will meet the approval of the City
Council as well. I'm sure it addresses the concern that the Planning Commission had several
weeks ago when we were here. As it relates to the ponding, we discussed this a little bit at
the Planning Commission meeting last time we were here and we are working with Dave to
resolve the issue. The dilemma that we're in is that the city's comprehensive storm sewer
plan generally shows large, centrally located ponds which are to serve much larger areas.
Our initial ponding in this vicinity to serve this basic catch ... they show to the ponding to the
east of us, larger ponding to serve runoff that generally goes that way. What we are trying to
do on our site is provide that interim treatment and storage that is necessary to avoid any
downstream damage or any contamination or silt running downstreams. We're providing a
water quality pond and storage pond on our site until those city facilities can be constructed.
And so it becomes a timing issue. This pond for instance and this drainage goes generally to
the north into a larger pond. That pond, and one of the things we discussed at the City
Council meeting is that pond essentially could potentially be an interim pond. And that
ponding area after Highway 101 gets constructed and the pond is constructed further north,
that pond potentially could disappear and that could be regraded into an open space, green
space, open space, whatever... might choose. And that's similar with some of the other ponds
that we have shown here. Eventually this area, a majority of this area drains to the east and
will be accommodated by a larger city pond but that interim solution that we're grappling
with with staff right now. On how to accommodate the interim solution as well as the future
permanent solution but I'm sure that we can make that work. We think we have a, from our
standpoint, we think we have it pretty well worked out and we've given staff, shown a lot of
calculations and ponding calculations and so on. I'm not sure that Dave has had, because all
L�
1
27 1
.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
1
of this is going so fast. Since the last City Council meeting. You know it just takes time to
work through. I'm sure Dave hasn't had time to spend to look at the details... But we feel it
can be worked out ... The interim use permit does have to go in front of the Council as well so,
' and they certainly will not allow the interim use permit to—The other option that we had was
to, we are not requesting you to ... to wait until we final plat the property. And we feel that,
with where we are in the construction season today, and looking ahead at the next Council
meetings and their decisions... that will be made, and the time it takes to complete that process
of final plat, that would simply put us out of this construction season. So the only hope we
have of doing anything this season is to go through the interim use process and use that
process. As you're aware, I think we first came to your commission a year ago and through
no fault of our's and through no fault of your's, we've been delayed significantly due to
Highway 101 studies and 212 studies and the sewer and water studies and so on and we
would, at this point, like to... If you have any questions regarding the grading or...
' Mancino: Any questions?
Jim Ostenson: My name's Jim Ostenson with Tandem Properties. One of the developers of
the project. Just one comment that Al Klingelhutz asked that we get on the record, and the
berming that occurs on the south side, there is a slight ...onto his property which is future
freeway. Highway 212 right -of -way and that's been approved by the Highway Department
since Al still owns the land. He's...so we will make that adjustment to bring that berm back
a couple of feet so it's not on his property at all.
Mancino: Thank you. Okay, would we like to have a motion to open this for a public
hearing?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: So, would anyone like to speak at the public hearing?
Dave Nikolay: Good evening. My name is Dave Nikolay. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle.
There's just a couple things. I've talked to city staff about these things and Dave Hempel as
of yesterday to clarify a few points but I think it's important that I address you and make sure
that these things are included in this plan. One of the things involves the grading. I've
attended all the public hearings since this issue came up. I still believe that the issue relative
to the water drainage across my property, which I'll point it out here. My property's located
over here, 2 1/2 of these lots plus some, that's located on that side. Due to the horse farm's
dumping of waste from their operations over there, the topography and that's don't show the
changes that have occurred. I believe that over time the water that used to drain to the marsh
28
I .
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 1994
now drains across my property and I'd ask you to make sure that in your approval of this,
that the lots that border my property, that there should be no drainage from those residential
lots across my property. It's occurring right now. So I'd ask you to take that into
consideration.
Hempel: Chairman Mancino, if I could address that point. Mr. Nikolay's property located up
in the northeast corner of the site, correct me if I'm wrong. The site currently drains, sheet
drains in this direction to the northeast as well as to the north through Mr. Nikolay's property.
As a result of the grading and the development of this property, the drainage to Mr. Nikolay's
property will actually be reduced by grading these back yards to go south into a drainageway
which will be picked up with the storm sewer on Block 2 and the pre - treatment pond prior to
discharging into the wetland area. The only two areas which will continue to drain north of
these back yards of proposed Lot 8 and 9. So it should significantly reduce the amount of
drainage going Mr. Nikolay's direction. There's also a proposed storm sewer, catch basin in
this location here to collect the drainage from the street and take that also back to the south.
So the drainage issues should be resolved with development of this property.
Mancino: Thank you.
Dave Nikolay: The second issue relative to the grading, and I think it's just a matter of how
the farming has taken place. There are trees on the property line. My belief is, and you can
ask Al Klingelhutz to comment on this because he's been farming that land over the years. I
believe that there are approximately 3 feet of trees that are made up of a variety of species
from oak to ash that have, or are indeed on this property. I would ask that none of those
trees be destroyed in the grading process. Whether they're on my property, for sure those
should be protected but those that are not on my property, I think this is to the benefit of the
developers as well as to the future residents. But in the grading process, if they go right
down the lot line, those trees will be taken out. And when I talked to staff, they asked me if
I knew where the stakes were and to the best of my knowledge, there are no stakes there at
this stage. I just have a rough idea where the property line is from where I purchased the
property 13 years ago and there are trees that are on the proposed development site on these 2
1/2 or 3 lots that border my property and I'd ask that those trees and shrubbery be preserved.
None of them be destroyed. I don't think it creates a significant problem for the developer.
The other issue that 1 talked to Dave about, and that's about the road maintenance during this
construction period. I'm not sure how long this is going to take place but I anticipate it will,
before the final street improvements are made with the paving, that we're probably looking at
upwards of a year. If it goes faster, great. If it takes longer, then it just will be that much
longer that we'll have to deal with the issues but I don't think it's going to be avoidable with
the heavy equipment to be, they're going to be crossing this road. It's a minimum
maintenance road now. It was never designed to be a city street and with any type of
29
d
1
1
11
'J
hI L�
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
equipment going across that, that's going to be a problem. I see in the staff report that
they've addressed that but the question I raised with Dave and with Sharmin is, who's going
to have to call who? Dave said that I should call the developer and I said I'd rather not call
' the developer. And then he did compromise and said, you can call me. I think that's fair.
But from my perspective, I just want to make sure that during this entire period of time, that I
don't have to beg anyone to maintain the road. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
We've lived there for 13 years. We've never once complained to the city about the
maintenance of the road. It's not a well maintained road but that's okay. We've lived with
that and we're happy with that. If it gets any kind of traffic on it now, with what we're
talking about here, the road's going to deteriorate very quickly and that's going to cause
problems for us. So Dave said I could call him. But I wanted to make sure, somebody
should be responsible during the course of this grading. I shouldn't have to call someone to
see that that road is maintained. I'm not talking about access. I'm talking about a good
surface to drive on during wet conditions and otherwise. The last point, I guess that's it.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Dave, is there some weekly check that occurs?
Hempel: We can perform daily on site inspections out there. I just think Mr. Nikolay's more
concerned you know if we get a rainy season or a spring thaw ... and so forth but that's to be
maintained daily and I think the applicant's contractor is going to have equipment there and it
will just be a daily function to back drag it or shape that road up to maintain access. Public
safety also is going to be concerned to make sure that that road is capable of supporting
emergency vehicles. I would like to make one point of clarification. Right now 86th Street,
we do not have city right -of -way or easements for that street. The city has kind of been
maintaining that over the last few years, grading that and snow plowing but we don't have the
appropriate easements for it. But as Mr. Nikolay indicated, he can certainly contact myself or
the City Engineer if there is a problem out there and we can address it. Getting a hold of the
developer or using city services to perform the necessary maintenance and bill the developer
accordingly...
1 Harberts: What about the trees?
Hempel: The trees, I believe Mr. Nikolay is referring to, along those property lines there's
probably a little buffer or a little row of trees along Lot 6 and 7, up in this area. They're
only a couple feet into the developer's property. There's not a significant grade change there.
I think they could probably easily accommodate that request and keep the grading to the
outside of those trees. I'd defer that again to the applicant... agreement that they would do
1 that.
Mancmo: Would the applicant like to respond please?
' 30
Planning Commission Meeting - July b, 1994
Dick Putnam: We do that on the normal course. I mean that's, as Mr. Nikoklay said, it's to
our advantage to leave it so we would be leaving it.
Mancino: So you will be?
Dick Putnam: Sure.
Mancino: Thank you. Any other people like to get up?
Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz and I own some of the property that's being developed.
I guess my biggest concern was that part of the berm was going to be on private property but
they've pretty well taken care of that. Another concern, and I don't think it pertains to the
grading permit on this at all, is the fact that the letter that was received by the city, that they
took my right -in and right -out but I did call the Highway Department and they were setting
up a meeting for next week to discuss that issue.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Jeff. Would you like to start?
Farmakes: I'm going to go with staff recommendations on this. I like ... record, I like what
the City Council came up with there. One of the residents talked about keeping the road
open. I think we can make that a condition of approval and that's it.
Mancino: Matt.
Ledvina: Okay. The condition number 2 identifies that city staff and attorney time will be
compensated and, is this a standard operating procedure Dave for this type of inspection?
Hempel: As far as inspecting on a daily basis?
Ledvina: Well no. No. What we're talking about in terms of the reimbursement.
Reimbursement to the city. Is that, I mean you have the permit fee and then you have an
hourly fee.
I . I
F
I I
I �
I �
31 1
1
I I
C�
r
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Hempel: It's similar to our development contract. The applicant or the developer is
responsible for reimbursement to the city for any fees incurred as a result of the development.
The City Attorney's time in processing litigation or whatever is involved in that.
Ledvina: In terms of inspections, do we have any idea as to how many hours this is going to
be? This is going to involve.
Hempel: I did calculate I believe in my breakdown of the fees approximate hours
...approximate totals in grading 4 days a week ... 48 hours of inspection time at $30.00 an hour.
Ledvina: So $1,400.00 or something like that?
Hempel: Approximately, yes.
Ledvina: Okay. I'm concerned about this. You know I don't like to see an open ended
situation. I think for developers it's fair that they know what the costs are going to be for
doing their development and I think it's unfair to have an open ended situation like this. But
as long as we have somewhat of a budget that we're looking at and the developer understands
that, I think that's reasonable. But it's just, it seems open ended at this point but as long as
there's a, they have an understanding there. Condition number 8. Well let's hit number 7. I
think there's a word missing in the second sentence. If the city determined that there is an
additional, excuse me. If the city determined that there is a problem warranting testing. I
think the word testing should be in there. Such tests shall be paid for by the applicant.
Number 8. Hours of operation and we've seen this in the past. I guess my thought is that
we should cut back the morning hours on Saturday. Give the residents a chance to rest a
little bit, and I would propose 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for Saturday hours.
Mancino: I'd go to noon.
Ledvina: Well, 7:00 a.m. is just way too early on Saturday. Let's see. The one thing that I
see was omitted from the staff recommendations and I know there's a lot of pre - cursers and a
lot of conditions in terms of the triggers for getting this thing going and for approval but I
think one thing that I would like to see is adding a condition number 16. Having the grading
permit conditional approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council and it's not in here
but I'm sure you were thinking that. Just to make sure that we're square on that. And then
considering the concern of residents and also for the overall development I'd like to see the
condition, as it relates to saving the trees and the shrubbery along the east property boundary.
Also as it relates to containing the grading for the berm on the south property boundary
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
within the property. And then the maintenance of the haul road. Or maintenance of the
access road there. That's it.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: I agree with Matt's comments.
Mancino: Diane.
Harberts: I would support approval of this. I guess I have some of my concerns were
probably taken care of with that number 16 that Matt proposed. Tying the grading permit
into the preliminary plat approval. And I would certainly support the points brought out by
Jeff and the remaining ones, trees and stuff.
Mancino: Okay. I support what everyone said. I am a little more sensitive on number 8
about hours of operation on Saturdays. I think that one of the things in this overall
development and what's happening in Chanhassen, not only do we have to have a concern for
the developer but also for the people who live in the contiguous adjacent properties. They're
there. They've been there. They have their weekends on their property and to be hearing all
day Saturday the big earth moving and the back up noise that they have, which you can hear
a quarter to half a mile away, is I just think very disturbing to the quality of life for the
people who are there on a weekend day and all day. So I would not even like to see it 9:00
to 6:00. I would limit it to half day, 9:00 to 12:00. I'd like to hear any discussion on that.
Ledvina: You mean 12:00 to 6:00?
Mancino: 12:00 to 6:00?
Ledvina: Yeah, noon to 6:00 p.m. Is that what you meant?
Mancino: No. 9 :00 in the morning until 12:00 in the afternoon. So half day.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I certainly understand your concerns but I think that the work will be
done in the summer months and it's not a year round type of thing. In Minnesota, our
construction season is rather short and I think in moving the quantities of dirt that they're
talking about, they're going to need to have a decent working day on Saturday. Maybe if we
scaled it back and went from.
Mancino: Then maybe it's once a month or something but what about the people who on the
summers, that's when our residents can go outside their homes. Do their gardening. Can be
33
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
outside and enjoying it and be Rollerblading. Doing whatever they can and these are not soft
sounds. These are not hummingbirds. These are, and so we've taken every Saturday out of
their one summer.
Ledvina: Well I understand that certainly it's a disruption but you need to, I feel that you
need to certainly not disturb the rest of the residents. I mean I think you should be able to
sleep in on Saturday but at the same time, I know how important it is to have that extra day
of the week when it's not raining and have that available for construction so.
Mancino: So would you be amenable to one Saturday a month? Two Saturdays a month.
Doing something so there is a catch -up. And before you answer, the applicant has something
to say.
Jim Ostenson: Jim Ostenson again with Tandem Properties. Just a couple of things. We
don't anticipate that it's going to be 14 weeks or 12 weeks or whatever it is that we're going
to have grading in there. It's more likely going to be closer to 5 or 6 weeks that we're going
to have. The other thing is that Matt is right, we have a very short season. We can't start
until May 15th for grading, for clearing and we get closed down on the first part of
November. We've got a road that we're required to keep open that you know, if we had rain
on Friday and you don't allow us to go in there on Saturday, it's going to be difficult for us.
Our site here isn't any different than any other site in Chanhassen and if this is something
t you're proposing to do city wide, you know to all developers, perhaps could be a discussion.
You know at another Planning Commission meeting or the City Council. Our intent is not to
ruin people's Saturdays but it is to get in there, get the job done and get out and restore the
neighborhood to it's normal noise level. So our intent is not to harm anyone or ruin their day
but we do have to get the work done and the weather doesn't always cooperate. Most of the
time we find our utility crews work four 10 hour days. They aren't there even on Friday.
And it's only in the cases of weather then that we're going to be in there on Saturdays
working. Or if we get to the very end of the year and trying to beat the snow fall.
Mancino: So normally you do not work on Saturdays?
Jim Ostenson: Many of the utility crews that we work with do not work on Saturdays, unless
they've been rained out earlier in the week. They work four 10 hour days.
Mancino: Dave, can you do this amount of grading in 5 to 6 weeks? I mean just your
thoughts.
1 34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Hempel: Depending on the contractor and the work force I guess, and weather conditions,
there's a lot of contingencies there ... I guess. Realistically I'd say 6 to 8 weeks probably. 12
weeks may be stretching it.
Mancino: Kate, can you respond to the, what we do for others? How it's set up as far as
Saturday grading and do we, have we taken into account the lifestyle of our citizens who are
in that area? I mean that aren't involved in the development and one of - the ways to think
about it is that, I don't know about you but I probably have 30 more summers of my life and
so one summer of every day of that weekend is significant.
Hempel: We've had comments I guess from other residents saying yeah, Saturdays are nice
but you know it's nicer to get the job done with. Get them in there and get them out of
there. Get green grass back in there growing instead of dragging it out longer. And our
construction season is pretty well limited with the seasons. We have very wet soils out here
and so it does take a lot of work ... those soils and you need to ... work out there. I guess I, the
homes that are close by here, the larger lots and homes are spread out a little bit farther.
I i
1
Mancino: They're going to hear it. They're going to hear it.
Hempel: ...agricultural fields.
Mancino: But at this point the other construction sites we have gone ahead and allowed the
Saturday 7:00 to 6:00?
Hempel: The 7:00 to 6:00 is under the interim use permit and there are typical construction
specifications which show construction hours from 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. In some cases
the applicant has requested a deviation to the work hours by going to the City Council and
requesting starting at 8:00 and working until 6:00. Depending on the areas of town where
they're working, sometimes they've been granted that deviation. But most cases they stick
pretty much to the 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays.
Mancino: So normally it is 9:00 to 5:00?
Hempel: Yes, that's correct.
Mancino: Okay. It's not 7:00 to 6:00 like here? I would be okay with the 9:00 to 5:00 and
if it gets over 6 Saturdays, well what can we do? Kind of you monitor that?
Hempel: We can monitor it based on the amount of complaints we receive from the
neighbors. If we received a lot of complaints, come back and revisit that... construction hours.
35
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Mancino: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: So are you.
Mancino: What I'm proposing is to limit the hours on Saturdays from 9:00 to 5:00 and that
we have heard testimony that it would take 5 to 6 weeks, 6 to 8 weeks and for 6 weeks of
Saturday work. And at that point, if there is a problem from the neighborhood, to revisit that.
How do we revisit that? Formally. Because it's so open ended again for the developer. I
don't feel.
Aanenson: Well actually it's a condition that will be tracked forward to the City Council and
then if there's a complaint, well bring it back to the City Council to relook at the issue. So
actually it will be forwarded because you're making a recommendation up to the Council. If
there are any complaints that Dave has a significant amount that we need to adjust the hours,
we'll go back to the Council and recommend that they change the hours.
Mancino: Okay.
Harberts: And I would guess that the City would consider that if there's extenuating
circumstances, such as rain or whatever.
Mancino: Sure. Okay.
Ledvina: Well I'll give it a shot here. I would move that the Planning Commission approve
the Interim Use Permit, earth work permit of 130,000 cubic yards of material for the grading
of the Mission Hills Planned Unit Development site subject to the conditions identified in the
staff report with the following changes and additions. Number 7, second sentence of that
condition to read. If the city determined that there was a problem warranting testing, such
test shall be paid for by the applicant. Number 8 be modified to read, the hours of operation
are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no work hours on National
Holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation are limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.
If complaints from residents are logged with city staff regarding Saturday operation, the hours
shall be reviewed by the City Council. And let's see. Number 16. The grading permit shall
be conditional on approval of the preliminary plat through City Council and this is the
preliminary plat for the Missions Hills Subdivision. Planned Unit Development, excuse me.
Condition number 17. Trees and shrubbery along the east property boundary shall be saved
with this grading activity. Number 18. Grading activity for the berm along the southern
property boundary shall be contained within the property. Number 19. The applicant shall
maintain the access road to provide all weather access to the residents in the area.
36
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Mancino: Can I have a second?
Conrad: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval 1
of Interim Use Permit #94 -2 for Mission Hills Planned Unit Development site subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $92,025.00
PP P tY
to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures, site restoration and
driveway maintenance to Tigua Lane.
2. The applicant shall pay the City $630.00 in grading permit fees as required by the
Uniform Building Code and pay for all City staff and attorney time used to monitor and ,
inspect the grading operation. The inspection fees shall be computed at a rate of $30
per hour per person.
3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the watershed
district, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and MnDOT.
4. The applicant shall work with City staff in revising the proposed grading plan to an
acceptable stormwater management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan. This may result in consolidating ponding areas and loss of units.
Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not been fully approved,
the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion control plan
including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in accordance
with the City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to minimiz erosion off
the site. I
5. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-
built survey of the grading prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the state of
Minnesota upon completion of the excavation to verify the grading plan has been
performed in compliance with the proposed plan.
6. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to pursue
acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices. A stockpile must be
provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation and
37
J
.I
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
site grading is completed. Topsoil and discmulched seeding shall be implemented
immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise.
7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA
regulations. If the City determined that there is a problem warranting testing, such tests
shall be paid for by the applicant.
13. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perimeter of the
site. Erosion control fence surrounding the wetlands shall be the City's Type III
version.
14. Gradin g shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall
be installed outside the 10 -foot buffer as well.
1
38
8.
Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no
work on national holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limited
to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If complaints from residents are logged with city staff
1
regarding Saturday operation, the hours shall be reviewed by the City Council.
9.
The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the
grading operation. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining ingress
i
and egress to the existing residents on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles at all
times.
10.
The applicant shall enter into an earthwork permit with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval. All
grading work shall be completed by November 15, 1994.
11.
All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading
1
operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The
applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon
completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine the appropriate time and
authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures.
12.
The applicant shall notify the city engineer of all drainage tiles encountered during site
grading. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or rerouting of
all existing draintile systems.
13. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perimeter of the
site. Erosion control fence surrounding the wetlands shall be the City's Type III
version.
14. Gradin g shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall
be installed outside the 10 -foot buffer as well.
1
38
I .
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
15. This grading permit approval be conditioned upon the City authorizing a public
improvement project to extend trunk utility service to the site.
16. The grading permit shall be conditional on approval of the preliminary plat for the
Missions Hills PUD by the City Council.
17. Trees and shrubbery along the east property boundary shall be saved with this
grading activity.
18. Grading activity for the berm along the southern property boundary shall be
contained within the property.
19. The applicant shall maintain the access road to provide all weather access to the
residents in the area.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ADOPT THE SHORELAND OVERLAY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Farmakes: One of the questions I was asked from an association on the lake there, is there a
time limit that we set on floating debris in the lake that uses that type of reproduction to sort
of continue itself like cattails? Where large chunks of it break off and float over to a
homeowners property to secure itself there. Can that homeowner then remove that? Is that
considered to be vegetation?
Desotelle: That can be removed and like in the shoreland ordinance, you can pull weeds out
up to 2,500 square feet within your frontage. You can actually remove that without a permit
from the DNR.
Farmakes: Some floating bogs though is beyond that. That's why in a case ... there was one
that was about 100 square feet long. A huge chunk and it actually broke up into smaller
chunks. That's why that was brought up as a question.
Desotelle: A floating bog.
39
1
1, �
Breakdown of Security and Grading Permit Fees
Mission Hills
Grading Permit File No. 94 -2
Interim Use Permit File No. 94 -2
I. Site Restoration
Silt Fence Erosion Control
3,610 L.F. at $2.00/I.,.F . ......... .......................... $ 7,220.00
1,875 L.F. - Type III at $5.00/L.F . ............................ $ 9,375.00
Total ......................... $16,595.00
Reseed and Mulch
46.5 acres at $1,500 /acre .... ............................... $69,750.00
Estimated Total Restoration Cost ............................. $86,345.00
� 1 11.
� I
� I
� I
Inspection /Administration Time
Project Inspection
Approximately 12 weeks, 4 days /week, 1 hour /day ................... 48 hours
48 hours at $30.00/hour ...... ............................... $1,440.00
Engineering/Planning Staff
8 hours at $30.00/hour ....... ............................... $ 240.00
Estimated Cost for Inspection /Administration ..................... $1,680.00
III. Road Maintenance and Traffic Control
Rock Construction Entrance & Street Sweeping .................... $1,000.00
Traffic Control ........................................... $ 500.00
Estimated Total Cost for Road Maintenance/Traffic Control ............ $1,500.00
IV. Engineering Fees for Preparation of As -Built Plans
Engineering Fee for Surveying and Drafting ...................... $2,500.00
Summary Sheet for Security Escrow
L Site Restoration (Phase H) ....... ........ ................ $86,345.00
II. Inspection /Administration Fees ............................... $ 1,680.00
III. Road Maintenance and Traffic Control ......................... $ 1,500.00
IV. Engineering Fees ......................................... $ 2,500.00
Total .................. ............................... $92,025.00
Grading Permit Fees Based on Table No. 70 -B
The Uniform Building Code
130,000 cubic yards estimated
- $562.50 for first 100,000 cubic yards + $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (3)
Grading Permit Total .......... ............................... $630.00
g: \eng \dave\m issionlee
1
TABLE NO. 70-0--GRADING PERMIT FEES'
50 cubic yards or less ................. ............................... $15.00
51 to 100 cubic yards ................. ............................... 22.50
101 to 1000 cubic yards -- $22.50 forthe first 100 cubic yards plus $ 10.50 for each additional
100 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
1001 to 10,000 cubic yards- 5117.00 for the fast 1,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00 for each
additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards —$ 198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $40.50 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 cubic yards or mote - 4562.50 for the rust 100,000 cubic yards, pleas $22.50 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Other Im pectloea and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours ................. $30.00 per 11011172
(minimum charge --two blurs)
2. Reinspection fees assessed under proviskms of
Section 305 (g) ......... ............................... $30.00 per bour
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated ........... $30.00 per hour
(minimum oiargo--ow-half hour)
rlbe fee far a grading permit m barift additional wort to that haft a valid permit shall be the
differeaoe between the fee paid for the miginat permit and the fee shown for the emire project.
sOrthewWbwft coettothe jwb&cdm. whichner is Me peatest. This cat did include wpervision,
overhead. equipment, horny wapxand friate 1 1 H of the employees involved.
875
i
f
a
E
r
.
1968 EDITION APPENDIX
TABLE NO.70 -A— GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES'
50 cubic yards or less ................. ............................... No fee
' S1 to 100 cubic yards s ............... ............................... $15.00
( 000 cubic yards 22.50
101 to 1
1001 to 10,000 c ubic yards ............................ 30.00
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yard"30.00 for the fast 10,000 cubic yards, plus $15.00 for
each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards --- $165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
200,001 cubic yards or mote —$ 255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards, plus 54.50 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes, additions
or revisions to approved plans .. ............................... $30.00 per hour*
(minimum charge--one -half hour) '
1
*Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees
involved.
TABLE NO. 70-0--GRADING PERMIT FEES'
50 cubic yards or less ................. ............................... $15.00
51 to 100 cubic yards ................. ............................... 22.50
101 to 1000 cubic yards -- $22.50 forthe first 100 cubic yards plus $ 10.50 for each additional
100 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
1001 to 10,000 cubic yards- 5117.00 for the fast 1,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00 for each
additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards —$ 198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $40.50 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 cubic yards or mote - 4562.50 for the rust 100,000 cubic yards, pleas $22.50 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Other Im pectloea and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours ................. $30.00 per 11011172
(minimum charge --two blurs)
2. Reinspection fees assessed under proviskms of
Section 305 (g) ......... ............................... $30.00 per bour
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated ........... $30.00 per hour
(minimum oiargo--ow-half hour)
rlbe fee far a grading permit m barift additional wort to that haft a valid permit shall be the
differeaoe between the fee paid for the miginat permit and the fee shown for the emire project.
sOrthewWbwft coettothe jwb&cdm. whichner is Me peatest. This cat did include wpervision,
overhead. equipment, horny wapxand friate 1 1 H of the employees involved.
875
i
f
a
E
r
GRADING PERMIT NO.
PERMIT dated 1994, issued by the CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City "), to
( "Applicant ").
1. Request for Approval. The Applicant has asked the City
to approve a grading permit for
(referred to in this permit as the "property ") . The land is
legally described as:
2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the
permit on condition that the Applicant abide by its terms and
furnish the security required by it.
3. Plans. The ro ert shall be graded in accordance with
P P Y g
the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this
permit. If the plans vary from the written terms of this permit,
the written terms shall control. The plans are:
Plan A- -Soil Erosion Control Plan and Schedule
Plan B -- Grading Plan
4. Time of Performance. The Applicant shall complete the
grading and erosion control by , 1995. The
Applicant may, however, request an extension of time from the City.
If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating
the security posted by the Applicant to reflect cost increases and
the extended completion date.
5. Erosion Control. Plan A shall be implemented by the
Applicant and inspected and approved by the City. 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 rye grass or other fast- growing seed
suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover
as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc
anchored as necessary for seed retention.
The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling
erosion. If the Applicant does not comply with the erosion control
plan and schedule or supplementary instruction received from the
City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to
control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Applicant in
advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so
will not affect the Applicant's and City's rights or obligations
hereunder. If the Applicant does not reimburse the City for any
cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the
City may draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs.
6. Clean up. The Applicant shall daily clean dirt and
debris from streets that has resulted_ from construction work by the
Applicant, its agents or assigns.
7. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this
permit, the Applicant shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or
irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ( "security ") for
$ The bank and form of the letter of credit shall
be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The letter
of credit shall be for a term ending , 1995.
L
r�
�J
0
fl
8. Responsibility for Costs.
A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Applicant
shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with
the grading and erosion control, including but not limited to
inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and
acceptance of the permit.
B. The Applicant 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 permit
approval and work done in conjunction with it. The Applicant shall
indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs,
damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence
of such claims, including attorney's fees.
C. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for costs
incurred in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering
and attorney's fees.
D. The Applicant 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 work and construction.
9. Applicant's Default. In the event of default by the
Applicant as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder,
the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Applicant
shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the
City, provided the Applicant is first given notice of the work in
default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This permit is a
license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the
City to seek a 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.
10. Notice. The Applicant must notify the City Engineer in
writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to construction.
11. Watershed District Permit. The Applicant shall comply
with the conditions of the attached Watershed District permit,
especially as it relates to seeding and restoration of vegetative
cover.
-2-
12. Site Specific Conditions.
Y
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(SEAL)
BY:
1
Don Ashworth, City Manager
APPLICANT
BY:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
}
{ ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER
}
The foregoing
instrument was
acknowledged before me this
'
day of
1994,
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 OF MINNESOTA
}
{ S S .
1
COUNTY OF
}
The foregoing
instrument was
acknowledged before me this
'
day of
1994, by
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
Mission Hills
Application For Earth Work Permit
Per Ordinance 128
7 -35 A. Interim use permit application attached
B. Application for permit shall contain:
1. Name of developer and owners are specified on the Interim use permit
2. Legal description is attached
3. Abstract of adjacent landowners was submitted previously with the P.U.D. application
4. Proposed grading plans are attached. Site plans showing adjacent land use is on file at the City and
have been approved by the Planning Commission. Site topography with natural features /wetland is
shown on the grading plans submitted. Soils are generally sandy - silty clay -loam with water table well
below the limits of excavation. Cut/fill quantities are approximately 130,000 C.Y.
5. The purpose is site grading for the approved P.U.D.
6. Construction period for grading is approximately 12 weeks
7. Construction period w-i11 be the months of July, August and September with hours per the City
Ordinance
K. There are no trees on site requiring a tree survey
9. End use landscape plan has been submitted and approved with the P.U.D.
10. N/A
11. Equipment will access the site from MN State Highway 101 and 86th Street. All work will be
contained within the site with no off -site trucking anticipated
12. Erosion control is shown on the plans and will also be subject to MPCA and Watershed permits. Dust
will be controlled with water trucks as needed
13. The restoration plan is per the landscape plan submitted with the P.U.D. Interim ground cover will be
seeded after initial grading to control erosion as required by the MPCA and Watershed permits.
Topsoil will generally be stock piled in the berm areas and erosion from stock piles will be controlled.
The slopes are shown on the grading plan and to not exceed 3:1
Mission Hills
Application For Earth Work Permit
Per Ordinance 128
' Page 2
14. Compliance with permits will be reviewed by the project engineer and/or the site representative as well
1 as representatives of the other permitting agencies. Any complaints should be directed to the site
engineer.
15. N/A
16. N/A - No wetland alteration
17. Other information - none
f
7