The URL can be used to link to this page

8c&d. Propsed Garden Centger, Rezoning Request from IOP to BH P.C. DATE: Aug. 17 , 1988 CITY OF 1 C.C. DATE: Sept. 12 , 1988 I CUAAC \I1 CASE NO: WAP 88-8 and CUP 88-13 1 > ' Prepared by: Dacy/v 1 STAFF REPORT 1 . , PROPOSAL: 1) Conditional Use Permit for a Garden Center 1 2) Wetland Alteration Permit to Create o C ea e a Stormwater Pond I ... in a Class B Wetland I z 4 I 2 LOCATION: North of and adjacent to West 78th Street, just east of the Dakota Avenue/TH 5 intersection CI ,�� ,,, -f tot.I �. Q APPLICANT: Jay Kronick 1609 Marshall Avenue IRockville, Maryland 20851 E--!t -h. S J ; ; i 1 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Business Highway and IOP, Industrial Office Park District ACREAGE: 3 . 7 acres IDENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING IAND LAND USE: N- R-12; multiple family & Eden Prairie QS- BH; vacant commercial IE- IOP; Redmond Products Q W- BH; Chanhassen Office Building I W WATER AND SEWER: Available to site I (f) PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is flat and contains a wetland. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial and Industrial IS,' t 10� ... ,, li w /AI an& --7100 I b ': 11�i 1 11� - ( ` \.■ 7200 .=t r �,1r:\ LAKE \, . Mid ■` 730C w . _ ' 11.111 niallOitp. C;L3 - ..„, ..k,... .=\,.....-......... � 1 _ 7400 L�� .04 a,;ln , rte' "-R 1 0 t'-.co £ 1!* 21 ,14 I _ \ ° 7500 .wrivvolisi ,-,,Atigittgfr a 1 4e/, _ ..e. _ �t� �I^�il ��r ��• , . tea. NNW INIIN4 1.1.11 loc1 ui i •• zt IMP \�.._.1III►•11 --.i:,�l..11, % -may=' '�=� N1! ■ ;! 7.� s •, ti : 7700 Mit 7 r�.._ : 11111 111111y TH ST ; a-4n MItenl 111111 ' • v • •B L rr ID 1.� L �ti -qu —�, 7900 1 ill ttr o •i,•..: 3 lOP * NoL ' (4 8000• to co 03 °N irn-.1..-• to. -I. !��■ e►► —8100 • r ., „...„, I :1 ' 2) • S ?)3 I 1'/_?" �r ;`k �•�F RSF — 8200 �, i� refIMICO AN ��i I INNEN — 8300 ,../f/ta&i CIRCLE � ,rgir■i R/C E A/ - SH LAKE i:k `=jr� — I t •;T. r8600 1 Garden Center ' August 17 , 1983 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES ' Engineering Department Attachment #1 ' Army Corps of Engineers Attachment #2 Building Department Attachment #3 ' Public Safety Department Attachment #4 Park and Recreation Coordinator The applicant will need to ' pay park and trail dedication fees at time of building permit application. BACKGROUND The City Council at the June 13 , 1988, meeting, approved the zoning ordinance amendment request to amend the BH, Business Highway District to allow garden centers as a conditional use. The City Council tabled action on the land use plan amendment and ' the rezoning request for the easterly half of the property from IOP to BH until a site plan is submitted ( see attached minutes) . The applicant has prepared the wetland alteration permit and the ' conditional use permit applications to comply with Council direc- tion. The applicant had made a previous application in 1987 for a gar- den center in the RR, Rural Residential District. The Planning Commission on September 9 , 1987 , recommended denial of the request and the City Council at the October 5 , 1987 , meeting also ' denied the request to allow the garden center in the RR District. The City Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by Barr Engineering ' (dated September, 1987) , identified the necessity for a storm- water pond within the subject property. Because wetland vegeta- tion exists throughout the property and because the city has identified an overall stormwater management need, the wetland alteration application is proposed as a joint application with the applicant. ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS 1 The applicant is proposing a garden center including construction of a 1 ,200 square foot sales building, a 1 , 200 square foot greenhouse, outdoor display areas and associated parking facili- ties . The following conditional use standards are reviewed indi- vidually against the proposed request (Section 20-232) : 1 . Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, I Garden Center August 17 , 1988 Page 3 safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neigh- borhood or the city. * The proposed use does not generate the type of impacts which would endanger the health, safety or welfare of the area in which it is located. It is well separated from the multiple family residential site to the north and is located between an existing office building on the west and an office and distribution facility on the east. 2 . Will be consistent with the objectives of the city' s compre- hensive plan and this chapter. ' * The western half of the property is designated on the land use plan as commercial and is zoned BH, Business Highway. The proposed construction is located on this portion of the property. The easterly portion of the property iden- tified for future expansion is guided as industrial and zoned industrial. The City Council will act on the request to redesignate and rezone this portion of the par- cel to commercial when the application is submitted to the Council. ' 3 . Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. * One of the impacts from the proposed use is the outdoor ' display of plants, shrubs and outdoor storage of fer- tilizer and mulch materials. The applicant has indicated that a two foot berm will be located along the front pro- perty line along West 78th Street planted with flowers to provide for an initial "edge" to the front of the display area in front of the sales building. A shade lattice will also be located on the west side of the proposed sales building. While the outdoor display of materials is an essential part of a garden center use, it also needs to be properly contained so as not to present a haphazard appearance. Staff recommends installation of a two foot hedge along the east side of the display area in front of the sales building to contain the display area and to screen the structures used to hold the potted materials or the base of balled and burlapped trees. To the rear of the building, the applicant has ' appropriately located storage of the bags of fertilizer and mulch. This area would also be a display area. After conferring with the applicant regarding the necessity of screening, the applicant has indicated that he would construct an enclosure for the bags of fertilizer and mulch. I Garden Center I August 17 , 1988 Page 4 IThe proposed greenhouse, although small in size, will be readily visible from TH 5 and adjacent properties. Upon conferring with the applicant regarding the necessity to I minimize its visual impact, the applicant has agreed to install a six foot evergreen hedge or similar material along its south, west and north sides. IThe greenhouse will also be shifted ten feet to the east to comply with the comments of the Building Inspector. The retail sales building does not have to be sprinklered Ibecause it is below the minimum threshold for sprinklering. 4 . Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned Ineighboring uses . * The proposed garden center does not pose hazardous or I disturbing impacts that would adversely affect existing or adjacent uses. 5 . Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and I services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities I and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. * The parcel will be served by water and sewer and is served I by the West 78th Street frontage road. West 78th Street will ultimately connect to a full intersection at Dell Road/184th Street and TH 5 and the new TH 101/TH 5 inter- Isection west of Dakota. See Engineering report for grading and drainage issues. I6 . Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. I * The proposed use will not require additional public faci- lities or services which would be detrimental to the Iwelfare of the community. 7 . Will not involve uses , activities, processes , materials , I equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimen- tal to any persons , property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes , glare, odors , rodents , or trash. I * The major external impact resulting from this use is the aesthetic appearance as described in standard #3 . The Iapplicant has properly addressed the necessity for a trash II Garden Center August 17 , 1988 Page 5 ' enclosure. No fumes or odors (other than the smell or flowers! ) will be generated from the site. The traffic generated by the use can be accommodated by the existing street system. 8 . Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. * One driveway access to the site is proposed. The site provides for a standard 24 foot wide driveway. ' Note that the applicant is also proposing installation of a gate at the entrance to the site for security reasons. The applicant has indicated that it would be woodframe construction of 4 to 5 feet in height. The Public Safety Department indicated that the gate should be locked by a chain instead of another locking mechanism so that the chain can be severed in an emergency. 9 . Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. * The wetland alteration permit application addresses the changes to the natural features of the site. The city has worked with the applicant to allow construction on the property but maintaining an area on the rear of the pro- perty to comply with U. S. Fish and Wildlife guidelines for wetland configurations as well as creating a storm- water pond. The applicant is proposing the display of plant materials within the 75 foot setback. The setback pertains to structures. The proposed structures exceed the setback. 10 . Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. * The recommendations identified in condition #3 also apply ' to this standard. The proposed retail sales building is of woodframe construction with cedar lapped siding. The greenhouse is approximately 12 feet in height and will be constructed of the typical plastic material used for greenhouses (refer to Page 4 of the plan packet) . While adjacent structures are of concrete block construction, the woodframe building will not deter from the general character of the area. The greenhouse structure, however, is made of a material that is not typically found in com- mercial districts. The additional screening discussed earlier will minimize the view of the greenhouse. 1 Garden Center ' August 17, 1988 Page 6 ' 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values . * The proposed site improvements and construction are such ' that it is not believed that the use will depreciate surrounding property values. ' 12 . Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. * No specific conditions were established for this use. The ' conditional use permit application adequately addresses the impacts from the proposed use. Summary The proposed site plan meets the standards for parking, site coverage, and the lot and structure requirements of the BH District. As to the lighting standards, a high pressure sodium wall light is proposed on the east side of the building. An existing street light exists at the proposed entrance from West ' 78th Street. No other lighting is proposed. The additional plantings discussed in standard #3 should help to ' define the display areas and screen the greehouse. Staff would also recommend that the permit be reviewed again in one year to evaluate the effectiveness of the screening proposed and to determine if additional screening is necessary. ' The City will also join the applicant in a subdivision applica- tion to plat the property to convey the wetland area to the city ' and to retain the necessary utility and drainage easements . RECOMMENDATION - Conditional Use Permit ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13 based on the site plan stamped "Received July 26 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1 . Installation of a 6 foot evergreen screen along the south, west and north walls of the greenhouse and installation of a 2 foot hedge along the east side of the display area in front ' of the sales building. 2 . Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-8 . ' 3 . The applicant shall file a plat application in conjunction with the City of Chanhassen to reserve the necessary utility easements and to properly convey the northerly portion of the site to the City. 1 Garden Center August 17, 1988 Page 7 4 . The site shall be reviewed in one year to evaluate the effec- , tiveness of the screening. 5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with ' the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of these public improvements. ' 6 . The sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior to discharging into the public sanitary sewer system. 7 . Details for the installation and connection of the sanitary sewer and water services shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval. ' 8 . A check valve shall be installed on the sanitary sewer ser- vice prior to discharge into the public sanitary sewer system. 9 . The proposed utility easements shall be revised to include a 40-foot wide utility easement which shall cover all of the existing and proposed utilities. 10 . A revised grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval as part of the final review process. 11. The proposed water service connection shall be "wet tapped" ' in accordance with the latest published version for the Standard Specifications for Utility Installation from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) . 12 . Details for the service connection to the 10-inch diameter watermain should be submitted to the City Engineer for appro- val prior to final approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request subject to staff' s conditions with the following changes : 2 . Approval and compliance with Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8 . 4 . There shall be no outside sales of merchandise as opposed to outside display of merchandise. STAFF UPDATE The applicant wants to clarify two issues regarding development of the site. The enclosure for the bags of mulch and fertilizer will not be constructed until late spring or early summer. The ' I Garden Center August 17, 1988 Page 8 ' materials will be screened by the plantings to be located at the rear of the site. To insure compliance with the condition of approval, it is recommended that the enclosure be constructed by ' October, 1989 . Secondly, depending on the progress and scheduling of the city' s work on the storm sewer through the parking area, the applicant ' wants to be able to open the facility prior to having the bitumi- nous completed on the parking area. The purchase agreement (next item on agenda) stipulates that the parking area be completed ' within four weeks of completion of the city' s work. Because of the small size of the parking area and given the purchase agreement stipulation, staff does not have concerns regarding the applicant' s request. However, a condition of approval has been added to insure compliance. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ' It is recommended that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13 based on the site plan stamped "Received ' July 26 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1 . Installation of a 6 foot evergreen screen along the south, west and north walls of the greenhouse and installation of a ' 2 foot hedge along the east side of the display area in front of the sales building. ' 2 . Approval and compliance with Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8 . 3 . The applicant shall file a plat application in conjunction with the City of Chanhassen to reserve the necessary utility easements and to properly convey the northerly portion of the site to the City. ' 4 . There shall be no outside sales of merchandise as opposed to outside display of merchandise. ' 5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of these public improvements . ' 6 . The sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior to discharging into the public sanitary sewer system. ' 7 . Details for the installation and connection of the sanitary sewer and water services shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval. 8 . A check valve shall be installed on the sanitary sewer ser- vice prior to discharge into the public sanitary sewer system. I Garden Center August 17 , 1988 Page 9 9 . The proposed utility easements shall be revised to include a 40-foot wide utility easement which shall cover all of the existing and proposed utilities . 10 . A revised grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval as part of the final review process. 11 . The proposed water service connection shall be "wet tapped" in accordance with the latest published version for the Standard Specifications for Utility Installation from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) . 12 . Details for the service connection to the 10-inch diameter watermain should be submitted to the City Engineer for appro- val prior to final approval. 13 . An enclosure screening the bags of mulch and fertilizer shall be constructed by October 1, 1989 . 14 . The applicant shall arrange to pave the parking area within four weeks of completion of the city' s work. Upon approval from city staff , the applicant may receive an occupancy per- mit prior to completion of the paving work. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT City staff inspected the site with Jim Leach on May 12 , 1988 . A majority of the site contains type 2 wetland vegetation. The primary wetland vegetation is reed grass, although there are pockets of cattails. Mr. Leach reported that the wetland was of marginal quality and a creation of an open water area in compliance with the U. S . Fish and Wildlife conditions would be beneficial in restoring the wetland to a better state. As mentioned in the Background Section of this report, the Stormwater Management Plan for the city identified this area as needing a stormwater management pond (refer to Engineering report) . Mr. Leach advised us at the time of inspection that an Army Corps of Engineers permit would be required. The city in conjunction with the applicant applied for a permit. A copy of the permit is attached. The Army Corps conditioned approval of the permit subject to the standard six conditions of the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed design of the pond has a free form to it and has shallow embankments to encourage growth of emergent vegetation for refuge for wildlife. The permit also allows the excavated material to be placed toward the front part of the site as fill material. The soils consist of sandy and silty clay material. It should be noted that the runoff from the proposed garden center improvements are not directed toward the wetland but to the ditch along West 78th Street. I Garden Center August 17 , 1988 Page 10 Because the design of the wetland will meet U. S . Fish and Wildlife standards, the project will not only improve the quality of the wetland in this area but also provide a stormwater manage- ment function. RECOMMENDATION - Wetland Alteration Permit ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8 based on the plans stamped "Received July 26 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions: ' 1 . Approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11. 2 . Compliance with the Army Corps of Engineer' s conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request as presented in the staff report. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-8 as recommended by the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Memo from Larry Brown dated August 10 , 1988 . 1 2 . Letter from Army Corps of Engineers dated August 3 , 1988 . 3 . Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 8 , 1988 . 4 . Memo from Jim Chaffee dated August 3 , 1988 . 5 . City Council minutes dated June 13 , 1988 . ' 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 1, 1988 . 7 . Planning Commission minutes dated August 17 , 1988 . 8 . Plans stamped "Received July 26 , 1988" . Manager' s Comments: The ro osed use is one which can easily P P become uncontrollable. A Lyndale Garden type of operation would ' be devastating to the "tangle town" intersection of Dakota/TH 5/ TH 101/frontage road. Parking standards could prove to be ade- quate or totally inadequate. This office would recommend that, ' if approved, that City Attorney' s office clearly identify each of the permissions being granted to insure that storage/sales/ screening/parking/etc. are defined and controlled. I CITY OF , , I E 1 ,,A, O . CHANHASSEN \„c... _.. . - 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �ry (612) 937-1900 II MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission II FROM: Larry Brown , Staff Engineer0e DATE: August 10 , 1988 II SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit for II Kronick ' s Retail Garden Center Planning File No. 88-13 CUP and 88-8 WAP, Jay Kronick and the City of Chanhassen II This site is located on West 78th Street approximately 1300 feet east of State Highway 101. This 3 . 7 acre site is composed of an II existing wetland with a grove of trees located on the westerly portion of the site. Sanitary Sewer I Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by an existing 18-inch diameter sewer main 4hich has been extended from the I south side of West 78th Street to the north side of the railroad tracks located immediately north of the subject parcel. The plans propose a 4-inch diameter service from the proposed struc- ture to the trunk main. The intended use has a high potential to generate damaging waste II flow if not treated properly. existing 18-inch diameter sewer main to protect the City ' s downstream lift station from sand or other particulate matter . The plans propose the connection of the 4-inch diameter sanitary II sewer service to the City' s existing trunk main. Due to the large capacity of the trunk sanitary sewer main versus the minute II volume of storage capacity for the 4-inch diameter service, it is recommended that a "check valve" be installed on the service to prevent any back-flow conditions into the building. With the II potentially large volumes of flow from the trunk sanitary sewer line, a back-flow condition would be devastating to the building. Precise details involving the connection of the sanitary sewer should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to II final approval. II II Planning Commission August 10 , 1988 Page 2 Water Service Municipal water service is available to the site by an existing 10-inch diameter watermain which parallels the sanitary sewer line referenced above. The proposed water service connection shall be "wet tapped" in accordance with the latest published version for the Standard Specifications for Utility Installation from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) . Specific details which address the service connection to the 10-inch diameter watermain should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final appro- val. Access ' Access for the subject site has been provided for by a 24-foot wide driveway onto West 78th Street . This plan is acceptable. The plans also propose a curb cut on the north side of the parking lot and an 8-foot wide gravel access road from the north side of the parking lot to the ponding sites. This access is intended for the City' s use to maintain the ponding sites . A 25 to 37-foot (varies) utility easement is shown on the plans for the existing utilities and to serve as access to the pond. This proposed easement does not cover all the existing utilities. The ' applicant has been notified that the City is requesting a 40-foot wide utility easement to cover the existing and proposed utili- ties. In addition , the City is requesting an access easement for ' the driveway/parking area such that access can be gained to main- tain the ponds as necessary. The 8-foot wide gravel access road will be installed as part of the City' s pond project . Grading and Drainage ' The northerly portion of the site exists as a wetland. This application has been filed as a joint effort between Jay Kronick and the City of Chanhassen such that the requirements of the City' s storm water management plan dated September of 1987 , pre- pared by Barr Engineering, can be accomplished (refer to attach- ment 1 ) . The storm water management plan calls for the construction of a retention pond as proposed by the applicant ' s grading plan. The proposed plan calls for the construction of a sedimentation/ retention pond on the northerly third of the site. This storm water retention pond receives runoff from a watershed which measures 65 acres. The City' s goal is to maximize the amount of retention within the ponding area such that the needs for the Planning Commission August 10 , 1988 Page 3 entire 65-acre watershed are met . Staff has requested that William Engelhardt and Associates review the proposed ponding site and storm sewer system to ensure that the system has the potential to serve the entire 65-acre watershed. The Watershed District ' s Engineer, Robert Obermeyer, has also been involved with the preliminary design for the ponding sites. This pond will discharge to the drainage swales immediately south of the proposed parking area. The runoff will then flow along the northerly side of Highway 5 and eventually cross underneath Highway 5 . The Minnesota Department of Transportation will be reviewing the storm water runoff such that the flows can be accommodated with the anticipated Highway 5 improvements. The City has already received approval from the Army Corps of Engineers Office for the proposed ponding site (refer to attach- ment 2) . This application will also require approval from the Watershed District. Erosion Control , The plan does not address erosion control. A revised plan which addresses erosion control should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval as part of the final review process . Recommended Conditions 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of these public improvements. 2 . The sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior to discharging into the public sanitary sewer system. 3. Details for the installation and connection of the sanitary sewer and water services shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval. 4. A check valve shall be installed on the sanitary sewer ser- vice prior to discharge into the public sanitary sewer system. 5 . The proposed utility easements shall be revised to include a ' 40-foot wide utility easement which shall cover all of the existing and proposed utilities. 6. A revised grading , drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval as part of the final review process. 1/ Planning Commission August 10 , 1988 Page 4 7 . The ro osed water service connection shall be "wet tapped" P P PP in accordance with the latest published version for the Standard Specifications for Utility Installation from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) . 8 . Details for the service connection to the 10-inch diameter watermain should be submitted to the City Engineer for appro- val prior to final approval. Attachments 1. Storm Water Management Plan excerpt. 1 •l ' 14rt"1/tlit, :i ': !:!t • , \` ,, % ; l,.,i t r1 r'i �!1 ,.} 1 i' i 1.;, ., ,r (t. 1 , $ j t . .. `• .f t'i. ./ 1 i't t,` '' J ' F, •�J ia'1 '1 f•i! iI'1' ,., ` lj 1 i- i ` ,i; ;'•5�.j♦' ,k�, is _-';t{`•,''��rl!t r,., 1•.,;,�;� ! i't•1' ' i' .�(i' }, ., s l+1 ,, ;' 1 't#` ��1.1,,-1i` " ."t 1''' i �t,t,'i:(lj;;,' , 'i,j, y'.1 i't) t 1„ ,',',.,,., Sit 1 't,' y_ ')..1f1. t '."4.T', .$ :� '''r, r '}' r .F ' t 1 , t•�'I� , c,>.`s i. 1 ie, ` 1� i�:#' i ilt'� {.'f N' ,t', ..i ,,ii,f}'f,l k�`,(.1, :j 1;;la; , `,I" ,1,11"."(:`,‘ ,11t ,� -f ,ts 1 .` t •r!F •1. , , i/, 'fi 1 •`.e 'I ;;1;', :,1!I,i'+ir, ,k flr tiij.,: 'i ','':1`.1,I;;� ,( �.r, i 7.1%t,4, ;1,' .'t`ti,,;,i,.. t`,' •',;Lr` pit '''' ;{.:Ard,{t.. ,< i ;,tv, . r''t: i ., `-1 ‘_ ` ::1;l:r1,',, .!.. ,14 'r t. ,i' ,, -' {t,. t`, a''';i y i E\21.44,'t,t ti. .,;e4...!.11 y;. S 1t ,f• , r, J,rrl�`'t," (r' '''i ',, r: -1' '..t, �? 't.f.''. '1‘4,11,' �g , Sy , i }1 '• `t , 4 I' I"' '�'ti.' ;`,' , •' j y. 'i i. •'j• t � �j 't'F.a? 1 1(1 ✓riy.tl '' ! - r' ,, - - -1i ;-,.r it k•.fy -, } 'r t, iNi , '',t� ` f tt j , r:a + • r.)� ;i '�t NA' t•fti' j �' �`Y, a,.�,�:}'�isy �t4.. . .��vr4 " �l ;Is�1 � ,eft ' s, S ;' : r,;'{,'. :-.i` '! „ty t,z.. s'%)1 �',!.` '� ,r .i `` i'j, d iL' �d.;#,s!. 1{-�-1xr,. .�, '�p1}t' 1' r'f,:t%tli.: _ ,,.' :R .r :t 1 \':' .c�.. •1, 1 1 i'' (., ,'t.,>.:, :' ''. -'• .it}1•'`l :';iii•1SIlf��f'11 j 't+ ' '„ • 'fipi; --,"t ii'.'. }.. - -I :(�', i�` -. --"r�=��` ��r`:r� c. ( 1 1f� + ,y.,1 ,l E i t 1 '-1 '"i:. ai ;j'r ESty • 11 t�,:v,i.rj,' 1 , fJ, tr 1!i161.1�'!`i '' MANAGEMENT' PLAN / - }''1,t`.,;,r •i.r;� fit. 1 Sil !11�7 '1•''•1 '"' :'`i)' ,'`1'l�i:,' •{ �i, 1v:'i - r:, :, ,.,.a:', 1' -t )," ✓/, f S v . ,� t ( ' /a .Jf:,„ 4 S"` :ii< a:Vii•: .. i I;j ,1 ':i • , :1 1, i , ,, j 11 i;( l''' I! r,.'1 t'; ,.-i i •-.I A, d( ",,v f.le,.f ,'°`a t,c,:r .!•'11,\ 'di 0, 1 � ; •1.}1 itt )1tlf 1 11 1{li`} ilf,: ,! lY• ,. - ; - 4(‘'.;.'' \‘'.i',1,:`,,-.11i,' s:41 ! �14' ',} u f, 1 '''.''�t'F• It�j:p 'i)..l,. 1 ::_,,:,,..„4,_ •- r '.i ttL '1 f ., L a +'• ,S'+}-!'1 'rli' ,•f,' 14 f,l tt1.: k S' 3. ' ti t'k, , i:.,yS.."'4; '-. ;i, .1 i\ f;r` - `'J:41' --../ �.' .li,l!t 1,) i 1i� !. {� /,l i 7, `, 1 ;s l Ll.s J.tt•.\ `'=\'I„ •J tcyt il, ?' .r,f,,)4:4i It:•1;>1i1� (- *t. tA;I `:A''.' ;t•'-;1,.:.*: .,J _ r s• .i`-{` '`ra4`V i,•,-; ',1. ,'i\ In' ,l i S„*,+}.,, i, i :f ,t,,, ti,,,.F+tJ'11 41r,.(1.�,,t,,l t.,} -1 j, : ' 1�.J- G:•1 :;t t' 1� -' .i: ,,.11,..- _ �! ' `, -r'1 1 •j,li,l - ft '1.'4 �i,'i i }' ,Ilr' i,7 , 1).,''J41 '1. �• ` •\'., try`s 71.• ' \ hl; • • = MI MI • I MI IIIIIIII IIIIII • MI E • I NM IIIIIIII MI NM - • „I I. '.l LAKE ANN 0 1 till/ , 7- -, { I o 4 I 1111 "'f Scale in Feet v: • �i ��\ i11�♦4 11J��af�'� � _ —7400 l,1 ' , LL�4 r��aet.�:,9 \ �� 1 ( V V.../.........'. CO CD / t>3.LrJ. ` , o V / B — ".��,• • 1`� �`N.I m Watershed Divide ----- I / wwL 934 - �� ,,—.well E z. ..s wL 930 O ��/� ■■■;;iiiLLL- 33JJJaa� 31g= '-:;s 1 A voL Sur a / 1 c�'/�© - r / / J I P Existing Storm Sewer _ I / olsc 3CrS -�� -2'�L7 bra s j 1"/".".V., --- I • a6o Ci 1 m ; -+ OM �4 r», r �F Proposed Storm Sewer—�mu s41.• z O�d I` �i Imo— �/ and Size 42” ,..k� .� 646 _ I r., xwL 936.3 , c I IIIi1j " � I 963.6 9ao.8 r` 982.2�I� r I "L 932• m Stormwater Storage _1__.� 967.a L.I i YOL 1 Mr 9 AR:OR ' BOULEVARD --- ■ 86"C I i' oisc soc F 3 Area 6'� ,48'( I ,T�3 7- �— ` \ �— 1�L 93s -- ; s42 ' �N -_. •:as'. Collection Point onRK •' _ / "L 931 L. 66 �® ao __, ip�� „ With Invert Elevation EXISTING voL 1.3Ar1 ( > / oisc 9s [FS O n 946.91 L O'�i ^ . y lik COURT �' OPEN CRt ,p „ r. 647.9 � / C y/ Design Discharge ss ' ( Q CHANNEL \ `� " �' �9 ` r 42" 1 y..,. Q1 , , DR! i 3 Flood Elevation ,+a ,; j,�- I f h • wuL 951 `�--.. ✓ I i �a EXISTINO�+ • wL 94s :—} f z� I STORM + \w 62 VOL 33AF 1 RA � Normal Level AL o \ ° I SEWER iyR Disc 33AF EiocFS J wL vii —:-.4 — .,\\ � �I � • O Storage Volume vat • k..,, / 42'� YDL IAr —' g F jT+` -� oisc 3ocFS c, •J-- F"'PaCI 92z �. 1— C tA' I Outflow Discharge o,sc 3. * 1V1 -- o r— c 1 _ r ' 2 600 6 ■ \ \ M r L` c CO I 111/, G If 660 , \ E I `!o;' aoo % �� t ESXISTIN //�� ' / H ` • 6'% 1_} � 12 I� s �L` � X14 TORM m 8100 , iCN� ?- I \ M. 939 ■ -'...,�/ 's C.SEWER X .7v�� C� 53(. / > \ 8o a°+4ls 1� "OP N mi. 93s / I�1 �' gla / .".,Ac ` _S '` CHANNEL\ vat 8AF 1'.:-._,,__,-Q-• 4�� % //�) ,- ■. ` DISC$CFS I o iki YDL 30 F \ ' \ ' 1 DISC 20 CFS DISC 1.5AC �� L O • 11 -\"' ;,'` 8:00 f In. 936' I DISC SoCF -�- \ ,O 1 Y / � DISC LOCFS I �� Y� V" .--•'�'7 Diic ry[FS /t —J , .� — 690 L.1I. •♦ <r 1 i'' t•\3Z ) ....%....,''' i aac4z 1 AAEA.,4AC , SEDIMENTATION. ' VOL 1.2AF ; �. -- POND o LAKE SUSAN DISC 14crs -'—" —8 C • © R� 'E M •RS LAKE • 'SEDIMENT `� ea POND _. I _ I i i 1 ' asrti ST. I _ —E6C I I — �I Ij ' 1 � , . _ i I r Y� � KIILIIL� vavo I I 11<, . , ,"',Ocr',3. , Figure I • t,N ,4,:' STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN . _ si . I CITYOF‘. j CHANHASSEN 1 \.,\J:vik 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I ~,`'-i {612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ✓ � FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer ✓' ._. DATE: September 8 , 1988 ISUBJ: Staff Memo Update for the August 10 , 1988 Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit for Kronick ' s Retail Garden Center I Planning File No. 88-13 CUP and 88-8 WAP, Jay Kronick and the City of Chanhassen I As stated in my August 10 , 1988 memorandum, the City has authorized William Engelhardt and Associates to review the pro- posed ponding site and storm sewer facilities to maximize the Istorm water retention capabilities for the ponding site. The plans have been completed (dated "Received September 8 , 1988" ) and have been included with the Kronick plan set. The I storm water management plan prepared by Barr Engineering suggests that additional volume or ponding sites be reviewed to plan for the ultimate development fot he 65 acre watershed which contri- I butes to this area. Staff is talking with the fee title owner of the property to the west for consideration of expanding the ponding site to the west in the future to comply with the storm water management plan. IThe elevation proposed for the garden center is 937 . 0. The City' s zoning ordinance requires that a two-foot separation be I maintained between the high water line of the pond and the pro- posed garden center. The high water line for the sedimentation retention pond will be at 944. 0. We find that this plan is iacceptable. I II I • I • 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I r • ENT-UF �� F� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY qQ ST PAUL DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS �+ '+?+w ,"' 3; 1421 U.S.POST OFFICE&CUSTOM HOUSE er"; ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101.1479 August 3, 1988 �l4r,so'NtA REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Construction-Operations Regulatory Functions (88-2290N-74) ' Ms. Barbara Dacy, Planner City of Chanhassen P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Filling for Jay Kronick retail nursery and City of Chanhassen stormwater pond; unnamed wetland; Sec(s) . 7, T. 116 N. , R. 22 W. ; Carver and Hennepin County, MN. We have reviewed the information provided us about your project. The work is authorized by a nationwide Department of the Army permit, provided the enclosed conditions and management practices are followed. This determination covets only the project referenced above. Should you change the design, location, or purpose of the work, contact us to make sure a violation would not occur. Our telephone number is (612) 220-0375. ' It is your responsibility to insure that the work complies with the terms of this letter and the enclosures. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CONFIRMATION ' LETTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. This authorization expires on January 12, 1992. If you have any questions, please call Vern Reiter at (612) 220-0363. Sincerely, Enclosure(s) en Wopa Chief, R gulatory Functions Branch Construction-Operations Division Determination: Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations 330.5 (a) (26) AU G U 5 1988 k:I lY OF CHANHASSEN ' Design suggestions to optimize wildlife habitat benefits of the stormwater pond are also enclosed. We recommend that these guidelines be followed as much as is feasible at this site. Copy furnished to Mr. Jay Kronick, 1609 Marshall Avenue, Rockville, MD 20851 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . ' MINNESOTA ' Authority for the following activities is given at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): [21 330.5(a)(26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters listed in paragraphs (a)(26)(i) and (ii) of this section except those which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 10 acres or more of such waters of the United States, including wetlands. For discharges which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of one to ten acres of such waters,including wetlands, notification to the district engineer is ' required in accordance with Section 330.7 of this section. (Section 404) __ (i) Non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes an -impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located above the head ' waters. - (ii) Other non-tidal -waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, that are not part of a surface tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of the United States (i.e. , isolated waters). Regional Conditions } Majority of the Project Requires State Permits and/or Approvals Any person intending to discharge dredged or fill material into Minnesota- n designated "Protected Waters" shall submit an application to the Minnesota - - -. Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) before beginning work. Activities are authorized under this nationwide permit after the applicant obtains all applicable Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (IWNR) and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ('}'MPCA) permits and approvals. Work may proceed upon receipt of all applicable MDNR and/or MPCA permits and ' approvals. Other State and local authorizations may be required. This discharge of dredged or fill material would cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of: [ ] Less than one acre of waters of the United States Between 1 and 10 acres of waters of the United States • ' Inc l 1 (See reverse side. ) a II . 1 Regional Conditions (continued) :*'h- Majority of the Project Does Not Require State Permits and/or Approvals ' This nationwide permit is subject to Regional Conditions that allow only projects that would drain, fill, or inundate an area of LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET of waters of the United States. /!� f/� The project involves a discharge of dredged or fill material into the following area(s): [ ] TROUT STREAMS - the head waters (and adjacent wetlands) and the tributaries (and adjacent wetlands) of these streams. f--] FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (ST. CROIX RIVER) - all head waters (and adjacent wetlands) of these streams. ' [_] LAKES/WETLANDS LARGER THAN 10 ACRES - all wetlands adjacent to these head water lakes and wetlands. These areas are identified by MDNR on their "Public Vaters/Vetlands Inventory" saps. [ ] STATE PROTECTED WATERS LARGER THAN 10 ACRES - wetlands adjacent to these isolated waters. These lakes are identified by MDNR on their "Public Vaters/Wetlands Inventory" maps. 1 1 1 MN NM I ME MI NM WM IMMI 111111 111111 MI E M ME • The following SPECIAL CONDITIONS must be followed in order for the nationwide permits to be valid: 1. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake; 2. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directly related to • shellfish harvesting activity authorised by paragraph (a)(4) of this section; 3. That the activity will not jeopardise a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. 4. That the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound water); 5. That any discharge of dredged or till material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollu- tant• in toxic amounts; • 6. That any structure or fill authorised shall MI properly m•intiined. 7. That the activity will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; nor in • river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status; 8. That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with navigation; 9. That. if the activity may adversely affect historic properties which the National Park Service has listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the permittee will notify the District Engineer. If the permittee encounters • historic property that has not been listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register. but which may be eligible for listing on the National Register. he/she will notify the District Engineer. 10. That the construction or operation of the activity will not impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights; 11. That in certain states. on individual state water quality certification must be obtained or waived; 12. That in certain states, an individual state coastal sone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived; 13. That the activity will comply with regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer; 14. That the management practices shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable. (See reverse side.) The following MANAGEMENT PRACTICES shall be followed, to the maximum extent practicable. in order to minimize the adverse effects of these discharges on the aquatic environment. Failure to comply with these practices may be cause' for the District Engineer to recommend. or the Division Engineer to take. discretionary authority to regulate the activity on an individual or regional basis pursuant to Section 330.8 of this part. 1. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practical alternatives. • 2. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons shall be avoided. 3. Discharges shall not restrict or impede the ■ovement of aquatic species indigenous to the waters or the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters). • 4. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water. adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimised. 5. Discharge in wetland areas shall be avoided. 6. Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats. 7. Discharge into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl shall be avoided. 8. All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety. Nationwide permits do not obviate the need to obtain other federal, state or local authorisations required by law, do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. do not authorise any injury to the property or rights of others. nor do they authorize interference with any existing or proposed federal project. Modification. Suspension or Revocation of Nationwide Permits* The Chief of Engineers may modify. suspend, or revoke nationwide permits in accordance with the relevant procedures of 33 CFR 325.7. Such authority includes. but is not limited tot adding individual. regionel. or nationwide conditions: revoking authorization for a category of activities or a category of waters by requiring individual or regional permits= or revoking an authorization on • case-by-case basis. This authority is not limited to concerns for the aquatic environment as is the discretionary authority in section 330.8. MI MI NM NM MI MN jT r . II GEKIRA1 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN CREATING ARTIFICIAL WETLANDS TOF. 1+ILD:.I FE • • The best solution to maintaining adequate wetland resources is to II prevent disturbance to existing natural basins. When this is unavoidable, however, loss of natural wetland basins can be at least partially offset or compensated for by construction of artifical basins. Based on our review of recent literature on the subject, we II recommend that the following general design features be iwpleaeated, to the extent possible, when constructing an artifical wetland basin: Ii. The wetland basin can be relatively wall (0.5 acre) but, if at all possible, should be at least 1.0 acre in size. 2. A variable (rather than an even—sided) shoreline should be -constructed if at all possible since it vill increase the . amount of shoreline per unit area and increase the waterfowl usage by providing isolated areas for feeding and loafing. S, 3. The bottom contour should be uneven and rolling which viii produce a variable vater,depth and alloy for emergent vegetation growth on shallow areas throughout the basin. • Water depth in shallow areas should be about 12-18 inches and about 3-4 feet in the deepest areas. The shoreline II area should have a gentle (10:1 to 20:1) slope to provide for adeatkate vegetative growth, but also can be variable to provide small vegetative 'fingers' and open 'bays' and thus more edge. Vegetation graving in these shallower areas of the basin should produce vegetative islands and thereby increase interspersion or edge habitat. A 501 open water II and 501 vegetation coverage of the wetland (including the _ • emergent vegetation around the shoreline) viii provide the greatest species richness and diversity. 'The wetland should have a good clay seal to prevent leakage. In addition, we recommend that topsoil be placed on the bottom of the basin to provide a more suitable II substrate for aquatic vegetation growth which will mre quickly establish a detritus food chain and invertebrate abundance. Wetland basins lined only with clay normally produce less vegetation, fever invertebrates and lover IInumbers of vaterfovl than those lined with both clay and topsoil. 1 I • 11 r , . :A 2 5. On projects where existing wetlands are unavoidably impacted, and when feasible, suck from existing wetlands should be pLaced in the bottom of the newly created basin. • This would provide the basin with a naturally occurring seed bank and other material of high organic content. 6. It may be desirable to construct one or two small earthern islands within some newly crated wetland basins to'increase diversity and provide an offshore nesting area for waterfowl and other wildlife. 7. After construction, a laver of natural or domestic hay should be placed on the wetland aubstate which will allow a detritus food chain to become established more rapidly. 8 . Reestablishing and maintaining an upland vegetative buffer area around the perimeter of the newly created wetland basin will provide nesting habitat and help to ensure optimum waterfowl production occurs on these areas. If moving of the vegeratian around the wetland basin is necessary, it should be delayed until alter August 1 if at all possible to avoid disturbance to waterfowl, upland gage • birds and other wildlife, during the nesting season. • -..._ 1 1 1 1 I , I General Specirications for Construction of Wetland for Wildlife The wildlife pond should have: ' • freeform (not even-sided) shape to increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting birds; • shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage Growth of ' emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife; • uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a ) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation; • layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin and the slopes to provide a suitable substrate for-aquatic vegetation; • water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland; • fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. 1 1 • • V. 1 OP l i' I 1 I '\i) (111j i,;'1111:11111110.4 it, Il��I 41t)V�i�I I��I�Dl �� I 1 !�1 i , ollor 1 1 i fi I tit 1 $- - � I� 1 I� � - - ►� ) � I/ V ,, i', . ;:'--3. •tif 1111<-. 7,...-774."444.74tAat.-.. . , , kIJ ; I: ....., ..===:".:119•`-//1/4 /,' �V - \ I/ � � 1' �, 1� � ,� ms /� � I� 8 te , I l/. � i \ _ J / ,_.n i � : " t.L \ �\ / 7d v ,,\ :� •- - l/ �� - , .\ � 5,P�_ _ ------e4 Al , i /e0 -I .-v`� „ —l - I, � ::b% . _r.4 1-- �< vr_' 4 �) TI 4 � li.11? 1111ryiP -� Lr/ ' r--l'IttlIO /C''-. 1 "I &- / &-yY ..1 N' -7Ak- - Ike t . '" \ -', -lip err"' --:2-1///._ . . if,n ,\\-,-A. L4'1)„11 , . 7 --..----\e\ 1 ' 4 tli, ------ -..‘i - 1 ----- - ‘,,! _. 110- _ 1--...k ' •Iti , -1 * fyii.„ -,-, 11,---,,y,, ,,Pr-,-p /&i 4:,, 440 ,,,It_ .: _ , ,ii ,I - cv, ., 1. --.,)■ -_ ,.. / /-,.., A ,0 ,„_„4,1 \c =c-- 1-=-- - ,s. - . 1,,,m)\ 111. -- \''' -.- I 14,441. V\ r ' i() -At 1` 1 6. ' ' )---- 1 ' a 'Z ' irgl FIGURE 1 * or flatter slope • WILDLIFE POND DIAGRAM • • • MN i _' MN MI NM i MN E - MI NM • CITY ® F 1 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 z ' MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner ' FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: August 3 , 1988 ' SUBJ: Planning Case 88-13 CUP and 88-8 WAP (Kronick) ' Fire Chief Dale Gregory and I have reviewed the conditional use permit and wetland alteration permit for a garden center and holding pond. At this time, we have no input or suggestions con- cerning public safety. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. I I I I .1:t3 203 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 11 Barbara Dacy: Because the Land Use Plan is approved by the Metropolitan 11 Council. It's a minor amendment. They're not going to have a problem with it. Councilman Johnson: Is this parcel owned by the same person and his parcel is split half IOP and half, this is what, about the second third time? The auto service came up this year. No matter what seems to go to this property they want it either industrial or commercial. Barbara Dacy: The auto service proposal wanted to keep basically both industrial and commercial zoning designations on it but just flip flop it but after we showed them our storm water management report that said that we should create a pond in the back of the property, that killed that idea as well as the Council did not amend the ordinance to allow mini-warehouse in IOP. Councilman Boyt: Maybe you can explain the difference between (b) and (c) and how they fit together. I understand the land use plan and what we're really saying is we're taking some of that land that is already zoned commercial and we're proposing to zone 1.7 additional acres of commercial. Barbara Dacy: The west half is zoned business highway and it's designated on our Land Use Plan as commercial. The east half is designated as industrial and zoned IOP so what they want to do is take the industrial, the Lane Use Plan, the IOP and the Zoning Plan and change that all to BH and commercial. Just the east half of the site. IL: Councilman Boyt: And both (b) and (c) then address that one issue? Barbara Dacy: That's correct. So that we have our Land Use Plan and Zoning Map consistent. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Now we're at the heart of the issue to me. If I might, I think Brian Batzli on the Planning Commission made a good point in that it makes sense to have this be all one zoning district but we have some leverage when it comes to changing zoning in terms of the kind of development that we allow in. That we lose once we grant this. It's sort of playing backwards with I the whole arrangement but it's reality. I'm a little concerned, even though staff has indicated to us that their study shows there's no traffic impact by what we do. That's a very difficult corner to manipulate and this unknown 1.7 acres out here of additional lot, we don't know if it's going to be a fast food restaurant. A gas station. There's any number of possibilities. I'm wary of allowing the whole situation to be dealt with when we don't know about that 1.7. I think a garden store fits there nicely and I'd like to see him put it there. If we can arrange it so he can do that and still retain maximum control over this unused land, I'd like to see us work that out. Councilman Horn: How would we do that? With a conditional use under that zone? Councilman Boyt: Once we grant the zoning to the whole piece, it's my understanding that we're governed by our own ordinances. I Councilman Horn: I'm saying as an alternative would we want to go with a conditional use for that piece instead of a total rezoning? , I 67 II ...city Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 IIBarbara Dacy: I think what Mr. Batzli was suggesting is, you've now approved the ordinance amendment to allow a graden center as a conditional use in the I first place so his suggestion was hold off on the Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning until he files his conditional use permit application. Then you would act on the whole ball of wax together. IICouncilman Horn: Grant a conditional use permit rather than rezone it? Barbara Dacy: You would have to really take those actions simultaneously. IICouncilman Boyt: How do we deal with this dangling lot that we don't know what's going to be developed on that one? IBarbara Dacy: The applicant is requesting that you have the whole thing rezoned to Business Highway Commercial. In order to decide on the rezoning issue the II Council has to feel satisfied that all of the uses in the Business Highway District, you feel is appropriate for that eastern half of the property. If you rezone it to BH, you can expect we could have an application for any permitted use in that district or potential application for a conditional use. ICouncilman Horn: Isn't this the same thing we ran into with McDonalds? We were concerned about a strip food area but we rezoned a larger area than what they II had requested so in effect we have a whole corner down there that was rezoned? Barbara Dacy: Thankfully I wasn't here for that application. ICouncilman Geving: Yes, we split it into just that one lot. • Mayor Hamilton: We just own that one lot. IICouncilman Horn: Couldn't we do something similar here? Get rid of the dangling portion? I Barbara Dacy: It's already, the western half is already zoned as BH and what you're saying is you would prefer not to act on the rezoning for the eastern half until you... ICouncilman Horn: Until we know what that use is. Barbara Dacy: In effect what the Council is doing would be tabling action on I the Land Use Plan and the Rezoning. Councilman Geving: He still could go ahead with his garden center. He's got I approval for doing that Barbara. There's already a zoning ordinance amendment to permit the garden center. I Barbara Dacy: Yes, he can still go ahead. He is in the process of preparing that site plan. I think his preference was to try and get the whole site zoned so he could possibly not have to be bound by that zoning district line running right through the middle of his property and issues about setbacks and parking II area and so on. Mayor Hamilton: I'd rather see him come in with a plan then so we have some [E7 IIidea of what he's doing. He don't have any idea what he's doing. II 68 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 2 9 Councilman Geving: He wants the utmost flexibility but at the same time he wants to be able to bend that property to his liking and maybe we won't like what he's planning to do. Mayor Hamilton: Since we haven't even seen a plan I'd move that we table items 15(b) and (c) until a plan comes in to us. , Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table the Land Use Plan Amendment to amend the Year 2000 Land Use Plan to redesignate 1.7 Acres as a conditional use in the BH, Business Highway District and to table rezoning of 1.7 acres from IOP, Industrial Office Park to BH, Business Highway District until a site plan is submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ANNEXATION/DEANNEXATION REQUEST, MERLE VOLK. ' Don Ashworth: Staff is recommending that two councilmembers from the Chan City Council be given an opportunity to meet with two members of the Chaska City Council to discuss this issue. I have a feeling that they have pretty much determined what they'd like to do and I see this type of a meeting as being an opportunity for each of the two sides to say where they are and if there is any hope for salvation, it would come out of that type of thing. Otherwise, I think their coarse of action is pretty well set in talking with their administrator. Councilman Horn: Do you know who their representatives are? Don Ashworth: No, I do not. Councilman Geving: I think it's the Mayor. I talked to him briefly, Bob one night and he was very much in favor. Wasn't it your impression too Jay? Councilman Johnson: Yes. ' Councilman Geving: We talked to Bob one evening and he would very much like to sit down and talk. , Councilman Johnson: Dale and I meet monthly with two members of the Chaska City Council because we're on the Southwest Metro Transit Board. Councilman Horn: Who are they? Councilman Johnson: The mayor and... ' Councilman Geving: Gayle Kincaid. Mayor Hamilton: She's not on the Council. I Councilman Geving: But Bob was the one that mentioned that he would like to sit down on a personal basis. I think the Mayor should be involved and one of the councilmembers. Councilman Johnson: The Mayor's previous and I don't know if current business 69 II Planning Commission Meeting II June 1, 1988 - Page 9 If PUBLIC HEARING: JAY KRONICK, PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO TO WEST 78TH STREET, 1000 FEET EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE/TH 5 INTERSECTION: IA. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-714 TO PERMIT RETAIL GARDEN CENTERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. IB. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE YEAR 2000 TO REDESIGNATE 1. 7 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL. IC. REZONE 1. 7 ACRES FROM IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT TO BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. IBarbara Dacy presented the staff report . IChairman Conrad opened up the public hearing . Dacy: Unfortunately the applicant ' s in Maryland . IConrad: Did we send out notice for the public hearing? Dacy: Everybody within 500 feet. lk: Conrad : And to the owners of the Chanhassen Office building have not called you nor Redman Products? IDacy: No . • IBatzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . I Conrad : I guess we ' ll take them one at a time in terms of our comments . We.' 11 start Dave, down at your end and talk about garden centers that is a conditional use in the BH district . IHeadla : Really the only comment I have is I like the idea of a garden center, the whole bit. I 've got a fear of the unknown. If we say yes to this, for a garden center , I don ' t see how we can control other garden Icenters. Unless we. . . Conrad : It is a conditional use . The point in this district is to make I it a conditional use which means we see it. It gives it the opportunity to occur . It doesn ' t give it the total right. It does have to come in here and we can apply whatever standards we want to it. Do we have I standards in here that would help us review later? A center would meet certain conditions? Dacy: For garden centers specifically, no we don' t. Conrad : So typically I like to see conditions. If it is a conditional use, what are we looking for to guide us in granting it as a conditional II Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 10 1 use? Staff hasn' t prepared that. Maybe what we can have input on but II it' s only, how many BH districts do we have, two? Dacy: The BH district is located primarily along TH 5. It stretches from II the Hennepin County border then west to the end of West 79th Street. Conrad : So I think Dave, what we' re saying , that' s the district and we' re saying it now can , it' s not permitted, it' s now possible to have garden 11 centers but it' s not automatic . They have to come in and talk to us . We don' t have any standards to evaluate whether it ' s good or bad but it' s a question right now. The concept in my mind about highway business II district was quick in and quick out, low intensity. The concept was we had limited traffic . We had limited road use in those areas and we wanted to help the highway traffic through gas stations or restaurants get in but II the idea was not that that pattern was to go through the rest of the Chanhassen. It was to help cars going on TH 5 find services that they needed . Maybe Chanhassen residents could out there too but it was really key that we didn' t have real great traffic handling roads at that time so II we weren' t looking for real intensive uses . We were really saying this is a district that services cars that are going out onto TH 5 for whatever the basic needs are . Whether a retail . We' ve got retail down there obviously so that' s not a problem. It' s just whether you believe. In my mind , to tell you where I 'm at right now, it ' s whether we believe that this is a traffic generator , that it ' s going to go. Is it like the Gardeneer? Is it like a Frank' s? Is it going to generate traffic that we can ' t handle in that area and in my mind, that 's the question that is still open. IIDacy: In comparison to what is already permitted , fast food restaurants , financial institutions, automotive service centers , retail shops , liquor stores , motels and hotels, I think garden center , even a Frank ' s Nursery, because it' s so specialized, I 'm positive that the trip generation reports for a garden center are lower than those types of uses that are already permitted. Batzli : Except on Saturday morning . II Wildermuth: That ' s part of the advantage of having a garden center . The II pressure will be on weekends rather than during the week. That ' s not a good intersection there. Conrad : These are all independent actions that we' re taking . We can make it a conditional use. This particular application may not be appropriate but if we feel that it' s appropriate in that area , then we can make it a conditional use for business highway and that ' s the only district we've II got . That ' s the only business highway district going along TH 5 that we' ve got in Chanhassen. Headla : I feel comfortable right now but I 'd like to hear what the other II ( inputs. Wildermuth : I would like to see that parcel stay business office . I 'd rather see another office building there . . . but I guess I can' t come up II with a good reason why. . .a nursery or garden center . 1. 7 acres is II I Planning Commission Meeting II June 1, 1988 - Page 11 II certainly adequate size. I don ' t know how big Frank' s is . . . Batzli : I guess two questions came to my mind. Why are we rezoning and II doing this thing , wouldn ' t that normally be part of the process of a conditional use permit? When we see what the guy has put together rather than rezoning it to suit a conditional use permit application that we may not even approve? IIDacy: Two reasons . Number one , the applicant has a purchase agreement on the property and wanted to pursue this application to see if the City I would even consider rezoning the entire thing to business highway. Number two, yes you do have a specific request that you can pretty well bank on a conditional use permit application for a garden center at this location but tonight you' re basically being asked, are you comfortable with Irezoning this particular parcel , in total , to business highway? Are you comfortable with all of the uses in that district to remove the split zoning on the property to entirely business highway? If you just wanted I to act on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and would prefer to postpone the other two applications , that ' s certainly within your power . I Batzli : I guess from my own point of view, I don' t know that a garden center is any more intense than these permitted uses . In fact , if it' s going to be a conditional use, I think we are going to take a look at it to make sure it ' s appropriate . As far as rezoning , I don ' t know that I 'm comfortable rezoning this not knowing why I 'm rezoning it. Dacy: Again , the applicant doesn ' t want to have the parcel split by both I zoning districts . He wants one consistent zoning for the entire parcel . That ' s the reason for the rezoning . I Batzli : But he doesn' t own the land at this point does he? The applicant? Dacy: No , he has a purchase agreement . IEllson: He' ll buy it contingent on all this happening? IDacy: Right. Batzli : I guess I 'd prefer seeing either the landowner and the applicant. understand but that's just what I would prefer . II Dacy: The landowner did consent to the application and Jay had to make the decision of which meeting he had to come up to. Either the City U Council meeting or the Planning Commission for flight schedules and so on so he opted for the City Council . I Ellson: I don ' t see any problem with a garden center . I think we 'd be in trouble if we tried to say no in the business highway. Especially when you' re saying outdoor display of merchandise , screened outdoor storage. . . IF— Whether I want it or not isn ' t really what I get to chose. It doesn ' t look like it would fit in here and according to some of these other things , I don' t see how we can no to a garden center. I 'm kind of on the side of Brian . We' re zoning this just because some individual wants it • II Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 12 zoned that way and I guess I don ' t see a whole good reasoning on that. In the staff' s report you' re basically saying . . . will not have a significant impact on the availability of industrial . I guess I can go along if you feel that but I just don ' t feel strongly that there are some really good reasons . Some guy would like all of these things, so okay then we' ll II rezone it just for one individual. Emmings : Do you only want us to comment now on the. . . I Conrad: All three. We started with one but that. . . Emmings : I don' t have any problem with rezoning. . . I 'm curious about TH II 101. Does any configuration of TH 101 potentially involve this land at all? Dacy: It' s too far to the east . II Batzli : They' re not planning on putting a stop sign at that interchange though are they? At that service road there for TH 101? Do you know where I 'm talking about? When they realign, the last time I saw the realignment, was there a stop sign there or did they move that service II road back? Dacy: TH 101 will be realigned . There will be a median in Dakota and West 78th Street will "T" into that and continue on. So where' s the stop sign? Batzli : Will there be one where the access is currently? I Dacy: Here? Batzli : Yes . I Dacy: Yes . Erhart : What has happened? We' re now looking at TH 101 being realigned I at TH 5. The last time we talked about it we were. . .of the industrial . Did that go through? I Dacy: No . Erhart : The last I heard it was kind of a dead issue. Apparently it' s II still alive? Dacy: Yes , the City is still going to try and pursue it because it ' s a I vital part of the transportation system. So one means of doing that was the tax increment district but there are other financial means available. Erhart: So 1992 that will include. . . I Dacy: We' re going to try as hard as we can to achieve that date . Erhart: On the other place where we allow garden centers now is in the BG I district? II I Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 13 C ' Dacy: That ' s correct . ' Erhart : Then that ' s essentially the downtown? Dacy: That ' s west of the downtown area. On the Burdick property and the James property. ' Erhart: What do you see as the difference between the intent of the general business district and the business highway? Is it something to do with TH 5? Dacy: Yes . The general business district permits much greater and more intense variety of uses . The Chairman's description earlier of the intent of the business highway district was accurate. The listed uses in the zone are specifically oriented to the traffic flow. ' Erhart : Even when you go downtown you almost have to get into your car to go across the street. Where the bakery was . Dacy: Right . There are some similarities and there are some differences . Some of these in the BG district would need a much larger land area whereas a business highway district primarily consists of smaller , 2 to 3 to 4 acre parcels so there are some differences between the two. IIf( Erhart : On that access road , say you come out of this nursery and you go east, your route back to TH 5 is what? Can you get back onto TH 5 going east? Dacy: At the present time, no . When TH 5 is four lane , there will be a full movement intersection at Dell Road and TH 5. Erhart : So someone coming from the direction as Dell Road , they come down 78th Street and . . . iDavy: Right . Erhart : Most likely the traffic going into that area would take the TH 101 exit. . . Dacy: That ' s another point as far as the garden center is concerned . ' It' s the type of use as opposed to a fast food restaurant because from a marketing standpoint , a garden center you really don' t need that immediate direct access as where this property could be a prime site for a fast food ' restaurant because of it' s location. Erhart : Fast food restaurants are allowed? That ' s a permitted use in the ' area? Dacy: Right . • Erhart : The problem is , it' s more of a problem up there with street layout. Given, I guess I 'd agree with other commissioners , given the other uses that are already allowed as a conditional use in this area , it I I Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 14 would almost be senseless to. . .garden centers in this area . . . I 'd be in favor of adding that as a conditional use. As far as the zoning is concerned , I guess my history of being on the Planning Commission is you can try to accomodate people who own the land if it doesn' t otherwise cause an intrusion on who abuts , I guess I 'm in favor of it. . . Conrad: I don't have a problem with the zoning ordinance amendment to make it a conditional use. Philosophically though, I like the garden center. Therefore, the other two things I don ' t mind. In this particular case I really would like the industrial use. I would prefer to see a plan to persuade me that this garden center will add to the area and until I see that plan , even though it' s more concrete than, I 'd like to see something concrete before I rezone the property. I have to be persuaded. I 'm not at this point in time. I 'm concerned with traffic . I don ' t have a problem with graden centers in the BH districts . II Headla : Are you. . .or against this? There' s a lot of Council members talking about beachlots . . . .where a contractor. ' Conrad : It may actually work in that area but I just don ' t know enough right now to rezone it just because somebody' s asking to rezone it. I II think we can get him the philosopic feeling that yes , it could work in the zoning district. 1. Headla : Let' s talk a little bit about that. Because it doesn' t, how many II possibilities can it be? If we rezone it, do you prefer to see it more industrial? Conrad : Yes , I think so . I see an office building on one side and I see I Redman on the other . That' s kind of the way I thought that area would develop. There ' s some good rationale for putting a garden center in here mind you because the intensity would be on a Saturday-Sunday and therefore somebody could persuade me that just because of traffic patterns and things like that , that it could be a benefit in terms of overall Chanhassen. I don ' t know that right now. I don 't know what they' re ' planning . I don ' t know what they' re thinking about how to develop that land. So philosophically I wouldn' t do it but if somebody gave me, in this one case , if somebody gave me a concrete example of what they' re thinking of, I might be tempted to change the zoning for them. Headla : What if somebody came in and wanted to use that for fast food? Conrad: I wouldn ' t do that. I think that ' s just a traffic generator that would be bad all the time. Emmings : But they could do that . Ellson : It ' s legal . Headla : They can have that and maybe we should go for the garden center because it could be a whole lot worse. Conrad : You' re right . I 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 June 1, 1988 - Page 15 f' ' Wildermuth : The best of all worlds would be an office or distribution center . . . Ellson : That ' s not saying it never can be by having a garden center . Conrad: I think we did put the auto service center in there didn' t we? What ' s the differnce between an auto service center and a garden center? Headla: How is that garden center working out over in Eden Prairie? Have they had any problems there do you know? Dacy: I don ' t know. Headla : If you don' t know, it probably isn ' t a problem. Dacy: I wouldn' t know. Tim Erhart asked a question that couldn' t be heard on the tape. Dacy: The best that I can say that, typically when the zoning district ' lines are drawn . . .boundaries . This parcel was overlooked unfortunately it goes right through the middle of this parcel . The parcel is operating as a split as two zoning districts . Erhart: So it makes sense to zone the whole thing? Dacy: One way or the other . Erhart: Most of this land . . . ' Dacy: With the office use you are going to get more peak hour traffic , morning and afternoon and that ' s going to exasperate the traffic situation. With a manufacturing facility, the same thing . 1 Conrad: It could by chance be quite complimentary to the area. Then on the other hand it' s a little bit out of sync with what ' s there. Is ther a motion on the zoning ordinance amendment to permit garden centers as a ' conditional use? Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-7 to amend Section 20-714 , Conditional Uses in the BH District as follows : (5) Garden Centers . All voted in favor and the motion carried . ' Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #88-3 to redesignate 1. 7 acres of industrial to commercial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council . All voted in favor except Batzli. and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 16 I C Erhart : Why do we need approval from Metropolitan Council on this? Dacy: Because we' re changing our Land Use in the Comp Plan. It would be a minor amendment through their office. Ellson: How did it get split like this in the first place? Normally we would never have done this sort of thing? This was always a one person, one owner land? You' re saying this was just part of an oversight? Dacy: Right. Batzli : By voting for this , what we' re going to do is move the BH line over. Erhart : Or you could go the other way. Conrad: Your reason Brian? (for voting in opposition) Batzli : I 'd like to see something in writing , more concrete as to what II they're proposing to do with this property prior to changing the land use. Erhart : I want to add my vote to opposing also . The reason I would like to have just a little better analysis . . . Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning Request #88-3 to rezone 1. 7 acres of property from IOP, Industrial Office Park to BH, Business Highway District subject to approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment by the City Council and the Metropolitan County. Emmings, Ellson , Headla and Wildermuth voted in favor of the motion. Batzli , Conrad and Erhart voted in opposition of the motion . The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3 . Conrad: Brian, your reason? Batzli : Pretty much the same reason as well as the fact that I 'm not convinced that it shouldn ' t be rezoned entirely to IOP. Conrad : Tim you voted . Erhart: Same reasons I stated before. Conrad : My reasons , I would like to see a concrete proposal in front of us . I 'm extremely concerned about the traffic problem that may be generated with the new realignment of TH 101 . Emmings : . . . I think you told me that we can ' t roceed that way. We can ' t P Y t consider rezoning , we can ' t demand they have a plan taken into account in the anlysis of whether or not we' re willing to rezone. , 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 17 c Dacy: I 'm still conferring with my previous opinion . What you ' re deciding on the rezoning issue is if you ' re totally satisfied with all of ' the uses in that district being applied to that parcel , yes , you may have a specific site plan that' s coming in at the same time but you 've got to be aware that that specific site plan , that he developer could call it a picture, the property is sold and you could be looking at another use for ' that district. You just can ' t based your approval on the rezoning solely on that site plan. ' Batzli : I would like to state that I don ' t think there was any real analysis of what that property could be zoned. Should it be zoned IOP? What should it be there? We were presented this as if it' s going to be a garden center. There was no anlysis of what the use of that particular site should be. Emmings : Except half the site is already exactly the zoning we gave the ' whole thing so I suppose to the extent that the. . . Batzli : I know but it' s arbitrary on which way you want to make the whole ' lot. I think we've should just look at that. Emmings : I guess the answer to that would be , either one didn ' t have. . . Dacy: We can certainly do that analysis for the Council . Conrad : That ' s would be appropriate . I think they would appreciate that. Steve, you ' re absolutely right. This is philosophy here. This is ivory tower non-specific but nobody' s persuaded me that we should change it . I can go either way and the only way I can go either way is to see the real stuff and the real stuff is not here . In the absence of a real thorough staff investigation of what ' s the best and in the absence of the applicant being here , I don ' t want to change the zoning . Emmings : My thinking on that issue, this particular item that we' re mulling over tonight is , you could spend four years deciding whether it would better to be BH or IOP and we wouldn' t be any further along than we ' are now. Conrad : Right . But if we saw the applicant and they had a plan , we might be able to make some real good positions but the applicant doesn ' t want to sit here tonight . PUBLIC HEARING: 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-695, 20-715 , 20-774 , 20-795, AND 20-815 TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO RAILROADS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS , CITY OF ' CHANHASSEN. Public Present : Name Address Darrell Fortier Architect and Land Planner for Frank Beddor Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 14 Wildermuth moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-18 to plat one 10 acre parcel and maintain a 66 . 5 acre parcel as a metes and bounds description with the following conditions : 1. The applicant provide an amended plat creating Parcel A (10 acres) as Lot 1 and maintaing Parcel B (66.5 acres) as a metes and bounds description. 2. The applicant provide at least a 30 foot roadway easement along the southerly property line up to Flintlock Trail . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GARDEN CENTER ON 3. 7 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED II BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND LOCATED ON WEST 78TH STREET JUST WEST OF REDMOND PRODUCTS , JAY KRONICK, AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN CENTER AND HOLDING POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND LOCATED ON WEST 78TH STREET JUST WEST OF REDMOND PRODUCTS , JAY KRONICK AND 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present : Name Address Jay Kronick Applicant Gene F. Ernst 122 West 6th Street, Chaska Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. ' Jay Kronick : I 'm the applicant , Jay Kronick. I ' ll start out by saying that most of the changes to the existing site plan that staff is II recommending . . . The berm along the parking area with the hedge would need some cuts in there that . . .access to the parking lot. . . . I 'd also like to mention that I 've agree to provide a screen where the mulch and bags of II fertilizer will be stored. The plan does not show that presently. There is an additional impact . . .across the railroad tracks . That would take the form either of some kind of fence right next to the building . . .would rest between the screen. . . A couple of minor changes from what I have shown on the site plan. The exterior lighting as proposed , there 's one high sodium fixture proposed . Otherwise I ' ve proposed some soffit lighting along the front which is directed straight down , medium intensity. The gravel road I which back from the parking area to the north is to be constructed by the City primarily for access to the storm water pond to be constructed back there . I ' ve discussed with the engineering staff the appropriateness of using that for my own business use and not for customer use and I don' t 11 think the plan mentioned that. I included . . . I also am concerned with the traffic and the appearance of the site. I chose to locate in Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 15 Chanhassen rather than other areas because I like the nature of the town. I want to be a part of it and I want my business to grow and prosper and ' to do that it' s going to have to be. . . I do intend that the business will grow. That' s why half the property is left vacant at this point. That' s why I bought a parcel of this size, or am planning to buy a parcel of this ' size rather than one of half the size because my future needs will . . .of this size. I ' ve got a plan to grow. Otherwise it wouldn' t make a lot of business sense. I enjoy the nursery business . It ' s fun but I 'm also here to make a living . The site is intended to handle what I anticipate will ' be a reasonable volume of use for the first few years . Unfortunately I can ' t be more specific than that. I don' t know how fast the business is going to grow. I can give some projections based on. . .but the site as designed is adequate for initial and the first few years . I have a tough time agreeing to a review of the screening after the one year. That' s really the only problem I ' ve got with this . You see my plan. I think it' s reasonably clear as to where I want to store materials and what type of materials and I would just assume that we proceed carefully at this point and say these are the things that need to be done to effectively screen in and then come back several years down the road when I go to ' expand to the other side of the property and need to apply for whatever permit or conditional use that you need at that time for the expansion and that seems to be the appropriate time for review. I 'm submitting my initial facilities to what you see on the plan. It seems to me that a fair deal ought to be to impose the conditions now rather than to come back a year later after I 'm in business and comply with that . I view that as a little unfair . I 'm willing to work on making it real nice . Headla moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted ' in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Headla : Would this be a year round operation? Jay Kronick: I would be open for business year round, yes . Beadle : It seems to me I got hung up on one thing . I remember when the ' Chanhassen Lawn and Sports were in here, we severely limited them on outdoor sales . The last time we reviewed SuperAmerica , we restricted their outdoor sales . I think we ' ve got to follow and be consistent in our ' policy and say, outdoor sales we don ' t do here . I don ' t know how far to restrict that. Now maybe it' s bigger berms . More trees around the sides . I think we ' ve got to do something like that to be consistent . Bernie , if he put big berms, could he go ahead and have some tracters and lawn mowers ' outside. I think we really restricted his business . I think what we did was right but I think we also have to be consistent . ' Conrad : Barbara , can you compare the situations for us? Dacy: Sure. The SuperAmerica site is located in the Neighborhood Business district which has a different intent and a different goal rather than the Business Highway District. Bernie Hanson ' s proposal was in the Business Highway District. Council did allow outdoor display of I think we established 12 tracters and 14 lawn mowers so there was a limited II Planning Commission Meeting li August 17 , 1988 - Page 16 C amount of outdoor display. Again, with this use, the garden center is the il nature of the use. They' re not advertising , he' s not displaying pots and garden clippers . He ' s displaying plants that need to be outside. Our recommendations for the screening were aimed at trying to just screen the structure' s use to support the plans and the pots that they' re located in because there are going to be a series of arborvitaes. There are going to be a series of evergreen trees . Not necessarily use trees to screen the trees . Batzli : Didn ' t we distinguish though between outdoor display and outdoor sales in Chanhassen Lawn and Sports? He could display them but there were II no outdoor sales allowed? Headla : We had a discussion on where do you draw the line. II Dacy: That 's correct. Brian ' s correct that we allowed the outdoor display and that is consistent with this application. The sales building II is for the actual transactions and that ' s the same thing we did with Bernie . Batzli : But we' re not making it a condition here. For instance, Frank' s II has an outdoor booth that during peak periods they have a couple cashiers out in the backyard and they start ringing up sales out there. Are we II going to let them do that in this one? Dacy: The application that was submitted , by indicating the sales building, I had assumed that the register is within the building and if II you want to clarify that for the record , you can add that as a condition. You might want to clarify with the applicant if there' s actually going to be an outdoor booth . II Jay Kronick : I have no intention of selling material outside . It would be brought in or a receipt would be brought in and all transactions would be rung up inside at all times . That ' s essential . Headla: I think the business is appropriate. I 'd like to see it be in here. The rest of it I like. It ' s just , I don' t know. Are we in I conflict with some of the others? Should we put in a higher berm? You left it at 2 feet . I guess I would have felt much better and it may hurt business if we raise it to like 3 feet or make it. . . As you' re driving by II in the car , I don' t think you 'd see all those tables or do you have some information on the 2 feet that they wouldn ' t see that? Dacy: A berm along the front is 2 feet and they will be planting I materials on top of that. The Commission , it ' s within your pervue, if you want to require a higher berm. Headla : I suspect you've done some background work on it, that ' s why I II was asking that. Just to bring that out. Okay, that' s all I have. Wildermuth : The question I have, item 6 sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior to discharging into the public sanitary sewer system. What ' s that about? Is that in the storm sewer? II : 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 17 Dacy: I know it ' s not the storm sewer and Larry, that' s the one ' question I forgot to ask him but he obviously feels that it' s necessary and it' s an engineering detail that they have to address . Wildermuth: It doesn' t sound logical . I think the staff has done a very ' good job of addressing the issues here. I think they put together a good analytical report. I have no further questions . Batzli : I guess just reading Larry' s report , he does talk about it in his sanitary sewer section. The second paragraph of that section. I don' t know why they'd need it either . I 'm assuming they' re not taking all their ' water from their outdoor water and putting it in the sanitary sewer but anyway. I was kind of looking at this and I just pictured Frank' s at peak seasons and I don' t think the parking lot is going to hold everybody who is there buying all their fertilizer and stuff and my question was really, I assume you calculated the number of parking spots by the square footage or whatever your formula is . Is that right? Dacy: Right. 18 spaces is being proposed and we talked about that with the applicant . We used the greenhouse area and came up with some type of ratio on the outdoor display area. Garden center use is not specified by ordinance . There ' s a section in the ordinance that allows the City Planner to review what' s being proposed and make a determination and we felt that the 18 would be appropriate . ' Batzli : Is there going to be parking allowed on West 78th Street right there? Dacy: No . The advantage to the site is that they do have the ability to expand to the east and add on another tier or parking directly to the east. Batzli : I guess I feel that 18 probably won' t be satisfactory if his business takes off at all and I 'd like to see more spots if possible. I assume the pylon sign meets all of our signage requirements? Dacy: Correct. Batzli : Are we going to see this again as some sort of, you ' ll see it again as part of the building process? Dacy: That ' s correct . Batzli : But a building this square footage normally wouldn ' t require a sprinkler system? ' Dacy: That ' s correct . Batzli : Even though it may have flammable weed killers and other things stored inside? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 18 C Dacy: That ' s correct. According to the UBC and their classification on this building and it' s occupancy. Batzli : I guess I 'd like to see the Public Safety Director take a look both at what may or may not be stored within the sales building and also what the water useage of this place will be during water shortages because I assume they would be exempted from watering bans . I also had the same II concern about differentiating between outdoor sales and displays. I think if we limit some applicants by specifying that they can ' t perform outdoor sales rather than displays, we should be somewhat consistent. Conrad : So you want the trees inside? Batzli : No, I didn' t say that. They can display them all they want out there but they' re not going to set up cash registers outside. Emmings: Condition 4, I agree with the applicant' s statement that, I think we ought to do it now. We ought to look at this thing and figure out what' s going to be adequate. Tell him he has to do it. I think it ' s always hard to go back a year later and tell him he' s got to do more. Especially if his screening involves plants that aren ' t going to have grown to their full height in a year . I can see you want to leave the door open a little bit but if that' s the case, if we' re going to leave c this in than I think it' s got to be rewritten because all it says is the site will be reviewed in a year and it doesn' t say what you' ll do if you deem it to be inadequate . If it ' s going to be left in, I changed it just to read that the screening of the site shall be reviewed in one year and if the City determines that the screening is not adequate, the applicant shall be required to do additional screening. Make it say something . If that ' s what you mean to say, then let ' s say it that way but on the other hand like I say, I 'd be inclined to say let' s evaluate the plan and then just impose it now and take number 4 out all together . Conrad: Let 's follow that up. What ' s the concern that we don ' t have the II right screening right now or what' s going to change in a year that we can' t anticipate? Obviously we don' t know everything but what are you thinking Barbara? , Dacy: I think maybe Steve described it the best as far as to leave the door open to make sure that the greenhouse is screened. To make sure that the display area is properly contained . What the applicant has suggested is that instead of number 4 that you put in a condition that says the conditional use permit shall be required prior to expansion of the use. If you want to go the route of approving the plan with the conditions as is and making it clear that if he wants to come back and expand the conditional use permit is required at that time. Emmings : Won ' t that be the case anyway? Dacy: Yes . I 'm just offering that just to make it clear . Conrad : Restating what is required so the applicant understands . Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 19 C • Emmings : Is it clear that , you mentioned Shorewood Nursery and I guess I agree. This looks to me like that type of operation and I spend a lot of ' time over at Shorewood . . . As far as you mentioned that they have trucks and a design business and so forth. It 's kind of, almost a contractor 's yard type of use . This could not be used that way I take it? ' Dacy: If it' s a contractor ' s yard, no. Emmings : But let ' s say, if they do have trucks and Bobcats and so forth ' for doing plantings, I 'm assuming that they can' t be parked there? Dacy: That' s not what ' s being proposed , correct? Jay Kronick: It' s not being proposed but I would ask the question, what is the limit on the size truck that I might have? I propose a truck for a vehicle, a small pick-up truck. Where do you wish to draw the line? I ' will need a forklift for my business . I don ' t anticipate needing a Bobcat but if I decide to get into the landscaping contracter ' s business , I ' ll move that operation off somewhere else where it ' s suitable. This is a ' retail facility. Emmings : What you ' re asking me is what is the limit? I don' t know. What is the limit? What would he be allowed to do here and not do? Dacy: He ' s got to be able to do the things that he needs to do to move the materials in and out. The vehicles that he has described are not ' vehicles that would be involved in a contracter ' s yard . Jay Kronick: If I could add one thing, I anticipate the possibility of ' landscape contracter ' s bringing their trucks in and buying materials from me or truck traffic would come into the site. Emmings : I don ' t see any problem with that . And it' s clear that if you wanted to expand this onto this area that ' s marked future expansion, which is the lot that' s in the IOP, anything you wanted to do over there, he 'd have to come back to the Planning Commission and the City Council? Dacy: That' s correct . Emmings : Now this is a big open field out here and what if he does use it ' for storage? If he ever needs storage, it ' s going to be an obvious easy place to go to put it. Dacy: Your conditional use permit is based on approval of this plan and he ' s only showing the display on the north and south side of the building and that ' s all that would be permitted . ' Emmings: Okay. You went through this analysis with the traffic and you came up with this 1, 100 ADT figure which you thought was real high. If it were that high, would everything be adequate then? You could handle that? Dacy: It ' s hard for me not to say that because what there ' s not out there is any, trip generation analysis is different than a parking demand 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 20 analysis and you could have trips coming in , staying for 5 minutes and leaving. 18 parking spaces could be adequate for the length of stay. I can ' t answer your question as to if 18 spaces is adequate for 1, 100 ADT. , Emmings : From what I observed, again over at Shorewood, I think it might be adequate . If the use of this is going to be similar to what ' s over at Shorewood, I think it's adequate. Dacy: Shorewood , I don' t think there' s even close to 18 spaces there. It' s just a gravel driveway off the road and. . . ' Emmings : I don' t think I 've ever seen 18 cars in there at one time. The part that' s in the IOP, there' s no chance that could be broken off separately or sold for some other use or something like that? Dacy: It' s the applicant' s intent, he has bought the entire property. He wants both sides for his use . They are separately described so he could , if he so chooses, to sell off the IOP parcel . Emmings : If something like that would happen , would the setbacks be appropriate? Dacy: The ordinance would allow for a joint parking situation. Joint parking lot situation and I think that would happen in this case. Emmings : And the setbacks as far as the buildings are concerned would be alright is that, for whatever reason would become a separate parcel? ' Dacy: In the IOP District, it ' s 30 foot front setback and the side setback is the same, so there' s no change there. The IOP parcel can accomodate some type of small industrial office . Emmings: Are we looking at the alteration permit now? Conrad : We really haven' t . Emmings : I like the fact that the staff report puts in the 12 points from II the conditional use permit and analyzes this thing based on those 12 points. I think we ought to do that all the time . I think it ' s probably a lot of work but I think it' s a real good approach to do that because it II waxes it . You know exactly where you ' re coming from. I don ' t have any qualms about the outside display but I think there' s something to be said for being consistent in talking about the restricting of sales . I don' t think this is similar to storing pop cans outside of a SuperAmerica II or even lawn mowers . . . Erhart : The gate is intended for what , securing it at night? Jay Kronick: Yes . Erhart : So the gate ' s not part of the business during the operating hours? 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 21 • C Jay Kronick : It will be left open during the . . . ' Erhart: Then there' s no fencing around. The gate is simply to prevent people from using your parking lot at night? Okay, in the wintertime what, you say you' re going to be open year round, what are you going to sell? ' Jay Kronick: Bird supplies . Food and feeders . Christmas in season. January and February I 'm going to take a vacation. I would not want to ' close off the option of operating year round but I may close for a few weeks in the winter months . Erhart: I assume you' re going to sell Christmas trees? Jay Kronick: Yes . Erhart : I think it' s a good plan . I also wanted to comment on the format of staff' s presentation. It' s really helpful to get this down. Conrad : It is . The socket lighting. Do we have any problem with the socket lighting? Is it soffit or socket? ' Dacy: Soffit . Conrad : What do we need to do in terms of the applicant ' s request for use of the gravel road back through? ' Dacy: I think that we could work with him on that . The only issue that I want to resolve about having the general public using the road is only for ' a liability standpoint and I 'm sure we can come to some type of agreement. Either a yes or a no. It is agreed that the City will be constructing a gravel road and we should look at the liability issues . ' Conrad: I don ' t know what to do with the screening issue with 4. I don' t know how to define that . I think the applicant should know what we' re thinking about and if we can' t define what we might be looking for , ' I guess my preference is to eliminate it although I do appreciate staff ' s comments because we don ' t really know what we' re doing in terms of screening the whole site . We don' t know what it ' s really going to look ' like until it goes up. But on the other hand, I don' t know that you can hang this over his head so whoever makes the motion, you ' ve got to deal with condition 4. I think we need some clarification on condition 6 because I don ' t have a clue what that means . ' Wildermuth: In reading Larry' s report, I understand what that ' s all about . That ' s the sedimentation and dirt. Conrad : The natural run-off from the garden center . Wildermuth : This is strictly the sanitary sewer system. It' s a real sand trap to keep dirt from getting into the sanitary sewer system. II Planning Commission Meeting ilAugust 17 , 1988 - Page 22 47 Conrad : Okay. And I think the condition of no outside registers should il be dealt with. The owners of the properties to the east and west were notified of this public hearing? And they' re not here? I have no other I questions on this. Is there a motion? Headla : Was this one sodium light going to be? Is that the one on the building? I Dacy: Yes . That will be located on the doors . Emmings: I ' ll move the the Planning Commission recommend approval of I Conditional Use Permit #88-13 based on the Site Plan stamped "Received July 26, 1988" with the staff conditions 1 through 12 except striking out I 4. Deleting number 4 . I guess in place of number 4, just to keep the numbering neat we' ll put in a condition that says that there will be no outside sales of merchandies as opposed to outside display of merchandise and to clarify that the sales transaction will take place within the II building just as the applicant said was his intent to do. I 'd also like to condition approval , I 'd like to add a 13 that says that he shall also comply with all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit , assuming it' s II granted to him. Just to tie again those approvals together. Dacy: Is that going beyond condition 2? II Emmings: I 'm sorry, did I miss something there? Batzli : That ' s approval not compliance. I Emmings : I want compliance with the conditions so I guess what I 'd do there Barb is , instead of having a 13, let ' s alter 2 to say, compliance II with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8. Batzli : Approval and compliance? Emmings : If he gets approval then he ' s got to comply. I see what you' re II e y saying. It hasn' t been approved yet . Batzli : Correct . II Emmings: Let' s do it that way. I Headla : Second . Batzli : I guess I would like to see the Public Safety Director take a II look at the intended use of materials that will be stored in the building to determine if sprinkling will be required . Emmings: Do we have to have that as a condition or is that something you II can just do? Conrad : That can be a directive to staff before it ets to City Council .g y ncil . If the use of this site exceeds the expectation of 18 parking stalls , the applicant obviously will , more than likely will use the rest of the land II Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 23 to east. If that gets incorporated into the same business , will we have an opportunity to review the screening and all other issues on this particular parcel? If all of a sudden he comes back and he starts putting parking on the property to the east, will we be able to review the site plan as we look at it or the current site and enforce any additional conditions at that time? Dacy: Yes . We did that with the Lyman Lumber application because it would be part of the total site so I 'd say yes . ' Conrad : If the building , if he chooses to sell that parcel off and sales and parking requirements , if he chooses to build a bigger building, I ' think I 've answered my own question. Emmings: Tell us what the answer is . Conrad : Yes . Batzli : If the gate is closed at night and there is an emergency ' requiring people to get into the building, how are they going to do that? Dacy: The Public Safety Director and the Fire Chief reviewed that issue. What they suggested is that it be locked by chain and lock because they have cutters in their truck to cut through a chain so that was reviewed specifically. Batzli : I was surprised that Dave didn' t ask his question of will we need more equipment. We ' ve got the bolt cutters already. ' Headla : I ' ve got a question on the parking lot . You always talk about curbing and sometimes you put concrete curbing and sometimes blacktop and now it isn' t discussed . ' Dacy: The plan does indicate concrete curbing around the edge of the parking area so that' s a standard condition. ' Emmings moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13 based on the site plan ' stamped "Received July 26 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. Installation of a 6 foot evergreen screen along the south, west and north walls of the greenhouse and installation of a 2 foot hedge along ' the east side of the display area in front of the sales building . 2. Approval and compliance with Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-8 . 3. The applicant shall file a plat application in conjunction with the { City of Chanhassen to reserve the necessary utility easements and to properly convey the northerly portion of the site to the City. 4 . There shall be no outside sales of merchandise as opposed to outside display of merchandise. Planning Commission Meeting August 17 , 1988 - Page 24 C 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of these public improvements . 6. The sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior to discharging into the public sanitary sewer system. 7. Details for the installation and connection of the sanitary sewer and water services shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval ' prior to final approval . 8. A check valve shall be installed on the sanitary sewer service prior to discharge into the public sanitary sewer system. 9. The proposed utility easements shall be revised to include a 40 foot wide utility easement which shall cover all of the existing and proposed utilities . 10. A revised grading , drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval as part of the final review process . 11. The proposed water service connection shall be "wet tapped" in ' accordance with the latest published version for the Standard Specifications for Utility Installation from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) . 12 . Details for the service connection to the 10 inch diameter watermain should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval . All voted in favor and the motion carried . WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. ' Dacy: This is a joint application between the City and the applicant . The storm water management plan that was done for the City by our engineer identified the need for a storage pond in this area and upon reviewing the site, we' ve been able to work with the applicant to create a storm water facility in the northerly 1. 6 acres of the site . We ' ve already received the Armey Corps approval permit and now we' re going through the Alteration II Permit to comply with our own ordinance requirements . Jim Leech inspected the site last May. We are conforming to the standard 6 conditions of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff is recommending approval . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 25 II Emmings : I changed number 1 to read , compliance with the conditions of IConditional Use Permit Request #88-13. Conrad : Anything else? Is there a motion? IBatzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Plannin g Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8 based on the plans stamped I "Received July 26, 1988" and subject to the following conditions : 1. Compliance with conditions of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13. I2. Compliance with the Army Corps of Engineer ' s conditions of approval . All voted in favor and the motion carried . I PUBLIC HEARING: I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTORS YARD ON 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED ON HWY 212, JUST WEST OF THE ASSUMPTION SEMINARY SITE, HARRY LINDBERY. Public Present : Name Address IShirley Brewer City of Chaska Everett Olson 2675 Flying Cloud Drive IHarry Lindbery Hopkins, MN Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . IChairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . IHarry Lindbery: I got a copy of a letter sent to the City and . . .crossing on that creek, two areas that he had 14 inch culvert. It ran over the I center lines . . . I have those sitting there just waiting for the okay for a permit to build that road in there. We were going to go ahead and then Barbara Dacy says well , hold up until you get your permits so they' re sitting there waiting to be installed . IConrad : Have you reviewed the staff report? Have you looked at the staff report and the conditions? Any comments on the conditions? IHarry Lindbery: No . I Conrad : Okay, good . Thank Ir y, g you. I 'm sure we' ll have questions . Now we' ll open it up to others. Any comments? r