The URL can be used to link to this page

6. CUP & Wetland Alteration permit for 7801 Great Plains Blvd 1 • • C ITY O F ^ P.C. DATE: May 2, T 9 0 \\) ' CHAIIII°°:111 C .....\7, -- 88-1 WAP Prepared by: Olsen/v II I STAFF REPORT . , I PROPOSAL: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit to Expand INorthwest Wholesale Nursery inn i V LOCATION: 9150 Great Plains Boulevard lu—I APPLICANT: Mark VanHoef I 4 Northwest Wholesale Nursery 9150 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 IIPRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estftte IACREAGE: 39. 48 acres DENSITY: I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- A-2; single family IS- A-2; agricultural , E- A-2; single family . II tiF' W- A-2; agricultural I11! WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site II PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class A wetland in the northwest corner of the site. II2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural I slri _� 86 TH SL _/ 1 . . : T P. ,C� , r . ________., o. J - m l '-•• - -.: ; - - --- 1 . R 12 E + F ' I POND : . - ...,. R� Q ., W / O cr EVARD iD R. 18 1'�!_ ./ a • 1 :x - OM- ir FRDJ % Pri 15.PPecf )(a, -.4_4.4,-7 - 9 le _ lii � , L A/YE N►� 1!# 9: 4.%9 ill SF R/LEY -r______... ______ ."---, AdikV, AIM \-___.-_-7---.,_ , (pow)1 . ap_ • 1 9: II I!! 1 of. ---95 c v 41 .. ik o = Po�vo , 97C im - AIL ( ,..._.7 J121 " .0.,,,c2 Q`P i 20( O 1 ,i ._:; . I . r �- 300., It . IL'-EN — cc000 _ _ 4( II° Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Zoning Ordinance defines wholesale nursery as an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (not including power equipment such as gas or engine mowers and farm implements) . Section 20-574 of Conditional Uses in the A-2 District allows wholesale nurseries as a conditional use. Section 20-257 requires the following specific conditions as part of approval for wholesale nurseries: 1 . The site must be on a collector street or a minor arterial as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 2 . The minimum lot size is five acres. 3 . All storage and yard areas, as well as buildings, must be ' setback 100 feet from public or private road right-of-ways and 500 feet from an adjacent single family residence. ' 4 . All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operation shall be from 7: 00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m. Monday through Saturday only. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted. ' 6 . Light sources shall be shielded. 7 . No outside speaker systems are allowed. ' BACKGROUND On February 5, 1985, the City Council approved the conditional use permit for a wholesale nursery as shown on the site plan stamped "Received January 21, 1985" (Attachment #1) . ' On December 10, 1986, the City sent a letter to Messrs. VanHoef and Wilson stating that a condition of the conditional use permit approval for the wholesale nursery was a requirement of a planting screen in the southwest corner of the site (Attachment #2) . The applicant sent a letter dated December 16, 1986, in response to staff' s letter stating that the delay in compliance for the screening condition was a result of developments beyond their control and that the screening would be completed in the spring of 1987 (Attachment #3) . Staff sent a letter in response the December 16th letter stating that it was understood that an extension until June 1, 1987, for the site improvements to be completed was approved by the City (Attachment #4) . I IINorthwest Wholesale Nursery May 2 , 1990 Page 3 On December 11, 1987, the City sent a letter to Mr. VanHoef clarifying that any alteration to the wetlands on the subject ' property would require a wetland alteration permit from the City (Attachment #5) . On July 6, 1988, staff sent Mr . VanHoef a letter in regards to the shade house structure located on the wholesale nursery site and other activities occurring on the site. Staff stated that ' these activities including the shade house were considered an expansion to what was approved with the original conditional use permit for the wholesale nursery. For these activities to be permitted, a conditional use permit must be received from the ' City providing approval for expansion of the wholesale nursery. The letter verified that staff would allow the shade structure to remain on site due to the hot and dry weather that we had been ' experiencing with the condition that an application be made by August 29, 1988, for a conditional use permit for the expansion of the business , a wetland alteration permit for the proposal to fill in a portion of the wetland and showing that that shade ' structure would be moved to meet the required setbacks (Attachment #6) . ' On August 15, 1988, staff received the proposed site plan and application for the expansion of Northwest Nursery and a letter explaining the future expansion of the site (Attachment #7) . ' Staff submitted a letter back to the applicant stating that for the process to proceed, a submittal of 26 copies of the site plan, application fee ( $150 for conditional use permit and $150 for wetland alteration permit) and a property owners list within ' 500 feet was required. It was further stated that the site plan would have to contain the topography of the site, the proposed grading and drainage and details on the proposed pond for the ' wetland alteration permit. Also, it was stated that if the shade structure was not moved to meet the 100 foot setback from the property line, a variance would have to be received (Attachment ' #8) . The public hearings were rescheduled several times in order for a complete application to be submitted by the applicant (Attachment #9) . ' On January 4, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the con- ditional use permit for expansion of the wholesale nursery opera- tion, the wetland alteration permit for alteration of the Class A wetland and a setback variance for the shade structure. The Planning Commission voted to table action on the item until addi- tional information could be provided by staff and the applicant answering questions raised by the Planning Commission and adja- cent residents (Attachment #10) . A letter from the applicant was sent to staff on January 25, ' 1989, requesting that after consideration of the cost quotes received and time involved concerning the additional requirements I Northwest Wholesale Nurser II Nursery May 2, 1990 Page 4 I from the Planning Commission, the applicant felt that resche- duling the application for a later date would be appropriate. The applicant stated that they would pursue obtaining the outlined requirements sometime in October or November of 1989 (Attachment #11) . At this point, staff did not move ahead with the application. In February of 1989, staff was updating action taken on the wholesale nursery site and found the letter from the applicant requesting that the application be delayed until September or October of 1989. The reason the applicant was going through the conditional use permit, wetland alteration permit and variance procedure was that staff had required the applicant to do such or else they would have been in violation of the conditional use permit, wetland and zoning ordinance. Staff at that time con- tacted the applicant to question if it had been agreed that the application would be delayed until the fall of 1989 and to make it understood that to wait that long would not be appropriate. In spring of 1989, staff started to receive complaints from 1 Kevin Finger, the neighbor to the east of the nursery site, in response to activities taking place at Northwest Nursery. On July 28 , 1989, staff was informed of the filling taking place at Northwest Nursery without permission from the City. On August 2, 1989, staff sent a letter to the applicant stating that the filling that was taking place on the nursery site was in violation of the wetland ordinance and the conditional use permit and that the applicant must make a submittal to continue the application process immediately. Staff allowed the applicant until September 25, 1989, to make the application including the information requested by the Planning Commission in January, 1989 (Attachment #12) . On September 11, 1989, Kevin Finger presented a letter and discussed his concerns with Northwest Nursery and staff during the Vistors Presentation at the City Council meeting. At that time, the Council directed staff to bring the issue back in front of the Council at the next Council meeting to consider revocation of the conditional use permit for Northwest Nursery. Staff sche- duled it for the October 9, 1989, meeting to allow the required public hearing notice to be processed (Attachment #13) . ' On October 9, 1989, the City Council reviewed consideration to revoke Northwest Nursery' s conditional use permit. The City Council voted to deny revocation with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall redirect runoff from the nursery by using one of the alternatives shown on the drainage plans as shown on Sheet 4 of the plans dated September 27, 1989 and approved by MnDOT and City Engineer by June 1, 1990. Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 11 Page 5 ' 2. The applicant shall proceed immediately with the application for expansion of the 1985 conditional use permit for the wholesale nursery and proceed with the application for wetland alteration for existing filling and proposed filling ' adjacent to the wetlands and receive such permits by June 1, 1990. ' 3 . By October 16, 1989, the applicant shall install Type III erosion control between the berm and holding area in the southeast corner of the nursery site to prevent runoff and ' sedimentation from entering adjacent properties . 4. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director to ensure the ' drainage improvements and proposed landscape is completed. 5. The applicant shall remove the existing non-conforming shade ' structure by June 1, 1990. ANALYSIS The major issues for the Northwest Nursery conditional use are the following: ' 1. The definition of a wholesale nursery and how it applies to Northwest Nursery. 2 . The drainage issues and related impacts to adjacent properties. 3 . Expansion beyond the approved site plan from the original conditional use permit and satisfaction of conditions of approval for the original 1985 conditional use permit. 4 . Location of structures within the required setbacks. 5 . The filling of portions of the property adjacent to wetlands and proposed alterations to the Class A and B wetlands . 1. DEFINITION OF WHOLESALE NURSERY ' During the Planning Commission in January of 1989, it was discussed whether or not Northwest Nursery met the City Code definition of wholesale nursery. The City Code defines a whole- sale nursery as "an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (not including power equipment such as gas or engine mowers and farm implements) " . It was commented that Northwest Nursery has potted plants on site which are not growing in the ground. The definition of wholesale nursery was added to the City Code as part of the zoning ordinance amendment I Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 II Page 6 to allow wholesale nurseries as a conditional use in the A-2 II District. Staff also asked the City Attorney to review whether or not Northwest Nursery qualifies as a wholesale nursery under the City II Zoning Ordinance since they grow some nursery stock in pots rather than in the ground and since they truck in plant material for resale off-site. The City Attorney has stated that the I definition does not require that plants be grown in the ground rather than pots since it does not specifically state the plants have to be grown in the ground (Attachment #14) . Enforcement of II the ordinance should be construed in the property owner's favor and that Northwest Nursery qualifies as a wholesale nursery. During the review of the conditional use permit and zoning ordi- nance amendment for the Northwest Nursery to allow wholesale nur- ' series as a conditional use, the applicant provided information on what would be occurring on the site. The type of growing and storage of plants on site did not seem a concern to the Planning I Commission and City Council when the conditional use permit and zoning ordinance amendment were approved. Therefore, staff feels that the Northwest Nursery does meet the I definition of a wholesale nursery as defined by the Chanhassen City Code and feels that this is not an issue with whether or not the nursery should continue to be allowed as a conditional use. I 2 . DRAINAGE ISSUES AND RELATED IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES An adjacent property property owner to the east of the nursery I (Finger) has claimed that drainage from the nursery site has impacted their property specifically as a result of irrigation taking place at the nursery. Staff has met with the applicant on II site to discuss the drainage problems occurring at Northwest Nursery and on adjacent properties. Drainage from the nursery site is directed to a culvert that crosses Hwy. 101 to the east I and directs drainage into the Finger property adjacent to Hwy. 101. The runoff is then directed north along the east side of Hwy. 101 and enters another culvert back across Hwy. 101 and into Ithe wetlands located to the north of the nursery. The drainage flow follows the natural contours of the property. The culvert under Hwy. 101 that drains the nursery site also handles water from parcels located farther to the south along the highway. I Sheet 4 of the plans illustrates detailed grading and drainage plans proposed by the applicant to alleviate the drainage II problems the Fingers are experiencing. In the letter from the applicant, Mr. VanHoef has outlined two options to remove any drainage impacts from the nursery to the Finger property. I Currently, as previously stated, there is a culvert underneath Hwy. 101 directing drainage from the nursery site to the Finger property. The culvert was installed and is controlled by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The applicant is pro- I posing to work with the Highway Department to redirect runoff II Northwest Wholesale Nursery 11 May 2, 1990 Page 7 by eliminating the culvert and excavating a ditch that would run I north along the west side of Hwy. 101 outletting into the wetland (Alternative #2) . This proposal would prevent the runoff from the nursery and from other properties draining into the culvert I from entering the Finger property. If the Highway Department does not allow the culvert to be removed and to instead use the ditch along Hwy. 101 for drainage, the applicant is proposing to I provide a berm along the southeast corner of the site which would collect the runoff from the nursery site. The runoff would then be piped along the east side of the nursery site adjacent to Hwy. 101 and would enter a ponding area adjacent to the Class B I wetland on the north side of the property. The runoff will then continue to flow into the Class A wetland as it does naturally (Alternative #1) . This proposal prevents runoff from the nursery I site from entering the Finger property but drainage from other parcels that flows through the culvert onto the Finger property would continue to do so. (Sheet 4 of the plans illustrates the berming, ponding areas and piping to redirect runoff from the I Finger property and to keep it on the nursery site. ) The appli- cant is also proposing to pave a portion of the driveway where runoff will be collected from the site and directed to the I drainage swale or pipe. The driveway will be paved with either alternative. I The applicant proceeded with Alternative #2 since they received MnDOT' s approval. The applicant has constructed the ditch along Hwy. 101 and has installed a culvert under their driveway. The applicant will also be removing the ditch under Hwy. 101 I outletting onto the Finger property. The grading of the ditch will be completed in the near future and the applicant will then be seeding and landscaping the slope. The applicant has I installed Type III erosion control as required by the City Council' s October 9th action. Staff is recommending that it be extended to the north along Hwy. 101 to the culvert under Hwy. I 101 and that the slope along the ditch be less steep. The area south of the driveway is proposed for plantings which require daily watering. It is recommended to reduce sediments II from reaching the new ditch along T.H. 101 that a sediment pond be constructed as proposed on their drawing (Alternative #2. ) The outlet pipe will have to be modified to drain into the new Iditch along T.H. 101. In addition, the applicant will be paving a portion of the drive- way to further direct drainage to the new ditch. Staff is ' recommending additional catch basins at the base of the driveway. As required by the City Council, the applicant submitted a letter of credit to cover the cost of improvements. The plans proposed I silt screen fence around the remaining areas adjacent to the wetlands . Type III erosion control is recommended due to the potential impact on adjacent wetlands. I Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 II Page 8 The applicant has shown staff photographs taken in early spring, I prior to any irrigation taking place on the nursery site, which shows that there is a large amount of runoff crossing Hwy. 101 and entering the Finger property. The applicant has provided II staff with the photographs to show that it is not necessarily the irrigation of the site that is causing the drainage problems on the Finger property. It appears that natural runoff from adja- cent properties adds to the drainage problems that the Fingers II are experiencing and not directly a result of the activities of the nursery. The corrections to the drainage problems on the nursery site that the applicant is proposing will remove any off- site drainage from the nursery site from entering the Finger pro- perty and should resolve the issue and concerns that the Fingers had with the seasonal flooding of their property. 3 . EXPANSION BEYOND THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE ORIGINAL II CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Sheet 1 of the attached plans provide a copy of the approved site II plan dated January 21, 1985. The second sheet provides details on existing conditions as of fall of 1989. The third sheet shows Ithe ultimate expansion of the site. The fourth sheet is a detail of the easterly portion of the nursery site. The original plan was very basic showing just existing buildings and activities that would be occurring at the wholesale nursery in the immediate II future. The applicant had been given direction by staff that providing an expansion plan was not necessary at that time. The 1985 plan approved as part of the conditional use permit for the wholesale nursery allowed and required the following: II 1 . Proposed planting screen in the southeast corner of the site Ito screen the holding area from Hwy. 101. 2. The plan included one holding area adjacent to Hwy. 101, a growing area along the southerly portion of the property, a II future storage area behind the barn, an existing house, two storage buildings, and barn. Sheet 2 of the plans (existing conditions) show that the house, I two sheds and barn as located on the approved site plan are still in existence and being used as part of the wholesale nursery. The planting area as approved on the original site plan is still II in existence and does not appear to have been expanded beyond what was approved. The following is a list of areas that have been added or expanded over what was originally approved. I 1. The holding area located in the southeast corner of the site has been expanded beyond what was originally approved. I 2 . A shade structure has been added with the storage of potted plants located north of the existing house, adjacent to Hwy. 101. II II Northwest Wholesale Nursery 11 May 2, 1990 Page 9 I 3 . Holding areas for shrubs have been added to the east and west of the new shade structure. These areas are not shown on the original site plan. I4 . Two larger holding areas for shrubs have been added to the west of the barn adjacent to the Class B wetlands. I5 . An area has been filled as shown on Sheet 4 of the plans adjacent to the proposed shade structure. I In summary, the applicant has increased the holding areas with potted plants over what was originally approved with the 1985 site plan. The planting areas have remained the same and the Iapplicant has included an additional structure on site. As far as meeting the conditions of the original site plan, the applicant has met the condition of providing planting screen in I the southeast corner of the site. The zoning ordinance requires the following specific conditions for a wholesale nursery: Il . The site must be on a collector street or a minor arterial as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. IThe nursery meets this condition. 2 . The minimum lot size is five acres. IThe nursery meets this condition. 3 . All storage and yard areas, as well as buildings, must be I setback 100 feet from public or private road right-of-ways and 500 feet from an adjacent single family residence. I The existing shade structure does not meet this requirement, but the applicant is proposing to remove the existing shade structure and replace it with a larger shade structure that would meet the 100 foot setback from a public or private road I right-of-way. It appears that the structure would also be 500 feet from adjacent single family residences but the applicant should provide a plan verifying that the setback is Ibeing met. 4 . All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% I opaque fencing or berming. The applicant is proposing additional heavy screening along Hwy. 101 to further screen the holding areas (see Sheet 4 of I the plans) . A condition of approving the shade structure would that it would have to be screened by 100% opaque fencing to meet the condition for a wholesale nursery. I Northwest Wholesale Nursery f May 2, 1990 Page 10 5 . Hours of operation shall be from 7: 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. Monday through Saturday only. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted. ' The applicant has stated that their hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday only. 6 . Light sources shall be shielded. Northwest Nursery meets this requirement. , 7 . No outside speaker systems are allowed. Northwest Nursery meets this requirement. In summary, the Northwest Nursery has expanded beyond what was originally approved in 1985. Specifically, the holding areas have been increased in size and number, a shade structure has been added and partial filling of the site has occurred. As far as conditions of site plan approval, it appears that the appli- cant has met the screening condition of the southeast corner of the site. The screening is proposed to be increased. The nur- sery meets the specific conditions for a wholesale nursery except for the existing shade structure which is proposed to be moved to meet the setbacks . 4 . PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE SITE. ' Staff has directed the applicant to provide a plan showing the ultimate expansion to the nursery which could be part of the application for amendment to the conditional use permit and would allow the applicant the ability to expand if approved by the City without having to go through the conditional use permit again. Sheet 3 of the plans shows the proposed ultimate expansion of the site. The proposed expansion of the nursery site does not include any great expansion over what is existing today. The only further expansion will be the future planting areas on the south side of the Class A wetland and proposed alterations to the Class B wetland adjacent to the Class A wetland. 5 . LOCATION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. ' The applicant constructed a shade structure which is located within the 100 foot setback requirement for any structures. The zoning ordinance requires any storage areas to be setback 100 feet from public right-of-ways and to be screened with 100% opa- que fence. On Sheet 3 of the plans, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing shade structure and replace it with a larger one which is located 100 feet from the public ROW from Hwy. 101. The applicant has also located plantings within the shelter and closer to Hwy. 101. We would recommend that June 1, 1990, be set as the deadline for removal of the non-conforming structure and plantings. II Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 Page 11 ' 6 . THE FILLING OF PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO WETLANDS AND PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO THE CLASS A AND B WETLANDS. ' The applicant has filled in a portion of the ravine located north of the barn. Staff placed a "stop work order" on the site to prevent any continued filling of the property and required the applicant to install erosion control to protect the adjacent 1 wetlands from the fill. Sheet 4 of the plans illustrates the area that was filled and shows areas that the applicant is pro- posing to fill to level out a area which will be used for future storage areas. The Class B wetland adjacent to the proposed fill will not be disturbed. The applicant has placed erosion control between the existing fill area and the wetlands. Staff is pro- posing that the erosion control must be maintained until improve- ments to the site are complete. The applicant has been storing wood chips and mulch north of the barn. The wood chips/mulch is being pushed down the slope and into a treed area adjacent to teh ' Class B wetland. The wood chips/mulch must b eremoved from this area and stored in an area away from the wetlands and in an area contained and screened by a fence. ' Miscellaneous ' Mr. Finger has also stated that the location of trucks and truck activity on site should be moved from directly behind the house to behind the barn and hill . By moving the truck activity further into the site, noise and other disturbances would be ' reduced. Should the applicant be permitted to proceed with an expansion of the conditional use permit a condition of approval could be to move the truck activity on site. Currently, where the trucking activity is taking place is not in violation of the existing conditional use permit. RECOMMENDATION 11 The applicant has provided plans which staff feels will address the drainage issues raised by Mr. Finger. Staff feels that the ' question of whether or not the Northwest Nursery is a wholesale nursery has also been addressed. There is no question that the nursery has expanded beyond what was originally approved in 1985 ' but staff does not feel that the expansion that has taken place is that out of character with the use of the property as a wholesale nursery and does not feel it is a negative impact to adjacent properties. The applicant has stated that the hours of ' operation does not exceed those that would be typically allowed with any wholesale nursery ( 7:00 a.m to 6 : 00 p.m. Monday through Saturday) . The number of employees and amount of equipment used on site has not greatly increased over what originally existed in 1985 and again, staff does not feel what currently exists is over and above what a typical nursery would include. Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 Page 12 Therefore, staff feels that expansion of the conditional use per- mit could be approved with certain conditions . "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #85-1 as shown on plans dated April 2, 1990, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall redirect runoff from the nursery by using , Alternative #2 shown on the drainage plans as shown on Sheet 4 of the plans dated September 27, 1989 and approved by MnDOT and City Engineer by June 1, 1990. ' 2 . The applicant shall remove the existing non-conforming shade and plantings structure by June 1, 1990. 3 . The wood chips/mulch shall be removed from the area adjacent to the wetlands and shall be contained and screened by a fence. 4. The applicant shall submit for approval a revised grading plan reflecting the recent site grading and proposed improve- ments. 5. The applicant shall construct a sediment pond along the south side of the driveway per Alternative #2 and modify the outlet pipe to drain into the T.H. 101 ditch. 6 . Side slopes adjacent to T.H. 101 shall not exceed 3 :1. ' 7 . Wood fiber blanket shall be used on slopes 3 :1 or greater. 8 . Catch basins shall be installed on the driveway to convey ' runoff into the ditch. 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits ' required from the pertiment agencies, i .e. Watershed District, MnDOT and Minnesota DNR. 10. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director to isnure the drainage improvements, proposed landscaping and erosion control measures are completed. 11. All erosion control shall be Type III, maintained and removed at the request of the City Engineer. 12. The applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of the wetland alteration permit." ' 1 II • 11 Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - Conditional Use Permit May 2, 1990 ' The Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit request for expansion of the nursery with staff's recommended conditions and adding the following additions: 12. The applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of the wetland alteration permit prior to creation of the proposed pond site set forth on the plans. Approval of the conditional use permit is not an approval of the proposed ponds. ' 13. No plantings, storage or other disturbance of the Class A or Class B wetland shall be permitted without application or receipt of all proper wetland permits. STAFF UPDATE ' Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has met with staff to finalize the design of the driveway and holding pond located south of the driveway. Staff and the applicant have agreed ' as to what must be done to meet the conditions of approval (see Attachment #22) . The applicant has seeded the slope along Hwy. 101 and has installed sod along the ditch. The slope where the wood ' chips are being stored (north side of site) must still be stabilized and seeded. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION - Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #85-1 for expansion of the Northwest Wholesale Nursery subject to ' the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall redirect runoff from the .nursery by using ' Alternative #2 shown on the drainage plans as shown on Sheet 4 of the plans dated September 27, 1989 and approved by MnDOT and the City Engineer by June 1, 1990. 2. The applicant shall remove the existing non-conforming shade and plantings structure by June 1, 1990. 3. The wood chips/mulch shall be removed from the area adjacent to the wetlands to an area where runoff from the same shall not adversely affect the wetlands and shall be contained and properly screened as approved by staff. Removal of the wood chips/mulch shall occur no later than August 1, 1990. 4. The applicant shall submit for approval a revised grading plan II Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 Page 14 reflecting the recent site grading and proposed improvements. ' 5. The applicant shall construct a sediment pond along the south side of the driveway per Alternative #2 and modify the outlet pipe to drain into the TH 101 ditch. 6. Side slopes adjacent to TH 101 shall not exceed 3:1. , 7. Wood fiber blanket shall be used on slopes 3:1 or greater. 8. Catch basins shall be installed on the driveway to convey runoff into the ditch. 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required from the pertinent agencies, i.e. Watershed Districts, MnDOT and Minnesota DNR. 10. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined ' by the City Engineer and Planning Director to insure the drainage improvements, proposed landscaping and erosion control measures are completed. 11. All erosion control shall be Type III, maintained and removed at the request of the City Engineer. 12. The applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of the wetland alteration permit prior to creation of the proposed pond site set forth on the plans. Approval of the conditional use permit is not an approval of the proposed ponds. 13. No plantings, storage or other disturbance of the Class A or Class B wetland shall be permitted without application or receipt of all proper wetland permits. " ' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The applicant is proposing to construct one large and one small ' pond within the Class B wetland. The large pond is located in the easterly portion of the wetland and the smaller pond is located at the southerly portion of the wetland. The ponds that are proposed 111 in the Class B wetlands are adjacent to a larger Class A wetland. The Class A wetland is a very large and valuable wetland. The Class B wetland is located around the edge of the Class A wetland and has experienced erosion from the nursery site. The large Class A wetland is protected by the DNR and any activity within this area would also require a DNR permit. The proposed alterations to the Class B wetland are shown on the third page of the plans. The third page of the plans also provides 1 I Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 Page 15 a cross section of the ponding areas. The plans do not show the proposed elevations or contours of the ponding areas. Staff needs details on each of the ponding areas providing existing and ' proposed elevations and contours and showing that the ponds are meeting the conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The City also requires information on where the dredged materials will be ' placed to ensure that they are not deposited within the wetland areas. ' The Class B wetland also runs along the northerly portion of the site to Hwy. 101. The applicant is proposing to fill a portion of a ravine directly north of the house and existing barn. The area proposed for grading is outside of the wetland area and the ' applicant has provided Type III erosion control along the edge of the wetland to protect it from any erosion from the proposed grading. Additionally, to the west of the proposed grading, the ' applicant has been storing wood chips. These piles of wood chips are being pushed down the hill where they are depositing near the edge of the wetland. These wood chip piles must be removed from ' the edge of the hill and must be contained and screened within an area on the site by fencing material to prevent any further erosion into wetland or other sensitive areas. ' There is a high amount of runoff and erosion of soils from the planting areas south of the Class A wetland. Currently, this erosion is entering the Class B wetland edge. To remove siltation ' from entering the wetlands, staff is recommending that the proposed large ponding area be shifted to the south and west to collect runoff from the planting areas. Upon inspection of the site, this area seems more appropriate for a pond due to the topography. ' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - Wetland Alteration Permit ' May 2, 1990 The Planning Commission tabled action on the wetland alteration ' permit request. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION - Wetland Alteration Permit. ' At this time staff cannot make a final recommendation on the proposed wetland alteration permit until the applicant provides more detailed grading plans on the ponding areas showing existing and proposed contours, slopes and elevations of the ponding areas and how the proposed ponding areas shall be designed to the six Fish and Wildlife standards. Therefore, staff is recommending the ' City Council table action on the wetland alteration permit until the appropriate plans have been submitted. The proposed wetland pond is solely for the applicant's benefit and if he chooses to not pursue it, wetland alteration will not be necessary. A wetland • II Northwest Wholesale Nursery May 2, 1990 Page 16 alteration permit is not required as part of the proposed ' expansion. ATTACHMENTS ' 1. City Council minutes dated February 5, 1985, including staff report. 2. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated December 10, 1986. 3. Letter from Northwest Nursery dated December 16, 1986. 4. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated December 18, 1986. 5. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated December 11, 1986. 6. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated July 6, 1988. 7. Letter from Northwest Nursery dated August 15, 1988. 8. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated August 18, 1988. 9. Public hearing notices. 10. Planning Commission minutes dated January 4, 1989, and staff report. 11. Letter from Northwest Nursery dated January 25, 1989. 12. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated August 2, 1989. 13. Letter from Kevin Finger dated September 11, 1989. 14. Letter from City Attorney dated August 29, 1989. 15. Memo from Dave Hempel dated October 5, 1989. 16. Letter from Northwest Nursery dated September 25, 1989. 17. Letter from_Ear_LHolasek dated September 9, 1989. 18. Letter from David Blanski dated September 3, 1989. 19. City Council minutes dated October 9, 1989. 21. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 25, 1990. 22. Letter from Dave Hempel dated May 23, 1990. 23. Planning Commission minutes dated May 2, 1990. 24. Plans dated April 2, 1990. 1 1 Council Meeting Febr• 75 . 1985 -7- II Councilman Horn - I thought the suggestion was that we eliminate this lot as a building lot . Is it that or is it to raise the level of the floor? II I r Councilwoman Swenson - It's to make it a slab instead of a basement. Councilman Ceving - My earlier suggestion was to eliminate the lot. Pat case through with a fairly good idea, maybe the building style would alleviate that particular I probles and as far as I am concerned I thought it was a good idea. Mayor Hamilton - Then one of the conditions of the approval of this subdivision could I be to have a review of Lot 1 so we can see at the time someone comes to you and says I want to buy that lot then perhaps you had better tell them to come and see us or when they figure out what kind of house they might want to build there then we still Ireserve the right to review prior to their finalizing the deal with you. Councilman Horn - I would like clarification from the attorney, are we in a'position to do that on this property? Roger Knutson - Under the circumstances I think that would be a workable solution. II Randy Herman - I think that's agreeable as long as you are not going to unduly restrict any type of a structure on the property as long as it's understood that what we are really looking at is what type. ICouncilwoman Swenson - Maybe what we should do to follow up on what your suggestion is, Mayor, since Lots 1, 2, and 3 are the ones that are going to require the varian- ces, let's take a look at those when they come up and grant these variances as they Icome instead of giving a blanket variance for all three right now. Don Ashworth - From a staff standpoint if you wanted to look at the one lot when the plat was completed you have got a specific time frame out there. Going through a II conditional use permit process is very difficult and may hamper sales. I guess I would just as soon take a look at the plat once it is completed and if there is a problem do it at that point in time. IIMayor' Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit for twelve single family residential lots known as Piper Ridge with the condition 1 that the Council maintains the option of reviewing a structure to be built on Lot 1 and that compliance with drainage and street improvement recommendations as noted in the City Engineer's memorandum of February 1, 1985, City Council minutes dated I December 17, 1984, and building setback variances for Lots 2 and 3. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwoman Watson voted no. Motion carried. I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WHOLESALE NURSERY. GREAT PLAINS BLVD. Mayor Hamilton - We reviewed this just a couple weeks ago and we rezoned. Has anything changed since that time? .. IBarbara Dacy - No, everything that you see on the site plan represents what the applicant plane. IIt Councilman Horn moved to approve Planning Case 85-1, Conditional Use Permit, to ! locate a wholesale nursery at 9150 Great Plains Blvd. as depicted on- site plan #3. i Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, I _ Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. II .if I r C I T OF . 1 AL,\,, CHANHASSEN 1 `. j 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 I • February 5, 1985 1 . 1Mr. Mark VanHoef and Mr. Jim Wilson 10550 Nicollet Ave. So. II Bloomington, MN 55420 Dear Messrs. VanHoef and Wilson: II This is to formally notify you that the City Council at the February 4, 1985 meeting approved your request for conditional use permit for a wholesale nursery as depicted on the Site Plan I stamped "Received January 21, 1985" . Attached for your review is a copy of the conditional use permit which will be filed at the Carver County Recorder' s Office. Please be advised that in II transcribing your legal description from your site plan, we discovered that a line was missing as compared to the description on the subdivision survey filed by Lawrence Klein. You should correct your copy of the site plan. '' Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. . Good luck in your new venture! 1 'ncerely, {/ 1 17 Barbara Dacy City Planner 1 BD:v II 1 1 II II • I . CIT'i ' OF \ cHANBAssEN ,..,, , 1 N „ , I E 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 Action by City Administ Endorsed+ ✓ II Modified _—~ STAFF REPORT Rejected__- Data+ 1 TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission Date Submitted to Commission FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner Date Submitted to Council IIDATE: January 18 , 1985 I SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit for a Wholesale Nursery PLANNING CASE: 85-1 Conditional Use Permit IGENERAL INFORMATION • Applicant Mark VanHoff 1 10550 Nicollet Ave. S. Bloomington , MN 55420 Status of Applicant Purchaser IOwner Lawrence Klein 9170 Great Plains Blvd. IChaska, MN 55318 Requested Action Conditional use permit approval. IIPurpose To operate a wholesale nursery. Existing Zoning R-la, Agricultural Residence II District. Location 9150 Great Plains Blvd. IISize 39 acres Existing Land Use Single family residence and agri- IIcultural activities . Adjacent Land Use and Zoning North: Single family residence; R-la South: Agricultural; R-la East: Single family residence; I R-la West: Agricultural; R-la 1 II . aa — •- I • ( 3 0. is, , I • Q cr :a. , .. e , .. BOULEVARD . (C.R 18 I . .: . , • . Teovbsea sae" ... FoR. caotolegc.i . .., .2...: i ..„i.,. ! , iGult.segy . • -....., , I . 'Ira 110 • :741, I,/ - ilk *44411., '.4.7401 1 ,. : . . .. ;- 111 ; ., MR 4 r... . • .s, v .. ,._ - ----7.__________ _ . 1 : -_ -Aih, ANIMIL\'\--1._..-7-2-_--... _ I I I Ni 6-——--- , I - 1. .,PC0:1 11110 \ 1 I ... - H ST RE E I POND I • . , : P!ONEER TRAIL ( .1.14 . ... . ... -.... ... . . . .. • _ -....•- - - I ., . .,•.. MA 1, " 1 ... ."" v- 4-4 ) //' . .. III I e ( , a As ul # cc. / .....-. ,09 I c.9 - _ _ AIL CREEKWOOD I 1 1 I . 7 _L - _ ..ei4 mir i ..,„ ., / -A\ HI SS F! FA LA Ri r) ./ /< .1114 OEM I ' 1 i ,7 ifrited/iikilr- \ / 1 A k er! c 169 13-- )e.S• 1.„.......----4- \ 4.0 7i... C / ti ....• ..,..1.- 111 ‘ 4.: .' 4''' '-'1■,_ ( II Mark VanHoff CUP January 18, 1985 Page 2 I Adopted Comprehensive Plan ' a. Land Use Plan: The site is located outside of the Urban Service Area and is designated as Agricultural on the adopted Land Use Plan. ' b. Transportation: Great Plains Boulevard is designated as a collector. Zoning History Wholesale nurseries were approved ' as conditional uses in the R-la District by the City Council on January 7, 1985. SPECIAL INFORMATION Physical Site Characteristics The site contains a Class A wetland in the extreme northwest corner of the parcel. ANALYSIS ' The applicant is intending to operate a wholesale nursery on the sub- ject parcel. The applicant intends to utilize the existing driveway for access to the existing structures as indicated on the attached site plan. Nursery stock is intended to be grown in the area indi- cated as holding areas. The applicant is also intending an area for greenhouses/propagation facilities. The proposed location of these facilities will be screened by vegetation on the south and will be screened to the north because of the slope of the land. The applicant also intends to locate vegetation along Great Plains Boulevard and along a portion of the southern boundary. The southwest portion of the property will be used for additional growing areas. The proposed use should not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. Existing access from Great Plains Boulevard (which is a collector) appears to be adequate for vehicles that will be entering and leaving the site. There is adequate turn around area and parking area in and around the existing structures to accommodate vehicles. ' Because the applicant intends to install landscaping along Great Plains Boulevard and around the property, the visual impact of this use should be minimized. The applicant has indicated that his acti- vity is limited to licensed nurserymen and not the general public. , • i Mark VanHoff CUP January 18, 1985 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit Request #85-1 to locate a wholesale nursery at 9150 Great Plains Boulevard as depicted on the Site Plan labeled as Attachment #3. " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION , The Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #85-1 on a motion by J. Thompson and seconded 111 by M. Thompson. REPORT ATTACHMENTS 1. General location map. 2. Aerial photograph. 3. Site Plan stamped "Received January 21, 1985" . 4. Application. 5. Ordinance No. 47-AY. 6. Planning Commission minutes dated January 23, 1985. 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' .14-. •... ,.. •r.. - • I • • :: 5 - 1f- 4._•r '- "i'•4r*' . ... - ' f•-,,, A• . •-,. - - ,,,....1,-.. ,,,-. • J,,..- ,.. , . I .,%;..-. f,,,_. ,,, r.& ,.c.s •,r,i ... i _ '• • - •-• --, •-- Ar ...;.,„,_ 0..„it_ . , • .„,.. _ -1 'Ikr'.4 '' • ... . - ,':; • ' > '-' f • --- `... - ..,1---:.---A;A• - ..., „..3.., 4 ,. '''• ' A. -#"%-,_;- •"'" 1 ..."""..-7.4.- _ e -- • - -tr,S. • ---1-,.. 1g -= ti...`_•,,- -...A.- - ---4.-'-- ,... " AA. .4 41,-;---7. .....- ' '6 • -...- -- '6" 1 . ' ,,,,, ',1,.' '•••-•,...P.A.4%•-._..1"_f_l,„ c*cs tn .*... : -..-Q,.._ ' 1 I --•. ...-.• - ,f, . .- -"-•-4,0",- -4..,-• ''..j.."71"-'cr=: --• '''' '*' ., .. •*, ----'•-s-'-yu s -..., .. '.*X'4.11r,,S1.^ .• = •• ."' .‘,1 •••,.••• .." if I I i *•••-•- .4-- ••• ...---7....C. "1--•-.... r,---",4,- (,---;; ,-,-*- • '-'.--rs;'•:-•c-PAP-'. g- ' / = - - ., ... . _ ,A• --4,, -..,,,,- _ A .- c - -- -, '''. • . ' = ' ' ---its4 . -1,• --'-'-,:• .-..„.• -A , :P't • --074-,_•• ...-•-• * ` -•14,'-:! i' .. , . •• - ..g --.-_,- .r.• „,,•„;•_- --•.,„, 8,--;,a,,, ,,,-• _ • . .....N. , ; . r ,. _ - - , - - 'II. i fe• --2-.p.--"..,-. X- -', ..t,,_ -:Y ••- -&- ;:s , .I. .--. Ai 1 I . _ - ''' 4-•. :--'• ..‘ 4 -4,- - . . L mt, . ' - x -----.-..."..:: ... i.:-. 6` 1.• '=-*T•1 _ 'tr. -• .V.----.,-_,-- • --- -,' -•``- ri-li`" f ''` :' ' .•.. --=,---?,„'...6..".-.7^''=-''..--.-' ' '---'--.'-"5."'N-=,-.-'--- ,-_-.-T.-•A-4---• .c •-==k-_.-- ..,,,„'•-4'''?'"-+=I•■•4' -,A..•.--4 .•--".."_'-' - i - 4 f___ ,c., -I - - .•,'‘-:°r",'r'.:.f,1 t-)'.k."'c'';l"te',".•"-z Z-.,..4„-",-..;--.-,*._.:..I...h,,.•.,.,•_.-•=6t•-•-'.'-..-'..---.-.4-.x:.t,t.,.i..s";‘..-- -'-'•d ,--. • ' •. ^ .4'• ..7, ' •• e 1 7 •. , . I i .• i ;4;‘,"A.,414 L AN; A•Pri :.,..:1 :• ... 1,!:,:.:l'...-Z .:,■. i.■%2•..• •." r _I . r-.4.:= ;1-girh'4;•%•'',-1,,. ,z , t '-- ''- II - ' '- -" I ..._, NI .... , . i t f 4, ■, . ..., s. -. 4 iP ,,, l'■A -.,.. A-. . -1=4.? lt, ' I' C..-.• ...- ; t ,.. - ,,„. r..,ts!....,,I ".-s -,3. • , ,,,,es,,L, ,. , Irs5_. .,,„.. ., .....:...., , --...co- ."' -' .,1 - - 4-*a• ' '--Z1-._ lcat -- , , f`'stv§44.,.._-• -.7,'...„_-,_.,-,- --- fr.07-- -. ..;. p„,-‘• , ._f -•--- • ,, 3.---- . ..--,_ -s4,-:-).. •de, • , „ •-•--0. .,- - ,..,„ -, t ...de'.' • A :AA s,-. -. '. ,. I "1..I.,!.... ,-.2:,...,, • • -..„(-• ,. l "5"----------..,-..4.? lift -....- - -----• , '"- ."7 - .. -• ....""a - "■ :1,,ii - •2*- , ,.:- '- arr. . •:•. I. --.. * -*. - ' ..'-:.--`-_ ..-_-:_. -'.-, - =•••49-.At,. .; 1 i 5: ' . - -- - - • .° "...., ...." ro• , •Aff,' r f ',---, .••i 1 .1.,,,t- , s -•- , - -,•--`-.....'" - • _ - '' '' '..L.-... f_ . 4 nil f -Ii.P'-, ti, ---sr'e '..--' ''''' P.., 'If .,:,, = •- - --.-* '',..;-'44-;:-'" • -••■":7 . .,....-' -,-., s.'7- -,-.-,-t--.. ..-1 ^-ta--=rC, •••-,_tt•.- ..,.,-, • -, ---) "tr ., • 1,...,0. ...L. ,,,..",„ ,.._....„... _z....____...,..... ■ i - ) - '- P.' 4 •C ^.1,,,r .''t., "64' ...'..4" -. ---7••-• .,.,A ",,, --.• -• _.:..-r_ ----_ .... - • p-• e- - -0.# - 1 ' .. _4 - - 'A:,••• z •-,'‘.,1- . '. _ ,,,:. .. ',-,r - -. --, - - - --• *X_,t. t - -Z....!. ;, 1 - .1 . ' -.- ..., ''-- A%-''---4 '":, . i 411,iii ' Ak - ' A 1 -- 1 ..1". .‘‘ E..,:-..... F _, .--, , k , p_- -.-- .: - ... - -p,.,.......,„,..____, ...1.... 4 ' - ". #-‘•■ -• =,,t 4, - •f -I . .• ------ -4-'''" - =- , = 4 . k Ic. _ 1..w A _i, = - _ ' '*- ,-- • - -* 4 "4- A 1,0. ,-.'V ' '14 * .,.... _"-,•,::""."."'.. .krt".4W,_ t 1.. - - , "..,.. J., ,z-e.• - _, a -%,, ' 16‘..... a •_,,,,p-- .-..., .`- ) , -t;., ').:.,,,,4;„,4 .1 II - - .., • •- '• *-', . ..-. -"•.--•- ' *4.„ -.ex _t•• . - - tt.-.4.- NN, ° A '...c 4., . c, • • I_ A ' _. s-• "•••,,,',,.. -. . ..• -*‘'*..S.7‘c ^ ..-4' ' '-. ..'- _ - i ti. -4, '■• I- i3/4 . A . , -.• ,_. ,,L _ ••••• . , - - . e. i'a. `• ko. • ,4.•••• 1.1 6 P si It : ... I ..'"--,, .-1, c.,‘ c- ... . ..1"t,"- :.-•Z' it& f‘n.* "Art I 3' - -4` 4"; r:". t- - ' ,- - -._. - - - - - - ,.A. . - - -.--zt V-..: ?"--.4 e. :‘■% ----- ' - 7---- - _- ; , kl'„,_4 ki,•..a .i4..._ ' ..' ..°414„, • .,, ' -- - a- .---r-' .„, 6 ilk."" ..1- --it „ ..-.,-,.:,-',.:.., _- ""-: ‘„1,-1, 1 I,"'...- Ak.• 1114 • . ' ,- ..,,, •-•,. .3..g ' ' .._ --- '.. ,...he-*- . ..N.. c -' s - ce-' - s' -..11 •4 „,,, •"s., • • X .- ■•.S.L.,-, .• *1-.4' _Agr' '••t * ■ .- _ •*-- -_c_f".2**' "c.. -*'-` • ..-c I ' '..' I '. •'f.'1 . ..... *Z' ' ....P.- : --cc•'` . .,, ''," -.7_ 4• . - .... , •?'•le "it,--- . . ,..•1 ;t ,,,.........4 ..b. - - N'4 • - r - ,11 V-.1' , i -i? 50 - •"-----...- t-4-. ...••= •-s•- .- ..i. „744 , •,-",""1" -•••„..,-, ••;‘,...... ] -., - -- _ _ 1 'a"-..- *.-^..o- 4 .'. C '.t --c-, "..- .1'. - ., a II..s., ".- '• - a'a s .i. ' ".1- '4--- a a• - 4' '''- ", t• t . - ,N. A,„ •„. il,'" mo...-4 --: 44‘.. '1,1 "' .s - - lke. , .:....k - "A t4, ,- 1....lt. 1 -.-", i !tt 4, ,. lig, 1 _ ';...""..."...1.. 4 II 2., . ,--e f•--?- - . •--*- - %,4. ' .,_,.. : I -, .:.: .,..„,.. ,••. ,,, - • I •=_„._ -1s,--._.›- / , . -....• ‘ -X. •• --,--.1 .. a6.2. -. „,‘ft...‘‘"..zt. .1" - - .4- =.L- .-- . Al•-=‘„? 1'1';•".:q' X^ ""• . - - --,t. Ez P.4-..e. • . ... ,. 1,,.gis --'4,,,-ek:k .4 .1440,?L' .1'. ...ii,, ,N. , - '. --.."'..*Sitca-",.."--Z4 r• - 'tl ' 4 ).: '-‘• - ) * - - C .f..7.,t-.."f_ .. iy,.■ IC 1% : . ' •■ \ • !....-pi 'It" :r4 -.0 •'-' ""z•,11",;.e AN, ' -,7.,' ' I , ",s„ "nt. -.- 4. -40., -.1 t 144=c)* ,ir,.. -•• e.. ; -- ' • ..-,--,, --...., i- -.1 - • ... - sr.., -...., . .. . - ,r3- , ,.,-,-.4 - - N - --?.-.1:: -1 • A'''.- - - - - - e ' ' :, . .- ---,_.,`,. * ,‘• • , T1044 Cr' ,. --,,.....--; ,..4- t- _ , *., . - -- '71,.• 4--)..'4.A..*.„-' ,'. , 'N\ _, 4 ,' ...,.'" ,•••",) ''v'..,.. .- - ' ." -..1,- " - -, it ....., ,,, ....1 , , ,- - , , ' t° --...1. *"` ._.1- . , .. , ...• . , .... trAarialr . .t 4 .t.• • L-A . ‘.‘6,14 ',...fs.:.,:..1.7,,.. ...71. ::,7,-t-'-',.. _.4:,:,: tiii::Th. .....:4.1•:.‘/, •- '''.• 1.1.t.;;1 ,le;(..,Z..c.ce. .2. V.... • ..`i, y1/4. eil,,'-,C ,A **. -* '• Itft 4- ,.. - „..... , - •• . . ,. ■rP• . ' -Ify_, -. . il..s, -: 1• . ;., - a'II . • - SE..*•' 1 11 . i•..* 6 k- • * . ‘ • 'NC ''. •"..(r. -..,...,,,. .„,.,‘,,,,......s..., ■ I;y.„......,:a...,..7 N. i. Ala''',-•. . -,''' 44,- V=AA '-^'-' A 'lir: • 3,.... Z X / 1.- .*. : 46 % ..1 t _. ,r.r-= - • 4 . a:, ...i•-., =., A.-_,, , -,, ,,,.,,,k,,,,, # • • 14 .. I...,-t . I i tl_ , -..6• ""4.•P•••,,,, ,...4. .....t.- ..- . Tr..., ..,,, ___,,, r..SiiriN.,,r •,,.•, ii, "-•,1, g: ../ ' -.t.."- _ -4•4■=7",ralk:"_:::--"Li': _.Nkl, •, ' •• 4 . " -- P r N413.* 4 '' ,arIS 44"' .... -........:..- _.-•-i--..-c.4...--1,- .‘. , , *t •= -• - -.. -.•••-- a Ar -err, L -A. • ,t .I.,,T. - .-4 4".-_•/ ..- ..,, .■'-..... ;Fl_t',,....''', .•:. 4- . ''. t, i f .,.. ,S , . • . ..... 4. . r .r '" ...4. ■3 "''' 4 Ai, 1 • , •. -. ,-.. - ./ L • 7 t- -1 -.. ", .. •4-"t_ 1 = - ,_ .,Al. -t,•4„ , „.:-.•... I tyr•-•== IN t. i-- _ - t Jt- 4 `.!--4 5S*‘•• '\?''" .*•14:_-• - .'s ''' ' r_ ' .,), knt."--.1, -• -. .,.... - . _--- .--. -4"-:,› ' & ' .''. - • - " I 5' t' ,.. 'sa - ,,,,, I 4,, .2.....„._--,4--- . ... a., ' - a "-• ' ;11.""'?:-NA,-- - ---: - ,.,,. -- g ---. .,..,.._. ... ,, ,• . ,... , „_ t-„,,. -......1..1.4 ..,k 1., _., ... y. k- • ' 1 ....X .ICIP•••tllr•.... .••,,, 4 . 4•••• j• , ,- .., .,'" ' .--4 , dr , A ,/-'. . ' 1.., . "•--:,,F.. ••-I ' =i•,- , ,;4 i -.,‘• ' ' ', ... -t • ,. I �.. � fi.l r4- '12)./- LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 1tit J 1� �� ,-,� CITY OF CZANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive jj�'�'�`� ej.1 C hanhassen , MN 5531; e i'vl -r----� / (512) 937-1900 r'• ' 1! APPLICANT: MAN- ,114.1_ � OWNER: .� i 1 ADDRESS Ioc M 2O(;€-r AVE . 4 ADDRESS Nthi 95420 I Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) -3S5 L TELEPHONE Sin ~'171 Zip Code REQUEST: 1 Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development 1 Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan II Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting II Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit —~ Street/Easement Vacation II Site Plan Review PROJECT NAME II PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION , 1(p1 " ,4 • REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION I PRESENT ZONING fa--t A 0 1 REQUESTED ZONING JUES PROPOSED TtC ,! 3aKL, f44 £'N'"U 1 /SIZE OF PROPERTY sq I i ✓LO ATION Tict won' p 0.14j Q,(,Q9 LAEASONS FOR THIS REQUEST 1.44 '� �8ait, a cto"L1�rcl ti�tvitoccl� I �`'� " at .Wit, M 4itto . 1 _.../LAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) y 1 II (over) 44 II City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : ' • This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: ' The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Signed By i Date J i��A The undersigned hereby g e eby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. Signed By Date Fee Owner Date Application Received Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their . meeting if the application is received by • I is CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 47-AY AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4 (RULES AND DEFINITIONS) AND SECTION 6. 04 (USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN R-1A, AGRICULTURAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT) OF ORDINANCE 47 AS AMENDED HERETOFORE AND ENTITLED "CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 47". THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: I SECTION 1 . Section 4 (Rules and Definitions ) of Zoning Ordinance No. 47 is hereby amended by adding the following definition: Nurseries : An enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (but not including power equipment such as gas or engine lawn mowers and farm implements ) . SECTION 2. Section 6.04 (Uses by Conditional Use Permit Within an R-1A, Agricultural Residential District) is hereby amended by adding the following language: I 14 . Wholesale nurseries . SECTION 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall become I effective from and after its passage and official publication. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 7th , day of January, 1985 . ■ ATTEST: ' Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor (Public hearing held by the Planning Commission on December 12, 1984) II I Note: First reading of this ordinance was approved by the City I Council on January 7, 1985. Approval of final reading is recommended. if 77796 Oelt ?F,5 I • MINUTES CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1985 ' Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Members Present ' James Thompson, Thomas Merz, Ladd Conrad, Bill Ryan, and Mike Thompson. Members Absent Susan Albee and Howard Noziska PUBLIC HEARING i Conditional Use Permit Request X85-1 for a wholesale nursery on ' - ' property zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence District and located at 9150 Great Plains Blvd. , Mark VanHoff, applicant. ' Public Present Mark VanHoff 10550 Nicollet Ave. S. , Mpls. ' Dacy explained that the applicant is intending to operate a wholesale nursery at 9150 Great Plains Boulevard. She stated ' that the applicant intends on using the existing driveway and structures as indicated on the site plan. She noted that the proposed location of the facilities will be screened by vegeta- tion on the south and screened to the north by the slope of the land. She also stated that the applicant intends to locate vege- tation along Great Plains Boulevard and along the southern por- tion of the parcel. She stated that the proposed use would not ' have an adverse impact on surrounding properties and the existing access from Great Plains Boulevard appears to be adequate for vehicles that will be entering and leaving the site. She also ' indicated that the applicant's activity will be limited to licensed nurserymen and not the general public. Mark VanHoff noted that when the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for wholesale nurseries as conditional uses, the Planning Commission was concerned about retail sales from the premises. He stated that the only clientele would be licensed nurserymen such as ' retailers and local landscapers. He also noted that the Commission was concerned about the traffic flow into the nursery. He stated that the operation would have a possible total of 75 to ' 100 accounts and would generate approximately 7 to 10 customers daily. He also wanted the Commission to know that they only har- vest in the spring and fall and the storage would be for these crops (burlapped) until sold. He also noted that the greenhouse I would be used for a propagation facility to take clippings, root them and then plant outside. ATTA 1 eft-CE -' ( (t' . • . - _,- � Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 23, 1985 Page 2 M. Thompson moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close the P ublic hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. After the explanation from the applicant, the Commissioners did not feel that this activity would be detrimental to the surrounding properties. J. Thompson moved, seconded by M. Thompson, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit Request #85-1 to locate a wholesale nursery at 9150 Great Plains Boulevard as depicted on the Site Plan labeled as Attachment #3. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ' Final Plan Amendment Request #79-2 for Near Mountain Planned Unit Development on property zoned P-1 , Planned Residential Development and located along Chanhassen Road, Near Mountain Partnership, applicant. Public Present Peter Pflaum Lundgren Brothers Construction Rick Sathre Mike Pflaum Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to increase the Type B area by 19 lots in exchange for 13 Type A lots and 6 condomium units. She also noted that, in addition, the street alignment and shape of the ponding areas have cnanged slightly but will not impact the design and would allow for a better lot layout. She explained that development is taking place in the Type C area where the front and side yard setbacks are 25 ' and 5 '/10' . The developers intend to continue these setbacks into the Type B area. She stated that staff believes the reduced setbacks can be continued into the Type B area without adversely impacting the surrounding property. She also noted that staff is recommending that a berm be continued along the Type B area and also would like the developers to further discuss with staff their phasing plan for Near Mountain. , Peter Pflaum explained that as they develop the project, they are getting more of an idea of how they want the different type of homes to be phased together smoothly. He stated that they have decided to change the line between the Type B and Type A phases because of a natural tree line or wooded area and by doing that are dropping 13 larger lots (Type A) and 6 condominium units and adding 19 Type B lots. Conrad moved, seconded by Merz to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. • / r I� I $T OF mamma no °; -''~: 7 4.. i, • II Subject: Report of Field Investigation of four wetland sites within the City of Chanhassen, Carver II County, Minnesota Field Investigator: Paul Burke i Date: June 30, 1988 Following my on-site review, I have determined that wetlands I are present at each of the four subject sites, and each of the first three sites have been or will be impacted by site II development. Site No. 1 This is a lake shore wetland behind the Colonial Grove II Tennis and Beach Club, 80 Cheyenne Terrace, and 100 Cheyenne Terrace. The affected area appears to have been recently II filled to an elevation of approximately 1 foot (vertical) above previous grade, sodded, and stabilized at the water' s edge by a cobble wall. By examining the condition of the II shore line vegetation on each of the bounding property lots, I found evidence of hydrological conditions that would confirm my determination that the adjacent properties are palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands I (Circular 39 Type characteristics of 2, 3 , and 6) . The evidence provided the positive identification of each of three parameters needed for wetland delineation. The soils 11 were a peaty-silt (histosols) , and all histosols are a hydric soil type. The vegetation canopy was dominated by red-ozier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) , and ground cover II consisted primarily of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) , broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia) , and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) . Each of the above species are classified as FACW+, or wetter designation, II.hydrophytes. The water level at the time of the site visit __ was less than one vertical foot below the median elevation of the affected wetland. In consideration of recent drought conditions, it is reasonable to assume the hydrology of the II site ranges from saturated to permanently flooded. Barring any information to the contrary, we can assume that I prior to the recent shoreline enhancement project at this site, most, if not all, of the recently sodded area was a wetland with characteristics and values similar to those II found on the adjacent properties. The majority of these wetland values could be recovered if the fill were removed, and the area allowed to revegetate. II 1 II • d I - ' 2 `. Site No. 2 F This is a wet-meadow type complex adjacent to the Northwest Nursery Co. site in Chanhassen. With the use of a plan view I of the earthen work proposed by the nursery company, I was able to identify, in approximate terms, the areas intended for the placement of fill. IStarting at the north side of the nursery, near Highway 101, I found the proposed re-contouring will result in the loss I of between 1/2 and 3/4 of an acre of palustrine emergent, saturated wetland (Circular 39 characteristic of Type 2) with reed canary grass dominating the site. With only minor modifications, the nursery' s plans can be completed Iresulting in only minimum loss of wetlands at the site. On the west end of the nursery, I found a similar wetland I characteristic, with evidence that the margins of the wetlands have already been filled. I would estimate that approximately 1/2 of an acre of wetland has already been covered by fill dirt. The plan view was contoured with II solid lines marking the existing land contours, and dashed lines showing the proposed contours at the completion of their project. The plan view would indicate that a I substantial portion of the tree and shrub lot at the western most end of the nursery is situated on fill. I It is my determination that the wetlands adjacent to the nursery (southwest of the barns) have been filled and that no additional fill can be placed at the lower end of the site without placing fill in a wetland. If the nursery I company intends to proceed with their site plans, they should be advised to first contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, for compliance with Section I 404 of the Clean Water Act. Given the evidence of recently deposited fill, I would recommend the land owner to contact the Corps of Engineers immediately, regardless. I Site 3 This is wet-meadow just off of Lake Lucy Lane, north of II Chanhassen and near the intersection with Lake Lucy Road. The site, approximately two acres in size, is a palustrine emergent, saturated, wetland (Circular 39 characteristic Type 2) dominated by reed canary grass, and cattails. The I entire site is a Type 2 wetland, with the exception of minor undulations near the upper periphery. The area was mowed some time just prior to our site visit, but the hydrophytic II vegetation was left as thatch and easily identifiable. Given the extent of the wetland boundary, no fill could be placed adjacent to the roadway, regardless of configuration, Iwithout fill being placed in wetlands. Any site plans that I 1 II II CERTIFICATION II STATE OF MINNESOTA ) I ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1 I, Karen J. Engelhardt, duly appointed, qualified and acting Deputy Clerk for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, do hereby I Y certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of Conditional II Use Permit for Mark VanHoef & Jim Wilson for a wholesale nursery II with the original copy, now on file in my office, and have found I the same to be a true and correct copy thereof and as approved by the I City Council. Witness my hand and official seal at Chanhassen, Minnesota, 1 this Ilth day of February , 19 85 II II is / ,t' K il aren J g- , ardt, Deputy Clerk 1 - /. . Jn � I 11/7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional ' use permit for: Mark VanHoef and Jim. Wilson for a wholesale nursery. ' 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: See attached Exhibit "A". 1 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan stamped " p ped Received January 21 , 1985" as on file in the City Planner's Office and indexed as Planning Case ' #85-1. 1 ' 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the . permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances : material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. � & 3 I -- ---..--..-•-<\- ., \\\... N .N\N• \ %..\.\N i - --'. .,-..,\ ,.....11- ., ::.---. 4- ---;;A;4t-7,;: :----:.-7,-----%:_-: N\.- r\ •• _ • 1.:..., :F.4. : ,__y., +: ..e3,'t_`7.' I\ ..\ s\c. \ i . - I,.ss-s-, s\41 \ : ..:.:--:,.,;.,..10.----,. - , ..4 ilig.. .14. . : -..... . 'i>.\\\\\ ) - -• ....• ..,....•,-■•‘-. .7 V) N\. .. C.\.\X\s , • - M x = is ��FUTURE STOP A(� : 1_ E �. ; • J tn .?. ' c r'n-`s' �J . ,�, 1 1_..;�, _ ,, . ..I c) z 1 � =y S I i. Liu 44 kez riz4..4.; 1 .. %NELL i� �'� �X/STi N4, - PR 1-c s E-1�• rL A t.IT t klA --- •_ �-�`—r-- ,E -L'1'`Tl E E 5 c:,.. . __- - - -. ..-.r .._. 211 •�� .:�� Y�.,: '• A' I'•{°Zy' 17" -: r-~i .?ir ,_ .. , • ' j,...: `•• c:_ `•eta • •• - SCAL 1= 1 p.. . y � =,.- .. - • . N S. • • ArrAcA-tmc.b.41- it • j - . . .r.• s 1 CITY OF Øp - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 December 10, 1986 ICERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Mark VanHoef and I Mr. James Wilson 9150 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 IDear Messrs . VanHoef and Wilson: The Conditional Use Permit for your wholesale nursery was I approved on the condition that the site would be in conformance with the submitted site plan. As of December 6, 1986, the site did not have the planting screen required in the southeast corner I (Attachment #1) . The City has the power to revoke a conditional use permit if the conditions have not been met (Attachment #2) . You are in viola- I tion of the conditions of your conditional use permit. Within ten days of the receipt of this letter, you are requested to sub- mit a letter of explanation as to why the site is not in confor- m mance with the site plan and when the planting screen is to be installed. Unless an agreement is reached as to when compliance can be achieved, the City will begin revocation proceedings. I Failure to respond to this letter will also initiate revocation proceedings. Please call me should you have any questions. ISincerely, I ./ c Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner I JO:k cc: Tim Erhart, Planning Commission Member Pat Swenson, City Council Member I I • NORTH WEST NURSERY WHOLESALE 9150 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. CHASKA,MN 55318 612/445-4088 December 16, 1986 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen P 0 Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen; In response to your letter of December 10, I would like to make these points: 1. On April 27 a temporary berm was established with 7' Colorado Blue Spruce. Screening our holding area from Hwy 101. This was maintained until October. 2. Beginning in October the adjoining property was developed, requiring some road work and elevation grading. During this time our temporary Spruce screen was moved and preparation was made for a permanent berm and screen to be built screening both property and highway view. 3. November brought early freezes which caused all landscape 1 and planting to as early close. Holding off completion of the permanent berm until Spring 1987. Ms. Olsen, I hope this explanation will satisfy your concerns regarding our maintaining a proper screening plan for our operation. The delay in our compliance has been a result of some developements beyond our control, plus our desire to do the job properly with consistant screening on both property borders. I would also ask the committee to take into account the many property improvements we have attempted to make this past year. HOUSE AND BARN OUTSIDE REPAIRS, HOUSE AND BUILDING PAINTED, NEW WINDOWS, LAWN AND GROUNDS UPKEEP. Please advise us if there continues to be a problem. Sincerely, 1 IACta* kl 1031 MARK VAN HOEF 1 MVH/j fw nu; 1 'i 1986 r:zv /lc r.0 NASSEM • CIT"rOF\\I CHANHASSEN I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 tDecember 18, 1986 Mr. Mark Van Hoef 9150 Great Plains Blvd Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Van Hoef: Thank you for your letter regarding the improvements to the North West Nursery Wholesale site. As per our phone conversation, the City will allow an extension to June 1, 1987 for the site impro- vements to be completed. Should you find that you cannot meet the June 1 , 1987 deadline you should contact either myself or Barb Dacy. ' Please call me if you have any questions . ' Sincerely, 1 Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner JO:n �J 1 4 i I CITY OF \I CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 I December 11, 1987 Mr. Mark VanHoff 9150 Great Plains Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 ' Dear Mr. VanHoff: I have been informed by the Corps of Engineers that you have con- tacted them in reference to the filling of a portion of the wetland on your property. Please be advised that any alteration to the Class A wetland would also require a wetland alteration permit from the City. Prior to any alteration you must contact the City and initiate the wetland alteration permit process. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ' b2-4-4 C)11 Jo Ann Olsen ' Assistant City Planner JO:v ' 1 1 II •ONYRvE,t NORTH WEST NURSERY WHOLESALE II WMOIEMLE DC 9150 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. CHASKA, MN 55318 612/445-4088 II 1 JUNE 13, 1988 ICITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55318 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: IWe are planning to erect a shade house similar to the one in the picture. The dimensions are 110' x 85' to be placed as I shown on the plot map. It will be constructed using 4 x 4 posts set in concrete. The structure will be 10' tall with 2 x 8' lumber as support joices with snow fencing tacked to them. The purpose of this is to provide shade for our sun sensitive ' plants that we offer for sale here. With this unusually hot spring, this structure is a necessity for the survivability of these plants. IThank you, II 4 Mike Nugent, ' Manger • MN/dr I,7- _s i • I . _ I I I s ,...121,....•°ss Ali= -'t' �'_ .4T..„Ni.___......._ _ 1/ - - j °� "-� Sem*Ed t ofDna� , . _'� _- _ f�t• • - ' : !CSI ON CONTROL FENCE 9 � • _ <, i-, •♦, i:.'.�,— SILT SCREEN .94«30 ~ g _ a-49e •••• 86 s97y I e s a S 901• r 00 0 I • r - ..:11*:41114 . -= - i.. r`l tif';O.: :..443; , '0° .... zpv.. I rt I :4010•44447 . � a a 'R- O 07 sOr 4�' 90'1„8 "' ' \ / 1. till b 6 1 gib)0,cb •••• Uill a► _ N o e` ch -.4.8)..... \ • • °I' \\"t -- • %, 10 -.4a -f _ .\\_. i = 916*i \ i- 1920 M ..-.- . e • . . I C 2 • ' \---- „ -., rz z-z x. id t~ _..._, 3 n 1---.. 8W-IN L 0i-rat ti‘ ‘ 1- _ _ _ ik .Z. D x it 1 • Ai vi r 11 NA NI =- n$g: ,. irc • CITY OF CEANEASSE1 ' ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 July 6, 1988 1 1 Mr. Mark VanHoff Northwest Nursery Wholesale 9150 Great Plains Boulevard 1 Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. VanHoff: 1 This letter is to confirm our conversation regarding your pro- posed shade house to provide shade for sun sensitive plants on your wholesale _nursery site. The activities occurring on the Northwest Nursery site including the shade house are considered an expansion to what was approved with the original conditional use permit for your wholesale nursery. For these activities to be permitted, you must receive another conditional use permit 1 from the City providing approval for expansion of your business. Due to the hot and dry weather we have been experiencing this 1 year, staff stated that we would allow you to construct imme- diately the shade house to provide protection to the plants rather than having to wait until you go through the conditional 1 use permit process. In our conversation it was stated that you would have to meet the setbacks required by the ordinance which is 100 feet from a public right-of-way for all storage and yard areas and that the outdoor storage areas must be completely 1 screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming. Therefore, when you construct the shade house, these conditions must be met. 1 It was our understanding that by August of 1988 you would have made your application for the conditional use permit for the expansion of your business, and also the wetland alteration permit 1 application for your proposal to fill in a portion of the wetland for site expansion. Staff visited the site with a Fish and Wildlife representative on Thursday, June 30, 1988. It was con- firmed that there has been partial filling of the wetlands at 1 this time and that no further filling of the wetlands would be permitted until the wetland alteration permit has been applied for and if it is approved by the City. Any filling of wetlands 1 that has occurred prior to receiving a wetland alteration permit is not permitted by the city and must stop immediately. 1 I Mr. Mark VanHoff 1 July 6 , 1988 (/////( ' Page 2 1 In summary, you are permitted to construct the shade house imme- diately with the conditions that it be 100 feet from Highway 101 II and that the outside storage be screened 100% by either a berm or opaque fencing. The construction of the shade house is con- ditioned upon receiving a conditional use permit for the expan- II sion of your business and that any conditions of that conditional use permit will have to be followed. You are also required to apply for the conditional use permit for the expansion of your wholesale nursery and a wetland alteration permit by August 29, II 1988. Should you have any questions, please feel free call me. Sincerely, II jidd/12 ) (7).,r;_--7. ) Jo Ann Olsen II Assistant City Planner JO:ktm I I/ I II II I I 1 II II II II All NORTH WIT NORTH WEST NURSERY WHOLESALE WHOLOAu nc. 9150 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. CHASKA, MN 55318 612/445-4088 AUGUST 15, 1988 ' MS. JO ANN OLSEN ASST. CITY PLANNER CITY OF CHANHASSEN P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen: ' As per your request from our meeting of June 24, I am submitting the following proposed site plan for North West Nursery Wholesale. This site plan has outlined all future site improvement necessary for our continued wholesale nursery operation. Listed below you will note each particular site improvement as discussed. ' 1. Exhibit A - "Future Tree Growing Field" This particular area has been used as past crop product growing area. This can be supported by the aerial picture used by Barb Dacy in the planning case: 85-1 conditional use permit. Also, to support this, Mr. Larry Klein will testify to the fact that this area has continually been used as crop land. Our intentions in purchasing the site was to plant this area after all existing planning area was maximized. ' 2. Exhibit B - "Proposed Shrub Growing Field" This area will require special considerations due to it's partial wetlands involvement. Mr. Tom Landwehr of the DNR, and Mr. Jim Leach of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, were supportive and interested in working with this expansion if a proper wildlife open water pond was also provided in the expansion project. 3. Exhibit C - "Proposed Pond" A 2.5 acre open water pond would be created providing nesting habitat for water fowl. This would border the wetland area. 4. Exhibit D - "Proposed Tree Growing Field" ' 5. Exhibit E - "Future Tree Growing Field" Both areas would be used as tree and flowering shrub field ' growing area. 6. Exhibit F - "Future Expanded Storage" This would be an approximate 3,000-4,000 square foot pole building to replace the existing old storage building. 1 l r r • Page 2 7. Exhibit_ G - "Proposed Secondary Entrance" ' Upon proper authorization from the DOT, we would like to develop a second entrance to the site. This would permit improved traffic flow to and from our site. It Jo Ann, the enclosed master site plan should provide you and the planning committee with our complete expansion considerations for the future. Understand that this plan will not necessarily be for the year 1989, but rather over a three year period. I am hopeful that this information will provide your department with an understanding of the needed expansion on our site. Please contact me with what further steps are required before we can take these issues to the city council. 1 Sincerely, VICAAki CL,As t4471) Q2_ Mark Van Hoef MVH/dr , Enclosure i 1 1 i 1 I 1 L I CITYOF i • k,, j CHANHASSEN =;. . , ,..,„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 IIAugust 18, 1988 11 Mr. Mark VanHoff North West Nursery Wholesale II 9150 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 IDear Mark: On August 15 , 1988, I received your proposed site plan for the I expansion of the North West Nursery and the letter explaining the future expansion of the site. For the city to proceed with the conditional use permit and wetland alteration permit process, you will have to submit 26 copies of the site plan, the application II fee ($150 for conditional use permit and $150 for wetland altera- tion permit) and a property owners list within 500 feet of your site. The site plan will have to contain the topography of the II site with proposed grading and drainage. For the wetland altera- tion permit, we will need details on the proposed pond such as grading and elevations of the pond and the size of area of the wetland that is proposed to be filled. 1 If the shade structure, currently under construction, is not moved to meet the 100 foot setback from your property line a I variance to the conditional use permit requirement will have to be received. The next application deadline is August 29, 1988. For you to meet the requirements of being permitted to construct the shade structure, you must make formal application by August 29, 1988. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me. ISincerely, I --..)d. G . Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner I JO:v II ', q 1 ,/,14 ; f 4r '0 it NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning ' Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 21, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to con- sider the application of Northwest Nursery to receive a con- , ditional use permit for expansion of a contractor's yard on property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate and located on the west side of Hwy. 101 just south of County Road 18. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for - public review at City Hall during regular business hours. 1 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GI VEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 21, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to con- sider the application of Northwest Nursery to receive a wetland alteration permit to alter a Class A and B wetland on property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate and located on the west side of Hwy. 101 just south of County Road 18. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for _ public review at City Hall during regular business hours. . All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner Phone: 937-1900 (Publish in the South Shore Weekly News on September 8, 1988) '•hts� pcU31L c, hear t S has/ bc.e n. .b le:c� urt-�( • 1 0a+Ob2 r' lq, !9 gg r a.fi 7: O . n1 • /ko-eker rte.%ee� W ( 1 rrdf be. 4- o .d . Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 23 I PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH WEST NURSERY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HWY 101, JUST SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 18, MARK VAN HOEF, APPLICANT: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A CONTRACTOR'S YARD ON ' PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER A CLASS A AND B WETLAND. Public Present: Name Address Mark Van Hoef Applicant Rick Dorsey Kevin and Valette Finger 9151 Great Plains Blvd. ' Mark Koegler presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Mark Van Hoef: I 'd just like to add one thing to the report and that is in regard to the shade structure. The chronological timing which he's got in his report is all accurate and fine in correspondence to all the written correspondence that went on between the nursery and staff. What wasn' t in there was the fact that in June, the first week of June when we realized there was obviously some damaging weather that would be occurring, we at that time contacted verbally Jo Ann Olsen trying to find out what procedure we had to pursue to get some type of shade structure up to protect some of our shade tolerant plant material. At that time, and this is again in early June, we were told that we had to have a blueprint. We had to have photos. We had to go to the Building Inspector and that process, when I came up to the City and started to go through that, I impressed upon her the timeframe that we' re dealing with. We at that time sat down and discussed it. She thought there would be no problem. I still should submit the blueprints and a formal application but in discussing that with Jo Ann, her comment to me was that we had to adhere to a 50 foot setback. Now it wasn't for 2 weeks that she followed up with ' a written letter than said it's 100 foot and unfortunately, what' s not in this report is that construction was before the first of July so when that letter came to our nursery, the structure was already up. The only thing that was not completed was the overall lathe and at that time when the ' inspecter came out he put a work stopage. Now I share that with you just so it doesn' t look like we were told that we had to have 100 foot setback and we just went out and randomly put it up wherever we wanted. If you'll ' note, the report states that we are 68 feet back and so that would have adhered to the verbal 50 foot setback that we were told that we could pursue. The only other thing that I would state and as Mark's got in his report , you talk about any work that' s going to be done on TH 101 and the fact that that 100 foot setback would provide an easier condition to have people come in and use a little more of the land. If you' ll note on the plan, the house that we now are using as an office is closer to the road than the shade structure. So if we have to move the shade structure, r Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 4, 1989 - Page 24 I that's fine but keep in mind that the house is actually closer to the road than the shade structure is presently as it stands. I think those are the ' only comments I wanted to make. Rick Dorsey: I've got property on Lyman Blvd. . I just had a question as far as expansion of the growing yard. How big and what kind of traffic 11 problems would be involved with trucks going in and out. Mark Van Hoef: The only expansion that we' re really going to do as noted II on the site plan, is less than a 2 acre canned expansion. The majority of the listed areas that we were requested by staff, Jo Ann Olsen, was that there was a lot of area on the original site plan that we submitted in 1985 that we didn't feel that we were going to need for several years. Well we planted up to 15 acres. We' re out of room in terms of any plantings so to do anymore expanding, I thought all we had to do was get the plow out and till up the land and start planting. She alerted me to I the fact that anytime I went beyond what was noted on the original site plan, I was no longer in compliance with our original site plan and therefore no longer in compliance with the original conditional use permit. So what you see in front of you is the complete expansion that well would foresee us ever using. That was brought up by Mark that we also put in a proposed secondary road access because in the spring when we are shipping and receiving plant material, it's rather congested because we are using semi-trailers to bring plant material in and ship out plant material. That secondary road would definitely not be something we want to see happen right away but again, we were encouraged to put all our future considerations on the map. So in reference to the question at hand, the only physical expansion in terms of actual container area would be less than 2 acres. All the rest of the expansion would be in field operation. Conrad: Traffic? Mark Van Hoef: Taffic, if you go back to your 1985 notes on our receiving " our conditional use permit, there was some discussion as to traffic. At that time we were talking about the possibility of doing any retail sales ' on the site. The feeling of the Planning Committee at that time was that due to additional traffic pressure that any retail sales would provide, they didn' t want to see us doing any retail. So at that time we said we won't pursue any retail and the only traffic that we have is heavy traffic 11 in the early spring because that's when all the harvesting and the receiving of the product is done. You have to understand the nursery industry, is an industry such that we harvest only in the spring. So we' re 1 digging our tree. We' re shipping our tree. We're dealing our trees in a 3 to 4 week period. From there on out, there is no semi traffic but rather contractor traffic that comes in and picks up material . So in I reference to the traffic issue, I guess the majority of the traffic that we' re looking at is early April to end of April to early May and then after that it's all customer traffic, which according to our expressed , use permit, we have the right to bring our customers in and they're picking up II their materials. 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 25 Kevin Finger : My name is Kevin Finger. I live at 9151 Great Plains ' Blvd . . I think I live across the street across from that nursery but from what he just said, I don' t know if I do or not. I'm sorry, the reason I 'm coming up here is I came to the City Hall Thursday and Friday and this was not available so this is the first time I 've been able to see it. I guess the thing, he keeps talking about harvesting trees and the only thing we ever see from across the road is semi truck loads full of trees coming in, dumping them off starting at about 7:00 in the morning and the Bobcats ' running all day long moving trees around until about 9:00-9: 30 at night. Chanhassen is supposed to be a nice, quiet area. It's not there. I look back and what I saw when they received their conditional use permit, was that they were going to be mostly a tree growing nursery. They have 15 ' acres of trees . That' s not a tree growing nursery. They broker trees . They move trees in. They move them out. They' re all balled when they come in. They' re all balled when they go out . Granted I know you do some ' but I know a lot of people who work for you and that' s not the bulk of your business . I have a real problem about giving them more yard space. Right now they dump water onto our property on a steady rate. I 've talked to them for the last 3 years to try to have them do something. Supposedly they changed their watering system. I still get the same runoff that goes underneath the culvert under TH 101. I 've talked to City Engineering. Oh, they' ll work on it. They haven' t done a thing. Help. I need ' somebody to help me, a little citizen who' s lost six 4 to 6 foot evergreen trees. Two 40 foot stretches of good raspberries. I know it's no big deal but it is to me and there' s an area probably 200 square feet that I can' t mow in front of the house because it's too wet and I 've got about 12 to 14 inches of sand . Another thing , they' ve excavated the road and with all the trucks going over it, it's really nice. Every time there's a rain storm, we get about another 3 or 4 inches of bark and sand on our ' property. So before they' re given another opportunity to expand their conditional use permit, I think the two things should be looked at that was given on their first permit and that is, number one, the number one thing that was mentioned by the Planning Commission was , would they hurt any of their neighboring properties. And it was absolutely, they would not. Well , I 've talked to them for 2, it' s actually 2 1/2 years because 3 ' years would be right now. About 2 1/2 years and they haven' t done anything. They haven' t talked to me and now they want to expand their yard. Trust us all, we may never do it. We're going to give them 2 1/2 more acres of pots . Where do you think they get them? Do you think they ' grow them? No, they bring them in by trucks every spring starting about May 1st. So I am opposed to it. I hope you got my letter . I dropped it off. I guess you' re to represent us, the small people, that don' t have the big nursery that comes in with their big plan and all that stuff. The small people can' t get it until you come to the Planning Commission meeting. I don' t understand why it wasn' t available here but that irritated me quite a bit. I wasn' t even aware of the first two things. I came in and asked what it was about and I was told that it was about the shade. I wasn't told anything about the wetlands or about the increased yard so I 'm very upset and I think something should be done to help me. Thank you. Mark Van Hoef: Can I respond? t_ Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 26 I Conrad: Sure. Mark Van Hoef : I guess what he' s saying, he' s got three problems. The major one, and I read his letter, is with regards to the runoff. He' s right, he has approached the nursery. However , what he hasn' t told you is that the culvert which he wants us to divert is not our property. And Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City Engineers come out and inspected the property and we were in full agreement that they wanted to divert any of the water that runs off of our property, they are more than welcome to do that. All they have to do is dig a culvert under our driveway, let it run down the roadway and fall into the ditch but that' s not even our property. I really take exception to the fact that he is II upset with our future expansion on an issue that we have no control over . If he wants us not to water our plant material , than we really can' t stay in business. The other thing I take exception to is the fact that he' s eluding to, we keep talking about a tree growing operation. When we approached the City Council , that' s what we said the majority of our business was going to be. However, if you look at our application and the conditional use permit we received , it was as a commercial wholesale II nursery and we are operating as a commercial wholesale nursery. We are operating by the explanation and definition that you have in your city ordinance and if someone takes exception to that, than I guess you' re going to have to change the verbage in the city charter because we are operating under those guidelines. I guess the third issue is the problem II with the container area and it' s really not consistent with the fact that he doesn' t like our runoff because if you' ll note on the site plan, any II expansion is in the rear of the property so any of the runoff on that expanded area would not reflect his property at all anyway. Conrad: Okay, thanks . , Kevin Finger : I've got one rebuttal . The culver that goes under and he talks about it. Keep in mind that he' s . . .and that was all grass on that II hill so naturally the. . .would handle that without any problem. That 's not the case. There's about 8 garden hoses going on that hill into the culvert. You guys , I can' t get any help from the City Hall . ' Conrad: Other comments? Emmings moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public bearing was closed. Conrad: Just a quick comment . Mark, there' s no wetland alteration permit!! in our packet. Is -there a reason for that? Is there a wetland alteration? I went through mine again. Batzli: The form itself? Conrad: Yes. And typically on that form we ask for justification for the' applicant why. Emmings: Oh you mean the application permit? ' I Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 27 I Conrad: Yes . The permit itself says what is it going to do. What' s the ' harm. What's the benefit. What' s the rationale and that' s not here so it's tough for me to react. Normally we also get staff to react to that permit. Just for those of you who are here, we do try to preserve wetlands because they' re a vanishing part of our country and what we ask the applicant to do when they want to build or build close, we ask them, is this going to improve the situation? Typically they can make it so it improves the wetland. We have structured that in Chanhassen so we don' t necessarily get rid of the wetland but we allow developers to play with them sometimes and actually improve the drainage and improve the habitat for wildlife. In this I don' t have very good feedback on anything, to ' tell you the truth. Mr. Burke's letter is real confusing and doesn' t tell . It' s in different terms than what I 'm used to. I just have a personal problem with some of the data that's here in terms of the wetland alteration permit. It' s not here. It' s not in our packet and we do need that. That was just a quick aside. Tim, we' ll start down at your end. Erhart: I assume we want to talk about all three things? 111 Conrad: Everything, yes . Erhart : Regarding the expansion of the conditional use permit. What' s the distance between the new driveway and the proposed driveway? Brown: Approximately 350 feet. Erhart : And what' s the ordinance require on an arterial? Isn ' t it 1, 200 feet? Brown: Right. If my memory serves me correctly, we need a quarter of a mile. Obviously TH 101 falls under the jurisdiction of MnDot and we would basically look for their recommendation. ' Erhart: Yes, except our ordinance has, a flat arterial, I think it ' s 1,200 feet. I think that's an issue. The argument, I might add , in ' driving by there in the spring there is a lot of trucks going in and occasionally some have backed in. If that can be at all avoided by adding a second driveway, there's a positive aspect to that although I think on this plan , I think there appears to be enough room for the turning around of all semis isn't there Mark? In your current plan here? So the backing in of trucks won' t be required in the future? Okay. Regarding, let me jump ahead to the wetland. I 'm a little confused about ' exactly what alterations we' re making here with the wetland. Are we moving the lines that were drawn on here by the Fish and Wildlife fella . Burke? These are the lines as they exist currently? They' re not the line that differentiates a Class A wetland and Class B wetland? The edges are not changing? Correct? Mark Koegler : That is correct. They are, if you look at the area of the ' Class B wetland, in the proposed shurb growing field. It says proposed shurb growing will be right on above there and there' s a little notch there. In the middle of that it says. . . Do you see where I 'm at? k Planning Commission Meeting f January 4 , 1989 - Page 28 11 Erhart: Okay. ' Mark Koegler : That area , the coordinates come back and said, that area alone the applicant could deposit dredged material from the pond as long II as it was level . That's the only area outside of the excavation of the pond that would be modified as a part of the wetland alteration. The Corps letter also references , and I haven' t seen a copy but they did send along some typical section type data to enhance the wildlife value of the II ponds that they're proposed to create as a part of their berm. Erhart: That's the 10: 21 slope? • ' Mark Koegler: Yes. Erhart: Going back to that again. Would you explain to us again that filling, is that filling in an existing Class B wetland? Mark Koegler : The area that we' re referencing is this portion right here. " Here is the exhibit that came back from the Corps which they have indicated the hatched area A, which is referenced. They have a copy of the letter you have, .3 acre site that could be used to place fill material from the pond . They've come back and found that to be acceptable. The rest of the wetland, the Type A is totally undisturbed . The rest of the Type B is only disturbed insofar as the two ponds and the connecting ditch are constructed. • Conrad : Doesn' t our ordinance say that' s not acceptable though? Depositing debris within 200 feet of a wetland. , Mark Koegler : The ordinance does reference upland areas which was part of my original recommendation. And you can stick with that or you can agree with the Corps . Presumably the material that comes out of here can as easily be placed somewhere else on the site if that's your desire. I don't think that would be a big hurdle to anybody. But the Corps has come back and said, for the purposes of a nationwide permit, that's an acceptable place to deposit that material . Erhart: The reason I ask, I think our ordinance on wetlands is stronger than the Corps generally. I think in following our ordinance, I think the , material would have to be deposited somewhere on existing highland areas just to follow in line with what we apply to other people in our following ordinance. The drainage ditch, there's a note here that says drainage NI ditch that goes between the easterly pond and the westerly pond. Does that mean that that ditch, the bottom of that ditch is lower than a Class A wetland? ' Mark Koegler : I would assume so, yes. There' s no contour information shown there but the ditch obviously connotates a lower elevation. Erhart: Is that a drainage ditch just between the two ponds or does that go along someplace else? Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 29 Mark Koegler : It only goes between the two ponds as proposed . Presumably the applicant ' s intent, and I think he can speak to that, is to pick up on other things, some of the drainage that' s coming off these irrigated fields and channel that to the ponds . Erhart: Is that right Mark? Essentially the drainage ditch is to drain the future tree growing field area into one or those two ponds? ' Mark Van Hoef : That whole field that you' re looking at, at one time was farm. It was an alfalfa, in fact it's in your packet. The aerial photo. Barb Dacy, when she first presented to the committee, showed that as being farmed at one time. The only thing that we' re talking about doing is stumps that were left on the outside perimeter of that field are still there. In removing them we' re going to create some pockets anyway and we ' wanted to connect the two ponds with the ditch along that border . Erhart: I just want to make sure that that ditch is not intended or will ' inadvertently act to lower the water level in that Class A wetland . Mark Koegler: The indication from the Corps was that that would not occur ' and they specifically address that. . . Erhart: I go back to my feeling of the growing of trees in the area. This is really an agricultural use and I have no problem with growing the trees. I do it on my farm so I don' t have any problem with that. Currently there is no open water existing on this whole wetland is there except for that half. . .so what we' re creating here is open water where no open water exists on several , maybe 30 or 40 acres of Class A marsh. Is that a correct summarization of what we' re doing? Mark Koegler : My knowledge of open water is restricted to one visit. . . ' Erhart: And that' s pretty much correct. ' Mark Koegler : There' s no open water on the entire Class A or Class B wetland in that whole area. Erhart: I personally worked with the DNR. I believe in an area as large as this where essentially it's grown over cattails and so forth, that opening up some areas for duck hatching is an improvement to the wetlands. I just think we should all concur that we don't want to see any fill of ' the deposits in the existing wetland . I would ask that we be assured that the deposits were put on the highland someplace so I would favorably respond to the creation of the ponds and so forth. One last, regarding the variance. I can see perhaps where there may have been some confusion about the 50 feet or 100 feet of TH 101. I think there' s been confusion ever since I 've lived here and been on the Planning Commission on what in fact the right-of-way is and what the plan is. I think a way to look at ' this problem and to get out of it without creating a lot of hardship on the owner is, I question the interpretation of the structure as permanent. I would question that. There' s no walls. There' s no roof and I suggest ' in reviewing that, that point of it, if future right-of-way was needed, it would be easy enough to move. I guess I 'd be in favor of allowing it to 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 30 stay but with the requirements that no addition was made to that particular structure and nothing was done to make it more permanent. That' s my feeling on that. Lastly, I feel that there' s not enough screening on the business, particularly as it grows further north. I would like to see Mark has put some very nice evergreens, of course he gets a good deal on them I think, over on the south side of the property and along the south and along TH 101 on the south end of the property. I 'd like to see that same thing done on now the north end as they are building, some permanent/temporary structures and so forth. Back in the old conditional use permit it says that the hill screens it. When I drive south on TH 101, it doesn' t screen it for me and I don' t think it screens it for others. It is a business. We require businesses in our industrial park to screen and the ordinance relating to these two wholesale nurseries is that we do require 100% opaque screening from the highway I do believe. And I 'd like to see additional screening between that proposed driveway up' to the house. Not necessarily screen them from the house. With all that, I ' ll pass it to Steve. Emmings: Starting with that storage issue, I guess under the conditional I use permit, it says that the applicant has to comply with Section 2257 and 2257 speaks to screening . It says that all outdoor storage areas , this is on wholesale nurseries, all outdoor storage areas much be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming . I don' t see this addressed in the staff report as to whether they' re in compliance with that at this time or not but I see it' s a condition. And as long as they' re aware of II that, that that condition is being included, I guess then after that it' s just a matter of enforcement. Mr . Van Hoef said we should look up the definition of a wholesale nursery so I did. I think he might be surprised' to find out that maybe what he' s doing isn ' t within the definition. It says here that a wholesale nursery means an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site. That 's it. As well as accessory items directly related to the care and maintenance of plants. I 'm not sure that'll all the trucking in of, you know I was surprised frankly to find that. I thought that you would be right but that is what the definition is and I 'm not sure that what you' re doing there complies with that definition. I 'm II very concerned about the neighbors complaints. I guess I want to know from Larry why, if he' s looked into this drainage problem and what, if anything can be done to resolve it so these people don't have. Water 's bad enough but when you're getting sand and a lot of bark and debris with II it, that's awful. What's the problem there? Brown: I've been waiting to comment on this issue. I've been out and visited with Mr. Arlen Finger three times that I can recall. All three times, after visiting with him, seeing the problem, I went back over to the nursery and gave them notice that hey, you've got a problem over here. " You need to take care of it. All my attempts to do so failed . My next route was to go to MnDot saying, hey you've got a problem with the culvert out here. It' s clogged . Please take care of it. MnDot did come out and clean the culvert at one time but they have failed to do so since. As, the ' applicant did indicate, MnDot has jurisdiction over this. The other attack is, how do we resolve the problem? When this application came in, unfortunately the consultant was not aware of this problem nor did I place ' a review in here on this problem. What our intention was, and I was going • a ` a Planning Commission Meeting January 4 , 1989 - Page 31 I ' to be adding this condition, or asking that this condition when the discussion was through, is that as a condition of the conditional use permit, that the applicant submit a revised grading and/or erosion control plan which solves this problem. I think through the creative use of berming or putting up some other type of vegetation or even using the silt fences that we have in place along some of the other developments, we may be able to rectify this situation. Emmings: Okay, so you think there is a solution out there? ' Brown: Yes I do. Emmings: Have they been cooperative? Have you suggested to them that they do certain things to fix this problem? Brown: We have asked them to take care of the damage that has occurred on the other side. Now obviously our powers, we' re stretching our power ' there but we have asked them, yes . Emmings: But have you asked them to change his operation in any specific ways to prevent the problem? Brown: My last site visit out , I talked with the receptionist that was out there and informed her that we would expect to see some sort of ' immediate action to take care of the erosion problem, yes . Emmings: Okay, so there hasn' t been any real specific things? Just a ' general? Brown: No, since this permit has been a long time in coming and we knew that it was coming in, we' re going to attack it at that time. Emmings: I guess for the property owner across the street too, he should know that the Section 2257 that he has to comply with also restricts hours ' of operation from 7 : 00 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m. . So again, there are provisions here that maybe will affect the operations of this and somewhat mitigate the -problem that you've raised but these things don' t enforce themselves. You should be aware of what they are and you' ll have to try to get the ' City to enforce the ordinance complying with that. Enforcement is always a problem. With the added condition that Larry just mentioned, that the applicant submit a revised grading and erosion control plan to eliminate ' the consequences of all this runoff on the neighbor, as long as there' s compliance with the rest of those conditions, I have no problem with the conditional use permit. As far as the wetland alteration permit goes, ' with the extra information that Mark gave them when Tim was making his comments, I don' t really have any problem with the wetland alteration and I think we can do what Tim wanted to do simply by destroying condition 3 to what it was before. Mark just amended it in his comments. It ' previously read all excavated material shall be placed in an upland area. Mark amended that to say, or areas approved by the Corps. I think what we should do is just have it read , all excavated materials shall be placed in ' upland area in compliance with the Chanhassen ordinance. Otherwise, I have no other comments on the wetland but on the variance. I guess it Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 32 would be my feeling that if Jo Ann recalls telling this gentleman that there was a 50 foot setback, I think we ought to ask her. If she recalls II that she did that , I think it ought to stay there but with the conditions that Tim put on it. He shouldn' t be made to move it. If on the other hand , Jo Ann told him 100 feet from the beginning and it wasn' t built there, than I don' t think a variance should be granted. Ellson: I too was concerned about the Finger family problems and the II additional condition 4, revising grading and erosion control plan. I 'm not quite sure, are we saying that we're going to approve or if it' s going to eliminate the problem? It's going to reduce the problem? Or what's going to be considered acceptable? I think anybody who has a culvert in their yard is bound to get more water than someone who doesn't no matter where you live. Granted he' s certainly got a lot more water across the street than most people but like Steve said, I think the bark and the sand' have got to be the absolute worse part of it so even if it' s something like that erosion. I 'd like a little more specifics. To who' s satisfaction is this plan going to be? Our City Engineer ' s? Is that basically it? Brown: That would be my intention , yes . Ellson: Well , I ' ll trust you Larry. If it went for the Finger ' s satisfaction or Mark' s or what have you, I 'm not sure that we'd ever come up with a satisfactory solution. So we' ll go with a city employee. Than II I guess I could see that. I agree with these two. I never even thought about the berming part of it, 2257 and they made a good point so I could see adding that in a little more detail maybe in condition 1. Instead of basically saying, we' ll comply with the Section, make a point about the berming that we necessarily haven' t seen in one. The other two, I don' t know, I think Jo Ann is a lot like me. She has to have the actual facts in front of her and I ' ve seen her do this with me when I 've called her on II things. Say one thing and then later come back and tell me another so I don't believe it' s not possible that she said 50 feet. I can believe it because that's the way I am too. I really hate granting variances but the' point he made about the house is even further up than this screening deal. I would go along with Tim that we' re not going to add to it. We' re not going to. . .the possibility of taking it down but I can't see that this is that big a deal. I would probably let it go. Batzli : I like the submission of the erosion control plan. I think we may want .to specify that one of the things it's intended to correct is the ' runoff to the gentleman' s property across TH 101. The wetland alteration permit, I guess I would like to see a condition 7 stating that the applicant shall insure that the elevation of the proposed drainage channel " will not adversely affect the Class A wetlands so that everybody's clear on what this thing is going to do. That we received his indication that it's not intended to adversely affect it but I guess I would prefer that that be a condition. I had a question for Mark. He's going to build a pond right against the Class A wetlands, according to our map here correct? Mark Koegler : Yes . ' Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 33 I ' Batzli : And you indicated that the typical 6 conditions that are normally in there would apply to that pond? Did you say that earlier? About the slope and all that other good stuff? Mark Koegler : I referenced the wanting to avoid the storm water runoff provisions that were a part of the wetland alteration permis would apply. ' Conrad : That' s not it. Those are conditions from the DNR. Batzli : They are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conditions typically are included in ponding areas of this type. Are those include in here? Mark Koegler: I don' t know that I had it. The item that I added with item 6 was a reference to the Corps ' permit requirements. The Fish and Wildlife, essentially in this particular case, and Paul Burke specifically has essentially not commented , if you will in any level of detail other than to say that basically it' s under the Corps' jurisdiction and he ' agrees with their findings and then offered to conduct the visual inspection which might tie in to some degree to item 7 prior to the time that the actual disturbance occurs . Stake the location where the drainage ' ditch in the field. . . Batzli : I guess typically we look at whether a ponding area is going to kind of be a deep, open water pond , if you will or an enhancement to the wetlands in accordance with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ' s recommendations for a wetland type area. I guess what I 'm hearing is that they apparently didn' t really look at it for that. He just concluded that this was under the Corps' jurisdiction? Mark Koegler : Let me respond to that in a couple of ways . First of all a little elaboration. Connecting with the Fisheries people and the Corps' people and everybody else was very difficult with the holidays intervening inbetween so as a result unfortunately some of the material literally came into the City yesterday. If it' s your desire, I would suggest as a part of the grading and erosion control plan that they submit, that they submit a section on the proposed pond construction in conformance to the Corps criteria that's been submitted along with this letter of December 29th. ' In that way, the City would have on file the intended construction packet for the pond. There is no elevation or section right now of the pond submitted with this plan of materials to the City s.o we' re hoping to request that so that again Paul Burke has something to review in the field when he goes out there. Batzli : So you would actually put that in the conditional use permit, the ' fourth condition? That the grading and erosion control plan be submitted to the City Engineer? ' Mark Koegler : I suppose more appropriately would be a number 8 in the, wetland alteration permit that is part of that process that the applicant submit upon their application by the City a section of proposed pond which is consistent with the recommendations of the Corps which again relates to this maximum 5 feet depth, gently sloping sides, and so forth to produce Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 34 the wildlife habitat that is desired. ' Erhart: That's a Fish and Wildlife recommendation. Emmings: The ones that we' re talking about up here right now are Fish and ' Wildlife. Mark Koegler : They' re pretty well in sync. Again, both of these agencies ' and both of these gentlemen we' re involved in. . . Erhart: There's a regular handout, I've got a copy of it. I could swear II it was the Fish and Wildlife. It is the item that he just mentioned. Mark Koegler : From my understanding , they are synonymous . Not the agencies but the recommendation. Batzli : I guess I 'd like to see that added as a condition. One other thing, correct me if I 'm wrong, do we often times not link the conditional " use permit with the. . . Emmings: If we want to. ' Batzli : Well , do we want to? Emmings: Yes. ' Batzli : But we haven' t here? Emmings: It's number 5. Batzli : Did I miss that? I/ Emmings: I wrote it down but I didn't say it. Batzli : Well , I would like to see that as a condition that we link the wetland alteration permit with compliance of the conditional use permit and basically vice versa. One other question for Mark and then I 'm pass the torch here. My question is, how can they realistically build this pond without dredging in the Class A wetlands? Mark Koegler: The field conditions are pretty definitive when you're out there. There is a stand of willows that actually sits right on the edge of the A and the B so physically there is a very definitive reference in the field as to where they' re at so it should be totally possible to construct totally within the Class B area and not disturb the Class A. I Again, that's part of the rationale behind having a final verification of staking a pond outline. I see no reason why the applicant can' t do that. Batzli: Are they going to kill all the willows when they' re digging the I pond? Or is that a silly question? I'm sorry, I said I was just going to ask one more question. That was all I had. On the variance, I kind of like the idea of asking Jo Ann if she remembers telling him that before we I would say one way or another. I think it was an emergency type situation Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 35 I ' and she did tell him where to build it and he did it , I think it ' s tough for us to at this time to tell him to tear it down. I think that' s kind of silly. ' Wildermuth: I 'm wondering if this conditional use permit is for a nursery or whether it's for a contractor 's yard. The operation doesn' t seem to fit our ordinance' s definition of a nursery very well as Steve wrote just ' a little earlier. I think one of the conditions for looking at the conditional use permit , there ' s got to be satisfaction of adjacent property owners. I understand Mark that we don' t have all the information ' on the wetland alteration permit but reading Paul Burke' s description of this thing, I get the impression that there was a lot of fill work done even before the application was made which is strictly in violation of the ordinance. Mark Koegler : Again , it 's my understanding and I apologize for probably none of us having a consensus of information here. With Jo Ann gone, ' we' re doing the best we can. It' s my understanding there was some material deposited on khe edge of the, probably the tree edge in the Class B wetland which is primarily potting material . That' s what I believe triggered one of the initial responses from Jo Ann that a wetland permit ' needed to be obtained and that the conditional use permit needed to be modified. There has been no more filling that I 'm aware of nor have I seen any evidence of any since that time so I think you may be right . There was a minor amount of filling that did occur which triggered the response from City Hall initially, or one of the triggers . ' Wildermuth: I understand what the applicant is trying to do here but I really get the feeling that he' s doing pretty much what he wants to do and the ordinances really don' t make an awful lot of difference. That seems to be the theme that runs down through the conditional use permit, the ' wetland alteration permit and then this variance issue. I am in agreement, if Jo Ann remembers that she did say 50 feet, fine. Other than that it just comes down to one individual 's word against another . If it ' comes down to one individual ' s word against another regarding the variance, it doesn' t meet the test. It's a self created hardship and it doesn't meet the test. That' s all . Headla: The Planning Commission magazines, the Planners or whatever. They had an article this last time. I 'm not trying to impress you that I read it all the time. I started to read this one article and in that ' article it mentioned how decisions we make, how that can impact the time on the staff. We can give them a tremendous load or really give them a lot lighter load and let them do a good job on what they' re after . They've got limited resources. You've only got so many people and indirectly we can control how much they are going to do. I started thinking about that and I 've been turning it over in my mind and I 've decided that I 'm going to look at two things this year. I 'm going to go at the reviews , two things. If somebody tells me there' s a sense of urgency, I 'm not going to listen to them. We got some of them tonight that they want things approved because there' s a sense of urgency, they ' got it done and how many times I think all of us in business, one of the best ways to get something passed, if you want to get it rolling, wait ) Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 36 until it ' s about midnight and just ram it through. I see that type of thing going and I think we' ve got to really look at that type of thing . The other thing you want to look at is getting stuff that' s incomplete. We okay it and then we expect the staff to have everything ready for the Council meeting. I don' t think we should do that. What we approve should go unadulterated right to the Council, period. If they can' t get it to us in time, that' s not our problem. That' s their problem. An example of this, and I want to save this page because I think Jim had some good points here, the applicant shall submit a new site plan drawing that accurately depicts the location of the shade tree structures and all other buildings and features. Why didn' t we get a good , accurate drawing to begin with? In no way am I, and I may be alone but no way am I going to approve something going to the Council when it doesn' t accurately depict it to us so what we look at is going to be different than what the Council gets. Give us the real story to begin with. I don' t like it where you I had a neighbor, you had a real problem with it , maybe you weren' t given direct direction to get it corrected . You knew there was a problem and even tonight you pretty well said, well he didn' t do this or he didn' t do ' that. I don' t see where you ever took corrective action and I just don' t think that' s right. I think you created the initial problem, I didn't see where you did anything to correct it. The lift trucks going for a long time. We really, and Lyman Lumber did a good job in trying to be cooperative. When a neighbor complained abou the noise, Lyman Lumber listened to it and they really tried to take corrective action. I hope you ' ll look at that in the same spirit . What can you do to reduce the I noise to your neighbors? I think there' s a lot of room in there to work on. I think Steve did a good job tonight looking up the definitions of what really a wholesaler is and that may help to solve part of the problem. On the field investigater Paul Burke, at the bottom of the page. ' The last paragraph, halfway through where he talks about the recent shoreline enhancement project at this site, most if not all of the recently sodded area was a wetland with characteristics so on and so II forth. Apparently he went and sodded the wetland . Now there' s a common theme here. You' re- taking and you' re taking. I guess I 'm frustrated because you keep nitpicking . You potato chip us and we can' t ever go in ' and stop one little thing but the theme is you keep taking and taking and that's it. Conrad: Okay, thank you Dave. Quick comments. For allowing the ' expansion, this is really close to a contractor's yard in my opinion. It' s not called that but it' s real close. To allow expansion I 'd really have to concern myself with the neighbor's concerns. The runoff. The noise plus things that we've identified. Filling the wetlands and I haven't seen evidence that the applicant has worked with the neighbors. Maybe he has and maybe he hasn' t. It' s tough typically to judge on that but the runoff, I think Larry's got a solution to it. The noise appears to be a problem. I wouldn' t want to live across from something that, if it's true, that machines are running and that we're actually bringing in material . I wasn' t aware that we allowed that here but I see a whole lot I of problems. I wouldn' t allow expansion until those problems are solved. If we want to build it into approval tonight to make sure those problems are solved. The wetland filling is kind of a concern to me and obviously ' a concern for the neighbor in the area. We do have to help him out or at Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 37 least make sure staff and the applicant are getting together to resolve ' these problems. In terms of the wetland alteration permit, a couple things. I really do need to see, for me to look at it, I need to see an application form saying this is what we' re doing and why we' re doing it ' and how we' re going to benefit the wetland and I haven' t seen that, which I said to begin with. Number two, putting a ditch in a wetland is contrary to anything that I 've ever seen. A wetland is supposed to filter ' and the B wetland filters for the A wetland. Well, running a ditch through there doesn' t do anything . It totally destroys the purpose of the wetland that we've got there. I 'd really like to see Mr. Burke or somebody review what the applicant is intending to do. I'm not convinced ' that this has really been done. That Mr. Burke knows what has been said and then I 'd like to see staff recommend to us what, in terms of our ordinance and what we say about a Class B, what the benefit of this is ' based on our ordinance and I haven' t seen that done. So I have a real problem with the wetland issue right now. I think the ponding, Tim I agree with the ponding . That there' s some benefit down there. That we' re conformning to the standards. I haven' t seen the benefit. Then again, a ' lot of it goes back to there' s no permit, there' s no request here and I don' t know what the information is. It's incomplete. The variance. Again, I would have a tough time approving a variance until I 'm convinced ' that the other issues have been solved. The runoff. The noise and all that kind of stuff. If Jo Ann said 50, that ' s again, geez, I don ' t know that I can go along with that but anyway. I have some real concerns on this and I think there are ways to solve this tonight to get it out of here and to put the burden on staff to work with the applicant to make sure but I think just having a nursery across the street from a residential area and the fact that there's water problems created by that ' nursery, has to be solved. It just has to be solved . Period . Before expansion is granted, period. In my mind. Anyway. I would sure entertain a motion. ' Emmings: What do you thing ought to be done? Conrad: I don' t know. I 'm not making the motion. Emmings: No , but what is your opinion about it? Conrad: This should not have been here tonight. Emmings: Yes , it' s incomplete. ' Conrad : It' s real imcomplete and it's partial data and it' s sort of, I hate to put people through this from the public but we' re kind of running with new staff and a whole lot of other things and we haven' t met for a while so part of that is just the fact that we' re getting things back together again and I apologize for not having it all together but I really would not have wanted to see this tonight until all the information was in ' and the applications were correct and staff made some comments so I don' t like it. I hate to say it but I 'd get it out of here tabling it or doing something with it. • Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 38 Emmings: How do you feel about the fact that a large portion of the business seems to be trucking in and trucking out? Conrad: I don' t like that. That' s not the intent of what a nursery is inl my mind. It's a growing area but I don't know. This gentleman across the street said there's noise at 5: 00 a.m. . I don' t know if that' s true or not but if there was a registered complaint where we would have it on record in City Hall , we should go back and search for those complaints . If the gentleman called into City Hall, we would have it on record that there was noise at 5: 00 a.m. . If not, it' s a problem. We can' t prove anything but if that's there, we would have it. I think the runoff is, a I grading plan is great for the runoff but again, I would have liked to have seen a grading plan before we sent it to City Council so it's here. We' re saying let' s get it out of here and let somebody else do it but basically I it's kind of an incomplete case that we' re looking at right now. So it' s up to somebody, one of you who wants to make a motion and do something with this. Emmings: I think in light of the fact , does delay in passing this screw up your plans in anyway Mark? Is this something that has to be started right now or can get started a month from now? Does it makes any difference? Mark Van Hoef: The ponding has to be dug in the winter . Emmings: So we' re talking about until when? Mark Van Hoef : The first of March. I would like to add one thing . There' is an application for a wetland alteration. I don't know where it is . Conrad : It's not here. Maybe you turned it in and we just don ' t have it. I It may not be your problem but there's just a lot of little things. Somebody said 50 foot and we don' t know if it's 50 or 100. There ' s not a permit here and then there' s some filling of a Class A wetland a lot of little things like that that I 'd like to get straighten out . Things that I bother me. Wildermuth: I recommend that we table this entire matter until staff has had an opportunity to look a conditional use permit in light of either a 1 nursery or a contractor' s yard. Also, has an opportunity to get the wetlands package together more completely and clarify questions regarding who said what on the variance issue. Hanson: And the grading plan? Wildermuth: And the grading plan. Emmings: All of the comments that we've made. Headla: I ' ll second that. Emmings: I guess I think it's appropriate. I'm up to number 9 in I conditions on the wetland alteration permit and there's an awful lot of I Planning Commission Meeting January 4, 1989 - Page 39 them that are , this has to be done before it goes to Council and that has to be done before it goes to Council or that staff has to be satisfied. I think since that one was so far out of whack, it seems to me maybe we ought to just table the whole thing and come back and do it all over again. ' Wildermuth moved , Headla seconded to table action for North West Nursery on a Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit for additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hanson: I guess the one thing I would ask is, in g , � the motion you just made it was part of the direction -that the applicant address the conditions ' that had been presented and discussed? Conrad : I think it would be real wise? ' Hanson : I guess the reason I 'm asking is, essentially you're asking him to provide some additional information so we have those items to bring back? I guess the question is more directed at the applicant that he' ll have those revised plans in. Conrad : There ' s nothing that' s really preventing us from reacting kind of ' quickly? It' s not like our next 13 agendas are filled? Hanson: No . ' Conrad : We can react as soon as the information comes in and the applicant gets back with a few of those things? Hanson: Is it fair to say that we' re planning that that information has to be in about a couple weeks before? ' Conrad : It really should be. Hanson : I just don' t want to be in the position of them coming in and saying here it is the meeting day. Emmings: That's always true. If they want us to act on something, than they've got to get the information to you with enough lead time so that ' you can get it to us in the packet so we' re not getting sheets at the last minute. 1 Hanson: I assume part of this is a referral back to Paul Burke and some of the other agencies? Conrad : So Mark would you come in probably tomorrow and rehash this with ' Steve so you kind of get a game plan of what we just said over the last hour and a half which is not easy to summarize. I think that' s a pretty good starting point. 11 I CIT' TOF s, CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 January 10, 1989 1 Mr. Mark Van Hoef Northwest Nursery Wholesale 9150 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: CUP #85-1 and WAP #88-1 Dear Mr. Van Hoef: The Planning Commission tabled your requests for Conditional Use 1 Permit #85-1 and Wetland Alteration Permit #88-1 in order for you to clarify and submit additional information. Specifically, the Commission requested the following: 1. Submittal of a new site plan that is legible and complies with the site plan requirements of the zoning code. A copy 1 of these requirements are attached for your review. 2. The site plan should clearly depict the location of all structures, existing topography, proposed grading and drainage improvements, and label each of the growing areas. 3 . Detailed -reasons and justification for the wetland alteration 1 permit. Enclosed please find a detailed questionaire for this purpose. 4. Clarify the confusion between reports of Department of 1 Natural Resources (DNR) , Corps of Engineers and Division of Fish and Wildlife Service regarding wetland issues. 5. Grading and drainage plans should address the issue raised by the property owner across from your site. • 6. Provide a detailed description of your business, specifically addressing hours of operation, truck traffic, material handling, typical length of time materials are grown on site, irrigation methods used on site, storage of materials, and . number of employees. 7. There was discussion at the meeting as to whether your busi- ness falls under the classification of a wholesale nursery or I I • ' Mr. Mark Van Hoef January 10, 1989 Page 2 a contractor' s yard. You should provide justification that your business is a wholesale nursery, pursuant to City Code. Enclosed please find copies of the definition for both and standards for conditional use permits for both. 8 . Address how your application complies with the conditional use permit standards in Section 20-232, and Section 20-257. ' If your business fits the definition of a contractor' s yard, you would be subject to Section 20-255 and Section 20-257. 9 . The proposed plans should include a property survey. ' Pending submittal of the above items and referral to appropriate agencies, staff will reschedule this matter before the Planning ' Commission. As this information will need to be referred to agencies, submittal of this information will need to be made as if this was a new application. The next submittal date is ' January 23rd for the February 15, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. I look forward to receiving the information referenced above. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, ji )LaTIZI„-- Steph n Hanson Planning Director SH:v ' Enclosures 1 1 1 i I 11 • r CITY O F •C. DATE: Jan. 4, 1989 CHANBILSEDI C.C. :: 85u: 'TE: Jan. 3 1989 \ r CASE : & 88-1 IIA Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT -1 PROPOSAL: 1. Conditional Use Permit for Expansion of a Wholesale Nursery Operation 2. Wetland Alteration Permit for Alteration of a 2 Class A Wetland Q 3 . Setback Variance V LOCATION: 9150 Great Plains Boulevard a. Q APPLICANT: Northwest Nursery Wholesale Mark VanHoef 9150 Great Plains Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 39.48 acres DENSITY: /I ADJACENT ZONING I AND LAND USE: N- A-2; single family residence S- A-2; agricultural I E- A-2; single family residence Q ' W- A-2; agricultural II W WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. 1 PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class A wetland in the 1 northwest corner of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural i1 i- 1011 I° •�� . J m . . �, RSF, _ _ 2 .�� R1 .2 •13F wo.. -._ . Q • . . • W o-- --\\--, . u B. EVARD R. 11:1 •I, Ir / 1 • v(i. 1 411 111; RD 1 • A2 D = Ut u.........___ ,l_ ..,/,, IL 1 LAKE I/gyp i 1 —* l SF R/LEY IhPC./0.1 :'-# P%Si P'11 /6 6' - r 5 � I I MIMI i• ' C D r"- POND i !T •- i% .•iiii ti :RAIL (C.R.14 .--- i 1 i► - i 0v DX* 10 2 Q 1 20 4v / I 0 30c di -- C`rs • . k•_• — — 4r Northwest Nursery January 4, 1989 Page 2 I ANALYSIS Proposal 1 Northwest Nursery is proposing to expand their wholesale nursery operation requiring a modification of their existing conditional use permit. Implementation of the proposed land also involves a wetland alteration permit and a variance. Each of these appro- vals is discussed separately in this report. Fore the con- venience of the public, it is suggested that staff present all three items simultaneously during the public hearing process. Conditional Use Permit ' The applicant is requesting modification of an existing conditional use permit to expand a wholesale nursery operation. On February 4, 1985, the City Council approved a permit including a site plan which identified the existing house and barn, buildings "A" through "D" , a yard area, proposed planting screens and a large growing range encompassing the entire western portion of the site. A new site plan dated August 12, 1988, stamped "Received December 12, 1988" identifies many of these same facilities but is more definitive in breaking down the growing range areas of the site. The new plan calls for the creation of a pond in the north central portion of the site and a shade structure east of the existing house which serves as a main office. Both of these items are addressed later in this report. Additionally, the plan calls for a secondary structure that is shown on the overall site plan does not appear to be of the same shape or dimension of the actual structure that exists on the property. Northwest Nursery is not proposing any changes in use. The busi- ness will continue to operate in the same manner that it has since it was first approved in 1985. Only the site plan configuration which is part of the formal permit is actually changing. Of the site plan modifications, only one causes concern. TH 101 is currently under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Eventual construction of the second access will require a permit from MnDOT. Plans for the construction of TH 212 may impact the area around the nursery property. Since exact details of such plans are unknown at this time, it is advisable that the City defer approval of the second access until a later date when right-of-way and alignment plans are finalized. RECOMMENDATION - Conditional Use Permit Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt .the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #85-1 based on the plans stamped "Received December 12, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: ' I Northwest Nursery January 4, 1989 Page 3 1 . The applicant shall comply with Section 20-257 (Conditional Use Standards for wholesale nurseries) of the Chanhassen City I Code. 2 . The applicant shall submit a new site plan drawing that accurately depicts the location of the shade structures and all other buildings and features. 3 . Approval of the site plan specifically excludes the second access along the northern portion of the property. If desired by the applicant at a later date, the driveway loca- tion will require a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and modification of the conditional use permit by the City. ' Wetland Alteration Permit The Northwest Nursery property contains both Class A and Class B 1 wetlands. The approximate locations of the wetland boundaries are shown on the applicants site plan. The areas labeled Class III correspond to the City' s Class A wetlands the Class II areas correspond to the Class B wetlands . Under City Code, a wetland alteration permit is required for development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. Additionally, a permit is required for any digging, dredging or filling in a Class A or B wetland. The Northwest Nursery site plan does not call for the disturbance of the Class A wetland area. The plan does, however, include construction within the Class B wetland. Within the Class B area, the applicant is proposing to remove a number of old stumps and create two ponding areas, a small one at the west end of the site and a large one approximately 550 feet to the east. The two ponds will be connected by a proposed drainage ditch. On November 30, 1983, a group of people including representatives ' of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, EPA and City of Chanhassen walked the site with Mark VanHoef and Mice Nugent of the Northwest Nursery to review all of the proposed improvements. During the visit, the approximate boundaries of the Class A and Class B wetlands were identified by the represen- tative from the Corps of Engineers. Northwest Nursery' s plan has been reviewed by both the Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Due to the holidays, the City has not received written comments from either ' agency at the time of the assembly of this report. Both Jerry Smith of the Corps and Paul Burke of the Fish and Wildlife Service have verbally indicated that the proposed plan is accep- table. Written comments should be available for presentation at the Planning Commission meeting. 1 • C- Northwest Nursery January 4, 1989 Page 4 I RECOMMENDATION - Wetland Alteration Permit Based upon the review of both the Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, staff recommends approval of the proposed wetland modifications. It is suggested that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-1 based on the plans stamped "Received December 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas designated as Class A wetlands shall remain undisturbed. 2. Disturbance of the Class B wetlands shall be limited to the I improvements identified on the applicant's site plan stamped "Received December 12, 1988" . 3. All excavated material shall be placed in upland areas. 4. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 20-440 of the Chanhassen City Code. 5. Prior to any excavation of fill activity, all improvements shall be staxed in the field and field conditions shall oe reviewed by a representative of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other individual acceptable to the City. (Note: The above conditions may be modified and/or supplemented II based upon written comments from review agencies. ) Variance During the summer of 1988, Northwest Nursery constructed a shade 1 structure to protect heat sensitive plants. Although no building permit was issued, the structure was approved by city staff for immediate construction due to the hot, dry conditions that existed during June, July and August. The shade structure con- sists of a series of 4 x 4 posts and 2 x 8 ' support joists with a snow fence roof to screen sunlight. The overall height of the structure is 10 feet. Under Section 20-257 of the Chanhassen City Code, all storage yard areas and buildings must be setback 100 feet from public rights-of-way. The required setback was not observed during construction of the building. The following is a summary of the events that occurred: I June 13, 1988 - The City received a letter from Mike Nugent, Manager of Northwest Nursery stating that they intended to 1 . Northwest Nursery ' 1 January 4, 1989 Page 5 build a shade house with approximate dimensions of 85 ' x 110' . ' July 6 , 1988 - Jo Ann Olsen wrote a letter to Mark VanHoef of Northwest Nursery confirming a conversation regarding the shade structure. The letter specifically referenced that a 100 foot setback was required for all storage areas and ' structures. July 15 , 1988 - The Chanhassen Building Inspector visited the ' site and noted that a portion of the structure was located 117' from the centerline of TH 101 and that due to the 66' right-of-way width, the structure should be a minimum of 133' from the centerline of the road. The inspector advised the ' applicant that the shade house would have to be moved 16 feet in order to comply with required setbacks. ' July 21, 1988 - The Chanhassen Building Inspector visited the site and issued a stop work order for the portion of the structure that was not in compliance with the required set- backs. At that time, the southeast portion of the shade house was complete and construction was suspended on the northeast portion. September 12, 1988 - Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector, wrote a memorandum to Jo Ann Olsen stating that portions of the structure are in violation of the zoning ordinance. He ' further recommended that the portions in violation be removed before any further permits are granted. To date, the applicant has not submitted a registered survey of the property locating both boundary lines and existing features. All references of the location of the shade house are based on field measurements by the Building Inspector and non-survey plans ' submitted by Northwest Nursery. Because of a lack of definitive field data, the location and setback of the shade structure can only be considered approximate. The information available is 11 reasonably accurate for the purposes of analyzing the required Variance. ' The shade structure that now exists has an overall envelope dimension of 36.5 ' x 90' with a 12' x 48' notch out of the northeast corner. At the closest point, the structure has a 68 foot setback from the right-of-way line for TH 101. Only the southwest corner of the structure actually observes the required 100 foot setback. The existing configuration results in the application for the 32 foot variance from the required 100 foot ' setback. In accordance with the City Code, the actual decision on the variance is made by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Sicne the variance is part of the conditional use permit, it is I Northwest Nursery January 4, 1989 Page 6 I appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer their comments and make a recommendation to the Board. In reviewing the variance request, the Planning Commission should consider the criteria for granting variance as stated in Section 20-58 of the City Code. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts: A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures in the same district. C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- ' vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- I sequence of a self-created hardship. E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Additionally, the nature of the structure and the status of TH 101 are also relevant factors. As the Planning Commission knows, the eventural jurisdiction and improvement of TH 101 is unknown at this time. The City is actively pursuing plans to improve 101 south to the planned interchange with new TH 212. The comprehensive plan calls for improvement of the entire route. Since eventual plans for the section of the road that abuts Northwest Nursery are unknown at this time, it is impossible to predict if additional right-of-way will be needed in the future. Maintaining a 100 foot setback certainly assures that the property will be available should additional right-of-way be needed. Allowing lesser setbacks may compromise future options. The existing shade house is considered a permanent structure by the Building Inspector because the posts are anchored in concrete. Since the structure does not contain interior or exterior walls and has only snow fence for a roof, it could be relocated relatively easily with an almost total salvage of materials. RECOMMENDATION - Variance I Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' • 1 y' Northwest Nursery January 4, 1989 1 Page 7 ' "The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals find the requst to be inconsistent with the conditions for granting a variance and therefore deny the requested 32 foot ' setback variance. The Northwest Nursery shad house should be relo- cated in such a mannter that all of the structure observes the required 100 foot setback." 1 I r I I I I I I 1 I I KEVIN S. AND VALETTE FINGER 9151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 445-2612 December 28, 1988 ' Planning Commission City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 1 Dear Commission Members: I am writing this letter in response to the Northwest Wholesale 1 Nursery, Inc. 's (Nursery) application for zoning amendment. It is my understanding that the Nursery is requesting to build a shade structure to come within 200' of a water shed. I DO NOT FEEL THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS. My reasoning is of a very basic nature. The Nursery has shown NO respect for others property in the past and I feel they will go beyond what you would allow, as they are currently doing. They basically have no respect for the property of others. It is ' my opinion that if you allow them to build the shade structure they will continue to dump more junk and fill into the water shed area and eventually take advantage of the situation and remove the water shed area, and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL remove the animal cover in the winter time. I also hereby request that the planning commission review the ' Nursery's current permits. This request is because they are not operating as they represented they would at the time their per- mits were issued. , Let us first review my first contention that they do not respect other peoples' property. We have owned the property directly across Highway 101 from the Nursery for the same period of time the Nursery has owned their land. In the summer of 1986 we noticed that the type of watering system they were operating to water the shrubs on the hill facing Highway 101 was draining on to our property uncontrollably through a culvert under the high- way. We spoke to them in the fall of 1986, the spring and summer of 1987 and the summer of 1988. All they have done is gone to a different type of watering system, which has NOT alleviated the problem. We have now lost five nice evergreens, two forty-foot rows of good producing raspberry bushes and have received, through erosion, approximately eight to twelve inches of sand and bark through this culvert. DEC :! e 1988 CITY OF CHANhAaS.N ' C ' Page 2 Planning Commission December 28, 1988 ' . We have spoken to them on numerous occasions and they refuse to do anything; I have spoken to the city engineer and he puts us on ' the back burner and does nothing for us. In the Nursery's original meetings with the Planning Commission the Nursery stated they "would not hurt any of the surrounding properties". They ' have hurt us since day one and are unwilling to cooperate with us. ' My suggestions to take care of the problem and return things to the way they were is to: 1 ) Block the culvert that runs under Highway 101 just south of the Nursery's driveway. 2) Excavate a ditch along Highway 101 to handle all the run off the Nursery should have. 3) The Nursery should re-excavate their driveway in a man- ner that would eliminate us receiving all their gravel and bark. These are items that have been discussed with the Nursery before and they refuse to do anything, they have not even come up with a counter proposal . My second area of concern was that of reviewing their permit to operate as a nursery. If you will review the comments made at ' their hearing in 1985 you will see that they assured the planning commission that they would be a "tree farm". It is true that they do grow trees. However, the greatest share of their busi- ness is that of a broker. They are constantly having semis haul trees in and out during the spring and summer. There is also a great deal of noise coming from there, due to the two Bobcats they have. These machines run from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM every day including Saturday. If they were in fact operating a "tree grow- ing nursery" the noise would be substantially less (ie. there would not be the amount of Bobcat noise that there currently is) and there would not be the volume of large truck traffic that there is now. With a "tree growing nursery" we would also have the peaceful country atmosphere that was there when we first purchased the property. ' I believe this operation has gone far beyond the original an- ticipated guidelines set forth by this commission. For this 1 reason I request that you do not give this business any further considerations. I further request you review their previous request and compare it to their current operations to determine if they are in fact operating within the guidelines that they 1 themselves had previously set forth. 1 1 II Page 3 I Planning Commission December 28, 1988 i Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We look forward to a favorable decision declining the Nursery's request. II Sincerely, II II II II II II II 1 II II II , II 1 II I D 7 �� ID4K.Aviv INVOICE 51142�� AM*EAPOUS • OENVER • PHOENIX I - City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive DATE: November 30, 1988 Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8839 I ATN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE City Engineer 4 • ii I..,. II i) li Billing No.: 39-1 For professional services rendered and provided by BRW Staff Personnel assigned il to the City of Chanhassen. Billing is consistent with our Services Agreement ' Proposal dated March 25, 1988. I A II II 1 This invoice is for employee hours related to Deerbrook Subdivision Inspection. I 1 ' Hrly Employee Employee Classification Hours Rate Amount -� i Ron Technician III 21.0 34.11 $ 716.31 • � f Gregg_ IEXPENSES: Mileage 22.71 1. TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 739.02 II ITotal Billed to Date: $ 739.02 CRY OF rillgitriSSPI , :14 og-- #e ('"`"11 POMO .1 %ILL 4c) 1)141 DEC o0 om:. 1a lu3 EMPRIFERin E-7,17, li . r 1 BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SOLNRE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 112/3700700 oENT OF ry ■ I TAKE � United States Department of the Interior ►�• ,onvitt FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE swam as "''d 3."'` ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE (ES) ms 50 Park Square Court is REPLY REFER TO: 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 SPFO December 9, 1988 ' M s. JoAnn Olsen, n O1 en, Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen: ' We have reviewed the comments contained in Mr. Mark Koegler's memorandum dated November 30, 1988, regarding the Northwest Nursery Wholesale, Inc. , project. We concur with the details provided in the memorandum and we reiterate our offer to review the final project staking prior to fill placement activities. ' If you have any further questions regarding this project, please contact Mr. Paul Burke of my staff at your convenience. Sincerely, ,i•,.• y / James L. - pith Asst. Field Supervisor • I 1 • Imanwnf NORTH WEST NURSERY WHOLESALE RMERV WHOLEIALE 9150 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. CHASKA, MN 55318 612/445-4088 December 5, 1988 MEMO ' To: JoAnn Olsen From: North West Nursery Wholesale, Inc. Date: December 5, 1988 Subject: Follow-up Site Plan North West Expansion Comments: 1. Enclosed please find revised site plan as requested from our meeting of November 30th at the Nursery. Please note that both Class II and Class III Wetlands have been denoted per Mr. Jerry Smith's recommendation. Also find proposed relocation of pond area. 2. After review of Mr. Mark Koegler's memorandum I would question his notation of : "A portion of the field area is ' in Type II (U.S. Fish & Wildlife) Wetland area and cannot be filled." My understanding was that this area in ques- tion was not Class II Wetlands, and that Mr. Smith flagged the appropriate boundaries which exempted Field "A" from Wetland compliance. Otherwise, I was in full agreement with all information recapped by Mr. Mark Koegler. Sincerely, \IAKin) MARK VAN HOEF • 1 1 ' I -. Van Ilona* Hazard StaliingY_, 1liatirets.Enpror.•n..�.R MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen ' FROM: Mark Koegler DATE: November 30 , 1988 SUBJECT: Summary of meeting held at Northwest Nursery Wholesale , Inc. on November 30 , 1988 IN ATTENDANCE: Mark VanHoff, Northwest Nursery Wholesale , Inc . Mike Nugent , Northwest Nursery Wholesale , Inc . Jerry Smith , U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Paul Burke , U . S. Fish and Wildlife Service Catherine Grissom Garra, U.S . EPA, Region V Water Division , Chicago Mark Koegler , VHS , Inc . , Representing the City of Chanhassen ' COMMENTS: A field review of the site was conducted focusing on the three areas that are outlined on the attached sheets . Area E which lies at the northeast corner of the site was the first area observed . Federal agency representatives did not have any problems with fill activities in area E providing that the limits of fill generally correspond to the extension of the east/west plane of the northern wall of the existing shade structure. This would generally allow the nursery to fill the area down to and including the 892 contour shown on the plan . ' Area A is the site proposed as a future tree growing field . According to federal agency representatives , a portion of the field area is within the Type II (U .S. Fish & Wildlife) wetland area and can not be filled . Mr. VanHoff was informed that the nursery can grow trees within the area and , if necessary, can conduct plowing operations within the growing field area . If needed , the nursery can also construct an access road along the southwest portion of the growing field providing that the road generally follows the toe of the existing slope. Area C contains both Type II and Type ype III wetlands as classified by the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The pond as shown on the site plan dated "Received August 29 , 1988 " is not acceptable I DEC 0 1988 I 3030 Harbor Lane North BIdq.I1, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612J5it3I Y1SI1Pr1ti1"•" i because it lies within the Type III wetland . The line of delineation between the two wetland types is generally consistent with the eastern edge of the proposed pond . Representatives stated that they could support fill and the construction of the pond within the Type II wetland which comprises the area identified on the plan as "Proposed Shrub Growing Field * Exhibit B" . Wetlands in Areas A and C were located in the field by Jerry Smith with orange flagging. After review of the site , Mark VanHoff indicated that he would revise the site plan to show the wetlands as marked in the field and modification of the proposed pond . Upon completion , he will forward copies of the plan to the City of Chanhassen for review by the Planning Commission and City Council . Upon receipt of the ' plan , the Corps and Fish and Wildlife Service will respond with appropriate comments in writing . Paul Burke indicated that he would review the staking of the proposed pond improvements prior to initiation of construction if desired by the City of Chanhassen . Please advise me if, in your review of this memo , you find that your interpretation of any of the subject matter varies . R. Mark r Koe 1 g e cc : Paul Burke Catherine Grissom Garra Jerry Smith Mark VanHoff I 11 • i 11 - 7. - e - I ; • . kt-1.- 12, ...-• ...--3 i 0 , . w r = E ; iP-4 ! ?• i R ; fn , 1 ■ WM ,\ 4•■■■■■ Imo mop i.. 1 ... ... l" .• aC tft •■ .41 • .1.li 1 i ; 1 t " i .2 .... . 1 : = .$., . . i ■ •• r4 • . !' o P • • .. , = ,. z i • • fi. 7 3•• it li li . .. t ••■ ( . • .1? \,: 1. C I CI 710 1 I i f a; i •• ' . c at. „ . . g I ill • 0 . 79: ,___-_,c....-2,0--r• ...:.‘.... 1 I V i•t 4 I II ,______. . .... ,. xv 0 1 • t i k .'. ' I • ' - A r f I i 'I.- II )1. 1 i: ( • Ill!'I - i Ili 1.,. _ rn ) 1 ir ., t • . • 7 . I■Z.- , Z • .. I i 4 k 'i i I : ; • .1i• '\ rt , 1 * : '' •••■ •••• 1. t•1. i i ( • II 4 & • . : ; X - ‘•' •• i 't fl •:. .4 •• n AlSit ' if t . .. •h M. g \ II ■!i ,•• :1,i • •• \ ( • • 1 n I i - I . , - - - ..' ..e \ :- AIRcwit441 „.. . \ I ..0 vs\ .. N. I \,.\, warLfra4tD s -- 4.4.4.4... -A. ) I I \gratteVANAT - ,, ‘1”. •-=. etiOhler." • - I . • • N. ---- I ,-•-• \ 1 •,,. • . .. NIIiiilio-:- \\, -':::-- :=— ;?1,44:,-ii..., - . ,• ,,,, i ), !% Irp. ii V....ED k • \I :• Fr 'llt fr•LI:, . \ t s-- ! .■ .,,,, . • ' -. . i 4 .- ...\‘ * E.* do de ■ ---,2\.. % ir I so Moo – - - ... -. ' • _ 4 L.. ,......‘ ' '.__,Aile- /iii.............• 1 1 - • - 6 ..ii 1,1,.• ,,i 9e, i ....n I i ri 51•44:e. .i...-• i\ \ \, t .',-, I # t` Tt‘r-r.:•A % . • "--/;)( IP:: ...-. g 1 e i • e • s •• ...i' • , 1 : ; N. X\t., N ; N % ‘ ' ‘N, \ I • iiii110... . ..\000. )' I a7 1 ,s- •••■ ‘•• \ .. . . s•ji...1 ... N , . 144 III.x .1, - .. . ..1 _ Iv. &'). 1,, IA . isets •0, :t ! _ . . "V•INNIM> Am • .4. .,_ ( I bi rj ; . • 7'1,11, ‘ ■111/ I \ 4., rfit.gif NJ • (1 /. , I W1E-E.'S ) APRIsi • i . . •••,„_ 11, '5■64 f1/4LM s.I4N-1.• r .ipqr 4 , 1 , . ..t. ,./, tJ \ \•• ik ,ft.,A 1 • . Hitir- ; . . N.4- ,ttl of . , 11 il I ---.. $. ■% y , ik , - ...---„,...„ _ '4.1 • --• . .... I rif v ,. it. . ,i . .... -_., ,m.'7, • ., "Ipp::\%110 I' '.» larl, Mitt 0 I loi =+� -- • I 14 \ . I \I, \\ \\ s 11 '•, `r.1 ; R --.1":4 1: 21%1D / y \ , ' , i Y‘ _A\ . .,; rE 1211=L • ,E ititilik�` _.". lit' (`mod , V.\-•'%%\` 4 , oir.A • j \ Afl r. ,+I ear- ` ,� �,' : N. _i. S \\ 4\ •"Art or veils I ( ft / Arik g‘"/ \ i 4 1 • !Wi; _ „,,, -, , i . . ,1 , A 4- I t '. - goo l \ ie. MS"Meta gi _,-,44 t r i . CM . : . i ri Ai? mom Y p5P- `k .. i( ..-itirill-Ei'4'P-.4%. L'-: ‘ 1 V. -‘,--1.71.6.-n illiV . 11 I 1 - %4094410E-Digiii..) r 1 1%,. - kt. . I \41 r. w 1 I•I I ' .e I 4'fi,:,r4.:. -- ti •,,-.„, .., , i - WED I • .r��Mrwe WAY �. E 11/"SXPIftwrr.GI Ii 1—* 4-44ewahl lo ----- i M _ s k )k • Mark Roegler and Future City Planner II November 3, 1988 Page 2 II 3. Northwest Nursery - The Northwest Nursery needs to receive a conditional use permit for expansion of the wholesale nursery I fl')47m and a wetland alteration permit for alteration to the Class A wetland. I spoke with Mark VanHoff today (11/2/88) and they will be making application on November 7 for the December 7, I 1988 Planning Commission meeting. The revised plans need to show the exact location of the wetland on the site and staff will be meeting with Mark VanHoff and Paul Burke and hope- fully somebody from the Corps of Engineers to determine the I exact boundaries of the wetland. 4. Pfankuch/Frost (80 & 100 Sandy Hook Road) - These two residents II reside on Lotus Lake. In the summer of 1988, they filled in a portion of a wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake, claiming that they did so to remove purple loosestrife. Staff visited the site with Paul Burke from the Fish and Wildlife Service and I determined that a wetland was filled and some of the fill should be removed to permit the wetland to return to the site. It was felt that filling in the wetland was not the proper II way to remove purple loosestrife and in fact has not removed purple loosestrife from the site. All of the information is in Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13. I (Vicki - I will be writing a letter to the involved parties stating that they must submit a wetland alteration permit application. Please send a copy of this letter to Mark and II he can refer to file for more information. ) 5. Tree Protection Plan - Alan Olson (DNR Forester) during the I winter months of 1988 and 1989 will be identifying and inven- torying forested areas within the city boundaries of Chanhassen. This will involve aerial photography and on site field checking. Mr. Olson should have his field work II completed by March of 1989. The purpose of this is to designate important stands of trees which should be con- . - sidered to be preserved by the city from development. There I should not be too much staff involvement at this point, but be aware that this is in the works if the City Council asks what the status of it is. A file is being made with the II information in it. • 6. Retail West Shopping Center - Jim Winkels representing the Retail West development is in the process of pursuing Planning II • Commission and City Council approval for the shopping center sign. The site plan approval for the shopping center required that the sign receive Planning Commission and City Council II approval. Staff has been working with Mr. Winkels and Jim Lasher from BRW to provide a design that meets city ordinance requirements and also meets with the downtown redevelopment plans. Currently, there are many illegal signs on the site II and staff has stated to Mr. Winkels that these have to be I • II • CITOF CHANHASSEN ' \ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ' TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector DATE: September 12, 1988 ' SUBJ: Planning Case CUP 85-1 WAP (Northwest Nursery) I Applicant constructed a shade structure this past summer on the north side of the office. Portions of the structure are in violation of current zoning oruinances. This should be removed before any further permits are granted. • 1 1 1 IALM^^SnnTATE OF IIESOU L DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I PHONE NO.296-7523 METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS FILENO 1200 Warner Rd. , St. Paul, MN 55106 September 8, 1988 , Ms. JoAnn Olsen City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: EXPANSION OF A WHOLESALE NURSERY, COUNTY ROAD 18 AND HIGHWAY 101 Dear Ms. Olsen: Thank you for submitting the master plan for the above referenced proposal. The area south of County Road 18 and west of Highway 101 contains a 37 acre, Type 3, Department of Natural Resources protected wetland. Therefore, any alterations below the ordinary high water elevation of this basin would require a DNR Protected Waters Permit, and development should be designed appropriately. , If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or Metro Hydrologist John Fax at 296-7523. Sincerely, Mike Peloquin Intern ' F293:kap p AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -r 7- , .-- �..� f A TAB�� , D United States Department of the Interior I `4,4 i mismermemmonm • . FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE :mum se • "'.`"'.al ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE (ES) IMO III I 50 Park Square Court IN REPLY REFER TO: SPFO 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 IJuly 11, 1988 Ms. JoAnn Olsen I Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 IDear Ms. Olsen: I In response to your June 30, 1988 request, Mr. Paul Burke of this office conducted our on-site review of four wetland sites within the City of Chanhassen. I I am enclosing herewith a copy of his report for your information. I If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, r.- "/ :;) Robes . Welford . /' Field Supervisor IAttachment I I I I ..;I; ., ii 98 I %::re 0 p CHANh.ASSI:N ., 2/ { Ik . `, 2 I, Site No. 2 II This is a wet-meadow type complex adjacent to the Northwest Nursery Co. site in Chanhassen. With the use of a plan view of the earthen work proposed by the nursery company, I was I able to identify, in approximate terms, the areas intended for the placement of fill. Starting at the north side of the nursery, near Highway 101, I. I found the proposed re-contouring will result in the loss of between 1/2 and 3/4 of an acre of palustrine emergent, saturated wetland (Circular 39 characteristic of Type 2) I with reed canary grass dominating the site. With only minor modifications, the nursery's plans can be completed resulting in only minimum loss of wetlands at the site. t On the west end of the nursery, i found a similar wetland characteristic, with evidence that the margins of the 111 wetlands have already been filled. I would estimate that approximately 1/2 of an acre of wetland has already been covered by fill dirt. The plan view was contoured with solid lines marking the existing land contours, and dashed I lines showing the proposed contours at the completion of their project. The plan view would indicate that a substantial portion of the tree and shrub lot at the western I most end of the nursery is situated on fill. It is my determination that the wetlands adjacent to the nursery (southwest of the barns) have been filled and that t no additional fill can be placed at the lower end of the site without placing fill in a wetland. If the nursery company intends to proceed with their site plans, they 1 should be advised to first contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Given the evidence of recently I deposited fill, I would recommend the land owner to contact the Corps of Engineers immediately, regardless. Site 3 I This is wet-meadow just off of Lake Lucy Lane, north of Chanhassen and near the intersection with Lake Lucy Road. The site, approximately two acres in size, is a palustrine I emergent, saturated, wetland (Circular 39 characteristic Type 2) dominated by reed canary grass, and cattails. The entire site is a Type 2 wetland, with the exception of minor I undulations near the upper periphery. The area was mowed some time just prior to our site visit, but the hydrophytic vegetation was left as thatch and easily identifiable. I Given the extent of the wetland boundary, no fill could be placed adjacent to the roadway, regardless of configuration, without fill being placed in wetlands. Any site plans that I IF . I • • O sOrq Minnesota Cy' W t ' F1L le Department of Transportation I District 5 cff 2055 No. Lilac Drive ''op 700 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 ' (612)593. 8403 11 October 24, 1988 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 In Reply Refer To: 315 ' S.P. 1009 T.H. 101 Plat review of Northwest Nursery Wholesale, Inc. located W. of T.H. 101 and South of Lyman Blvd. in City of Chanhassen Carver County Dear Ms. Olsen: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our ' review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505 .03 Plats and Surveys . We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following ' comments: - Proposed plat will affect existing wetland. DNR, Corp. of Eng. and Riley Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed permits will be required. Existing rate of runoff and drainage areas should be maintained. - It is recommended that access to T.H. 101 be limited to one driveway with right turn and by-pass lanes provided. A permit will be needed before any ' construction may begin on Mn/DOT right-of-way. - As you know, Mn/DOT is currently developing preliminary plans for future T.H. 212 which includes realignment of ' T.H. 101 near Lyman Blvd. This realignment could affect existing alignment on T.H. 101 as far south of Lyman Blvd. as 1000' (+/-) . Because the plan we received did not have exact dimensions on it, we are unable to determine any impact this might have on the plat. We would like to receive a plan with specific dimensions in relation to land corners so that a more detailed review may be made. An Equal Opportunity Employer I I• 1 Jo Ann Olsen October 24, 1988 Page 2 If you have any questions in regard to this review, contact Evan Green at 593-8537. Thank Please cooperation in this matter. you for your - - -- nc:: a ------ -- -- -,- W. . CrawfondWE. District Engineer , cc: Steve Keefe - Me ropolitan Council Roger Gustafson - Carver Co. 1 1 . 1 I 1 1)5)1-) II NORTH ME7T NORTH WEST NURSERY WHOLESALE 4LR]ERT II W HOL&ULE Lac. 9150 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. CHASKA, MN 55318 612/445-4088 I JANUARY 25, 1989 t... II MR. STEPHEN HANSON CITY OF CHANHASSEN P.O. BOX 147 ._ ' �' CHANHASSEN MN. 55317 Dear Mr. Hanson: In follow-up to your letter of January 10, I would II request that our application for Conditional Use Permit #85-1 and Wetland Alteration Permit #88-1 -be postponed. After considering the cost quotes received and the I timing involved concerning the additional requirements from the Planning Commission, we feel rescheduling our application for a later date would be more appropriate. II I will pursue obtaining the outlined requirements and contact your staff sometime in October or November. Thank you in advance for your assistance on our I expansion plans. Should you have any questions, please contact Jim Wilson or myself at 445-4088. II Sincerely, I 1'Y1c,.‘1r Vc". 1-1 yet 9R. Mark Van Hoef IIMVH/dr cc: Mr. Jim Parker II - Advance Surveying and Engineering I ! ( ` JAN 2 7 1989 CITI OF CHANHASSEN I __ / i 1 ...____ CITY OF i 1.--/ 11 :LI\ II CHANHASSEN ` I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II "7 (612) 937-1900 h` August 2, 1989 I Mr. Mark VanHoef 1 North West Nursery Wholesale 9150 Great Plains Boulevard II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mark: II On Friday, July 28, 1989, the City was informed that filling was taking place on your nursery site. There was concern as to whether the filling was occurring within protected wetlands and I if it was in violation of your conditional use permit. The Building Department visited the site on Friday, July 28, 1989 and was instructed by my department to place a stop work order until II it could be determined if the filling was in violation of the conditional use permit and/or the wetland ordinance. It was also determined on Friday that stockpiling of the dirt from trucks entering the site that day could continue, but could not be II placed near the area where the filling was occurring and that nothing could occur until proper erosion control was in place. I visited the site on Monday, July 31, 1989 with Steve Kirchman, II Building Inspector. Upon visiting the site it was found that filling was still occurring on site, that filling had gone beyond where it was stopped on Friday, and that the erosion control was not properly installed. At that time we replaced the stop work order sign from where it had been moved to the edge of the filled area and instructed employees on the site that all filling was to II cease and that no more dumping of fill could take place. The area that is being filled is not in a protected wetland but is directly adjacent to one, and the filling is an expansion of the II site over what was approved as a part of the 1985 conditional use permit. Therefore, what occurred on site is in violation of both the wetland ordinance and the 1985 conditional use permit. II Your conditional use permit and a wetland alteration P ermit were reviewed by the Planning Commission in January, 1989. Staff had directed you to go through this process since filling of the II wetlands had occurred and you wished to further expand the con- ditional use permit. At the Planning Commission meeting in January, 1989, there were many issues brought up over what II actually was permitted on site, drainage issues with neighboring r 1 Mr. Mark VanHoef August 2, 1989 Page 2 residences, etc. and the item was tabled until further infor- mation could be provided to the Planning Commission. The City then received a letter from you dated January 25, 1989, requesting that the application be postponed until fall of 1989. The Planning Department required you to make application to the ' City because of the expansion of the conditional use permit and the filling of a protected wetlands. Therefore, extension to the application should not have occurred and the Planning staff ' should have actively been pursuing the application. Since new violations have occurred on the site, it is necessary for the City to again require you to provide the information requested at the January Planning Commission and that the application con- tinue. Staff is requesting that the revised site plan and infor- mation requested by the Planning Commission in January, 1989 be submitted by the September 25, 1989 application deadline. The ' following are items that need to be submitted with the applica- tion: 1. Submittal of a new site plan that is legible and complies ' with the site plan requirements of the Zoning Code. Enclosed please find a site plan checklist. ' 2 . The site plan should clearly depict the location of all structures, existing topography, proposed grading and drainage improvements, and label each of the growing areas. 3. Detailed reasons and justification for the wetland alteration permit. Enclosed please find a detailed questionnaire for this purpose. 4. Provide grading and drainage plans addressing the issue raised by the- property owner across from your site. 5. Provide a detailed description of your business, specifically . addressing hours of operation, truck traffic, material handling, typical length of time that materials are grown on site, irrigation methods used on site, storage of materials and number of employees. 6. Provide justification that your business is a wholesale nur- sery pursuant to the City Code. Enclosed please find copies of the definition for both a wholesale nursery and contrac- tor' s yard and standards for such conditional use permits. 1 I 1 NORTH WEST NURSERY WHOLESALE .101110*HOLDALL NL AlAUD 9150 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. w*HOLDALL L "`' CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 (612)445-4088 August 14, 1989 ' City of Chanhassen Ms . . Joann Olson P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Dear Joann: Thank you' again for your time and assistance in explaining the procedures and actions North West Nursery Wholesale must pursue inorder to comply with your August 2 letter. I am currently working with Mr. James Parker of Advanced Surveying and Engineering Company in preparing the requested site information. I am, however , very concerned that despite this work and the expense involved - there still may exist the problem of clarification of "wholesale nursery" compliance. As I mentioned in our meeting Friday , these issues - were all discussed in length at the 1985 council meeting, at which, the zoning ordinances were ammended to allow for a wholesale nursery . During these discussions, I came prepared to detail the operations of a wholesale nursery. I offered at the final council meeting a complete review, including a slide presentation of the Bachman ' s wholesale operation located in Lakeville , Minnesota . This discussion did not occur. The reason given was that there did not seem to be a need for further discussion , no further problems or questions remained . I share this information with you at this time because there seems to be questions concerning the exact definition of a "wholesale nursery , " and North West Nursery compliance with that definition. Currently North ' West Nursery is one of nine operating wholesale nurseries within the Twin City market. North West Nursery business is that of supplying the landscape and garden center markets with nursery livegoods. On site we have approx- imately 15 acres in tree and evergreen field production, 2 - 3 acres of container production, and approximately 2 acres of holding area for • balled trees and evergreens. Our container site consist of container flowering shrubs and container evergreens all growing in plastic pots . Many of these shrubs come to the nursery as bare root shrubs in early spring - they are then potted, fertilized, and watered, until grown into saleable sizes. The evergreen ' s growing in pots also are shipped into the nursery yard in early spring, and are fertilized and ' grown on site until saleable. G161989 a i Y OF CHANH • ///,//////0/ Page 2 Joann, I must stress that all nursery stock sold at North West Nursery goes through a period of our growing, ' prunning, watering, and fertilizing. This is consistent with all wholesale nurseries in this market area. North West Nursery is not a retail operation, landscape ' contractor , nor nursery broker . I am hopeful that this information will clear up any concerns that we do not comply with the definition ' of a "wholesale nursery. " I am continuing to work toward preparing all the necessary data for our expansion approval - I 'm doing so on the basis that the wholesale ' nursery issue will not prevent our future operations at the Chanhassen site. Thanks again for your help. Please contact me should you have any further questions. Sincerely, ' Mark Van Hoef MVH/dr • 1 1 1 I 1 I KEVIN S. AND VALETTE FINGER 9151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 HAND DELIVERED July 31, 1989 ' Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen: As you are well aware we have had a problem with the North West Nursery Wholesale, (the Nursery) , located at 9150 Great Plains Blvd. in Chanhassen for quite sometime. Until now my comments have been limited to telephone calls and city meetings. This letter is written to take a somewhat different approach. I am hereby filing with you, and the individuals listed as receiving copies of this letter, a Formal Complaint against the Nursery. I feel the Nursery is in violation of the conditions of its conditional use permit. It is quite clear to me that the Nursery has violated two conditions of their permit: ' 1. The Nursery has NOT operated as a "wholesale nurs- ery" as defined by the City's ordinances. ' 2. The Conditional Use Permit 85-1, which pertains to this property, was approved by the planning commis- sion and the city council based on the site plan submitted with the application. As of this date the Nursery has NOT, despite letters from the city planner, planted the necessary screening and in fact has altered the site plan to fit its needs. As you are aware, I have reviewed the City's file in regard to this situation. Upon reviewing this file I noted various situa- tions in regard to the property that I feel need to be addressed. On January 23, 1985 the Chanhassen planning commission met. In Mr. Van Hoef's remarks the minutes read, "He also wanted the Com- mission to know that they only harvest in the spring and fall and the storage would be for these crops (burlapped) until, sold. " The definition of a nursery is as follows (from Section 4 of Zoning Ordinance No. 47) : 1 II 1 Page 2 July 31, 1989 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen Nurseries: An enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site as well as accessory items ' directly related to their care and maintenance (but not including power equipment such as gas or engine lawn mowers and farm implements) . ' From all appearances Mr. Van Hoef knew what the definition of a nursery was. He stated to the planning commission that he would operate his business as a nursery. Ever since the spring of 1985 the Nursery has not operated under the guidelines set forth in the ordinance. All through the spring, summer and fall there are semis bringing trees in. Even if someone does not believe that ' there are semis bringing trees in, all you have to do is look at the yard. It does not take a very intelligent person to look and realize the amount and variety of potted and balled and burlapped trees and shrubs cannot be grown on their 39 acres. ' By observation alone (it isn't even necessary to look at their records to determine the number of shipments they have received ' this year) one can tell the Nursery is NOT growing the trees they sell ON SITE. This is clearly a MAJOR violation of the Condi- tional Use Permit No. 85-1 that was issued to Northwest Nursery ' Wholesale. According to the permit that was issued the Nursery was to be laid out as per the site plan submitted with the permit applica- II Accordingly a planting screen was to be put in. There were communications between the staff and Mr. Van Hoef inregards to this. Mr. Van Hoef assured the staff that this would be taken ' care of by June 1, 1987. To this day there has not been a per- manent planting screen installed. This is another direct viola- tion of the Conditional Use Permit No. 85-1 that was issued to the Nursery. The City's staff has been aware of this and has been negligent in follow up on this matter. In 1988 Mr. Van Hoef decided that he would expand the Nursery's ' yard. He did this by first expanding to the west, then when he decided to put up a shade structure he found that his usual tac- tics of doing first, then getting approval did not work. He was ' then forced to ask to have his site plan revised. He was given a list of nine items that were necessary for his permit to be looked at again by the commission. Keep in mind, he was not given any approval to expand his yard or operate other than as a wholesale nursery. 1 1 Page 3 July 31, 1989 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen Attached you will find pictures that I took of this site on July 30, 1989. These pictures are taken so that there is a permanent, visual record of the site as of this date. From these pictures you can see that the Nursery has gone beyond what was approved in the site plan as approved for the Conditional Use Permit No. 85- 1. You can also note that from the view from my property that there is no plant screening. Upon reviewing these pictures in depth you will also see that there are many plants on the site, far more than what could have been grown there. Especially when you look up at the growing field and see it full. In the January 18 , 1985 analysis issued by the staff, Ms Dacy, stated that "the proposed use should not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties". Based on this and other information (ie. the site plan) the staff recommended that the planning com- mission adopt the motion for the permit. I am not taking issue with the Nursery out of spite, I am taking issue with the Nursery because they have damaged my property and have turned our peace- ful setting into the constant noise of Bobcat machines and semis running from early in the morning to after supper. If they were truly operating as a wholesale nursery I would not have the drainage problems nor would I have to put up with the excessive noise. I have sustained a great deal of damage to my property due to the excessive drainage from the Nursery. A culvert runs underneath Highway 101 from the Nursery to my property. The normal rainfall water is not a problem. The nursery waters their trees con- stantly, because of this we have a constant stream of water run- ning on to our property. This water has brought with it ten to twelve inches of sand over a two hundred square foot area on my property. It has also killed off fifteen, five foot blue spruce evergreens. This damage will cost me over two thousand dollars to repair and replace. Keep in mind the drainage used to be ade- quate (when the drainage came from a field a grass) it is no longer adequate when the water runs constantly. The noise I have experienced is not that of a wholesale nursery. ' In our immediate area there are two places that this can be com- pared to. The first is on Pioneer Trail in Eden Prairie. There are a couple of fields operated by Minnesota Valley Nursery. I stood and listened one day as the men were extracting (harvesting) trees. In a four hour period the Bobcat only ran for approximately twenty minutes. You see, most of the work in harvesting is manual, not machine. The other place is Halle Nursery. C I I Page 4 ' July 31, 1989 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen This is not o a good comparison as Halla also has retail trade and ' thus you would think more noise. The only noises I heard was cars pulling in and out. Halla does not unload semis of trees from other growers as does North West Nursery Wholesale. It be- came quite apparent to me, as it would to you if you performed ' the same study, that a wholesale nursery does not produce the amount of noise that the North West Nursery Wholesale does. ' As I sit back and look at this whole situation, one thing comes to my mind. If the Nursery had-and-or-would operate as a wholesale nursery I would not have any complaints against them. Let's pause for a moment and analyze this: ' 1. Problem #1 - Noise. A wholesale nursery ONLY harvests trees that it grows on its own property. The Nursery ' only has 39 acres. Take away the buildings etc. and there can't be over 35 acres. The amount of trees they could grow would limit the noise. Generally trees, after planting are in the ground two to four years. The rate at which trees would be harvested would also limit the noise. ' 2 . Problem #2 - Drainage. A wholesale nursery would have the field effecting me planted with trees. None of the other nurseries around irrigate their growing farms. ' You see I am not asking the City to do anything more than to en- force the ordinances it sets forth. This has been a problem for ' y quite sometime now. I have over the past three years asked the Nursery to resolve these problems. All I have received from them is promises that have never come true. I assumed that last January, upon the City receiving absolute knowledge of the viola- tions, the City would begin taking action, but as this has gone in the past it was evidently been put on a shelf. I understand there may be other items you have on your agenda that may be more ' important to you; however let me make this perfectly clear THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. It would seem to me that when a busi- ness operates so far beyond the law, for so long and with total ' disregard for the law the city should be very concerned about the situation. Let's keep in mind that in the January 4., 1989 City planning commission meeting Mr. Van Hoef was made aware in no un- certain terms by Mr. Emmings, of the planning commission, •that he was operating in direct contradiction to the law. 1 I Page 5 July 31, 1989 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen In this particular situation I feel the City would be setting a very dangerous precedent if it decided to do nothing. What are other businesses or property owners to think if they know that as long as their violations are way down on the City's priority list and as long as they have been in violation for quite some time they do not have to worry about coming into compliance. ' I want to thank you in advance for your prompt and courteous at- tention to this matter. Sincerely, Kevin S. Finger Enclosures cc. Mr. Ladd Conrad cc. Mr. Scott Harr cc. City Council - City of Chanhassen 1 1 1 i • ' EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 2 1 - •,. -- r " �' 1. • • ; el-.3c. - View of property from the East • I 1 1 1 - 1 I EXHIBIT A I Page 2 of 2 • • h .J • l • - c- Vl-�r:1 1.-i i �" is ' .r ?Nr ,...4. . 4•' ... }"" ". r .Kyr- �r r• - jy..� `- t - `'_ - _-a+f."---- 1_ _ psi .-• , -.t E- _ - -� i n` .-Y - ` _•..�wr.l- .yJ•'�.--rte ti-d- �"I�- -a4' ti- nyr..... . -; --�. ---..-- F`• .._c - .�.Ja6. i :�.-�'Y`i+ ...t' .:I..�.R'^,yi ..�1,�]aa.[. .yam.- .�r, ...ry.s•:.�K' - . ..../"� �-�.,.ygy,.,.r.w t_"_.a.,�y �,t•_: s_i_wwf 3• �1 '!�Y� Zd-ti''a'•'�_ Y.•te�,.�i�'W.:,yt�► v.r_ lcK-: ••c'F• L Y.t sue` + • • t• , ...•?' 4-.' `�, .'f : iZ y��,_+•••• ..� . 1p ♦ T- ' _.ice. virf 47 `' iFS"`'.3 1.f a,,-,. • `•• r i`� • a Y� • } ."'y_ om y..„A ' :T .1. ..t_ -.. -..;s 71 �3-P ...r.'tLLamr: .a,-- -.y.:..) a:4044 . ,a� y s• s^t rS.`;� .'ar� �/'r�./�_��M.�`jy- 6.-,_„: r '2 .ti' r y 1 3�`' --t- • �,^„ , � 40,4 - > a y .Zr `E' "A� i . 1.`{�L T•... -.4,-,-' ) fir:- `:sti- �� ,,,-;,-..-------4-,:414-,i,-r:•� s-...c r L 1 .7 re- t- �£ ..a�:.�..s�i+ y'X�ri .: �: • •5 G^ tr t �,� � �Yi-;'.a'9• i } �°' •r,�at'.` 'J'.' _` i 3X-s ,'ri� '.xi.�_•r :F 't --. , spy • • - ✓ *LZ L .P ,.r.r ••• }<:-. View of property from the North I -4I • i �' - • -:h 2y _` I•9 alt - •. ..a . .�:.=,30,4,-' • -- ,_r .. r#bti0/'n- ��f� 1y 7�• X.�' '� y -( '.""tyl.R• 'Ajy ;-«� 3 +�� Lr�FT•{]rj: .�f�'S ' ;or+ �`c?! s j i q�.'. . .. I Extension of above photos - View from the north I September 11, 1989 Ms. JoAnn Olson ' Assistant Planning Director City of Chanhassen ' Dear JoAnn: Just a few lines to let you and the Commission know my feelings on living next to North West Nursery and their business practices relating to my side of the fence. ' They have been very respectful to us and our privacy and have been cooperative in not disturbing our living standards with their business practices. IIShould they continue their business ways in the future, as in the past, I would support their endeavors to remain here as a busi- ness indefinitely. ' Feel free to call me if I can assist in any way to help North West and the City of Chanhassen. Sincerely, BOB TERS I 13 LAW OFFICES I GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L.GRANNIS- 1874 1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: ' DAVID L GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 PosT OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B.GRANNIS 403 NORwESr BANK BUILDING ELL►Orr B KNETSCH MICHAEL J.MAYER I VANCE B.GRANNIS,JR.= 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE PATRICK A.FARRELL So1Tni ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 DAVID L.GRANNLS,1II ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L.HARMEYER *ALSO ADMITTED To August 29, 1989 PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: North West Nursery Wholesale Dear Jo Ann: , You asked me if North West Nursery Wholesale qualifies as a wholesale nursery under the City's zoning ordinance since they grow some nursery stock in pots rather than in the ground. Section 20-1 of the City Code defines a "wholesale nursery" as: An enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (but not including power equipment such as gas or engine lawnmowers and farm implements) . The definition does not require that the plants be grown in the ' ground rather than in pots. As I mentioned before, "zoning ordinances should be construed strictly against the City and in favor of the property owner." Frank's Nursery Sales v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608 (MN. 1980) . Based upon the City's definition of wholesale nursery and considering that the ordinance has to be construed in the property owner's favor, my conclusion is that North West Nursery qualifies as a wholesale nursery. Very truly • •urs, ' G• : I , GRANNIS, FARRELL TSON B : =•er N. Knutson I RNK:srn 1 , / AU G .i 0 1989 CITY OF CHANHASSI y 11 CITY OF - 4 CHANHASSEN 1 � _ ; ,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 NUENCRANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner //'�� FROM: -Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician�► .c 1 DATE: October 5, 1989 .. SUBJ: Proposed Drainage Solutions/Modifications to 1 Northwest Nursery Wholesale File No. 85-1 Conditional Use Permit 1 Upon review of the plans prepared by Advanced Surveying & Engineering dated September 5, 1989 on behalf of Mark Van Hoef, I offer the following comments: ALTERNATE #1 1 This alternate as proposed is basically accurate. This solution would also eli- minate the routine washing of sediments and debris now washing through on to the 1 neighbor's (Mr. Finger) property by the watering of nursery stock. If this alternate is constructed, a better design would be to move the proposed 1 storage sedimentation pond upstream to the south side of the driveway where the pipe begins. Debris and sediments would then be collected in this area and therefore eliminate potential plugging of the pipe together with reducing environmental impacts on the downstream wetlands. In addition, this new loca- tion would be much easier for the applicant to maintain. ALTERNATE #2 I concur that this solution would be a better one although debris and sediment would continue to be washed into the proposed ditch from the nursery and would 1 require periodic cleaning. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL 1 The plans propose filling and re-grading an area over the northeasterly portion of the site. The area is proposed to be seeded with dormant seed because of the time of year. The seeded areas should also be mulched. The plans do not designate areas for erosion control measures. The plans should be modified to incorporate erosion control along the base of the fill area and along Trunk Highway 101. Type III erosion control is recommended because of potential impact on adjacent wetlands. 1 c: Gary Warren, City Engineer 1 CITYOF rt CHANHASSEN 1 yy � ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900* FAX(612)937-5739 I MEMORANDUM ' TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician /tAge ' DATE: April 26, 1990 P , SUBJ: Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Northwest Nursery Wholesale File No. 90-12 Land Use Review The plans submitted are identical to the plans submitted back in ' September 27 , 1989 . At that time, a report was prepared on the proposed drainage solution/modifications to Northwest Nursery Wholesale. Since then the applicant has proceeded with Alternative No. 2 by installing a culvert underneath their driveway and grading a ditch along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 from their driveway north to the north line of the parcel. The ditch was constructed to divert drainage from crossing Trunk Highway 101 into the Finger property. However, the existing culvert underneath 101 has not been blocked or removed. Therefore, some of the runoff continues to drain into the Finger property. The applicant has expressed that MnDOT will be plugging or removing the existing culvert very shortly. The plans do not reflect the grading that had taken place last ' fall along Trunk Highway 101. The slopes adjacent to the ditch appear very steep. Recent rains have caused severe erosion over this area, partially filling in the new ditch. The applicant ' indicated that his contractor will be in to re-grade the ditch and repair the erosion when the soils dry out later this week. The applicant is planning on seeding and mulching the area as soon as the grading is completed. , :: The area south of the driveway ,is proposed for plantings which require daily watering. It is recommended to reduce sediments ' from reaching the new ditch '-along Trunk Highway 101 that a sediment pond be constructed as proposed on their drawing (Alternative No. 2) . The outlet pipe will have to be modified to tdrain into the new ditch along Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose the existing driveway to be paved with a bituminous surface. The paved driveway will increase both r Jo Ann Olsen April 26, 1990 Page 2 velocity and the amount of runoff heading towards Trunk Highway , 101. It is recommended that catch basins be installed to convey drainage into the new ditch. The applicant has installed Type III erosion control over a 1 portion of the site where the fill was placed from the grading of the ditch along Trunk Highway 101. The plans proposed silt screen fence around the remaining areas adjacent to the wetlands. Type III erosion control is recommended due to the potential impact on adjacent wetlands. The plans propose two ponds to be constructed in the wetlands. The ponds are proposed to be a maximum depth of four feet. The exact pond design is somewhat unknown. It is recommended that the ponds be constructed according to the criteria set forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall submit for approval a revised grading plan reflecting the recent site grading and proposed improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct a sediment pond along the south side of the driveway per Alternative No. 2 and modify the outlet pipe to drain into the Trunk Highway 101 ditch. 3. Side slopes adjacent to Trunk Highway 101 shall not exceed 3:1. 4 . Wood-fiber blanket shall be used on slopes 3:1 or greater. I 5 . Catch basins shall be installed on the driveway to convey runoff into the ditch. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required from the pertinent agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MnDOT and Minnesota DNR. ' 7. The proposed ponds shall be constructed in accordance with the criteria set forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ' 8. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director to insure the drainage improvements, proposed landscaping and erosion control measures are completed. ktm c: Gary Warren, City Engineer I I . , I CITYbF . It 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA(,,,,- „5- , - .4' it ' .., # 1 CHANHASSEN I <tfF t.� 55317 .40 (612)937-1900• FAX(612)937-5739 I MEMORANDUM ITO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician aike IDATE: April 26, 1990 I SUBJ: Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Northwest Nursery Wholesale File No. 90-12 Land Use Review IIThe plans submitted are identical to the plans submitted September 27, 1989. At that time, a report was back in , p prepared on the II proposed drainage solution/modifications to Northwest Nursery Wholesale. Since then the applicant has proceeded with Alternative No. 2 by installing a culvert underneath their 1 driveway and grading a ditch along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 from their driveway north to the north line of the parcel. The ditch was constructed to divert ,drainage from crossing Trunk I Highway 101 into the Finger property. However, the existing culvert underneath 101 cllas not been blocked or removed. Therefore, some of the runoff continues to drain into the Finger property. The applicant has expressed that MnDOT will be I plugging or removing the existing culvert very shortly. t The plans do not reflect the grading that had taken place last I fall along Trunk Highway 101. The slopes adjacent to the ditch appear very steep. Recent .rains have caused severe erosion over this area, _partially „filling vin the new ditch. The applicant II indicated that `his contractor iii= eA ' to 44---"grade the ditch and repair the erosion when the soils dry out later this week. The applicant is planning on seeding and mulching the area as soon as the grading is completed. •M IIThe area south of the driveway a proposed for plantings which require daily watering. It i$ !recommended to reduce sediments I from reaching the new ditch Hong Trunk Highway 101 that a sediment pond be constructed as proposed on their drawing (Alternative No. 2) . The outlet pipe will have to be modified to drain into the new ditch along Trunk Highway 101. IThe plans propose the existing driveway to be paved with a bituminous surface. The paved driveway will increase both 1 Jo Ann Olsen April 26, 1990 Page 2 velocity and the amount of runoff heading towards Trunk Highway 101. It is recommended that catch basins be installed to convey drainage into the new ditch. The applicant has installed Type III erosion control over a portion of the site where the fill was placed from the grading of the ditch along Trunk Highway 101. The plans proposed silt screen fence around the remaining areas adjacent to the wetlands. Type III erosion control is recommended due to the potential impact on adjacent wetlands. The plans propose two ponds to be constructed in the wetlands. The ponds are proposed to be a maximum depth of four feet. The exact pond design is somewhat unknown. It is recommended that the ponds be constructed according to the criteria set forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recommended Conditions ' 1. The applicant shall submit for approval a revised grading plan reflecting the recent site grading and proposed 1 improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct a sediment pond along the south side of the driveway per Alternative No. 2 and modify the outlet pipe to drain into the Trunk Highway 101 ditch. 3. Side slopes adjacent to Trunk Highway 101 shall not exceed I 3:1. 4. Wood-fiber blanket shall be used on slopes 3:1 or greater. ' 5. Catch basins shall be installed on the driveway to convey runoff into the ditch. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required from the pertinent agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MnDOT and Minnesota DNR. I 7. The proposed ponds shall be constructed in accordance with the criteria set forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 8. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director to insure the drainage improvements, proposed landscaping and erosion control measures are completed. ktm c: Gary Warren, City Engineer 1 1 I C i v A �t CHANHASSEN °!SEEP 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. ' O BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900• FAX(612)937-5739 I May 23, 1990 1 • Mr. Bob Peterson Widmer, Incorporated P.O. Box 219 St. Bonifacius, MN 55735 • Re: Sediment Basin 1 Northwest Nursery Wholesale File No. 90-12 Land Use Review Dear Mr. Peterson: This is a follow up to our meeting today at the Northwest Nursery Wholesale site regarding proposed drainage improvements. As discussed, the City is requiring construction of a -sediment basin to be located on the south side of the driveway. ' In conjunction with the aediment basin, a -berm is to be constructed westerly of the existing pineitrees to redirect runoff into this proposed basin. The basin is to be constructed approximately two to three feet in depth with an overflow pipe to . drain into MnDOT!a +ditch,- The outlet;pipe ;shall be constructed with a baffle weir structure. -to restrict sediments and other debris from flowing 'into'Mn'DOT"s litc1 .' a nt�.et' f :this overflow pipe shall also be riprapped to prevent erosion in MnDOT's ditch. In conjuction with paving the drveway, it was agreed to delete the proposed catch basin and provide a bituminous swale to convey water into the proposed sediment basin. On the north side of the driveway where runoff water flows into MnDOT's ditch, it was agreed to sod a swale into the ditch' to help stablize and prevent erosion. 1 _ 1 1 Mr. Bob Peterson May 23, 1990 Page 2 As you are aware, any work in MnDOT right-of-way requires approval and a permit from MnDOT. I am aware of the existing permit for the work along the ditch and culvert installation, however, this additional work may require another permit. Please contact Bill Warden at MnDOT. If I have misstated any of our discussions, please contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN " i David C. Hempel Sr. Engineering Technician ' DCH:jms c: Gary Warren, City Engineer 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Bill Warden, MnDOT Mark Van Hoef, Northwest Nursery Wholesale ' r • • • 1 1 • 1 Planning Commission Meeting It May 2, 1990 - Page 11 _ 1 south side for a total of 10 signs for the Chanhassen Medical Center with the condition that there be no more than one business name per sign ban. All voted in favor except Ellson, Wildermuth and Ahrens who opposed and the 1 motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Conrad: Annette , any summary for why you voted against it other than your comments? IIEllson No , nothing other than the comments I 've had. 1 Conrad: The same? I would imagine the same . Very straight forward . Okay . Motion passes . Goes to Council? May 30th? IIOlsen: I don 't know if that 's right . It's the Wednesday after . . . PUBLIC HEARING: I NORTHWEST NURSERY LOCATED AT 7801 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD: I A. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE ALTERING AND FILLING OF A CLASS B WETLAND. I IIB. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WHOLESALE NURSERY. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . 1 Mark VanHoef: I 'd like to show some slides . Obviously all the drawings are a little cumbersome to work with so I thought if I showed some pictures 1 of what we 're really looking at that might be somewhat helpful . I just have a few slides to kind of compliment Jo Ann 's presentation and then I 'll make some comments as to some of her etches or sketchings . This is the II area to the south of the entrance which has already been bermed and planting screen of 8 to 10 foot Austrian Pines have been put in. The problem that Jo Ann eluded to and some of you remember , we were here last fall . This area right here was the only ditch catch area for any of the 1 water . And when we irrigated the crop , the holding crop that we had in the holding area , that water then would run into this ditch and the only outlet was to run through a culvert at the beginning of our driveway onto our 1 neighbor 's property, the Finger 's property. It created some problems . The Finger 's approached us. We weren't really in a position we could do anything. We contacted MnDot and at that time were told that that was the existing drainflow or waterflow and we weren't allowed to make any changes . I So the problem continued until it was brought in front of the City and MnDot came back out . We worked with the City and what was done, and I can show it in the next picture . Again, this is not the next picture going 1 down the ditch area but this is the holding area that is behind that wind screen or that planting screen. Here 's TH 101 right here and here 's the planting screen that goes across the highway so this is the area that plant 1 material was stored on that the water runoff was creating a problem . This is taken early this spring after we did do some grading last fall to alleviate the drain problem. What we really accomplished here is a new 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 12 culvert was put under our driveway so all of the runoff now goes into the II ditch and rather than through the culvert under the highway , it goes under the culvert and our driveway , down across the border of our property to catch existing drainfield, ditch, creek area , whatever you want to call it ,' that goes into the wetlands . Prior to us doing that , what the water did is it went across TH 101 . Across the neighbor 's property . All the way down and there was another culvert down here , not on our property but then goes II back across the highway and into the wetlands. So what I 'm pointing out here, Jo Ann mentioned it in her staff presentation . This has all been sloped to conform with the standards . The ditch area is in place now . The, new culvert is in. What has yet to be done is a planting screen of conifers has to go in this spring and this has to be sodded and this has to be seeded. But from my understanding , we 've had some rains . The drain problem does not exist , at least coming from our property and Jo Ann did II mention in her write up that there is drainage going into the neighbors property but that has to do with the lots above our property to the south . So basically what I 'm pointing out here in these 3 slides is that we 've II been required to recapture and contain all our runoff and we 've done so . This is a picture of the shade structure which is not in compliance with the 100 foot setback . I made an appeal or a plead or whatever you want to call it to the Planning Committee last fall pointing out the fact that the II shade structure , although it was not in the 100 foot setback , is still further back than the permanent house which is on the property and it didn't win so this will be moved and we will move that back to I guess comply with the 100 foot setback . Here 's another picture of the shade structure . I kind of felt when we talked about the shade structure that people were getting the opinion that it was a permanent type of a structure . All it is , as you can see , 4 x 4 posts with 2 x 6 supports and snow fencing on top . It is , again staff 's recommendation is that this is moved and should we comply or if we 're requested to comply , this is not going to be able to be reused and will just be that shade structure and not put up a new one . Unfortunately this isn't a real good picture but this is the expansion area we 're talking about . This next picture's a little bit better . I do want to correct something that you might have been , I guess you might have been mis , how do I want to say this? You might have gotten the wrong idea that our planting area's going to be expanded . We are requesting to finish the ditch area here that we inherited when we moved II into the property. When we took over the property in 1984 , on the very endli of this was a chicken coop which we took down. Behind the chicken coop there was some dead elms which was a collecting place for chicken paraphernalia . If you've been around an old farm, it was a bunch of junk . II We cleaned that up but unfortunately in doing so , I guess it exposed this ravine that we want to I guess take away or at least dress up . We're not expanding although to qualify and come in front of the City Council or your" planning board, it I guess goes under an expansion but this will not be utilized in any facet of our business other than to just improve the appearance . This is the first thing that anybody sees in driving to the property and right now it's kind of unsightly . It was unsightly when we got it . It 's unsightly now and our proposal through the plans are to continue this slope so it goes all the way across but has a gradual slope down to this lath area or down to the wetlands and will be seeded and will II be left as just natural vegetation. This is the area behind the barn . There's really no questions or problems on this but I did want to show . 1 I Planning Commission Meeting itMay 2, 1990 - Page 13 This is the holding area for the crops that we do dig out of our fields . Both on site and we are renting property across the street from Bob Rogers , ' a 15 acre piece that we 're growing and harvesting trees . Here 's another picture of the holding area. This is just a quick shot of some of our growing areas . You 'll notice there are certain areas that cannot be grown on which we have just planted some conifers to hold erosion control . Then on the top we are using , well we do have what's planned as plantable acres for our crop which is mainly nursery stock trees and shurbs . This is the area behind the barn which is the current area classified as holding area . ' It was designated as such on our original plan that we presented and was approved on. We have asked for consideration on expansion of this area because we needed additional space for additional shurb products . This is ' a picture from the reverse angle from the back area looking towards the front , towards the barn . The white area is what you see is just what we call a propagation or over winter house which stores nursery material through the winter and also acts as a propagation bed in the early spring . ' This is the area in question regarding the wetlands behind the property . There 's really two sections that we 're talking about . This is the section right behind the holding area that we 're proposing a pond and an expansion . ' Here 's another view of that same area . The Class A wetlands is the area behind the heavy vegetation of Dogwoods and some willows . The Class B wetlands as designated on the maps , comes out into the area that has not been mowed and kind of more or less follows a contour of the lower ground . You can see that on the topography also . There is a step down where that Class B wetland is easily determined . The Corps of Army Engineers , Jerry Smith , did come out and walk this site so up to that point that 's the only l definition of these two areas that we have . That would be the area for expansion . . . This is the area that we 're talking about in terms of planting trees in . Now in 1985 when we presented our initial plan we had ' the major part of our property shaded in , you have a copy of that , as growing area and it was shaded right to the wetlands . Well , we found out last year as we were interested in planting this area and here's another picture of it , that this 5 to 7 acre segment cannot be planted without an approval from the committee as a part of our expansion . I don't quite understand that but we 're here to talk about that expansion . I 'll say one thing on our behalf . When we first approached the Planning Committee and ' Barb Dacy presented our case, this area was cropped and the supporting material that she presented was an aerial view of the property and it designated and showed that that area was being cropped at that time in alfalfa . Now all we 're really asking is to have the opportunity to put that back into crop which would be shurbs and flowering trees in this area . Here 's I guess one other shot. This is from the back. This is from the west looking east on that same area that is in that proposed future ' planting area . And one more picture of that same area . The only other comments I guess that I would make , throw this back up here. I just wanted to show you what the areas that we just looked at in those pictures . Again I said that we 're talking about really two different expansions . The first again was that ravine fill and again I would I guess support our reasoning behind that is it 's not going to be an actual expansion of our operation but rather an improvement to the appearance of the site. And the ' topography shows both the existing and the proposed that that ravine would just be filled with either existing fill or additional fill that was brought in on the site . No plantings will be done . It will just be , I i Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 14 guess taken back to the natural vegetation . Right now it looks kind of poor and we 'd like to address that . The other areas that we 're talking about tabling and I just want to make sure you understand them , is this II area here which does show as planting on our original approval now is not in planting , does border a Class B wetlands . We 'd like to have the ability to put back into crop production . The area that's more of a real tender area is the area back here which would cut some of the Class B wetland . Jo� Ann did mention that we have had the U.S. Fish and Game out . We have mentioned that you know to better the area because right now this whole wetlands that we are in has no standing water on it . If we were allowed to, dig a couple of ponds because of the business we're in, we could runoff water into that . This whole area behind the barn is a holding area . If we're allowed expansion, that would another holding area for flower and II shurbs all which could be tiled into this pond so we virtually could not only dig and create a pond but because of our watering practice , we could maintain a water level in that pond to support a real improvement to the wetland area . The pond that we proposed back in the corner was nothing more than must I guess an aesthetic improvement to that whole area back there and I really , that 's of no importance to us at all . If that 's an infringement on the wetlands, we could take that off the plan but again , II the expansion would be , fill the ravine . Expand the container area here and then put this area back into planting . I guess that 's all I have to say unless there 's questions . Conrad: Okay , there probably will be later on Mark . Thanks . Are there other public comments? Anything? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Elison seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Conrad: We 'll start down at your end Tim . Erhart: Jo Ann , a couple times you said that there 's been complaints by the neighbors yet in reviewing this , just for my own clarification , have we ever received a complaint from actually more than one neighbor? Olsen: No . Erhart: Okay, so it's been one neighbor all along. Can you explain, go II through for me again here what are we trying to do between this proposed pond on, the eastern pond and the edge of the Class B wetland . Olsen: This one? , Erhart: Well let 's start with the other . Let's address this 5 to 7 acres . . . .that was an alfalfa . . . ' Mark VanHoef: For us to plant , we were going to go ahead and plant that and I got the feeling that that was being construed as an expansion on our , program . 11 II Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 15 fErhart: Can you come up here and show it to us . On the plan it appears to me that you 're planning on planting down to the edge of the Class B wetland. Mark VanHoef: Right now there is , and you can see on your contours , there is about a 7 acre lower piece of ground . The one I eluded to that was an ' alfalfa at one time and when we took over the property we did nothing to . Erhart: Okay , are you under the impression that you cannot plant up to the Class B wetland line? Is there anybody under that impression? ' Mark VanHoef: I am . In fact I 'm under the impression that the last time I was in front of this board, that anything else that we do has to come in front of you to be approved . Olsen: . . .not necessarily a wetland alteration permit . What you 're ' showing up there , you 're not going to be going into what we determined . . . You 're making it sound like you 're going to be filling in next to the larger pond and then also . . . ' Mark VanHoef: Right now that 's a nice field that we could plant . We 're overkill right now . I mean we may not even plant that this year but we had an opportunity and we were required at our last meeting to get in all our future expectations , wants , desires on a map and that 's an area that is not currently being planted and that we would like to someday plant so that 's why it 's in the proposal . ' Erhart: If you could just stay there a minute Mark . I guess my question is , and maybe this is just a clarification but I don 't see where the City ' has any interest in where you plant things . Certainly it would have an • interest in where buildings are and commercial activity is going on in terms of trucking and things like that but why are we interested in , as long as it doesn 't get into the wetland . Olsen: Well the expansion of the planting areas and holding areas is an ' expansion of the nursery . Expansion beyond the original conditional use ' permit . Erhart: Well actually it goes back to the original conditional use permit . Why did you draw a line when you first came into the thing? Why didn 't you ' just say I 've got 40 acres I 'm going to be planting trees on the whole 40 acres. ' Mark VanHoef: You know I think Tim has hit it. When we first approached the City back in 1985 , we made a mistake of not having a more concise , clear picture . Jo Ann 's worked with us on that . Unfortunately we were asked to present a plan . We had a 40 acre farm that had been not used in 2 years . There were renters in there. It was a pretty unsightly piece of property and they said, put a proposal and a site plan . And if you 'll see the original site plan, there wasn't a lot of thought put into that . There ' was we 're going to hold some plants here and we may hold some plants here and we 're going to plant all the other area . What has happened is , the City has tried to watch and say , well this is just a nebulous plan and now 11 II Planning Commission Meeting C May 2 , 1990 - Page 16 1 I think you're outside that plan . Erhart: Really what we're here today is really doing the first conditional' use permit? Olsen: Exactly. Erhart: Okay, well let 's clarify this . In my view of this thing , you're II essentially taking your whole 40 acres and you can plant on anything that 's , as far as I can see . Am I wrong on that? Isn't that what it is? You can plant trees anyplace . Olsen: Well it 's whatever you want to permit with the conditional use permit . Erhart: Okay , well let me ask you this . Any document that we 're voting on tonight , including his plans and your conditions , is there anything that II says that he can't plant up to a Class B wetland? Olsen: No . What you would be approving tonight is the plan showing planting areas all along there . Erhart : Would that satisfy you then in that area? Mark VanHoef: Yes . Erhart: Okay , great . That covers that one . Then can you explain to me , I you made some comments about something on your pond or on your proposed pond . Your proposed pond . Between that pond and the edge of the Class B wetland, you were proposing to plant in there as well? Mark VanHoef: Okay , right now. Here 's your Class A wetland and we're not going to touch that . Here 's your Class B wetland and our proposal is to put some kind of a pond area in there. That was on the pictures if you remember , that was just beyond the Red Twig Dogwood and some of the Willows. Then behind this area here, going back to Mark Koegler 's , his proposal a fall ago , we showed that we wanted to expand this container II growing area into this area which would be right up within 50 feet of the pond . Erhart: Okay, but you're not showing that on the plan? ' Mark VanHoef: That is not shown on the plan, correct. And I'll tell you why. Until the pond issue, I guess our feeling is, if we go in and make all improvement to the wetland before we come back and try to take wetlands away , we 'd be in a better position. Paul Burke came out to the site and was really against any alteration of Class B wetlands period . I mean that I was no. No, I don't even want to talk about it . Then we started talking about what if we put a pond in? Then he started saying, well that would improve the wetlands . Right now there is no standing water . That would improve the wetlands so it 's, I don 't want to weigh all my cards down . . . ' I I . Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 17 ' Erhart: You 're not under the impression that you 're going to come in a year from now and then fill that? Mark VanHoef: Fill the pond? Erhart: No , fill in that little . . . Mark VanHoef: No, our goal is first to get approval of the pond. I 'm not even saying that would be done in a year but if we were able to get ' approval of the pond, I would feel more comfortable then in coming back and asking for an extension to the area behind. Right now , according to your point , is this area right here which is currently not planted , can be used for our operation . ' Erhart: Well everything up to the Class B wetland . Everything up to this line . So everything south and east of this line could be planted the way I understand it . I 'm just saying that I 'm just saying Mark that I doubt that you 're going to be able to come in a year from now and propose any filling . I mean if you 're going to do filling , you want to do filling , you should ' have that in this plan . Olsen: For that Class B wetland . . . Erhart : If you want to do that , you ought to be proposing that at this time because you wouldn 't have a prayer at another meeting because . . . Right now you're just proposing an improvement? ' Mark VanHoef: Correct . ' Erhart: Okay. How long do the erosion control measures stay? Olsen: The property is stabilized until there is ground cover . ' Erhart: Okay , is there anything that states that they have to be removed at such and such a time? This is kind of a general point that I made • previously . Sometimes these things stay in there forever and we end up with polluting plastic. Olsen: Right and what is done now, like with other developments is that the developer is required to remove them. Before it was kind of left up to ' the City so that 's something that we would be doing with a letter of credit that would guarantee that there would be monies to remove it and if they didn't we could go in and do it . ' Erhart: Okay . One last issue . I 'll let somebody else deal with the shade structure . I 'm not completely where it's going but I do have one other thing and that is , you want to table the wetland alteration permit because you don't have the contours of the removal of the current . Olsen: It 's just not a complete plans for the wetland alteration . Erhart: I guess y question is , you know if you take a look at the Fish and Wildlife recommendations, they 're pretty general . It says the slopes 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 18 1 should be 1 : 10 to 1 :20 . It should be irregular and so forth and so forth. II I guess I don 't know , I don't understand why you need a contour . As long as the material 's taken out of any wetland and not deposited in any of the wetland, it 's pretty obvious when you 're done it's either within that range of slopes 1 : 10 to 1 :20 . And quite frankly when you're doing that , it 's nearly impossible to construct to a particular plan . I just think it 's a burden for people who want to improve a wetland by converting some Class B II wetland to Class A wetland by making them go through the expense of a contour . In other words , surveying it before and then trying to build to a contour , it just seems like overkill . II Olsen: Well the plan that they're giving us now we have no way to , they 're showing one general cross section where it's 4 feet deep but we don 't know if that's consistently all the way across . I guess I disagree . I believe II that we do need to see the full contours . The full depth . Where the depths are . Erhart: Doesn't the inspector go out afterwards and look at it? I Olsen: What would he know to look for? II Erhart: The Fish and Wildlife . Olsen: Well I think we need to see that on the site . II Erhart: Just write a condition that says the slopes have to be 1 : 10 and 1 :20 . Approximately so many acres in size will be approved . We 're in II conformance with the general plan . I don't know , let 's get the other comments from the other commissioners . I just think that 's an expense that essentially by doing it here , we 're setting a precedent that anybody that comes in that wants to do this , has essentially a complete engineering plan' to do that and I just don 't think there 's anything to be gained by it . I really question whether it 's . I mean if a guy wants to landscape his yard, do you require that? I don 't think we 're talking about that big of a thing . Maybe there 's some limit . What are we talking about? This proposed' pond. It 's size . An acre? Conrad: Tim, we do ask every business, we ask each business in town to II give us a landscape plan . There 's a correlation to it . Erhart: Well what if it were a homeowner , is it the same thing? I Conrad: No we wouldn't . Erhart: You're saying the difference here is that this is a business . I Conrad: This is a business, yeah . t Erhart: Well if that 's the issue , then I guess I don't have a problem with it I guess so much . I still think it 's unnecessary but those are my comments . Item 6 and 7, are those contradictory on the conditions or is there another area where the slope is greater than 3:1? On item 6 and 7 it' says side slopes adjacent to TH 101 shall not exceed 3: 1 . Then 7 says , II I Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 19 wood fiber blanket shall be used on slopes 3: 1 or greater . That means there 's other areas that are going to be higher slopes? Bigger slopes? ' Olsen: That 's kind of one of those general conditions that there are any that you have to do that . There might be . I 'm not exactly sure what the slope is along . Right now there are definitely steeper slopes like where ' those wood chips are and things like that . The reason we 're saying not to exceed the 3: 1 on adjacent to TH 101 is we really want to reduce the velocity of the runoff into that ditch and to reduce the runoff . It's a little steep right now . ' Erhart: What 's the slope on the gully that Mark is fillin in? ' Olsen: Do you know what the slope is on where you 're filling? Erhart: The finished slope . ' Mark VanHoef: I have no idea . Probably about 2: 1 . Steep . Erhart: Okay , so then 7 then , okay . I thought maybe there was some intent not to have any slope over 3: 1 . Apparently that 's not the case . Olsen: Right . There 's places that aren 't being altered . ' Erhart: In conclusion I guess , well you know I 'm a neighbor of Mark 's and quite frankly I 've enjoyed having him next to us and I certainly haven't experienced problems . I feel a little bit in that like anytime you face ' the Planning Commission , or the City and the government in any first time situation it 's kind of awesome and you make a lot of mistakes that first time . We 've worked hard working this thing through . I think this is a ' real excellent plan and I 'd like to commend both the staff and Mark for doing a lot of work in the last year in trying to satisfy the neighbor and I guess the requirements so with that , I 'll pass it on . Conrad: Thanks Tim . Steve . Emmings: I guess all I have is I had some doubts about the degree to which Northwest Nursery wanted to get all this in shape at one time but I don 't anymore . I think they 've done , finally done a whole bunch of things that I wish they maybe would have done sooner but it 's finally come together and ' I 'm feeling pretty magnanimous here . I 'm willing to let bygones be bygones and look at this objectively . I think it 's a good plan. Elison: I agree with the staff 's report . Batzli : Jo Ann , does not acting on the wetland alteration permit at this time allow the applicant to proceed at all? And if so , does it adversely affect the wetland? Olsen: They are not altering the wetland at all with what they 're ' proposing . The ordinance requires a wetland alteration permit if you 're within a certain amount of feet from a Class A wetland. Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 20 Batzli : Yeah, but aren't they proposing a pond within so many feet of the I Class A wetland? Olsen: That's not being acted on. That's what we're recommending tabling I that pond because it 's within the Class 8 wetland and it does require the wetland alteration permit . So they would not be able to move ahead with that pond or with any filling of that area they 're proposing without a wetland alteration permit . Batzli : Okay. Does anything that they're asking for in here or any conditions that we 're putting on them, going to be affected by them not getting the wetland alteration permit at this time other than the pond? Olsen: No . Other than the last condition . ' Batzli : Okay . Well that was my question was whether we should make them get the wetland alteration permit before doing anything else . ' Olsen: Well at one point there was discussion about filling in a portion of that wetland for expansion of that holding area . It was my last 11 understanding with these plans submitted that they were not going to do that . That the only alteration to the wetland was going to be the ponding areas . That 's up to them . If they want a pond , that 's fine . If they don 't , that 's not really a requirement for any of the other expansion . Batzli : Are we , the fourth plan here , that 's future expansion in addition to what they want to do now? ' Olsen: No. That 's , are you talking the last small one? That 's just kind of a blow up of what that section located on TH 101 . That 's not any different than the other plan . The fourth sheet is a blow up and it 's not 1 any different than the other proposed expansions so . Batzli : You talked in the report about future expansion someplace or another . The ultimate expansion to the nursery on page 10 . So you 're saying? Olsen: Essentially what I was trying to say is that the plan that they 're showing for expansion to the nursery has already taken place . That in addition to that, it's just the planting areas. Certain planting areas . So really what has occurred already is the majority of their expansion. Batzli : So by us approving these plans tonight, we're just approving what 's basically what they 've already done? ' Olsen: Essentially, yeah . It's after the fact. Batzli : Okay , so their ultimate expansion isn 't reflected on the plan? ' Olsen: No , that 's on there but they've already expanded most of that . We 're approving expansion that has already taken place . I tried to point I out where , the only further expansion will be the future planting areas on the south side of the Class A wetland and the proposed alterations in the II Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 21 ' Class B wetland. Those are the only two things that haven 't occurred as of today . But it 's shown on the plan and it will be approved if this plan is approved. ' Batzli : Okay. If we approve this , then are we tacitly approving the construction of this pond in the Class B wetlands? These ponds? Olsen: No . That 's a separate wetland alteration . I kept that separate so no . I see what you 're getting at . You might want to , yeah I see what you 're getting at because it 's on the plan . Batzli : You gave a good presentation . Do you understand all the conditions and you agree with all of them? Mark VanHoef: Most of them have already been met . In fact there 's only two that I guess I 'd like to discuss with Jo Ann . Everything else has ' already been done . Ahrens: Has number 3 been done? ' Batzli : Wood chips , mulch . { Mark VanHoef: No that 's , when I read this report , that was the first time ' that was brought to my attention and I just got the report today so . I would only say this that as it reads , it 's a little bit misconceiving because it sounds like those wood chips are on the border of the wetland and that is not the case . They are on a hill . The hill goes down and the bottom of the hill goes into the wetlands . Batzli : Where are you trying to get him to move the wood chips and mulch to Jo Ann? Olsen: Well we just want him to get away from that slope because it is falling down into that area adjacent to the wetland . Essentially all storage areas , that is becoming kind of a storage area , that has to be screened . It 's something we can work with him to pull it back away from that and hopefully more internal into the site. ' Batzli : Okay , so you 're concerned both about it running down into the wetland and also screening? Olsen: Exactly. And it 's filling in . . . ' Batzli : I think we can add that because right now it 's, I think it 's kind of vague as to exactly what you want . My only other question was , if you put too much muracid on a conifer , does it turn yellow? Anyway , go ahead . Wildermuth: I 'm glad to see the drainage issue has been satisfied . It would appear that if you satisfy all 12 of these requirements or at any rate the ones that you have to date not satisfied , that you will be in good ' compliance with the requirements for the conditional use permit and I support the staff recommendation . Planning Commission Meeting t May 2, 1990 - Page 22 II Ahrens: Are we expecting all the conditions to be met before approval of II the conditional use permit except for 1 and 2 that you have specific dates of June 1 , 1990? I Olsen: What we normally do with this is that that is a condition and we give them a certain . We don't usually set time periods on those but it's something that they have not met that condition. There's always an annual ' review of all conditional use permits and it 's something where we can say you're not in compliance and if they don't go into compliance , then we could take him back to possible revocations . It 's something that yeah , you' could just continue and give them a time period on that also. On 3 . Ahrens: I 'd like to see a time period on 3 . I 'm in agreement with the staff recommendation on this with the addition of a date on 3 . Date for II compliance . Conrad: Okay . The drainage that we 're now moving to the west side of TH II 101 is a self imposed , is drainage from plantings and then we run it down to the wetland. All we 've done is taken a different route . Keep it away from the neighbors . And what did we do to basically where it runs Jo Ann , II is that a grassy area . Is that how we strip any nutrients? How are we . stripping before we get to the wetland? Olsen: That 's why that one condition that we have in there to end the pon in this location because yes , this will be covered with vegetation . Will be landscaped and will have grass and this is the wetland that says . . . Th driveway right here and the ditch . The only area that 's always , we have the exposed dirt and the runoff is up here in the planting areas and that ' why we wanted to have that pond in this location to collect that sediment . Conrad: Okay, but through allowing this, really that runoff . . .I 've got to I believe we would but what I 'm toying with here is the idea that we 're allowing a nursery . The nursery is watering . The water that goes to the il plants also is going into the wetland . It seems like it 's harmful . It seems like basically it 's more harmful than another use that didn't require watering. A different type of contractor yard as such. Wildermuth: I guess the question is how much fertilizing is being done? II Conrad: Yeah, what kind of fertilizer around your plants? II Mark VanHoef: There are no fertilizers through the water system if that 's what your concern is . Any fertilizer is incorporated into the soil . Either be it the pots or in balled and burlapped material , that fertilizer II was done in the fall before it was dug and harvested . So any water runoff that you have , the water runoff that hits the ground is no different than rain runoff , that would then go into the ditch. Go down the ditch and into the wetlands . There is no fertilizer runoff . We don't broadcast { fertilizer over the soil because our crop is not the soil . It 's just the nursery stock itself . The nursery stock is either contained in ( a ) a pot , ' or (b ) balled and burlapped . The only fertilizer that we incorporate during the season is in the potted material and that would have to leech through the entire plant into the soil and then into your water system and ' II Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 23 ' i doubt that that would happen . ' Conrad: The plantings on the real close to the Class A wetland . If they started to do that . Basically those plantings can be right up to the wetland can't they? Olsen: Technically yes. Again, if you approve that . Emmings: You can 't get to the A because there's B all along there . Olsen: There 's Class B around the whole Class A wetland. Conrad: Okay . ' Wildermuth: And you have no plans to plant into the B wetland right? Emmings: He can 't . Olsen: He couldn 't do that without a wetland alteration . ' Conrad: I guess really where I 'm trying to get to is just that , we have a wetland and there 's no reason we should be screwing it up . Period . Absolute . There 's just I think the applicant has done , I think you 've done a nice job of responding to what the City has asked you to do and the neighbors . I just want to make sure , and I 'm real concerned about the wetland alteration permit . As long as you improve it , that 's what we 're ' trying to do . If we can improve anything , that 's exactly what we 're trying to do to our wetlands in Chanhassen . So there 's no reason to make them diminish in value . Especially in this particular parcel . There 's just no reason so just a signal from me , the wetland alteration permit process is 11 an intriguing one to me because I really don't want any harmful thing to happen to those wetlands . I see no reason for it . There 's no justification . I think you can do your business without really harming ' those but I want to make sure the right controls are in process . Here 's a good case where zero degregation to the wetland is fine . I don't mind you altering some contours and I think you 've routed the water the right way but I just , I don't want to use wetlands as a solution to some of the problems that are part of the business. They're not the solution to your business problems . They 're something that we're just trying to protect and they happen to be on your property . I think I agree with Joan's comment on time on the third one I think . I think that makes sense on the third point . The only other thing that I would suggest is , how do we monitor Paul , this process? The conditional use process. When would somebody make ' an on-site inspection to see what's going on? You 're probably out there all the time anyway but . Krauss: Actually this one we get a phone calls on and we do check them periodically . We have instituted an annual inspection of all conditional use permits . In fact , Sharmin Al-Jaff , our planner one is sitting here tonight and she 's in charge of that . So there is an annual rotation where ' we do go around to check every condition of these conditional use permits . In addition , where there 's a program such as this one where there are , it is an expectation that conditions will be complied with in the near future 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 24 relative to a construction program , we 'll go out there as soon as their construction activity is done or while it 's underway to make sure that it's being completed as per your approval . I Conrad: Okay. So when this wetland alteration permit comes back , at least from my perspective , I really would like staff to be reviewing . You know I 'm going to be real critical of what that says . I think we owe the wetlands the protection and if that 's how it 's contoured, if that 's drainage ditches , whatever it is I think we owe that to the wetland and not treat the wetland just as a solution to some drainage problems because I I don 't believe that 's what I 'm trying to do with wetlands . Anyway , the balance other than the wetland alteration permit , the balance of the staff report looks fine to me . Is there a motion? ' Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #85-1 as shown on the plans dated April 2, 1990 with the following conditions 1 thru 12 as written in the staff report . Number I 3 would be amended to read , wood chips/mulch shall be removed from the area adjacent to the wetlands to an area where runoff from the same shall not adversely affect the wetlands and shall be contained and screened by a fence . Removal of the wood chips/mulch shall occur by not later than , any I suggestions from you two? Conrad: A date agreed to by staff . I Ahrens: June 1 , 1990? Olsen: It would be nice if we kept all those the same date . 11 Batzli : Okay , June 1 , 1990 . ' Erhart: What 's a reasonable time Mark? Mark VanHoef: Well it would be nice if we could, that 's all been piled there for sale . By the middle of the summer it will be gone through sales . Now we 've taken delivery of that and will probaby last 2 weeks . Had I known that was a problem , I mean that 's how we operated all last year . We II could easily relocated that pile somewhere else . Ahrens: Well with the trucks moving in and out all summer until the middle of the summer , how much of the wood chips is going to move into the wetland' by that time? Mark VanHoef: The only thing that moves close to the pile would be a Bobcat front end loader that scoops up the chips and then brings it back and loads the truck behind that pile area . So if the runoff is a concern, we can clean up the runoff after the course of our season . Erhart: I think the concern is the chips floating into the , with the heavy rain the chips washing down into the wetland . Olsen: They 're also enter into trees . There are some trees there that are starting to get filled around . II Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 25 ' Erhart: It would be convenient for you to get it out of there by mid-summer . Also , I guess we 're not talking about toxics here . Batzli : Let 's make it August 1 , 1990. Number 12 would be amended to read, at the end of that sentence before the period, prior to creation of the proposed pond site set forth on the plans , wait a minute . Yeah, that reads ' right . Okay . So the whole thing would read , the applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of the wetland alteration permit prior to creation of the proposed pond site set forth on the plans . Another ' sentence , approval of the conditional use plan is not an approval of the proposed ponds and I 'd also propose a number 13 , condition 13 which reads no plantings , storage or other disturbance of the Class A or Class B wetland shall be permitted without application or receipt of all proper ' wetland permits . Conrad: Is there a second? ' Wildermuth: Second. ' Conrad: Any discussion? Erhart: Yeah. If we 're moving the wood chips away from the wetland , why then does it have to be screened with a fence? Did you mean that to be one or the other Jo Ann? Let 's say it 's way back on the south side of the property away from the wetlands . ' Olsen: One of the conditions , the general conditions is that , specific conditions for a wholesale nursery is that all outdoor storage must be screened. ' Erhart: Okay , so are you talking about landscape screening here or are you talking about , maybe I 'm misinterpretting this . You 're talking about landscape screening as opposed to a screen that would hold the chips in? ' Olsen: Right . Somehow it has to be screened . ' Batzli : And properly screened rather than screened by a fence . Erhart: Okay , if that 's what it is , let's just clarify that . ' Conrad: See a fence could be more objectionable than the wood chips themselves . Emmings: Screened from what? The view on TH 101 or from the neighbor? Olsen: Well yeah. That's where if they locate it where it cannot be seen from other areas , we 'd let that go . Erhart: But aren 't we putting a screen along all of TH 101 now? ' Olsen: Not along the north side . Where it is right now, it is very visible . We have had complaints about it and so it needs to be moved back away from that where it isn't visible. We were saying a fence is if they Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 26 1 wanted to move it back just from that location and keep it there so it is contained . Conrad: If it stays there, what is the screening solution? It is a fence?t Olsen: Well we would want something to contain it so it's not as the Bobcats come in and . . . t Conrad: So are we talking , is it a visual thing that we 're talking about or is it a physical? Olsen: Both . It depends on where they relocate it . Erhart: Can it be located to the south side of the property? ' Mark VanHoef: Yes . It can be relocated . Erhart: Okay , would that solve the whole problem? ' Olsen: As long as it 's not visual from the surrounding properties . ' Erhart : Okay . Why don 't we just specify that any wood chip storage has to be on the southerly portion of the property . Emmings: Let 's let him put it where he wants to . ' Ellson: And we 'll work it out with staff . If they say it 's okay , fine but we don 't have to tell him where the specifics are . Erhart : Well I read this to mean that he has to put a fence as a screen . Olsen: Well we meant screen , I 'm sorry . Erhart: That was probably my mistake . ' Olsen: Well it says by a fence. Erhart: It says by a fence , I guess I have like Ladd, I have a problem ' with fences . Conrad: I 'm glad you brought that up because some solutions with fences I don't solve it . Erhart: Well Brian, you know where we 're going there . Do you have some I kind of a . . . Conrad: I don't think , do we need to amend that? Batzli : Well rather than say screened by a fence, just say properly screened. Ellson: To the approval of staff . ' 1 II Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 27 ' Batzli : What she said . That sounds good . Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Conditional Use Permit *85-1 as shown on the plans dated April 2, 1990 with the following conditions: ' i . The applicant shall redirect runoff from the nursery by using Alternative #2 shown on the drainage plans as shown on Sheet 4 of the plans dated September 27 , 1989 and approved by MnDot and the City Engineer by June 1 , 1990 . ' 2 . The applicant shall remove the existing non-conforming shade and plantings structure by June 1 , 1990 . 3 . The wood chips/mulch shall be removed from the area adjacent to the wetlands to an area where runoff from the same shall not adversely affect the wetlands and shall be contained and properly screened as ' approved by staff . Removal of the wood chips/mulch shall occur by not later than August 1 , 1990 . 4 . The applicant shall submit for approval a revised grading plan reflecting the recent site grading and proposed improvements . 5 . The applicant shall construct a sediment pond along the south side of ' the driveway per Alternative #2 and modify the outlet pipe to drain into the TH 101 ditch . 6 . Side slopes adjacent to TH 101 shall not exceed 3: 1 . 7 . Wood fiber blanket shall be used on slopes 3: 1 or greater . 8 . Catch basins shall be installed on the driveway to convey runoff into the ditch . 9 . The applicant shall obtain and complyh with all permits required from the pertinent agencies , i .e . Watershed District, MnDot and Minnesota DNR . I10. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director to insure the drainage improvements , proposed landscaping and erosion control measures are completed . 11 . All erosion control shall be Type III , maintained and removed at the request of the City Engineer . 12 . The applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of the ' wetland alteration permit prior to creation of the proposed pond site set forth on the plans . Approval of the conditional use plan is not an approval of the proposed ponds . 1 13 . No plantings , storage or other disturbance of the Class A or Class B 1 Planning Commission Meeting L -May 2, 1990 - Page 28 1 wetland shall be permitted without application or receipt of all proper' wetland permits . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PMT CORPORATION, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 1500 PARK ROAD: A. REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 , CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION INTO ONE LOT. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 45,900 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING FACILITY. Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Conrad: The applicants are here I see . Would you like to show us some pictures? Show us what you 're doing . Mark Huse : We 've been looking at the site plan . Conrad: And your name just for the record . Mark Huse: I 'm Mark Huse with Amcon Corporation . . . As Paul was saying , this is the site plan . It shows just a concept for future expansion . Just a possibility . We 're not asking for approval of this concept tonight . By our estimation , the wetland Paul is talking about is in approximately this location here. And we 'll work out the details of how that . . .around that when the owner decides to expand on his property . This is a perspective of' the building showing you from the intersection. These are the elevations that you have in the packets . It 's shown a little bit better here . We 're introducing a spando type system . Curtain walled at the corner . Working II the client , one of our primary concerns was to put a building on this corner that will give the prominence to that corner that it deserves and hence the 2 stories which is also one of the reasons why we need to expand II parking onto the site to the north. He could have. . .at this time with a single story building . The second floor is to be largely unused at this time . There was a real concern that we have a 2 story building on this corner site to give it prominence that it requires . I do have a grading plan. That 's not all that clear . The grading plan is also in your packet . Todd Christoferson is here with our firm and he's in charge of the construction and we do have a representative from PMT Corporation who'd be willing to answer any questions about the operation of their company . Conrad: Okay, good. Thanks . This is a public hearing . We'll open it up ( for any other public comment. Is there any? ' Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I NORTH WEST NURSERY WHOLESALE • 9150 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 September 25, 1989 ' Ms. JoAnn Olson CITY OF CHANHASSEN P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Olson: ' Per our meeting of September 15th, I am enclosing the following information regard- ing issues for the upcoming City Council meeting on October 9th. SECTION A: Complete descriptions of the operation and activities ' involved on site at North West Nursery Wholesale. SECTION B: Listing of the progress on issues which are of concern ' to the October 9th City Council meeting: - drainage issue on highway 101; - fill area on hillside north of shade structure; ' - shade structure location; - screening of property along Highway 101. ' SECTION C: Outline of further desired improvements which have previously been discussed and presented to the Planning Committee. SECTION A On February 5, 1985 North West Nursery Wholesale was approved as "conditional use permit for a wholesale nursery." It was discussed in some detail at this city ' council meeting the extent of those activities concerning wholesaling. The major concern was to clearly define that no retailing was to be permitted on site. The site plan presented at the meeting depicted site locations designated as both growing areas and holding areas. Discussion was held as to future expansion desires for future production requirements. These needs focused on greenhouse/propagation facilities and more holding areas. After approving our conditional use permit, plans were started on opening our operation in the Spring of 1985. ' First year operations on site were very limited due to capital availability. Use of the site was limited to a small holding area involving inventory levels of ' trees and shrubs. Some space behind the barn was also used for a plant holding area. For both holding areas no improvements or changes were made except for the spreading of wood chips over the existing holding areas. The barn was used for limited storage of equipment and supplies. The 1985 employment included one full-time 11 office staff, one full-time yard manager and four to six part-time laborers. Field work was limited to approximately 7 acres of shade and ornamental tree plantings. ' Year two we expanded the holding area. The focus of our 1986 business season was to offer our customer base a complete line of nursery stock, to allow our pro- gram to be competitive with the other wholesale nursery operations within the metro market area. This holding area expansion moved into space which originally was listed as growing area. This area was already properly leveled, which only required the installation of irrigation lines to water all the holding inventories. A second (2) well was installed in 1986 to ensure ample supply and proper quality water levels. �y Employee totals for 1986 were: one yard manager, one assistant yard manager, two • part-time office staff, and four to eight part-time laborers. Field operations included the expansion of 2 acres of shrubs and evergreen field plantings on site, plus 10 acres of tree plantings on the adjacent leased ground. Year three we increased our holding area behind the barn. This ground was originally used as an extended pasture and livestock pen area. The fences were taken down and wood chips were spread to provide ample drainage for the potted flowering shrub crops currently utilizing the space. Irrigation was added to provide the shrub crops with required water needs. All field growing expansion was taken off site to an additional farm west of the existing site. Additional field planting was considered on site; however, the wet spring weather prevented proper preparation of the remaining lower field areas, so all field planting was done at the new farm. With the new farm operation available, most field equipment, watering tanks and fertilizers were taken off site. This reduced our machinery on the site to include only: one 35 h.p. tractor, two wagons, two bob-cat loaders and one pickup truck. 1 The new farm location also reduced most semi-truck loading requirements at the Chanhassen site. Whenever possible, early spring and fall field direct orders were shipped from the new site. The employee totals for 1987 included: one yard manager, one office staff person, one sales staff person, one production/yard assistant and 6 to 10 part-time laborers. Year four the elimination of two small on-site buildings were completed. Both buildings were old, damaged and presenting a safety hazzard. Upon the removal of these buildings the ground in between was smoothed and wood chips were spread over the area. After irrigation was set up on this site, the area was used as an additional holding area for shrubs and evergreens. After the heat and drought conditions continued into June we contacted the city for approval of a shade structure for the protection of heat sensitive plants. The structure was constructed on July 5 and 6. Field operations on site were limited mainly to the continued maintenance of the existing fields. All new plantings were done on the new farm. Employee totals for 1988 included: one yard manager, one sales person, one yard assistant, one office staff person, and 6 to 10 part-time laborers. Year five, 1989, no expansion was considered. The focus of the site was to improve the grounds with landscaping, grading and screening. An attempt to improve the hillside on the Highway 101 approach to the nursery was a top priority. The Fill and sloping of the existing hillside was required in order to begin the plant screening of the shade structure and holding area. Land fill was brought on site to begin the project. Because proper permits were not obtained for grading, the entire project was stopped. 1989 employee totals were the same as 1988. The total business growth from the year previous remained constant. All field expansion was done off site. Again, field planting was considered on lower fields; however, until the wet land alteration issue is resolved, we have done no further planning. Some concluding comments on the overall operation and the activities involved would include: 1. Nursery stock growing in field (field inventories include trees, ever- greens, large shrubs). 2. Production in container growing (items grown in containers include shrubs, evergreens and groundcovers). I/ 1/ (3) 3. Inventories of accessory landscape items (wood chips, mulch, rock, edging, timbers, etc.). Our overall operation consists of marketing a full line of products used in ' the landscape trade. Much of our product is completely grown on site, other items are purchased and brought on site to finish growing into saleable sizes. We consider all livegoods sold through North West Nursery as continuously growing. All products on site receive continuous care with watering, prunning, fertilizing and some up- grading. The operations major business months are from May to October. The levels of business focus on when weather conditions allow outdoor landscaping. Our peak month is May, when shipping, receiving, potting, planting and inventory maintenance must occur. Field planting is done in early May. Field Harvesting occurs both in early spring and again in fall. The overall growth of our sales has remained relatively constant from 1987. We do hire local people to staff all positions. ' Any addition&l details on the operation and our activities can be provided upon request. SECTION B The following information is a progress report on the area of concern for the 11 upcoming council meeting: 1. Front drainage; 2. Fill area; • II 3. Shade structure; 4. Screening. 1. Front drainage. The front drainage issue is being addressed by our new proposed site plan. Currently we are continuing to work with the State Highway Department in hopes of altering the future water flow to follow along Highway 101 to connect with existing water flow at the northeast property corner. If approved by the necessary people, the project would be done with highway supervision with the Highway Department providing the proper excavation grades, new culvert placement, and ditch construction to prevent further run-off on property across the road. Should this plan not be obtainable we have outlined a contingency plan of using a catch basin and drain pipe 11 to keep all water run-off on our site. The water would be captured by use of burros and catch basins, then piped along the highway until joining with existing drainage waterways. Upon completion of the drainage system ' further grading and screening would then be offered as a final step to the project. ' 2. Fill area. The area where land fill was started then stopped is still a project we desire to pursue. As previously stated, the major focus of our expansion for 1989 was to improve the site appearance and efficiency. The fill 11 project was begun to allow the capability of finalizing the screening of holding area with plant materials. It was also our intention to pursue this area to allow the improvement of the hillside overall appearance. This hillside is the first visual contact one has with our operation, and it remains our desire to improve this area. The project itself has been researched before and presented to the Planning Committee. We had all interested and required people visit the proposed site, as follows: 11 (4) * U. S. Fish and Wildlife - Paul Burke, * Corp of engineers - Jerry Smith, * U.S. EPA, Region and Water - Catherine Garva * City of Chanhassen - Mark Koegler No objections or problems were given during our initial presentation. Our hope continues to focus on using this area as a well-maintained and well-groomed site, thus enhancing the overall appearance of the entire operation. ' 3. Shade structure. The problems concerning the shade structure are all directed to the non- compliance of set-back requirements. Upon verbal approval North West Nursery minunderstood the required set-back to be 50 feet, rather than 100 feet. Since the structure is merely a supporting post and snow- fencing top, it can easily be moved to conform to any requirements. It was mentioned in Planning Committee discussion that since the existing house is further outside the 100 foot compliance requirement, it might give the shade structure special consideration to remain at its present location. The original intent was to screen both the east and north sides of the shade structure with plant materials. The screen has been on hold until the location of the structure is finalized, and the fill area can provide proper space for screen planting. 4. Screening. Wd have limited the current landscaping and site screening until the final site plan is approved. It should be clearly understood that since we are in the business of selling wholesale plant materials, it would greatly benefit our program to have an attractive and well groomed site. I would remind those interested that since moving onto the side many visual improvements have been made. Listed below are only a few of the improvements we have made which all can easily be seen from Highway 101: - removed corn crib 1 - removed hog building - repaired and painted house - repaired and painted barn removed chicken house - removed machinery building - cleaned up dump area between buildings - landscaped ground around house - continued improvement of road entrance - removal of all diseased elm trees - planting of large conifer screening on southeast property line We wish to continue to improve the entire site appearance. Our priority remains the upgrading of site grooming along Highway 101. SECTION C Further inprovements and expansion desires are focused mainly on improved presentation and increased efficiencies. The expansion propose center around the lower flowering shrub container area. We would hope to utilize the additional area for shrub production. This would require some Class "B" wetland alteration. We have (5) 11 worked with local DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife people, and offered some improve- ments on site if the project was approved. Both offices liked the idea of perman- ent ponds and drainage improvements. The field expansion on the boundary of the wetland area has also been pursued. We had hoped to put this lower field back into evergreen production. Up until our ' possession this area was crop farmed. The field production plan was discussed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Corp of Engineers representatives. Neither organization had any reservations, and each verbally approved the plan. 1 This concludes my written report on all matters you have requested. Both Jim and I are most anxious to resolve the continued issues involving our site, and the operation usage of our business. Most of the problems are a result of a lack of communication on our part to the City Planning staff. We, at North West Nursery, look forward to resolving these matters, and hope we might continue to improve our site's appearance to us and the overall community. Sincerely, lig &A-1 Mark Van Hoef MVH/dn r I I I r I I !_� Specialists in Bedding Plants and Poinsettias �`�c� n ift. ,�O EARL HOLASEK & SON GREENHOUSES, INC.�� 8610 Galpin Boulevard ,: `` Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 �� 474-6669 474-5459 1 HOLASEK 1 September 9, 1989 1 To Thom it may concern, My farm land borders I? 7 ' .,, . .�. Nursery .lholesalers and I have been i informed that there seems to be a -.)roblem with some of his neighbors across the street. We have not had any Problems I pith this company at all. In fact the trees, etc. have been adv.ntagous to my property, not a hinderance. I would much I rather have trees to look at, than to have manure piles, cows, feed, silage, etc. to nut un with. The water has never 1 been a problem for us, God made water run down hill. With II the DOT of Minnesota having proposals for redoing the road or highway in the future, I feel it would be very costly for the I tax dyers to re-do the road two or three times, when it could be done only once. I Mark Van Hoff and his company have always been a willing and I helpful neighbor to have, and I would much rather have him and his company as a neighbor than a bunch of houses without any I trees or beautification of any kind. 1 Sincerel , , .." , (5 ,-, Il Earl J. Holasek 1 President of Holasek Greenhouses Inc. _ ;rr l I September 3, 1989 I ' Ms. Jo Ann Olson David R. Blanski Assistant Planning Director 9350 Great Plains Blvd. City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 690 Coulter Street 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Dear Ms. Olson; My property is adjacent to North West Nursery Wholesale on the south side. Since I have lived there they have operated their business in a manner that does not disturb my family in any way. In fact I feel they have gone 1 out of their way to be good neighbors and have improved the appearance of their property. 1 As long as they continue to operate in a responsible manner they will have my continued support. If I can answer any questions,uestions please contact me at 445-2849. Yours Truly, 1 /4,../AUAleljeig,711 David R. Blanski 1 ' cc: Mark Van Hoef North West Nursery Wholesale, Inc. 9150 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 1 -; 1-8 OCTU 1 w I Y OF CHANHASSEN 1 r • la•• 1-11.•.y IVY t..M,L.IS• (......"r" `ice k11 it. daEi t..2 r ritarrinxi.5iiiirr Fri -1 F. I !l'; =='-=tit i.it•x lie // - ' j r • era: i'1t"154/:•.. /4 • Ill FL:.ie'.i KI`: l_ # %//,•i/' ,/ // .i• to • s � t .. ,. / •/ I i § ' ` 's;1?1c•=des :€'-- i / ,7,(/- _ 9•......„ ..._ 3[R�;3i iE; t` :tl �. // _ ;/' j, I.- - — -- I. - '_ j rif i iii -.:_;- t ;j • " .'.•.: - I 1 ; t. L / i I / :: _ • 4 - •• ~'f` +/Itx wUl lll.[WWIifc LV / ' J . ;I /.• '/ • y 1iy • • C .: i 6 tr 11 i . ,t fs - me �F a4: e' L:.IL • • f I (4 ANA.T'..S •. w ... ' - I ` i .c , w' �.- .•„u.i iv., •w��s• ..Tic-- • salowsornes ow • V OPER• PROJECT: ��° ` '., • – 1f1, VAM MpEF I:n. ./.,. A. ,�� a�LtyNwH+T,.n WHOLE SRcE �IVkSERY GHAHMALSCN r:IV• i _y,, - ' I ww ut-ifrrUa- F- z irl:s • les'iiti : Et JI : �� a# 1: •i E? gni°•sz-,izi ii.'ei! S i E: :F:tt =z1 1 t: rli' •t' t:i I' t ll t i 1Y...it ftt ti' i.j ! : � iszei ii.- Fg r � ..or. z: g ettfYZ -s• rill!!i 1. ! E.i-1 ° f f ill qi -Y:i.F gtfyy' iii �p q E. .1 E� i it .iif_=:••l iiirt 1.1 Elsi !i t°-g m 1 i. p. zi 7.. .e_ .ii � � �5 � E i� t s;�F':sib i�•si_z � �� 1•!. E f. I1 pa I iii i?C:-e•{� 1?z ` tr i= �peae e� ppr NI 7. I ji: __• 11:3; ::F.IE:=it (1:: ii E FE![ sE tE .t.t s1= ' ilitil'illhgli;g1Iii t .tF F li3 ) 2. t EF ,« z E I II F • e ■■ i 4I 0414;ar ..4..r:.„:,,,,, , ' _—#_____---7.4-'-',/.....______•,4}; 1 c.;,_.,,▪ ., // \ / / / / / ---•.w.- /// '/ -�. \I i 1 / // • i ! \ ,:01±,. I - i i A-`::;• - -,.''" tit . N\fib `, • �:---". ---;;:•:.‘z‘, \, ,...,'`‘‘‘ ,17,," .` I 'i ; ``s .` .i 11 1 1 %'i',;.': 1 ` •- - —'iii- �'' '1,: z-.--.‘,W,.;-,......-4.-::::::::--_-:::.-,::::.,_" ��! _ _--- . - i,-1+-__- ---- - - - i `I 1 i _�--=---. =_ - iii=' ..-.---s...,', 11-=_:•73.:._::::-.-_-_: - = i x;,11.- ' ;1 1,;• ' �` /1 ,e (% -.+ -/. �.- --; :a=1 '•{„ \ /hill. % ," --.._,,mot i .. -- '''''•''' '''I - 4 4/)IVO--""'• /,',, Li ,Uif .•::-,:-.'" -.. - - -..e.#' ----.------*-- ------ - fil,, ,..L.,• -- ice: i '1 = — J 11�n1 ` ; ti z 1 .t. �. • .�- --:- : _ co 3 i.i,T} -;ct�. rte:=. ,•;-Y >/,: i -;-S. I .{. . ,I . ■ --- -- ot 1111 lsses•ns :•:•:tt a t a:! s !• illf `""141.7.S.7--", 4F,1,l l:s : t .T p to((([ p [ E:• i s liFi,F El; ttsr _ E=Ii; I tit -rim { } t ;TT- € Es t !-I Is^t.l.tiF::.: £1F E? IIFE"f E• 1:17.., f ft i. :iit ::szie• ;riYE-, £ !: ! ¢ tb E £1 i tlY • rJ E ill 't.d! £ir;i:,•,44:. F•! 1 ! r rim l i! t_ i££s:i FE;. ieI! r s if€ Filii L 4 !s, !Mitt€€1:•T£•tt£ i? i s I l^ 2'° hl- E t: s : r_ t `t t £ �: ssy it i �� t III :s.f't•••£•l£I^ ° F t i• ! e l _.. hilt .4=i � W ! !sl •;i g;` i€ l: !�E !E QQc �; •r tSl? ! h £l••••=:I:.t l- l of 'sli: ilrt £i li: l.�lltr:£l:E kss .t gg lg 1 h li =:E !! It I:€t.- slt iii1: E.-si- i [[ s is s esY€ 5 ► 11 I s!1 iiiNall r:INI=• I � l pppp g€ ! rig j I ll. !:.!ee6E€l E3Eili pi':t € llti rJ l( i£ tii slt! tt s e: 5! s 1 �, I l l s llE.- ^ II ..., / ill It# F ; (I_ ii p i t fnlii : Ill! l ei 6. ,l . l! 2c 1 l I € ! lidi €ii= F 1 tii I di t n 1 II &s€i! i€ )1 lit:l�: I/1 s !�r1 CF I 1 € :,441 —,....., • 1 II r- r--' s•--'�- / i'i'i . --1- /,i,- / / / ..., ' te -._r' . __--,,,,,,,,,,--_-___;,-,-*1.-_-..---c.---// // i - .�"l / / - , • //_'r �— :iii;/�._-.1/ �_, / / / , --d i "4i/ ) iv.- /% �. , ' % / I 7.:::::.r,...'"4.-..., -~ - -i'- .' // '- �) ! / / / / I 1 � �� i i � �k ■ ,,,•::::-.Z.,..';?'r;'sue- ------7• -.-, . \� 1\2 It. i 4 - ,± , t 1'!1' •1 7 /`v J-1. 1 41 cifitiiji c-‘1.11-:"..L.........,/../A Issi\lifiiliiii .----4',...___;.:,......s__:_____:.___;"••• ::::::.P. f 1 _ • 111 •--../[..7-7.-- -----71'7-------- ---4:1�. ' a —/� i - r / / uE1111t J` "` Z Viii., ,„0-i..._;.-1,....,------, / 11!11 ,.._\_--). T I ~IV ,c. At.'-''7/ / '4=tiirk-zz.:‘,...,-A•44:::-_,' 1,:::,...,:a-'0-.7.4- -- r1_:_- lb r V/ • i !. ' .4. .� h f o ii\ � 1`IH / L 1 I • • _se...., W w 1,i $ i ; ___..., ..., I i • • I i Y i� --- - -- '�---'-__i__+I_+----'__fZG-� 'ial "RA 0 cu E! , 4. ( 1 ;piai k 1 .�`,• I fi. / iIiii .°' ,-;, It' \\ \1 1 .2�S'. ' --------..../ /,j 1. Il•II 11 1•. \ ! ` \ qi� /—'� •//%%4. ..i�w° r1 Fliii I 11 , x \\ \\ / x/ $JEwv' // .I I It tXL I _ \ w w" wf S 1. L `'1 \ S f i 1 1/ J ! i1. I'! 1 / o l 1 ` r ; �` a i/ I I \ 1~ \ ' y i I I \\a� '1 1 7.... i --�` / f fvz \ � ,I+ Vii- A. . .,_.. '� "_: _ _A 1111 .1 \t1',I \\ 11_L f "� ,.t1 ,�� .9.)!,,\\\r k t 1\ , i' 15\\`oi1: Sgt I 1\\ I `¢a♦ ��trt., s 11ty , . • .% , / / tw\ \��∎:.-::■. !- II } \ (t 1 , (4- j IS /� tuf•ws i� ttt -r • I\\ a / \• \ ' > \\ \\ d'. i N i 1 , \\„ 11 \ \\• / • f i ->'e3t'stsE aess1asa's ;11! if: 1' ii *I.1 611114111 1'j;; 'R Y1 5 s LI ma J a 133 j_ —; i l t —=,°-1” !;I help lf: fil ht Ilt �=1 R . f `l2i,22tHilli E 1 St jI!!! £ ett . t bib 11==111 €r hi. = ta el!" I5 ,_ isilif Igii ! ' s 55 > f s ��1 WI -' 1 i 1-2111 aj •- ii/5 1i iIIP!il I t r,'. I x 1s r. .It 1 1 s is '`F0�!R.t. is g 17 1 1 1 : isfiaiiii.i t ..5..r. :it hi!! d I 11111 11.11 1 —\ } s COMPLAINANT ---.,.,,, AY: /76-7 LAST: Fil` a 0-667 L✓/ DOB: STREET NUMBER: et(Sf STREE 7z_ 4 t/� ISO i/�., ST: ZIP: % - �Y TYPE OF COMPLAINT: �(�(�.� RECEIVED: --6^ � LOCATION OF COMPLAINT: SUBJECT v E NUMBER: LAST: FIRST: DOB: STREET NUMBER: STREET NAME: - CITY: —� ST: ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: ACTION TAKEN/COMMENTS (INCLUDE DATE) : 1►�:�t..� I I I I I I I Tim A. Erhart West 9 t Street 6 h S reet ' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 (612) 474-1116 ' To: Paul Krause, City of Chanhassen JoAnn Olson, City of Chanhassen cc: Mark VanHoff, Northwest Nursery From: Tim Erhart Subject: Northwest Nursery Date: September 8, 1989 Northwest Nursery has been a neighbor of ours for the past several years and ' grows trees directly adjacent to our property. In that activity, Northwest Nursery has improved the appearance of the property over what it was. We have experienced no problems with Northwest Nursery's activity to date. 4/I;.A NW-NURSY.908j SEP 1 8 1989 CITY OF CHANHASSEN City tbuncil Meeting - Oc' ber 9, 1989 z as II addition of 9131 Lake Riley Blvd.. Councilman Boyt: I have a question. This is regl quick. Do we have general agreement that this isn't a hardship? Tam agrees with that? Councilman Workman: What I was trying to get with Jay was that while it's not a hardship, it's also by us doing it and not creating anything more of a hardship on any. I Councilman Johnson: That's what I was trying to get you to say. Councilman Workman: The Colby's were going 20 feet and 3 feet fram the road. ' But I mean this is not, in the future that thing was going to bother some people I had a feeling but this thing is not creating anymore of what it's already sitting on and I think maybe that's what Paul's getting at. ' Councilwoman Dimler: It's not an expansion. Councilman Johnson: Not extending any further into the variance. Councilman Workman: You can't go by that either because Freddy Oeschlager would be in here too. He had other options and places to go. This is merely a filling of the gap and it's a small part that helps the entire house. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve a 6 foot ' sideyard setback variance request for the construction and remodel of the addition at 9131 Lake Riley Blvd.. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I think it's important that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals understands that from a hardship standpoint we agree with them. We worked a long time to get that understanding. I'd hate to foul that up. ' REQUEST FOR THE PLACENIFNT OF A DECK ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, LOTUS LAKE HNERS ASSOCIATION. Jo Ann Olsen: They asked to be moved to the next agenda. They went home. �` CONSIDER REVOCATION Cr CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NORTHWEST WHOLESALE NURSERIES, 9158 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. 1 C Jo Ann Olsen: This item was brought up to the City Council after W. Finger presented a Visitor Presentation with concerns about the activities at the nursery site. In the report we went through the history of the Northwest Nwrsery. What was approved. that exists today and what they are proposing to do in the future. I'll just go real briefly. In summary, we are recamiending that the conditional use permit not be revoked. Mb feel that we are working towards a resolution of those concerns. That they can be obtained in the near future and to satisfy same of the concerns of Mr. Finger. ab have established conditions as part of that approval...ard if you'd like I can go through all those. 44 City Council Meeting - 'r:tober 9, 1989 II Mayor Chide': No, I don't think that's necessary Jo Arm. I had same discussion with W. Finger yesterday. We discussed the conditions. He doesn't want to see the nursery go out of business either or for us to not approve the conditional use. So with the additional conditions that you have had in here as to what ' they should canply with, the only question I have is the filling of the Class B wetland there. Jo Ann Olsen: They actually have not filled in any wetland. They've been filling at the edge of the wetlands. Councilman Johnson: They still need a permit. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. ' Councilman Johnson: Have they applied for that permit? Jo Ann Olsen: They had applied for the conditional use permit and the wetland ' alteration permit. That's what was tabled last January and then we were proceeding with that again with than when it was brought back for consider of revocation so that's all been kind of put on hold until we see what happens. They have made the application though. It's easy for us just to move ahead with that. They have all the information. Mayor Qmiel: Is there anyone here from Northwest t olesale Nursery? Is there 11 anything that you'd like to address? Hopefully you've seen what the recamnendations were by staff. Are you basically in agreement with those recarnendations? Mark VanHoef: Yes. Mayor Qmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? ' Councilman Johnson: I've got a couple comments as we got through here. On the plans for future, there's a pond on the north side. A nice little circular pond. I'd like to see the 6 DNR or the 6 Fish and Wildlife normal recammerdations be instituted for that ponding site. The uneven sides. Polling bottans, etc., etc. that we ask for. Looking at this diagram it looks like it's a nice little circular hole in the ground. ' Gary Warren: That's a set basin. ' Jo Ann Olsen: It's a sedimentation basin but that would be going through the Wetland Alteration Permit process and we can look at that. Those conditions. Councilman Johnson: We ask for that in a lot of sedimentation basins. ' Jo Ann Olsen: As long as it can still do what it's purpose was. As long as it � p'�Po �9 can contain the water, we usually came to same sort of compromise. iCouncilman Johnson: It just has to be redesigned so it's not a little round hole in the ground but still hydraulically' do it's job. Mark VanHoef: My name is Mark VanHoef. I'm a part owner in Northwest and the only camment that I wanted to make with regards to the presentation that Jo Ann 1 45 City Council Meeting - Cr Der 9; 1989 I made is that we definitely need someone to make it clear that we are a wholesale nursery. W. Finger made sane accusations in several presentations. One that I did sit through in front of the Planning Commission and then also when he made sane cannents in front of this Council as to whether we're complying with a ' wholesale nursery. The definition that we ourselves pursued right into your zoning ordinances back in 1985 with the direction of Barb Dacy, are somewhat being questioned now as to whether they're complete enough. Whether they're specific enough and before we can really go any further, we need someone to say that yes, they definitely cnply with the wholesale nursery. Jo Ann has worked with us. we've tried to get sane things rolling but I don't want to keep going back to ground one saying okay, you've done this. You've done this. You've done this but now someone else has came to the front and said yes, but once again we question whether they are a wholesale nursery. I don't want to take a lot of time here. Don't want to get into a lot of what Jo Ann has prepared because I think it's basically stating our case very well but it is a major concern to us that this issue of a wholesale nursery definition is laid to rest because we can't stay there if in two years someone comes back to this Council and says, well we question what they're growing and how they're growing it. That needs to be clarified and put to bed. So that's all I'd like to say. Mawr Chmiel: The only thing that Mr. Finger had indicated tome was some consideration of loading and unloading of the trees in the back area. I don't know where you place those trees. That was the only consideration he has to offer. ' Mark VanHoef: My reference is, the meeting that I sat through when he made a presentation to the Planning Q viittee and those notes are in your packet, he specifically looked at our operation and accused it as being brokering plant material. Questioned whether we were growing the material. Your attorney has sent an opinion which would support us as being a growing. It's I guess how you define growing of nursery stock but I guess I only appeal to the Council that that has to be clarified. That right now the zoning ordinance is very broad in spectrtm and I just hope that before we get too far down the line and spend a lot of our money complying with the request, that that issue is laid to rest and that we are definitely defined as a wholesale nursery. Councilman Johnson: I think that we need to look at that definition in there because I can't totally agree with our attorney that having a plant sitting in a pot for a number of weeks on their property is growing it on site. But whether a wholesale nursery requires to be grown on site. 'Boma a wholesaler of auto parts does not make the auto parts on site. He buys them. He brings then into his warehouse and then he moves therm off to some retail outlet. So if that's what the City intends as a wholesaler is the normal definition of a wholesaler, you meet that. But I have to laugh when we say that a plant sitting in a plastic bucket for anywhere from a week to a year is grown on site. That to me just does not compute. Therefore our definition is either too strict so what we need is a zoning ordinance amendment to we the definition of wholesale nursery to what wholesale nursery is. If we're only talking a growing nursery, then it would have to be a plan that's planted on site. Something like what Tim Erhart's doing where he puts a tree in the ground and a couple years later harvests that tree. There is no harvesting when you put a pot on the ground and a few weeks later pick the pot up and put it back on another truck. I can't see that that's harvesting that tree that's been grown on the site. Mess it's harvested off the truck. 46 I IIc .ty Council Meeting - ';tober 9, 1989 !{ark VanHoef: Can I respond? !laver Chmiel: Gb ahead. Mark VanHoef: You bring up a good point and I'd like just to share two thoughts with you. N tuber one, I would take exception to your comparing us with a ' rewholesaler of auto parts because when that fender comes in and goes into stock, it does not change. It stays a certain size. A certain part. It does not change. When we bring stock in and you referenced shrubs for an example. ' That material is brought in bare root. That material is then potted. It goes on the site and it grows. The auto parts man does nothing to enhance his product. In my writeup that is in your packet that I provided Jo Ann with in ' terms of a better definition of our operation, every single plant this is on our site, whether it's growing in the ground or in the pot, receives care. Fertilization, pruning and watering and in our opinion, everything therefore is in a growing state. Everything is continually changing. We are expending man ' hours and fertilization and a lot of those expenses are changing that inventory so it's our opinion that everything is growing. The other thing that I would share with you... ' Clcuncilman Johnson: If you want to leave that in there, if you want to leave that part of this definition in there, you're opening up to argument in the future because there's a logic to say that it was not grown on site unless it sat in the ground. There's a logic there and all I'm saying is that if that's what we intend, if we intend only to have something that is harvested, we ought to say it as such. Something that is an agricultural operation. You could very ' wall go into an industrial park and do exactly the same. You could go into an industrial park and within a greenhouse do exactly the same as what you're doing out there as an industrial operation. It's a value added operation but I don't see it as what you traditionally think of as a nursery where you're planting sanething in the ground. It grows and then later on you dig it back up or repot it but you are a value added type operation. Different than a car. !dark VanHoef: Well I'd welcome you to came out to the site because there is a lot of material that is not just in pots. That is in the ground. The other point I wanted to make and I'll reference again my write up for Jo Ann is in ' 1985 when we were in front of the Council when there was no "wholesale nursery" on the books. We proceeded to have the ordinance changed. Barb May put the verbage in and then we had to apply to meet those zoning amendments. At that time and I hope that you guys understand this, that we came in front of the Council on an evening when we were on the agenda and I had prepared a complete presentation on what exactly our operation was going to be. Even to the tune of including a slide presentation from Badman's Wholesale which is located in ' Farmington, Minnesota. Maybe it was our error not to be more vigorous and more I guess forceful in saying no, let's not table this. Let's discuss this because at that time Mawr Hamilton says, well I don't think that's necessary. We ' understand and they passed it. I agree with you wholeheartedly Mir. Johnson. This is going to be up for review and up for discussion, then there's no sense of us going any further until that is clarified for everyone. Fbr us and for the Council. Councilman Bost. can I say something? 47 lie City Council Meeting - Oc' ier 9, 1989 II Mayor Qrdiel: I think maybe we're already at a point where we're just going to belabor it. Councilman Boyt: Well he's wrong. If you want to hear that, okay. If not, it's up to you. Mayor Qi'iiel: Let's take a vote on this. Councilman Johnson: I'm the only one who's commented on this so far. Mayor Qmiel: I think we know what the conditional use permit is and what it consists of and what's there. I think all this is, as we've been though here, is more rhetoric regarding it. The applicant is in agreement with the proposed conditions that are established. I think Mr. Finger is in the position of, I don't know if he's happy or not but I think he's in agreement with what's here because I did discuss it with him. Councilman Johnson: I just heard the applicant say he doesn't went to do it now unless we clear up this issue of the definition. I think Bill has something to say about that too. Mawr anal: Okay. Bill, go ahead. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, this is real short. The Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 1985. Your business was described in detail and I can understand why the Council wouldn't need to go through that twice since they read it so I don't know where Roger came up with that this wasn't discussed but it was certainly discussed in the Planning Commission in which you said, your activity would be limited to selling to licensed nurserymen and not to the general public, and I assume you're doing that and to me that makes it a wholesale nursery. That's just a very simple definition. As to whether they're growing it in the ground or out of the ground, you said we'll have a greenhouse. We'll propogate, clip, root and plant outside. Now I assume you're doing that. Mark VanHoef: We have not put a greenhouse up at this point. 1 Councilman Boyt: Okay. So maybe you're not doing quite what you described you do when you got the conditional use permit but you certainly did describe it and so I take issue with the position that the City Council didn't know what you were putting in there. I think they did know because you described it. That's what I assume you're doing and I don't have any difficulties approving this but I think we've defined what wholesale nursery is and if you're selling to licensed nurserymen, that's wholesale nursery. Mayor Oriel: Okay, is there emotion? ' Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to add just a couple of quick points. I don't know how wrong Jay really is. I wouldn't call it growing myself. call it maintaining until I could sell it. I think by allowing that into the wholesale nursery, you're not taking into account the traffic because if they're just sitting, growing and maybe that's an oversight from the previous Council. If they're just growing, that seems like a pretty peaceful place to me. If they're caning in by the flatbed load, you're adding to the activity. Probably by 50 times. That I guess is just one major concern of mine, the site plan. 48 • Can they out of this site lan? Can anybody outside of a site plan go P go P basically? Paul Krauss: No. Councilman Workman: Have they gone outside of their site plan from original to other? Basically we're just kicking the walls out. So in other words, basically they can go outside their site plan. Jo Ann Olsen: They still have to go through the whole process. Councilman Workman: I know but why? Because if they can still go out of it and then we have to explain it and everything else, I needn't have had this probably. That's where I get excited. Again, when I think about a nursery and I understand. Grocery wholesaling is groceries caning in, groceries going out so if you look at this situation like that, they're definitely wholesaling but I ' think we've got a gap there. Councilman Boyt: They're only harvesting in the spring and fall. ' Councilman Workman: They're only harvesting in the spring and fall. Does that mean they're not hauling in trees? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Are you working in the wintertime? Mark VanHoef: ND we're not. ' Councilman Workman: Are you selling shrubs and bushes all during the summer? ' Mark VanHoef: Yes we are. Councilman Workman: So they're coming in and out all sumer. Mark VanHoef: The question that I think references on that...the talk on machinery and the answer with harvesting our field operation. All harvesting is done in the spring and fall when plant material is dormant and they're out actually digging the plants out of the ground, which according to the packet, when you break down the site, we have about 15 to 17 acres in plant production which would be harvested in the spring and fall but the potted material that we're talking about right now, that material is grown from spring to freezing. umcilwanan Dimler: I guess I had a question and I argued with W. Finger ' about this for quite a while. That was that, and I wanted to find out, that once you have your site plan approved, can you never, ever expand? Jo Ann Olsen: You just have to go through the process again and get permission ' to do that but yes, you can expand. Councilwoman Rimier: Okay, but isn't that what they're doing. Isn't that what ' they're applying for? = Jo Ann Olsen: They had it prior to receiving that approval. Councilman Johnson: So are we prosecuting? ' 49 City Council Meeting - Oc` 'der 9, 1989 Paul Krauss: There's no question that they exceeded the allowable use on that I site but you tonight here are part of the punitive action. You can very well deny than for these past transgressions. Oouucilwanan Dimler: I guess being in the agricultural business ourselves I can understand why, you know we grow sweet corn and we run out or our next planting isn't ready, customers still want it so what we have to do is buy it from someone else and bring it in. I can understand that if they are selling x number of shrubs that aren't ready to go, where they would have to bring in plants to fill the orders. I don't think it's our intent to, at least it isn't mine to be dictatorial and say that every plant that is sold out of there has to be grown in the ground right there. It's never been my intent to restrict business expansion either. I think we need to have businesses that are making a profit and I think Mr. Finger's concerns have been very well addressed by both staff and by the willingness of the nursery to go along with it and I think that we've got a real workable solution here to the problem. I don't want to approve revocation of this. , Mawr Chmiel: Just make a motion. Councilwoman Dimler: I'll make erection that we do not revoke the conditional use permit of Northwest Wholesale Nursery and that we approve the staff report and the recamnendations that staff has made to rectify the situation. Mayor Oriel: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? I'll second , it. Councilman Hoyt: I have a question. Jo Ann, is the current use of the property ' larger than it was when it was approved in 1985? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. ' Councilman Boyt: So one possibility tonight is we could quite easily not expand the permit they were originally granted. Jo Ann Olsen: That's a whole separate process that they'll be coming back through. Cow ilman Boyt: Right but I'm just, so as far as we can say. Okay, we're not going to revoke it but at the same time, we could give than indication that we maybe asking them to go back to their 1985 proposal. , Councilwoman Dimler: But we want then to rectify their situation as well. I don't think we wont to deny them that opportunity. Iloiyor Oriel: To proceed with their proposed expansion. Councilman Johnson: Proceed with their application. Councilman Workman: Paul, you had said on the phone that basically we had 3 points. Basic points. One, this Council is now aware of a problem that exists which is good. T , we're going to get some financial guarantees. On specifically what? 50 ' City Council Meeting - nctober 9, 1989 II Paul Krauss: Cn correcting the drainage improvements, paving the driveway and creating the berm and planting the trees along the TH 101 elevation. ' Councilman Workman: And then 3? We've got a date certain which is what? Paul Krauss: June 1st. If we don't have satisfaction with these things by then, which includes bringing the site plan into compliance. Going through the ' process. Getting approval of whatever they need to. If we don't have compliance by then, we would anticipate bringing it right back to you and we're back to the revocation again. • ' Councilman Workman: Could it be assured that since activity would now be diminished for the industry, June 1st or May 15th, or just prior so they would have sane pretty good activity just prior to June 1st and we should be sitting ' fairly quiet for this at this time? Paul Krauss: I would believe so. ' Councilman Workman: Is that shade structure being in back? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Councilman Workman: Because didn't we ask them with some teeth to move that back with the Council last year or a year ago? ' Jo Ann Olsen: That was when I started the whole process. We let them keep it there because it was such a hot, dry summer and they needed it to protect the plans so we allowed them to keep it there with the condition that they would make application for the conditional use permit for expansion along with the variance if they were not going to set it back. And that did get going and then it was tabled. We feel that we are moving ahead with it now and we do have the teeth. Councilman Hoyt: Is there anything in this, in our approval tonight that would ' be construed as a permission to expand their operation beyond what we approved in 1985? ' Jo Ann Olsen: It's just saying that you don't want to revoke the conditional use permit. ' Paul Krauss: We did ask however that they give us our ultimate development scenario so you could see it and know what they're going to be cowing in with. But it was for information purposes only. ' Mayor Ciiniel: % at you're saying basically there should be another condition onto this? Is that what you're saying? Councilman Johnson: Under that authority are we asking for this $10,000.00 t , letter of credit? Paul Krauss: As a conditional use you can establish, you've got some lattitude ' . in establishing.l ' 51 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 Oamcilman Johnson: We're not establishing conditions. We did that in 1985. We're now considering revocation. I Paul Krauss: Then you're amending the conditions of approval if you approve it the way the recommendation was structured. Councilman Johnson: It's not before us to amend. The application's not before us to amend the conditional use permit. We're saying here tonight that we're not amending the conditional use permit. We're just not revoking it but we're expecting them to came in with an application to amend it. As part of the revocation hearing, I guess it could be a negotiated point that they agree to a letter of credit. Councilman Boyt: Aren't we saying Jay we're going to revoke this unless you do the following? Don't we have the right to say that? Courcilran Johnson: I don't know. Councilman Boyt: We do have the right to say that? ' Councilman Johnson: Okay. Councilman Boyt: Is that okay? ' Councilman Johnson: As long as we have that authority. I just wanted to make sure we had some kind of authority behind us to say this. ' Jim Parker: I'm the fella who drew the site plan. I'm Jim Parker with Advance Surveying and I think, as I sensed the needs of my client and why they were preparing the site plan they were two fold. One was to address the problems. The drainage problem. The shade structure. Screening the operation better. Those kinds of concerns. The wetland. But the other side of it was that they wanted to know where they stood. In other words, they did went to lay out their plans for the future and find that these were either(a) , acceptable or (b) , not acceptable because then taken as a whole picture, they could either continue with their operation or they might say well, this operation can't be continued. So I think they need a resolution of it as a package. I think that's what they were looking for and it's why, it's what the staff wanted. They wanted to see the future plans and so on. ' Jo Ann Olsen: Right but that doesn't have anything to do with tonight's action. Jim Parker: Alright. I'm just saying what their position was as I understood ' it. I'm saying I think they went to lay that forward and get it resolved so they knew what they were going to have to do to comply and what they would be allowed to do in the future and I think they did intend to follow up with a ' subsequent submission for a new conditional use permit that would get a plan developed that they could follow to avoid a problem in the future. Pbyor Chniel: We have a motion on the floor. Is there going to be an , additional condition contained within here? Is that what you're saying? If so, please provide it. 52 ' - __- - - -_ -- City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 II Councilman Boyt: I think we talked about adding a condition that their use would not be expanded beyond the 1985 without application being made for another conditional use permit. Councilman Johnson: That's condition 2. ICamcilwaman Dimler: That's in there. ' Councilman Boyt: Well if it's in there, we're covered as far as I can figure out. Don, if you think we've left something out, then I'd be open to others. Mawr Chmiel: I think you've got it right here. ' Councilman Johnson: The letter of credit rot's in the conditions. Mayor Chmiel: The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director to insure. that's item 4. ' Councilman Johnson: I'm sorry, that's 4. I was looking for the $10,000.00. Mawr Chmiel: And it also covers the non-conforming shade structure by June 1, 1990. Councilwoman Dimler: It's all in there, really. ' Mawr Chmiel: Everything's in here as fax as I can tell. Councilwoman Dimler: It's in there. Let's move it. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to deny the consideration for revocation of Conditional Use Permit #85-1 for Northwest Nursery Wholesale with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall redirect runoff from the nursery by using one of the ' alternatives shown on the drainage plans as shown on Sheet 4 of the plans dated September 27, 1989 and approved by MtDot and City Engineer by June 1, 1990. ' 2. The applicant shall proceed immediately with the application for expansion of the 1985 conditional use permit for the wholesale nursery and proceed with the application for wetland alteration for existing filling and proposed filling adjacent to the wetlands and receive such permits by June 1, 1990. ' 3. By October 4, 1989, the applicant shall install type III erosion control between the berm and holding area in the southeast corner of the nursery site to prevent runoff and sedimentation from entering adjacent properties. 4. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director to ensure the drainage improvements and proposed landscaping is completed. ' 53 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 II 5. The applicant shall remove the existing non-conforming shade structure by June 1, 1990. 1 All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Oriel: Rom, do you want to state your reason why? Councilman workman: We weren't going to just give somebody a little addition to their house. Councilman Johnson: We didn't give than anything here. Councilman Workman: I know. They took it. You can't make comments to my caunent. ' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: RBX1SIDER RECYCLING CONTRACT, MAYOR C 4IEL. Mawr Chniel: Wt had a vote on this particular decision at our last council meeting which was a 3 to 2 to discontinue the contract with waste Mangement. I had same discussions with Lynn the latter part of last week regarding what can we do and how can we continue on with what we have going with our recycling contract. Our major concern was that I didn't want to see this stopped even though Council's decision was such and ask Lynn had mentioned the fact that possibly there were some things that could be done. Of course, I asked her before that is there same way a pencil could be sharpened and I thought she came up with same fairly decent ideas for us to hopefully reconsider if the opposition who made the motion to deny were to entertain that. What it was, maybe Lynn you could just short of hit on it and I'll just mention it. What she mentioned at the time was to keep the price where it is now at $.87 through 1989. Is that correct? Then in January 1 of 1990, increase that from January through June to $1.35 and July through December at a $1.60. I've had some discussions with the Canmissioner Al Klingelhutz from the County in respect to potentially what we could look from the County to provide to us in the amount of a contribution because of the dollars that they'll acquire through the new omnibus tax bill of the 6% increase on garbage which the County would be getting approximately numbers $325,000.00. Of this I was asking the County as far as the City is concerned, we are here maintaining their requirements as percentages for recycling and was asking that we be provided a minimum of at least $40,000.00 for 1990. That's minimum as I say. Hopefully we can get more. They have certain dollar allocations they have to expedite for different things the County has to implement in order to have these dollars and it's so stated in the law. I will be meeting tomorrow morning to address this before the County Board requesting their consideration to assist us with the recycling. It will be just on a presentation. No action will be taken. It won't be taken until that following week so I guess that sort of summarizes it. Lynn, do you have something more to say than that? Lynn Morgan: No. I would say what you described is accurate Mr. Mayor except I would mention as well that part of what we talked about is that we would like 54 '