1b Final Plat; Paws, Claws, Hoo
CITY OF
CHAN HAS SEN
7700 Market Bou'evard
PO Box 147
Cllallhassel'. Mlrl 55317
Administration
PlIO lie 952.2271100
Fax 9522271110
Building Inspections
PllOne 9522271180
Fax 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone 952.227.í 160
Fax. 952.2271170
Finance
Pho'le 952227.1140
Fax 952.2271110
Park & Recreation
Poone 9522271120
Fax 952.2271110
ReereatlC'!1 Cellter
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Pholle 952.227.í 400
Fax.952.2271404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Pllone. 952227.1130
Fax 952.2271110
Public Works
1591 ParK Roarl
Phone 9522271300
Fax 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone 952.227.í 125
Fax. 952.227.í 110
Web Site
VlVIVI.CI. r:han hassell. mil. us
J._b
_.,....._-"~,._-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner . ~
November 22, 2004 rjJ.
DATE:
SUBJ:
Paws, Claws & Hooves, Inc. Final Plat Approval
File 2003-04 Subdivision
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to create two lots. Each lot will
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 will
be from Highway 10 1 via a private street. (At the applicant's request, this item has
been pulled from the City Council agenda several times over the past few months in
order to permit the applicant to finalize the cost estimate for the improvements
required on the property.)
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval of the Final Plat requires a majority of City Council
present.
BACKGROUND
On July 14,2003, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Preliminary Plat for
a two lot subdivision (#2003-4 SUB) for Paws, Claws and Hooves, Inc.; and
Chanhassen City Council denied 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.
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.
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.
The City of Chanhassen · A ÿrowrng commulllty willi ::Ieall lakes
--
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 2
On February 27, 1989, the same application appeared before the City Council for an extension. The
City Council moved to deny the extension. 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.
FINAL PLAT REVIEW
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.
Existing stormwater runoff rates from the site must be maintained.
Surface Water Management Fees
Water Quality Fees
The water quality fees for this proposed development are based on commercial development
rates of $7,596/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 $7,596. If further
subdivision of the property occurs, an additional charge will then be imposed less a credit for the
charge previously paid.
Water Quanti tv 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 $5,604 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 $5,604 for the proposed development.
The total Surface Water Management Fees, due at the time of final plat recording, are
$13,200.00.
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.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 3
STREETS
The site is accessible from State Highway 101 through an existing private 24-foot wide paved
driveway. Since the driveway will now serve two lots it is considered a private street. As such,
the applicant is proposing to upgrade the common portion of the driveway to comply with the
private street standards within the City Code. This includes a 26-foot pavement width, built to a
9-ton design, and enclosed within a 40-foot easement. Also, the applicant will be extending the
common portion of the dri veway pavement to the east property line of Lot 1, as is required by
City Code. 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. The applicant
will also be required to supply a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow
to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
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 2004 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.
REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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.
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.
d. Accumulation 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.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 4
e. 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 (8:00 p.m. to 7:00 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.
1. 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.
· 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.
k. 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.
I. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the
commercial kennel.
m. The commercial kennel shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent
the running at large or escape of animals confined therein.
n. The commercial kennels shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any
time.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 5
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.
q. 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 III.
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
electric 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 runoff 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 (100) 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.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 6
1. 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.
I. Five trailer parking spaces shall be provided. The applicant shall show proof of
parking for the remaining seven spaces. Should the need arise for 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.
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.
*This condition still applies.
2. Extend the common portion of the private street pavement to the east property line of Lot
1.
*This condition still applies
3. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant
and recorded against Lot 1.
*This condition still applies.
4. The applicant must revise the private street width to bring it into compliance with City
Code. Pavement design will be redesigned to a 9 ton design and 26 foot wide street.
*This condition has been met.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 7
5. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
*This condition has been met.
6. Add silt fence along the south side of the widened driveway.
*This condition still applies.
7. 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.
*This condition has been met.
8. 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.
*This condition has been met.
9. 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 rep0l1s shall be submitted to city staff prior to City Council
consideration.
*This condition shall be modified as follows: Prior to recording the final plat, 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 recording the final plat and then
monthly thereafter.
10. Submit the results of the soil borings and percolation tests for the two ISTS sites on the
easterly lot.
*This condition shall be modified as follows: Prior to recording the final plat, 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.
*This conditions still applies.
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.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 8
*This condition still applies.
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.
*This condition still applies.
14. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all existing wetlands, buffer areas
and storm water ponds.
*This condition has been met.
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.
*This condition still applies.
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.
*This condition shall be modified as follows: 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 $13,200.00. 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.
*This condition still applies.
Upon review of the plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc. dated August 19,2004, staff
recommends that the following condition be added:
1. The applicant is required to supply a financial security in the amount of $26,845.00 in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval.
Mr. Todd Ge rhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 9
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.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in
this report.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by individual wells and septic systems. The
storm water ponding and private street are required to be upgraded to city standards.
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 required easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with a private street, individual sanitary
treatment systems, and wells. Public roads abut the subdivision and provide access to the
site. The storm water system and private street will be improved to city standards.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 10
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The Chanhassen City Council approves the resolution granting final plat approval creating two lots
for Paws, Claws and Hooves, Inc. subject to the following conditions:
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.
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.
d. Accumulation 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.
e. 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 (8:00 p.m. to 7:00 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.
1. 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.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 11
· 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.
k. 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.
I. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the
commercial kennel.
m. The commercial kennel shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent
the running at large or escape of animals confined therein.
n. 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.
q. 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 III.
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
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 12
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
electric fence which will keep the animal or animals confined within.
d. The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it wi II 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 runoff 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 (100) 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.
1. 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.
I. Five trailer parking spaces shall be provided. The applicant shall show proof of
parking for the remaining seven spaces. Should the need arise for 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.
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.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 13
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.
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. Add silt fence along the south side of the widened driveway.
5. Prior to recording the final plat, 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
recording the final plat and then monthly thereafter.
6. Prior to recording the final plat, submit the results of the soil borings and percolation tests
for the two ISTS sites on the easterly lot.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 $13,200.00. If further subdivision of the property occurs, an
additional charge will then be imposed less a credit for the charge previously paid.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Paws, Claws & Hooves Final Plat Approval
November 22, 2004
Page 14
12. The applicant shall insure that a registered survey is done on the driveway to insure that
the dri veway is centered in the 40 foot easement to Lot 2.
13. The applicant is required to supply a financial security in the amount of $26,845.00 in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval."
A TT ACHMENTS
1. Resolution.
2. Reduced Copy Paws, Claws and Hooves Addition.
3. Letter from William C. Griffith to Mayor and City Council dated 10/22/04.
g:\plan\bg\dcvclopment review\paws claws & hooves final plat.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE:
RESOLUTION NO:
MOTION BY:
SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT
CREATING PAWS, CLAWS AND HOOVES ADDITION,
NANCY AND PATRICK BLOOD
WHEREAS, Nancy and Patrick Blood have requested a subdivision of their property into
two lots of 125,521 square feet and 435,601 square feet, a 3,097 square feet outlot and Right-of-
Way for State Highway No. 101 (Great Plains Boulevard); and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision complies with all requirements of the Chanhassen
City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 17,
2003, and found the plan consistent with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
ordinance and recommended approval of the subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby
approves the final plat for Paws, Claws and Hooves (Subdivision #2003-4) for the property
legally described in the attached exhibit A, creating Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Outlot A and Right-
of-Way for State Highway No. 101, Paws, Claws and Hooves Addition as shown on the plans
prepared James R. Hill, Inc., subject to the following conditions:
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.
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.
d. Accumulation 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.
1
e. 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 (8:00 p.m. to 7:00 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.
1. 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.
· 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.
k. 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.
I. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the
commercial kennel.
m. The commercial kennel shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent
the running at large or escape of animals confined therein.
n. The commercial kennels shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any
time.
2
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.
q. 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 III.
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
electric 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 runoff 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 (100) 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.
3
1. 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.
I. Five trailer parking spaces shall be provided. The applicant shall show proof of
parking for the remaining seven spaces. Should the need arise for 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.
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.
2. Extend the common portion of the pri vate 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. Add silt fence along the south side of the widened driveway.
5. Prior to recording the final plat, 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
recording the final plat and then monthly thereafter.
6. Prior to recording the final plat, submit the results of the soil borings and percolation tests
for the two ISTS sites on the easterly lot.
7. 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.
4
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 $13,200.00. If further subdivision of the property occurs, an
additional charge will then be imposed less a credit for the charge previously paid.
12. 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.
13. The applicant is required to supply a financial security in the amount of $26,845.00 in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval."
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 22nd day November of 2004.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Clerk/Manager
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
YES
NO
ABSENT
g:\plan\bg\development review\resolution paws claws & hooves add.doc
5
EXHIBIT A
That part of Goyemment 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 (fonnerly 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 Govemment Lots 3 and 4, Section 36, Township 116, ~ange 23, described as follows:
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 1327.05 feet to the actual point of beginning
of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing northeasterly along last described course
170.35 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 89 degrees 15 minutès, 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 n1Ínutes, a distance of 146 feet
to a point marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence southeasterly 545.52 feet to the actual point of
begiiming, 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 right 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 of89 degrees 15
minutes with said pavement a distance of 473.2 feet; thence North 77 degrees 10 minutes West. 40
feet; thence South 77 degrees 20 minutes West, 146 feet; thence Southeasterly 501 feet to the North
right of way line of said trunk Highway and thence Northeasterly along said right of way line 171
feet to place of beginning.
And EXCEPT that part of said Government Lot 4 lying easterly of the follo\\ing described line:
Commencing at the West Quarter comer of said section; thence South along an extension of the
west line ofsaîd 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 feet to the actual point ofbeghminz
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 terminating.
Abstract Property.
-----,_._~
-.--- -- -. --
CMVERœlllYMIUIllUCI.,IC.
411CHEJIIL.!'f ø.
PO BOX 1.
r.J.lA~KA. MN 55318
z:
___,f\'~
o
z
-·m
:H
I"
. ~
a:"
CI)~
w~
~
«
")
z
o
I-
o
o
<t:
U)
W
>
o
o
I
o
z
<t:
U)
~
<t:
..J
Ü
cr5
~
<t:
a....
, )
i \-
>-
«
:;:
I
CO
I~
o
w~
>-
«.
>-0
(/)Z
,
,
,
. ,
\ I
<
't
C)
())
\
\
\
\
-
=~
-
\
_ 'l_
. 0
¡~'t.iJWJ.w~,¡:¡;. Ji.ìJmi:'ŒIJæ·~'&.1-¡:, WL~·1Ð:~q~~~_~';¡'~1t~~~l1it~"".RI!fiil:"""~~','1M~~~~~"'æ\.~ii~~¿m.,¡r,-;.i~~:f!';¿~;·ZJr]
Larkin
HoffiM~
Lukin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431,1194
GENE"AL: 952-835-3800
FAX: 952,8%-33.>3
WEB: www.larkinholfman.com
October 22, 2004
Mayor and City Council
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Re: Paws, Claws and Hooves Addition ~ Application for Final Plat; Our File 22,253-04
Dear Mayor and City Council:
We represent Paws, Claws and Hooves (PCH) with respect to this application. The Chanhassen
City Council approved the preliminary plat application ofPCH to divide its property into two
lots at its regular meeting of July 14, 2003. (See enclosed meeting transcript dated July 14,
2003.)
We have made a number of objections in writing and on the record at the Planning Commission
and City Council during the review of the preliminary plat. We renew each of these objections
with this letter and focus on three monetary conditions that create a particular obstacle to use of
this Property as intended by PCH consistent with Minnesota law.
I. Condition number 11 requires payment of a $20,160 park dedication fee. This amount is
excessive given that there is no demand on the City's park systcm as a result of the
subdivision. Also, a single family lot, which would create more demand on the park
system, would pay $2,800 in park fces (in thc Business Fringe (BF) District, a singlc
family home is an allowed use). If the need for park dedication arises in the future, the
City will have the opportunity to require additional park fees at that time. We believe
any requirement for park fees should be deferred. Howcver, in the interest of resolution
of this matter, our clicnt will agree to pay $2,800 in park fees based upon the rate charged
for a single family lot.
2. Condition number 16 requires payment of $13,200 in stonmvater management fees. The
site is not connected to the City's stormwater system. In fact, PCH was required to
construct stonnwater ponds to manage its stormwater on site, which it constructed and
continues to maintain at its own expense. There is no connection between the impact of
the subdivision and the exaction of stormwater fees. The suggested condition to fund the
City's public system must be deferred until such time as that system scrvcs the site and
provides a benefit to PCH.
3. New Condition number 1 on page 8 (following condition numbcr 17) requires financial
security in the amount of $113,118 to guarantee installation of improvements, namely the
widening and improvement of the 24-foot driveway to meet City standards for a 26-foot,
Mayor and City Council
Octobcr 22, 2004
Page 2
9-ton privatc roadway. We have provided staff with thc cnclosed bid from Plchal
Blacktopping, Inc. in the amount $14,280.00 to widen the road and add a second lift of
blacktop to meet the City standards. While our clicnt objccts to widening thc roadway as
unnecessary given the scope of the existing use, they will agree to post sccurity in the
amount of the bid by PIchal Blacktopping to widen and improve the roadway to City
standards. The City's condition assumes the removal and reconstruction of the existing
driveway. This approach is unnccessary and ineffcctivc from a cost/benefit standpoint.
The Site has many limitations which affect any futurc redevelopment. The Site is not servcd by
public utilitics. It is currently designatcd BF "Busincss Fringe" and only limited uses are
allowed. Staffs suggested development conditions arc directed toward future redevelopment.
The conditions should be imposèd when the Site is redcvcloped, rather than now, when no new
constmction is proposed.
My law pal1ner, Grcg Korstad, will attend thc City Council meeting of Octobcr 25, 2004, to
addrcss these issues to thc City Council. We ask that the matter be removed from the Consent
Agenda to facilitate this discllssion. Thank you.
Wµg /Jp
Wilham C. Griffith, for ~
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Pat and Nancy Blood
Gregory E. Korstad
9720061
10/18/0J MON 13:50 FAX 952J45i682
PLEHAL BL~CKTOPPING INC.
I4J 002
".~ >~~¡¡~B~~;íI{~<~~f'~~~"~~~~' .' .,. .".,. .. <.
DRrvEWA~& .J?AR~NG AHEI;5i$ B"#A~~TOPIŒ~"t\"~. t ·~.~I·, ..' . ,~- ª' ~~·"31~~">:j ·····~'~r .- '£¡, ~f¡
~..~;~·;~J·~~\"i;;~!;~~~~~i~~~;i~.t\. *·"~~\~~·~\~'~'jÎ~\~\~
'~p~ (9'R2)~~676'. ¡;ðX.J95'2)445~76~2'":". . :i', "X '~''R,agd~~t¡~t ~~; .:~.,~¡~"~: -~. -'~\i~~Jeª7f~§,~."
. "'."". .¡;¡.-,,,. .,.. ',i, '";, ....~.... . '; .!1t....i j ~:'~¡,'.~~;" i¡¡......j~~)~\t;.·'c~L'~Ul:I..'·~~;"~I c.~:~,~.. !"
2004
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
PAWS CLAWS & HOOVES
ATTENTION FAX # CELL #
PIl1' 1HIJ'í1l(UUIll U1 LI1e U1U uy r1L:tlil1 DlilUUVl1l1LJI.::> IV W¡UC;U dUU 1I1IjJ VVC; 1111;; ¡VdUWd LV ~llY
shnrhm1s The f:itv's condition assumes the removal and reconstruction of the existing
.. . . .
10500 GREAT PLAINS BLVD ENTRANCE ROAD
CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION
CHASKA. MN. 55318
MAP LOCATiON
We l1eflJby $vbrnit specifications and estimates for:
WIDEN ROADWAY FROH 24' TO 26'
EXCAVATE 2'X 710' 9" BELOW FINISH GRADE
INSTALL 6" OF CLASS ¡IS LIMESTONE BASE
INSTALL A 1" RASE COURSE OF MN.DO'T' #?141 ASPHALT r.EMEN'P
$S 500.00
INSTALL A 2" WEAR COURSE 710'X 26'
$14.280.00
We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor - complete In accordance with above specifications, for the 5um of;
AS LISTED ABOVE dollars($ ).
Payment to be made as follows;
NET ON COMPLETION
Any pcr:'on or CQmpany supplying labor or mater!3l. lor !hI;: Improl;()msnt to your property &Z1
may file a lien agains: your property It tl\at pe,""" ¢' ¢omp;:\ny i.'; not paid forthe contribution..
All matertsJ I. guaranleed 10 00 '-'~ oPsGir",d. All work to be completed II) a $\J!)';t<lntial AUthOñZ9œ---¡;;;;
lNorlu11~,'ljk,) m"nnor according to :;pecifications Bubmlt1ed per o~n(!.)ré pr~ct¡C<3&. Any
~It"r<\tion or devia~on trom above apecltlCatlone Involving exl'" ço~ts win be executed only
upon wrinen orde",. ana WIll ~ome 3r1 C>'tl'it ¢h<1rgs OV9r and above the estJmate. All Signature ,
agreemel)lo co,' ir1~cnt upon otrikes. accidents. or delays beyond our control. Qwn"rto carry Note: This proposal may be withdrawn
Ii',), IOtoMo and olher noce&sary insurance. Our worke", aTe tUI!y ¢Ovored ~y Workman'. TEN (0)
CO ))P~I~$on In~r.;J.nc~. by US if not accepted within days.
NO HNANCE CH^RGE m~dè an "çCOl.m!:; paid within 30 days. Fa.! due invoicè" will ba
charged 1 '1,% per mOOlh RNANC¡: CHARGE (18% annual percentage rate).
Acceptance of Proposal - The above prices.
specifications and condition$ are satisfactory and are hemby accepted.
You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made
as outlined above. Signature
Date of Acceptance: Signature
-
... .;.. .. VI - -
III.:.
White Copy (Return to Office) Yellow Copy (Customer) Pink Copy (File)
¿ .
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
1
1
¡
!
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WIm A VARIANCE TO DIVIDE 13.16
ACRES INTO 2 LOTS, 10500 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD; PAW, CLAWS, &
HOOVES.
J
)
j
'1
J
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site located just north of 1011212 intersection. While
this is a subdivision that has a little bit of complexity because it has a conditional use on it and the
subdivision, I want to clarify in the motion, it's a preliminary subdivision. It would have to come
back. there's some things that they need to do so I'll have you modify the motion and I'll go
through that with you but it's a preliminary subdivision of the two lots with the variance request.
This is the existing property. There's two, it was given a conditional use for pets in this building
and a horse barn building. There's a driveway that comes down and services this property. With
the subdivision of the two parcels, staff had looked at improving right-of-way to 26 foot wide
requirement. The applicant is requesting a variance. Again the other issue that we looked at
providing access to the surrounding property. Looking at providing additional right-of-way to
these properties to the east. The other concern was the conditional use, that we wanted to clarify
that there is an existing conditional use on the property that limits the numbers of horses and cats
and dogs so those conditions would still be carried forward with the subdivision, although we're
creating the two separate lots. If you go to page 10 and 15 where the conditions start, I apologize
page 10 got copied twice. That's where the motions start. Under subdivision it would say
approval of a prelinúnary plat for 2 lots. Again it would have to come back to the City Council,
typically those are put at consent if they meet all the conditions of approval. That'd be their
direction to come back for a fmal plat. This item was heard before the Planning Commission on
June 17rb. and the staff and the original proposal looked at whether or not supporting of the
variance for the private street., and the 26 foot pavement width. The Planning COIDnÙssion
recommended denial of that. They felt it was appropriate at this time to get that extraction.
Again because this is a subdivision, there's fees that are required and expected with this. Looking
at the stonn water fees, those were reduced down based on the level of development. but the
Planning Commission felt that it was important to get that right-of-way put in at this time so the
conditions in bold have been modified to reflect that and the variance recommendation. which is
on the bottom of page 15. Those of you who have conditions, at the end of page 15 a variance
would reconunend denial and there's fmdings of fact then in the staff report for that variance. So
again staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the conditions attached. Again the
Planning Commission had us add in what the conditions were for the stable, and for the animal,
and those are all shown in bold. The conditions of approval. We also attached the original
conditional of approval for your edification, and then the variance denial following the end of the
subdivision of the preliminary plat. I'll just show again the larger subdivision of the two lots...
while there is wetlands and some steep slopes in the area., I'd be happy to answer any questions.
,
"
i
j
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: I have a couple.
Mayor Furlong: Please, Councilman Lundquist.
i
I
- 1
\
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the driveway that's there, the 24 foot wide, the reason that that was
24 rather than 26, was that a condition or a part of the conditional use or was that the code at that
time or?
j
I
I
: -}
Kate Aanenson: The code at that time was a common driveway. Since then the code has
changed requiring a variance for the use of a common driveway with two lots being served with
5
1
~¥}:~
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
.~
;s
one, actually it's all WIder one lot it was allowed under a conditional use so it's a little bit
different and because you're subdividing your lots, that standard would kick into place.
]
Councilman Lundquist: So if this was a, well I guess it wouldn't make sense if it was just a
single lot, but because it's two lots, now that they're subdividing, is the reason that the 26 foot is
required or?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So it's not that the code has changed since but it's the two lot
versus the one when it was originally put in.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
,J
j
CounciIman Lundquist: Okay. And on the previous drawing that you had up there, the 40 foot, I
can't remember what condition number that is but the 40 foot easement that we're asking for.
Mayor Furlong: Number 4.
Councilman Lundquist: Where does that on the map.
-.
Kate Aanenson: The additional right-of-way past the, to the property limits.
Councilman Lundquist: So that just continues on where the existing.
Kate Aanenson: Yeab, this is about a 3 acre parcel. Extension of that. . .
Councilman Lundquist: But the thought that if further development came in, you would act to
use what's now a private road would serve as a public road into that other, or?
Kate Aanenson: We look at that when that property develops.. .
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff. With regard to that, the easement for a
potential future public road. In your report I think someplace I looked at, what is the likelihood
that that other property would be able to access off of the existing Highway 169f212? Do we
have any.
1
Kate Aanenson: Probably limited based on the location of 101. If we went back to this map,
again the State would have jurisdiction so there is spacing requirements. If you look at the
current 101. ..it may be difficult to get this to come down like this intersection, so again another
reason why you'd probably want to work with the property owners together to get a better access
point.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? For staff at this time? Okay, thank
you. Is the applicant here this evening? Good evening, if you'd like to address the councilor
raise any issues.
Neal Blanchett: Yes I would.
j
i
!
d
J
6
· -:,~r;:~
i~~~gL~i
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address, we'd appreciate it.
"
Neal Blanchett: Thank you Mayor and council members. My name's Neal Blanchett. I'm with
the Larkin-Hoffman law firm in Bloomington. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. I represent Paws,
Claws and Hooves. I addressed the Planning Commission on this issue. I want to make a couple
of points principally tailored towards addressing the conditions of approval. Staff has
recommended approval of the subdivision. Planning Commission also recommended approval,
so we're not really talking about whether this is an approval or not. We're really talking about
the conditions. Before I go into that I do want to talk about the variance. The variance was
originally, well the variance comes into play only because of a heighten city standard. In 1996
when Paws, Claws and Hooves was originally approved, it was approved with a 24 foot wide
driveway. At that time, according to the staff report, there was a 26 foot requirement but the city
staff and the engineer chose to enforce it at 24 feet. They made a determination that for the uses
on that site, the kennel and the stable use, the 24 feet was adequate. I want to stress that those are
the only uses that are proposed at this time. The kennel and stable uses are proposed to continue.
The 24 feet was adequate in 1996. It continues to be adequate today. Looking at what is the
standard for the variance? The standard is unusual hardship under the state statute. It's a
different standard in the subdivision context than it is in the zoning context. It's only unusual
hardship. Here we do have an unusual hardship because although staff has made a determination
that this is a commercial use, it is a very low impact commercial use. You only have animal
boarding. It's extremely low impact because the nature of the use is that folks come onto the
property once, possibly every few days. Drop off an animal for boarding, and come back to pick
it up after a period of time. So we think the unusual hardship is met. You'll note in your staff
report, staff initially made findings supporting that variance so we'd ask your support for that
variance. The stable is an agricultural use. We have chosen not to contest city staff s
determination that it's a commercial use but we think that the real low density and the agriculturaI
type use of it again lends itself to support for the variance. And I've got supporting
documentation to the extent that you would like to take a look at that, I certainly can present that.
Moving on and looking at the conditions. Some of the conditions, as you heard staff talk about,
are really an attempt to address what will happen on this property in the future and what will
happen on the adjacent properties in the future. To the extent that those conditions address what
happens on adjacent property and are an attempt to give access and provide benefit to an adjacent
property, we don't believe those conditions are appropriate and we do take issue with them, and I
want to talk about that briefly. So we can use the conditions fonnat and I can just walk you
through what our concerns are. On the first condition, we talked about splitting of the conditional
use pennit. We don't have any problem with splitting that. I would propose a simpler condition
than staff has proposed which is simply that the conditional use permit condition that apply to the
kennel apply to the kennel use on the site. Conditional use permit conditions that apply to the
stable continue to apply to the stable use of the site with the caveat, and I believe this is the only
change, that the stable, because it is now a smaller site, is reduced the number of horses it can
board from 35 animals to 27 animals. That's the only change we've got. Rather than re-state
about 4 pages of conditions, I think we ought to just make that simple change than changing the
number, and that is clear. If the city needs to enforce those conditional use permit conditions, and
it's either the kennel or the stable use in the future, it will be able to do that with a very simple
condition rather than re-stating all of those conditions. The second condition talked about
extending the common portion of the private street driveway. I've discussed this with staff and
our view is that the private street, the private street is the portion of the street where both uses are
served. Where the kennel access drive ends or where the kennel access drive joins that street,
from that point on onto the stable site, it's really just an access point for the stable and so we
believe there's no need to add additional surface where we don't want to add surface. And we
ought to only provide paving to the end of the kennel lot or to the kennel access rather as opposed
.r
,
,
'<
!
7
;t:¿¡;~;
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
to the kennel lot. The third condition we have no objection. We have discussed that with staff.
The fourth condition is the easement requirement and we do have an objection to this. The
easement requirement, we do not believe is Constitutional. We don't believe it complies with
Minnesota law. The Minnesota law on subdivisions states that the city may require dedications to
the extent that the city reasonably determines that it wíll need to acquire that portion of land for
public roadway as a result of the subdivision. We heard staff talk about what the need was for the
40 foot easement. The need is to provide access to adjoining property. Not to provide access to
anything new that's going on this property. There is nothing new that's happening on this
property so there is no need for additional access. Without that basis that easement requirement
is not something that can be imposed at this time. Now we WIderstand from staff that utilities are
proposed for the property about 2015 or there about. There will be an opportunity for the city to
review that development when utilities come along, development is expected to intensify and
there will be an opportunity for the city to impose conditions providing access. But right now it
doesn't meet the standard WIder Minnesota statute. It doesn't meet the Constitutional case law
standard which requires again that some impact of development on the site trigger the need for
the new easement. This is not related to development on this site. It's related to development on
adjacent site. I would propose a condition such that when the site develops in such a way that the
city reasonably detennines that an easement is necessary, or access to the site, the city be able to
take that easement. Failing that the city can certainly take the easement through the use of
eminent domain for public purpose. Moving onto the fifth condition. We have no objection to
that. Sixth condition, I would simply preface that with if impervious surface is added to the site.
Again that relates to impervious surface. We don't believe there's the need to add that if we
don't have to, and if you grant the variance tonight we will not be adding impervious surface.
Condition number 7 we have no objection. 8, no objection. Number 9, we've talked somewhat
about septic service and it's a bit of a reconstruction of historical record but what we believe is
that Swedlund Septic, the service company has provided the pumping logs to the city as a matter
of course. They haven't broken out Paws, Oaws separately but they have submitted the
information, so we believe that the city has received that information and what we're really
talking about when we talk about new submission, is we're talking about a new format. Talking
about calling out the fact that this is Paws, Claws and Hooves in some sort of bold type or
something that would give the city more indication. But the pumping logs are sent in as a matter
of course. I do want to point out that in 2000 we asked specifically whether or not the site was in
compliance. We sent some letters back and forth and we did receive a confirmation back from
staff and from the city attorney that there were a couple of items that were not in compliance.
These logs were not one of those items so staff reviewed what they had and did not note that as a
non-compliant item. For that reason Paws Claws has never considered it a non-compliant item.
The tenth condition we would have no objection. On the eleventh condition, park dedication
requirement, we also believe that the park dedication is problematic under Minnesota law and
again WIder the Constitutional statute. You've got to have a need that's created by some impact
of this subdivision. The size of the lot I think is important here. First of all nothing new is
happening on the site. We're not bringing in new employees. We're not bringing in new
activities that are going to use the city's parks. Also the size. We've got a 3 acre lot and a 10
acre lot. It's certainly questionable to me as a matter of common sense, whether a 10 acre lot
creates a need to have folks use the public parks, so this is not an urban subdivision or for a
suburban type subdivision where we're creating small lots and the need for folks to go off the site
and use new parkland. I don't believe there's a need for new parkland. There may be in the
future when this lot develops with the intensity that urban services can provide and at that time
the city will have the ability to impose that dedication. So we'd ask that that condition be deleted.
The twelfth, we have no objection. The thirteenth, again it should be prefaced with if additional
construction occurs, the wetland buffer signs should be installed. Again we don't propose
anything new to affect the wetlands or the wetland buffers, unless the city's desire to condition
¡
I
j
~1
¡
1
.
¡
1
1
'1
.j
8
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
j
J
the approval on some new construction. Number fourteen, we don't have an objection to having
drainage easement over those property. I do want to clarify that the utility easements, the
condition mentions utility easements and of course the easements that should be in place over a
storm water drainage area are storm water drainage easements, so if it's a storm water utility, we
are certainly agreeable to that. Although not necessarily agreeable to other utilities. Number
fifteen, we have no objection. Number sixteen, again the storm water fees we raised an objection
to this at the Planning Commission. We continue to have it. We don't believe that storm water
fees are justified for a couple of reasons. First, there's a storm water pond that Paws, Claws and
Hooves was required to construct as a condition of their 1996 approval. That storm water pond
was sized to handle Paws Oaws runoff. Paws Claws is not in any way connected to the city's
storm water system. so requiring them to pay for that system does not seem justified. I would
note, we discussed this with staff and they said that the fees were justified based on the city's
storm water management plan. We took a look at that plan and I can display for you, I've got a
record copy as well. But this is the spot that talks about, this is where it talks about new
development and what should be required of new development, and I'd just call your attention to
the portion that I've underlined which states that if on-site water quality treatment is not provided
by the developer, then the city may require a cash dedication. The City requires cash dedication
in this case even though on site water treatment has been provided by the developer. So in light
of that, we believe that that condition should be deleted. We think Paws Claws has done what
they need to do to treat their storm water. They've created a pond and there's no dispute that the
pond is performing at the function that it should be. So I believe that condition should be lifted.
The Planning Commission added one condition that was not mentioned by staff, and that was 10
ask Paws Claws to survey the property to make sure that the city's easement was in the proper
location over Paws Oaws driveway. That's a very problematic requirement. If I could analogize,
it is as if the city is taking a sidewalk over a homeowner's property and they're requiring the
homeowner to do a survey to make sure that sidewalk is in the right place. We don't think that's
proper. We think it's unfair. If the city wants to take an easement, again we object to the taking
of the easement without any compensation but if the city does want to take an easement, we
believe that it is up to the city to survey the property, so we believe that the seventeenth condition
should be stricken. One fmal note on the fees, particularly the storm water and the park fees. We
think what that really does is impose such a burden on the property that it almost forces an
accelerated development of the property. What we're trying to do here is provide a productive
and a beneficial use for the property from now until 2015 when utilities reach the property and
that is the intent. Imposing the fairly severe dedication and storm water fees now force it to bear
higher development because the cost of development and the value of that lower development
will not justify the fees that the city is attempting to impose now. So again I'd ask for your
support on the variance, on the subdivision as staff has noted, and for some meaningful
consideration of the conditions that we've asked that you delete. Thank you.
-"
1
1
J
1
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Anderson?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: I guess I'd have one clarification on number 3. I thought what number 3 says,
which is, where am I looking here? Maybe I wrote it down wrong. It was with regard to the
pavement to the east line of Lot 1. The cross access. I guess I misunderstood your concern
about, I wrote down number 2 as a problem. Number 2 was okay? If you'd just clarify your
concerns on number 3.
Neal Blanchett: On the easement?
9
.'~
~:~1t~'i~
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
Roger Knutson: Excuse me Mayor, I think there's some confusion.
1
1
Mayor Furlong: It's probably on my part.
.,
Roger Knutson: I think part of the confusion is this occurs in many places, but I think the
concern he had was with number 2, which is extending the common portion of the private street
pavement to the east property line of Lot 1, which is 2. He had no problem with number 3.
Mayor Furlong: But wasn't his concern that the private.
Roger Knutson: With number 2.
Mayor Furlong: It was with number 2, okay. And your concern with number 3, because Lot 1
abuts 101 correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And it's that lot that the private street will go to the eastern line of Lot 1, which
would be the access point of Lot 2. And I thought I heard you say that at that point there
shouldn't be.
Kate Aanenson: I believe what he's saying, this is the common. This would be a private drive
and this is the common portion. You'd want it.
Neal Blanchett: Right, the pavement should only extend over the common portion, that is this
portion of the driveway that both lots use.
Mayor Furlong: Am I the only one, isn't that what number 2 is saying?
Counci1man Lundquist: The point being that when you're past the access point on the kennel,
then it doesn't become a shared anymore. It becomes.
Mayor Furlong: The access point to the kennel as opposed to the lot line, okay thank you. Any
other questions for the applicant? If there are none, thank you. Appreciate it. Are there follow-
up questions to staff? Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: All the points that he made, did you have, did staff have discussion with all
of those points with respect to the condition?
Kate Aanenson: (Yes).
Councilman Ayotte: So all those points you and he have discussed? There's nothing new this
evening?
Kate Aanenson: No. Again, for number 1, they got lengthy but I think just for clarification the
Planning Commission wanted the use of that went with the cats and dogs, those conditions. And
then what went with the horse stable went with the horse stable so it became long, but again you
have to remember this is our conditions that go forward as a record so we like to make sure that
that's clear. This is the conditions that they need to follow for the preliminary plat, also a
tracking mechanism And that was the direction. I think we concur that that's the, if the uses
remains the same, that these conditions remain the same.
10
:¡ >
.~·~~I\
·~;Ef.:~:
:'..::;"
;;;;::.;:~
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
1
Neal Blanchett: Right.
Kate Aanenson: The concern that we have going to his point, it is zoned BF. There are other
uses that could be allowed in that BF district. Once this property is subdivided... When this
originally came no storm water permit fees were required because there was no subdivision of the
property. So this is the first time we're asking for it. That's the time to do that, at the time of
subdivision. Extraction. So the only fees they're paying, there is more than just creating a pond.
Again we looked at that as we looked at the calculations that we provided.. .but we think those
are appropriate. It is BF. While the applicant may say it's going to stay that way, we have on
control over that in 2 years, 6 months, 5 years that it doesn't get sold and there are other uses that
could be used on that BF zoning district, and that's where the Planning Commission struggled
and spent a lot of time in their discussion saying, there really isn't a control. And to try to attach
it to, at the time somebody else would come in, I'll let the city attorney speak to that, but that
would be a very difficult time to try to get those other extractions. Those really go with the
subdivision portion of that.
Roger Knutson: Although the applicant is saying that there two existing uses on the property and
nothing is really going to change with this dividing it, that may be their perspective but the
municipal perspective if you will is, we're creating right now there's one lot. We're creating two
and so those two lots can be sold off separately, if you approve it, and the uses that are there
today may not be there tomorrow and it may be zoned BF today but it may be zoned something
else, maybe very intense sometime in the future. But if in the future someone comes in for a
building permit, that's all they need. We won't have any opportunity as a condition of a building
permit to require someone to put in a street, because that has already been taken care of. This is
the opportunity to take care of those issues.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there other questions either for the applicant or for staff?
Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, do we have any idea what the design standard on the 24 foot wide
road is now? The driveway. Is that to the 9 ton design or is that just similar to what our
residential driveway or something? Maybe we don't even know.
¡
. '1
j
I
,
¡
j
. I
¡
t
Kate Aanenson: I think that the condition was that it be built to the 9 ton.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I'm asking what, do you know what it is existing today?
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure...
Neal Blanchett: The condition was a 7 ton from the '96 report.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, so it's 7 ton.
Councilman Lundquist: And the storm water, somewhere in this packet I thought I remembered
reading one of the staff's responses was that although the applicant built the storm water pond,
that that doesn't necessarily guarantee that they treat every drop or whatever you want to call it of
storm water on their entire property. Is that's staffs perspective on why the fees are there? And
that those fees are significantly reduced from what the existing ordinance would allow us to
charge.
11
) ,
I
)
I
..
t
'1
1
1
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. And again we try to look at the current use on it.
Councilman Lundquist: Right, and the same with the park dedication, if we went by the current
ordinance on a per acre basis or something; it would be considerably higher than that $20,000
something and then about 5 times what that is?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Then the only other, just to have, to get Roger's opinion on some
of the legality on how that applies, the statutes apply on the fees.
1
'1
j
1
J
Roger Knutson: We could have an interesting discussion that would go all night if you wanted to
go through all the.
Councilman Ayotte: Please don't.
Roger Knutson: Really I find it interesting. By statute and constitutionally you're allowed to
require dedication of a reasonable portion of the property, or an equivalent amount in cash, and I
think that is what is being done here. The fact that there are existing uses on there, those could
change tomorrow. It's the subdivision that triggers it. From your perspective, our perspective, I
look at it as if the land were vacant because the current uses they're there. Tomorrow it could be
something else. That could generate these needs. And the percentage we're taking, and frankly
after some discussion I believe at the staff level, I believe they're just being charged for really
half of what your ordinance would normally call for. We're treating it as one lot. We're giving
them a break if you will, the way it is right now. The way it is currently structured, so I think
that's fine. As far as the stonn water fees, all the property in the city is part of your stonn water,
Teresa's not here but part of your storm water system. Water leaves the property and it has to be
dealt with, and this helps pay for that. They take care of some of it. They have a pond there. Is
that a stann water?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Roger Knutson: Is it built to NURP standards?
I
j
!
Kate Aanenson: Y es. Well that was one of the questions to make sure. ..
Roger Knutson: Is it just a retention pond or is it built to NURP standards?
Kate Aanenson: I believe it's built to NURP standards.
Roger Knutson: Okay, well then they've done something. The water still leaves the property.
And I don't know if you have any system in there for credit but some of these fine points we
certainly can take a closer look at between prelinùnary and fmal plat.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thanks Roger. Okay, other questions for staff. Or for the applicant.
Councilman Labatt: Well I was just wondering, the way I understand this, and I kind of wrote
down ok marks where they're okay with it. He just wanted to take the ones that their
representatives offered a counter point or wanted complete deletion, offer your input as to why
what we have is in there.
I
~
,
d
12
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
Kate Aanenson: For example on a, the fIrst condition. Excuse me, number 1.
Councilman Labatt: If you want to go back that far. You know, no. You don't have
to.. .understand your reason for it but two, obviously they have a conflict with.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Again, it goes back to the change in use. Because it is zoned business
fringe, there are other uses that could come on there that could be much more intense use of the
property.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And I guess he's okay with 3, 4.
Kate Aanenson: Same thing, it ties back to the standard for that road.
¡
f1
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And I've got him okay with 5,6,7 and 8. 9?
Kate Aanenson: I think that's a financial issue that we can certainly try to work out. It's a
matter of tracking down the paperwork. Make sure the septic system are being reported.
Neal Blanchett: We've asked to provide it for all of their records. We are trying to put that
together. We go back 5 years.
Kate Aanenson: I'm confIdent that.. .some of these things can be resolved.
Councilman Labatt: Again I've got him okay with 10. l1's been discussed by our attorney. 12
is okay by him. 13?
Kate Aanenson: That was just in addition if the requirement was made for the right-of-way that
affects the wetland. That was the impact, that they need signage.
!
¡
j
./
"1
i
\
!
¡
1
¡
¡
¡
1
I
¡
¡
!
,
Councilman Labatt: And then I have him okay on 14, 15.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, well again that was just wordsmithing. Again I think we can work some
of those out before fmal plat.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. 16 they wanted complete deletion but Roger's handled that. And 17
is the Planning Commission.
Kate Aanenson: Maybe I should clarify that one too. Again, that was just to make sure their
driveway's within, I don't think it states...ensure that there's a registered survey done on the
driveway to make sure the driveway's centered on the 40 foot easement.
Neal Blanchett: There's not a 40 foot easement now 00 the property so I assume that meant the
city's future or the 40 foot easement. . .
Kate Aanenson: No, I think I'll read it just how it says. That it's centered on the 40 foot
easement.. .
Neal Blanchett: For clarifIcation, which 40 foot easement?
Kate Aanenson: The easement that's on our property. To get into the property.
13
,~
I
. ~
J
.1
,àEi0
...~
~¿~H;~l~
, '-
City Councí1 Meeting - July 14,2003
Mayor Furlong: Does that refer back to number 4?
¡
i
¡
j
I
j
1
¡
Kate Aanenson: Pardon me?
Mayor Furlong: That's to the private street?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Roger Knutson: That's your own private street.
Neal Blanchett: Centered within the private easement
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Neal Blanchett: That both properties can use.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions at all for staff or for the applicant. If not,
thank you. Mr. Anderson, appreciate you being here this evening and we'll bring it back to
councí1 at this point for discussion. Any discussion? On this request. Both the preliminary plat
for the subdivision or the variance. Councí1man Labatt. do you want to start?
Councilman Labatt: No I'm. the question I had has been answered. I guess the one question I
have that probably can't be answered is what's the trigger for this and why. It's simply a
business decision by Paws, Claws and Hooves but that's something that I'm just more curiosity in
tenns of why.. .so I think staff has done a good job in putting enough conditions in here to make
it work and protect the long tenn interest on this parcel.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Discussion.
Councilman Lundquist: I would echo Councilman Labatt's, although there's a lot of conditions
on here and they seem some cumbersome and detailed, I think it's important at this time that we
protect, or look out for the interest of the city not knowing what could end up there after a transfer
of ownership or who knows what else could happen so it may seem excessive but again things
can change in a hurry so I would, I think the staff and the Planning Commission and the applicant
have all put in a great deal of time and I'm comfortable with the way they are.
"
i
~
.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councí1man Ayotte, comments? I would I guess just state my
concurrence with Councilman Labatt and Lundquist. I think now's the time. as the city attorney
identified to us from the city standpoint to make sure that we try to look long term, not just how
the current use is. But to look long term and obviously it's the subdivision that's being requested
here that's triggering these events. I think I would concur, I think the staff has done a good job.
The Planning Commission did a good job and it looks like they've at least tried to accommodate
the applicant where they can in some areas and with regard to the fees, particularly those have
been reduced I think and if I read the report correctly, that if further subdivision or development
takes place, that there will be credits made for fees paid so if I'm not mistaken on that. But it's, I
think it seems to be a fair compromise given the property owner's desire to subdivide and the
city's i~terest to look longer term, so is there any other discussion?
j
14
,^~:!"_~,,,,
~J/¡;'~
,~
~H~,¿i~¡
, '-
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2003
Councilman Lundquist: The last point, Kate if we were to by-pass on condition number 4 that the
40 foot public road and utility easement, is that something that could be, if they decided or if it
was subdivided again or something else out there, is that something that we could obtain an
easement or something to make that a public utility or road if utilities came in or.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again, this would come back to you for final plat, so I think: some of
those things we can work on between now and then but yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Is that something that staff would consider a show stopper there, that 40
foot easement?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we can look at that between now and final plat.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay,
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? If not is there a motion?
Councilman Labatt: I would move that we approve a preliminary subdivision?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: On 2003-4 SUB for Paws, Claws and Hooves Incorporated, plans prepared
by James R. Hill Incorporated dated January 30, 2003 subject to the following conditions, 1
through 17. In the staff report dated June 17th.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Friendly amendment?
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you start with the second and then we'll discuss it and if necessary
amend.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist.
'!
Councilman Lundquist: Steve, would you accept a friendly amendment to remove the 40 foot
public road and utility easement, the first sentence on condition 4? And just have that, have the
pavement design re-designed to 9 ton design and 26 foot wide street.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want to offer an amendment for that?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Why don't we do it that way. Is there a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, let's discuss that amendment then. Councilman Lundquist.
15
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
'",
Councilman Lundquist: That one seems to be, in my núnd. a reasonable something now that as
Mr. Blanchett was talking through that. Although it's certainly I believe within our abilities to
have that road and utility easement now, that it would seem to be more applicable, in my mind,
when and if we would come along with the public utilities, public streets, public something there
rather than it's there now, even if the uses change on those lots without a further subdivision,
there is still in my mind, I guess I'm not seeing, other than the access to the adjacent lot which is
something that we can also address in another fashion so that would be the only reason. I think
it's reasonable for us to not do that. Either that or have that utility easement with compensation
so I would just ask that we have that condition removed for now.
Councilman Labatt: This condition number 4, how's it impact 17 then?
Kate Aanenson: ., . we can look at it now certainly I think between now and fmal plat.
Something that we would look at.
Mayor Furlong: And Kate maybe clarify for us, between now and the final plat. what would you,
given Councilman Lundquist's concern here.
¡
j
j
¡
¡
I
.1
!
j
I
1
Kate Aanenson: Well if there's any way that we can clarify the use, restriction of the use on the
property or whether it's the right-of-way width that's more important than the design of the road
at the time.
CounciIman Lundquist: I didn't think that 17, 17 is a private street easement.
Kate Aanenson: Oh sorry.
CounciIman Lundquist: That's different than 4. 17 is untouched by anything.
Roger Knutson: That's my understanding.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: So I guess it gets back to, you're proposing deleting that on the preliminary, at
this time and staff is saying it's something they can work with between now and the final.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Roger Knutson: If you want to take it off, I think it'd be okay.
j
1
,
t
\
Mayor Furlong: Alright, is there further discussion on the amendment. and the amendment is to
strike the fIrst two sentences?
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: And I think we still want the second sentence.
Roger Knutson: The second sentence you wouldn't need because you're allowing them to
encroach on our easement. I think that's how that works.
Councilman Lundquist: That's the way I read the...
I
J
.:!
16
. '-..
·'::~~iF'
!
j
j
,
I
I
!
j
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
Todd Gerhardt: That way you're not encroaching.
Roger Knutson: Say you would since you wouldn't, there's nothing to encroach on, you can
delete the first two sentences.
Councilman Lundquist: Delete the first two sentences and just the private street width and the 9
ton design.
Mayor Furlong: Right.
Councilman Labatt: So 4 then reads, the applicant must revise the private street width to bring
into compliance with city code? Pavement design to be redesigned at 9 ton, 26 foot wide street?
,
.
I
. 1
1
!
'j
¡
i
Councilman Lundquist: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Is that how that would read?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Is that complete enough for a condition?
Kate Aanenson: (Yes)
Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion on that proposed amendment for number 4? If
there isn't we'll call the question.
i
1
I
-ì
j
i
;
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve an amendment to
the motion to delete the first two sentences in condition number 4. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Mayor Furlong: The amendment prevails so now we'll deal with the motion as amended. Is
there any other discussion on the motion as amended? No? Okay. Very good. If there's no
other discussion we'll call the question without objection.
j
J
\
\
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the Preliminary
Plat for a two lot subdivision (#2003-4 SUB) for Paws, Oaws and Hooves, In~ plans
prepared by James R. run, In~ dated January 30, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
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.
¡
I
î
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.
i
¡
¡
j
17
'':-;;-'-''-.
.;';:;'''j
~'f'?:':':'
:~;Íl~1
.: ..
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
d.
Accumulation 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.
¡
e. All accumulatioos 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 (8:00 p.rn. to 7:00 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.
i. 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
!
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.
· 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.
.j
¡
,
.'
-~
k.
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 &om an
adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side or rear lot
line, whichever is greater.
I.
The applicant shall obtain a pennit &om the City to maintain and operate the
commercial kennel.
m.
The commercial kennel shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to prevent
the running at large or escape of animals confined therein.
. ~
¡
.1
¡
~
¡
j
1
,¡
"
-i
~
18
:,!~:;'_T
.~~"
:#b~~~~7
-:-:.::....
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
1
n. 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.
q. 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, Oaws and Hooves Addition, If continued to be used for a commercial
stable, shall comply with the foUowing conditions:
a.
b.
I
-1 c.
J d.
1 e.
;¡
\ f.
;
J
1 g.
I
¡
h.
i.
~>
All structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles m.
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.
The area where horses are kept shall be enclosed by a sturdy wood, metal, or
electric fence which will keep the animal or animals confined within.
The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it will not be a
harborage for rodents, flies and insects.
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 runoff 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.
Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred (100) feet from
any well.
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.
The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the
commercial kennel and stable as regulated by the City Code.
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.
19
j
1
~
¡
¡
; 1
J
1
I
¡
. j
!
'I
.j
j
J
,
í
j
, ~
!
, ;¡
1
1
City Council Meeting - July 14.2003
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 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.
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 pennit.
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.
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 agaÍJ)st Lot 1.
4.
The applicant must revise the private street width to bring it into compliance with City
Code. 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.
7.
Any additional impervious surface will require stann 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.
8.
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
draïnage patterns and systems affecting MnDot right-of-way will be perpetuated.
9.
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.
20
'.\
.,
13.
"
'''.
14.
15.
,
j
-j
J
City Council Meeting - July 14,2003
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 I, 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.
Weùand buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's weùand ordinance. The applicant must install weÙand buffer edge signs under the
direction of city staff and pay the city $20 per sign.
Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all existing weùands, buffer areas
and storm water ponds.
If construction occurs, Type ill 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 Smface 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 and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second motion with regard to the variance?
Councilman Labatt: Yeab. I would recommend that we deny the variance for a private street
width to pemút the use of an existing 24 foot driveway rather than 26 foot pavement width, based
upon the findings of fact in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Is there discussion? Or is there a second, excuse me.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there discussion on the motion? If there is none we'll call the question.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to deny 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 upon the findings in the staff report. All voted
in favor and the motion carried lInanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
\
~~ ~
=:-:';i\
21
.;'
,~~~~
'"j<;,~'j
City Council Meeting -July 14,2003
CLEARWATER DEVELOPMENT. NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSEcrION
OF mGHW A YS 5 AND CENTIJRY BOULEY ARD (SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET):
..
f
,~~
A.
PHASE I: REPLAT OF AN OUTLOT INTO 2 LOTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR THE CONSTRUcnON OF A CAR WASH, COFFEFJSHOP
CONVENlENCFlGAS STATION AND STRIP MALL: CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS WITH
Y ARIANCES: AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO
ALLOW A DRIVE mRU.
~.
;;.:
'.
B. PHASE II: REPLA T OF AN OUTLOT INTO 1 LOT WITH AN AREA OF 1.95
ACRES: SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A MULTI-TENANT
BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
1
j
Kate Aanenson: The subject site is located at Century Boulevard, just north of Highway 5.
Pretty close to the intersection of Highway 41. This development was made possible through the
extension of West 78111 as it goes towards Highway 41. Just so you put this in context. this is part
of the Highway 5 corridor study. When we went back and examined the land uses on this
property, originally commercial zoning was recommended for this comer of the intersection of
Century Boulevard when we did the I£ghway 5 corridor study. But as that Pulte project and
West 7Sth project went forward, MnDot felt it was better to put the large retention pond over there
so the commercial site got moved, and as we worked with the Lundgren development, we had to
a lot remnant. and actually as the site developed. there's linúted access onto the piece that was the
Pulte. So the complexity here in this development is you actually have two POO's, although they
had the same design standards, you have two different underlying development contracts so part
of this is to get all that unified. So with that. the applicant, Clearwater Development worked
hard to get both properties together, which is always the best way to do the development instead
of two separate projects. And through a lot of hard work. Sharmeen Al-Jaff on our staff worked
to get a real high quality design. We went through a lot of different iterations and tried to get
again they have a nice look from West 7Sth, and then also the nice view from Century. Kind of
three comer intersection and Highway 5. So in looking at the design itself, it's very well
conceived. Again this applicant has done other work in town and this was given the
neighborhood district zoning. We have two other neighborhood district zonings in the city, and
so the PUD contract that was put in place is very similar to those and I'll go through that, how
that plays in place. In your staff report, in the actions that are required, and actually there's four
motions for your consideration tonight. One is actually do a PUD amendment Again that's for
a, I'm on page 2 of the staff report. That would establish sign criteria which wasn't really clear as
a part of the original POO and also they wanted to add in the POO an amendment to allow a drive
thru. The second is to replat both of iliose lots. I indicated there's two projects there. To plat
both of iliose lots and actually create three lots on the site. One would be the... This one which
would be a little bit smaller, shown as 7,000, there actually would be some at 6,000. This plan,
just over 13,000 square feet and then a gas station with a car wash. So there'd be 3 separate lots
so there's a subdivision action tonight, a conditional use, again in the BN district a gas station
with pumps is a conditional use. And then the final action for you tonight is the site plan review.
As you indicated, the applicant worked with the staff to get a development that. to get a high
quality development. The one concern that we did have was the yellow on the canopy and the
pump itself. Weare working with the applicant and I think we can get some resolution on that
and there was an issue with the signage on that, but I think intemally we can get that issue
resolved, but as far as the overall architecture, again there seems to be concurrence. We've
reviewed the sign package. The permitted uses, again the PUD said no drive thru. What this
'..,\
-.
<¡
.11.
..
'......j.
'.'
:,:.
22
\