The URL can be used to link to this page

06-3-92 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSiviv WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. 2. Wetland Alteration Permit for a wetland alteration permit for the placement of a dock through a Class A wetland on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located at 7570 Dogwood Road, Peter and Deanna Brandt. 3. Bluff Creek Estates, Keyland Homes located south of Hwy. 5 on the east side of Audubon Road: a. Rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential Single Family, b. Preliminary plat to subdivide 61.45 acres into 78 single family lots c. Wetland alteration permit for construction within 200 feet of a wetland. 4. Interim use permit for earth work/mining of a gravel pit, located at 100 Flying Cloud Drive, Tom Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate. NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS 5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Article VIII of the City Code concerning Planned Unit Development regulations for residential districts. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING i EMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT CITY OF i CHANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: May 27, 1992 SUBJ: Pleasant Acres Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot REPORT Pleasant Acres subdivision was approved in 1954. The Pleasant Acres recreational beachlot was developed in the late 1960s. Currently, there are approximately 65 homes in the association and in 1981 there were 53 homes in the association. The beachlot is one-half acre in area and has 150 feet of lake frontage. The beachlot does not meet the current minimum requirement of 200 feet of lake frontage. It does meet the 30,000 square feet of area. A survey of the beachlot was undertaken by city staff in 1981 and it showed that there were 2 docks with a total of 4 boats at the dock with room for 6 boats. The length of the docks were noted as 60 feet with a perpendicular extension and 48 feet with a perpendicular extension. The total length of the combined section was not noted. The survey in 1981 showed there were 6 boats on land and there were no canoe racks noted. The survey in 1981 also noted a chemical toilet at the beachlot. There is a swimming beach marked with buoys, and a swimming raft, all of which appeared in the 1981 survey. There is access to the beachlot by a driveway which splits between the association property and the property to the south. There is a boat launch and parking for approximately 10 cars. The location of both docks appear to meet the 10 foot dock setback zone. The association is requesting 1992 status quo of the beachlot, including 16 boats docked, 1 canoe rack with boats, and 3 boats stored on land. The association acknowledges that they do not have good documentation of what was in place in 1981, but challenge the documentation of the inventory done by staff. �4./ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission May 27, 1992 Page 2 SUMMARY The association is requesting 1992 status quo of their beachlot with 2 docks. One dock is 96' x 67' feet in length and the second dock is 96' x 12' in length, with space for 16 boats to be docked. They are also seeking continued use of the boat launch, parking, chemical toilet, their motor vehicle access, swimming beach, and 7 boat lifts. NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT — ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION Association Pleasant Acres — Lake Minnewashta Number of Homes 35/65 Size, square feet 30,000 — Shoreline 150' — Motor Vehicle Access yes Off-Street Parking 10 — Boat Launch 1 Buildings not requested — Seasonal Dock 2 (96'x67' and 96'x12') — Canoe Racks 1 Boats on Land 3 Boats at Dock 16 — Boats Moored not requested Swimming Beach yes — Marker Buoys yes Swimming Raft yes Miscellaneous 7 power lifts — Items requested by the Association for determination. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: F (eo cocci- AC Y�S CONTACT PERSON: /v LG,C'k R. L c5 - ADDRESS: 3 t�S I LeS lee Ccs:- v� ,�kC�' (s ,o� ) MA) , 5533/ TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE (Evening) : 4/70 -001X - Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association 2 . ' Length of shoreland (feet) /SO &• 3 . Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) • 30,00 • 5 s 4 . Number of docks 6. Length of dock(s) '76 r n C 7 , �-) q6. ' x l`? ' ( 7. Number of boats docked IC. 8. Number of canoe racks • 9. Number of boats stored on canoe racks - — 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. CD — 11. Number of boats on land 3 * C-0.11 0Q5 12. Swimming beach Yes X No Buoys Yes, X No - 13. Swimming Raft Yes X No 14. Boat Launch Yes X No 15. Motor vehicle access Yes k No Number of parking spaces IC7 - 16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets: Tif r) brick t9r` iIIS ( r�e �7' L1pi'ti � '] "Ida% netc.c_ c:.c>r' rc 'c ( u,'. h 4 cc.„s pc.o.7P - pc,fr . 7 i 4T -) Moc,+ r p ;pe_s 4 re_r frta I r1 i J 13c<4-r-s w,becJr/Jv\rn riv ;v( pack I n av-eJus. RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Pleasant Acres 53 homes Lake Minnewashta 30, 000 sq. ft. 150 ' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes Off-Street Parking yes yes yes Boat Launch yes yes yes Permanent Buildings no no no Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom 1 1 1 Picnic Tables 2 2 • 4 Grills/Campfires 1 grill 1 grill 2 grills 1 1 1 gas campfire campfire grill Seasonal Docks 2 1 for 2 1 for 2 swimming swimming Approximate Length Canoe Racks no no no Boats on Land 6 7 0 Boats Moored 0 0 0 Boats Docked 4 room 7 17 for 6 Swimming Beach yes yes yes Marker Bouys yes yes yes Swimming Raft yes yes yes Comments: clean clean lot lot 'NTAINED THEREIN. & •, / moi 21-17-1-0 T iti 4 6 7 CReE� 66 ' - 8 9 - F a' I - 4 1 5 a E.-Si. , I qp0 _ • EF 12 2 2 / _ _3 2 / 13 ��` 8 - I S C I 14 1 1 : 9 10 11 UR Vt I I 12 2 15 3 (063) CRESTVIEW DRIVE , _ • 5 4 15 14 A`'� � 4 16 1010 11 • 3 2 I W 13 r_ cQ I 43 ' LSAS" a MAPLE nc�(R� 4 �/ 5 17 II 12� 13 14 � � R: 9 _ 12 IO II 6 18 GLENDALE DRIVE 674.9..E. ---4 1 6.--11 4 6 .. 9 - / ,. 3 2 �I A., 8 7 Out lot A_ ` • `` s MAPLE �70� - -425 _ DRIVE al • �` W r - 783 03•-- -- - 173 4 1 Ill ' '� 'T' '9:: s OF MINNEWASI,TL -EMETERY r � �n'�- 0 !♦OUTLOT Q BK •27, D q /9 _COUNTRY _ -ti,Es FOYLc:. AL. OAKS j BK III, P470 � - 17 6 OA S /4- 5 - 4 3 2 I m.S. CAMPBELL Q. 2Su BS c , ... ... , 59 - J.KERTSON C.D. DOC. N0. s►TE - 6 NETE30' • 5940410Iiir PFA STRATFORD $ � �9 l0 J I ��, OJw/'� - • _ OUTLOT B STRATFORDRLANE �7 - BARBARA MAY HEADLA / ' - BK 73, P 274 // MMINEASH TA g A g PA/gt ART 6 HEIGH7.s PARK C D g iltr a. :� �� In ^� - i =ifift-i--77,a;- t � --: ,. —: 4 � _Nall". All m&-.01414.00111711 fr '1i.,.,..,i._ _i.--_6_11_.L.i Itr:if- r0Sr di �r� ,4 •L.D/TiN, 1IiiI,qy . 'i4iP,I .4.1I..I „ kb,: 4 .-',re., ...., . ,-,,, . II:rjaillit ��r rw� `4 p� ph , aLZ � /Zl rl , LAKE / L.. . LAKE -If! = •I��s�c?/ M / N N £ M A SHTAII 11111 �� RF6/AMAL \ ( _. PARK �; .- .4[� :' 7,11P11117m. fig ) _� MI ) fitalb___,,,.., , . moi I 1WO can+ �� • • C .. J.i, g D 4 9 ' 1i' n Illeti..7.:Atia.„ ,, , IIIII I r 4-_.— 4,17 ,_� illifwV ter° y/�y .m.... 11;". gri 1 CJ s. 111Z 1 % 8 [i MD STM[[t +TOMO 0_ 41, POP'" me ash • +moi/ TJ � I — `N/� I v�/ o r CR 181 � -' -_ IYMGH D:v7 CtV I I I I I t` I I o .. I 1 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: June 3, 1992 S H A N H A S S E CC DATE: June 22, 1992 CASE #: 92-7 WAP By: Aanenson:v ammitimamiNommitassisimaNsimmintismimissiiiimmine STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for Installation of a Dock Through a Class A Wetland Z Q LOCATION: 7570 Dogwood Road-Lot 2, Block 1 of Zimmerman Farm Subdivision, North of Crimson Bay and Highway 5, and South of Tanadoona Road 0_ APPLICANT: Peter Brandt 7570 Dogwood Road Q Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 10.1 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RR; Rural Residential S - RR; Rural Residential Q E - RR; Rural Residential W - RD; Recreational Development, Lake Minnewashta _ WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. LLJ - I-- PHYSICAL CHARAC1"ER.: The site has a lot of trees along the western portion of the property. The lot slopes toward the lake at a grade of approximately 15%. The wetland is adjacent to the lake. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Large Lot Residential Brandt WAP June 3, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a dock which is within 200 feet of a Class A wetland which requires a wetland alteration permit. This wetland abuts Lake Minnewashta. The proposed dock/boardwalk would cross a Class A wetland and therefore, also requires a wetland alteration permit. One of the conditions of approval for the Zimmerman Subdivision states that "any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland alteration permit, as would any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline." This wetland is part of the same wetland which was part of the Crimson Bay subdivision. It is a Class A wetland which should be protected from alteration. In the past, the city has not allowed a dock to go through a wetland and has instead required boardwalks be located above the wetland vegetation. The wetland within the Crimson Bay Subdivision was delineated by the 944.5' elevation, or the ordinary high water level. On the subject site, this elevation falls approximately on the edge of the lake. The wetland vegetation extends approximately 30 feet into the lake. The dock/boardwalk will be located 89 feet from the eastern property line. The dock/boardwalk will cross approximately 32 of ground cover (grass) and then extend 56 feet into the water. The Boats and Waterways Ordinance allows for docks to extend to a maximum of 50 feet of the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The dock will be 4 feet wide. No excavation or embankment is necessary for the installation of the dock/boardwalk and it will not permanently impact the wetland. The dock/boardwalk will sit on the ground (grass) abutting the wetland vegetation in the lake but will be raised to a minimum of one foot above the surface of the water. Currently, there is limited wetland vegetation at the proposed location of the dock. The dock will extend out past the limits of the wetland vegetation so that the wetland will not be impacted by the docking of boats. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed wetland alteration permit. The proposed dock/boardwalk will result in minimal impact to the wetland during its construction and no impact to the wetland once it has been installed. In the past when wetland alteration permits have been approved for docks/boardwalks, the conditions have been met during installation but over time the vegetation is altered because a manicured lawn has been developed. Because the size of the wetland increases as it moves to the south in the Crimson Bay subdivision, staff is recommending that the ground cover abutting the lake not be disturbed in order to protect the value of the wetland. Brandt WAP June 3, 1992 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 'The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-7 to allow construction within 200 feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a dock through a Class A wetland with the following conditions: 1. The ground cover abutting the Class A wetland not be disturbed and it shall be left in its natural state. 2. The dock cannot be installed during waterfowl breeding season and shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. 3. There shall be no filling or dredging permitted within the Class A wetlands. 4. The dock shall be raised a minimum of one foot above the O.H.W. 944.5' level through the wetland." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and plans dated May 15, 1992. 2. Plat of Zimmerman Farms. 3. Letter to the applicant dated June 22, 1990. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT EVALUATION WORKSHEET To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application (Attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 . WETLAND DESCRIPTION: Size: /FP9fZ . 4500 5.F. Class: 5 1 Type: Location: Lakeside )< Streamside Upland Watershed District: /✓�? 2.0- ,, – Area of Open Water: — ^r RA,vst- Drainage Flows To: Lac �✓�y,��sV� — Vegetation Types: - / ��2. ,� ;�, y ) Soil Types: Ce/-7_ 2 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: ,,t."i 3 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: 88- t. 4 . APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: 0 5 . A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO – ALTERATION IS MADE: • CITY OFC.1uANPI":1 SCALE. - FEET • k tz,- -•,...../Pr,,.. ,„.... ... v l L l 1'14 7 1i 5 i5) .2 _ • 3;-# PeDn' C'11.7`4 i LiA, ZEN PLANNING DEPT .. scir FA-0.." _ 41__14___—+--i Ptem et66.af •j200( 6 4'1/VIDE 0 0 ki)-4 CP frc vot-reo- •7 -g I 56c-ri°pi 5 (560 Fizzol EDCre oP vinag)OJT 0F PP--tqotif ..s.s.s.:.s. `T.,•..:;';:-•3.':,'i•s2 ';):Ic..S.s•.•,.Z•.•.•4ir.0:?„".'..7r.:.:.;:.er"....4",")..4- .,..>,.4...,..rL.v O„,„;• ,......s.y....,.-0...:•.••'r''-•-1,.. ......•'. 11 ./.•..'”.., .„.'•-••*. ...": " , /...•`‘ ....,• / ..-'" - • 1 ".." ,./.- ., .,..-• ,..",.•••• / / I ''' , • er " S e rs.• ......°.*"."''''''.....C1) ..••••• IMm. ....4". ...„...- .4.••••• ....„./ ...„/- „,... ....., .....••••"'''. ; "..,•••• •er •::•;:**. .... • r' /* "/ / // / ••••••"'' e ..' • -I ecl f / ..," , ,......- .....„. ty.,::. ..„, „..... ., ,e,.. /,/ / / :,.... -...... .-... .... _ ..............,„,., ...".„ „.1,„... .„•....„• ../.. ../ ,„., _.,. .../>- •.._,.... = ./.• , .7 // / / //:".,, ,..------k.• ..., ,.. .„- : ,,..--'N. z I ...--"' ..„ .,- ..." ...- / — ..- , ,,, ..." ."" , ../.• ../ .., •-•,, ......--- - A/v.' .... ....., / .--/ ...-0' , ..---- / _-• .. • ,./- ..,... „-. ....„,' .....,..-cri.., ,./ ,...0 ....,./ •," ... ,.•,-^ /- •••••••• I --'4. ....," • ••• i •,/..- "/ /,' ./-* g,+,1 ../."' . .,_ —-iI . ,./. ...., ,- / ,••••,„.... / ..,-- .. „et _,,,,••••44:.... •••• /47.....,./ /./ •••••• •," -." /*" •••••• — ,,,, ...- /,' ..--''' • .., • •••••••" / ,-. ..,,. .."-' .,.• ./ ....., •-t$) ../ / ...." .., ./ ...-"*„.•/•'' p,' ...,,S *et ..../. / "... ./ ,tt, 0 v ..." I f Olj 4113 // t... ''. "."6 ./ 1 (;) • i .•-• ..- """ ...." 1 ok ." .,•••• ' i ...-- ,-• y•V'' (2- .../. •4.,6-.• 2-A +I , ..- 4-6 ... 3 () • in ......,"" ..4.'' x..6..... X S‘'“' •'.... .... b A A ....----- k w.. . ..••••••• ...- .• ,, • i ...-------,----- _________.------_, • 4....; h A•01"-4 1 ,,A.ei I . ...----7---- --....„.......„................_ ---<---_---_ ---....„.......„......... _ ... ". 1 5(0' -"•••••;„,\., i--„,I 1 i 1 I i H . W. L . 944.5 -// LA KE Fpc-N\C-)T biOC, MIN NEWASHTA CITYOF i _.,. N., .- 1 CHANHASSEN .1:047 - v . ....1 ., , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 June 22, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Peter Brandt 5200 Beacon Hill Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brandt : This letter is to confirm that on June 4 , 1990, the City Council - approved the final plat (#89-11) for Zimmerman Farm as shown on the final plat dated May 21,' 1990, with the following conditions: 1 . The City shall officially map the road alignment as illustrated by Exhibit 2 of the Sr. Engineering Technician memo dated April 4 , 1990. 2 . Erosion control shall be Type II . 3 . The applicant shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources. . 4 . The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 5. Any access, includi:ig a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland alteration permit as would any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. 6. Construction plans and specifications for the temporary turnaround shall ]fie submitted to the City Engineer for approval . The turnaround shall be built in accordance with Alternative No. 2 shown on Plan B to the City's rural road design (7 ton) . The grade for the turnaround should be reduced to 3%. The turnaround section shall be maintained at all times to the 7 ton standard with a minimum of 17 inches of crushed rock. 7 . The applicant shall extend the description of the trail easement westerly 25 feet to be continuous with the extension of Crimson Bay Road. "/ /0,41u/7 / ...„.....---- --",..................„... / I 1 / ,/ - ,/:///. -/ ',' l': .04-•••_,_................_.. .T''..."-s---:::±} Zirnm-e mn , , , �4 . / , .- '/7/:/L! /// J 47 I/ 1' t/,:' j/J/. ./ 1j i , r J g Irl i i �( _ _ �`,�I 1 fj J r Ij P II. 1 'I iiii �l 1 r li ! ' / . rr , 1 J : ,.'f, - „`\ .,-„., f' i •: i•, r 11 r,7 1-ri'7-i-•r"'{_'`-4^. / I. 6n 4.3 . �. I i j.' rl( 1: irii( ( !Ii r ' i J t f nIR i 'iJ ' !irl/ 1 i! I 1 I I _I i ( 0 4i 1 1 • i •` S' .-/ 7/ l'-''r 04 1 ; ir I' �!f 111' J ±-1i: m 1 \ \� /..,___�,� a I 'JI ( 11 i•• 1 : ; ' I 1, ( ;C2v a- 10 1 -2‘ ,r, k \ t. 1 4 i 111, ' . i I / _______---- ..,,.i. ------"-- , L ., . ..,,, ‘ , \ ,. \ \ \ , , I , . . . . ,. „ ti ; : , - . sssi. . . . \ , :4 .. : i , „ :,-,_ , 0„.. ,..1,. \ \ :, ‘ \ ,1 1,,, . ,,. : _ ______— ,,, . . . , . . 4. . , . 1 . ,0 , . .se s . \ 1.. .._\ta) ' ' ' ' / /' . ; ' ' . o, ,a, Llj ',. \ : \ : I.P , ', 1 1 \ ; iriar.t 0 1 ‘ 1 ‘ e‘ (7/..---Ti . '---‘---- -— ----- -'7. 2`. ,.k ,• .70 ,j1 : • t, 1 4\048 101s \ 1 '\ \\ \ \\\ ii k‘.44.0 ''' • ' .. ' ‘ I \�, \\' \ 4N• i 1 J l\ N\`• \l\',�� ` ,' l f r :`♦\` ,`• ' .7., \t\\♦N , ';l.,i♦ . L o\♦ \ \ i \ , \..-ikvmviiit \\\ \:\\ \ \. \‘‘‘Ith- ‘\\•\\\ \ N s''''si, .. . \' 1. \\'' , . ..\'''''....›..N.,.....::: \ 0 , .s. ',.. „... X44 5 ! \'may _ v c o,, - - - , . i \ : '\\\\% ,\14 \ _. p,S / E, 1 ..... / • `, ‘ \ \\ s. \ \ / I l , i ,' i i 'r. //i , t r\ .. • � i iii /j ..... .,t tl ; a J ! I \'- • C I TY 0 F PC DATE: June 3, 1992 \ I CIIANIIASSEN CC DATE: June 22,1992 -......>„ CASE #: 92-5 SUB, 92-3 REZ 92-6 WAP STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Plat to subdivide 61.45 Acres into 78 Single Family Lots and one outlot 2) Rezoning of property from A-2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, z Residential Single Family District Q 3) Wetland Alteration Permit - V LOCATION: North of Sun Ridge Court, south of Chanhassen Business Center, and - El. west of Audubon Road. CL APPLICANT: Keyland Homes Rod Grams Q 14450 Burnsville Parkway 8640 Audubon Road Burnsville, MN 55337 Chanhassen, MN 55317 4 PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate District ACREAGE: 61.45 acres (gross) 33.85 acres (net) DENSITY: 1.27 u/a (gross) 2.23 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - IOP; Chanhassen Business Center S - RR; Sun Ridge Subdivision Q E - A-2; Agricultural Estate District I-- W - A-2; Agricultural Estate District I.7, , LI WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site W. PHYSICAL CHARACJ I ER.: The area has rolling hills. The majority of the site is being 1— farmed. Mature elm trees are located along the north edge. (f) An existing single family residence, barn, and garage occupy the northeast portion of the site. A Class A wetland and Bluff Creek occupy the westerly portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 61.45 acre site into 78 single family lots. One of the lots will be occupied by an existing home. The balance will be available for new construction. The site is located west of Audubon Road, north of Sun Ridge Subdivision, and south of Ryan's Chanhassen Business Center. Access to the subdivision will be provided by a loop road off Audubon Road. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with one exception. Proposed Lot 8, Block 2 is occupied by the existing residence and a garage. Presently, access to this site is gained from Audubon Road. The garage will be located approximately 20 feet from the rear property line. City ordinances require that any detached accessory structure in excess of 400 square feet maintain a distance of 30 feet from the rear property line. The garage has an approximate area of 900 square feet. Mature maple trees separate the existing garage from proposed Lot 5, Block 2, creating a natural buffer. We find this intrusion into the rear yard setback acceptable and recommend approval of the rear yard setback variance for the garage. The Bluff Creek Estates site was located outside of the MUSA line until the recent MUSA expansion that was approved by the Metropolitan Council in May of 1991. This area is in the Bluff Creek Sewer Feasibility Area recently approved by the City Council. Sewer service to this area could be available at the earliest in the fall of 1992. Water service will also be available. The applicant is proposing to develop this area in four phases. The first phase would include Lots 8 through 13, and Lots 18 through 23, Block 2, and Lots 18 through 25, Block 3. The applicant would like to construct one model home located on Lot 9 of Block 2 for the Parade of Homes, which begins the first week of September. This home is proposed to share the driveway with the existing home, until such time when the proposed street to the south of Lot 9 is constructed. Williams Pipe Line Company has a 75 foot wide easement that runs east and west through the property. It is city policy, as well as utility companies, not to allow any structure to be constructed within an easement. Staff questions the design of two lots that abut the pipe line easement, (Lots 10 and 14, Block 2) due to limitations on the buildable area imposed by the easement. Staff is recommending that the applicant demonstrate how a house and a deck could be placed on these parcels without a variance. The majority of this site is farmed and is devoid of vegetation except for a line of elm trees that run parallel to the north property line, and some wetland vegetation along Bluff Creek, Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 3 occupying the westerly portion of the site. Staff is recommending conservation easements to preserve these areas. Tree preservation is a part of the proposed landscaping package. The recently adopted Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ordinance states that all development located on arterial and collector streets are required to provide streetscape landscaping. The landscaping plan submitted by the applicant is in response to this requirement and is of a very high quality and exceeds the city ordinance standards. There is a wetland on the site. This wetland includes the protected water course of Bluff Creek. The wetland is not proposed to be altered, and is within a conservation easement in an outlot. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that park fees be paid in lieu of park land. They are recommending the city acquire ownership of Outlot A. This would allow for continuation of the Bluff Creek preservation corridor which would ultimately extend from Minnewashta Regional Park to the Minnesota River. The installation of an 8 foot bituminous trail surface from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3, where it would provide access to the future trail, is also being recommended. In consideration for this, it is recommended that the city give full trail fee credit to the applicant. Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and is generally consistent with guidelines established by the city Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We find it to be well designed with only modest revisions being required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions as outlined in the report. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 61.45 acre site into 78 single family lots and one outlot. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.27 units per acre gross and 2.3 units per acre net after removing the wetland and roads. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 18,904 square feet. The western portion of the site contains an outlot. This outlot is not a buildable lot, and contains Bluff Creek and an associated wetland. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that the city acquire ownership of Outlot A, allowing for continuation of the Bluff Creek preservation corridor. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 4 Streets/Access On September 14, 1987, the City Council approved the final plat request for Sun Ridge subdivision, located south of the proposed Bluff Creek Estates Subdivision. It was staffs — intention then to recommend that Sun Ridge Court be constructed with a 60 foot easement reserved at the north of the radius of the cul-de-sac to provide future connection and access to the property to the north (proposed Bluff Creek Estates). This would have been the ideal street design, however, the 60 foot right-of-way easement was never acquired. It was discussed in the staff report but the developer failed to convey it. Since the property has all been sold, there is little possibility of obtaining the necessary easements without condemnation. Plans for Bluff Creek Estates propose a loop street with two access points on Audubon Road. The access points appear to be well located to accommodate future extension east of Audubon Road when development occurs on these lots. It appears the sight distance of the southerly access is acceptable based on MnDOT's standards. The right-of-way is proposed at 60 feet which is the city's urban standard. It is assumed the streets will be constructed to the city's standard at a 31-foot wide back-to-back street section. Street grades are not provided on the plans, however, based on contours, it appears the majority of the street grade will be under the 7% maximum grade per city ordinance, except in the area in front of Lots 24 and 25, Block 2. It is recommended the applicant's engineer look at the grades to see if they can be reduced to meet the city's ordinance. If the street grade is not able to be reduced, a variance will be required. Staff feels confident that streets grades could be negotiated to fall within the city's guidelines. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Audubon Road is classified as a collector class I street. It currently has a 66 foot wide right-of-way but a 100 foot wide right-of-way is ultimately required. The preliminary plat proposes dedication of an additional 17 feet of right-of-way to the existing 33 feet, together with an additional 20 foot drainage and utility easement to facilitate trunk sewer and water improvements the city has proposed along Audubon Road. Remaining right-of-way would be acquired when parcels to the east are platted. Proposed Lot 8, Block 2, contains an existing "Chaska Brick" house and a garage. Presently, the driveway for this house accesses onto Audubon Road. The garage is located approximately 20 feet from the rear property line and faces north. It is recommended that access to Audubon Road be eliminated for traffic safety reasons and Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, share a driveway off of the northerly loop street (Road E). A driveway cross access easement would then be required across Lot 7, Block 2. Notice of the cross access easement should be placed in the chain-of-title for Lots 7 and 8, Block 2. This is an effort to reduce the amount of access points accessing on Audubon Road. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 5 The applicant would like to construct one model home to be located on Lot 9 of Block 2 for the Parade of Homes, which begins in the first week of September. This home is proposed to share the driveway with the existing home until such time when the proposed street to the south of Lot 9 is constructed. It should be pointed out that Lot 9, Block 2 should also gain its driveway access off of the interior street (Road E) and not Audubon Road. The southerly road access proposes an island barrier at Audubon Road. This island should be removed. If the applicant is interested in having an entrance monument, we recommend that it be placed along the adjacent lot's corner. Audubon Road is constructed to rural standards with 24-foot wide bituminous surface and six foot gravel shoulders. North of Heron Drive, Audubon Road has been recently reconstructed into a 44-foot wide urban section with concrete curb and gutter and a trail system along the east side. It is anticipated that in the near future, Audubon Road may be upgraded to urban standards as development pressures warrant upgrading. The applicant should be aware that this development may sustain some of the costs from the upgrading project may be passed along in the way of special assessments. As the final plat is prepared, detailed utility and street construction drawings should be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. The roadway should be designed to the city's urban standards. The plat proposes development to take place in four phases. This phasing includes the street construction as well. Phase one will include a portion of the south quarter of Road E, and all of Road D. A temporary cul-de-sac should be constructed at the end of the first phase of Road E until the road can be extended in the future. A sign should be placed on the barricades indicating the future connection. Notice of the ultimate street extension should be placed in the chain-of-title for the lots located in this vicinity. All road right-of- way should be platted in the first phase. The city's trunk sewer and water improvement project will include construction of an 8 foot sidewalk along the west side of Audubon Road. The Fire Marshal is recommending that the street names be approved by Public Safety. Landscaping and Tree Preservation The recently adopted Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The plan identifies plant material Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 6 locations along Audubon Road as well as a single planting (21/2" Norway Maple). Appropriate financial security will be required. The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that it is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city, and with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. Mature elm trees are located along the north edge of the site. There are also some oak trees. The applicant is proposing to preserve these trees by limiting grading in those areas. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground foot print of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity. At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect designated tree preservation area. Staff is recommending that a conservation easement be established to protect trees located along the north property line of the site. This would be accomplished by designating the conservation area on the plat and through financial guarantees to ensure that the integrity of the easement is maintained. Individual lots will be required to show the conservation easement on the plat. Staff is also recommending that a tree survey be submitted so that - even those tress outside the conservation easement may be saved as much as possible (Sheet 3 of 5). The applicant is intending to save some trees on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 5, Block 2, but staff does not believe that would be possible due to location of future homes. The northern edge of the site will be buffered by a 100 foot wide landscaped area from the Chanhassen Business Center, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Grading/Drainage The overall development is proposed to be constructed in two phases with the initial phase proposed along the easterly portion of the site adjacent Audubon Road. Ultimately, the entire site will be regraded along with construction of two retention ponds along the westerly edge of the property. Since the retention ponds are located in the far westerly portion of the site (Phase II), the initial phase should provide for an interim or temporary retention ponding to address water quality issues and fulfill the city's storm water retention ordinance. The plans do not reflect any interim ponding or sediment basins and it is assumed that the applicant will not be constructing the entire storm sewer at this time. Therefore, it will be necessary for the applicant to provide interim ponding with Phase I of this development. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 7 The first phase of construction proposes grading the rear lots adjacent to Audubon Road to drain southerly along Audubon Road to Bluff Creek. Audubon Road currently exists as a rural type roadway with a ditch section. Any increase in the amount of runoff will create additional turbulence and potential erosion problems downstream. It is recommended that the applicant's engineer redesign and raise the lot grades to minimize the amount of runoff towards Audubon Road. Eventually, Audubon Road will be upgraded to urban street standards with concrete curb and gutters similar to just north of the site adjacent to Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition. It would seem prudent to grade the lots adjacent to Audubon Road to be conducive with future urban design standards, i.e. eliminate ditch section, build rear yards up to drain out to interior street (Road "E") where practical. _ Street grades are not shown on the plans based on contours; however, they appear to be acceptable except along Lots 25 and 26, Block 2. The street grades in front of these lots appear to exceed the city's ordinance of 7.0% maximum grade. Therefore, a variance may be required unless the developer's engineer redesigns the street grade to fall within the city's guidelines of 0.50% to 7.0% grade. Staff believes this can be achieved. The proposed house pads in this same area are approximately six feet above the street grade which equates to approximately 13% to 15% driveway grade which is extremely steep. Typically, the city requires that driveway grades not to exceed 10%. It is recommended that the developer's engineer redesign and lower these lots so the driveway grades do not exceed 10%. Storm runoff generated from streets and lawns is proposed to be conveyed overland via surface drainage to a series of storm sewers which will convey runoff into two retention ponds. The applicant's engineer should submit design calculations for the storm sewer and retention ponds. Storm sewers should be designed for a 10-year storm event and retention — ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100-year single storm event. The outlet of the pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. Ponds shall also be constructed to "NURP" standards to improve water quality. As part of Phase I construction, no storm sewer improvements are proposed to be constructed. Road E becomes a very long street with no storm sewers. It is recommended that the applicant's engineer provide an interim retention or sediment pond and storm sewer plans to deal with street and lawn runoff. Staff recommends the applicant supply earthwork calculations to the city to determine if the site earthwork balances, or if the site requires material to be imported or exported. Staff requests this information to determine if appropriate traffic signage will be required or if additional financial security requirements are necessary. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 8 Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water sewer currently is not available to this site. However, the city has authorized preparation of plans and specifications to extend trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities down along the west side of Audubon Road which will service Phase I of this site. Phase II of the development will be serviced via a gravity sewer line from a proposed trunk sanitary sewer which the city will be extending north from Lyman Boulevard adjacent to Bluff Creek. The applicant will have to cross over Bluff Creek in the future to extend sewer service to Phase II. Depending on the city's trunk improvement project's scope and time frame, the utility line may or may not be operational by October, 1992. The city's project will include special assessments for both trunk and lateral sanitary sewer and watermain service to this development. The preliminary plat is dedicating sufficient right-of- way and utility easements for installation of the city's trunk sewer and water lines. The utility layout proposed on the utility plan sheet is fairly well laid out. Hydrant spacing may be of concern to the Fire Marshal and require additional hydrants. The Fire Marshal's rule of thumb for hydrant spacing is typically 300 feet apart. There are some areas that exceed this limitation and will need to be modified. Watermain sizing is not given on the preliminary plans and should be evaluated by the applicant's engineer. Detailed calculations demonstrating sufficient fire flow during peak demands should be supplied to the City Engineer for review. Final construction plans may be prepared in conjunction with the final platting process. Utility and street construction plans and specifications shall be prepared using the city's most recent edition of "City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates." In addition, in the same area, the proposed house pads are approximately six feet above grade which equates to approximately 13% to 15% driveway grade which is extremely steep. Typically, the city requires the driveway grades not exceed 10%. It is recommended that the developer's engineer redesign these lots so the driveway grades do not exceed 10%. Storm runoff generated from streets and lawns is proposed to be conveyed through overland surface drainage and a series of storm sewers which discharge into two retention ponds. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewer and retention ponds. Storm sewers should be designed for a 10-year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100-year storm event. The outlet of the pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. Ponds shall also take on water quality characteristics as developed by NURP standards. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 9 Erosion Control Plans propose erosion control along the westerly, northerly, and southeasterly property lines. It is recommended that the proposed erosion control fence be the city's Type III along the wetlands (Phase II construction) and Type I silt fence along the north and southeasterly portions of the development (Phase I construction). Additional erosion control fence should be installed on Lots 7, 14 and 15, Block 3 as check dams, as well as, Lots 8, 10 and 11, Block 1. The side slopes along the rear of Lots 1 through 5, Block 3 are steep, approximately 3:1. It is recommended that an erosion control blanket be used on slopes 3:1 or greater throughout the development and that all disturbed areas be seeded within two weeks after grading unless MNDOTs planting season dictates otherwise. Miscellaneous The preliminary plat proposes 15-foot wide drainage and utility easements over the storm sewer lines proposed along the interior lot lines of the development (outside street right-of- - way). It is recommended that the 15-foot wide easement areas be increased to 20 feet wide to ensure adequate room for access and maintenance vehicles. The preliminary plat also dedicates a drainage easement over Lots 7, 8, 10 and 11, Block 1 for a rear yard drainage swale. Staff recommends that the drainage easement also be extended to include Lots 12 and 13, Block 1. Easements On the final plat, the following easements and right-of-way shall be indicated: 1. Dedication of all street right-of-way. 2. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas. Provide access easements to allow the city to maintain all ponding areas. 3. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easements over all sewer, water, and storm sewer lines located outside public right-of-way. 4. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas. 5. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. 6. Dedication of Outlot A to the City. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 10 Park and Recreation The Comprehensive Plan identifies the majority of the site as lying within the service area of Power Hill Park, and as being on the service area fringe of Sunset Ridge Park, and the new park acquired in Stone Creek. However, the railroad alignment to the north, Audubon Road to the east, and a lack of trail and street connections present barriers to free access to these parks (see Attachment 2). Trails which are identified by the Comprehensive Trail plan in the area of Bluff Creek Estates are depicted on Attachment #2. Two north/south corridors are identified on or abutting to this parcel. They are the Bluff Creek drainage turf trail, and the Audubon Road off-street bituminous alignment. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended the City Council require full park fees be paid as a condition of approval of Bluff Creek Estates. Fees to be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount of the park fee in force at the time of building permit application. The preliminary plat identifies the western 19.7 acres of the site as an outlot. This entire area is below the 100 year flood elevation and will contain a portion of the Bluff Creek Corridor turf trail identified in the city's Comprehensive Plan. This outlot extends to the east in a bottle-neck fashion, abutting proposed Road E, allowing for pedestrian access from the residential street. The second trail associated with this site is the proposed Audubon Road off-street alignment. Through consultation with the city's engineering department, it has been determined that no additional right-of-way is necessary if this trail is to be constructed west of Audubon Road. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council acquire ownership of Outlot A, allowing for continuation of the Bluff Creek preservation corridor, and require the installation of an 8 foot bituminous trail surface from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 as a condition of approval of this plat. In consideration for this, it is recommended that the city give full trail fee credit to the applicant. Rezoning The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from A-2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the east and west are zoned A-2. Sun Ridge Subdivision to the south is zoned RR, Rural Residential. The property is bordered on the north by the recently rezoned PUD by Ryan Construction for the Chanhassen Business Center. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 11 The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.27 units per acre and 2.3 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. This area is in the new MUSA area. The sewer service will be from the new Bluff Creek service area system. The feasibility for this sewer and timing was recently approved by the City Council. At the earliest, sewer could be available to this site in late fall. _ . Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Home Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 19,600 92' 175 Lot 2 16,500 84' 165 Lot 3 15,000 145/102 127.5 Lot 4 18,880 103 185 Lot 5 16,900 53 145 Lot 6 26,450 61 145 Lot 7 23,000 61 186 Lot 8 20,500 106 175 Lot 9 16,400 126 129 Lot 10 18,700 87 185 Lot 11 22,550 82 210 Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 12 — Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback — Lot 12 17,700 88 175 Lot 13 15,600 88 1685 Lot 14 15,000 90 167 — Lot 15 15,000 90 167 Lot 16 15,000 90 167 Lot 17 15,000 90 167 Lot 18 15,000 90 167 Lot 19 22,150 118/175 157 BLOCK 2 Lot 1 15,900 108/160 1525 Lot 2 16,300 67 162.5 _ Lot 3 28,400 58 165 Lot 4 25,300 57 150 Lot 5 16,000 57 155 — Lot 6 17,600 105/180 170 Lot 7 22,800 234/110 227 Lot 8 32,550 155 221 20 * — Lot 9 35,700 155/165 218.5 Lot 10 21,050 105 156.5 _ Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 13 Lot Lot Lot Home _ Area Width Depth Setback Lot 11 17,300 98 192.5 Lot 12 18,550 100 190 — Lot 13 17,900 98 170 Lot 14 17,300 74 170 Lot 15 22,000 54 165 — Lot 16 19,000 61 159 Lot 17 15,000 72 154 Lot 18 15,200 106 145 Lot 19 15,100 100 147.5 Lot 20 15,300 110/140 142.5 — Lot 21 18,700 241 145 Lot 22 15,200 105 145 _ Lot 23 15,200 105 145 Lot 24 15,000 119 147.5 Lot 25 16,900 152 160 — Lot 26 15,500 118 170 Lot 27 17,000 95 180 — Lot 28 16,650 116 197.5 Lot 29 29,500 137 2325 Bluff Creek Estates _ June 3, 1992 Page 14 _ Lot 30 22,700 195 240 Lot 31 22,550 90 250 Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback _ Lot 32 26,600 90 280 Lot 33 19,800 119 265 Lot 34 17,600 131 245 — BLOCK 3 — Lot 1 20,150 118/98 150 Lot 2 15,850 81 157.5 Lot 3 16,000 81 157.5 — Lot 4 15,300 95 152.5 Lot 5 15,100 98 157.5 Lot 6 22,100 53 187.5 — Lot 7 22,900 58 180 Lot 8 26,150 635 155 Lot 9 15,700 98 147.5 Lot 10 15,000 134 137.5 _ Lot 11 16,500 153/145 137.5 Lot 12 15,800 111 127.5 Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 15 Lot 13 23,400 78 220 Lot 14 24,600 82 230 Lot 15 16,600 85 175 Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Lot 16 15,600 80 155 Lot 17 15,000 100 150 Lot 18 15,000 100 150 Lot 19 15,500 80 155 Lot 20 18,250 88 180 Lot 21 27,950 80 200 Lot 22 18,150 82 175 Lot 23 15,000 85 146 Lot 24 15,000 103 145 Lot 25 15,250 223 139 Variance required: Proposed Lot 8, Block 2, contains an existing "Chaska Brick" house and a garage. Presently, the driveway for this house accesses onto Audubon Road. The garage is located approximately 20 feet from the rear property line and faces north. City ordinances requires any detached accessory structure in excess of 400 square feet to maintain a distance of 30 feet from the rear property line. The garage has an approximate area of 900 square feet. Mature maple trees separate the existing garage from proposed Lot 5, Block 2, creating a natural buffer. We find this intrusion into the rear yard setback acceptable and recommend approval of the rear yard setback variance for the garage. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 16 The site contains a Class A wetland according to the Department of Interior Wetland Inventory Map. The area of the wetland is approximately 19.70 square feet and is located in the western portion of the site in Outlot A. The City Code requires that development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland shall receive a wetland alteration permit. No alteration is proposed as part of this plat request. The wetland has Bluff Creek traversing through its center. Vegetation predominant in the area is reed canary grass. As stated earlier, there is to be no alteration of the proposed wetland. Building pad locations exceed the required 75 foot setback and are in fact, located in some cases, in excess of 160 feet. There will be adequate area for sheet flow from the proposed housing pads to eliminate impurities reaching the wetland area. The Park Commission is recommending that no development occur in the wooded area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: Wetland Alteration Permit "The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #92-6 with the following conditions: 1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are stabilized. 2. The wetland area remain undisturbed. 3. The applicant shall receive a permit from the watershed district. 4. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92-5 and Rezoning #92- 3." REZONING Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 'The City Council approves Rezoning #92-3 property A-2 to RSF: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 17 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92-5 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92-6." Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 18 PRELIMINARY PLAT 'The City Council approves Subdivision #92-5 as shown on the plans dated May 4, 1992, with a variance of 20 foot rear yard setback for a garage for Lot 8, Block 2, and subject to the following conditions: 1. All storm sewer drainage pipes should be designed for a 10-year frequency storm utilizing a rational method. Storm drainage retention pond, detention areas and outlet piping shall be designed for a 100-year frequency, 24-hour single event using the "SCS Method" established for use in Minnesota. The discharge rate shall not exceed the predeveloped runoff rate. Ponds shall also be designed to "Nurp" Standards. All storm retention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards. 2. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the current edition of"City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates." Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for City Council approval. 3. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 4. Watermain systems shall be designed to ensure adequate fire flow for the site. Design calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer to verify pipe size. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service the site. 6. All lots shall access from interior streets and not Audubon Road. Street grades shall not exceed the 7% maximum street grade per City ordinance. A deceleration/acceleration lane shall be provided on Audubon Road. The center island shall be deleted from the southerly access street (Road E). The existing driveway to the site shall be relocated to access from the northerly loop street through Lot 7, Block 2. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to Lot 8, Block 2. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 19 7. The final plat shall be amended to include expanding the 15-foot wide drainage and utility easements to 20 feet wide and extending the drainage easements through Lots 12 and 13, Block 1. The following easements shall be provided: a. Dedication of all street right-of-way. b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas. Provide access easements to allow the city to maintain all ponding areas. c. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easements over all sewer, water, and storm sewer lines located outside public right-of-way. d. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas. e. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. f. Dedication of Outlot A to the City. 8. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the pipeline company for any grading or construction activity within the pipeline easement. 9. Fire hydrants should be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 10. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless MNDOT's planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 11. Until Phase II improvements are completed, interim sediment and/or retention ponds shall be constructed and maintained by the applicant to accommodate Phase I storm runoff. The applicant shall amend the grading plan for Phase I to accommodate future upgrading of Audubon Road (urban design). The grades on Lots 25 and 26, Block 3 shall be redesigned so the driveway grades do not exceed 10%. The applicant shall supply earthwork calculations for both phases to the City Engineer for review. Erosion control fence along the westerly portion of the development (Phase II) adjacent to the wetlands shall be the City's Type III. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed on Lots 7, 14 and 15, Block 3 and Lots 8, 10 and 11, Block 1 as check dams. Bluff Creek Estates June 3, 1992 Page 20 12. Outlot A shall be deeded to the city. In consideration for this, full trail fees will be credited. An 8 foot wide bituminous trail shall be constructed from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 3. 13. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Road E. In addition, a sign shall be installed on the barricades stating that the street will be extended in the future. All street right-of- way for all plat phases to be dedicated with phase I platting. 14. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health. 15. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92-3 and the Wetland Alteration Permit #92-6." — ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from the DNR dated May 12, 1992 2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated May 19, 1992. 3. Memo from Minnegasco dated May 13, 1992. 4. Letter from Dave Hempel dated May 27, 1992. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated May 7, 1992. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 13, 1992. 7. Memo from Williams Pipe Line Company dated May 14, 1992. 8. Preliminary plat dated May 4, 1992. • STATE OF H M M Z O 7. m�x .1 '09? DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 772-7910 FILE NO May 12 , 1992 Sharmin Al-Jaff Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: BLUFF CREEK ESTATES, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CASE 92-5 SUB, 92-3 REZ, AND 92-6 WAP, BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms . Al-Jaff: We have reviewed the site plans dated 5/4/92 (received May 7 , 1992 ) for the above-referenced project (N 1/2 , NE 1/4 , S. 22 , T. 116N, R. 23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Protected watercourse Bluff Creek is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. The OHW for Bluff Creek is the top of the bank. Please contact this office if there is any question about whether proposed activities will be within Bluff Creek and we can make arrangements to determine the OHW . 2 . There is a large wetland fringe on Bluff Creek that is not under DNR jurisdiction. The U. S Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulation for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the responsible governmental units (the city and Riley'--Purgatery-Bluff Crook Watershed District) in accordance with the provisions of The Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. 3 . Portions of the site are within the Bluff Creek shoreland district and the floodplain district. The project must be consistent with the city ' s shoreland management regulations and the floodplain regulations of the city and watershed district. No DNR concerns with shoreland management or floodplain regulations were noted. 4 . It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to the creek or wetland. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Sharmin Al-Jaff Bluff Creek Estates May 12 , 1992 Page 2 5 . There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate approvals or permits. 6. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of _ Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 7 . If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. _ Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772- 7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. - Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD Vern Reiter, USCOE Wayne Barstad Chanhassen general file I CHANHASSENv �� O PRC DATE: May 19 , 1992 CC DATE: �� HOPFMAN:k Ammlimmimm STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat of 61. 45 acres into 78 single family lots and one outlot ; Rezoning from A2 , Agricultural 1 Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family; and Wetland Alteration Permit for development within 200 feet of a Z wetland, Bluff Creek Estates. LOCATION: Located south of Highway 5 on the west side of Audubon Road (see Attachment #1) .CL j J CL.. APPLICANT: Keyland Homes 14456 Burnsville Parkway Burnsville, MN 55337 PRESENT ZONING: A2 , Agricultural Estates ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - TOP, Industrial Office Park S - A2 , Agricultural Estates E - A2 , Agricultural Estates W - A2 , Agricultural Estates COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan identifies the majority of the site as lying within the service area of Power Hill Park, and as being on the service area fringe Qof Sunset Ridge Park, and the new park acquired in f... Stone Creek. However, the railroad alignment to the north, Audubon Road to the east, and a lack of trail and street connections present barriers to free access to these parks (see Attachment #a) . COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: Trails which are identified by the Comprehensive Trail plan in the area of Bluff Creek Estates are also depicted on Attachment #1. Two north/south corridors are identified on or abutting to this parcel . They are the Bluff Creek drainage turf trail, and the Audubon Road off-street bituminous alignment. Bluff Creek Estates May 19, 1992 Page 2 BACKGROUND This item was initially reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on January 28, 1992 . The information presented to the Commission that evening and the corresponding minutes are attached. This item was scheduled for additional review in February, but was subsequently removed from the agenda . Since the Commission ' s initial review of the proposal , the city has finalized the acquisition of the 8 . 6 acre park site in the Stone Creek development. PARK The City has the ability to acquire approximately 3 acres of park property (comparable to Greenwood Shores Park) , or a portion thereof, if we wish to. If acquisition of developable parkland was pursued, however, the city would forfeit all or a portion of the $39 , 000 in park fees which would be generated from this development. I do not advocate the pursuit of park property in this case for three main reasons: 1. The portion of this site on which homes would be constructed lies wholly within the park service area of Power Hill Park, and partially within the service area of Sunset Ridge Park. The new park in Stone Creek, once connected to Bluff Creek Estates via trails , will also be utilized to some extent. The barriers to travel mentioned earlier impact these service areas to a degree ; but future trails, and additional residential street construction will lessen their effects. However, increasing vehicular traffic along Audubon Road will off-set these improvements somewhat. 2 . Outlot A, as identified in the preliminary plat, is comprised of 19 . 7 acres of property wholly within the flood plain of Bluff Creek. Via a trail connection being provided by the applicant, this area will meet a variety of desired open space needs. 3 . The number of individual park sites operated by the city is relatively high. Acquisition of an additional small park site would perpetuate this phenomenon. PARK PROPERTY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require full park fees be paid as a condition of approval of Bluff Creek Estates. Fees to be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount of the park fee in force at the time of building permit application. Bluff Creek Estates May 19, 1992 Page 3 TRAIL As mentioned, the preliminary plat identifies the western 19. 7 acres of the site as an outlot. This entire area is below the 100 year flood elevation and will contain a portion of the Bluff Creek Corridor turf trail identified in the city ' s Comprehensive Plan. This outlot extends to the east in a bottle-neck fashion, abutting proposed Road E, allowing for pedestrian access from the residential street. The second trail associated with this site is the proposed Audubon Road off-street alignment. Through consultation with the city' s engineering department, it has been determined that no additional right-of-way is necessary if this trail were to be constructed west of Audubon Road. TRAIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council acquire ownership of Outlot A, allowing for continuation of the Bluff Creek preservation corridor, and require the installation of an 8 ft. bituminous trail surface from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1 , Block 3 as a condition of approval of this plat. In consideration for this, it is recommended that the city give full trail fee credit to the applicant. ,4/ Al WV PA 1 it 111111111k - alb III ft ow iir up iiinmda... ini go Ils Ur IV in, _ um gm ofi ,.. ..ell um a : e lig =OULEVAR • O F - �/ SCHOOL SATE S I -' =/ • Ni...., i to 1 plINOT \ 1 c..) 0 *°:. I orii:. iiiik7r, es _ AMP NW ic-_-. • . tik, .- Po . :41r g, iP 111 ' 4JD,,e I AIM ' 7-IIIIII glik : Vk I HANS HAGEN HOMES = _ . . _.7.64-&-e..4\ ,- ,, Alp .,,,,,....,....„... 0 .,,......... C.R ie 7 I ,� +% �/01M ' Ian" ;,i ‘, . IKAMMIL-----114E: A Fr' ' v.st: %� .--7.9 , \ \,-- Atidattim itiF `` BLUFF CR EK SITE '.p -- 1 1011VTAIIIIPAI-' 0 G N • in • c EXISTING fl Air 1 1111 N 9000As ' im CT) Wile, • • TRAIL /SIOEvn1.11 11,-- 7 BLUFF CREEK TRAIL 9100 CORR IDo1C w a� t� _ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 011:1)"--- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission 7 FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator 1 DATE: January 23 , 1992 SUBJ: Pending Subdivision Reviews a. Bluff Creek Site b. Hans Hagen Homes This item was prepared to afford the Commission the opportunity to look ahead at above mentioned potential developing sites in Chanhassen. Both sites are proposed single-family developments and are adjacent to or in close proximity to the recently reviewed Chanhassen Business Center (see attachments #1, #2 , and #3) . The impact of these proposed subdivisions in the areas of fees, parks, trails, trail corridors, open space and natural resources is significant. Portions of the borders of both sites include areas designated for trails. The Bluff Creek site contains property through which the Bluff Creek Corridor Trail will travel (see attachment #4) . Both sites are isolated from existing neighborhood parks, however, the Bluff Creek parcel is partially within the service area of Power Hill Park (see attachment *5) . To date, only preliminary discussions have been held with the owners and developers of these properties. Upon receiving a preliminary application of subdivision, these items will be brought back to the Commission for detailed analysis. A t«f PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .410:2 . lbw • Illi • •- -\•;•• -,..-..,. -- ••V --•-- -.-- • . ‘ N k" •, ‘,‘,%\„&."'":77,77..--"'t1 c ' -i.•?.,....,..':_..e.,.;'.._'•.:./,'.,,.;„.....,.i,..t%././„.-...,„•'7'1/4,k,'-",,,/i,4,')I',,„'',.......6.7.....I,,".,.„.;:.....;.V•If.,„•,.'t\k•‘‘\, ,\\NI\,I1:/191:1>.);'',•.,..‹'1..‘r....-3....-....N-....,...'..„..,,1..'....i.". ..%... -T..T, : y -- \ 1 , i 2".,zt,t7.• '•‘'‘'''. ..,N, \ m _ 53 /1 ,' ; . . .. •. / ''....: •' •; ‘:.'; :‘',/...•'' ;;1(1.',' 1 • .":2,\ ‘',‘ ;17."- ;:-.41,_ ,„z-----,-- --\,:::.::- ,..,... .. - , ,‘ . , ), , -- --z-..-Ii--4---.--- \ . ., ,, .. . , „ - , , -- 1 . . , . , . ‘ \ ,.‘ \ - .-- .i,/,',• - .. -N:-, ------. : -et Z • 1 • --., , , ..- -..4_,,,', • ::.---\ .- " • ••• ' \•=•.; , \, . t . 1‘ . - -• -- • .. % ..•. • , • • -..... ••• i • ' i • ...: .e.--1-.1-.•"" '' •-r--• 1, / ,'.j‘ •-•--..%,"-.1- ';•\%<',1\. `:•\ --)4$1 •//.•7,---------- ‘1', • ."-T,''1;4-4 - ,'. . ----- - --.v ,N,',4;•:, • t , ,.!,/,'1; - - ,,i.-, 1 , ; 1, ;',1. r- ',/? , . ,-.:'. \ i /.1,,,i.,.;,...c..,--_7_-:_..i..f›- 17.4;„4..4.0....v ;,//: 3....j..‘•-N,,v . . , ,, , ,, ...,--•,...-4„..- • . .,./i.,• ,.:......„:..- -, s ) . ..-?, ---7.-9*, . -- 7---_• __2,'"44'.' \'t :7tr4".:11.'Fa;.......\:: ''.. ...• '',- .."14:• ... ...(Thi.--.....4.Z........ .):".'s.i:\\: '''... ..\\:\kit. ._ k /,,..,-,:1, -;- .A ' ' -•r-V. .• i -1 ' . , 107.V";‘-";---.*::- \ '.\\.\ II \1\ .I ) .• , .....-. ::..--_-• - .\- ,-). .11-\ ,.;, , . , •\'• „ l NZ'. ) ' 1 i .(/4 • / / ._• .-..,-,,,....,t ..4 . J "'''''' •- ,i\ s. ‘.1.N \t if.%- L••• --...--\...'•‘•>: -• ‘ .•v .-' _• R.• •‘ •-• • . •- . . ....- % •0 .- •--" •- rraf'." N``'7,•!" - \ s'iz ..W vvs•:".N . . ... . . •- • ,,„ ' ,\•.‘ , ,•• + •/ -- • -------.. , --:-- ' `'‘. -, ,.., • \ • \.1 ,_-•[ ----J _ . . ‘ ' j .. ,s.‘,11 AO_.,:-• '_tip_•//: .. '• --•\ '''' •\ s •-2 •••••\..N.Nis`. . s•t ‘ '' ' Al, ?‘‘,t it 1 -' \ .' • •''•e T •_„. , • 1, . i - s 1.:'• '• '\A .-t,' ,); • ‘ ' -, ' \\--- • - • ,v1,‘, \ -i .." s•- - , , , , • .. . •,. .:...,- ,,-,. ,‘, .. ,.... --_-- •\•\ ,, ._ 0 . ,, „ , , ,..... __.,_ . . _ , , . ,,,,,, ....,_ , .. ._ . .,, / j,.....s.1...,....:,., , •••\.\ x , , ,---,,• - .....• _4•:--.i-• IN:- -:- .- •. X • \ ' )•,C . . 4. ' IX',- ,7.....' .0.',.."._ .... :r.1-r5 I...:._ .t '.‘'-...7=Z ... /..54\ . "4". .;., -- 11. :. \.-0::1'' ‘ ‘, ‘:.7., (,. . fi. '. ..........*,•.,::::i f ..-..-.::..:::."•.-'•rf 344.'L?.:: . % . ,, , \ ,-- - - 112Z `..;.\-,---)r,\ .,. ',-_-,L,‘,"..„..17-...-- 7.:--0;,',-,:;.;,-s,_11.- -_-_-7...- f. ' A. . . ,v,- -sr-- • --s.: ,',//--_,--% : •`• • =7- /,- ' -----: - -: - .••• •••-: •. - ". • ./N- kp . ...:i ‘::•••,-,- /4'7". ', - , • , ;-- s ;-; • I\: • ;,.. ...‘" ..., .. ,, ,, ..r., ,,,, ..,.:; .„.., : ,,,,,... ,..:‘...,: „ ..., ,. ..,...„ ,, , ,.\ i . mit • :. V-.." -r...":" . ), . .... , ....;" 44:ie. : ... ; I • ' : r..•••"7. ''7- •Ne i'rill " ,/Iv ../...• ...- " *)' '' 1.I.,,,.s. -' ' • ''" I/ '•./ ' I •• \. ' - :,-,,,.,.1,_A...,f .1, ,,•-• _..... •:.•, , „ .../ ,,. .. , ,,k 1 : , , ; . •,,,,,, • 0 . . IZIQ 7.I>:,.,:f.-..i..'e,..a,.r•. ?0)4,,:,','\','.,•1.••4•,". ,. ',....,k„, ,•,if".1l 1,) ••4il.l;'aI.1i\%%.r...:N::..t1.....•.•''.„k.i•.%.'‘1..-`.z\:-Nf-',-l'_:2••-_ _ \ 1J • ,b,k„L../....,1.I•\'r,iI,,•,,,r,ti,,1o\;„i//,/1,,,4,'„,-17,,,,,,h,,s,.,;.,,. // N c•// •...-.7...%c."_le•--•t-•. "-••"••.•-.-•.•.;..-J•I.k. .A1I•1-/k_--,.-.r.7'•"•-4,.6.••1 4-4.:",-..: 11.,,,I.:(</, s . -----",, - ,/, • -----f - N_,,,,,•'" . - .••-,\., ‘,... 0 ,....,-N \ IA_.... ,),,t , „‘ ... I \ 1 . i. '.!:•.'i .1 ' \s.. ...h15‘ ,,...'. • s- 1-,) ' 14' t l'cA'k'' ''.,‘,:t. '1 .k4>4,2- - ...„‘-‘‘..-' % , ; , / ../ . .\•::.. •, \'‘ 1 k * '11. •'' ,A1.- k %‘,..••••...%. :1.--7..1:;•• , •.. t• - i. \le./. j - : • ' 1 1/c>2.;:j \\‘..'s s ':. *....' 'k r S• '''/ 1 I ''IP‘),..1.7- t7. ' * '... ;c1/1.• ..,X,1*.f. ) • ). s‘ ‘‘. 7 ...... t ,,4..- -. ., • - , . 01 ...,1 -..- -. -.;,,,,., ,,,,„,.. I , 1 ill-. 11 i sk-A..)4:.z ..... U.,:ekt' 1 \‘111\ )))12,...Q. ,EL.......,__ b r.....),),•\, :,„. • ••'.1•- - • - I ' ' ' ' ••••• k. • 1 ' . )4/..; t,\c,. .•-. ..... f`://Y.% i -- . . • ,1/• i 1 si, '.2$elk:-25.; 4'''1;7 . -71: ., ,24-',1,',: -/-1-.. -1-•:•-'• . .-,.. _ -'-'8,/r,--- --- • --'...!-- \-7-•• -%---,-cs-.-.=--- • :-,-4V- 1,'-i4. -=- 1.„ 4'7- z - •\-- i '•' , .___,;:,:x-,-....,-_-_-_-__. -=-- - -=--- .:.f. • . -.•-•`›ev>--•-:c..;>;\ • 7-- -•••It ' 21'','" - ) INc::::ss. • ...1.--"-./ .• s' „',%-, :zg;•• ,=-;-:-,-;_-_--4--7----.-- . •-,f --',?--.s• - A. • , r.:•;11, 1.",17„/,',r 7.=-;.•-i--i__ . r.-• , -.. • -. , ..,, ._ l'i ',,(,.'' dit,•..:.A.';. • ,...... • - -1 - It',.., i i',3(. ,i,iri,11, • I 1-1'- k le-, , /C./ •,./ . -; . ,d. , , • - -. -.• j ' s•._ ,'I:, •,, - / //, i y J., .., ........ , . 4/ •,;.• , Ii,,,,.. 4,.,,, .,, .. ...\‘ r. .....• Si, • • . '4 ' ,"-:,..,,i.•( ,..,- . ' ..;s , ...„ .41.. $,•••• _, ' „Vil,'I/1(1 i• i, 7. ... . .;;;;,i '', 1 .1._:E•.. 'it"--. b '/ ' 1 ' ' ' r -- ' /,'1,-.t'% _ 111.•"‘:1;1!:'.. . , . ..' , • •.... -., ...- ,\ s• • 'Ai',4',.. ,), „•I , , V....44; - ..-• "-- . acm. 1.,1„;fq•C;' V', ;.0#0, , 's% s•• .. ::I • ,S.•'/ f/(/ c $", ,,/,,., ..,_ • _„_-- ,'-', I ; I 1 /, •c•,•.' .int:Li, i „'' . --... . ..„ ,..- " ,iv........tr,..si. fen' I . .., I ......,„...••• ...:--: •-... .1 t ' , II .,,,11,111.1'111.• , , , ,....Z.-, ........."%. t.,.:.... ,./, 1.2•_}......cfr.- .... ,e/I 1 --.-.:.'"•, 1,.. ..............,t t.‘ 1 , •,,..1'•II il• 1 .. , ..1:s...7:04...C;f:tr.;;1,; ,,,,• ......1...'1•;•-'...-Z-..,:....6.-..-larf. ••••-", ,fr•-`7,7:.:=Z::....•.:...•;., ...V.....,.••‘/1 ”,11 „N...iik • , ,4. , ,..14,.,.. \ . -L.\ - -- -- --' --- , , i 1.2....,-.,....--.,-. .. ____-__ -,- -- .... -- ,, t. „ ,•4,,.- _ ,,•,!--..-.......: 1 - - • • • ... w , A B . D E . e361/5/ 11911./I-IpelMte*:-..." -%- • r ••-gliv.:Zers •A- • tee si ' --7 _ Fir _ie. ...I .t. or 3.-a.. -.. . A, ea e-:.1::-z.-_m.." Duh/ ►A , r, '`: r .' ' '..:41 %N;a ill ;VP 4 4 fiii -51r _- — � . �'� _ _ _ .7) .... .anA ad N so .fir` I . 7 :,, Ir. j I "IFv • J417.‘i . • er,: , t ----... .. • .46- fkalg j'%''I II .' tli •••• • -. —.. - -`� �_ Y _I •- - - ' O" �� --�_ • • �•1 • --J L.. �'r • • I l.� I t It iIi + i i 1 i �• _ . • •y ' — a • •f - —r- . I— CITY OF —_ • —_ --� _ Trail Plan - . _ i •• •• � -� — MD:d "MIMI". Walkway/Bikeway --- 1 •.• • 11,., , _•�4 •- _- . Nature Trail "- _ firr - Connection Points H .......lip. —, — . - if -:--k .77' '... • i • --, . 1 -..... .._, •••__-_ •••.. . ......., .... • .......j I ..._ . . ... • ... . • 0 ... , . _.. �. I I I I ; 11111111 . i i f i / ! , 1 1 1 1 Base - 1,U • 45 Park and Rec Commission Meeting �- • January 28 , 1992 - Page 37 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: A. LAKE ANN PARK UTILITIES AND PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER UPDATE . Hoffman: Item a is to discuss briefly the utilities which went in at Lake Ann Park . As you 've driven by you 've seen the big . . .trenches . The wire is down to the beach location . They 've got the 3 1/2 inch forcemain sewer line over to a lift station in Greenwood Shores . B & D will come in and do restoration work and install the lift pumps and all those types of things in the spring . Picnic/recreation shelter was taken back . Approval for readvertising for bids for the City Council at their first meeting in January . Those advertisement for bids are going out this coming week in the Villager and the construction bulletin . We open bids the third week in February and hold my breath for a reasonable bid . The target zone right now is that it needs to be below 240 in order for it to be approved by the City Council . Last bids came in at $280 ,000 .00 . _. Lash: But theme 's been alterations right? Hoffman: Correct . There were some minor alterations in an attempt to bring the costs down and hopefully this bidding climate now in the spring is much better than it was last fall . Our economy is somewhat weak . Hopefully' we have a better bidding climate as well as people will be hungry for work . If all things work out right . The schedule is there . Unfortunately this would put a completion date right at the end of the beach season so we would have a nice beautiful , brand new building to close down the beach . Lash: Maybe we need that big Labor Day , our first annual Labor Day celebration . Have Oktoberfest there . OIM B. PENDING SUBDIVISION REVIEWS: Hoffman : Iter: 10( b ) is of interest , particular interest to the Commission . The first , these are just information on pending subdivision reviews . These developers have been in . Talked to the Planning staff . Discussed park issues . Trail issues . Easement issues with staff . Preliminarily bringing them to you this evening for some discussion . Especially on the Bluff Creek site . These folks are real tentative . If the Commission is going to want some park property , they want to know that so they can try to incorporate that into their plan . Or if we want to take fees , that sort of thing . ' This really brings about , the entire next area of development . This quadrant of the city was developed with the business park , Lake Susan Park and then Lake Susan Hills West and Chanhassen Hills back on the map . So that section has been developed . The next one which is coming in is this entire ring . . . Essentially with agricultural fields or a large lot residential and now . . . Chan Business Park was recently reviewed by the Commission and that 's coming around . The Bluff Creek site which we 're discussing this evening is this particular location . As you 'll notice , I don 't know if the topo shows through on the map . . . it goes from very high ground on this end , breaks about here and drops essentially right on top of creek so it 's a very odd site in that there is a lot of grading . . . That 's a concern of the developers . . .very little flat , high ground . . . Hans Hagen Homes is the other one which is in for development . Again it 's single Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 28 , 1992 - Page 38 family residential in this entire area . Initial discussions have centered around flag lot as being a 7 acre park . It 's very wooded down in this section with a hill coming up . . . It does have some flat area right in this- area . . . The other issue which needs to be addressed here is the trail corridor coming down to this other segment . You have a section of it righ'.. on the Bluff Creek site . We also want to obtain a connection from the Hans Hagen site down to this trail and by-pass . . .get onto the Bluff Creek trail And the Comprehensive Trail plan does identify trail segments around this entire piece so as these subdivisions touch the adjoining roads , we need to take a look at securing the necessary easements as well there to provide — for those trails in the future . Hans Hagen was in with the Planning Director . Their initial development plan , site plan . It 's not going to fly so they 're back out for redeveloping their site plan . Bluff Creek , I 'd like to take a further look at . To get your directions . Take a look at your site map se you know where this is . The service area of Power Hill Park does touch this site and a potential service area of the Hans Hagen park would service this site . It 's approximately 75 homes which is a — difficult number . It 's on the fringe of if you had a 125 homes , I feel th, Commission would feel a great need to incorporate some type of active park site within that development . If it was 50 homes , we could certainly get — by without it . 75 homes on a site which is very small , we can take about : acres . We have the obligation or the right to take about 3 acres of park property . If we take 3 acres of park property here and create another — small neighborhood park that we need to go out and maintain , and is it in the best interest of the city to forego the park fee in this instance? As you can see , this is about the break line of the bluff back up in here . They just have to just continue the lots down in this area , in this — remaining . . .Bl;.ff Creek when they encompass that trail . That portion of the trail and this section may indeed just be a huge outlot . The thing that we continually need to protect is naturally a developer comes in and — they want to give you that outlot for park credit . The City ordinance say! that that 's not acceptable . Anything below the high water mark just is not , cannot be calculated into park credits so you have a battle right off the bat . If the Commission felt that we needed to take 3 acres of this high ground , you can bet they 're going to be before you pleading their case on why they would not like to see that happen . So again so I can get back to the people working on this particular site , this evening I 'd like to at — . least get your feelings on what you think on parkland and access to recreational facilities as it deals with the Bluff Creek site . Pemrick : What are they coming as the lot sizes here with 75 homes? Hoffman: Can you pick it up on there? Pemrick : I can 't . I have a hard time reading these things . Lash: It looks like they 're 16 ,000 . — Andrews : About a third of an acre roughly . Hoffman: Yeah , 15 to 20 . Most of them are in right around 15 . Lash : How many sites are there in the Hagen? Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 28 , 1992 - Page 39 Hoffman : Hans Hagen? Lash: Yes . • Hoffman: 140 . 157 . Something of that nature . 150 for a ballpark number . Pemrick : Is that the same again? About a third of an acre . Hoffman: In that site , no . They 'd be about 6 doubles so about 6 acres . That flag lot up there is just over 7 and in our initial conversations , it would be basically a wash . They would be willing to give 7 acres for the dedication . Pemrick : I 'm just thinking with that small lot , the 75 homes , I think they should have a park . Lash: I do too . Ins Pemrick : I don 't think they should borrow from someone else because that 's really c ramaed . MNI Hcw far would it be? See I would not consider Power Hill to be acceptable beca,:e if this area is now going to be developed with homes and businesses , Audubon is going to be a substantial enough road that I wouldn 't be comfortable with children having to cross Audubon . In an uncontrolled intersection there wouldn 't be any intersection there . To get to Power Hill . How far would it be from Bluff Creek if we had a sizeable park in the Hagen site , how far would it be if there was a fairly easily accessible trail between the two neighborhoods . Hoffman: It wo;:ld be within the half mile but it would certainly not be an after school walk every day to go over to the neighborhood park . It would be more of a special trip type of operation . Obviously there is going to be considerable open space on this site simply because of the outlot that 's going to be there so the developer has to , site constrictions says they have to put all their houses on this end and leave this end open . So there are but they have to buy the entire piece . So then we want to take 3 acres from them . We need to identify and obviously if we want an open field it 's got to be up on the high portion . Andrews : All the prime land . Hoffman: Yep . As all developers say , it 's the prime land . It 's going to sell the best for them and you 're going to take 3 acres . Essentially we 're going to lose about $30 ,000 .00 in park fees to buy that 3 acres or in excess of that and we 're going to need to identify a location where we 'd like to see that park and get back to them . Prior to redesigning their site plan , they 'd certainly want to come in before the Commission officially on February 28th to present their case in that regard and then it would take action from the Commission to proceed further . Lash: Could you point out the outlot again? Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 28 , 1992 - Page 40 Hoffman : The low lying area would all be in this point . That 's essentially the high water mark down would just be grass , open area down to the Bluff Creek watershed . Again each neighborhood and city has a focal — point . Whether it be a neighborhood park or a school or grassy open area or big woods . Kids from this neighborhood are going to go down in that outlot and play and if that fills the recreational requirements of that neighborhood , and we benefit by taking $40 ,000 .00 in park fees , that 's great . If we feel it not , then we need to take a look at acquiring additional land . Schroers : What I would like to see here is a more clear overview of this proposed site and how it fits into the area around . I mean it 's difficult when you 're looking at these itty bitty squares and things here to get a — real good feeling of what 's around . Logistically it 's kind of hard . I 'd like to know right exactly where Sunset Ridge Park and Power Hill Park and stuff fit in propertion to this and it seems to me this might be an — opportunity to capitalize on generating some fees . Some funds that we could put to use in other places . It may be a good opportunity to acquire some money rather than property but I just don 't have a good feeling when I lock at this to how it all fits in . to make one comment and that is , if 75 homes go in there wit no pa; K , car: guarantee you there will be somebody up here saying we— don 't have anyplace for our kids to go and play . You know you 're going to hear that . But I don 't think we need 3 acres either . I guess I feel we c:o!_:'_d meet the needs here with maybe something closer to a half or even an— acre which is a totlot and a hoop to shoot baskets or something like that . Lash: At least you have an open area . Throw in some playground equipment . The; car gc there and fly a kite . They can shoot some hoops or they can have just a quicky baseball . When you have just a third acre lot , you car 't play anything on a third acre lot and even with the high water line back here , that 's somebody else 's property . Even if half of them think — it 's fin_ for the kids to go back there and play and the other half don 't have kids or whatever and they don 't want the kids there , it 's marshy half the year and the grass gets real tall . They can 't go back there and play a_ game of ball or anything . So if we could pick a site that is high enough • so we could develop it and it would fill our needs but it would be more one of the undesireable lots . Say one that backs up to Audubon . Maybe that 's one that wouldn 't be as desireable for them to develop or it would be one — of the last ones for them to develop anyway . Take one that 's a peculiar shape like say 1 and 3 even . If you put two of them together , you 'd have almost a square but if you look at them both individually , they 're both — kind of pie shaped . That 's kind of an odd shape for a lot to try and builc a house on and it backs up to Audubon . So maybe those are two disadvantages that we could use in our favor . Although they 're at the end of a cul-de-sac which is nice for people , it 'd really be nice for a park . Schroers : It 's possible that if you go , if you do something like you 're suggesting that you could cash out on a deal . You could use 1 acre of property . Collect fees for the other 2 acres and use those fees to purchase the equipment to put on that property and have a wash . Park and ;::ec Commission Meeting January 28 , 1992 - Page 41 Koubsky : Todd , do we know what Chan Business Center is doing? This abuts there? I mean like your park location would abut the Chan Business Center . We have trails that were proposed there . Hoffman : Chan Business Park has the large outlot as well which runs north and south over the creek area . Right where the trail will go through . It 's essentially a commercial/industrial center with there 's a 100 foot buffer zone on the south side of their property which is on the north side of the Bluff Creek site . And there 's a potential trail to run east and west on that upper site . Koubsky : So that might be a good place to abut a park would be on a 100 foot easement . Hoffman: Correct . Lash : Anr' that also would make it more undesireable for someone abutting the business . Schroers : This is going to come up in front of us again I presume . Hoffman : Correct . Schroers : Cam we ask that next time , is it possible to fit this into a better overlay of the area so we can see how things are laid out a little bit better than this? Hoffman: Okay . I simply brought this to you just as a pending subdivision just so you can get some idea . The site plan does show it hopefully in sore context to Hans Hagen and Chan Business Center , the Bluff Creek site and then it also shows Power Hill Park and Outlot G . Just some words on , recently we 've been looking at subdivisions and we 're land grabbing and that 's vacant land is the first and irreplaceable to a park . The money can come later but if we forego park fees on this site , we forego park fees on Hans Hagen , there 's going to be a year down the line where we 're nct going to have a capital improvement program simply because we have no revenues coming in . . . .or we take a minimal amount of the revenues , we 're going to be left holding the bag . Schroers : Well that 's exactly what I was saying with this density . This looks like a reasonable opportunity to collect some dedication fees and still be able to provide something adequate for the community . Not something that 's only adequate but something that would be acceptable . Hoffman: It 's a real tricky balance . We don 't want to end up with another Pheasant Hill where we spend $170,000.00 to try and meet their needs . But park service areas were set up for a reason and that 's to accomplish what is a comprehensive park plan and what is identified as meeting the needs . So again , I have mixed direction to give to the developer . I 'll take that to those folks and we ' ll bring it before the Commission again in February . UMW Lash: You know another option that they may be more inclined to accept would be , a couple of the lots that are right by the high water level and then we 'd end up with a . Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 28 , 1992 - Page 42 Koubsky : A hill . Lash: Well . Hoffman: If you want a play area , we need to take something on the easterly third or easterly half . — Koubsky: I guess I think each area needs some sort of playground . It may be an acre . I don 't think we need 3 acres or whatever but I think they 're far enough away from existing parkland . They 've got roads and a railroad — track there . They each need some sort of area . Lash: I think we need to look at each one individually . At the physical — characteristics and this one has several I think . You 're looking at Audubon . You look at the railroad track . You look at the fact that there 's a business center abutting it . It 's kind of secluded as it is right Koubsky : Because we 'll also have Sunset Ridge Court there and Timberwood . We ' ll have the school going north of it but they have bigger lots but they don 't ha,'e playground facilities . Schroers : Do you have what you need on item ( b ) now Todd? — Lash: What is the minimum that , I know that there was sort of some kind oT a policy established at one time about the minimum that we would take for a neiohbc.rhood park . Just so staff didn 't have to go out and maintain 50 ,00: half acre parks all over town . Schroers : It was 5 acres originally . Lash: Now we 're talking about 1 acre . Hoffman : One acre is half of the size of Carver Beach playground . Schroers : You can 't really do much more than a totlot . What else could you do besides a totlot . If you put in a totlot , what else do you put in there? Pemrick : Volleyball . Koubsky : Some open area . Schroers: Yeah , we could put in volleyball . Picnic table . Hoffman : You 're not gaining that much more open area than a backyard in this area . That 's the word of caution . We don 't want to create , you know 40 more subdivisions of this nature come into the city , do we want 40 one acre parks within our city? Schroers: No , I think we 're better off looking at trail easements and connect them to a park that 's more substantial that 's going to serve the area rather than give each little nook it 's cranny . Definitely . _ Park and Rec Commission Meeting - January 28 , 1992 - Page 43 Hoffman: It 's an issue which needs to be addressed because of the accessibility and that type of thing . Bluff Creek corridor would provide access , safe access to the Hans Hagen site . We could negotiate with that site and acquire land closer to this site . Closer to this end of the corridor . Open space and that trail , it 's not a traditional play structure which we identify with but it does provide recreational activity that piece of it . Schroers : Well we did want some diversity in our parks . We don 't want them all to be the same thing . I guess there 's nothing wrong with just having a green space and an open area and it doesn 't have to be overly developed . It can just be maybe maintained to a point where- people can create their own type of fun there . I mean keep the noxious weeds down . Do some mowing and that sort of thing and just give them space so they can do whatever they wart to do . Pernrick : How about requiring larger lot sizes? Hoffman: Back to the Planning Commission . Perr,rick : What do they say? Hoffman : The, ii go through that and they have the ordinances set . . . Erickson : Todd , how far did you say that this Bluff Creek is from the Hans Haven? That proposed 7 acre park . Hoffman : The walk from the Bluff Creek site would be just over a quarter mile . It 's within the half mile service area . You could go north through the CBO site underneath the railroad tracks . Take an immediate left there and go aboJt half a block and you 're at the Hans Hagen site . Their original proposal put an on street trail through a portion and then you cross the ravine and you 're up into the park area . Erickson : You say it 'd be about a quarter mile? Hoffman : Yes , just over a quarter mile . Schroers: I don 't think that 's an unreasonable distance to get to the park . I mean at some point in time you have to take responsibility for yourself . If you feel that your children are too small to go that quarter of a mile by themselves but you think they ought to go there , then you 've got to take them there . I mean you can 't dump a park on everybody 's doorstep where everybody can look out their window. Erickson : Plus it 's not really a quarter mile across Audubon or something like that . Hoffman : It may not happen . The Bluff Creek site may develop fully in 4 years and Hans Hagen may be 10 years down the line so we need to deal with that issue . It 's something when you 're in a developing city , you just can 't control . Park and Rec Commission Meeting January 28 , 1992 - Page 44 Lash: If that 's the route we decide to take , let 's make sure we have some kind of an access site that 's not going between two lots through to the Hans Hagen area to get to the park for these other people . Schroers : Our service area was set up to be a half mile wasn 't it? Hoffman: Yep . This will be within the half mile as Power Hill will be on the fringe district . I ' ll lay that out for you . Schroers : I think that 's something we can work with . Berg : Plus if you build close enough on that end , on the other side , the other people from Hans Hagen could use the school if it 's built too . — . They 'd have access to the facilities there , if it was built there . Hoffman : Okay . Anything else? — Lash : Do we need a motion on this thing? Hof f r:a r : Schroers : Okay , we beat item ( b ) to death . Quite an indoctrination for these guys . — Berg : This is normal right? Schroers : No . Sometimes we bleed a little more . C . STATUS REPORT , SKATING RINKS . Ruegemer : Just to give you a real brief , tell you what 's happening with the _katirc rinks in Chanhassen. We did have a mid-winter warm spell right after the first of the year where it did get really nice out . Typically — unseaEor.a;.ie for January but it did do the skating rinks very much good . Basically what it did do is we had to close down the rinks because they were getting very slushy and very dangerous to skate on . Virtually it did — create a . . .almost we had to start over again . So what we really did hope for was to get some colder weather in , as we did and park maintenance crews did shave and get the ice back to where it was functional again . We opened up back again January 25th and we have been open since that time . — Hopefully with weather cooperating that we can , this week is going to be warm again the way it sounds . Up to 40 . 38 tomorrow and 40 by the end of the week so hopefully we can squeeze through this week and get to where our— target date of the 16th of February , weather permitting . Lash : How do you set that target date? Ruegemer : It 's just kind of an approximation . Lash : It 'd be nice if you were going to have an approximation , to have it — after energy break . Ruegemer : I think that 's the middle of February too . _ < I N i. - % Rn J � 0 0_7-- s' /� oe I 'o P. MEMO r _ _" ; o i --4 o •a$A �• 'lt ter - II 8 U ; :. • fp ,.._____ , ) pi \,: ---, ...:.. ,,,_,_ ,.. .14. ..._:4114_tia, ... , ,, ,,. , :__.i.,...__\ • s_._.,_ __::_.__.: _ ___.,___________ _,____.-----2„--___1_, _,,____ _ ...... .. .......... :........ N.,..,%• •, --------'---:-.:-Z2--• ---2.---- -.,-- 47 ' 4iXs. • . •.-'—isi--..?,1•-)•'--- -. ‘•-- i r : r� - ---k.,- '\—/%-- • - —_— -s/7 e f�t.: 1 ;•\ —I O F 21 J 1a2 ; �t L.:.-- --_-#—.--!" i ' �it% r. •--,__--_- _____-, ,/›..,--� ',Cl ` � • frk- ,-__ -.-.--5-. ( ! 1,—!y_. ...- ir4 Fe\41 „._______, - _ r\_, ., ,;,_, ! .), . ,,,,_,... , , ,„, s 7,.,____,--,__ ___ , \ 2,----,__Th, . ,: ,.; , . .,..,, , _ .„ ,, , ........_____,..._ , , , . . • " z,...,./ ._\ ....... ( r,____,„ _ _ _, „. . _ _ , ........„__ _ _ J, I _ ; \ ' • ri„,$), .. d,,,, , ...:. . , • ! - _ te a — �I a. _ } �`-� ( 2 JIB _ ..— .,,c� �•. '?fit ►_'}:��=�1=f r� : { - '' ,'. '�',.._/ / ')%i am` •....;,;1 - 1e;.tx6 L i CSLii. ' i \/ 1 .......,. ..,, .... i,:,,,3, „ , .„,,,s i„,,, .:.-, /: ,I • r 4 i••• •-1 r 7 It •:11 flit 3ti=i,I }gyp '1 i \. -- •. ilia I. 1!••1'11-1// - :k• ,� �1k -i � . 1 • •,SI. 101;1;ilii 7 6 1 1 I 2 .,.r::.r C1-• ~•e BLUFF CREEK ESTATES WIIIMINIIMEMMIP °_ - James R.Hil, inc. "1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TREE INVENTORY . _ : _ "z =---.:—..1—.r..-- PLAN /EuGrrEERS/SUINE�'DItS S E KE LAHO HOMES ID •'•+-- at.•L•+•o•r • wr...a•t.+,»a+ , 1 :• , ___ -1ma__ ----------- ' . . . ___________ -t- ! :----.:•••• ••:..--__'.._-7:----•-—'''--: ..i — -.- . i I co . • . i li M • • — •!I.?..;_li jo• , • •- .1 .•1 r .e"-"""' x F. L . 1.1.Ig,th•17.c.-ci I . 3. -4, ,.. .1.?• „ . : r.,. -0 • •ill; i i 4-••• -- - .- .1 c :;--' -I .4.1%':•. ,-, . i .• . 1 CM- b . • .:: .:1-:1-.1 -1-:.'1.1! • ,, " ..E , '11. •: ....1,..-Uf i ' •••'-'--4---, IH-1. I ° •••-: 0i -, •• •. .----,...0 t..• -1 Fp. -- -13 . %-..i....'TIV,:d4i, ii,_'',1.1 .1.,, • 1 .. r- ..., . . . ,„ .. -...-::::..-,i.."..hjy,b', • ologi ., . . . : ..-, ..,, Di - ..,„7„.. It. _ -_-_- 4 : — — ——— --..--. • 1 • I 4 . E a ?"'•• F .. : --........ . :. 3 .- . 1 -- ; 1 ; 1 - -. ; ... ".6t .- P Ne ;. ,: - • t ,... 8.1. g g tit, i ..... : s.,,.. — • . . ,..2 ., c . . cm : •; .. - 4 ,; - \ , . - 4 ?\ • 22.p2--' ,,. ... t ,.. 7: - -.. z -.. i•-• z . .: . „..>"-------- 4 '''' i S / %•... : .. 1 I. i , ..,,,,-1 - : % -0 ' ' • " i . , ; :1•.; - .. • .---.....------ . \ / \ ,.--,.. .), • - -- ,i ii .: r ;:sfs. - „: il' 1 , ;>, ' ‘i • ---"ft • / / i '. f \ 1 :: - .. . • . , _ / , :.5 1 f• .„ A •-\1 , ..c.• •„•-e- s.!:: ia p r. e : -- - -. / / * -.1.- ---7c /i/ , r i t - i ' I - ... '•s 1 .7. NI: . : ; 3 \ f• :: . _. .4,, ,, . . , . I I : i; I i ( -,.-- .. . g A ..!, 1\%:..-/ i . -g \ ..... -_,,,•--1 .1 „ . • . ... • •-• - _ - . - .,,A z .,,,\ i I, ! i I F. I 'i".' "i r. '.. • I i'• --LP°i '''7 -1, i ,i z -.- .• x ? , -_, k t '; F :... IS ,,,4___-,—.1, 1 -:. \ . .• T , 1 r;--1 —-- — — \ \ : , ., i --.....-- -.. I 1 ., , .: . --`' M:' 11 \x>,!;, ,U._. \ \ a 1 _ \ -. - ;a 8 : i! q _ 3*2 -1 4, , .",• ii!': s•E ; : \A \ . t ..-- !i!.: 1 . 601 ... .., i ,. ,,.. \\ \\ .w.'''' ' S i ;r ... —" ' L i ... , i-.. ; - IO'----!%-- I.: 1 -:1-* - . \ ... : \ \•,:, a. . .32" • ,___121 1 1 •f‘l . : n— T-7 ,,:i, .• , \ \......„....." ...! "` I . 1 '. P ." : r. I i \.... - — si., t .5:i ' i .1 :8. i -_,,. '.' , 1 • ...f --",...„\•,61.21..ij.vi . !t. . ".:.; • it 0 ---•--.___I .•-.5?.. - t ..: g 2 g , \ 1 r; —-.,,-- !i ;ii:rii ' i I -.;--- --- -; I • A „. ••, . i:ili, II F .............._ itli. ,.f ; • I ----......___ •ia.Z..41.10•• -.-...................... ....i-!.. __. .................._ 1 "iiil: 1, i bao t....!tr..e. IS f e -s I - -- .-- --..s .' -- - ----..__. If5iliiii/.1 i / .PAL10.61(1 .._ I i -_. : --- ;/,;,•• [04 -. 1 :-..-. I ; Bi..11: I - I E. — .!!!-Iii.'t 1 -_ in:ffi f j! I 10;!Iti:i. :! ' - ' ' - '••••=__`-. 1-.L..: .1 ILI.p...- ' i!!:Iiillit, ii_ .1.\ ' la : . i.. ; • 1.11 vim. i . if 1.-1 •'-'.1.---. ------ ---..t - .titelile.'1 4 ' "" F'S 22x VAii iiti ::: 446 — ;Wis.q12 1 ; --T4t$A fti e 1 ; j--.: : - --f _--f.—.---?. ii:s111..4 -.., t• Aig 2222 ,, ....., ,...._A • .i,i1;iffi.i: ! gZg22, ., • • ., 4, f;f1511fgi.: : li "i ; ;; g411 !! 2 :g III • \ o . , F'k 3 ^^ s - ' -_zrEI. ;:g• 1 3 I / .T. : tr. • . k:•-•4 z ts.....' : 2 •• .5..2; ipt E "•I li-- —4-. : yr ,lig 1 • :,.i.,:: , F . . ,.. _. .... . • ,a,...: -: '' E§ . . 1 •••15. • et •- , -- •••• ,i. ..! -F= ---z ..... „ . ...41r- ,, -t I pip,m... _ • -4--"- -— • as... - i1/41.0t; .. .- - - ... .. viiii BLUFF CREEK ESTATES F ; -g ? i 1 7 ,...„ !,• .WM il I ;•• t gt PRELIMINARY PLAT & PHASING PLAN .-_-7. -77-=7:r- - James R.Hill, inc. :::::r:"1-1741 AtANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS itr-- - tux-,-...., • ..............5., _ .. 8 I I i " KEYLAND HOMES 221.--x_00-- .1-01.... ••••10.01.•• ILLS•••K",' ,L1, -..4114. NM � ------- ,�:L._. I �: SIM i. I �_ . -- _ G f t (,.. "-.74:.../),„ ... • . . y_, a y i.,1 q `'�'s-----; / -___Lay , •\......,� tet+ ,....,>,;..„0' b \It 4 ' / .11 :..?— . / ,-,.// -. \ . i!--\,,,: I•• •" 0. . a ' !:.-L. 7 IMO .. • -'-' : 6 r 0 I-: .:••-• - \ '-', i!. i S II _�___- 7 -I X19^, '`Sti__CL •a �J, _2., ,‘,,:.,-1,....,_.,, ; , :,....:::::,............ ,. _ ,„ __,__I , ,_ ....... ..,...._, ......... ,.., 1 . • f -ri R'' if ili°10 'fir Ici . • 1 I I . f z i i " 1 'ipt ft li i€ y 3I v\I'i 1III a :11. l!' 0 p 1 I 111 o • _ ;: BLUFF CREEK ESTATES = I I : : '-•' lir James R.Hill inc1,1 A 2 e -:; PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN t Iii:'; y- ... PLANNERS/CN4MCCR5/SURvEY0R5 • { • K[YIANO NOMES nm.c••w•i • •..w•.....•.!=D• • • ..11••••w•• •Y-•5•.l\•.•• Yi 100-10•• •••1120-11.1,•• I I II- - ._ `I \r l; , I 1 oj y• r ii 5 tea•• r \ k _ ii___ __7., v \4, r_ • .,.....„.,,_.. ..,.. k 12.-,----.- ____. _ - . /, . -- .- • . 4, -if 4.-i., , -,,,. ...s A. _ . . . '- '" .SY tiiN'I 14:.(tTa. ' i i ,r- ----.- - -• ' . .(."' / -- • ..,..; d'.-__-..._:.._ ^,17''',..1\.`Vinni..4*-'7,-ii.1),--- ---- 03.7-‘• ,-;.!!:, •,.* /,' !a! / •• : - •:---1 ....- 1;4- 1- WP 1,4004,...0 \ ai -.9. , •Clis-A. --- .- it,t4,44.,/ . ,i,,, ____ ....„---•••,-. - -_, ,...‘• ,,N, _,I., .0„,,, \ __ . . .• ,, „, \ • .. . -(.....:1„A firal:\\I .P • ,-:-;: -..-•-_- - N., 41114., NW- ) :.. . .. /...st c II i ' �•.4 iTM-ifMr-, : •yrs '-4 , 01.4*4"--. T.. � '` ! ._-\ 1.' i'se`lil V_ P717 -_,...........:.. ; lz "c:I .% ' :- .: . • •-r----]..r.. . .: :1'..1-7 ----'.r riiiCi.-,--- .'_--_'_ :467- 61,.....--"'w "M°4'• •eroeMi -- VW - • . :• -_ �`SI —. rs. ..\,..,....* • __.),... ....c. ..-.,,. ---_--, _. ..... .,..:::,--_-- ",..... . ..• •,..::. : \ ..•,01k‘:' - I, Cgt$ ;•'__, '`.. �f•.-w. _ _ _I.- :. i �.• moi.., .� 1 �` Q7<'r t "' � • -- . s �, s ` - . ..-.. s t . _ ,I— •e:, • • Ii. .I 7 . Iii. —z 5.H111:1 ?;a;.i — is' • a ' BLUFF CREEK ESTATES = :_ = ' fY �••-� �' -= James R.Hill, inc. — "f PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN .-.......747:7:- £ o w3 C 1,.. +"*' pm 0.A?NERS/E�+GwEERS,SVPV(Y S KEYLANO HOMES ,,,..... .,.. (••.o•r • w/.T Z..+nal•, ...7_____7. i.. ...—__.„___ 1 1-, i . Mom . --- r-I--' .i .7 ........ . ,l _.- ....... ----- • -- ...". -........ * Li.... -.;" ... ..".. ... ! --i'• ii .. . !!s>\ .— . 7-7--- _____....,.. a •• . _ • • V '2 CM ••/..i, / ” .... :. .. , - . ., __--4l'-•••......... ' , .....‹....- i -• \ ... /;2 \' "'' .: —--— ....- ., \ / ‘ ''''..,,.... Pi; .. \i J2• ;/ . . \ • ,, /— / / _ ! ..... . I / . ./ •-.. . - I S I 4 z —I z i _.• .: I I _. I - I r ..... 7, ---- F I I \c-.7".- -.'-I:'...7...—' .-- ......- —..-- r• \ \ - R IT -- - t I Z .• \ CC•\\ j i r.. ., - i . \- \\a \ .• I'i__.... .- \\ \\ ::-•-•"'. 1 ---h-- . , . . ,. _ . \ .. : .1 _______11 • , , 9 1 , / _ , • .. . . .. .44\IN , i..--•-` ". .-....... ' . : . D .. . ____ . ---___________________= : i - 11 i . .... ----.1.1. 114113%!ftirz:/ •:. : 1 . . _ ..; 1 • _ ! 1 .... : H ... I Li ..... l i I iilla _ :.1.. . tr..; ...„...___z . z i• •• A t t . „A . ;. .... . I . I .. .or BLUFF CREEK ESTATES . -...:-.-.=.:.-._ ...., . 4 .. - 1...... . . . a t_• ,.i. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN --........- 2 0 1 E , .. . .7.-.....-.=.........— FLANNERs.E KtNEE RS/SURVE YORS u• I . I KEYLANO HOMES m,.....E.. . fteo.eta 00 at • /....Y.U.L.•••3f UT 16•S•OOOOOO.....t••••"••• ...wet"...1.... ,,,,, ..."."'... ''' • 04,1.10.10.• Ira.M.... f . il Minnegasco A Division of Arida,Inc. May 13, 1992 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff Planner 1 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 92-5 SUB, 92-3 REZ, and 92-6 WAP Bluff Creek Estates Audubon Road Dear Ms. Al-Jaff, Enclosed are the prints for this project indicating that Minnegasco does not have facilities in the area of this plat. We do have facilities at Audubon Road and Heron Drive. Natural gas service is available to the proposed plat from the mains on Heron drive subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of application. No additional gas main installations are anticipated at this time unless the developer/builder requests gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this proposal. Should you have any questions please contact me or the Sales Department. Sincerely, diSIP-vet97t, Richard J. Pilon, P.E. Senior Administration Engineer Engineering Services 612-342-5426 pc: Mary Palkovich Jim Kwak 700 West Linden Avenue P.O.Box 1165 Minneapolis,MN 55440-1165 CITY OF ‘ ‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 �-r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ♦ MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I _ FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician i,' DATE: May 28, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Bluff Creek Estates-Keyland Homes LUR File No. 92-10 Upon review of the preliminary plat, grading, drainage and utility plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc. dated May 4, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations. Grading and Drainage The overall development is proposed to be constructed in two phases with the initial phase proposed along the easterly portion of the site adjacent Audubon Road. Ultimately, the entire site will be regraded along with construction of two retention ponds along the westerly edge of the property. Since the retention ponds are located in the far westerly portion of the site (Phase II), the initial phase should provide for an interim or temporary retention ponding to address water quality issues and fulfill the City's storm water retention ordinance. The plans do not reflect any interim ponding or sediment basins and it is assumed that the applicant will not be constructing the entire storm sewer at this time. Therefore, it will be necessary for the applicant to provide interim ponding with Phase I of this development. The first phase of construction proposes grading the rear lots adjacent to Audubon Road to drain southerly along Audubon Road to Bluff Creek. Audubon Road currently exists as a rural type roadway with a ditch section. Any increase in the amount of runoff will create additional turbulence and potential erosion problems downstream. It is recommended that the applicant's engineer redesign and raise the lot grades to minimize the amount of runoff towards Audubon Road. Eventually, Audubon Road will be upgraded to urban street standards with concrete curb and gutters similar to just north of the site adjacent to Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition. It would seem prudent to grade the lots adjacent to n .«. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Sharmin Al-Jaff May 28, 1992 Page 2 Audubon Road to be conducive with future urban design standards, i.e. eliminate ditch section, build rear yards up to drain out to interior street (Road "E") where practical. Street grades are not shown on the plans based on contours; however, they appear to be acceptable except along Lots 25 and 26, Block 2. The street grades in front of these lots appear to exceed the City's ordinance of 7.0% maximum grade. Therefore, a variance may be required unless the developer's engineer redesigns the street grade to fall within the City's guidelines of 0.50% to 7.0% grade. Staff believes this can be achieved. The proposed house pads, in this same area, are approximately six feet above the street grade which equates to approximately 13% to 15% driveway grade which is extremely steep. Typically, the City requires that the driveway grades not to exceed 10%. It is recommended that the developer's engineer redesign and lower these lots so the driveway grades do not exceed 10%. Storm runoff generated from streets and lawns is proposed to be conveyed overland via surface drainage to a series of storm sewers which will convey runoff into two retention ponds. The applicant's engineer should submit design calculations for the storm sewer and retention ponds. Storm sewers should be designed for a 10-year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for _ a 100-year single storm event. The outlet of the pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. Ponds shall also be constructed to "NURP" standards to improve water quality. As part of Phase I construction, no storm sewer improvements are proposed to be constructed. Road E becomes a very long street with no storm sewers. It is recommended that the applicant's engineer provide an interim retention or sediment pond and storm sewer plan to deal with street and lawn runoff. Staff recommends the applicant supply earthwork calculations to the City to determine if the site earthwork balances or if the site requires imported material or to export. Staff requests this information to determine if appropriate traffic signage will be required or if additional financial security requirements are necessary. Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water sewer currently is not available to this site. However, the City has authorized preparation of plans and specifications to extend trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities down along the west side of Audubon Road which will service Phase I of this site. Phase II of the development will be serviced via a gravity sewer line from a proposed trunk sanitary sewer which the City will be extending north from Lyman Sharmin Al-Jaff May 28, 1992 Page 3 Boulevard adjacent to Bluff Creek. The applicant will have to cross over Bluff Creek in the future to extend sewer service to Phase II. Depending on the City's trunk improvement project scope and timeframe, the utility lines may or may not be operational by October, 1992. The City's project will include special assessment for both trunk and lateral sanitary sewer and watermain service to this development. The preliminary plat is dedicating sufficient right-of-way and utility easement for installation of the City's trunk sewer and water lines. The utility layout proposed on the utility plan sheet is fairly well laid out. Hydrant spacing may be of concern to the Fire Marshal and require additional hydrants. The Fire Marshal's rule of thumb for hydrant spacing is typically 300 feet apart. There are some areas that exceed this limitation and will need to be modified. Watermain sizing is not given on the preliminary plans and should be evaluated by the applicant's engineer. Detailed calculations demonstrating sufficient fire flow during peak demands should be supplied to the City Engineer for review. Final construction plans may be prepared in conjunction with the final platting process. Utility and street construction plans and specifications shall be prepared using the City's most recent edition of the City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Streets The preliminary plat proposes a loop street with two access points on Audubon Road. The access points appear to be located to accommodate future extension of the street east of Audubon Road. It appears the site distance of the southerly access is acceptable based on MnDOTs standards. The right-of-way is proposed at 60 feet which is the City's urban standard. It is assumed the streets will be constructed to the City's standard 31-foot wide back-to-back street section. Street grades are not provided on the plans, however, based on contours, it appears the majority of the street grades will be under the 7% maximum grade per City ordinance except in the area in front of Lots 25 and 26, Block 2. It is recommended the applicant's engineer review the grades to see if they can be reduced to meet the City's ordinance. Staff feels confident that the streets grades could be negotiated to fall within the City's guidelines (0.50% to 7.0%). According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Audubon Road is classified as a Collector Class I street. This type of street requires a minimum right-of-way of 100 feet. Audubon Road currently exists with 66 feet of right-of-way, 33 feet on each side of centerline. The preliminary plat proposes dedication of an additional 17 feet of right-of-way to arrive at half the necessary right-of-way together with an additional 20-foot drainage and utility easement to facilitate trunk sewer and water improvements the City has proposed along Audubon Road. Sharmin Al-Jaff May 28, 1992 Page 4 The site currently contains an existing "Chaska" house which driveway accesses onto Audubon Road. It is recommended with Phase I construction the driveway access be eliminated from Audubon Road and relocated to access the northerly loop street (Road E). A driveway access easement would be required across Lot 7, Block 2. Staff feels this would be a safety improvement by reducing the amount of access points along Audubon Road. It should also be pointed out that Lot 9, Block 2 should also gain its driveway access off of the interior street (Road E) and not Audubon Road. The southerly road access proposes an island barrier at Audubon Road. This island should be removed. If the applicant is interested in having an entrance monument, we recommend that it be placed along the adjacent lot's corner. A deceleration and acceleration lane should also be constructed along Audubon Road in conjunction with this development. Audubon Road is constructed to rural road standards with 24-foot wide bituminous surface and six foot gravel shoulders. North of Heron Drive, Audubon Road has been recently reconstructed into a 44-foot wide urban section with concrete curb and gutter and a trail system along the east side. It is anticipated that in the near future, Audubon Road may be upgraded to urban standards as development pressures warrant upgrading. The applicant should be aware that this development may sustain some of the costs for the upgrading by means of special assessments. Erosion Control Plans propose erosion control along the westerly, northerly and southeasterly property lines. It is recommended that the proposed erosion control fence be the City's Type III along the wetlands (Phase II construction) and Type I silt fence along the north and southeasterly portions of the development (Phase I construction). Additional erosion control fence should be installed on Lots 7, 14 and 15, Block 3 as check dams, as well as, Lots 8, 10 and 11, Block 1. The side slopes along the rear of Lots 1 through 5, Block 3 are steep, approximately 3:1. It is recommended that an erosion control blanket be used on slopes 3:1 or greater throughout the development and that all disturbed areas be seeded within two weeks after grading unless MNDOT's planting season dictates otherwise. Miscellaneous The preliminary plat proposes 15-foot wide drainage and utility easements over the storm sewer lines proposed along the interior lot lines of the development (outside street right-of- way). It is recommended that the 15-foot wide easement areas be increased to 20 feet wide to insure adequate room for access and maintenance vehicles. The preliminary plat also Sharmin Al-Jaff May 28, 1992 Page 5 dedicates a drainage easement over Lots 7, 8, 10 and 11, Block 1 for a rear yard drainage swale. Staff recommends that the drainage easement also be extended to include Lots 12 and 13, Block 1. Recommended Conditions 1. All storm sewer drainage pipes should be designed for a 10-year frequency storm utilizing a rational method. 2. Storm drainage retention pond, detention areas and outlet piping shall be designed for a 100-year frequency, 24-hour single event using the "SCS Method" established for use in Minnesota. The discharge rate shall not exceed the predeveloped runoff rate. Ponds shall also be designed to "NURP" standards. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the current edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for City Council approval. 4. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 5. Watermain systems shall be designed to ensure adequate fire flow for the site. Design calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer to verify pipe size. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the - financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 7. All lots shall access from interior streets and not Audubon Road. 8. Street grades shall not exceed the 7% maximum street grade per City ordinance. 9. A deceleration/acceleration lane shall be provided on Audubon Road. 10. The final plat shall be amended to include expanding the 15-foot wide drainage and utility easements to 20 feet wide and extending the drainage easements through Lots 12 and 13, Block 1. Sharmin Al-Jaff May 28, 1992 Page 6 11. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the pipeline company for any grading or construction activity within the pipeline easement. 12. Fire hydrants should be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the = subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 13. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless MNDOTs planting dates dictate otherwise. 14. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 15. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance purpose to the proposed retention ponds. 16. The final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service the site. 17. Until Phase II improvements are completed, interim sediment and/or retention ponds shall be constructed and maintained by the applicant to accommodate Phase I storm runoff. 18. The applicant shall amend the grading plan for Phase I to accommodate future upgrading of Audubon Road (urban design). 19. The grades on Lots 25 and 26, Block 3 shall be redesigned so the driveway grades do not exceed 10%. 20. The applicant shall supply earthwork calculations for both phases to the City Engineer for review. 21. The center island shall be deleted from the southerly access street (Road E). 22. The existing driveway to the site shall be relocated to access from the northerly loop street through Lot 7, Block 2. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to Lot 8, Block 2. 23. Erosion control fence along the westerly portion of the development (Phase II) adjacent to the wetlands shall be the City's Type III. Additional erosion control Sharmin Al-Jaff May 28, 1992 Page 7 _ fence (Type I) shall be installed on Lots 7, 14 and 15, Block 3 and Lots 8, 10 and 11, _ Block 1 as check dams. jms/ktm _ c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITY OF � 111CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: May 7 , 1992 SUBJ: 92-5 SUB, 92-3 REZ and 92-6 WAP Bluff Creek Estates, Keyland Homes Comments and/or requirements: 1) Relocate the two fire hydrants as shown on plan. 2) 10 ' clear space around fire hydrants. 3) Street names must be approved by Public Safety. 4) Please indicate radius cuts from Audubon Road to proposed road F. cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director _ Jim McMahon, Fire Chief Bob Moore, 1st Assistant Chief Richard Wing, 2nd Assistant Chief 0, si PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -..m. IMMINN=MIP S3INOH ONV1A334 1 .. g 3 i : .... I at.....,••2 9 0.611.1:.....,0:.:9;C.66 t 9 suoA3Anns i S1133NiON3/SONNVId DUI 111H. 1 sawpf -„,._...,.., .. ...._. . ,. . ..i.i...i... ... .. . . --n- - NVld Ainiin At:IVNINI1131.1d Nn NissyNN,N7 S3IVIS3 )133U0 dJnie / 0.7. .. ...; t.^ . ,. ._ i r ; - 1 u i I g .1' 17:1,"" •,... ;4:;4- 42t: 407 • C- ligi • _I kvi) ., **•••-• II J 0 —--. LT Ni 1 1 --- 1 ! i OJ el 7 T t ....,.- , ......_ ..• I -;• ... 1....._..___._ -__ I _,i Ii e • !...,N1 _ r.. --................. 5 ...,- , ---------7----•-_----____._ A . -----------......, . --------- ' -,,, -----— e _ , . • • . • • --•-...... . I -...-,............. '.. • 4:, ...ii..III .. I 4111b2 I _.-.....— ., ,„/ ...1 :21 1 -,, HH ), ----- ? -. 2 k\ \ ----Ir. 2... -1. . e. - -- -. . .. \ \\ ..... ' I e 1.___.• __. •• _I--___:__ .. . I 1 r. -----i• - .._ .., ,,,! I I ._ • 1 I . I-- I h- '2 \ • • :Z ,:". *.N)L--.... 1 . I . N 't 2 .../..... ... r / I / / / / )... ..., -.. r \ •'''..--,. .......,"\\._.1 \,,,1 ______ 2 \ . / .. ,( , ,„ r t", . -""...- -..-..‘ 2)'...6- '-‘. ..".T.2.N. r.'. .\s/\/ re) !.! ......---- . t .. . T. • i • P go !,.. .... , . • .. , , , , 11 • j ..4 '''','Al‘ • .. 4 ••••••-...-..-T. .........,1 \ci• ; it I 4. . ....- il I ' ...4. , 4.4•4f, '''. • •• ..:. ...'17':-....::.......•'• ••) . C43'9 11 a 6- Ei ...../-, i ---- ------- 1.. _-- a q 0 -., f: ! • I . •1 I . I 1 t--j —- ..-FtV.71::M...1—' ---! : -... J i . 11111i11111:11 - !-: I LI I ::'t 1 ..-4 . . -._ CC cc...'=,rv.l, • i•:••a:•CCU — —i •. S3VJOH ONYlA3H - . � i I g' +;a0x3Aansi Sa33Nt9N3 i S3NNb � ;,,;P NV 1Vld AHVNI01113!!d i- ,. V= -•DUI1111--I. Jsati e( 7.; ,.� . s...,... 531V/S3 )13380� 3d118 9 z••i `i 4 ..._ z____i_ -., i •. ....74..,— .7.4 5a riA\: )1,/ 1 ii i 1 w .Q. .. —,. 5 J '''‘.---_^ 1u'� ♦ 1 O� �Y + Ja3i 3';,i ? `+ate � :_�� e.: _t� - : I L I:r' ,3 _c3 t'�.: f is; }-ISI^= mom 1 I WI r : , d;e•6 5.1 t. y� I i;, - -- - I ..• - ' + 11 I :'41 I x 1, g t I v i i ; I JY LI -1 1 ,S 'i3[ spjilly ,�.�``_- VO — — Ii f -'• 1;1111 iER1jiij r 4 'Cl; 4 t i I . 111 - ' 8 •9 + tl • �i•: ~1 '\ - ^0,2_\ ,\ is z{ii iJf. t sIL a \ ° �% \ \\ - I -.: 1i ' -: t 7J: -b mi —Iw 1 \\ \ as---: 'I :s .1•- t e a k f. .s .e. 2 3ti! I. ., I it., c•_. 1 . itt !!. su Ih __ . 4Irc2 - 1 I, .,;'''',,,/ 1J M — I Xj i # Pi\ G•'> NQS !C!:::!,.›LE.t7:z4 ,r ..e It • \ ` 1 -� ---- 1 2 /' i . .. y• I v. .I "‹....,•41;;?.---i' zi N .ft -:ii' , 'ke' .,,,ll <I t 1 I.:.l•-li..)--flic-:•.'t.-!• •••:'.• . 11 ....." . .1.:1:::..e....1i.-2,:::.1 I ` t ' 1 D I I Illwirme....... .. . '' ________.__ , ' __. wesa...-."i.-._. 1 1 i 1 • CITYOF _ 10,0:0 ,, CHANHASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM — DATE (mm/dd/yy) : 05/1:142 TO: Sh.arr..;:, Al - vaf± TITLE/TO: Planner 1 THROUGH : TITLE/THROUGH:4_ _ FROM: Steve A. Kirchman I, TITLE/FROM: Building Official SUBJECT: 92 . 5 SUB, 92-3 REZ, and 92-6 WAP; Bluff Creek Estates — I .have the following comments and recommendations on the proposed development ` 1 . The lowest floor elevation and garage floor elevation for each dwelling should be shown on the grading plan. 2 . The Inspections Division must receive copies of final approvals for all corrected lots from the project ' s geotechnical engineer before building permits will be issued . — 3 . The pipeline easement should be shown on individual certificates of survey. _ «: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 Date: May 5, 1992 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I Subject: Preliminary plat of 61.45 acres into 78 single family lots and one outlot; rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family; and wetland alteration permit for development within 200 feet of a wetland, located south of Hwy. 5 on the west side of Audubon Road, Bluff Creek Estates, Keyland Homes. Planning Case: 92-5 SUB, 92-3 REZ, and 92-6 WAP The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on May 5, 1992. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Connission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 3, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 18, 1992 . You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments .VMN Dept. of Natural Resources a. City Engineer L8? Company b. City Attorney W B_ell or United) `c. City Park Director `t I Fire Marshal I lec�tzic Company Building Official NSPi or MN Valley) ''2,'Watershed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System 3. Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson = 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 73)Carver County Engineer 16)Minnegasco 14,/Other Williams Pipeline WILLIAMS PIPE LINE COMPANYIT' ONE OF THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES,INC Ak 2728 PATTON ROAD ST PAUL, MN 55113 May 14 , 1992 Sharmin AL-Jaff City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Project #1566 Bluff Creek Estates Development N1/2 , NE1/4 , Sec. 22 T116N R23W, Carver Co. , MN WPL Tract #7344 Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: This letter is to confirm that Williams Pipe Line Company (WPL) is in receipt of the plans regarding project #1566, Bluff Creek Estates Development, in Chanhassen, Minnesota. I have forwarded the plans to our engineering department in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for review and comment. All plans must be approved by WPL's engineering department before construction/excavation can begin. Williams Pipe Line has one line that traverses the area in question, that being our #6-12 inch petroleum products pipeline. All plans concerning excavation and construction on or near our _ easement must include the following warning: WARNING! ! ! PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PIPELINE (S) ! Before Excavating Contact: Tom Smith, Right of Way Coordinator Northern Region Williams Pipe Line Company 2728 Patton Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 (612) 633-1555 As per your request WPL can set up a time with our line locator in the area to flag and stick the line for depth. Sincerely, Thomas C. Smith ROW Coordinator cc: J.K. Myers Northern Region C.K. Danchertsen . - -' -.� AMY 1 0 1;,J2 CTYOFCH,"f I- ;>;- PHONE (612) 633-1555 DOUGLAS J & C BARISNKY WAYNE& CINDY BONGARD MARION MICHEL 8731 AUDUBON RD 8831 AUDUBON RD 8941 AUDUBON RD - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - R W & C M ENTINGER CHARLES W MATTSON ROGER A & G SCHMIDT 8851 AUDUBON RD 2870 WHEELER ST N 8301 GALPIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROSEVILLE MN 55113 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 _ GERALD & L GUSTAFSON AUDUBON 92 CAHN-LAND PARTNERS 8341 GALPIN BLVD C/O LARS AKERBERG 200 HIGHWAY 13 W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 P 0 BOX 158 BURNSVILI i MN 55337 CHASKA MN 55318 MERLE D & JANE VOLK HOWARD & L JOHNSON JAMES&BARBARA NELSON _ 16925 CO RD 40 8250 GALPIN BLVD 591 HERON DR CARVER MN 55315 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES & DEBRA OLSON ARGUS DEVELOPMENT INC MICHAEL J & J COCHRANE 1581 HERON DR 18133 CEDAR AVE S 1751 SUN RIDGE CT - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FARMINGTON MN 55024 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - DONALD & MARSHA WHITE GERALD & KARLA ALVERY MARK & DEBRA LAASER 8850 AUDUBON RD 1831 SUNRIDGE CT 8037 ERIE AVE _ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - JEFFREY & GAIL MOODY 10334 ENGELWOOD DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 CITY OF CHANHASSEN - i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: May 27, 1992 SUBJ: Moon Valley Proposal PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an earth work permit to continue a pre-existing sand and gravel mining operation located along the Minnesota River bluff line between Hwy. 169/212 and the former Chicago, Northwestern Railway right-of-way. This request has an extensive history. While the grading operation has been in existence for some time, the city has become involved only recently. In 1987, the city responded to a related mining operation located off-site along Pioneer Trail. The city believed that mining in this area was illegal since no permit had been obtained. The City Attorney sent a letter asking that work be stopped and the site has been inactive since then. In 1990, responding to several complaints about the primary Moon Valley operation, but more importantly to the fact that city ordinances pertaining to grading and mining were extremely inadequate and were presenting administrative problems for staff, a new grading and mining ordinance was developed and adopted for the city. The Moon Valley operator was represented in these hearings and has subsequently been extensively involved with city staff. The Moon Valley operator has litigated a series of aspects of the city ordinance which required the operator to obtain a permit. This matter was ultimately resolved by a judge's order, which indicated that the city has the right to require a permit and that the non-conformity applicable to the Moon Valley operation only applies to the original property and not other properties since acquired by the operator. The court order further stipulates that the applicant is entitled to continue mining on this site and the city may only impose such conditions as related to public health and safety. Extensive back up information on the history of this request and related litigation is attached to this report, as well as related materials such as Judge Kanning's order, information from the City Attorney, and other materials. ev t 4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 2 Staff has found this to be an unusually difficult and complex request to review. The litigation brought by the operator contributes to a portion of this difficulty. However, it is made even more complex by several factors. If this request were brought to us today as a new application, there is little doubt in my mind that staff would recommend its denial and that the Planning Commission and City Council would likely agree. Mining on this site is extremely destructive to a rare natural resource that exists in the Minnesota River bluff line. The city has already gone on record indicating our concern with this resource in the adoption of our Bluff Line Preservation District. This site also has potential to impact the U. S. Fish and Wildlife's River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which is located across the highway from the site. Additionally, a review of any such proposal would likely require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and would follow guidelines established by city ordinances. However, having said that, we acknowledge that the applicant does have the authority to continue operating on this site. We further note that in spite of the belligerent attitudes that have often been expressed by the operator and his legal counsel, I have had numerous opportunities to visit with the Moon Valley operator and found him to generally be a responsible businessman. Mr. Zwiers, who is the operator/applicant for Moon Valley, has attempted to responsibly manage aspects of his operation. For example, he has installed a sedimentation basin on the site to respond to erosion control problems that exist in the area. We are not certain that the pond is effective or appropriately designed, but the fact that he has taken steps to install one without being forced to do so by the city or other agencies is, I believe, significant. Processing this request is made even more difficult by the poorly developed and minimal plans and information that have been submitted for the city's review. The initial submittal was so poor that it took a court order to sort out which plan was actually being presented for review. Last September, the city actually received two completely different plans for grading on this site, with no indication as to which one was actually being proposed. Additional information has been provided since then, however, it was only done to the most modest extent possible to meet the guidelines established by the judge's order. Therefore, in many instances we are obligated to recommend conditions outlining additional information that must be provided to adhere to the health and safety issue guidelines established by the judge. Our concerns generally fall to several areas. These include: 1. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to manage the site to result in the least possible impact downstream. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 3 2. Access and traffic safety concerns due to the high traffic volumes on adjacent Hwy. 169/212. 3. Mitigation of noise and dust impacts. 4. Maintenance of safe and manageable slopes and elimination of grading on off-site properties and potential for undermining grades on off-site properties. 5. Protection of ground water resources. 6. Establishment of procedures for periodic review. 7. Establishment of an acceptable end-use plan to ensure that the site will be left in a reasonable and environmentally safe condition. 8. Provision of sufficient financial guarantees to ensure compliance with conditions should the operator fail to do so or be in a position where he is unable to do so. As we indicated above, had we had a clean sheet of paper to start with, we would have approached this request in a completely different manner. However, we are now in this position and we believe must make the best of the cards we are dealt. Therefore, we are recommending that the earth work permit be approved subject to the conditions outlined in this report. Staff has developed conditions which we believe will address the concerns outlined above. We also note that we expect to have a related mining application for the north parcel at an upcoming meeting, as negotiations are currently in process with the operator. Some elements of the two sites should be coordinated when this review occurs. Planning and engineering staff have toured the site with the operator and find we are in general agreement over how the parcel should best be managed. The operator is retaining the services of a new consultant to develop the plan for this area and, at this time, we hope that the review of the expected proposal will occur without the rancor that has been associated with this current request. BACKGROUND • Pre-1970 - The Moon Valley gravel pit existed as a small scale operation. The property also accommodated a rifle range and ski hill equipped with a tow. The rifle range continues to be utilized. Ownership of the mining operation changed hands. The scale of the operation was greatly expanded in the 1970s. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 4 • 1987 - The city became aware of the mining of clay on a new parcel located above the bluff line with access to Pioneer Trail. The city took action to halt this activity since it was undertaken without a permit. No further activity has occurred in this area. The site of the excavation has not been restored. • Late 1989-early 1990 - The city received several complaints regarding grading activities at the Moon Valley site from area residents. A review of city ordinances revealed that the city had little or no review authority over Moon Valley. A further review indicated that the ordinance inadequately dealt with not only mining but all aspects of grading activity. At the City Council's request, staff and the City Attorney developed a comprehensive ordinance dealing with all related activities. The ordinance established that uses such as Moon Valley that predated the ordinance, had six months to obtain a permit. The Moon Valley operation and legal counsel were involved with discussions pertaining to the drafting of the ordinance and while they may or may not have agreed with the text, they were fully familiar with its provisions. • 5/14/90 - The new ordinance was adopted as Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling, and Grading in Chapter 7 of the City Code. • 1990-1991 - Moon Valley operator was notified on several occasions by registered mail of the need to obtain a permit. Rather than comply, the Moon Valley operator sought a Declaration Judgement Action on October 1, 1990, maintaining that Ordinance No. 128 was an illegal exercise of Chanhassen's police power. The city filed a counter claim that due to Moon Valley's failure to obtain a permit, it should be shut down. • 4/25/91 - Judge Kanning found that the city had the right to require that a permit be obtained and gave the applicant 30 days to submit an application. The city's request to close the operation was essentially continued to give the operator time to respond. • Spring/Summer/Fall. 1991 - The city granted the operator several delays to prepare the application. A number of meetings were held during which staff was led to believe that a good faith effort was being made. • 10/1/91 - Staff reviewed the permit application and found it to be significantly lacking in content and substance. The Planning Director rejected the application. One fundamental flaw was that two completely different plans were submitted. One plan indicated a "dig to China" scenario which totally eliminated the bluff Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 5 line and expanded the operation onto adjoining parcels and into Eden Prairie. Staff confirmed that the City of Eden Prairie was never approached by the Moon Valley operator. The other plan was marginally better. It was unclear as to which plan was being proposed, although it was implied that the city could "earn" the better plan by being "reasonable" with Moon Valley. • 10/14191 - The city adopted a Minnesota River Bluff Line Preservation ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance was to recognize the environmental sensitivity and importance of the Minnesota River bluff line. The protection area is defined by an official map and the ordinance prohibits most activities from the area. • November, 1991 - The case went back to Judge Kanning. His findings were released April 2, 1992. Essentially, he found that: The operator/applicant had non-conforming rights on the south parcel (original mine). The city never contested this point. The judge found that the non-conformity did not include the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. The operator/applicant was allowed to continue mining the main pit but was given 30 days to submit the application. The judge felt that Plan "B", the better of the two plans, was the basis of the permit submittal. - The city may impose conditions on the permit but only to the extent that health and safety are to be protected. • May, 1991 - The operator/applicant submitted additional information. Only minor changes were made to comply with the most limited interpretation of Judge Kanning's order. In addition, information on ground water elevations, which trial evidence indicated had been withheld by the applicant, was submitted. Staff and the City Attorney met with the applicant. They indicated a continuing desire to mine the north parcel along Pioneer Trail. Staff indicated that a separate application would be required for the north parcel and that all submittal requirements outlined by city ordinances must be met. We further indicated that based upon the court order which differentiates between the status of the Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 6 northern and southern parcels, we wanted to process the requests separately. This was later confirmed in a letter from the Planning Director. • May 20, 1992 - Rather than respond as outlined by staff, the Moon Valley operator asked Judge Kanning to meet to clarify the court order. It was their continued contention that the judge approved grading on the north parcel. Judge Kanning agreed with the city that this was not the case. Grading activity on the north parcel must comply with all city ordinances and permit requirements. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site is deviated into two distinct areas that have been commonly described as the southern and northern parcels. The southern 39 acre parcel is the site of the original mining activity and continues to be the primary focus of this activity. It also contains the Moon Valley Rifle Range which is located in the southeast corner of the site along with several out-buildings associated with the mining that are found in the same general area. The entire southern parcel is part of the Minnesota bluff line system. Elevations range from 915' at the top of the bluff to 718' near Hwy. 169/212. The terrain is very rugged as is common along the bluff line and there area a series of ridges and draws. Mining activity is significant and much of the site has been extensively altered. The area was heavily forested, however, the remaining large stands of trees are found only along the upper reaches of the bluff, where mining has yet to occur. The northern parcel, which is not the subject of the current request, covers 45 acres. It contains a large area, reasonably flat, that was formerly farmed. The heavily wooded bluff line starts on the southern Vs of this parcel. There are several ravines leading down from the former farm field that are experiencing significant erosion. Surrounding uses include: •North: Pioneer Trail and large lot residential development in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. •South: Hwy. 169/212. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is located south of the highway. •East: Eden Prairie, vacant bluff line and low density residential. Planning Commission — Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 7 •West: Vacant bluff line and low density residential along the bluff line. There is a second residential pocket located adjacent to the west line of Moon Valley with four homes on a private drive with access to Hwy. 169/212. It is separated from the mining operation by a creek and a 100' high ridge line. GENERAL COMMENTS — It has been our normal practice to review mining requests in accordance with the standards outlined by the ordinance. In this case, due to the non-conforming status and court order, we are restricting the review of items related solely to health and safety issues. We believe these issues include the following: 1. Drainage and erosion control measures designed to: - prevent erosion and unstable slopes - prevent pollution and sedimentation in the Minnesota River Valley and Wildlife Refuge - prevent tracking debris out onto area roads creating unsafe conditions 2. Access and traffic safety concerns. 3. Mitigation of noise and dust impacts. 4. Maintenance of safe and manageable slopes and/or use of protective signing and fencing where appropriate. In a related concern, Exhibit B1 indicates mining activity occurring off-site on the adjacent parcel to the north. The plan should be revised to eliminate this inconsistency. If grading is proposed off-site, separate applications are required. As we indicated earlier, a follow up application is expected. 5. Establishment of procedures for periodic review, interim site stabilization and erosion control practices. Since the mining activity varies from year to year, and is contingent upon market demand, periodic review and management plan updating is mandatory. 6. Provision of sufficient financial guarantees and permit fees to ensure that the site is properly maintained and inspected, and can be restored if the applicant fails to acceptably comply with approved conditions. 7. Protection of ground water resources. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 8 8. Establishment of an acceptable end-use plan that will ensure the site is left in a reasonable, environmentally safe condition. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Submitted plans provide little information on how issues pertaining to drainage and erosion control will be managed. The City Engineer's report concludes that the soils found on this property represent a severe erosion hazard. The only information on erosion control provided by the applicant is located on Page 15 of the original mining application from September, 1991. The booklet states that a certain amount of sand erosion is inevitable and attempts will be made to retain as much of this sediment on-site as possible. We note that it is difficult, if not impossible, to use traditional techniques of erosion control on an operation such as this. Slopes are steep and often unstable, and ground cover has not been established on any of the mined areas. Thus, it is imperative that all drainage from the mined area be directed into a sedimentation basin or basins which are properly designed and maintained so that water can be treated before being sent off-site. We note that the applicant has made some attempts to respond to this concern and there is a centrally located sedimentation basin on the site. Due to the mining and remaining natural grades, most water drains to a central location. Staff is unclear as to what design specifications this pond was built to, if it is regularly maintained, or if it is effective. We note that there is evidence of significant erosion impacting the Rice Lake area located in the National Wildlife Refuge. A culvert leading from Moon Valley under the highway towards the lake has apparently been plugged on occasion with sediment from this area and a visual inspection indicates that there is a sediment delta and erosion extending from that pipe down into the lake. There is a lot of excellent information available on managing sedimentation. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency manual entitled, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" and the Board of Water and Soil Resources manual entitled, "Minnesota Construction Site, Erosion, and Sediment Control Handbook" are excellent sources that the city has been using with good results on other sites over the past year. In addition, we note that the City of Chanhassen is obligated by the Metropolitan Council to utilize "Best Management Practices" for surface water runoff under our recently approved Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we are recommending that the applicant submit plans designed to specifications outlined in these manuals within 30 days of approval to city staff for approval as a condition of granting this permit. The plans should be prepared by a registered engineer. On-site retention should be sufficient to retain a 100 year storm event and designed to maximize sedimentation efficiencies. Secondly, there must be a management plan accompanying this data since it may be necessary to incorporate Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 9 the use of various techniques to ensure that storm water is directed into this pond, it will be necessary to periodically dredge the sediment and material from the bottom of the pond and properly dispose of it to ensure its continued operating efficiency. We also recognize that from time to time the applicant may wish to relocate the sedimentation basin to facilitate his on-site operations. Staff is willing to work with him in this regard so long as we have a revised drainage and erosion control plan that is kept current and complied with in the field. In all likelihood, the pond will require a structured outlet to ensure that sediment material remains in the pond and is not flushed through with storm water. In addition, we note that overland outletting of the pond without a structured outlet seems to result in additional erosion downstream which should be resolved. A second erosion control problem concerns trucks hauling from the site tracking out large amounts of debris onto the adjacent highway. When this situation occurs, it contributes to degrading traffic safety on the roadway, and in addition, is an erosion problem since all of this material eventually washes into Rice Lake. Staff has been contacted by MNDOT who have expressed concern over these conditions. Staff is therefore recommending that the driveway entrance be paved with a bituminous surface or be designed to incorporate a gravel construction access. Either measure is designed to ensure that material is removed from the trucks tires before it exits out onto the adjacent highway. In addition, the applicant should be required to remove any material that does make it out onto the highway by contacting MNDOT and arranging to undertake cleaning or by reimbursing MNDOT for costs associated with cleaning. The proposed grading activity will expose extremely steep slopes to extensive erosion. The erosion will not only be caused by steep slopes, but also due to the fact that all vegetative cover has been removed. The information submitted by the applicant provides virtually no information on how this site would be revegetated. On Page 17, it indicates that top soil will be stripped and stockpiled and re-spread with a MNDOT seed mixture. We believe that this plan needs to be expanded upon with specific information provided as to site stabilization prior to the completion of mining activity, as well as site landscaping at ultimate completion. Due to our interpretation of Judge Kanning's order, • we are not likely to be in a position to require wholesale reforestation to achieve bluff line preservation. However, it is unreasonable to think that the city should accept 100 foot high, 2.5 to 1 slopes, with the only improvement being the spreading of a little top soil and grass seed. This simply will not hold. Staff is recommending that an erosion control plan, prepared by a registered engineer, be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. This plan should include stepping of grades where necessary to retard overland storm water flows, utilization of fiber mats, mulches, or other techniques, to facilitate the growth of ground cover, as well as utilization of trees which perform a valuable function in establishing root systems to retain slopes on steep grades. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 10 ACCESS/TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS Highway 169/212 provides the sole access into the site. Traffic volumes are high and the design standard of the roadway is relatively poor. Ultimately, some of this traffic will be displaced to new Hwy. 212 around the end of the decade, but until that time occurs, local traffic conditions will continue to be poor. We have discussed this matter with MNDOT and are recommending that a deceleration/acceleration lane be provided on westbound Hwy. 169/212 to allow trucks entering and leaving the site to do so without causing undue disruptions to traffic flow. MNDOT has proposed that this be accomplished by shifting the access point to the northeast and constructing a new deceleration lane. Shifting the access improves upon an existing westbound acceleration lane. They have also requested that brush located around the access be cut back to improve sight distance. An appropriate design should be prepared by a registered engineer and submitted to MNDOT for approval. Staff would also prefer to be in a position of requiring the construction of a eastbound by-pass lane on the highway to service a single purpose as outlined above. However, construction of a by-pass lane would appear to impact lands located within the National Wildlife Refuge, therefore, this is not being recommended by staff at this time. NOISE AND DUST IMPACTS At the present time, staff is not aware of any ongoing issues pertaining to noise and dust impacts. This operation is one that obviously generates large amounts of noise and dust; however, this site is generally shielded from most off-site impacts by surrounding terrain. If noise complaints materialize, this city should reserve the right to bring this matter up during the annual review and renewal of the mining permit. Should this situation occur, we would expect the applicant to respond in a positive manner to help resolve apparent problems. Likewise, staff is not aware of serious problems with off-site problems due to lack of dust control. However, if during the course of operation blowing dust does become a problem off-site, a condition is being proposed that would allow the city to require the applicant to undertake measures such as watering to minimize impacts. MAINTENANCE OF SAFE AND MANAGEABLE SLOPES The applicant has essentially given the city an end-state grading plan but there are no interim plans being proposed. In submitted materials, the applicant indicates that he reserves the right to remove saleable material anytime and anywhere it is located on the property. They believe that they are simply obligated to return the site to acceptable grades once the activity is completed. While we understand the operator's desire to maximize utilization of the site, this does raise concerns that he should be obligated to Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 11 respond to. We note that the applicant's ability to mine under this permit is limited to the site in question. There should be no instances where grading activity on this site undermines existing grades located on adjacent properties. Therefore, we are recommending a condition that in no case should excavated slopes exceed 1.5 to 1 side slopes when grading occurs within 100 feet of a property line. Steep slopes on the site represent a potential safety hazard for unsuspecting people entering the area. The applicant has shown staff his attempts to post notice of hazards where steep slopes exist on the current operations. Staff is recommending that when excavation exceeds 2.5 to 1 slopes, a temporary snow fence should be installed at the top of the slope equipped with appropriate signage to promote safety. • The plan request entitled, "Exhibit B1", which has been submitted for this application, indicates substantial grading in the northeast corner of the site which is actually located on the adjoining parcel to the north. It is the city's contention, consistent with Judge Kanning's ruling, that any grading activity on the north parcel will be treated as a separate request. We have informed the applicant on several occasions that this is in fact the case. Staff has held discussions with the Moon Valley operator related to potential modest mining activity on the adjacent parcel to the north. While we acknowledge that the grading activity that has been described verbally to staff, in conjunction with remedying existing erosion problems in this area seems to be reasonable, we are requiring that a separate permit application be filed for this area and be processed according to all of the standards and guidelines provided by the city ordinances. Judge Kanning was quite explicit to the effect that the non-conformity which exists for the Moon Valley operation does not apply to the northern parcel. Thus, a revised "B1" plan submittal showing maintenance of surrounding grades with mining activity occurring solely on the existing Moon Valley parcel should be provided as a condition of permit approval. PROTECTION OF GROUND WATER RESOURCES One of staffs primary concerns with mining activity on this site is that unconstrained mining could actually daylight ground water supplies in the area. This could have potentially disastrous results for polluting ground water resources. For example, it is concern over ground water resources that has resulted in communities actively participating in programs to cap off old drinking wells since these can provide a direct route for pollutants into the water table. In fact, there is a related issue on this site since there are operating wells located on the site. Steps should be taken to protect these wells and permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 12 The applicant had some information on ground water supplies that was initially held from city staff. The judge ordered that this material be provided and staff has had an opportunity to review it. We believe that the proposed mining is acceptable relative to ground water resources so long as mining never daylights the water table. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC REVIEW. INTERIM SITE STABILIZATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES The Moon Valley operator has indicated that they reserve the right to mine all resources found on the property and would only guarantee that the end-use plan, as approved by the city, will be the result when mining activity is completed. This presents a number of significant problems for the city if it is to ensure that conditions appropriate to protecting health and safety are maintained. Therefore, we are proposing the following: 1. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fees. 2. As indicated earlier, the operator should be required to maintain erosion control facilities on-site. When it is necessary to relocate these facilities due to mining operations, the applicant shall present the city with an engineered plan demonstrating how sedimentation and erosion control practices are going to be dealt with and then comply with plans approved by the City Engineer. 3. Provide the city with a revised end-use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 4. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, should he fail to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staff's. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end-use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end-use plan has been satisfactorily completed. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 13 One of the primary goals of the city's management program for grading and mining is to ensure that the site is left in a condition that is consistent with project use under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this instance, the Comprehensive Plan does not provide a significant amount of guidance since this area is well beyond the MUSA boundary. The use being proposed by the applicant is large lot residential which is probably the most reasonable guess at this time. Over the years, as the area further develops, the city may find it reasonable to look at other proposals for this site. Exhibit B1 is the proposed end-use plan for the Moon Valley site. The plan shows a total of 12 large lot residential sites. We should note that this density exceeds adopted Metropolitan Council guidelines, which dictate a maximum density of 1 unit per 10 acres, however, we also acknowledge that it is difficult to anticipate what may occur far into the future when this area actually does develop. This proposed subdivision would be located in a huge bowl. It would be surrounded on virtually all sides by steep 2 to 1 slopes which are impossible to mow or otherwise manage. These slopes would tower 100 feet above the home sites and would be completely devoid of any significant vegetation. In staff's opinion, this subdivision, should it ever occur, would be a dreadful place in which to live. However, under the limitations imposed on us by the non-conforming status of the Moon Valley operation, constraining mining activity based upon future use is probably beyond what the city is in a position to uphold. At the same time, we acknowledge that while this end-use plan does not represent an. acceptable residential environment, it is a significant improvement over the lunar landscape that has been left by mining operators for example, in the city of Maple Grove. Staff finds that we are in the uncomfortable position of not particularly caring for the end-use plan, but having relatively little that we feel we can do about it. We believe that the best we can manage at this point is to ensure that adequate financial guarantees are provided to ensure that the site is left in an acceptable manner in accordance with Exhibit B1. The retention pond located on the property should be reviewed, sized, and designed by a registered engineer with plans submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The applicant will be required to indicate how he is progressing towards achieving the end-use plan. Mining activity that significantly comprises the end- use plan, in the opinion of the City Engineer, would not be permitted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the earth work permit for the Moon Valley operation be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit drainage and erosion control plans to the City Engineer for review and approval. Plans should be Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 14 developed by a professional engineer in accordance with MICA and BWSR manuals. Plans should include: erosion control practices designs of temporary and final basins, inlet/outlet structures, etc. Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively operate drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the operator's responsibility to maintain these measures in an effective and operative condition. Phased plan for site restoration/establishment of ground cover and vegetation. All disturbed areas to be restored with topsoil, seed mulch and/or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent erosion. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to keep drainage and erosion control plans current. When mining operations require relocation of the pond(s) and/or alterations to erosion control measures, these shall not be undertaken without prior written approval by the City Engineer. 2. Within 30 days of approval, provide an engineered construction access designed to minimize tracking mud and debris out onto Hwy. 169/212. Work with MNDOT to relocate the access point to the northeast to improve the westbound acceleration lane on the highway and provide a deceleration lane for truck movements. During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked onto the highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate a potential traffic hazard. Brush located around the access point shall be cut back to improve sight distance. 3. If noise or dust impacts materialize, the operator shall work with the city to positively respond to these issues. 4. Modify the grading plan to eliminate off-site mining/grading that is presently illustrated on Plan B1. To avoid under-cutting of off-site slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade within 100 feet of a properly line at any Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 15 time. When excavations exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage is required at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous conditions in the area. 5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater resources. The operator will protect existing on-site wells and will permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use. 6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to be based upon the schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fees. 7. Provide the city with a revised end-use plan consistent with all conditions of approval. 8. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $51 ,000 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control and site restoration, should he fail to adhere to approve conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staffs. The applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interests to comply with approved conditions of permit approval and/or with the end-use plan. Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is normal city practice to require this sort of financial guarantee. Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end-use plan has been satisfactorily completed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Roger Knutson dated May 7, 1992. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated May 26, 1992. 3. Application submitted by applicant. 4. General location. 5. Original Plan A (transparency). 6. Original Plan B (transparency) 7. Letter from Paul Krauss dated May 5, 1992. 8. Letter from Paul Krauss dated October 1, 1991. 9. Findings of Fact. Planning Commission Moon Valley Permit May 27, 1992 Page 16 10. Letter from Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie, dated May 18, 1992. 11. Excerpt from City Code. 12. Grading fees. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorneys at Law Th,.m is 1.CI!, .I; (rl_) 452-5 . Ro_er N. hnnt. is F.1\ l(`1.21 -152-;;5,` Th,,n,.t, N1. Solt G.m G.Foch, _Lime,R. \\'.II•t,�n lly,+tt l >;n,r•,1;NlicMay 7, 1992 RECEIVED Ren. eel.\ Fr..l.acl f\ �/Lr �� Ren.le D. Steiner MAY 111992 Mr. Paul Krauss I r Ur CHANHASSEN Director of Planning City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. vs. City of Chanhassen Court File No. 90-27099 Our File No. 12668/201 Dear Paul : This letter will update the status of the above matter. Judge Philip Kanning in his most recent Order determined that Moon Valley does not have any non-conforming mining rights on the north section of its property above the bluff, directed Moon Valley to provide additional information relating to its Earth Work Permit Application for its existing operations and directed the City to process the permit application upon receipt of additional data. Moon Valley can continue mining during the application process. In processing the Earth Work Permit relating to the south parcel Judge Kanning in his April 2, 1992 Order stated that the City must clearly identify health or safety issues if it is going to impose any of the following types of restrictions upon Moon Valley' s existing operations: (a) limit the quantity of material mined; (b) prohibit mining on any portion of the property, such as slopes or wooded areas; (c) limit the depth to which the property may be mined, so long as Moon Valley has indicated its willingness to bring the property to the grades shown on its revised Plan B end use plan; Suite 317 • Ea laniale Office Center • 13S0 Corporate Center Curve • Ea�_an. N1N 55121 Mr. Paul Krauss May 7, 1992 Page 2 (d) limit time within which the mining operation must be completed; and — (e) prevent Moon Valley from continuing and maintaining its ongoing mining operation to the — extent and scope to which it presently exists. The court has continuing jurisdiction over this matter. If — Moon Valley believes that the City does not have the legal authority to impose any of the conditions that may ultimately be attached to the Permit, the matter will be back in court for a final determination by Judge Kanning. — Any mining activities proposed by Moon Valley on the north parcel would be by a separate application for an Interim Use Permit — and Earth Work Permit. Briefly, here is how we got to this point. In May of 1990 the City adopted its revised mining ordinance requiring persons engaging in mining activities to obtain an Earth Work Permit. Ongoing operations such as Moon Valley had six months until November 24, 1990 to either obtain the permit or cease operations. — In late September of 1990, Moon Valley started this lawsuit claiming that the City did not have the legal authority to require it to obtain this permit. Moon Valley's basic contention was that its mining activities were not subject to this type of regulation because it was a non-conforming use in existence prior to the City' s adoption of its 1972 Zoning Ordinance. — On April 25, 1991, Judge Kanning entered an Order determining that the City could in fact require Moon Valley to obtain this — permit and directing the company to make application for the permit by May 25, 1991 or face the prospect of having its operations shut down until it obtained a permit. Moon Valley then retained John Voss, a planning consultant, to prepare the permit application. It was agreed that the company could have until June 30, 1991 to file the application. June 30, — 1991 passed without an application or explanation by Moon Valley. On July 16, 1991 the City gave Moon Valley notice of a hearing before Judge Kanning to request that the company be ordered to shut — down its operations because no permit application was filed. After meeting with Moon Valley's consultant on July 31, 1991 _ this hearing was postponed until August 29, then to September 18 and finally to October 10, 1991. On September 17, 1991 Moon Valley finally filed the permit application. It contained two entirely different plans (Plans "A" Mr. Paul Krauss May 7, 1992 Page 3 and "B" ) and was substantially deficient in a number of areas. You subsequently advised Moon Valley of these deficiencies. Moon Valley never responded to your request for additional information and clarifications. In November of 1991, a two-day hearing took place before Judge Kanning. It was the City' s position that the application filed by Moon Valley was insufficient and that its operation should be shut down until it obtained its permit. An additional issue involved Moon Valley' s right to expand its mining activities on to the north section of its property above the bluff line. This property was in separate ownership and had not been mined prior to the 1972 Zoning Ordinance. After submitting various written arguments to Judge Kanning in December of 1991, the Judge finally issued his Order on April 2, 1992. As summarized above, Judge Kanning determined that Moon Valley does not have any non-conforming use rights to mine on the north parcel . He also determined that alternate Plan "B" was a reasonable response to the application requirements if certain information relating to groundwater, slopes, trees types and truck usage was provided to the City within 30 days. Upon supplying this information, which Moon Valley has done now, the City is then obligated to process the Earth Work Permit application relating to the south parcel upon which the existing mining operation is located. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. A /0- By/,// / \ Thomas M. Scott TMS: ses CITY OF :1101111CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMO' •70,iUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 0,0// DATE: May 26, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Interim Use Permit for Earthwork/Mining, Moon Valley Aggregate Grading Permit #91-13 Interim Use Permit #92-4 Upon review of the grading plan prepared by Urban Planning Design (Exhibit B-i), I have the following comments and recommendations: Site Access Plans propose one access drive into the site from Highway 169/212. The anticipated truck traffic generated with this type of use, combined with the high traffic volumes already experienced along Highway 169/212 (21,580 ADT-1989 Traffic Volumes), most likely warrant safety improvements such as acceleration and deceleration lanes, as well as possibly a by-pass lane. Since Highway 169/212 is under MNDOT jurisdiction, any improvements would be subject to MNDOT's approval and construction standards. It is recommended that MNDOT perform a traffic study to determine what specific safety improvements are warranted and require the applicant construct them accordingly. The access drive currently exists as a sand/gravel surface. To help reduce dust and debris from tracking off site, staff recommends paving the first 50 feet of the entrance with bituminous surface or at least maintaining a gravel construction entrance (see Attachment No. 1) until the site is restored. Surface drainage from the driveway should be managed with a riprap, spillway or catch basins. Site Grading The plans propose a majority of the parcel to be graded. There is currently an existing structure (office/residential use) with a well and septic system which may be affected. Provisions for an alternate site or protection of the existing systems should be addressed. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Paul Krauss May 26, 1992 Page 2 Based on water well records submitted with this application, neighboring wells should not be adversely affected by this grading proposal. The plans propose finished grade with 2.5 to 1 side slopes. During grading activities, excavation should not exceed 1.5 to 1 side slopes adjacent to neighboring properties. Potential shifting or shear failure of the slope is possible. If excavation exceeds 2.5 to 1 slope, a fence should be installed at the top of the slope for safety concerns. Erosion Control According to the soil survey of Carver County, this area consists of primary hayden loam soils which consist of dominantly well and moderately well drained silty and loam soils, and some sandy soils (see Attachment No. 2). Erosion hazard is very severe with this type of soil. It is recommended that erosion control measures such as temporary sediment basins and silt fence be employed in accordance with MPCA manual, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" or Board of Water and Soil Resources, "Minnesota Construction Site, Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook." Other erosion control considerations would be to temporary seed and mulch areas as they are completed and grade the side slopes with a bench-like feature to slow runoff. Provisions for revegetating the site were not included in this proposal. A site restoration plan should be included for staff review and approval. Side slopes in excess of 3:1 may = require erosion control blanket in order to stabilize the slopes and insure the seed a foothold. Tree plantings would also benefit in stabilizing the side slopes. The plans show a small holding pond in the southerly potion of the site and a larger one in the northwest corner; however, no storage calculations were provided. Final retention pond consideration should include design criteria according to the nation-wide runoff program, "NURP", and retainage of a 100-year storm event on-site with discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate in accordance with city requirements. This will mitigate downstream flooding and erosion potential. Temporary and final pond and storm sewer design details, prepared by a professional engineer, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Recommended Conditions 1. The applicant shall construct the necessary safety improvements along Highway 169/212 as a result of MNDOrs traffic evaluations. Paul Krauss May 26, 1992 Page 3 2. The first 50 feet of the driveway entrance into the site shall be paved with a bituminous surface or maintained as a gravel construction access. Surface drainage should be managed with a riprap, spillway or catch basin. 3. Provisions for protecting the existing well and septic system should be addressed. 4. Temporary erosion control measures such as sediment basins and silt fence should be employed throughout the site. Temporary sediment basins should be constructed in accordance with the MPCA's manual, "Protecting Water Quality in — Urban Areas" or Board of Water and Soil Resources, "Minnesota Construction Site, Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook." Temporary/final pond and storm sewer design details, prepared by a professional engineer, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 5. The applicant should apply for a watershed permit and comply with the conditions of approval. 6. All areas disturbed in conjunction with the grading/mining operations shall be — restored with topsoil, seed, mulch and/or wood-fiber blanket. Site restoration should be completed on a phased basis. 7. Upon completion, the applicant shall supply the city with an as-built grading plan prepared by a professional engineer or registered surveyor indicating the finished grades to demonstrate compliance with approved plans and verify quantities. 8. The applicant shall pay a grading permit fee based on the amount excavated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for clearing debris from Highway 169/212 as often as needed as a result of the truck hauling activities from the site. 10. The applicant shall provide the city with financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $56,100 to guarantee site restoration and maintenance of erosion control. The amount of security has been calculated as 110% of the following: Erosion Control 500 LF @ $2.00/LF = $ 1,000.00 Seeding 25 Acres @ $2,000/acre = $50.000,00 TOTAL 51000.00 Paul Krauss May 26, 1992 Page 4 11. Excavation shall be limited to 1.5 to 1 side slopes adjacent to abutting properties. Fences shall be installed and maintained at the top of slope until the side slopes have been restored to 2.5 to 1 side slopes. 12. Each time a retention pond is constructed or relocated, either on a temporary of permanent basis, a registered surveyor of professional engineer shall confirm that the pond has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. 13. The applicant shall provide staff with a revised plan showing grading limits to within the south parcel. 14. The applicant shall provide staff with a site restoration plan. The plan shall include seeding, erosion control and phases of the excavation process. ktm Attachments: 1. Gravel construction access. 2. Carver County Soil Survey excerpts. — pc: Charles Folch, City Engineer Or- convenient and effective. The wash rack would consist of a heavy grating over a lowered area in the construction entrance. The grating may be a prefabricated rack such as a cattle guard, or it may be constructed on-site of structural steel. In any case, the wash rack must be strong enough to support the vehicles that will cross it. Figure 15.2 shows a typical wash rack installation. J 1 ' MAINTENANCE 1 The rockad needs occasional p maintenance to prevent tracking of mud onto paved Iroads. This may require periodic top dressing with additional rock or removal and reinstallation of the pad. I 1 I .1-�. 1 Hard surface ,Ai' public road .•,:., / -'...." ..�.N..•/.i• ino f•'-- :••.••-. %:..Z.:-:c•. 50' minimum .0. -.::,oy�tvz.p.::.1::moi•;-{• f •moi•...:{I�j•.'f• �. Or 6' minimum -•:..• .�, ••.• , 1'-2'washed rock •- ' -•;•1•-• .. : r =moi••• -••t. _• FIGURE 15.1: Rock Construction Entrance. Source: MPCA's BMP Handbook 39304pt3 - 73 - ATTACHMENT NO. 1 11 (AMBER 36 i i r . . Ge �if,.,,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,.. \� `r.: k� LAKE RILEY agel. _... .... — HaB2 •AHa: it : 4.." f a.,, HaB2 --- •" Lti -, ."117' il5 Ge t.). I iii ;ix : HaC2 rig . ,-....... 7 012 --tila .K �NsC2 ri,,,„,,,...� ,. � ,,� HaC2 — s, -r, _�� iNaL., ...-_.:ii Hes �' =_mss _ � Iji°11111Pd. �. ' Hac2� . ` c--71,41").4:24 cz �I Hesz11, (� E.til `:i,• , (4../Pidifti:4:•‘‘. HaC �'�AC° 0 ( -la ,.,4ta•• • )4 Fit 1y..r• e __ ,s � _ 4 .j7 r . � tft1:,.-•. Ha62 - r_� `/ .• -. NaE2 e 's• !,mss:= lA =j7-1,.-• - N.-, .,. 1g : .:1.---':.-,- . 2_iiroer. A9'. • . ____7.---.". - ...----1, E2.. -- .-�e fl fillijigf;PL:1 'Af C '' • • ..... . / $;too.--z.. .;-. 4.1?..--:•„,z__t . 3-:Y RICE (o 'C',..w� ri -ph b� LAKE . e. ' \in.v.,..-4-4 1..-t='A 7—.4 -If`I'''. 1. e.f O 1 %. `VI - - S rikl • _ s 1 �'�I. - COUNTY - SCOTT 1 ( _. 3000 Feet ATTACHMENT NO.2 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA 21 hat was Hayden loam,12 to 18 percent slopes,eroded (HoD2).— These soils are easy to Rork. They, warm up early in 'rganic- alis soil has lost 3 to 6 inches of its original surface layer spring and dry out rapidly after a rain. Natural fertility unoff is rough erosion. The present plow layer is a mixture of is moderate to low. The organic-matter content is mod- )Ver of e original dark grayish-brown surface laver and erate. Runoff is medium, permeability is rapid, and the i1 is 24 •wnisli, finer textured material from the subsoil. The moisture-storage capacity is low to very low. a few epth to luny material is generally 24 to 36 inches. The These soils are used for crops and pasture. They are ebster I garlic-matter content is very low. Consequently, crusts suitable for small grain but are too droughty to be-suit- areas inn and tilth is poor. Runo1' is rapid, and the moisture able for corn.Wind erosion is a hazard. ippl-is generally inadequate for crops during prolonged Typical profile of Hubbard loamy sand (alfalfa field; °Sion r}•periods.Depressions occupied by Glencoe and Webster 2 percent slope; S11''ANE% sec. 11,T. 114 N.,R.24 IV.) : unit oils occur in areas where slopes are irregular. Small allies have formed in some areas. Ap—O to 10 inches, very dark gray (10T3/1) loamy sand; oil is weak, fine, granular structsture; vee ry friable; siigbtly This soil is fair for crops and moderately good for pas- acid;abrupt,smooth boundary. pied ure. The erosion hazard is severe. (Capability unit A3-10 to 14 inches, very dark grayish-brown (10]R 3/2i the 1'e-1 woodland roup 2;building site group 6) loamy sand; weak, tine, granular structure; very friable; slightly acid; clear, smooth boundary. Hayden loam,18 to 25 percent slopes,eroded (HoE2).— B21-14 to 18 inches, dark grayish-brown (1OYR 4/2) loamy Li cultivated areas erosion has removed 3 to 6 inches of sand; weak, fine, granular structure; very friable; -ion the original surface layer from this soil. The plow layer slightly acid. tad in these areas is a mixture of the original dark grayish- B22-18 to 23 inches, dark-brown (IOYR 4/3) sand; single grain; loose; slightly acid; gradual, wavy boundary. — brown surface layer and brownish,finer textured material C-23 to 52 inches, yellowish-brown (IOTR 5/4) and dark- from the subsoil. Pastured and wooded areas are only brown (10TR 4/3) sand; single grain; loose; slightly 'm slightly eroded. The depth to limy material is generally acid. 'ln about.24 to 36 inches. Small depressions occupied by Glen- The A horizon is either loamy sand or sandy loam. Where T. coe and Webster soils occur in areas where slopes are the A horizon is loamy sand. the B horizon is loamy sand or — i- complex. sand. Where the A horizon is sandy loam, the B horizon is '' This soil is generally unsuitable for tilled crops bi�t-. if sandy loam that grades to loamy sand. These soils are slightly S acid or medium acid to a depth of more than 60 inches. well managed, is fairly good for hay or pasture.LTlie Hubbard soils are more deeply leached of free lime carbon- s erosion hazard is very severe3(Capability unit VIe-1; ates than the somewhat excessively drained Estherville soils, which are underlain by gravel. They are also more deeply Woodland group 3:building site group 7) Hayden loam,25 to 40 percent slopes (Hog).—This unit leached than the well-drained Wadena soils and have a coarser • consists of steep hills, ridges, and ravines. In cultivated textured profile. Hubbard loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (HdA).— — areas erosion has removed 3 to 6 inches of the original This soil has lost 3 to 6 inches of its original surface layer surface laver and exposed the brownish clay loam subsoil. The deptli to limy material ranges from 24 to 36 inches. through wind erosion. The present plow layer is grayisli- loam occur in a brown loamy sand. Generally, the organic-matter content Runoff is rapid. $aid spots of limy clay few areas. Small depressions occupied by Glencoe and is low. The depth to sand is about 10 to 14 inches. Webster soils occur in areas where slopes are complex. This soil is fair for small grain and pasture, but it is This soil should never be tilled.[The erosion hazard is too droughty to be suitable for corn. The very low very severeePasture grasses burn during prolonged dry moisture-storage capacity is a severe limitation. Control- periods. Most of the acreage is wooded or pastured, ling wind erosion (fig. 10) is a serious problem. (Capabil- _ (Capability unit VIIe-1; woodland group 3; building ity unit IVs-1; woodland group 6; building site group 1) site group 7) Hubbard Series — The Hubbard series consists of nearly level to hilly, y, .• • somewhat excessively drained and excessively drained sol'ls : _ _ that formed in deep,acid sand. These soils are inextensive —el-- ..,.:,-•: — in this county. They occur mainly on outwash plains and .}�-' �=_.�_ -. - • ...t---.:,.1.--:-........-:-...".--.:4.- " terraces along the 3Iinnesota and Crow Rivers.The native =...... 'k vegetation was prairie grass. ",-- '' _ �- '. The surface layer is very dark gray,very friable loamy •0, vs "+, � ' r=' _ • sand. It is about 10 inches thick, has weak granular stru � -ms`s _ . F - ture,and is slightly acid. The susurface lacer is very dark - :.:.T grayish-brown, very friable loamy sand. This layer is > i '�'✓ ms's about 4 inches thick, has weak granular structure, and is --.;',.t.• . '=�z 7;:•• ► ; �' =j-+- ,. `"� — slightly acid. r . -_,r_ '.. ,. .'i � �,A - Itiesaffa— he subsoil is about 9 inches thick. The upper part is •:• ..:.;.fro .. ,i7••••:-- y.,...-•••-•..:-•,•..?' dark grayish-brown,very friable,slightly acid loamy sand 4:....... . _ that has weak granular structure. The lower part is dark- Iiriy • '`_' �,, �' • brown,loose,slightly acid sand. '• `,, iii�' �. The underlying material is yellowish-brown and dark- Figure 10.—Severe wind erosion on Hubbard loamy sand 0 to 2 brown,loose,slightly acid sand. percent dopes. MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES Mining Application September 1991 MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES SEPTEMBER 1991 APPLICANT/OWNER Tom Zwiers G & T 1111 Deuce Road Elko, MN 55020 ( 612 ) 461-2180 ATTORNEY Gerald S . Duffy Seigel, Brill, Greupner and Duffy, P.A. 100 Washington Square, Suite 1350 Minneapolis, MN 55401 ( 612 ) 339-7131 PLANNER John S. Voss Urban Planning & Design, Inc. 7300 W. 147th St. , Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124 ( 612 ) 431-4401 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Eldon Hugelen ( 612 ) 431-4334 OPERATIONS MANAGER Jerry Rypkema MEMO TO: Paul Krause, Director of Planning City of Chanhassen FROM: John S. Voss, Planning Consultant Urban Planning & Design, Inc. DATE: September 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Moon Valley (Tom Zwiers) Earth Work Application (Ord. No. 128 ) The following is information required by the Chanhassen Mining Ordinance No. 128 . in addition to that required on the completed application form. 1 . Grading Plan(s1 A grading plan (Exhibit A) is submitted illustrating complete mining of the site. This plan would provide for gradual mining floor elevations from a 720 ft. existing elevation along U. S . Highway 169 to a 740 ft. elevation approximately 2, 400 ft. to the north. Side slopes would be maintained at 2 : 1 as illustrated. A second grading plan (Exhibit B) is also submitted illustrating the following: a. Extensive mining would continue at the lower eleva- tions along U. S. Highway 169. Mining would occur 1 • i 1 I 1 I iii s 23 LYMAN'9Lvo : --- 19yTC � eLvp. xka 24 , < 1 t� v I Dlr.,00,- , O' I . ' T. H AS S E N '�pM1 Ep TA M• I 1 .O T.. C 1 p 1 0 96 MST.W. a �' ♦iurm aY t AD t0 g ' 101 s `p : ..o , c olo.y... • J 0 -- 26— ;co �..• RD • NO 1. 31 5� gyp. 5 i ailiION• ,r 0 �t loft Creek Golf Course t: / ••Z / .r., At hei ZEDFN PRAIRIE 1 0. 00 DR IA.0/A l� ,FLI t" L 90 _ o "` 1 R1Ct 9 ti� f LAKE I iil Y _ 35— --- 36 -- S ]'AFI; 1 0I113; , ii El I �� II owe: �+�, '•ShAKOPE Io1 weloAig . t z i 1 : :-. Y + lti -11V8011111� ��iu : ilk IN'aEMB� ,amia airall = �' � m ■rgaa��1 * �ii /.-- 11 E=1011 1114.1 /Re b k. R '.A 1 • '. i III . 2 i •• . • V. . ....1 .... • "-I. .<:" _4:..."".e.: ° •?, ,r ?.,, ,),), ,,,i,A,,,_ . . r 7 • ,, -. t . '''',Q t .;// /./- i' ._ - • .. N i): . 4 „,..... . 0,— „. ,,,,, ./... /i„,4 tik . ° - 1*j'. v .,. 11,,,,,,.:.\ . . .:4,%9 - . . ‘/ -,/vv„---")* .... ,... 111 k '''. W:" -t‘*-Y/ IV '/, /-.1.•'"c;..11.4r,%1„. Pl'• 0 -..a. '--11.- lit--1 . _.,_ ,I.:.1411 . .7,./1,,, i)a,..:, tot' 1 .ii; _, .„4- , /r/441k, \-=.3"... Tri) rii,.-3,' - ------41•V -.-'4--- '' '. 3.4. -'-'•-•••` .Ii- '. ' ;•144.,4f:Al‘'A•7"7;ii/(4'4141-bt k C :1-.fiLli VN :,,t , . r �. ... ri/ ' 6":.•.....i..- tf ' it:..: -". ;" 1 :,,,L„...,,, ..._.,,,--.4, 1 //,/ / , TIP§ III 0 (' • trip i Lei . . 't( :... 4,, ) b....+F .. 'fs, -'"--lp-r)t, 4:'//. itiv.44 " pll wt.--,, ._ * 1 , .150 , ,_ , ( li P/ 4. . \A•s_ ) f : , /ws• /.// "- liki SP'jt t-i' y. t -:. ,,,,,„„;.,;,-.4) :•!- di /k / ..t H aath of , A Aili r P �41, /Li 11 L. ifiack •1 • 1/4' .$7• 1:7-/ it ..""7. / • /, 0 // 0 ' ....-. - .. (1,4,4 .."A ?' it•f- ,.hr",) ./. i • cf,', , IA li„, -.1 .lig,ip,'4 v, ( ,:?,.. ‘..... .._„___r j; , .u. 4 _,... • ) ,„ a,_,... , *.„„v : .,„„_,.,,,,,,. ,..„, I V-7. sitir '''•-•‘--•,•• i:--•'-'-. -f P ./%1 .• 1 9 4 itrce?4*.c."' --"zh:=4.940 - -N -' * ' r/ - •- 1*( 41( - --r---Aliii.z. VIORig ... s. __ !‘.., -----: ::•41,7,, it • //'4V4F,44r‘it .. ftaitqfpftirigli7 i .- --1--e-htki. ,I__' -' ' ,1,7 i•i' iir/I. ..tifeek\Nb, 'cil f NI -i7,291.-4, AIN „4,...‘ ` �r /j (i,. • *4Ø & Wir ' �' ielj NitkO Iii';) V% 1/ 'fit,' " i •_7111.,c7-1\111 "NJ/'Lk., ,, • r i A. •• .,.. A.L.40. ta,,..." . /Al vtivi rle,..:4.4, , '14:..,.. i' t ‘i• -,, il ,.;1. .41 i ticr.I'A., ‘......: _NI 1 ,.. IL_ Vitt. 14 1 , or t f ler _ ,. � L'1 ,, .�Pfit ..1V1ir;lelltt4 e•',i`+ ; • Ilitt .?... ""t'. Rai;,..-/Vaii.A.v.i.-..\,....4,‘Air , S4L& i(I * 4 - r" f' i 7/C "4/: i 1 t '-,1,4 1.'••' :;,;,-.. -A kir', fr,.--_x_-'---L-,-%•.#4•1•AiN4,\ \'", * I \' ' ' I t' . / '..111. r( ie,fr, i.p.,_;:i_ .,..r. ,:t. _,_, ...c,f,,,,, -,,, , ,,,,,,,) . ;—11'if( ' ',..ii,P''/' ,---e— 14,,ir*"..:, ' kr. 1110,4g*, --:.---1-4,1. ,.....,V?:41)1.!‘,.---1, I Al'. A . , , 0,1, . „. , ,Li_ . isfr ~-i-ell' 11: t OI 'I ' : ) r---17,, ;;;.-, ,/...1 lir /2 ,/y,"().`,2-. ,.4rrif ifj,,t-Isim.44114.04 41174;61144tpt !' ' t,(0,?1)/ 3 6, ) „ , : t 'A:iilf,E;7 ' , • fp, . ‘‘‘k ,‘,V) i v ovirfe,,t.,.._•4,0‘4.0‘.-...,44.., e, ,I t ,1 • I 41$0:7 :s.ril - :00> , ‘ k ,.;,//K,\\ ‘ , , , f ic' :414;evr--:.- --tv,:,e5944.. .. iio -) ,y / �,( 11 Jfll�,i 7r4r-4-r-zi --=-\\Ijri''� l\v-A'' fi _ . •L // J� i h l" /I i fi 4�',V/��/y� .t�,•�• v)�,� , �1�1 iI Att sylt. is'- . --",. 1/?,' ...? ' ,' yr ilk w ,:tm.,,,,-., v, 4„") . .1 -1. til (6 i gi.. :. . _ .=1:-,..tZ--.-61 .` . >- • e .., ,i. . ,,_1/4....i..2 ,-:„,t,„ • .1_,..... t.. „.„,,..:._.:. , . ........ _,_ .. . zl,rfoi , , ,,, .‘„.. ,., .1.. ___. if . ; ... . ' I o . , i/ L . - . ,mo � i IIIIL . ISH .• ! .` OGREGATE i , c - /,-r _, 1, 1 i ,';I i` CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1. � S,•• /�:,I••' 4 :find M•U !'.'•hi,p•J t� E H:fIII'11'0 G lIllei l,/ V• i f }, • r _- _ / / .. ..5 '1 ,:1•/ I M I . .ii ..1:1 - , 1,;.,..1,. ...ii. .,.. ....„7. ,. , ^ ,, `1 - int]/' .. V . ;. !,0:1..;.. •I•�• :.I ; . . ,.• . yik...,2 . !,"*." al,. . / - 4 .. .. . • •lam . (•••3 • f / „ �;: ` -I. i �.y..la pi l` 1 ?.1 . ' . .. 7 ii,,, i ,4 • ,,.... . ), .....r.:. ,:. .., ...: ---„,-...„, V.4,• ' '‘,1 NI:s\,."7. Ary,' . -Y .14A, 4.0r, .-.,!. .,. . 1- - ' 19 .i 0,;Liki; t • Solo ,40 -- ...°4:17.::.... .71536/;c1:1,114' ;e:Ls-mok.*nr.414# :.1 7!"il: t ..1";•',.:' • ,C ,I. ' r, ¢ T ,....*\,o,„t, .„\ r$ &Ai, i .......C. •'. .. . 'Ill � l, �`, . i • ..0 `5 t -- �.. gito! vtw---;a141.0t +: i .., .... ii#,, -' , 4.;--.; :Tk‘• 4, ?Ill(‘s- • , .' -..' ' ' . .,C4 111.-O v,4''-• •I • , ;:--C-.-411)r,lb4 t„*,f• i. ; II' 0 1 . : .. • '714! • .•.,-• ct%•-Sr..f. ;-: fr/ r ", ' :J Ci*".• , ? tri ' •-•, ' - ...1 • I -tikgio, LwLL '' •• •!,. - ,s, . i I I..r. 0,,*`•,17---17. - ,. eb.;iiir,' ii,4411)tit, . t . ',of,' 1. .: . ,,,,s-,-- . . . , ii , ./ J Y .,, %110.-• ' l!i,, . C 1 Lc Vt( drb-77'44.--;: .ki.,::. ...1. tit'.", Iry •,, ' ,' , . .L.-.; 4 t 01 11'...‘""*......s.--...„, ,s...1 r 7' ')) , / , re ,.:•,-*=-- -••••-•' ...-11,,•'---• t‘'..- •• I! ' / 41/i) ,_._ 1. , 1}4 ...--iii4.. --....... „s I,. 74, ... . ,,,*Pi ' _ ,'! // ".i , ,.:1„.,,,1 ! fes-:- --,.--' I.. ' � ;) , r � (y/,(�/ �t 1�-:-t ...._.l . ,,,.. ,... . -,.... fel es► ,"� `• ••.A . . It' .' 'k''' .&;11. . \ .1' i 11/ i 4,11/'.444, k16.1rtntia\SkWV. . for .:4 . :. . W-•,' , . - 1. ___L -'-'------..,,- .-- i',' ,.1% ' ".jo : 3:1) o,' ' ' 41.01,-,‘ tr. s.k. ---%. 1 -1-r.--- -..e4N- - ,-,---0- :71.4::--, *.:.....:':: • . :: : . ,--.. ._:—.......\..k_ j. ,,, .‘t-7 .- .... ,,.,,,„10. .----__ _--.. , -.. 774 /iiii-ii:dliii\ . ) 4(-0,,..• 1 -.......17. ti •-•...Th, - - .4.----. -,-_-_-_--:),7- ,,,,,,,,, , , , . . :.... ..,.,,....._„/..:! liv,,,, ..,,,v;., --2--. ------. 1,'.- - - •.'1'''' .,', ) ifty.i.4 i , '' 'iv.CItil ' . 1°4 ''‘'''' 1'. )10 Illo ,I.: .. ,a-40- .i. ::,,... ,,.. .\\410., itt. : i-,. .,,,I.,...1 T . A,\ , 1r de, .".1 1 . , 1 i . , A _ , 4,... • . , ) , „ . . .. .. . . , : ice �` � ) �___ . -- • ,-., • 4i, • %yr/'� � 6 IC•,, 1 $ 1i - , , ., ..�`;) 411 �) :. r. 7- 1".. -....7.'-- - ../.4gii:. '-', SI ..'1 o 4 ,, ,./ cifi•---4' • ii' %ohhl i kl-W4W41.! ••tri �-' • .. . A f \ r Ji•r 7 '�ter, / .lir. �. ' 4L ' M� , ..�1X' 14 - --li �, ! Ufa +4'.e .'1 . .. � � \ 1- „fr'.'- . ; i 4. ' ••=• '. 4.•.‘ )'1.')..". ' 1. • ' 44.0..06.-,Nit!tti. .••;.,' ,\1,, (..„.,x,. yi ,..--",. , / i,0•4 4 r • ti i i ii', 4 11 00.II , (!1 Ga,-,...L."7:`,14 -...+,..Z.''d I 1 lif i r„:k....ik.,S24,11., .-.,-;,. ,,- 1. ' \,i k.. . i' t7 0 41 4, 4,)101,-4,17-4--.. .. ., 00 ___.f.ff .A) b•t.- _ etr:.AI 1.,'.:, • /,/ 7 ,./ • er ei •,‘ 7 - ( r. 'iti.,,,,_-•‘drike.iikvt7_, Asiti4 , ki.i , ..., lif \ • II) p 4 '. Ai - if ,,,.•'. • :.• `,)it, r ),„ I IF iNi \\ -.\ . ‘,A 1.11 I, ,!0/11".sair, ' A ,,A, ,,,,„,,; .., . . • . ,..--,.„,. : ,„ , , 4 :. i vf 1, i.. ,,. .,..,-- , ,,-_,,,-- - ...1. • :::.; . • :r., 7, ,.._-4 .,pir ..4 N: O. t.0114: C.Iir fc -''- ---- 1,i1A101/440:- 1() ) \ 1 11 ' I t. t (//jr Ir---'1"--'411•41,4i_,7_,..,-_,k,„6„,t,. ..u. '! _,,,t/j.',..414› ,44kri -4\\,),,, ,i1 , 1‘,.,:.., c, ` A 6 !il\IN414;1/4.T: ";.&,3-,°...4 t, 4, ; ,. ,,,,r.._ z i.,..., , . ,,,, , ,., . „ ,I,:/pi e';'.. t Air, p\-,,,.. . -1..4.----_-:.- ...',,,.. •,, "9?-- 1 i - r1.,, !�ri 0'/ �, I V,- >Is_"!JArty*. . Y"" . ' I'rip f.. tr• , 1, } , • �% 1 : .. ,'�e�oho /;-----'''FIN w .oa •', ., 161110.1111;;",P,,- ��'W,:7."/.. j `�► , `�,ca ��/ NIOOt�VALLEY AGG R EG o TE � ', X11/1,, �iril �� • �� CHANHASSEN. MIN j .",,,.:; � � ,1 remota) End-us• °rodlno }.ar,, .W •.! , I , 1 / I ,' 171 1,'• 'k /-':� /. • �..-i.1• '1 a .1)./..-. (, 1 i i l'.'...' .. r 1 . • . .. . 1 . , ..r____ .... , ;( • , , k... . r; ', • •, . . • . , - .„ -. 4 '. .. I , •.1 , I 1 /.• ,t‘ . ....- , I - : I ; II •."..1 '1. ......1 . ., . ' -(I r..•. ... , i. , , . .• . / ... • • i . .. .1 .... .,.! ,,.. . 3, ? __,_ . , - • r! • . i . .-.__AA: . • P 1 I fig• . , j' ��•. •''1i` C . • :i. �� i •• / 1 , • • • . :- . I i j....7 • i. i ` ��% ..., • f, ....•., \./1 /) '/I . i. N 71 ' '!:'. );%...,. ,. ) 't I. .1 r.j, •.-1,;•* 1.-"' � f . ; j 1, EXHIBIT _ •rI ' : I. I .! t 1' cit :.-::,,i,../.;:..--- , \':-/ .r.. 1� t , r J.: V I 0 LC ,,.,, ••• 1. • , 1 ii,./7,---.. ,••,4 •(.. .../.6 •••••• ,',P. ..••„ . • 'I".•-• .. itf •f / w 1 t, lY 1, �)� I ;,' ,� `�,<� s '� .,..iy II • 1 � s % � .• .,./ : � u . ' A ''. i1 t ' 2 :_'iii,): 7c11111 :It u , J //• �,% \ ....1---\./..-4#‘.. •� 't_ . i I..: ::., ./:"-\ /-.-.7,-; ...,/ i .. . ;77:\.//,fr.4 "I.. ,; . I.L. / ._.--,•--- • ----- r. 4b.: • ::::::_\--"\,,.../.1 .' . • • //'. 4.f),V•1••- .4:>4,. I. ........z..!•..... .i...... :. . . , • .....„_ . A1j4Z 1(' " 111. :, 1. `4 • v,..., •i Itç 1 • • ' ill IF Y 0. • .i .I ••/(, , :(;!.li: I....... ...1;.,T.i f1i,1t.k,.\�,rpi, moi• . • ...-17-:7.. eI s/. ' '71.1IN\,1;;,,,/,'.... l 7 Jlh )bi t t 1 lIIt!',I:: :. .• 7,/;.-•*--••••••\., ' /1(7 � Ixj. IAt I:a\ jam-. ';o �""I I1 ,'/t .�`,4 ,,. I�� .10.�•: ) y' �` 1 �i' 1.11• i . . \ t, ,fit;i d1 • t ill• l'-11 i ( 11\.1 '''‘y 11)111!iii ... ti 1(1 VIM P)I ))))„')11)ill 10 -:-..\)i,-.'' .. ,...,..--.. ...."s • . . . p, .tr. • .11 f/ , \ 1 1.k. • .' .0). t.,'el ., '' .e 7'.. . , , ••• , .._ . •I ll ' rs I � ), . - . – , , .. 6:: .(--_. . •• 'i / I .101-ti _ ote —A(' If -----1 . 1 11'9• I cs• ,�� ', :.•• 1 \\\‘` ,,nom • I � fsI � .i I • \ '1 1 •C / �F��irarA both east and west of the existing site boundary in order to provide consistent grades, eliminate steep slopes and make the property more useable for end land uses. b. The grading plan maintains the existing steep slopes and wooded areas immediately adjacent to U. S. Highway 169 for purposes of screening c. The grading plan provides for preservation of the bluff line and existing trees at the top of the bluff. It also provides for a three ( 3 ) acre sealed pond with a controlled outlet. d. The grading plan also provides for the potential of removing 8 to 10 feet of material from the north meadow area of the site. e. The applicant is currently negotiating a purchase of the 16 to 20 acres west of the existing property line. This grading plan anticipates either the acquisition or cooperation of this owner to accom- plish the proposed grade. If this can not be done, a 2 : 1 slope will be maintained along the west property line. All of this is clearly illustrated on the grading plan(s) which illustrate both existing and proposed grades. 6 2 . Stockpile Sites Existing stockpiles are shown on the "operation plan" (Exhibit D) . Existing stockpiles are a lime storage area, a mined material stockpile and a topsoil (black dirt) stockpile. The lime would be used as a fill material in the proposed ponding area. - As mining progresses, similar material stockpiles may be created in the main operation area similar to that which exists. 3 . Physical Relationship to Community and Existing Development There is very little existing development in the immedi- _ ate area. Existing development generally consists of commer- cial and industrial uses fronting along U. S. Highway 169 . West of the subject site and north of Highway 169 are four single family homes located on a private driveway and developed on metes and bounds lots. The general topography of the area is very irregular, with steep slopes. The objective of the grading plan(s) submitted herein is to mine material and leave the site in a much more suitable condition for ultimate development. 4 . Site Topography and Natural Features The Moon Valley Aggregates site generally ranges in elevation from a lower elevation of 720 along U. S. Highway 169 - to upper elevations to the north portions of the property exceeding 900 feet. A bluff exists at the mid-point of the _ 7 property at approximately a 900 - 920 elevation. The highest elevation of the property is 930 . 5 . There are two well defined gullies on the property. One is located in the northeastern portion of the site where the gully flows to the east toward the Eden Prairie boundary. In this area the higher elevation is at 890 down to a 810 elevation along the boundary of the property. Another gully exists in the west central portion of the property where the elevations range from 920 to a lower elevation along an old railroad bed of 810 . Distinguishing features of this site in addition to the extreme relief are an abandoned railroad bed which forms the west perimeter of the property running in northeast to southwesterly direction, an open meadow of approximately 12 acres at the upper elevations, and a heavily wooded bluff at the 900 to 920 elevations. There also is a well defined drainage area which follows the lower elevation of the railroad bed to the existing west boundary of the property and then meanders south to a crossing under U. S. Highway 169 . In the past, with this extreme relief, this site at one time was used as a downhill ski area. The project area is a part of the large terrace that exists along the north side of the Minnesota River Valley. The site area is approximately 85 acres with a proposed addition of approximately 16 to 20 acres along the west boundary. 8 5 . Description and Ouantity of Excavated Material The excavated material from the subject site generally consists of a clay material, particularly at the higher elevations, and sand and gravel material . The quantity of the available material has not been calculated, however, a calculation could generally be made by comparing the existing and proposed grades as shown on the enclosed grading plans. However, in some instances mining may occur below finished grades. 6 . Depth of Water Tables in Area The applicant does not have any information other than information which the City could provide related to depths of water tables. Another source may be the Geologic Atlas which has been developed for Hennepin County which borders the subject site. 7. Location and Depth of Wells, Buried Garbage, Water and Fill The applicant is not aware of any buried garbage or similar material that has occurred or exists on the subject property except for auto bodies in the northeast area gully. These will have to be removed when this area is mined and/or restored. An artisan water well exists on the site but a well log is not available. It is believed that this well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet. 9 8 . Purpose of the Operation The Moon Valley Aggregates mining operation is conducted primarily for the purpose of obtaining fill material and processed aggregate to be used for off site development. The material that is mined, as previously described, primarily consists of clay, sand and aggregate material. 9. Time to Complete The Operation The applicant does not have an established time frame for completing the mining of subject property. The time to complete the operation will depend upon several factors such as the demand for the material which is beyond the control and the ability to predict by the applicant. Another factor will be the market demand for an end use development on the subject property which also can not be predicted with any certainty. For example, the City of Chanhassen is unable to provide a specific time frame in which public utilities will be made available to the subject property to support end use develop- ment. 10. Hours and Months of Operation The mining operation will be conducted during most of the months of the year. The hours of operation may occur any time during a normal 24 hour day. The operation which consists primarily of mining and hauling material from the site is effected by the peak traffic hours along U. S. Highway 169. Therefore, attempts are made to haul material during the off peak traffic hours. 10 ___. iy, - • .).1.... . 1 :. e f ...... i . - •.•& 1 . . . 1 ,, ir.. ._.:__ .{. "1..... • i -• / 1 I •• i i .• Irli' ! ' ' .... 1 . 1 ) ' Ili . , ar:, ., ' ti, . V- II 1 ... I ' • ! ..!..."••••f::,.;I: •:... - •.% ( ,,% --ip 1, ./ . I. , • .! 4. I / .i... ••-, • • . , c I . f. 1\li 4,••••• . ) 6% i $.;...1 ..11 i• i 11 , .:;. .1 ,) , / i• • I I .:. r - y 4 . -Vili _ ) \ 1 .. . .. .• : ..4s•li . • ./-. 'I, .+ 0.:„• Is • . i pi 1 1 if.. ‘‘ ....., ( 1 1"'"fi/.. •1/- • vi • ( .) ,...., • • •- ..: c----Tr:T.\.:: 2",/ , , •giv, '''.'/ i *•- i\ ill•1 ‘ I '''' . ' 1 l' 1 : • •••:'''. NA' , ••i• C./ " •. (• ''' •.. 1 • • r ‘ ..f.' . Ili . ./ ./ ' ',{•..:...1-... . (e..••:4... ..\':‘\i‘.., • : # . .. ..:r . : 6.c,, 1 ....- I WilliiT . ';'"...`91.!-_..--" - i,..(1:") 1 •1-!‘ • ‘• ;11,„ ? '°V.! 1 !iii Fl .. ' ......,. • l'i- ( • • . 1. .1 .1' •••:• .' ', // / ''Jb4.Nigt•-`1.. iff • i •••!r .\ •" ....,_ :;;;.1,1 . ., • • , ._ 1 .. .--•!,91. . :V. V1 i ' • • ' ••.1 ,0 / ;• . • (. .t.).1 • • .i: ...- A 'Ali.:.. .II. # -. 1 ,)1) .11' / v.1'44 "i,./.,;,,,r3A- A ' '' 'i it ', : , I.1 f'.1 .. ri. f . • - /. ,.... --L ' . ?(. ...... . ......-- • Yii 1 . : 1 •• • , !.... ,1 '. • ' . -_ .. .I.( ...... q.- -c..,. - ,7-- .-- %- ' - - ' .-.Qiii 11- ,--...•,. -- . ..• .....- ,.,. iy, do .. :. - ..-• )7.•.%.7%. 0)0;. P i: ..... .,\ ,I.. "./1 • 'A *.?:: . sr,: % t;:i .r. . • :, % ..,::1--• /-..•' . .--;":".•,/•• 01 ,' ..1 :."---\ 1 . itit VC I- - l' ! '7•C ( ')\ 11 Z: i llik4:4•'I' ',./. ' . 'il. • " i I .' . . F.-; ; .0 --. ... "4. • , iy,t , , / , .j... .1 1 1 it' 1\‘••••(' At s ' )11 ..7 l' -'" / •• ill . • " ( 1 **." 11..-..• .-.---. '` ------"' . , a. • , ., In . '' I) \""il t.' ,•'''. ': 41 i ". • '/• ' I • ,4:-rj‘‘.11 k i ' ' "'-'-' . •"'/ ) . ..7,; - ,.:';;‘,„' 'II I,: '. - i•, f•• \\-.1 l. i•V" - " \_ • ...s. ...-‘,.. (.., <) ,1„tr.) . 4 ., , 41,1/4.... 1 t; }1 i . * . :. ,-...,.... -...z.....: • •-••••'s."' ... 4:. / . Mo. VII,, : ' .••••• . .....-4, ..-- .. ../ I..•.‘ i*..I . . . .. ii 4 •'..:' 1-I/• a 4 1... Ik . ... * ... •,,., .: .1,;,....,Ts...‘, • ,: ke.:. : ', , ,:, ',.. :. I, -- ,„ . . . -• • .......... _____, ,,..-.. ,, , • .,.y.,,.--., 1,.. ,. •,.,q4 ... -, ,.. • ,.... ,..., ,• .s . . .../.. . , 4:-. \\,:',1\'.. "", ,,, ,4 ' I ii •'-,:',-, I .,„1 P I. -:....,-"" . A.. -1-.1 I 1;„.•, ';'• . . , iff y..) 1,I\I Itn\: .• ‘ 012!t' ;• f I ' ) ,). 'r • Ai://..dfi. ;•.• ,/ 1(1 Ft 4( •\• 70, ,.. si,.. :. I Q. 1.. . l, • 4 ''' / i ' x ! ,,1 'C 'S ,11 -.• i .1 ss. /.... ';z • --'0. • ' 1 4 .,/ . . ... ...-_- • .-. . .. .-, (/ . . -4,4„,i..., • 111 IV II. -.;• '' ) i ' • - . - .. • .1. .../I {,. 1 ' '' .••)! i .._. . ,„\‘ k• 1„, - . -- .--.1,,.. ..A''' • !.•'' f'''l r k ;.7.--- -..N.ja) ) ;, :,ro^", / .-.., •r' _ 1:.•11-,1'. c. .•.,\*, ,-)..piiii \\.!11. 1141i - ,:-. . . ,•._• )1,,,,,:..e,.... . .. _. .._,.._ ,:t Pk.\'.. Storage4 , ,- \ .,, .. . •,,,11.10i• i . ,/\k H4, i- :p _::: 4 . /f,----T _... :,..., . • ‘ .' I 'Jit l• - " 7" • • - IL,:lelk rviA - fr. pr /. . --Ito)) ;• .').1 :.i.,, '.', ,1 441%, .. ..", dirl,\ II inning ,...• „ ,,, s I; "4 ..- ..„-.„..ii i ,•-, ..,, .., :,„,,,, :11., .. --,.),,4,• :. -- • il , ---..:\-,, s.i Ai ‘il fk# ., .- A ::' .1 5-1.. 1 i, (9 '° 111111/&.-----. •'4i _ q, •„)4-,,--.1(,.,/•rif(•!',!,.;..:.7,.,,0..,1,•,.i ,•tir , .. 1 4 " Retention pond . ,-J 4Tairi,. /.• • !!,:l A ,, 1. • . ''..""r'011 11 ..... - •, i 1).`• 7„.4"M 01 114., .• .... ..~b ;,,git 4,1 . Office a' scale ‘`.1\,"ii -•', :ii,ode,,, rip':-..tr„ I,r,,,,.• ,&Oh _ , • : . \sci 11 )))1b)i ),11 .,.1 ) 1 ( ..A...;*,ToV . : .!: .1fga-Afe 1 . , , ,,, ,, ,) go- • -1. lavath , _-_ .. , il _ r, IN's )\) / ..T.!;'.,419:elf-' -;) 0 tA. • : ,fflw \ *i ' '• i'ea' I10°.- - House nk.. ---.7 ...„....--j.:-...=- . i.:., . .y . _ 1.. jritil .,- 0:1;, 1 fii/ ),, :-. -, . (i.c 60. -....,,,i -1 - . •i *: ... _.-. Entrance 4, 4.. Ii•-•..---s . _ .,.- ,,, ,_ . .,,_.,,, • ."....„..t-----5--;T\---- •-•'",--. d......„„..t..--' '''''.---.-svdf.-{ .601.. 11 .‘.43H.Y.IXt - , ,1 .... 1. . \ ......_,...././ r.... t, • ?........• ••••••.-, . , A ., .„:„...,,,. .,.......„..... . ...„...., .., .....„..„.....: .- .•,. : . ....„... .. .. „ . opERATIoN pLAN . )i A f • - - :,:- .•?,_,:til...: -;:- - . ' 4- - :i) .I 5 f ' MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES. • ‘:.06,--1.-1 -' _ f •• ••• / i / /I . ? - - ...• ,, j•,,./a . . ) ) 1... • - -Th . V . • i • I ; 1 1 • 1 1 .116. --1-1111.111110 kwilkic-- . 11 . Description of Wooded Areas Above the existing mining operation area there is a mature upland hardwood forest. This area is about 20 acres in total size. The dominant canopy of trees are oak, hardwood maples and basswood. Other secondary trees area elm, ash, aspen, birch, wild cherry and butternut. Very few openings in the forest canopy exist to allow seedlings to develop. Consequently there is only sparse understory tree and shrub growth. Also, along the south west ridge of this forest are plantings of red pine. This existing wooded area is labeled and outlined on the grading plan exhibit B map. It also can be identified from an aerial photo of the site. 12 . End Use Landscape Plan and Interim Screening Plan The grading plan exhibit B clearly shows the boundaries of the area to be excavated along U. S. Highway 169 . In this area the steep slopes and existing wooded area would be retained wherein this would provide a screen from public view. The only opening would be in the area of the existing drive- way. An End Use Landscape Plan has not been developed since the end uses have not been determined at this time. However, the grading plan exhibit B does provide for the protection and maintenance of the existing wooded area for a single family residential development at the top of the bluff. The steep slopes will also be restored and maintained as described in the restoration plan. 12 13 . Plan of Operation Equipment and Processing The plan of operation as previously described would be to mine clay, sand & aggregate material to stockpile and to haul the material from the site. The equipment used in this operation would primarily be that equipment which exists on the site, namely; trucks, frontend loader, crusher, screening/water wash plant, bulldoz- ers, periodic portable concrete ready mix plant, equipment storage trailers, scales and similar equipment. In the future there may be a need to bring additional equipment onto the site for allied processing operations. The City will be so informed at the time there is any substantial change in the operation. The only source of water on site is a private well . Two septic systems also exist on the site. 14 . Travel Routes, Number and Type of Trucks The primary travel route to and from the site would be along U. S . Highway 169 which forms the south boundary of the site . The only other haul route which may be used in the future would be along the north boundary of the site across property owned by the applicant which exists in the adjacent community of Eden Prairie wherein a travel road would lead to Pioneer Trail. 13 15 . Drainage, Erosion and Dust Control a. Drainage During current operations most of the runoff percolates into the impervious sandy soil which exists on the site. Also, a sealed retention pond has developed as shown on the operation plan. It has been developed at a lower elevation so that drainage which does not percolate from the mining area can be diverted to this retention pond. The remainder of the area naturally drains to a box culvert which exists under U.S. Highway 169 near the main entrance. Future operations are expected to be conducted in a similar manner where retention ponds will be used to retain most of the storm drainage on site. End Use Grading Plan (exhibit A) provides for a ponding area in the central portion of the property which would be utilized to retain most of the drainage created along the side slopes. Drainage also would utilize the above described box culvert under U. S. Highway 169 . End Use Grading Exhibit B provides several storm drainage alternatives. The north portion of the property would drain to the north to a small existing wetland which could be further developed as a small holding pond. Drainage would naturally outflow from this pond to the north into the Eden Prairie property which is owned by the applicant. In the central portion of the property as illustrated an approximate 3 acre holding pond would be created and sealed. 14 This pond would have a controlled outlet. Natural drainage from the area and along the bottom of the railroad bed from the north would drain into this holding pond. The outlet would direct drainage toward the natural drainage area that is illustrated and exists along the west edge of the subject property and eventually drains under U.S. Highway 169 . Finally, drainage at the lower elevations would naturally drain to the above mentioned drainage ditch area and also to the box culvert located near the main entrance under U. S. Highway 169 . b. Erosion A certain amount of sand erosion created by water runoff will occur during operation. There will be an attempt to retain as much of this sediment as possible on site and most - of it will flow to the retention pond and settle out. When mining is complete the mined areas will be stabilized and seeded as described below to deter any erosion. This is described in the restoration paragraph. Potential air pollutant emissions related to the opera- - tion are regulated by both the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the U. S. Department of Labor inspections under their "Mine Safety and Health Administration" (MSHA) . The MPCA conducts an alternate year inventory of air pollutant emissions. This information is compiled and sent to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . The operator 15 is required to complete an emissions inventory questionnaire when required by the MPCA. The U. S. Department of Labor conducts periodical inspec- tions of the Moon Valley Aggregate operation. Inspections relate primarily to employee safety, i.e. dust control, noise levels, equipment safety and general working conditions. From the above it is evident that there is adequate inspection, regulation and control of such matters as dust control, working conditions and noise levels provided by state and federal agencies. 16 . Restoration Plan a. Existing Contours Existing contours of the Moon Valley Aggregates site are shown on Exhibit C. This is a topographic map that was obtained from the City. b. Proposed Contours The end use grading contours as illustrated on Exhibit A represent a total mining of the site providing a gradual grade leading from the entrance at U. S. Highway 169 from the south to the north of the property providing a 2 : 1 side slope. Exhibit B illustrates an end use grading plan wherein the bluff and the trees are retained. This plan would anticipate the subdivision and development of a 2 11 acre lot residential area to the north with a cul-de-sac leading to Pioneer Trail to the north. The end use grading plan also provides for a loop street with access to U.S. Highway 169 and a commer- 16 cial/industrial development at this lower elevation. The plan would retain the existing steep slopes and wooded area as a screen along U. S. Highway 169 . The plan shows the relation- ship between the existing grades and the proposed grades. c. Timetable As previously described no timetable for the mining of this area has been developed. This would depend upon factors beyond the control of the applicant such as the market for the material and the ability to develop end uses on this site . d. Restoration Procedures The general restoration procedure will be to strip and stockpile the topsoil from those areas which are to be mined. After mining is complete the topsoil will be re-spread and the area will be seeded and otherwise stabilized except for building pads and roads. A typical seed mixture will consist of perennial rye grass, timothy, switch grass, white clover, smooth brome grass and park Kentucky bluegrass similar to that used by MNDOT to stabilize slopes along interstate freeways. At certain locations mining may occur below the finished elevation as shown on the end use grading plan(s) . At these locations, these areas will be backfilled, leveled and stabilized according to the restoration schedule described above. 17 17. Compliance with Permit Conditions a. Complaints The applicant will respond to any reasonable complaints about the operation in a timely manner and will attempt to mitigate where feasible. b. Revisions The applicant will submit any major revisions to the plans included herein as proposed revisions may become necessary. Minor revisions will be provided to the City as a part of the annual permitting process wherein it is expected that the City will perform an inspection and any minor revisions will be detailed at that time. 18 . Setbacks The applicant will observe the setbacks required by the Ordinance wherein mining operations shall not be conducted within one hundred feet of an existing highway or thirty feet of an easement for an existing public utility. The applicant will also observe the required three hundred foot boundary of an adjoining residential property not in mining use except during those periods where it is necessary to mine such an area in order to bring it to a proposed end use grade. In this instance the mining shall be limited to removing the material and restoring the area. The three hundred foot setback will not be utilized for other operations such as long term stockpiling of materials. 18 19. Fencing The ordinance requires that "where excavation slopes are steeper are one foot vertical to one and one-half feet horizontal" the area shall be fenced unless the City deter- mines that they do not pose a safety hazard. The ordinance further states that "water storage basins shall also be fenced if the City determines that the basins pose a potential safety hazard" . The applicant feels that the operations are far enough removed from any existing development or public activity that fencing for safety reasons should not be required. However, in those instances where there is a mutual agreement that a hazard may occur the applicant will place a small plastic safety fence which is normally accepted and is developed for that specific purpose. 20 . Appearance and Screening Machinery will be kept in good repair and inoperable machinery will either be removed from the site or stored in a designated area. Inoperable equipment may be needed for replacement parts or use at a later date. Storage trailers are located in a designated area for storage of equipment, parts, oil, grease and similar mainte- nance materials. 19 • : ../" • ;* . 1 t. ii . ` = ""r .��" MO•i - '� / WPM.l ii i : • ,� 1 �, - • - ` , ■ •� - • i (f-f'r LAY MINIM _ °- i .1. . . .• : if _ _ f . • SNOW=BMW - ' — .' . . ' 3... ) g • ;: — • • One O. • '• '� • ZWIER - w'ti ' -�- • - i • i t t: '` `' _ - • ZWIER `: 'lar • 'TEICH ti• • • • • _ �'� d' ow.�s oast r-i. os . ••14. t / •= ' - . j •. I/ jr C. IIE $ENIR(N EXISTING MOON _ — ; ' _ , , VALLEY r . • ' TERREEM - - � ""t' ' iEAYCM� E '� '� ►.' a DAN TETTER �� oute.ear r�i a •.•. .• 49. c �. ��J . I� "" 4 i.,-,v, :••'r�.. - > •�1,:). i J /} N\ \ f or -ice - '.- ()tit* Wit +` / r jt /,___..--, :,. .i)9 ( k.,r...,-;. ...,--;.:7-,-7, •c-r-!= t Ira 4.1 —f,~ • "'�� / ( 1 '. ••, 4 . - % 7 - :4:-%: 11.// / , /. 9 =Y/ - �� !i ... ` 0 - \ ...`moi _'./7 r `;:; 7-'44; ; i '4 G', rI — — d..K-- . . .. . : .. , .....,..,., ,_,;., .„.. _ ...: : %,,V4 1 fiC.V ...... :•44 1. PA— ,..,:. r.tr.' , ta!,....-----.:- ,,,- ; :-- • • • . . ',- z.- 1,..is .-ziee,tifiliz.-----N), to ini 1, .,-/ k :.,,., , ,r- . -, k -: r- ..1... ii-V,,./ i-:•,.../ . fri.: ''I,�S�� `-/� ' .�/��/�i�� I r. - / is r) '� rht7 ,.,, •// � ill lI'i tf 1' C—.- `.\,...._, -�/L,% ti rte• �� ••"`�• Ar ',,� .1,771-; 4-11, ph! `i S :� �fj1 •� \� �� _ �.t is �, �Ir,r f 'N_ lel, I — -.. .., . --7 • iz'' i id,/ 4.1,./// ••,• ° I:, -• .,0‘,...1;44 . ,.., ' ,‘, ----....„1„ ,5).‘? ,,,..--,. 4;:AL.,„?-...., r-I -....,;iii...._..,; .iri,/,. , .i.k‘c) :• ... .{: ...: ;:i'tf•-::' \_‘-.' :.--.•:.•--. c ' ;.i.ri.ii (..,/lli:li / •!'' 'T. ./Y• NVif ei • iiY,...///idg,!,,iii Is.\ ••• . (Fi ...,•-,.. ^N ...•-r--.4t- .••gre•-• ""-•,..--::-'-) •''' : .4 i 1: '.-•••,- .'; 1''" p 3041,:ii - '; !:' 4.1.4.7 // • i 1 .141 11 l'I.1.11 ir---. i � • ...f„ sir -�-�ll} fti ��r• , . _ , •;.., ,,.,.._.........„ . ms"` z / j/ / • /21.i / 1016; . c _.- • ? wt� . _ / ii �'— Iiaciirt •N' v, ;., j1, .4 ..,/.)i:' ti ;:\isVC• .. .. Y�,- Sl Y:Gz �\ , l' ,3.-..ve--, -\..--'1:i•-4',.: .f// !•y _ -•'.'j 'fl'Iil it,: -J�w I, '.��[•"I•' 1, fl I y 111%// .�C n �� +.a., �: ,j^- L- Y- • • :...._2.. ..;...rilf,•'Z...*N.::: et 1'1:76 111•,.1 ' r //�. :ii. , ,.J : ,> 1. .�......r•.� � yi--;',Ifir;.,/,-,4 1:-' '? / / v.; ........ c:, ,.i ..----- -..-----7--• --••. - •-• -- • - / / I 'I;(.E'' -fit �. , ;,1: ..t •r / .i, r:4:( -�� 4. ; '\,a ,) ! e;:\t\��1] ; V?. ,11,(. �'`fi/1/I •Ijy. r `4.°• 6,1 i J a, NRLi 4 t:l: ,.�.31�,Ifi'.... .1-7c;/,' y~/JJIII• . _ 1•.•r/ 1•41-%•...• y /_ ,�.s/ i. • .ii }/ �•:Si +kJ�.t, r+�/ • ,/T' ` ':1�`4 , I 1 .r ,1'iii /./ .'.:• , �,.^�' ,\\ � ,• 1�_. it{, ��,''�iii�(J ^'�..k.•:••,.. .,r-�� l�.•'�_ ;-� St I .Y I.11�f.1 .);A _. ,i _ ../7,..-..„4" ••••...,.t . :•••;f,!,'-.;./ •if‘fl.....1:\•\N II,:/7/ .1..4 ! I 1,: tilt:f /.,4 , ,\fa ._. 1. ...4 14 0- '`"r" " . `'yam:. `v �� ,I/ !f.0• i - r . %- ,..1 /�.j•/ illts. 11-- �1• .1��„I.1•I', 11 •It ,• ', �\` 1 �• �// .ler-- .. --- --__---:—,-V.: i f; / \->CSA\Ittl,1;,!-— .,. .*' •.,.. ., •-...>- -----.-->sa,,,, ,,-.1;:— -v;•'//,/illy , alp _l\ ,-• >. ,•-•• lir f /�;f ,-..y„J.-- j:• /�� !MOCIN VALLEY AGGREGATE = � ;i y/ 1 �.� t :: / CNANNASSEN, MINNESOTA ;� • '� ...,....,,,..4.........„5„.„ �••• ' ' E n•li ..Lis s Grading • - _ . - / / .........e.e...t-._.•••• . •••••,....F. ' . -•••••„2......-../ , ..,..... ,...1„rf„... ;„r::. ./ril: 1 . . • j...-• ) \ :.k:',„:1A.,;„ ••••• ....:-,......„,,,s, 1. .,.A k . ( '1 . / .//;.�J°' 1. . l RL. �-P _�C•`� 1 ,A r- 1 t. / I J .,i 1))),1;is !� ' ` r' • •1 ,, .,•,) •-..) • ' ''))/ -::$ - •., \ . •-• /...4/,'- 1- -iiii-r.,,I,a., • ' - p,9 „ri ,,.A.,..60;1:1-7:-. z L� t. C. .,•• `- '11.,E S s _ w,• - i J 1. = :-.•:-...".-e- ,.—...---7*-•4 • \ --. .'4 ...• ...-. \-....•,,_.,,,..........-•---'"•-•! ,..f N.Y.. -• ••- ) 0•g;e.r. 1 *• . .ear �' , .- ;;, • ..e., ..K.Z:..--%. (,_,.._.,.Pi. . . .a.. it ..- ....'..,..71. ••••••••*i/ ........ -,.., * ....... •.i.../ ;all ‘..:11..)/1..L....,' All L.') ,r)i -• ) ,..._\ 1 . . ,. ...4.,, ,/Al,..:-..."•--t _ .- ' k_t:\.-W..-.)i J;;rl2!a.. 4 /'j• -.•—' : 11 v. _--,✓i/ :,,.1 / kTJ Lam:'1 -• _ 2c /' --- *" \" `e .:t .,...' " 'j-°/1 . 1/�•.. �!✓lr Yom/ ':S''-''' - \` ._� �. j ' / .'f Ilr :'1 if t„.., /- l� () \ ate. �''...4. � P—. \\$ /� • / 1--- ei.�•n-. Vi .- . -; �' 1'• Sti �, Ate.. - A.,. - =••• -.:--,...-•....., -. • ._-.-: :.. - . ,,,-.4-..o.;;/-..., ..( 7.--/".."-.4 ••,,',..eli . -.z-,.,:------2----------,---..-. --- J71.4.T. if \-_-__- , 4714C,;,•:. +.4,',47 '' • -/+`/ Rf !` 1 t* .�. i'1'1 k,{ i.- I t , .,. t. r / %,• -"a k •'ori s -- `•` -...• .:.:- �l_. J,^.. 4' .; 1..// f..:- ,_' -.A.!" 8. .. --- .. +4a�- -�-�;�.; jf<+�?yL .:"cif f 4+ iS �� .`'�s , - ?\' • ��,tF'�'f' �.._,__7_..., � .� lf(!1t �\7, . /i. /-ni . •% ,- •t 1 a (, ��,/ I' ,• a ;4.I .1 ( `c --T-7- PL{ a 1;, Z ! its •..t'1.�:1,' •.. /' �,4► '"1"-!\i, f.. .4 / =r. _• •t ,e• ` :%.\ ''.. 11.8 I `}{�+ �i�"ii/'.tf.l(: s, .v/ ' ..JI j•,.. •%.,1•• l'..• :. ••moi • YJ^^..-� . • . v:\ ii �.. I -71. : 1111 .‘\Ne...% .7.i: . : ' -- / /• '''.. - • . i'l.• \ j.1 1: ''' ..) t.f.ii Iii.; ‘•fe-;- • ...a.;c:1 "-. -.7.-—._-. ...s...v:i)5/., ? ,%..-: s,-/-7,.?/._ ,. ,, .47,1i L '•' - - .. ".1 i -; ,)-.;,-;L. -'-'5 .:'&-. .4.*- t. , .f.1',) d)6_,=; di. /A j/ .... .‘k\‘. • ,41 )- ,' .1\_. ,-,_..._ ._., 0,-• :!-:::.--•*..:-. t.:4‘• , . .:. .,_-:•(.. ..„..., -...---- . 11 ...... .., . ..?,...:1 i: ,- -:„7„..4 .,\..,e....-, _.., tie-. . . s. .,..,..7 ,... -_ .-- -_,.4) , ....- •i 1,r. .,(i ., . ,...„ , _....--_ • ,,,.,-: ,....__--__-_,-_-\,..t..• w..;,. . . ., .,e4. . -...:- . V . 1 t.br, .•- :•':,,,./4.7"--)til; • i'a1 (( ly' 1. --:-.-:---L7.-...-- L'.t - - - •------ /�,•/ / a ,� ice•.. r_____._r________,_______, .:,.. . ....,/I,.:11::vr_, . _ ,:-____-,_ ,,,,_____, .,,.,.,.7-,..„--..,•,s,/ ,. . „, :;.„...„_=-...,_........... .: , :..I• , ......%\lp. . . ,,....„ ,,,.,..,__. .....-. . ( —tom. ..� - �,• /, / %�� R EG ATE �., �, ':...:;......,-;;%.:13;'.5\--N„' •f'aL �• - Z.--" ! MDON VALLEY AGG -._1:1w-___----•:_=,-------.- N,' •�.. '.1.-------'"-4-3,."..'-'"."..F.--7 CNANNASSEN. MINNESO?A :% ,i ~'rig.. . ..7 1.-7--)"": sic (Alternate) a Grading — G Gtr' f , \ pD •-"-tw_.....gat. - � Y .///--...,- � ' / ' --"` — • �r ' -�\ ..l-- vii:_-_-.....,es' ``; ; APPLICANT HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY FOR PLAN B1 CITY OF _ ,A04 ,11111116 .r.. 4 _ CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1 May 5, 1992 _ Mr. Tom Zwiers _ 1111 Deuce Road Elko, MN 55020 and Mr. Jerry Brill Siegel, Brill, Greupner & Duffy 1300 Washington Square 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Gentlemen: At our May 1, 1992, meeting, several questions were raised regarding the processing of the Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. earthwork permit. The City Attorney has clarified the point that the request for an earthwork permit is to be processed in a manner similar to an interim use permit. This is provided for under Section 7-35, applications for earthwork permits. Thus, review by the Planning Commission prior to City Council action is required. The public hearing will be held at the Planning Commission meeting. We have tentatively scheduled this action for our June 3, 1992, meeting. Secondly, a question was raised regarding the placement of a retention pond on the • north parcel under this earthwork permit application. Based upon the advice of counsel, we have concluded that any activity on the north parcel must be reviewed under a separate permit request, therefore, we will be unable to approve the request. We will, however, review the parcel to attempt to give you some idea as to your proposal's desirability. Under your original application request, a check for $400.00 was submitted. This is the fee for the interim use permit request. However, the request is technically for an earthwork permit, thus, this fee is incorrect. The City Council approved fee schedule provides that grading or earthwork permits moving over 1,000 cubic yards of materials, use the Uniform Building Code fee schedule. I have attached a copy of this fee schedule for your review. As you can see, it is a sliding fee based upon the volume of material to be moved. We are accepting the $400 check as payment towards fees associated with If t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Zwiers and Mr. Brill May 5, 1992 Page 2 this request. You will be required to provide information relative to the amount of material that will be moved on an annual basis so that the fees can be set. The Moon Valley operation will be liable for the difference in fees between the $400 and future fees placed against the operation. Sincerely, Paul Kr ss, AICP Director of Planning PK:v pc: Roger Knutson, City Attorney City Engineering Department C I TY O F 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 October 1, 1991 Mr. Anthony Gleekel Seigel , Brill, Greupner and Duffy Suite 1350 100 Washington Square Minneapolis, MN 55401 Dear Mr. Gleekel : This letter is being prepared in reference to your submittal for an earth work permit for Moon Valley Aggregates and their operations in the City of Chanhassen. As you are probably aware, we received your application in two parts during the first two weeks of September. Based upon my review of this submittal , I have concluded that it is incomplete and we are unable to process it further until you have provided additional documentation as requested. In this letter I have summarized the application requirements, what is missing, and what needs to be supplied to satisfy the ordinance. 1 . Name and address of the operator and owner of the land, together with proof of ownership. If the operator and owner are different, both must sign the application. Finding: We do not question Moon Valley Aggregates control over their site which is described in the legal description submitted with the application. However, your application does show the potential of grading activity on sites which we do not believe are controlled directly by the applicant, or in any case, we have not been provided with evidence that this is true. This includes proposed grading activity in the City of Eden Prairie, which would be required to undertake your alternate land use grading plan. Similarly, parcels located west of your site which contain existing single family homes are also shown being graded under the alternate land use plan. Since you are showing the potential of grading in the City of Eden Prairie, we would like to have evidence that you have discussed this matter with the City and that you are proceeding on track with a similar request in that community. We are also asking you to clarify the ownership issue. Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 2 2 . Correct legal description of property where the activity is proposed to occur. Finding: As noted above, we have the correct Vlegal description for the main property owned by Mooney Aggregates but no similar description has been provided for other parcels mentioned above wherein grading activity is proposed. 3 . Certified abstract listing of names of all owners within 500 feet of the property boundary described above. Finding: We do have in our possession a list of property owners prepared by Carver County Abstract and Title. However, we believe the 500 foot list was based upon the property now in control of Moon Valley and not the ultimate expansion of the Moon Valley gravel pit that is being proposed in your alternate land use plan. 4 . Specification of the following using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys . a . Proposed grading. Finding: You have submitted two completely different grading plans for our review. Nowhere do you indicate which grading plan you actually propose to undertake and since they are substantially different, we can only proceed based upon conjecture on our part as to which one you actually intend to use. Thus, the question of which plan are we to review must be answered before we can proceed. b. Proposed stockpile sites. Finding: You have indicated existing stockpile sites on your operation plan map. Your submitted statement indicates that additional stockpiles may be created but you have neglected to provide information as to where these are to occur. c. The physical relationship of the proposed designated site to the community and existing development. ems Finding: In reviewing this information, it generally of the problems noted eabove� exception be acceptable with the ptio You indicated grading activity, on at least one of your plans, extending into another community for which no information is provided and also grading activity that impacts existing single family homes located west of your site, again, for which no information has been provided. Under the alternate land use grading plan, we are unsure as to how you propose to Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 3 maintain public access to existing homes, andin fact, which existing homes would remain untouched by your activity. d. Site topography and natural features, including location of water courses and water bodies. Finding: The information provided is generally acceptable. e. Description and quantity of material to be excavated. Finding: Your response to this question is an indication that you have not estimated the quantity of material that is to be excavated and you point out that a calculation could be made by comparing the existing and proposed grades. We agree that a calculation could be made and should be made by you to complete this application. f. Depth of water tables throughout the area. Finding: You indicated that you have no information on water tables except that which the city could provide. This city has no information on water tables in this area but we do have _ a significant concern. In other areas where excavation has occurred into this bluff line, there have been a series of underground water sources that have been breached and which make creating stable slopes a difficult task at best. To seriously pursue this matter, you might want to consult with the Carver County Soil Conservation Service and similar agencies. Your indication that you want the ability to mine below ground water levels raises additional issues regarding water quality protection and potential impact upon other properties in the area that rely on ground water supplies. More information is needed to clarify these points. g. Location and depth of wells, buried garbage, water, and fill . Finding: The information provided is acceptable. 5. Purpose of the operation. Finding: The information provided is acceptable. 6. Estimated time required to complete the operation. Finding: The information you have provided does not provide any information on a schedule of completion. Your correlating the ability of your providing a grading schedule with the city' s ability to give a specific time in which public utilities would be made available to the site is inappropriate Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 4 and irrelevant. Furthermore, if utilities are truly desired, your request should be made in writing to the City Council to receive formal consideration. 7 . Hours and months of operation. Finding: The information you have provided is acceptable for review. However, you should note that your request to operate 24 hours per day throughout the year is inconsistent with ordinance standards (Section 7-45 [2] ) . 8 . A tree survey indicating the location and type of all trees over inches ithe tr trees . In a heavily must be indicated wooded on theea survey. the boundaries ries o Finding: The information you have provided is inadequate to develop an understanding of the impact this operation will have on tree cover. You have basically outlined the tree area that will remain after grading is completed on each plan but provided little information on existing tree cover, nor what will be lost. 9 . An end use landscaping plan and interim screening plan for the operation. Finding: You have indicated that an end use landscaping plan has not been developed since the end uses have not been determined at this time. This is unacceptable and the ordinance assumes that the site will be restored and landscaped in an acceptable manner regardless of what uses may ultimately be on the property. This requirement is an integral part of the site restoration process. 10 . The plan of operation, including processing, nature of the processing, equipment, location of the plant, source of water, disposal of water, and reuse of water. Finding: The information which you have submitted is inadequate to meet the criteria established by this requirement. You have provided no understanding of how process water, if any, will be handled. In addition, you have indicated that in the future there may be needs to bring additional equipment onto the site for allied processing operations. The permit that will be issued will be specific for individual operations and cannot be modified without approval by the City Council . 11. Travel routes to and from the site and the number and type of trucks that will be used. Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 5 Finding: You have provided rudimentary information on travel routes but no information on the type and number of trucks that will be used. This figure could reasonably and easily be provided once you have calculated the material you are hauling. It is important to have this information so that the city and MnDOT can assess the need for regulatory hours of operation and possible safety improvements such as turn lanes on Hwy. 169/212 . 12 . Plans for drainage, erosion control, sedimentation and dust control . Finding: The information you have provided is sufficient to begin a review of your proposals, but additional information will certainly be required before final recommendation can be given due to the lack of detail contained in your submittal . For example, there is no erosion control plan or information concerning drainage flows, on-site retention, etc. 13 . A restoration plan providing for the orderly and continuing restoration of all disturbed land to a condition equal to or better than that which existed prior to the earth work. Such plans shall illustrate, using photographs, maps, and surveys, or appropriate, the following: a. The contour of the land prior to the excavation and proposed contours after completion of the excavation and after completion of restoration. Finding: As noted earlier, you have given us two plans with no indication as to which one you actually would be undertaking. Until you have made up your mind on this question, I cannot see how we can proceed with reviewing your proposal . b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of top soil and overburden. Finding: See Comment #4b. c. Schedule setting forth timetable for excavation of land lying within the extraction facility. Finding: See Comment W6. Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 6 d. The grade of all slopes after restoration based upon proposed land uses, description, and type of quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be conducted. Finding: As indicated earlier, there is no revegetation plan except for your comment that you had put grass seed on disturbed areas. e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve final restoration as well as intermittent stabilization. Finding: I cannot see that this question has been responded to in any way. 14 . A statement identifying the applicant ' s program to ensure compliance with the permit conditions, a method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a result of complaints. Finding: Your statement of intent as to a willingness to respond to reasonable complaints is a good starting point. However, we would be seeking more specific information, for example, how you respond to complaints regarding materials being tracked out onto the state highway, conflicts with traffic on the state highway and surrounding roads, problems with dust control , and similar concerns. 15. Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental assessment work sheet is required by the city. Finding: To date, staff has not requested that an EAW be prepared for this project; however, the city reserves the right to do so pending a review of the project and completed submittal . 16. A wetland alteration permit, if required by City Code, shall be processed concurrently with excavation permit application. Finding: There are no designated wetlands on the property that are apparent from maps available to us at this time. If such wetlands are found, city ordinance does provide protection for them. However, until this occurs, no wetland alteration permit is required. 17 . Other information required by the city. Finding: At this time, due to the lack of detail provided in your permit application, I am unable to make a finding in this area. ) Mr. Anthony Gleekel October 1, 1991 Page 7 In reviewing your application request, we in no way have determined whether or not the information that you have provided represents a position that can be supported by city staff. The purpose of this letter is not to evaluate the issues, but rather to respond to the application proposal you have submitted. I or my staff will be available at your convenience to discuss these matters in further detail . Sincerely, OrPaul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning PK:v pc: Roger Knutson, City Attorney Don Ashworth, City Manager Charles Folch, City Engineer City Council Planning Commission Tom Zwiers, G & T Trucking Co. John Voss, Urban Planning & Design, Inc. CPMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Apr 3 ,92 9 :06 No .001 P .03 :••,.,: .:•.r,•'--�=�-`� •sem',:. .; :;. • ,,. 11::.:."•,....:-.;11.;::: ".-:r::::: APR 2 19.2 �z�TR�cT aovRr STATE OF t NHC50TA m. m. COUNTY OF CARVER CARVER GCain' CAt1RTS y iRST JUDICIAL LISTRICZ• c tV CA N goon Valley AggreoRte, Inc. , _ "A S A Minnesota corporation, s Plaintiff, FINDINGS CF FACT' CO)iC1,QSION5 OF LAW an — ORDER FOR ,7f.DG}E1iT ry VS. City of Chanhassen, Defendant. File No. 9C-27099 _ _ - , The above-entitled mater came on for hearing before the o undersigrI on November 25th and 26th, 1991, pureusnt to the - 0 Court's ander •of October 10, 1991- The ratter Baas soheQ•:.1tter c --3 0 an evidentiary he7.ring following the defendant's original ,lotion n5 of July :,6, 1991 which sought an Order directing that the . pla_ntiff cease the operation of its riini.ng businesE because of its failure to rake appropriate application for an Earth Work -T Court was to determine the legal status s�C Permit. In addition, thez b 0= any r+tning activities on the North (Znn reran) Parcel. m J. F. Brill, Jr. and Anthony J. Gleekel, 100 Washington ND w Square, Suite 1350, i re3 for and polis, MN 55401 apI on COCD QO — (71 behai`- Of the plaintiff; Thomas ff. Scott, 1380 Corporate Center co Curve till, Ea;sn, MN 55121 appeared for and on behalf of the _. 3Rrendan:. Based upon all of the files, records and proceedings herein, - the Court now rakes the following: :FINDINGS Or FACT 7 0 1. Plaintiff (Moon Valley) is a Minnesota corporation which N .F CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT 8 FUCHS , P .A Apr 3 ,92 9 :07 No .001 P .04 operates a gravel mining business on an approximately 40-acre parcel c= property located at 100 Flying Cloud Drive, in t'ne City Pc of Chanhassen, Carver county, Minnesota. Co N.) p. plaintiff, and 1-;.a predecessors in title, have ownei` and _ __3 z c continuously conducted a riving operation on the lower or CT southerly portion of its property ]morn as the Moon Valley parcel Lk.) and legal described as follows: All that part of Gov't Lot 1, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23 , Carver County, Xinneso:a, which lies Northerly of trun:c highway no. 212. m (Hereinafter "south Parcel". ) n 3. Wallace Gri.epentroc purchased this 40-acre South Paroel O on wbiCh the Xoon Va)ley Gravel Pit is located in 1959. This giSouth Parcel was used as a ski area until the mid-19Eos a7.4 has been used as a rifle range since 1961. The mining operation on the So'_th Parcel existed prior to the adoption of ordinances of the City of ViIage of Chanhassen which prohibit or regulate ,lining. 4 . Griepertroo purchased, on a contract for deed, a 45-acre E parcel on top of the bluffs from Fred and Elizabeth Ziwn'CFnan on a) _ N December _, 1973. This parcel is legally described es follows: CO All that part of the Southeast Quarter ;SE-1/4 j of Section v, 2 5 , Township 116, Range 23, lying Easterly of the Easterly rn right of way of the Chicago and NorthwesternRailway (fcrrerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway) cntai 43 acres, rwre or less, according tc the Goverment Survey thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. (Hereinafter "Mortz parcel•. ) 5. On 1'ebrvary 6, 1972, Chanhassen adopted Zoning Ordinance Vv. 47 'heTeinafter "1972 boning Ordinance") which ilea effective :° 0 w 2 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Apr 3 .92 9 :07 No .001 P .05 �'�•. •7:•'. "�- ;.Thr:..�•'�'•� aV'•. .• ..�.�..lx..: :�': .r i...►_..i.Y1...rV. upon publication on March 9, 1972. dining was allowed under the c, PO 1972 Zoning Ordinance only pursuant to a conditional use permit. N I 6. The gravel nine on the South Parcel is a valilCD nonconforming use since it was in existence prior to the 1972 Zoning Ordinance. - 7. There was no substantial or reco9hi:atle m:. ting activity on the bort Parcel prior to the late summer of 1973. 8. On or about February 23, 1973, Griepentrcq applied far conditional use per3r.its (hereinafter "CUs") to oyera.t his rifle m Canoe and gravel mine on the South Parcel. PO CO • 9. At a planning ooa _ssion hearing on the combined o application on June 12, 1973, Fred Z irmearnan indicated he 'wanted to sell his aF acres ;north Parcel) , but had been told that it '3 ide.s not saleable because of Griepentrog'r+ rifle range. 1G. TT7e Planning Commission subsequently in July of 1973 tali.ed the CUP App1 icat:on at the request of Griepantrog's 'attorney, while Griepentrcg negotiated a purchase of finrt rsan'e z property. ll. That following the purchase of the Zimmerman property rn by Criepentrog, the CUP application was never pieced back on Cc the Planning Con.Aission agenda for further review or v, CD consideration. 12. That following his purchase of the Korth Parcel :n 1973, Griepentrog rid remove clay from a portion of the ZiTaeroian property. :'his mineral extraction was relatively insignificant and did not involve the reioval of any gravel. ,o 3 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Apr 3 , 92 9 : 08 No .001 P . 06 • :3 . 3e.wesn 1974 anl, 1986, there was a row:well of an o, insignificant amount of these materials fron the North Parce: . _ 14 . In 1956, the City of Chanhassen adopted a new zon.ng op IV ordnance which required a mineral extraction pit and an , i interir use permit for. Mining, but ellowcd pre-existing CX — noncor.iorning uses to continue. 15. In 1986, Griepentrog sold both parcels to Thoras Zwi ars, the present teener of !boon Valley. Until the f511 of C-3 1988, there continued to be no substantial wining or pine=al c _ Cr extraction from the !Tort:: Parcel. Cr C, 16 . in the fall of 1988 , when Zwiers started min.ini clay cn p the Korth Farrel , the City objected to the activity end *Soon pc Va1:.ey stopped the o:;ning. 17 . Plaintiff does not have any nonconforming minute zee rights on the North Parcel because it was pct a use of the land existing at the tine of adoption of the 1972 zoning ordinance. 18. Tne City is not estopped trop enforcing its zoning RZ regulationz relating :o mining on the North Parcel. 19 . On May 14 , 1S90 , Chanhassen adopted Ord inanoe Vo. 12e, cn effective Hay 24 , 1?G0 , regulating "earthwork" operations, which co cc are defined as "excavating , mining, filling or grading" Cr a; activities . 20. The ordinance, with certain exceptions, requires a person to obtain n pernit before engaging in Qxxthwark activities. Existing operations, such as plaintiff's business, had air months until november 24 , 1990, to either Obtain a pern.it Z c 4 cr CAMPBELL . KNUTSON , SCOTT R FUCHS , P .A Apr 7 .92 9 :08 No .001 P .07 t • • .y •�.i:. .....'i .'a• ...• ....,' ...:.K' .•...:.r,w-�..:.a... ..... 1.!.. .. ` .. ._. ..•is •' .. ..- - `•, cr cease opsrations. — 7 21.. 'Ihe express purpose of the ordinance is ;o prorote the ry health, safety and welfare of the community by establishing 3 reasonab.e uniform standards and controls for excavating, wining, filling and grading activities wl thin the City. The ordinance V1 requires the applicant to submit various types of information dm Sr about Its operation, including a site restoration plan. It also sets forth standards for setbacks, fencing, appearance and s reening. methods and Uses of operations and restoration of the ry property. T:a ordinance permits deviations from these standards for existinc cperatf_ons, when it is not feasible to comply becaA:se o= -� Pa preexisting conditions, when because of topographic or other > conditions it is not possible tc comply and when alternates that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standard are agreed upon 22. In its April 2S, 1991 Order, t1.iE Court determined that Chanhassen has the legal authority to require plaintiff :o obtain an Ba=th Work Permit under its Ordinance No. 126 adopted C May 24, 295c. The Court further ordercd: Plaintiff Moon Va_ley shall wake an application for a permit T pursuant to ordinance #128, as adopted by the City cf Chanhassen, within 30 days of the date of this Order. In cn the event that Plaintiff fails to makC such application fc_ an Ordinance #126 permit within 30 days of the data of this Order, the City of Chanhassen shall have the option to seek an order of this court requiring Plaintiff Moo' Valley istnediately cease its mining operations. Said permit shall be ccnsidered according to the City of Chanhassen's normal course of permit application determinations. 23. On September 19 , 1991, pursuant to this Court's earlier Order, plaintiff filed an application with the City of 5 �' CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT F. FUCHS , P .A Apr 3 ,92 9 :09 No .001 P .08 :.: yeti .. -• C .. �=i..:.♦°y ra.'X•' •._.."i'3:a..:�Z..•i.•. SvV:..�'Q ti:.:.�:«` ,7 • •�l �. ..:.a. iy.... 'y,..•i� : .•ui.d 1..•:..» .....: iP.: .'t S..�.•i.l4..... yin�:w••ti snyl.-. Chanhassen. This application, prepared by Jehn Voss, a professional planner, proposed two totally different mining plans for the property. The Court specifically finds that Plan A metco none of the express purposes of the ordinance nor did it provide the defendant with any reasonable information concerning the cr ongoing and end use of the parcels. Evidence subanitted at theen tiro of trial indicated that the plaintiff intended to proceed with Plan B as set forth in the application end the plaintiff n offered no credible or reasonable basis for the inclusion of Plan A in the application. Given the apparent lack of diligence or. RD c) the part of - the plaintiff in submitting .his application, folld:ing the Court's Crder of April 25, 1991, it *is notgi unreasonable to conclude that Plan A was intended to cicnd anc E5 complicate the issues. 24 . By letter dated October 2 , 1991, the defendant's Director of Planning , Paul Krauss, advised the plaintiff regarding certain deficiencies in the application. While representatives of beth parties testified as to their willingness o to address these purported deficiencies, each has been unw_llin7 v_ to enter into meaningful settl.enent discussions leading to a oo _ resolu:icm of these i eeues• v' .o. 25 . John Voss, who testified on behelt of the plaintiff, Q' stated the plaintiff 's willingness to supplement its application with additional information relating tc the following : (i) revisinc the grades of the slopes in ite end use plan, ;i.) providing additional water tab_e information, (iii) identifying — c 6 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Apr 3 .92 9 : 09 No .001 P .09 ., • Y•,"�1.� +.. ... -:.Y‘'•. wl.�.. ... .-..� ..i._ .i 1;I:. .l. ri.'..:d•wL...:�.. _i......�.1� :4.'r��.Gw ��.t ..r the locuticn of certain tree types in wooded areas on the site m> and [iv) designating the type of trucks to to used in its m_ning N operations. In addition, the letter of October 1, 1591 ty Paul Krause to the plsintitf 's representative clearly indicates that there are a number of issues within the application which are not cn disputed. 2E . That carte-n of the application requirenente are unreasonable and their application az interpreted by the Cr)defendant is unduly burdensome to :he plaintiff considcr_ng the 4- duration and extent of the existing nining operation on the South Parcel. CONCLUSIOTJS OF 1.1x 1. That the p:aintiff is entitled to the status of n 3awful nonconforming use as a mining operation on its South Parcel under the cnanhasssn zoning ordinances as amended. plaintiff 's application for ar. ?' 2 . Base.. upon plan Be P • earthwork permit represents a reasonable response to the requirements of Ordinance tso. 126, provided the plaintiff supplements its application within the next thirty (30) days with c the following information: (a) a revision of the End L'se Grading Pian to asoften CD the 2:1 slopes; (h) provide additional information on the ground water table, available from public and private souroas, and also fron several test hcles, if sufficient information is not otherwise available; (cl provide specific information as to the location of tree types within the wooded areas on the CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Apr 3 ,92 9 : 10 No .001 P . 10 • .✓•l r r..:...ti ..- •r:: . .:.. .i.' `'••• :3J':::'.:f'.. •l.:r• .sem. plaintiff's property: and n> -o ( d) identify the types of trucks to Le used in plaintiff 's minins Operation. Ni If tear holes are required, plaintiff ui.li have an N tolating additional thirty (30) days to supply the information re w ground water tables. 3. Xs a lawful nonconforming use on the Sou=h Farce: , on plaintiff is entitled tc continua its mining operatics under liaxhi F b , 80 N.N.2d 863 (Kinn. 1957) , to rine its C) m property to the limits of its mineral bed . rr 4. The city is entitled to exercise its police pater to c)0 inpose regulations on plaintiff's x.ining operation, pcoviced the no • regulations este based upon the health and safety of the conarsni�y and provided they do not exceed other const!mutional _irLitatio:-s oil the City's police powers. 5. lcss zel�_ted_ tO� h af i �1tQ BEty 'ssule8, clearly identified by the City, the city does not have the right to dcnand add it_'onul data from plaintiff tc be usod for the purpose C • o f : Q; _ ) uniting the quantity of material wined t' .-- plaintiff : Cr (b) prohibiting pining on any portion of plaintiff's property, such as the slope or the Wood.ed areas: CT (c) limiting the depth to which the property may be _ ZLlnred, based uton plaintiff's willingness �n its property to thegrades (a revised.) shoam Plan B �n !.ts proposed End Use Plan, designated its application; (d) 1_niting the time within which mining is =c be completed: and -� c 8 . CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Apr 3 , 92 9 : 10 No . 001 P . 11 . (e) preventing the plaintiff from continuing end maintaining its ongoing mining operation to theAmp extent and scope to which it present:), eS:ists. 6. :J;.3es$_ _ . ed o he. _ • •, -t . sou -s, clearly identified by the City, the City does not have the right to issue Co an Earth Work Permit relatinc :o the South Parcel of the plaintiff's property that has the purpose or effect of: (a) limit the quantity of material tiir.cd from t2'_e plaintiff's property: • (a) prohibiting mining on any portion of the property, such as slopes or wooded areas; (c) linit_ng the depth to which the property may be mined, so lone_ as plaintiff has indicated. its willingness to bring the p=ope rty to the (as revised) shorn on an end use plan des_{gr ate6. Plan A in its application; (d) limits tine within which the mining operat_on gust be corp.eted; and ( e) preventing the plaintiff !row continuing andAE maintaining its ongoing mining operation to the extent and scope to which it presently exists. 7 . Because Of the :nonconforming use status of plaintiff's mining operation, the City may not require the plaintiff to apply z for and receive am -interim permit as a prerequisite to the 2 C issuance of an Earth Work permit. . Based upon the foregoing " Findings of Fact and a Conclusions of Lem, IT IS BERM ORDERED TRT: 1. Plaintiff shall supplement its original application with the additional information lister in the Conclusion of Law No. 2 above within the next thirty (30; days or sixty (60; days if test roles are required. 9 ren nNl a /'J'L 7 . 11 IVU VV1 r z- .1 •• - .. . r. .�;..•.• .I•:. : . '_. .,•. Vii,` •-i • • 4. • ;1.4 .'•. :}. ,+I•t -..rC ,. .'ti•• _i��. _ 1••+s•�%.• •lsr:"....:.�,•ri'h:,.'�r.. __44.:••..n.i'i3:•••_ .r_..s:` t.4.3.0' 2. Upon subr.issioft of the supplenentri inforration by ttleint1'f, the City shall process plaintiff 's aop1icat.ou ,n N accordance with t.t:e foregoing conclusions of Lam. ° •co LIT JtJDGtENT 3E ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated : April 2, 1992 BY THE CO ZT: tr P 2 T. ming, Dodge . 8 —11 O rn • Cr CC CT Cr. • lD CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Apr 3 ,92 9:06 No .001 P.02 J.E. Bri�-, Jr. 6 Anthcry J. Glcekal Attorneys at. 1.a' STA:E CSF 1�;`T.;=�OT.S 1CC' tirshington Squire, Suite 1350 llin::Earolis, MN 55401 CCicril• NOTICE OF: ti E .0 FlL!N3 I.:. Scott " U ENTRY OF DCME! AttDr:.ey at Law c(71 1 380 CorTc_ate Ce) t etr C•.-rue 4317 g5n, Yui 55121 0 COC'KT1N3 CF JUDGMENT —J • • • c) m IN E.. CCVL,T ZI=E i . GG-27:99 Moon A'Z1ley Agg=egatc, Inc. , a YIJ Corp. vs. City ct ChariE►assa-. 8 n 0 c You are be=eb? uv:i.fiet that .n chs sbcvt g_:ter that or. 4-2-32 1: • Tind:-gs aad Cade: vss duly Or3cr was duly file?. Fi:c'i;gs c_` Fact, Conclus_ora of Lal and Ord.r 'far Jud:ae:t .as duly T, =led, Judgment Eutomailcal_y stays 3: days. arc Ju44p.cnt 1.-as •lu l • esterad. 3u:mac ac :yes :uiy docketed in the su ront of S ' ' ' ' • rn Otc•er co • cry • Cn Dated: 4-2--92 .GMCILY FSS, Curt l�ds�.istrteor Co;ice attached. 5y CIL* ?h 4.12)= 4c8-120I • ' '" reputy Court Rcai_ist actor. Carver Ceuz� Cocrttou_e 6:0 East 4th Street CI a s its, 3 S31 B • N A taut and cerracL copy of .his Iii:i•o* has 'Poen served by ma=1 upon 2Sa partici he7ein at :he lost kao,.:. ad::ees oC eE.ca, yurswst tc Minnesota Rules cf C:vim s:o:ec_rc. Rule V.1:14 ep : :ity of Eden Prairie den .ty Offices rairie 7600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 •Telephone (612) 937-2262 May 18, 1992 Paul Krauss Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Interim Use Permit For Moon Valley Aggregate Dear Mr. Krauss: Thank you for referring the application for Interim Use Permit for the Moon Valley Aggregate. I have completed a preliminary review of the plans submitted and offer comments in the following areas: Access, Erosion, Storm Water Quality, Minnesota Wildlife Refuge, Environmental Impacts, and EAW. 1. Access The plan shows an access road extending from the northeast corner of the property through land in Eden Prairie owned by Alex Dorenkemper. Any development for residential subdivision in the future will require a land use application and development process administered through the City of Eden Prairie. Alex Dorenkemper is currently in the process of subdividing 46 acres of land into 10 acre lots. It is our understanding that the western 10 acres would be sold to the owner of Moon Valley Aggregate. Since the enduse residential plan relies on access through Eden Prairie, access must be by a public street. The dedication of a public road through Mr. Dorenkemper's property, which is - zoned rural, would create 2 parcels less than 10 acres. This would require a variance in the rural area. The subdivision of this property may not be possible until sewer and water is available in the year 2000. The subdivision plan as proposed depicts what appears to be lots less than 10 acres in size within the rural service area of Chanhassen. Does this require a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment? R_ECHVE . MAY .. c, 199? Paul Krauss May 18, 1992 Page 2 2. Erosion The Bluffs in this area are composed of highly erodible sandy soils which are difficult to control, stabilize, and revegetate once disturbed. I am concerned about the ability to stabilize a 2 1/2 to 1, 400 foot long slope along the Bluff. How will the site be revegetated and ground cover established on the steep slope area? Will the construction period erosion control activities on site conform to those recommended in the MPCA best management practices or equivalent? 3. Storm Water Quality The Development of this site as proposed may contribute to nonpoint source - water quality problems in the Minnesota River primarily to erosion and sedimentation within the immediate watershed. The plan as proposed does not indicate how storm water runoff is proposed to be presettled and pretreated before discharge into the 100 year flood plan of the Minnesota River. Will the storm water ponds as proposed be designed according to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program {NURP} criteria? 4. Minnesota Wildlife Refuge This site has a potential to impact the lower Minnesota Wildlife Refuge area by decreasing natural diversity of plant and animal communities present, disrupting traditional routes or areas used for local migration or refuge during periods of flooding. A gravel mining operation may be inconsistent with the objectives of encouraging land uses compatible with the Minnesota River Bluff. Is this Bluff area within a Shoreland area and if so, what provisions of the new State Shoreland ordinance regarding Bluff setbacks and impact zones are applicable to this property? 5. Environmental Impacts A gravel mining operation may have significant environmental impacts. Has an archeological or historic significance survey been prepared for the property which would indicate the location or presence of historic properties or burial mounds on the property? In addition, has a biological diversity survey been conducted of the property? It is possible that species which are protected under the DNR's natural heritage program exist on site. Removal of a significant amount of natural vegetation will contribute to increased erosion. Paul Krauss May 18, 1992 Page 3 Part of the natural drainage patterns in the northern portion of the site drain directly onto property within Eden Prairie. Can an area of natural tree cover be retained along the eastern portion of the property to act as a visual barrier to mitigate impacts on future development of land area in Eden Prairie? 6. EAW Considering the potential for environmental impact as described above including ground water contamination, erosion, Bluff impact on the National Wildlife Refuge area, an environmental worksheet would be appropriate for a project of this scale and magnitude. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Chris Enger Director of Planning KRAUSS.CE.js § 7.21 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 7.21. Certificate of occupancy. No building or structure of groups R3,R4,M,A,E,I,H,B,or R,division 1 occupancy,shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy thereof. (Ord. No. 118, § 1, 1-22-90j Secs. 7.22-7.29. Reserved. ARTICLE III. EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING* Sec. 7.30. Purposes and intent. The purpose of this article is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community and to establish reasonable uniform limitations, standards, safeguards and controls for exca- vating, mining, filling, and grading within the City. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading permits for more than fifty (50) cubic yards, but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve-month period may be processed administratively. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading of one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material or more in a twelve-month period shall be processed in the same manner as an interim use permit. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5.14.90; Sec. 7.31. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings respectively ascribed to them: Earth work or work the earth: Excavating, mining, filling or grading. Excavating or mining: (1) The removal of the natural surface of the earth, whether sod, dirt, soil, sand, gravel, stone, or other matter, creating a depression. • (2) Any area where the topsoil or overburden has been removed for the purpose of re moving earthly deposits or minerals. (3) Any area that is being used for stockpiling, storage, and processing of sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and other minerals. Filling or grading: To change the contour of the land. Overburden: Those materials which lie between.the surface of the earth and material deposit to be extracted. `Cross references—Zoning generally,Ch.20;landscaping and tree removal,§20-1176 et seq.; mineral extraction, § 20-1351 et seq. Supp.No.3 388 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-34 Restoration: To renew land to self-sustaining long-term use which is compatible with continguous land uses, present and future, in accordance with the standards set forth in this article. Topsoil: That portion of the overburden which lies closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of vegetation. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-32. Permit required. Except as otherwise provided in this article, it shall be unlawful for anyone to work the earth without having first obtained a written permit from the city authorizing the same in accordance with this article.Active earth work operations that predate this article that do not _ have a permit shall cease operations or obtain an earth work permit within six(6)months after the adoption of this article. Current permit holders shall come into compliance with the terms of this article no later than the renewal date of such permit holder's Earth Work permit. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-33. Exemptions from permit requirements. The following activities do not require an Earth Work permit: (11 Excavation for a foundation,cellar, or basement of abuilding if a building permit has been issued. (2, Grading a lot in conjunction with building if a building permit has been issued. _ (3 Excavation by the federal, state, amity, city, or other government agencies in con- nection with construction or maintenance of roads, highways, or utilities. (4:, Curb cuts, utility hookups, or street openings for which another permit has been issued by the City. (5; Excavation or filling of less than fifty (50) cubic yards in a calendar year. (6. Plowing and tilling for agricultural purposes. (7) Earth work in accordance with a development contract approved under the city's subdivision ordinance. If the development contract requires that a letter of credit or other security be posted, the letter of credit or other security must be posted before any excavation takes place. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-34. Exempt earth work. Earth work that is exempt from obtaining a permit pursuant to section 7-33 shall: (1) Comply with the city's erosion control standards. (2) Maintain natural or existing drainage patterns. (3) Comply with the city's other ordinance requirements including tree preservation and wetland protection. (Ord- No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Supp.No.3 889 § 7.35 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 7.35. Applications for earth work permits. An application for an earth work permit shall be processed in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city Code relating to interim use permits except that earth work of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve-month period may be approved administratively. An application for a permit shall contain: (1) The name and address of the operator and owner of the land, together with proof of ownership. If the operator and owner are different, both must sign the application. (2) The correct legal description of the property where the activity is proposed to occur. (3) A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property described above. (4 Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: a. Proposed grading plan. b. Proposed stockpile sites. c. The physical relationship of the proposed designated site to the community and existing development. — d. Site topography and natural features including location of watercourses and water bodies. e. The description and quantity of material to be excavated. f. The depth of water tables throughout the area. g. The location and depth of wells and buried garbage, water, and fill. (5) The purpose of the operation. (6) The estimated time required to complete the operation. (7) Hours and months of operation. (8) A tree survey indicating the location and type of all trees over six(6)inches in caliper. In a heavily wooded area only the boundaries of the tree areas must be indicated on the survey. (9) An end use landscape plan and interim screening plan for the operation period. (10) The plan of operation, including processing, nature of the processing and equipment, location of the plant source of water, disposal of water and reuse of water. (11) Travel routes to and from the site and the number and type of trucks that will be used. (12) Plans for drainage, erosion control, sedimentation and dust controL (13) A restoration plan providing for the orderly and continuing restoration of all dis- turbed land to a condition equal to or better than that which existed prior to the earth work. Such plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and surveys where appro- priate, the following. Supp.No.3 390 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-36 :i. The contour of the land prior to excavation and proposed contours after comple- tion of excavation and after completion of restoration. b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of topsoil and overburden. c. A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation of land lying within the extraction facility. d. The grade of all slopes after restoration, based upon proposed land uses, and description of the type and quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be conducted. e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve final restoration as well as intermittent stabilization. (14; A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure compliance with the permit conditions, method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a result of complaints. (15) Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental assessment worksheet, if required by the city. (16' A wetland alteration permit, if required by the city Code, which shall be processed concurrently with the excavation permit application. (17) Other information required by the city. (c) Applicants for earth work permits involving less than one thousand(1,000)cubic yards of material must only furnish the information specified in subsections(b)(1),(2),(4a),(5),(6),(7), (8,, (12), (13), (16( and (17). (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5.14-90) Sec. 7.36. Processing of earth work permit applications. (a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the city council shall review the earth work permit application and shall approve the permit if it is in compliance with this article, the city's zoning ordinance, and other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. (b) A permit may be approved subject to conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements and purpose of this article.When such conditions are established,they shall be set forth specifically in the permit. Conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed operation,require the construction of structures, require the staging of extraction over a time period and require the alteration of the site design to ensure compliance with the standards in this article. (c) Earth work of more than fifty (50) but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve-month period may be approved by the city staff. The applicant shall submit the fee required by section 7-39 of the city Code. Upon receipt of a completed applica- tion, the city staff shall review the application within ten (10) working days and shall notify the applicant of the decision by mail. The city staff may impose such conditions as may be necessary to protect the public interest. Bonding may be required in an amount sufficient to ensure site restoration should the applicant default. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision may appeal the determination to the city council. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5.14.90) Supp.No.3 391 § 7-37 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 7.37. Termination of permit. (a) An earth work permit may be terminated for violation of this article or any condition of such permit. No earth work permit may be terminated until the city council has held a public hearing to determine whether such permit shall be terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination. The city council may establish certain conditions, which if not complied with, will result in immediate suspension of operations until the public hearing to consider termination of the permit can be held. (b) It shall be unlawful to conduct earth work after a permit has been terminated. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-38. Annual permits. (a) Earth work permits shall be renewed annually.The purpose of the annual permit is to monitor compliance with the conditions of approval. The city engineer,after consultation with appropriate city staff, may issue renewal permits upon satisfactory proof of compliance with the issued permit and this article. If the city engineer denies a renewal permit, the applicant may appeal the decision to the city council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) days after the city engineer denies the permit. (b) Request for renewal of an earth work permit shall be made sixty(60)days prior to the expiration date. If application or renewal is not made within the required time, all operations shall be terminated, and reinstatement of the permit may be granted only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in this article for an original permit. (c) An earth work permit which is limited in duration cannot be extended by the city engineer. Extensions must be approved by the city council. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7.39. Issuance of permit imposes no liability on city, relieves permittee of no responsibilities. Neither the issuance of a permit under this article, nor compliance with the conditions thereof with the provisions of this article shall relieve any person from any responsibility • otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit under this article serve to impose any liability on the city, its officers or employees for any injury or damage to persons or property.A permit issued pursuant to this article does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit which may be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation. (Ord. No. 128, { 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-40. Fees. A schedule of fees shall be determined by resolution of the city council,which may, from time to time, change such schedule. Prior to the issuance or renewal of any permit, such fees shall be paid to the city and deposited in the general fund. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Supp.No.3 392 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-44 Sec. 7.41. Agreement; irrevocable letter of credit. Prior to the issuance of an earth work permit, there shall be executed by the operator and landowner and submitted to the city an agreement to construct such required improvements and to comply with such conditions of approval as may have been established by the city council. The agreement shall run with the land and be recorded against the title to the property.The agreement shall be accompanied by a letter of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of the costs of complying with the agreement as determined by the city council. The adequacy of the letter of credit shall be reviewed annually by the city. The city engineer may direct the amount of the letter of credit be increased to reflect inflation or changed conditions. The city may draw against the letter of credit for noncompliance with the agreement and shall use the proceeds to cure any default. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7.42. Setbacks. Mining for the purpose of selling sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and other minerals shall not be conducted within: (1) One hundred (100) feet of an existing street or highway. (2) Thirty (30) feet of an easement for an existing public utility. (3 Three hundred (300) feet of the boundary of an adjoining property not in mining use except that aggregate processing that creates objectionable noise and dust,including, but not limited to, crushing, must be set back one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet from the boundary of adjoining property not in mining use. (Ord.No. 128, § 1, 5.14.90) Sec. 7-43. Fencing. During operations permitted under this article, any area where excavation slopes are steeper than one (1)foot vertical to one and one-half(1112)feet horizontal shall be fenced,unless — the city determines that they do not pose a safety hazard. Water storage basins shall also be fenced if the city determines the basins pose a potential safety hazard. Unless otherwise approved by the city, required fencing shall be a minimum six-foot-high chain link fence meeting Minnesota Department of Transportation standards for right-of-way fencing. An ini- tial fencing plan must be approved by the city council. The city engineer may subsequently authorize changes in the plan to accommodate changing conditions. (Ord. No. 128, § 1,5-14-90) Sec. 7-44. Appearance and screening. The following standards are required at the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1) Machinery shall be kept in good repair.Abandoned machinery,inoperable equipment and rubbish shall be removed from the site. (2) All buildings and equipment that have not been used for a period of one(1)year shall be removed from the site. Supp.No.3 393 § 7-44 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) All equipment and temporary structures shall be removed and dismantled not later than ninety (90) days after termination of the extraction operation and expiration of the permit. (4) Where practical, stockpiles of overburden and materials shall be used as a part of the screening for the site. (5) Where the city determines it is appropriate to screen off-site views, the perimeter of the site shall be planted with coniferous trees, bermed, or otherwise screened. Trees shall be at least six (6) feet in height at the time of planting. (6) Existing trees and ground cover shall be preserved to the extent feasible,maintained and supplemented by selective cutting, transplanting of trees, shrubs, and other ground cover along all setback areas. (7) Noxious weeds shall be eradicated. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7.45. Operations; noise; hours; explosives, dust, water pollution; topsoil preser- vation. The following operating standards shall be observed at the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1) The maximum noise level at the perimeter of the site shall be within the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. (2? Earth work shall be performed during only those times established by the city council as part of the permit unless otherwise provided in the permit. Such activity may only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Such activity is also prohibited on the following holidays:New Year's Day,Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Christmas Eve Day, and Christmas Day. (3) Operators shall use all practical means to eliminate vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation. (4) Operators shall comply with all applicable city,county, state and federal regulations for the protection of water quality,including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the protection of water • • quality.No waste products or process residue shall be deposited in any lake stream or natural drainage system.All waste water shall pass through a sediment basin before drainage into a stream. (5) Operators shall comply with all city, county, state and federal regulations for the protection of wetlands. (6) Operators shall comply with all requirements of the watershed where the property is located. (7) All topsoil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the state has been taken place according to the restoration plan. Supp.No.3 394 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-46 (8 Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke, and fumes caused by the operations. When atmospheric or other conditions make it im- possible to prevent dust from migrating off-site, operations shall cease. (9) To control dust and minimize tracking sand, gravel, and dirt onto public streets, internal private roads from a mine to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt or concrete for a distance of at least three hundred (300) feet to the intersection with a public roadway. All internal roads shall be swept and treated to minimize dust according to a schedule established by the city. The city may approve alternatives to paved internal streets that accomplish the same purpose. (10 All haul routes to and from the mine shall be approved by the city and shall only use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5.14.90) Sec. 7-46. Restoration standards. The following restoration standards shall apply to the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1) The plan must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. (2) Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after the extraction operation has moved sufficiently into another part of the extraction site. (3) All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the restoration plan submitted with the permit application. (4 Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self-sustaining. (5 All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of the site. In unique instances where the city council has reviewed proposals for water bodies at the time of approval of the overall plan and has determined that such would • be appropriate as an open space or recreational amenity in subsequent reuse of the site, water bodies may be permitted. (6 No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection to a sanitary or storm sewer.The city may waive this requirement if the site could not reasonably be served by gravity sewer notwithstanding the proposed operation. Fin- _ ished grades shall also be consistent with the established plan for the property res- toration. (7) Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground cover,wetland restora- tion, and other features. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Supp.No.3 395 § 7-47 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 7-47. Waiver. The city council may allow deviation from the standards set forth herein: (1) For operations that existed prior to the enactment of this article when it is not feasible to comply because of pre-existing conditions. (2) When because of topographic or other conditions it is not possible to comply. (3; When alternates that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standard set forth in this article are agreed upon by the city and the operator. (Ord. No. 128, § 1; 544.90) • • Supp.No.9 [The next page is 437) 396 • • 1988 EDITION APPENDIX TABLE NO.70-A--GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEESt 50 cubic yards or less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $15.00 101 to 1000 cubic yards 22.50 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards 30.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards—S30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $15.00 for — each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards—$165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards,plus$9.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 200,001 cubic yards or more-5255.00 for the first 200.000 cubic yards,plus$4.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans $30.00 per hour* (minimum charge—one-half hour) *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. TABLE NO. 70-B—GRADING PERMIT FEES' 50 cubic yards or less 515.00 51 to 100 cubic yards 22.50 101 to 1000 cubic yards—$22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus$10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards—$117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus$9.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards-5198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus$40.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards or more-5562.50 for the first 100.000 cubic yards, plus$22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours $30.00 per hour= (minimum charge—two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305(g) $30.00 per hour= 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $30.00 per hour2 (minimum charge—one-half hour) 'The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project. 20r the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision, overhead,equipment,hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 875 otoor CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: May 26, 1992 SUBJ: Final Ordinance Draft of the Residential Planned Unit Development District PROPOSAL/SUMMARY As you are aware, staff and the Planning Commission have been working on this item since last summer. The main issue of contention has continued to be minimum lot size requirements and whether the city should even offer lot sizes below the normal RSF District requirement of 15,000 square feet. Throughout these discussions, staff has consistently maintained that residential PUDs, if properly handled, offer much to not only the developer, but also to the community and to future residents of the project. During the time this discussion had taken place, we have seen one or more instances where a normally platted residential development could have significantly benefited by the flexibility and improvements that would have been offered under the PUD guidelines. At the same time, staff continues to recognize that there have been significant abuses of the PUD in the past, and we would not recommend proceeding with this item if we did not think that these problems could be resolved. We believe these improvements have been incorporated into the ordinance. The final draft of the ordinance does allow minimum lot sizes to be decreased below 15,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. However, what is significantly different from past practices is the following: 1. Wetland areas are excluded from lot area calculations so we will never have an instance where a 10,000 square foot lot is in reality a 6,000 square foot lot after the wetland is subtracted. This not only benefits minimum sized lots but also lots of any size where wetland impacts occur. 2. The developer is being required to demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into rs �41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission May 26, 1992 Page 2 any required setback or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard of 30 feet. 3. There is an intent section that is a preface to the PUD which clearly states that there should be a trade-off between meeting the developer's and city's goals for a given project. The smaller the average lot size is below 15,000 square feet, the greater the city's expectations are going to be for a trade-off in improved quality and environmental protection. The City Council discussed this item at their May 18, 1992, meeting, and although they did not reach a conclusion, a resolution as outlined above seemed to be consistent with what some of the individual council members were saying. The Planning Commission then discussed this item on the Wednesday, May 20, 1992, meeting, and I believe the final draft accurately reflects the direction that staff was given by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve amendments to Chapter 20, the Zoning Ordinance for Residential Planned Unit Developments. ATTACHMENTS - 1. Final draft ordinance. 2. City Council minutes dated May 18, 1992. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated May 20, 1992. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District of the Chanhassen City Code is amended as follows: Section 20-506. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Detached Residential Planned Unit Developments. Intent The use of Planned Unit Developments for residential purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains the potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements. Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of development, as evidenced by landscaping, construction quality, provision of public/private open and recreational space, should also be enhanced. As average lot sizes are decreased below 15,000 square feet, the city's expectations will be increased and it will be the developer's responsibility to demonstrate how the project meets the city's goals . a) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 10,000 square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations). The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. b) Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback - 90 feet. c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. 1 c) Minimum Lot Depth - 100 feet. d) Minimum Setbacks: PUD Exterior - 30 feet. Front Yard - 20 feet. Rear Yard - 30 feet Side Yard - 10 feet. Accessory Buildings and Structures -located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of 10 feet from property line. e) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands,wetlands, ponds, and scenic _ views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. f) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of - over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as - required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may - be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or _ exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Rear Yard - The rear yard shall contain at least two over-story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least 6 inches at 4 feet in height can be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. g) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will - provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this 2 requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it _ is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. Section 20-507. Standards and Guidelines for Single Family Attached or Cluster-Home PUD's. a) Single family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. b) Minimum lot sizes. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be allowed. However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. c) Setback Standards/Structures and Parking: PUD Exterior - 50 feet Interior Public Right-of-way - 20 feet Other setbacks - Established by PUD Agreement d) The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands,wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. e) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 3 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. — Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation and Yard Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. f) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: _ 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. 4 Section 2. Amend Section 20-505, Required General Standards, by adding the following: (m) Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the Plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty (50) foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one hundred (100) foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance,however,such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to 50%. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. 5 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p .m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad , Steve Emmings , Matt Ledvina , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Kate Aanenson; Planner II and Todd Gerhardt , Asst . City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR FRONTIER TRAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION . Public Present: Name Address Randy Smith 429 Pleasant View A . Hiscox 7500 Erie Larry J . Anderson 400 Cimarron Circle Ted H . deLancey 7505 Frontier Trail Lenny Kiskis 491 Big Horn Drive Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : I 'd like you to comment on two things . On the little map that we got , it shows the dock . Can you show us on the map where the dock sits in relation to their lot line? Aanenson: Okay , that dock that 's on here , I just put that in . They submitted that way back in 1981 and I don 't believe it 's in the same place . I defer that to the homeowners association to show you where that is . I don 't believe it 's in the same spot . Batzli : And the second thing is , your comment that the swimming beach , we shouldn 't have to discuss that . In your opinion , in staff 's opinion , the swimming beaches don 't negatively impact neighbors? Aanenson: The recreational beachlot ordinance does allow swimming beaches . Whether or not they meet the frontage requirements or not . That memo was made in 1987 so really we don 't need to discuss that . Batzli : Say that again . Aanenson: In 1987 there was an amendment to that that said all beachlots , whether or not they were non-conforming or not are allowed to maintain a swimming beach . Batzli : Okay . Would the applicant like to address the commission? If you could go up to the microphone and give us your name and address . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 2 Ted deLancey: I 'm Ted deLancey and I have been there prior to 1981 so I would just like to go back . As I said , as you said Kate , I think we 're being very straight forward . We 're not asking for anything differently . The one thing that I did want to bring up was last fall when we were here , when we saw when you had down on your check sheet . We made some changes to - that and submitted that to you and I 've got a copy from you this past week on that . There are some discrepancies . I think they 're small . Number one , it says that we did not have a picnic table , campfire grills , or _ seasonal docks and I 'm saying yes , in 1981 we did . It gets kind of a sticky wicket . We have had in previous times , no consistency to this boat . Some boats were stored on the property . Some years there were . Some years there were not . Boats moored , occasionally . The swimming beach is always , well since 1981 or prior to 1981 was there also . But you 're allowing the swimming beach is my understanding . Now one other thing . If I 'm correct . If I heard you correctly . I think you said that the boat launch was not in— the same position? Aanenson: No , the dock that was shown on the map that you originally _ submitted . Ted deLancey: The dock . Okay . The launch is in the same position it always has been in . Batzli : Can you illustrate on the overhead where the dock is currently located? Aanenson: I 've just got a photograph from last summer . Ted deLancey: The dock is approximately right here and the boat launch is right here . . . Resident: Ted , I think maybe that is not quite the location . The dock is approximately 25 feet to the left of the ramp . Emmings: Is that north? Resident : North of the ramp . . . Batzli : My concern on this point is that on the map that it 's drawn , it looks like the dock somehow encroaches on the neighboring property . Ted deLancey: I couldn 't hear you . I 'm sorry . Batzli : The dock appears to encroach on the neighbor 's property on the map that we have so I don 't want us to approve or pass on a recommendation that the Council approve a dock that 's somehow does encroach . Resident: Do you have an overhead of the map? Batzli : No . Aanenson: That was part of the original application when they came before for a conditional use permit . I just put that in there for your Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 3 edification . That is not where the boat , when I went out there this summer , it 's not where the dock is right now . Batzli : Okay . If I can summarize it . I don 't know if you have any other issues to cover but it sounds like what you 're disputing is perhaps that you would like grills and picnic tables? Ted deLancey: We have had that before and we would like that . And there has been some discussion in reference to canoe racks also . At one time we had canoes stored down there but again , not on a consistent year to year basis . Batzli : So are you in fact requesting canoe racks? The Association . Ted deLancey : If it 's not a problem . We don 't want to create a problem , okay? I guess in effect what I think you 're telling us is had we had canoe racks there , had we had boats there on a consistent basis , you would allow it . The fact that they have been sporadic , you may not . Is that correct? Batzli : I think so . What we 're looking for is , we 're trying to establish what your use was in 1981 from which time period forward you 'd be grandfathered . If you haven 't had consitent useage , then to that extent you probably would not be grandfathered in for that type of use and that 's what we 're trying to do tonight . Ted deLancey: Yeah , we have not had consistent useage of a canoe rack . We have not had consistent useage of boats moored on a consistent basis . We have had consistent use of dock . We have had consistent use of boat launch . And the parking . Batzli : Okay . Ted deLancey: Now Larry , do you have any comment? Larry Anderson: No . I think that 's right as far as consistent . I think if you go back to 1939 and find that there were boats stored on the property . That there was a dock . That there was parking . All of those things . . . Resident : How many parking spots? Larry Anderson: They 're really not designated parking spots so . . . Ted deLancey: We haven 't drawn yellow lines . Batzli : Do you have anything else? Ted deLancey: No , I don 't unless Andrew , he 's also a member . Do you have any comments? Andrew Hiscox : The only comment I 'd make is the map . It says . . .not be to scale but the general . . .but since I 've been there I 've owned the property 6 years now . There has always been a dock . There has always been a boat launch . There has always been clean picnic tables . . . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 4 Batzli : And your name for the record was? Andrew Hiscox : Andrew Hiscox . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the commission at this time? Lenny Kiskis:. My name is Lenny Kiskis and I live on 491 Big Horn which is - on the west side of the lake . I guess I don 't really have any real major problems with what they 're doing here but I just would like to say a couple things . One of them is that I 'm concerned about the milfoil on the lake obviously and obviously the more or less restrictions on the lake and access to the lake in the form of boat launches , create more problems on the lake . Also the additional stress it puts on the lake in the form of additional boating activity going on . So I don 't know if that 's part of the issue here that you 're even contemplating at this point in time but I would want to go on record that I would be against the use of unattended and unrestricted boat launch . Batzli : Thank you . Anyone else like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad: I think this is a good recreational beachlot and I don 't have , they 're real close to being a conforming beachlot and when you look at the situation , it is a real classic case of how a beachlot should be used . So I don 't have a , and I 'm not sure how this affects other beachlots coming in - but I really don 't have a problem letting them having the picnic tables , the grills . That just doesn 't bother me in this situation at all . They haven 't necessarily had them before but , or when we 've inventoried but I don 't have a , it 's a good beachlot . In terms of the overland launching . That 's a real interesting point and I guess Ted, how do you , milfoil is a big deal . And as a boat launch on the lake , they 're talking to everybody that comes in about milfoil and we probably do have it in Lotus right now but the question is , how do you police your members? How do you keep others from going in there because that is boy , you talk about expense later on if milfoil really spreads . That is a big deal . Ted deLancey: First of all , it is not an unrestricted . It is restricted to just the members who belong obviously to that boat . How would we police _ theentry of somebody who does not belong there? This has never been a problem but there are 3 of us who live right where the road goes down . We can visually see that . . . There 's a gate . There 's a gate . Larry Anderson: A chain and lock . Lenny Kiskis: My point I 'm making is , the people that live on the lake typically don 't trailer their boats . They 're go to other lakes where there is milfoil and bring them back . . . In an environment like you have , my sense is you have people that use the lake and trailer their boats . Use other lakes and do bring those boats back into this lake . There is milfoil in the lake . We 've identified it . It can be a major problem . Hopefully Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 5 it won 't be . We 'll be able to irradicate it but I don 't know if that 's possible at this point in time . I guess the concern I have is that the more access points . . . the more possibility that people can bring boats into the lake , the more problem they 're going to have with more possibility that you 're going to have additional problems . . . And the very least I think we can educate and provide . . .information concerning milfoil . All your members . Make sure that they can identify it and ultimately the best thing to do would have the ability to have one access on this lake and police it . That 's obivously not going to happen . . . Resident : Why can 't it happen? Batzli : Excuse me sir . Lenny Kiskis: . . .legislative move to make it happen and I certainly would support that . I don 't see that happening in the very near future . Batzli : Paul? As far as can we even put conditions on the things we 're looking at? There are non-conforming beachlots regarding conditions to post a sign , check your boat for milfoil . Can we even do these things or are we , is it just something that we can 't do at this point and we can just talk about it? Krauss : We have raised that with the City Attorney and he believes that you 're pretty well constrained looking at the issue here of a non-conformity and not , you don 't have a lot of flexibility to add on additional conditions that are not related to that specific non-conformity request . You could certainly ask that it be done . Conrad: More than likely the group wouldn 't mind posting a sign . I think they 're sensitive to the issue . Ted deLancey : Yeah . We will do whatever is the standard practice when we 're educated to what the problem is and what we should be doing . It 's something we didn 't take up in 1981 because we weren 't aware of it . And I don 't think even the cities . . .a policy but whatever that policy would be , - we would . . . The other thing I 'd like to point out is , by numbers you have a very small amount of boats going in and out of that . Resident : Then why is it important? Why don 't they just use the public landing? I 'm not being sarcastic . Ted deLancey : It 's the parking . Resident: That 's one of the bigger issues . I 'd like to make a point here . Batzli : Excuse me . The public hearing has been closed . If you 'd like to make a point , please raise your hand and I 'll try to get to you . Ladd has the floor right now . Conrad: Oh sure . Batzli : You do . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 6 Conrad: I don 't know that I want it any more . I have no more questions on this issue Brian . I think Paul answered conditions on the launch . I think that is an important issue . The folks do have the right and are grandfathered in on the launch . I think a sign has to be there and it 's not a matter of a condition . I would just hope if the association would — want a sign there reminding the residents that , or the members that milfoil is a problem . I don 't know beyond that what to do . I don 't kow that there is . When I compare it what the launch does do . The people at the house _ say , milfoil 's a problem . Please check your boat and here 's literature on how to do it . I guess there 's not a real tough enforcement . If you go through a launch and it 's still left up to the individual and I would trust that the people that live close or on the lake are as motivated , if not - more motivated to check their boats than maybe somebody coming in over through the public launch . So in my mind the issue still is just to make sure we remain people when they bring their boats in , that they look for milfoil and maybe that we make sure that all residents in the beachlot get the literature so you know what you 're looking for . That 's all I have . Batzli : I 'm sorry . Sir , did you have a comment to make? Resident : Yeah , he kind of summarized what I was going to say . We live on the lake . We live near the lake . We have ownership in this thing . I think we 're more motivated than the average person , certainly . . .boat launch for keeping this lake free of milfoil and loosestrife and other kinds of noxious weeds . So I agree with what you 're saying . I 'd like to limit the access too but the public access for 17 boats can park , I think maybe your attention might be better directed towards that and the enforcement there which I 've talked to the DNR about personally in the last few years . Never really gotten much of a response or satisfaction . . . And today it 's pretty simple . It 's around . It 's going to get into lakes if you 're not careful . I think it might already have been spotted in Lotus . I think . . .if the city will show the association how to acquire signs at maybe some kind of good - rate , I don 't think we 'd have a problem trying . . .We wouldn 't want a big one but a little one would be alright . Krauss: Well we don 't know where signs , where you obtain them from but we have seen them and we 'd be willing to check into that . Resident: Let us know . I mean I don 't think , we 're very motivated to keep - milfoil out and do what we can to make . . . Batzli : What I guess I 'd like you to do is after this hearing , if you _ could talk to Paul and get each other 's number or something and try to follow up after the meeting because I think it 's an important issue . Where were we? Okay , Matt . Ledvina: I think that the request that 's being made is very reasonable and I also have concerns about the milfoil issue and would like to see a follow up on that but beyond that I have no other questions or comments . Batzli : Steve? Emmings: I don 't have anything to add . I think it 's a reasonable request . We 're not again , we brought this up last week but we 're not going to get Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 7 into the business of approving picnic tables and grills and stuff like that . Aanenson: The ordinance does address that . Emmings: So that isn 't an issue . Okay . Batzli : Jeff . Farmakes: I have no further comments other than the one that you mentioned about the dock crossing the lot line . That would be something to look at . Batzli : Okay . Can you Paul , also follow up with the association to make sure they 're aware of the setback requirements for their dock? Thank you . Joan . Ahrens : I don 't have anything . Batzli : I don 't have any questions either . Would somebody like to make a motion? Emmings: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request of Frontier , what 's the name of it? Frontier Trail Beachlot maintaining the 1981 status quo with one dock , 40 feet in length , no boats being moored , continued use of the motor vehicle access , parking for 5 . Well , for a maximum of 6 cars and a boat launch . And also approval of the swimming beach . Conrad: Second . Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Frontier Trail Non-Conforming Recreation Beachlot with one dock , 40 feet in length, no boats being moored, continued use of their motor vehicle access, parking for a maximum of 6 cars , a boat launch ( 20 feet wide ), and a swimming beach. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli : When will this particular item go in front of the City Council? Krauss: We don 't have the thing up on top but we think it 's June 8th . PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR SUNRISE HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION . Public Present: Name Address Craig Luehr 7226 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 8 Craig Luehr : My name is Craig Luehr . I 'm at 7226 Frontier Trail and I 've _ been there about 2 years now . Actually 2 years almost to the day so I haven 't been there since 1981 but it 's my understanding that it 's pretty much a status quo type thing . We haven 't changed it much . In fact I think it 's about a 4 foot shorter dock than it was several years ago but in terms of the milfoil , I just want to bring up that we do have a sign next to it and I don 't know where it came from . It is a warning of checking it and it stipulates the fine for not checking for the milfoil . And so we have that . _ We have a locked gate that prevents anybody from coming through. And just like the other group , I think we are all very concerned about the milfoil and I would say we probably police ourselves more than the general . So I don 't think I have anything else and I just want to offer myself for any questions if you have in your further . Batzli : We ' ll probably have some questions a little later . Thank you . - Would anyone else like to address the commission? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens : Any problem with the location of the dock on this one? Aanenson: No . I didn 't note it on there but in my site visit last fall , it didn 't seem to be a problem . Ahrens: We 're not going to get , I noticed in 1981 there were two canoe racks with spaces for 12 boats but on the survey it showed that there were no boats there . We 're not going to get into that I don 't assume . Aanenson: Well it just , the survey is vague . It just says there were two canoe racks . It didn 't specifically say if there were any boats in it or not . I 'm not sure if that was just an oversight or if somebody . Ahrens: I don 't have any problems with this . It looks pretty straight forward . It looks like they 're asking exactly what they had in 1981 . Batzli : Pretty darn close it looks like . Ahrens : Two more spaces for canoes . I don 't have any problem with it . Batzli : Jeff . Farmakes: I have no comments in regards to this . You may want to pass on the issue of the milfoil . They have a sign of some sort there . We might look at making these , looking at these signs for these non-conforming accesses to the lake . That 's all . Krauss : It occurs to me that this is a lake water quality issue . If there 's a reasonable source of signs , we probably can just get the funds out of the swamp program and just give them to the beachlots . Ahrens : Yeah , I don 't think we should to raise it on every single beachlot . The milfoil issue . . . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 9 Farmakes: I think the issue is when a boat launching for a substantial amounts of homes . Batzli : Yeah , do we have any brochures about milfoil or has that ever been covered? Krauss : They are available . We have not given them out . Well , I 'll take that back . Our Public Safety Department does have some access to some of that . The milfoil control really has been the problems of the DNR so far - and it hasn 't worked very well . But some of the stuff we 've talked about on the swamp committee is our ecologically sound ways to control milfoil . There 's apparently a linkage between milfoil and water quality . The more nutrient rich the water is , the more likely you have that milfoil is going to root and take hold . And there 's some evidence that the introduction of oxygenating plants will help to offset that or retard the growth somewhat . It 's something that 's being dealt with peripherally but it 's dealt with by the swamp committee . Batzli : Yeah , I guess I 'd like to , if we can , I 'd like to see us somehow - getting some brochures and signs and things to some of them . The beachlot homeowner groups . Steve? Emmings : It looks like a reasonable request to me . Batzli : Matt . Ledvina : I had a question regarding the portable restroom that 's at the site . They indicate that it didn 't exist in 1981 and it does exist in 1991 . Can you describe that in terms of how it 's maintained? Craig Luehr : This last year , last summer was the first time we had put that to my knowledge on , a portable restroom . It was mainly for the convenience and the prevention of going behind our canoe racks with the little kids rather than walking all the way home . And we have within our association we had some discussion around this . It 's odors and what not and the important thing that we came to was , we as a committee or we as an - association are going to demand a weekly maintenance of that to keep that down because some of our members ever were somewhat concerned of that . And last year it was maybe not maintained quite as nice as what we would have _ liked it to and need corrections along those lines to keep it on a weekly basis maintained to minimize those problems . It is also situated just behind a tree so you really don 't see it from the lake that much either . And last year it was even kind of green so . Ledvina: Okay , so it 's a portable plastic? - Craig Luehr : A little portable plastic , yes . Ledvina: Like the Satellites or whatever? Craig Luehr : Yes . Exactly . Emmings: Do they have a permit for that? Did you have a permit for that? Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 10 Craig Luehr : That I 'm not sure . Emmings: Is that a Satellite out there? Aanenson : Yes . Emmings: Did they have a permit for it last year? Aanenson : I don 't remember seeing it . Emmings: I only remember one coming in on Lake Minnewashta . Aanenson : That 's right . I have zero on the application . I remember seeing that , yeah . Batzli : It 's on the survey but not on the application . Craig Luehr : Okay , so what should we do to correct that? Aanenson: It 's a separate issue because they need a separate conditional use so . Emmings: But he should know that . Aanenson: We 'll check on that . Craig Luehr : Okay , thank you . Ledvina : No , I think that was all . - Conrad: Nothing . This is a real good beachlot . They have their buoys up which leads to a point . A lot of the beachlots that we 've looked at in the - past , we 've approved swimming but they don 't have buoys . So the question is , did we hear that we couldn 't demand the buoys given that the swimming was grandfathered in? That seems like a reasonable thing . Batzli : Well it seems to me , for health and safety , even the issue of putting a lot of picnic tables and parking in the same location , you 'd think that we would be able to at least look at a map at what the heck we 're grandfathering in or approving or something . But I don 't see that kind of information in front of us either . So I don 't know . Emmings: It might be issues best left to the associations . Conrad : Did you hear what I just said? Not this particular beachlot . They have buoys up for their swimming beaches but there were a couple in last week . Aanenson: The ordinance does say technically if you 're to have a swimming - beach , that you are supposed to have it marked with buoys . Conrad: So if they didn 't? Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 11 Aanenson: We wouldn 't enforce it . I 'm sure the DNR may enforce that technically I think if you have a swimming beach , you are supposed to have it marked with buoys . I think that 's up to the association . Conrad : The buoys are not our issue? Aanenson: I 'm not sure if we enforce them . Conrad: Even though we say you should have buoys? Batzli : Do we say that? Where does it say that? Conrad: In our ordinance it does say swimming beaches have to be marked . Aanenson: They should be , yeah . Conrad: But Kate is saying that 's really the DNR . Aanenson: But if they 've been in place since then . If they 've been in place . That 's the ordinance I was talking about that in 1987 there was an amendment that says , you can have a swimming beach whether or not you 're conforming or not but that should be buoyed . But some of these that were existed prior to that , didn 't have buoys . Emmings : They may be grandfathered in . Aanenson: Exactly . Batzli : But this last one that said in 1987 , we weren't going to talk about the swimming area . Did the last one have buoys? We said we didn 't have to talk about it because of the 1987 ordinance . Well the marker buoys weren 't requested but it seems to me we could require them under the 1987 ordinance . If we 're allowing it under the 1987 ordinance , we should be — able to enforce the '87 ordinance . Aanenson: Yeah , but they also had the swimming beach prior to that though too so . Batzli : I thought they didn 't in 1981? They didn 't in '81 so we 're allowing it because of the '87 ordinance . Aanenson: Right . We probably should make them buoy it . Emmings : Well more importantly , is it buoyed or moored? Just musing to myself . _ Batzli : The question is whether this is an issue that we want to at least try and be consistent on . I think that if they 're going to allow the swimming beach due to the '87 ordinance , we should try to get them to mark it in accordance with the ordinance . Ahrens: It 's just that it 's not a big deal is it? I mean not a big request . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 12 Conrad: No . Batzli : Well between now and City Council . Aanenson: Gotchya . Straighten that out . - Batzli : Straighten that out with the homeowners association . That they should be buoying that . If they 're going to have that beachlot . I got lost again . Did we listen to Ladd on that last one? Conrad: Yeah . Sorry I brought that up . I don 't even like buoys . Batzli : Ladd , are you done? Conrad : Oh boy , I 'm done . - Batzli : Okay . We 're having a good time now . I think I just want to echo Jeff 's comment that I would just like to make sure that we 're consistent with all these groups coming through . That they 're aware of the setback requirements for the dock and I 'd also like to , this particular one had the swimming beach prior to and it also has buoys so that 's not going to be , that 's it . Emmings: Okay . To clarify or to follow up on what he 's talking about . I would assume that whether they 're grandfathered in or not , they 're still subject to the dock setback requirements? Aanenson: Roger says they 're not . That 's why I haven 't been raising that issue . Emmings: Oh , they 're not? Aanenson: Because if they 've had the dock in the same place every year . Batzli : Yeah , but that last group didn 't . Aanenson: That was just a rendering of how they were going to develop their beachlot . That 's why I put that in there . Batzli : Yeah but how to develop their beachlot . See that 's the operative phrase . They are not , they 've moved their dock so they 're not grandfathered in in one location . Emmings: Well , in any case , all we 're approving here is the fact that they have a dock and how long it is . We 're not approving the site of it or anything else . Aanenson: As long as it stays within the setback . But if they have one , I don 't want to make this really complicated but the way the ordinance reads , you extend . There 's been confusion on how you determine . Krauss : Why don 't you put that thing up and we can illustrate . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 13 Emmings : Well it 's hard on both of these that we just looked at because the lot lines , especially this one . Krauss : Well see , that 's the thing . It 's a matter of interpretation . We interpret this by saying , I mean the whole thing 's a little goofy anyway because it goes out beyond your natural property line . But we 've interpretted it that it is the natural extension of your property line out into the lake . - Emmings: Not at a right angle to the shoreline? Krauss : No . Not perpendicular to the shoreline . - Batzli : So we decided it was perpendicular to the shoreline . Krauss: The ordinance doesn 't say that . Aanenson: No someone , I think Dick 's always believed it that 's the way it reads but the ordinance doesn 't read that way and I confirmed that with Roger Knutson . He thinks , Dick thinks they meet out in the middle of the lake . That 's not it . You just extend the lines out . So the fact of the matter is , some of these beachlots who have their docks in place , okay if they go out 60 feet , they may cross that line but if they 've been that way , - they do have that grandfathering status . Okay? That 's where some of the confusion comes in . - Emmings: Okay . Aanenson: Okay? That 's why I haven 't always been addressing it because some of them they do have some of that . Conrad: It doesn 't make sense to follow the property line . Once you get to . Ahrens: . . .so you have a line drawn to the center of the lake with all these lot lines meeting at some point but sometimes they meet them like this . You meet them like this . Krauss : There 's problems equally with either interpretation depending on how the lot line goes . Farmakes: If it 's not a permanent structure , it 's taken out and put back in every year . Aanenson: No . It has to be out of the water for one year continuously . Then it would be non-conforming . As long as they put it in every season . Batzli : But to be grandfathered in at a location , it would have to be in the same spot? I mean they can 't be going? - Aanenson: Exactly . Batzli : But what I 'm concerned about on this is you 've given them an argument somehow when you put a dock on their map which crosses over a lot Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 14 line , regardless of whether they 're grandfathered in and we approve it , that somehow we 're approving that location . Aanenson: I 'm not approving that site plan . Maybe I 'll take that out for the City Council . That was just something for you . We 're not approving that site plan at all . I ' ll take that out to make sure there 's no . Batzli : Okay , we 've seen in the past that people bring in arguments whenever they can find them and I don 't want to cause problems for somebody - 10 years down the road that we somehow approved this tonight . So , those were my only comments . Do we have a motion? Conrad : I move that the Sunrise Hills non-conforming recreational beachlot permit or application be approved specifically allowing motor vehicle access , off street parking for 12 , one boat launch , a dock of 60 feet , two _ canoe racks with 12 spaces , swimming beach , marker buoys , swimming raft . Farmakes: Second . Batzli : Discussion? I just want to make it clear to the applicant that we 're not approving right now the portable restroom and you do need to come in for a separate permit for that . If there 's no more discussion , let 's call the question . Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Non-Conforming Use Permit for a recreational beachlot for Sunrise Hills Homeowners Association with one dock, 60 feet in length, no boats being moored or docked , continued use of their motor vehicle access , parking for 12 cars , two canoe racks with space for 12 boats , swimming beach with a raft , marker buoys and a boat launch. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 6 , 1992 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE . Batzli : There 's nothing in the packet . Krauss: There was not an intervening Council meeting . Batzli : Wasn ' t there one last Monday? Krauss: This past Monday? Batzli : Yeah . Krauss: Yeah , but that . Batzli : But that wouldn 't have been in the packet? Krauss: No . Batzli : I 'm on track now . Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 15 Krauss: . . .but there 's some things I can verbally relate to you just to keep you updated . The swamp committee is continuing to meet . We 're making progress on the wetlands ordinance . There 's an initial draft of it out and we 're hoping that another one or two meetings will finish that off . The water quality program is continuing . I think you all probably got copies of our newsletter at your homes . At least I hope you did . We had some folks out scuba diving around Lotus Lake 2 weeks ago . We had a bus tour of some of the wetlands and ponding areas in the community . And we 're suddenly getting a lot of good recognition for this program . I mean Kate got some calls today . I continue to get calls . People around the State , whenever they 're having a meeting of water quality or wetland protection to figure out what they can do , they inevitably say , well why don 't you give Chanhassen a call and see what they 're doing . Then they call us and we have nothing to give them because we 're not done yet but we have a lot of good intent and I think we 're making progress . I think you 're aware of the Highway 5 program is now starting . We 're still trying to put together that task force . I 've met with the consultants . They 're going to start doing some , assemblying some base maps . What we plan on doing is sometime in June holding one or two meetings to define issues in the corridor so we get it all on the table . I 've worked with the consultant 's to define what the corridor is initially and then it will be this group 's determination . We ' ll probably have 8i11 Morrish come and do his dog and pony show once to this group . And then what we want to do is before everybody 's gone for the summer , is have a public meeting on corridor issues . Where again we ' ll have Bill trot on his stuff and just try to get some feedback from $d8E8Ga to what they 'd like to see . Batzli : Would these be special meetings? Krauss : Yeah . I think they 'll have to be . It 's hard to find a night any more . Batzli : I think we need to get going on it so I mean I wouldn 't be opposed to doing it that way just to make sure we get going on the corridor . Krauss: Well , as soon as we pull this committee together , we 'll be asking folks when and if they 're available . I was appointed to a new program on the Minnesota River managed by the Pollution Control Agency called Minnesota River Improvement Program which is supposed to deal with the _ issues of Minnesota River water quality all the way to the Red River Valley or however far it goes . Serving on the wetland rules making committee for Bouser , I 've become relatively disenchanted with the ability of this State to deal with anything . So I hope this committee does better but I 've spent literally 28 hours with 23 people arguing about the definition of farmland . It 's getting rather tedious . Apparently the ag interest want to define everything that the sun rises on in the morning outside the 7 county area as farmland , therefore exempt from wetland protection measures . The environmentalists cut a deal with the farmers saying well , that 's okay . We ' ll fix ail these problems on the backs of the cities and the developers . So it 's a real strange process so far and again I 'm not very optimistic that it 's going to be resolved anytime soon . Or if it 's going to be resolved , it 's probably going to be resolved in the courts . There 's the inequities in the State law , which is unfortunate . It 's a ground breaking law but the inequitities in the law are so blatant that I can 't see that a Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 16 court 's going to uphold them and I 've got to believe sooner or later , sooner rather than later , somebody 's going to challenge them . A developer 's that disenfranchised or whatever . Moon Valley is ongoing . I spent the afternoon in court again today . I think I updated you a while ago . We got the Judge 's opinion where the Judge said , they are . Which we _ always agreed . They were grandfathered non-conformity on the south parcel where the pit is . On the north property , it 's a whole new application. They wanted us to piggyback their application for the south property and the north property together and we refused to do that . And we weren 't trying to be arbitrary . We were trying to say , the north property is subject to the full extent of our ordinances and rules and you 've got to give us a legitimate application . Judge Kanning 's told us we have to accept what our limits of our authority on the south half but that does not apply on the north half . And apparently they tell us they 're working diligently to bring us both applications . Right now you 're scheduled to hear I guess we 're calling it the non-conforming earth work permit for the south gravel pit . That 's supposed to come to you at your next meeting . I ' ll have Roger there because I 'm sure they 're going to have their attorney there . We 'll give you all the background on that too . It 's rather lengthy but I had Roger write a synopsis but you ' ll have the Judge 's opinion and everything else . Batzli : Get your gavel ready Joan , I won 't be here next meeting . Seriously . Okay . Did the Council look at the ordinance , the size lots in the residential area? Krauss: Yes they did . I guess I was saving that for when we got to that item . But do you want me to touch on that? Batzli : Oh we can wait . It 's down there , open discussion . Okay , never mind . ONGOING ITEMS: None . ADMINSTRATIVE APPROVALS: Krauss: We have one in the works but none to report on . OPEN DISCUSSION: ROLE OF HRA IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/TODD GERHARDT. Krauss: If I could , over the years there 's been some questions as to the relationship of the HRA . . .City Council because they are on an operative role in some of the tax increment districts relative to development . Who 's in the driver 's seat? How do things happen in this community and we 're in a community that a lot of what we do is in tax increment district . And a lot of what happens out there involves some sort of city support . In my time with the city , I 've found the relationship to be a real good one . Todd and I have worked at length on projects for literally months before anybody really gets to chew them over and I think that there 's a good process outlined nowadays where things flow rather smoothly wherein boiled down , the HRA is a financing arm and the Planning Commission and City Council really are the development review arm and I think it 's worked rather well . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 17 There 's been a certain realtor , who 's name need not be mentioned who 's initials are BJ who runs around a lot seeming to confuse the process but it really does work well . Batzli : I 'm sure we don 't know who you mean . Krauss: Oh , I couldn 't imagine . But anyway , you know we heard that . We had a meeting about 3 weeks ago now on the Target proposal and the Target proposal meeting was one that I found real intriguing because we never tried this approach before . We thought of this meeting as one where in rather than just wait , the tail wagging the dog for a developer to throw a plan on our table and we 're in a position of either taking it or leaving it , or in the case of a Target being able to add some bushes to make it look pretty but the developers presented us with a . . .we wanted to put the city somewhat in the drivers seat on this and hence we had a meeting that involved members of the Planning Commission , HRA , City Council and the developers and some other folks . I thought the process was a really unique one but coming out of that there were some questions again about that relationship between the HRA and Planning Commission . Growing out of that we 've asked Todd to come to the meeting . Todd is , one of his hats is Assistant Director of the HRA and we thought he could help explain the process to you a little bit . Gerhardt : I think Paul sort of laid out the ground work there . I talked to Kate last week and there seems to be some concerns or it was brought up as a discussion or something regarding the Target development . She said well , why did the HRA go get Target and bring them to this community? Why are they here? The HRA has never , ever gone out and gotten anything that we have in the downtown or in the industrial park . We never solicit any type of businesses to this community . Everybody that has come to the community has contacted me to see if we have available land or whatever that is zoned properly for these type of developments . And to take it a step back even farther , the downtown redevelopment started , oh I 'm going to say 10-15 years ago . And the reason for that development is that you had a lot of inappropriate uses in your downtown area . You had a chrome plating company . Auto racer . Auto repair shop . A boat repair shop . A lot of car maintenance facilities , which aren 't appropriate uses for a downtown . There 's no real service or commercial aspect of any of those . And that was all mixed in . You had a few in there . You had a bakery which was dividing your chrome plating company by a half ince piece of plywood . I mean if people knew what was behind that door , they would be appalled . I mean to see this facility that was downtown was unbelieveable . The HRA spent close to $22 ,000 .00 in cleaning up those chemicals and disposing of them properly . The whole affect along downtown is a very complicated process . You had an old gas station that was converted into a bait shop that had contaminated soils . Plumes of gasoline leaking from the tanks that needed to be corrected . You had an old grain mill that had burnt down that was buried on site that need soil correction . You had a single family home , an elderly lady that lived in the back of all this that she just wanted to get out of there you know . She wanted to be bought out . We bought her out early . You had the apartment building element that the HRA fought over 3 years to figure out should this be in the downtown . Shouldn 't it be . They really were sold on the idea . It took them 3 years and that it was going to be a senior housing project . Up until the very last 6 months it got Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 18 converted into a subsidized , low to moderate income , regular housing project . So you know some of the developers we 've worked with and some of the promises that were given to the HRA changed from minute to minute . But one of the processes that I thought I was always under the understanding is that they 'd always bring in site plans because they were always asking for - money . So they 'd always show us the concept of what they were going to do . And the HRA says okay , if that 's the concept but your process is one that they should take it to the Planning Commission . Meet all the rules and regulations that our Zoning Ordinance has laid out and get City Council site plan approval process . And I can see Brad Johnson coming in and saying that you can 't play too much with this development . That we 're limited on some of these . We 're limited on revenues but I mean , you are the ones that create the zoning ordinance . You 're the ones that provide the recommendations to the City Council and the City Council finally adopts . The HRA has absolutely no say in asking you to forgive any of those for any reason at all and I don 't think it was ever their intent to try to do any of that . They have architectural approval of buildings but it 's very limited . It 's color and we stretch it to make sure , we tell everybody that you 've got to pitch your roof . That you have to have a similar , you know they wanted wood shakes on everything but they 're saying fire codes and everything else wouldn 't allow something like that to happen . Well then we want something very similar and do a wood shake looking shingle or shangle . Whatever they call them . That 's about the extent . . .has taken this into a site plan . They had quite a battle here a while ago on Market Square . There were some members that felt that that should have been a pitched roof . I don 't know how many meetings Paul and I fought over that one trying to figure out how this thing could be pitched and what would it look like if it was pitched . That would put a huge roof system on the thing and it would just , I think jump right out at you . Krauss : One thing that 's important to know though is the HRA had set up some subsidy programs that were almost routine . If you were going to build-- in Chanhassen , there was a program where 3 years of your increment was used to pay down specials and I mean it 's a standard program that we have . And it still is a standard program . Okay? But the same way the Planning Commission 's expectations over the last few years have raised , your expectations , demands for quality and development have been increased and the ordinances have been changed to back it up . The HRA provides us some real dandy leverage to get better quality because we 've been taking the stand for the last few years saying , you know . You want to be in Chanhassen . We probably want to have you here and we 're willing to throw some money in the kitty to make it a reality but if you 're going to do that , you 're going to do it our way . You 're going to add some detailing . I mean some of the issues with the Target stuff , I don 't know if we get into any detail on that but we 're using some HRA funds . We 're thinking of using some HRA funds to secure preservation of that stand of trees between TH 5 and the site . We need to buy up some land to remove some inappropriate old rights-of-way that were allowed to stay . To induce them to build that , instead of building individual fast foods , to go with that - courtyard concept . Things like that . So the money or the inducements are benign a lot of times . Yeah , we are , I mean the city does have an active subsidy program but it 's not a one way street . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 19 Gerhardt: And every time I go back , because Jim Bohn 's going to get on me saying we haven 't given this architectural approval yet . I 'm going to say , a lot of the other members because two of them sit on the Council have seen it . You know they 've usually seen , they get the Planning Commission packets and then they see it at the City Council . So I usually just grab the plans from Paul or somebody else and make photo copies of them and stick them in the HRA packet and ask for architectural approval based on whatever the Planning Commission and City Council have approved . In some cases I 'll just steal Paul 's report that went to you and to the City - Council and throw that in for architectural approval for the HRA . So I think the HRA is sort of leaning on both the Planning Commission and the City Council to make sure that they see the developments the way the community and the city want to see them . Batzli : Well Todd , let me stop you there because I 'm either not tracking or else I 'm confused or I guess they mean the same thing . Whenever we seem to get a big project from the HRA , we 're told that look . They spent a lot of money on it . There 's been a lot of thought that goes into it . We can 't change anything at this point . And what I just heard you say I think is that you adopt architectural standards based on what we pass . So I mean we 're not taking a look at it . We 're not changing anything typically but you haven 't approved anything before we look at it . - Gerhardt : That 's correct . Krauss: I think there 's been occasions , I can recall sitting here where , - since his name is on the floor , where Brad has played off one group against the other saying , and he 's great at doing this . Well you can 't do this , the HRA already thought this was a dandy project . And then when he goes to the HRA , but the Planning Commission told me to do it this way . You 've got to give me more money . I mean ignore that because that 's not the reality of how it happens . - Gerhardt: I didn 't know he was doing that you know and then he brought it to my attention , Brad Johnson . I said well Brad , no wonder these people are upset . I mean they feel like they have absolutely no say in it and - that you 're a pawn in the whole game and that wasn 't , I mean the HRA 's intent . They meet once a month you know . They 're very dependent upon the Planning Commission and the City Council in reviewing these plans in more detail than what they 're doing . I think what we 've received through the downtown right now is some quality things . Staff has hammered on them before they get to the Planning Commission and that you know the HRA would like to see pitched roofs and it seems to be the theme throughout the - downtown . I think we 've gotten some standards that are acceptable . But I don 't want the Planning Commission to feel as if you don 't have , that you just pass this thing on . I mean you should give it a thorough review . And if you want to see things changed or if you want to see something else , you know provide that recommendation . Then if some developer 's standing up here that this is a locked project and you can 't change anything , that 's ridiculous because you can make any recommendations to City Council you want . And that developer has every chance in the world to try to convince the City Council it should be the other way . And that 's how it 's always worked . I mean when I was planning intern here , that 's how it always has - been when we did site plan reviews and everything . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 20 Batzli : Yeah , I think the element that 's missing from what you just said is the commercial reality of the project . I think , at least speaking for myself , there is a thought that it 's kind of sexier , there 's more sizzle to be on the HRA because the project is done by the time we see it and that 's , I think the feeling that for the most part , this is the way it 's going to - be or the project doesn 't get done . That 's the way it 's typically presented to this group . And so I think there was a feeling , at least from my perspective , that what are we doing here? If the HRA wants it , that 's the way it 's going to be . That 's the way we 've seen a lot of projects come through . Is there a disagreement? Conrad: We 've certainly had those cases were we felt , why . Helpless or that we really didn 't have input . Krauss: Has that been recent though? Emmings: I 'm trying to think of a specific project . Conrad: Yeah , I can 't do it either . Farmakes : I can only think of one specific project since I 've been on here , and that will be a year . That was this sign over here by the entrance . Market Street . Conrad: But nothing real recently . Ahrens : Well we haven 't had any . Batzli : We haven 't had anything in the last year really . Gerhardt : Well Market Square was approved back in October of 1990 . Farmakes: Too , from what I 've seen on some of this stuff , we rely a lot on vision of the developer for actually seeing a visualized development because we have a lot of empty area here . So it 's , when we talk about architectural standards , people use the word but it becomes very vague when you try to crystalize it . And also I think that there maybe are different opinions as to , we talk about pitched roofs . Well , there are some buildings where a pitched roof is going to look pretty ridiculous . The end - vision of Chanhassen of course has always been changing as the years go by . Conrad: See my impression , I 'm going to jump on something . My impression is to grant , and this could be false . When you grant the tax increment status to a developer , and maybe it 's a template type deal . You fit this , you get this . It 's like that 's when you have the leverage and you 're the _ ones that are granting it and by the time it gets to us , we don 't have any leverage because you 've had it all . Batzli : Yeah . The commercial reality is that if we start changing things , they 're saying well hey , we 've already negotiated with one group . We 've now negotiated with a second . We 've still got to go to the City Council . Krauss: I 've been here 3 years now and in every instance I can recall , but one , and it was one that Todd and I kind of scotched a little bit . This is - Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 21 when Brad Johnson was proposing Hardee 's and he went to the HRA first and , I mean I think he wasn 't even on the agenda . I think he just kind of showed up to one of their meetings and kind of coerced them into talking about it . But it was something that we managed to scotch . I mean they never came to the Planning Commission either at that point . - Gerhardt : Well Americana Bank was a recent one that you had a review on that the HRA dealt with . The scenario I laid out for you . I physically took the site plans that everybody approved and showed them to the HRA and they all sat there and said , they say the renderings and said yeah . That 's a nice building . It 's got a pitched roof . It 's got some architectural style to it and will it have the cedar shake looking shingles? Oh yeah . It will have that . Okay . Well you can have your 3 year program . In some of the cases in the downtown , it tooks , I 'm going to say , well Market Square it took 3 years for that to get all the financing and everything put together on the thing . But all during that process they never looked at - different renderings or played with their renderings of any sort . But it took 3 years to physically figure out how you 're going to subsidize a grocery store to operate in this community and over that 3 years , the _ market changed so the financial picture of assisting that store changed . And the whole aspect is changing from month to month . Same thing with the hotel . The public improvements associated with that thing and tearing down the building , relocating the watermain that went through there and some - soil problems over there . I remember that one , that one didn 't have a pitched roof at first . It had , it was one of these Budget 8 designs with a mansard and it had a flat roof . The HRA said no , or somebody said . I don 't remember if it was the HRA , Planning Commission . Somebody but we can 't accept that . I mean you 're not going to come in with this big thing . Pitch it all the way to a peak and make it look , and you 've got a 10 times better building today than what they first brought in with that mansard roof . As a matter of fact , they use this as their example to sell the franchises . They always bring everybody to Chanhassen . They don 't take them to Burnsville or Coons Rapids or wherever the other ones are . They bring them to Chanhassen because this one really looks nice . Emmings : Maybe you 've addressed this and I didn 't get it but when somebody comes , do they go through the site plan process here before there 's a commitment by the HRA? Gerhardt : I 'm going to say in most cases they come here first . If it 's - just a simple 3 year deal where we write down specials or we might write down some land , but the complicated ones . The housing project . The Market Square . I mean we 're talking about 3 years . They went , Market Square went - through here and got site plan approval before the HRA finally gave them full assistance . _ Emmings: Shouldn 't they always withhold , even if they 're working with the applicant , wouldn 't it be a good idea for the HRA to say we approve you subject to approval by the Planning Commission or just say , we think it 's a good plan . Now you have to get approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council before we 're going to put our name on the line . If that 's not happening , why shouldn 't it? Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 22 Gerhardt: In most cases developers won 't take it that far . They won 't invest the money into site plans and everything else if they don 't know they 're going to get the assistance from the HRA . Emmings: But how can the HRA tell them they 're going to get the assistance- before there is a site plan? That doesn 't make any sense . Gerhardt : In most cases they don 't . I mean they 've never given assistance - upfront before they 've come here . They 'll give it their blessings , yeah. We ' ll look at it . We ' ll consider your options . Go through the city approval process and then all through that entire process we 'll negotiate _ and try to work it out type thing . Ahrens : The developer 's think they 're getting it at that point . Gerhardt : Right . Emmings : As long as there 's no . Can you tell me that there 's never a commitment by the HRA to a project and where they 're obligated before there 's site plan approval? Gerhardt: Well they should never be , maybe we 've got to make it , between Paul and I make it clear to them that , and here 's a perfect example . To Mr . Target here , my letter to him . The City will purchase 10 acres of land from Mr . Burdick for $4 .00 per square foot and we sell it . Krauss: I think you 've got to back up and tell them . We received a letter from the developer , from a potential developer , Ryan wherein , I mean the sense of the meeting that we had was that the Burdick site was the preferred site . The stuff the University folks did said that , showed us that that site was demonstratively better for downtown Chanhassen if it was done properly . So we got a letter back from Ryan saying , what are you going to do for me? I 've got a list of 5 , 6 demands , expectations . How are you going to meet them? And it was addressed to Todd through the HRA because these are financial demands . He 's not saying , and demands don 't imply or don 't in any way say , the Planning Commission will look the other way and allow me to put a cinder block building up or something like that . Gerhardt : This is staff 's interpretation . This is , he put 5 parameters together for the layout of Target to occur . This is from Ryan . To occur on the Burdick piece . And he says the Target parcel , as laid out by Target , will be acquired and sold to Target for $3 .00 a square foot . Well , - you know I don 't care if Target lays out a plan but you know we 're saying that you 've got to get site plan approval and follow through with all the other things so I respond , the city will purchase 10 acres of land from Mr . Burdick for $4 .00 per square foot and resell this property back to Target for $3 .00 per square foot . This would be contingent upon Target entering into a redevelopment contract with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority , receiving City site plan approval , and other approvals consistent with the general principles as outlined in Scheme B which was presented to this group of individuals over here . And it 's just the general principles of this scheme . This is what was presented at that goal session . Batzli : Why did we decide 8 and not C? Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 23 Ahrens: I thought C was the one . _ Krauss: Yeah . I thought C was the operative one . This letter hasn 't gone out yet . We can correct it . Ahrens: C was the one that everybody thought was good because it 's the - building at the angle . Krauss: Oh , I know what it was . It was C with the food court . Gerhardt : No it was B . Emmings: No . It 's C . Ahrens: No , it 's C . Yeah but you know what else people liked this about B . Krauss: That 's the thing . That 's what I 'm saying . The C alignment and going with the B food court . Ahrens: Yeah . Gerhardt : I 'm saying that they approved Scheme B with the general - principles . That means you can lay out the building and everything else but I thought it was . - Batzli : But the roads were better on C I thought too . Gerhardt : No , they 're the exact same . Batzli : Are they? I thought they had , the one was offset because we had a retail versus an office . - Gerhardt : They also liked just the two buildings up here instead of this big , long parking lot type thing here and it provided more green space there and that the building was brought away from the street here . Batzli : I thought we didn 't like the fact that it was the back of retail . Gerhardt : Well in both schemes you 're going to get that . But this one . Ahrens: But this was the office building/retail which is what people liked . Gerhardt : You guys need to rezone the property because it 's zoned retail . Ahrens : Okay , we can do that tonight . Batzli : Let 's rezone the little piece where it says office . - Krauss : I should also add that in a lot of ways , well one thing , two things you should understand . The HRA is not the only operative redevelopment authority in Chanhassen . The HRA is in charge of the downtown redevelopment district but the tax increment districts that have Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 24 been created in the industrial parks and new districts that have been created in the industrial parks and new districts that we 're going to create are operated by the City Council . The City Council handles it in pretty much the same manner but . Ahrens: What do you mean they 're operated by the City Council? Gerhardt : Downtown is a redevelopment district and what I ' ll say is the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park area and that 's within our redevelopment district and the redevelopment district is in the controls of a housing and redevelopment authority . And in somebody 's wisdom back in 1977 they made a very large district in Chanhassen that encompassed a lot of the industrial - lands . You really don 't take a farmland and call it blighted and redevelop it . But in that case it was what the legislators call pre- '79 district and if you didn 't have that , you wouldn 't have a downtown like you have now because with the economic development district and the restrictions against it , you just can 't create enough increment and money that you can come in and buy the big building with all the , and appropriate uses in it . The chrome plating and everything like that . Because it 's an 8 year district - and they 're controlled when you create an economic development district to create an EDA which is an Economic Development Authority . And in this city the Economic Development Authority is the City Council unless the City - Council pushes that authority onto the HRA or another agency . Krauss : So when new districts are established , like for the Ryan Industrial Park , that 's wholly under the arm of the City Council . But I 'd also like to say too that a lot of stuff the HRA does is pretty benign and I think you 'd basically be supportive of it . I got the HRA to build us the Senior Center . That 's where the money 's coming from for that . The HRA is - paying for the Highway 5 Corridor study . Ahrens : They 're the only ones with the money . Krauss : True . Gerhardt : But I mean , they don 't sit around and scheme up these things . I mean our meetings , we 're out of there by 9:30 . We meet once a month . I mean we 're not even going to be able to meet this month because we don 't have anything on the agenda . - Emmings: How do we get on it? Ahrens : Yeah . Gerhardt : If somebody has an idea , you know the Senior Center was an idea that . . .they approve it so the money source is there . A lot of it stems off - of ff -of ideas that the Planning Commission , City Council or some other commission comes up with . Emmings: Well there shouldn 't be any way a developer feels he can come here and play off the HRA against the Planning Commission . They should be told by the HRA that they have to go through all these other steps and they _ should be told when they 're here that they have to pay attention to the HRA . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 25 Krauss: And that 's one of the reasons , I know Matt hasn 't been getting his agendas but that 's one of the reasons why there is a liason person from the Planning Commission . It 's also one of the reasons why I go to probably a - third of the HRA meetings because there 's a planning item that needs to be carried forward or represented to them . - Gerhardt : And the HRA can 't take any projects on . I mean I come here once a year and we do an update and I give the list of things that they 're looking into doing . One was the senior housing project and the park out in front of City Hall . Some of the other projects . Krauss : Well all the downtown streetscaping . All the stuff that we want to do along TH 5 . The City contribution to building a bridge rather than a - culvert over Bluff Creek . The landscaping . The entrance monumentations that 's going to go into downtown . The reconstruction of TH 101 . That 's all HRA . Emmings: . . .the monumentation and so forth . Did we ever see that? Conrad: We talked about it . Emmings: But was there any kind of , now there 's a . — Krauss: I don 't think it has come before you . Of course they haven 't been able to make up their minds anyway . Emmings: But now why would or would it not? Should it? Gerhardt : Those are little amenities I guess you know . Like the clock tower . The little gazebo in front of the Dinner Theatre . Those things . - Those are decorative entry monuments in the downtown . I don 't know how you 'd do a site plan with this kind of stuff . Emmings: We do a lot of things where the city 's the applicant . You know we 're planning to do this and so we 're coming through the . The reason I thought about it is , years ago they brought up some monument signs for _ entry signs for Chanhassen and they were just awful . They looked like a cheap subdivision . Gerhardt: I remember . Emmings: And they showed them to us but not to get any approvals or anything . Just kind of keep us apprised of what was going on . Now the new - ones that we 've seen the plans for I think were nice and everything like that . Batzli : Actually we didn 't like the style of lettering I thought . Emmings: That 's right . - Farmakes: I had more to say to it than that but I agree . I thought it was pretty much a forgone conclusion we didn 't , they were just waiting to get our comment . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 26 Emmings: But if we 're sitting here and talking about standards and talking about what Chanhassen is going to be and what it 's going to look like and all those things , I don 't know why we wouldn 't have input on an issue like the monument . Krauss : It 's not a problem to run it past . We can make sure that you get it . Gerhardt: When I did show you that concept , I think once we get some construction drawings put together , we ' ll bring it in and have the review on it . I think it 's a good idea . Emmings : Did anybody follow up on Jeff 's suggestion for lettering? Gerhardt : I went to the HRA and they 're going to look at changing the lettering . They agreed . Farmakes : Yeah , I guess I would have had more to say if I thought , the point I was making , I would have more to say specifically about the sign if I had thought that it was still in development . I 'd rather just make that comment . I wasn 't expecting to show the drawing and I just free formed the comments on the spot so . - Batzli : The issue I think is , I 've never felt that the HRA was scheming behind our backs . What I felt though is , I didn 't know what they were doing until it came before us and then I always have had a feeling that we didn 't really the ability to change it . Either because of the way it was presented or because of the developer standing there saying , look . We 've already negotiated with one group . You 're trying to get two , second , third bites on the apple and so I think personally the issue is , how can we find out what it is that the HRA is going because I don 't think any of us want to do that job . We 're all kind of busy enough doing this . But how do - we find out what they 're and how can we work together so Chanhassen gets better development? That 's really what we need . I don 't think any one of us wants to sit here and play God over what the HRA decides . Farmakes: It 's not only that but the communication between these different levels gets back to that original think . Crystalizing that idea . What exactly it is we want this city to look like rather than just have the developers bring in what we 're going to get . Ahrens: I think what we 're most concerned with at this point too is the Target project . I mean that 's why you 're here . Gerhardt : Right . Krauss: Well and that 's why we asked , we broke the mold on how to handle that project with that meeting . I mean that did bring together , or supposed to bring together . I don 't think we had any HRA members there . Well the two Council members that are on the HRA but basically we had Planning Commission and City Council representation there . Ahrens : And we don 't want it to come to us and have it be a done deal . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 27 Gerhardt : It won 't be and this is again another one that , you can see that they 're already making representation to the HRA prior to going through this because they don 't want to commit to Chanhassen until they know what their costs are . That they can tie up a piece of property that the City will potentially come in and condemn Charlie James ' piece and that if they don 't do that , will they have the righ-in/right-out off the Burdick piece? - Those are some things that the city has no control over . We don 't have control over the right-in/right-out . That 's a County road . They 're the ones that pass the resolution limiting the number of cars that can travel - on it . But the HRA , and it just really bothers me that it came across as if these were slam dunk things that came to you . If I have to follow every project here and stay here and listen to the developer , that you have every say in changing something if you want , I ' ll do that . Because that 's not - the intent of the HRA and if they were all here , they 'd say that . Because they expect a thorough site plan review with all the rules and regulations that we pass through ordinances . And it just bothers me that there was - that feeling out of this and it wasn 't the intent of the HRA or staff or anybody to give you that indication . And Target is a perfect example . I 'm trying to find things that we can make sure that this is a nice building and that it does meet some of the architectural styles of what we want to see a 116 ,000 square foot facility like . And they come out and say , well it 's going to have brick on it . Well , do you even want brick? You know our brick buildings are the bank , you know what I ' ll say is the public facilities . There 's very few other buildings in the downtown area that have brick . The school , post office , the bank and city hall are the only brick buildings in the downtown . Krauss: But still , that along with site plan review are decisions that you ' ll be making when you get it in front of you . Our discussions with Target have in no way predetermined those kinds of issues . The only thing that we 're trying to push it towards are those kind of gross issues that we got some concurrence on from that last meeting about how access should be maintained . Batzli : There was concurrence? Farmakes : How realistic is it commercially to ask a discount realtor to build a Kasoda Stone edifice? I mean how , where do you? Krauss : I don 't know if that 's the right building material or not . Gerhardt : They ' ll walk from it . They won 't do it . They were in litigation with the facility over in St . Louis Park for 3 years in putting that kind of brick on that facility . If they want to be here bad enough , they ' ll give some other places but Kasoda Stone , they ' ll just walk from the deal you know if that 's going to be the criteria for everybody . But you can only implement the ordinances that you have in place you know and you 're limited to some effect because we don't have a brick or better ordinance . Well , to some extent . Krauss: We have architectural review . But this is one of the places where the leverage of having an HRA that 's partially funding a project comes in real handy . You can go , ordinances deal with minimums . Here 's the minimum Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 28 criteria the ordinance has . But , if we 're going to give you $600 ,000 .00 , here 's our expectations from you . Conrad: Yeah but that 's exactly the point Paul . That 's where I feel , I don 't have any problem with the HRA . I think it 's , and I don 't think anybody here does in terms of feeling that you 're trying to do something without our involvement . Todd , I don 't have any problem with that but it 's exactly what Paul just said . If we felt we could throw some stuff into the negotiating pool , because I do feel that our hands are tied pretty much by — ordinances . In fact that 's the way I want it . The ordinance should be out there to lead the way so the developers know what the standards are . But , if we are contributing to their project , sometimes we may want to go beyond - what that ordinance is but we can 't do it because we felt the deal 's been cut . You 've negotiated the trade off before it got in here and we didn 't have a chance to go beyond . All we can do is implement with what we have _ control over and typically those aren 't . Gerhardt : When the HRA 's hit up from the developer 's side saying boy , we 'd like to build this project in Chanhassen but the market isn 't there yet and we need your assistance to build this thing . We 're limited on resources and the market can 't really support a full service grocery store and blah , blah , blah . So that 's the end the HRA hears . There 's not a housing project being built anywhere in the Twin City area without some type of public assistance . Just the architectural style of that apartment building . When they first brought it in . I don 't know if you remember Ladd or not but the concept that they brought in to the HRA . This thing had bends and angles and decks and they all had their special little peaks and was all brick and everything else . Well all you 've got now if just an L shape building with a deck sticking out the side and some brick up there . - That 's it . I mean far different than the first concept that they brought in to the HRA . This was supposed to be a glamorous asset to the downtown . So I mean we were all taken for a ride on this one . Emmings : Now how did that happen? I mean if they present you with one thing and you commit funds to it . Gerhardt : They never committed to that . Krauss : Yeah , what they built is what was ultimately approved by the City - but , and that 's before my time but I think that the initial renderings were of a much more grandiose project . Emmings: Yeah , they were . Krauss: And then when they ran numbers on it they saw that it didn 't work even with assistance and they started throttling it back . - Emmings : Did they give HRA assistance on that? Gerhardt : It 's a very complicated . Emmings: Oh , you can 't say yes or no? Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 29 Gerhardt: Yes , we did . Yeah , but . . . I 've got to deal with it right now . It 's a very complicated formula on how they get this assistance and then the HRA is also supposed to get money back from it . It 's just , but yes . They did get assistance to locate there . And it goes out for several years . Emmings: The other thing I guess is , you know we sat here a little bit last time and said well , just as an idea , if Target doesn 't want to have . If they want to say we 're going to bring in our building and you can take - it or leave it . Are we comfortable saying , waving good-bye to them as they leave our community . I think everybody was pretty comfortable with that . And then that raises another question you know . Is it possible for an HRA - to go out . If we decide we don 't want Target and if there are things that we would like to have , can you go out there and solicit? Can you go out and seek the kinds of development or developers that you 'd like to have to work with? Gerhardt : I tried it . I asked the HRA would you like me to go solicit Red Lobster into this community and they told me , no . We shouldn 't go out - looking for specific users . We 'll deal with people as they come in . I really got read the riot act in trying to go look for this Red Lobster and I wasn 't going to touch it again you know type thing . Emmings : What 's the thinking there? Gerhardt : They just don 't want to go out looking for specific users . They - don 't want to cater to . Krauss : This is one property that the HRA is actively marketing . There 's ads in the paper and what not but Todd 's just not going door to door to specific doors and asking . Ahrens : Why wouldn 't they want him to do that? Krauss: I don 't know . I mean Todd and I talked about that and we 'd both like to be more proactive . Batzli : It 's stunning to me that you don 't choose people that you want in your downtown so that you have the right mix . I mean why wouldn 't you want - that? Farmakes: I would think if you had two competitive restaurants that were discount developers , that you would get , you 'd be in a better negotiating position . Gerhardt : Well , to get a Red Lobster out here you would have to get into the subsidy aspect of it because most of the times they locate somewhere along the 494 strip or somewhere where they 've got populouses surrounding them by 6 to 7 miles on each side of them . Where we don 't have the populous to the west of us as of yet . Emmings: Is this a restaurant that you particularly like? Gerhardt : No . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 30 Emmings: How did you pick Red Lobster? I 've never been inside one . Gerhardt : It was one that was brought up by one HRA member . There was interest by one HRA member to see this thing but it didn 't need to be a Red Lobster . An Olive Garden or a Ciatti 's or anything of that sort . Some type of nicety that you don 't have in Chanhassen . Not a Hardee 's . If we 're going to have a restaurant , we didn 't want to see a Hardee 's or we 've got a McDonald 's but a fast food thing . And I think the site down on West 79th Street is a restaurant/banking facility type setting . It 's got enough - depth that it allows for some nice landscaping and parking associated with some of these . And it 's not big enough for a Target . It 's not big enough for , I was going to say a Walgreen 's or a bigger type facility . It 's a 10 - to 12 ,000 square foot building pad area down there . For two buildings to exist . And they didn 't want us going out looking for specific things . We went out and I think Fred did talk to several different type users for the _ property and the market isn 't there for some of those things to come to Chanhassen . Of the sit down restaurant types . Batzli : It would seem to me for example though , if we had determined that - we wanted a large retailer in that particular site that that Target is looking at , it would make sense to me to go to Walmart and Target and K-Mart and whoever else and say look . We want a retailer . Give us your best shot and you 're going to get a heck of a lot better development doing that if we can decide what we want on a spot than letting someone come in and . Gerhardt : Target . . . I mean Charlie James who owns the piece on the north side has built , I 'm going to say , at least 12 to 15 Walmart stores and he 's already been contacted by the K-Mart people so that 's why Target has . Ahrens: For that site? Gerhardt : For his site . Ahrens : There 's a K-Mart right down on TH 101 . Why would they do that? Batzli : And a Walmart going in across from Flagship . We 're going to be innundated . Gerhardt : To add to the fear , K-Mart also has what is called a Pace store . This is a Sam 's Club type thing . They have the K-Mart over there but they don 't have the Pace so you bring in your Pace and your Builders Square type thing and they call it a power center . You bring in all these uses all together on one center . Farmakes: The Sams Club is in an industrial area in St . Louis Park . Gerhardt : But it is a retail use . Krauss: It 's also in a shopping center in Inver Grove Heights . Ahrens : How about Northwest Health Club? Nice site for it . Farmakes: . . .pretty low buck warehouse operation . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 31 Ahrens: Low buck warehouse? - Farmakes: Yeah , you bet . Batzli : Let me if I can try and do something with this so we 're actually going somewhere and that is , do we expect to get something out of this item tonight? Are we looking for improvement in communication? Are we looking for more input from us? Are we looking for , to get a liason attending the HRA meetings so we know what 's going on? And the second issue that we need to decide , so we can move along here is , how do we work with the Target development down on the west end? Gerhardt : Well right now , I mean you 've already started some of the negotiations with these people . I mean you have two choices . Do you want to see the Target on the Charlie James piece or do you want to see it on the Burdick piece? Right now Target 's playing one off the other . They 'd like to go on the Burdick piece but there 's a lot of problems that go along with the Burdick piece . You 've got storm water ponding . You 've got the trees . You 've got a lot of grading that needs to be done on that . Ahrens: I think we made it clear we didn 't want it on that piece of property . Right? Emmings: On what piece? Ahrens : The Burdick piece . Krauss: No , no . That 's the south piece . Ahrens : Or . Emmings: Charlie James is across the street . Gerhardt : The James . Okay , well , Target picks up on that kind of stuff . They said , well if you don 't want me on the Charlie James piece , you 're going to have to give in on some of this stuff . On grading you know . We might need some help on the fixing and grading . That type of thing . Batzli : I think looking at the thing that we got here , you mentioned that - we 're not zoned properly for the office and I think that after looking at the development plans by the University people , that that above our West 78th Street should be zoned office and so I think we should start doing - that right now . Ahrens: I agree . Batzli : Let 's do it . We don 't want retail up there . Ahrens: With delivery trucks and everything else on that side . Gerhardt: Well there 's such a glut of office . That piece of property 's going to be vacant for the next , I 'm going to say 15 to 20 years at least . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 32 Ahrens: Yeah but because there 's a glut of office does that mean that we settle for something we don 't want there? Krauss: No , I would never advocate that you dictate your decisions based upon the market because the market changes ail the time and it 's really irrelevant . The issue of down zoning or changing the zoning of the property I think it 's something that you can initiate . I 'm not sure if the Council would back it up or not but it 's a different set of issues . Can we bring together something for you on that? Emmings: What 's that? Krauss: Are you really all directing us to bring an action before you to down zone that property to office? Emmings: I wouldn 't support that just as an initial reaction because we 've always been concerned about running out of retail space in the central business district and there 's no demand for office . And doing it just to frustrate Target doesn 't make any sense to me . Ahrens: Well it wasn 't to frustrate Target . Emmings: Well , that 's what it sounds like to me . I think I don 't care so much where Target goes as how they do it if they 're going to do it . I 'm less worried about where it is . We 're talking about whether it 's going to be on one side of the street or the other . I guess I 'm less worried about which side of the street it 's on as to how it 's going to look when it 's done . So that is my feelings on it . Conrad : I agree with Steve . I 'm more concerned , I don 't care if it goes north or south . Until an argument is made not to put it north . I do care how they fit in . I do care how a parking lot as big as they 're going to create works in downtown Chanhassen . Ahrens: You know at that meeting it was , the north part was discussed at length and I think the big concerns were that we didn 't want delivery trucks pulling into , on what 's the street that runs? Krauss: Kerber . Ahrens: On Kerber Blvd . where the city park is . Where City Hall is . Where there 's a lot of kids and everything else on that side of the street and there would be no way to develop a Target on that site and not use either , not have a lot of unwanted truck traffic and delivery traffic in areas where we don 't want it . I mean I think that was the big thing . Emmings: Well can Kerber , what kind of a street is Kerber? Can you put truck traffic on it? Krauss : Well Kerber can handle the traffic but it was also that , the plan that was developed by the developer for that showed Target facing with the door on the west side which gave us two 30 to 40 foot high dead walls . One on 78th Street and one on Kerber facing our park which really fundamentally was the end of downtown if you did that that way . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 33 Ahrens : And that was the only way that they felt they could put the Target on that site . Emmings: Then they can 't do it . Krauss: Well but see , that 's the thing . They can do it . They can fit one by ordinance right now and it 's a real alternative for them . We might not like it and what we 're trying to do is theoretically use the leverage that we have through the HRA to do it where and how we think is the more appropriate way of putting it in . Gerhardt : Right . I mean the HRA is saying , we 're not going to give you any assistance if you locate on the Charlie James piece . Based on this community meeting , it was decided that the Burdick piece would be the preferred site . We would look at providing the dollar square foot write down . Writing down the specials down there similar to our 3 year program and however you 've got to go through city site plan approval process and all that and enter into this contract . That you have a minimum market value so we can generate a certain amount of taxes to pay all this off over - the years . The key , I mean the negotiations have already started and I think Target wants to be down there but again , they like this Cottage Grove effect where they 've signed petitions . Say come to our community . Come to our community . And it 's not the feeling like that in Chanhassen . It 's not come to our community and if you are going to come to our community , we want to see a quality project . We want to see you preserve the trees . We want to tuck you back into those trees so we don 't see these 20 to 30 foot - high walls and that you do come in and landscape the area . You turn your building so we get some type of visual effect that 's pleasing . Not big old walls and a few trees scattered along side . And that 's what Paul 's job and my job is to express that to Target . That they come in with a site plan to the Planning Commission and City Council and HRA that is acceptable to everybody . Emmings: That piece on Kerber across the street from the park , for what will be the park , seems to me , that might be worth looking at as a separate item for some kind of special treatment that 's compatible with being next - to City Hall and across from the park and everything else . Krauss: Yeah , and see we really . Ahrens: Isn 't that what we were talking about? Emmings: Well we 're talking about everything north of West 79th Street at one time . I guess I 'd be concerned about the corner . Ahrens: I think that 's what I was talking about . Krauss : The process that we went through on this site was really kind of neat because for the first time . One of the primary goals of the Highway 5 _ corridor study I think is to be able to do this sort of work so that we 're not playing catch up when a developer comes to town . I think you saw that with one , I mean Bill Morrish just said academically we know that Fleet Farm bought the corner out on TH 41 . Nobody 's saying , committing to a Fleet Farm going there but if you 're going to set the academic design Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 34 exercise , how could you put a Fleet Farm in there reasonably and he came up with some pretty good ideas for that . And if in fact this corridor study says that 's a commercial corner , we would adopt a couple of possibly alternative concepts in the plan which is an appendix to our Comprehensive Plan . We 're going to say look it . You want to rezone this site to commercial . You 're going to have to meet our guidelines and here 's our guidelines . We did that for the Target . It 's the first time we ever did it . I don 't see why we couldn 't do it for other sites in town possibly including the Charlie James piece . Now the down side of the Charlie James piece honestly is a legal one in that he 's already properly zoned to do lots of stuff so our leverage there is not one of zoning but rather what , the only leverage we have is really what we can leverage through the HRA subsidy . We cannot play the game if we don 't want to but somebody could still go ahead and put something else in there . Conrad: Without HRA assistance , what 's the extra cost to Target to go into the James property? Is it something that 's possible? Krauss: I don 't think we know yet . Conrad: Might they? Gerhardt : Go to the Charlie James piece? Conrad: Could they do it? Gerhardt : Oh yeah . Paul and I saw site plans 2 days ago that showed that it could fit and meet our zoning requirements on the Charlie James site . Conrad: And financially they might do it simply because of getting a position in this marketplace? Krauss : You know a half a million dollar subsidy . Gerhardt : Charlie James . . .with the city assistance , I mean it 's _ $700 ,000 .00 worth of assistance that would be generated off of this facility over 3 years . So I mean Charlie would like to work with us so he could get that $700 ,000 .00 worth of assistance . His site isn 't perfect either . There 's a lot of grading that needs to occur over there so . Conrad: Does Target see any financial loss or gain? Krauss: I don 't know . When you talk about a $700 ,000 .00 subsidy for a store that cashflows how many million dollars a year . Ahrens : They make that on a Sunday . Krauss: Yeah , I don 't think it 's a big deal you know . It 's a bigger deal to the developer and the landowners who are massaging the dollars on the front end . I really don 't think it matters to Target that much . I mean they 're going to cut , their business people will cut the best deal they can and they 're real big , they seem to be real adept at playing off different properties against one another and the city 's position , as articulated by the City Manager is , guys we 're not going to play the game . We think we Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 35 know where it should be . We will do what we can to put it there but you put this package together and come back to us and we ' ll work with you . Otherwise , don 't ask us to play . Emmings: And are you telling me that if they decided for whatever reason to back that store up to the park and the City Hall with their loading docks and everything else , that they could do that and there 'd be nothing we could do about it? Something 's terribly wrong if that 's possible . Conrad : I guess the question is , is there something we should do about that right now? Ahrens : Yeah right . Emmings: Well that corner sounds like it needs some protection that it doesn 't have . Just on the corner . I don 't know about the rest of it but at least on the corner . Krauss: Well Target , this is not a two parcel deal . Target also has an option in on the American Legion site . If you think the site plan for Charlie James ' piece was bad , you should have seen that one . Gerhardt : I think you 've got to get a rezoning for that one . . . .grant it because it 's not an appropriate use . Ahrens: Back to Steve 's question . How do we do that? How can we deal with that dilemma? Krauss: Theoretically you could change the zoning . I say theoretically because I 'm not sure what the exposure we would have . We might have bought the site . In fact frankly , we 've been using the HRA to buy up sites so we get control over it . We bought up the outlot in Market Square . We 've been doing that . Gerhardt : Well yeah , right across the street . The parcel out in front of City Hall . The HRA is buying it . If the HRA did not buy that , you could see a Super 8 built there today . As long as they made all the zoning requirements , they could build a Super I in front of City Hall and you 'd never see City Hall anytime into the future off of West 78th Street . Krauss : We could initiate , we being you as the City Council or Planning Commission , have the ability to initiate rezonings without the property owner asking it . We clearly have the right to do that . Whether or not a court would find that in so doing you took the guy 's property and you bought it . Conrad: Is there another mechansim? Is there something in an ordinance that we could do that would prevent a 30 foot wall being built? Krauss: One thing we could , we 're thinking of doing is . Gerhardt : Pushing the building farther back . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 36 Krauss: Well , when I laid out the Highway 5 corridor with the consultants , _ we included that parcel in the Highway 5 corridor so if this sits around long enough for us to finish this , it 's going to be under an overlay district that gives us some additional control and we may be able to leverage things like mandating that you do a PUD and establishing firm design guidelines that I 'm not sure what the legal standing of that is but I think we may have a fair shot at it . Again , the problem is we 're dealing with underlying zoning . Underlying zoning canveys a package of property rights . And if we take too many of them , we bought it . Emmings : And is that true , can you justify it by virtue of the fact that you 've got a park across the street from it or on some other grounds where you don 't wind up? Krauss : No . I mean a taking isn 't mitigated by the fact that it 's a good idea . • Emmings : It would seem to me even that that site shouldn 't have a building- that 's , now that 's zoned commercial right now? Krauss: Yes . Emmings: How tall of a building can you build on a commercial piece? Krauss : Where do we have that? General business . Gerhardt : I think the bank at one point was 35 feet tall . Emmings: It seems to me on that corner you wouldn 't want anything over 2 stories . Just to keep the park , keep everything real open . Krauss : Well a two story building tops out at 30 feet . Emmings: I can 't think of how that would look . If you were looking from the other way , that would appear smaller than City Hall? - Krauss : Well no . It 's actually on a site that 's lower down than City Hall so from the west . Gerhardt: I think it 's about 25 feet . City Hall 's about 25 feet . Emmings: But it sits up higher . Gerhardt : Right . You get this tuck in thing here . If you stood right out in front , it 's 25 feet from the ground to the very top . About 12 feet . 12_ 1/2 feet for each floor . For a 2 story counting the basement . Emmings: Maybe it 's something you can think about how we could . We 're not talking about all of Charlie 's property but just the corner I think . I don 't know how far back but . Krauss : Well again , I like to think that our best avenue is to use a resource that we have that almost no other city has which is that pile of cash that the HRA is willing and able to use to influence things . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 37 Emmings: But you seem to be saying that that 's chicken feed to Target if they decide to get ornery . Krauss: I think it 's chicken feed to Target in terms of cashflow but it means a lot to the upfront developer and the underlying property owner . So once you get the ball rolling , then it 's chicken feed but getting it going is the thing and we 're priming the pump with that . Conrad: Target 's not going to want the James ' property just because of visibility . That 's a big deal . Krauss: It depends on when you ask them . We 've heard both sides . Yeah , I mean Target is very good and professional at playing that game . I mean one day we hear from Target that their store criteria mandates that they must be on a highway . The next day we hear that they 're looking at the Charlie James piece and that the problem with the Burdick piece is that the City 's insisting the trees stay up so you can 't see it . Which one is it? Which day do we believe? - Gerhardt : And that 's why Don is taking the approach , we 're not getting involved in this . You pick your own site you know type thing . We 're saying we prefer you on the Burdick piece and that we would give some assistance if you locate on the Burdick piece . If you locate on the Charlie James piece , you 're waving your hands of $700 ,000 .00 and that 's a lot to Charlie James because Charlie 's going to have to make up that $700 ,000 .00 . Because if he goes down onto the Burdick piece , he could get $700 ,000 .00 and Target knows that and he 's going to say well Charlie , if you don 't go get the $700 ,000 .00 from the city , I 'm going to go down to the Burdick piece . So he 's playing both of the landowners off of each other . These guys play games all the time and that 's why it 's nice in this one that we can just sit back and say this is the way the community group that met would like to see it laid out . We 'd also like to have some architectural styles for the building and how it 's laid out on the site . And that we want to preserve the trees and if it means , we ' ll even take an ownership position in the trees . That the HRA would come in and buy the trees so they don 't have to sit and own them . Because in our ordinance right now , if they had ownership in the trees , year , two , three years later they can come in there and clear cut them and there 's nothing we can do . . . - Batzli : Todd , is the community group going to continue to meet or was that a one time deal or how are we going to work from this point on? Is it going to be Target and the HRA going back and forth until they put a site plan together and then we 'll see it? Gerhardt : No . No . This letter commits to what the HRA 's intent is for subsidy . It 's a 3 year deal . We 'll enter into a redevelopment contract . - I ' ll bring in the site plans once you 've approved them . City Council 's approved them and this one will be played through exactly like Americana Bank was . There won 't be anything taken to the HRA . I ' ll keep them - updated . It will be on the agenda so whoever gets the packet , they ' ll see an update on Target and that will just be the progress of how they 're going through the City process . But right now Scheme B or C is the intent of how that land 's going to lay out in it . And that the HRA is going to provide the assistance to make sure that we buy the Charlie James piece and add the Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 38 - Burdick piece to get that food court area down off of CR 17 . And that _ between Paul and I hammering on Ryan to come up with a site plan that seems to be acceptable tucked in behind the trees . Batzli : Okay . Sounds good . I think we need to also get our liason starting to attend so we do have some communication back and forth also . Gerhardt : And I don 't know who gets the HRA packet but there 's not a lot of detail to those packets . . . Krauss: So even though you haven 't been getting them , there 's nothing in it anyway . Gerhardt: You haven 't been getting them? Ledvina : No , I haven 't . Gerhardt: Well , we 'll make sure you get them . There isn 't one for this month because there 's nothing on the agenda for them . Conrad: You know the Planning Commission 's never done a good job of attending HRA so if we 're concerned , I think well Matt , you don 't have responsibility yet but after the first packet , you 're accountable . Gerhardt : And there 's also agendas in the newspaper the week prior to the - meeting so it is in there too . So that 's something new that 's been added . Conrad: But I guess Mr . Chairman , it 's a matter of how you want to , if we _ care about the issue and we spent an hour and something on it , does Matt give us some reports? Do we expect that? Or are we just going to keep it informal? Batzli : Todd just said that HRA is out of it now and the site plan comes to us next . Krauss: You mean in the normal chain of events will there be? Batzli : Or are you meaning in the future on other projects? Conrad: In the future on other projects . Gerhardt : Yes . - Batzli : What I would actually like to see more than that is if Todd could come in . Ledvina: You mean a written report? Conrad: No . Oh no . - Batzli : I think it 's fine that Matt 's going to do that to the extent he can and he has the time but I would prefer to see Todd come in here from time to time and let us know what 's going on . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 39 Gerhardt: I 'm going to follow each of the site plans that the HRA has any say in . You know Tom Zwinkel , Mail Source , you reviewed that one . Again , you approved site plan approval before they even approved a development contract for that . That will be the process from now on and I will follow each of the projects . If they come in to explain to you that what the HRA has talked about to date on each of those projects to make sure that there is no miscommunication from developer to Paul to Planning Commission . Conrad: So when are you going to do that? Gerhardt : Whenever a site plan comes in where the HRA might be entering into . Conrad: And you haven 't cut a deal at that time? Gerhardt : No , we never . We never will from now on . If there was - anything . Emmings: Now you just said whenever a site plan comes in . Are you talking - about a site plan , because do sometimes site plans come into the HRA before we see them? Gerhardt : No . Emmings: Okay . I 'm not sure what you mean then . Gerhardt : Somebody will come in and say , you know this it the kind of buildings we build for housing projects . Would you give us assistance in doing something like this and the HRA says yes . We 'll consider it . It was done over here on the apartment buildings . It 's mostly apartment buildings where people come into the HRA prior to that . Because they don 't want to move ahead if the HRA isn 't going to give them money . Because it 's really contingent upon apartments getting some tax increment assistance . There 's - not too many that have ever been built where they haven 't gotten it . So those are the cases where they might come to the HRA with some type of concept . And if that person comes to you and says , this has already been approved by the HRA , you don 't have any say in it . That 's when I ' ll be here to say , that 's not correct . The HRA has conceptually given authority to look at providing assistance but they have to go through the city site plan approval process first . Emmings: Or just a short thing from Todd in our packet on that site plan . Just like we get things from the Fire Department and the Public Safety and - everything . We could have a letter from the HRA saying here 's our understanding with them to date . Then he wouldn 't have to be here . Gerhardt: I might have a racquetball game . Emmings: We all know that 's primary in your life . Batzli : What I 'd also like to see though Paul is if we can have just a copy of their agenda put in our packet . So that if we have a question of what the heck are they doing with this or that or the other , we can at - least be advised . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 40 Ahrens: It is in the paper . Batzli : Yeah , if you catch the right day . Gerhardt : It 's small print . That 's not a problem for us to throw an agenda in . Batzli : I don 't want a copy of the Minutes or anything big . Cut down a bunch of trees for us but that way if something catches your eye and you want to know something about it , we can follow up . And if we don 't follow up , then who 's fault is it? Emmings: Yours , Mr . Chairman . Batzli : Okay , good . That 's settled . Okay , thank you Todd . LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT . Krauss: Before I mention that . The tree protection easements , Tim Erhart asked to have on and he 's not here tonight . He asked if you 'd mind if that got continued . Batzli : Tree protection? Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : Is that the former conservation easement? Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : Yeah , we can continue that . Krauss: And the architectural design guidelines . I mean that was just kind of a general discussion item . It 's getting late for general discussions but that 's up to you . The lot size requirement . Boy , I felt like I got my soapbox down and was preaching to the City Council . Do you want me to summarize what I said or do I need to do that? Batzli : Well , I think like I told Kate , I couldn 't tell which way you were leaning . Why don 't you just come right out and tell us . Krauss: Well , yeah . I do have an opinion on that one . And I think the Council largely agreed . Now it 's tough to define the intent of the Council sometimes but in terms of a move to increase lot sizes , there was none . After going through and reviewing my memo with them , there was no move to do that . There was also some desire to see the idea of the PUD be brought to a head . Now as to what minimum lot size would be acceptable on a PUD , there was no comment . Emmings: No comment? Ahrens: No comment? Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 41 Krauss: Well no , they didn 't decline to comment . They just never got quite around to it . Batzli : No consent . _ Krauss: Well they didn 't even , I continue to believe . It 's hard to define what people are thinking . I continue to believe the Mayor 's got a concern over smaller lot sizes . We did discuss the PUD at some length . I discussed it . In the context of the belief that the design flexibility - would really be useful and that in the Hans Hagen Home development we have a perfect example of even if we kept the 15 ,000 square foot minimum average lot size , that we could have done a pretty decent job or better job with that and responded positively to some of the concerns that we heard raised by the residents , yourselves or the City Council . And the Council didn 't disagree with that . But again I don 't know if it 's the 10 ,000 square foot minimum lot size that they 're willing to accept or if in fact they 're willing to accept any kind of diminishment of lot sizes . What I would propose . - Emmings: What about the idea that we don 't specify minimum lot size? Are they willing to? Krauss: I really don 't think , my sense is I don 't think they 'd buy that . It 's throws open the door . Emmings : To what? Krauss : Nobody knew . - Emmings: To 5 foot , square foot lots? Krauss: One of the things that they really did accept and I think had a lot of interest in is the idea in PUD 's and out of PUD 's to establish a minimum developable area which is something we attempted to do in the last draft of the PUD ordinance . Where we said even if we allow 10 ,000 square foot minimum lot sizes , you 've got to demonstrate to us that you 've got a , - let 's see here . I don 't know if I can find it on the spur of the moment but it 's a , I think it was a 60 x 40 building pad , room for a 10 x 12 deck and room for a 30 foot rear yard . Exclusive of easements and wetlands and _ everything else . Batzli : So how do we do zero lot lines with those requirements? Krauss : That doesn 't apply to zero lot lines . That 's single family detached . - Batzli : So that 's just single family detached PUD? Krauss : Yeah . What I 've done , what I did in Minnetonka and what I would think that you might want to consider here is when you 're talking about single family , zero lot line or cluster housing . Z housing or whatever you 're going to call it , it 's a very valid housing style . It 's a valid concept but my own personal belief is it may not belong in a single family - district . And where I proposed it earlier to you and where we ultimately Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 42 _ did it in Minnetonka , we said that 's fine . It 's a good style of housing but the density of it is such that it belongs in areas that are guided for medium density housing . Batzli : We can argue about PUD for as long as the Council can and what I would propose we do is , first of all I want Paul to tell me at least one good thing about a larger lot before we move on . One good thing . You didn 't say one good thing in your paper . Give me one good reason . Krauss: The guy at the hardware store who sells fertilizer really likes them . Batzli : I knew you could come up with something if you tried hard enough . I think we need to move . Pass it onto the Council . If they don 't like what we do , fine but they have given us no guidance up to this point . It 's- clear they 're not going to tell us what the magic number is . We just need to get , if we want a PUD for detached RSF , kind of single family environment . Let 's do it . Let 's pass it up there and let them wrestle with it . We 've wrestled with it for however long I 've been shouting about it . Farmakes: Dick , is there any feeling on your part that it 's somewhere between 10 and 15? Or is it commercially viable to go ahead and stick it with 15? Are they going to do anything with it? Krauss: Well Jeff , I don 't know what the Council 's going to do . I honestly don't . But I think when you ask the question , do we even need a minimum lot size , I think you need a minimum for the sense of security it provides if nothing else . That nothing will ever be smaller than blank . Batzli : Do we have a minimum right now? I don 't even remember . Emmings: Why do you need that for security? Krauss : I personally don 't . Emmings: Your security is that you have to do a rezoning and you don 't have to rezone it if you don 't like the plan . Ahrens: He 's saying for security for people who are worried about minimum lot sizes . Batzli : I mean we 're doing an ordinance now to protect the current residents . Emmings: I 'm a current resident , I don 't need protection . I really strongly feel that way . Batzli : Well then you can end up voting against whatever we do . But let 's - decide one way or another what we would like , at least 3 or 4 of us would like to see in a draft so we can vote it up or down and pass it onto the Council . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 43 Krauss: I 'm sure not going to read it now but this is the last draft that we looked at . Farmakes : I 'm assuming they would support 15 wouldn 't they? I mean I 've taken that for granted . Or am I? Emmings: Well why would a developer want to go a PUD with 15 ,000? Farmakes : You 're absolutely right . Batzli : That was the whole point of why I asked him to look into it . - Krauss : I 'm comfortable with the fact that if we 're demanding that you accommodate a 60 x 40 home , a deck and a back yard , there are very few instances where you ' ll be under 10 ,000 square feet anyway . I mean because remember , you 've got a 30 foot setback on the front and then you 've got the house and then you 've got the deck and then you 've got the back yard . Yor lot 's starting to stretch out right there . - Batzli : Okay , but what I would like to see , just as a conceptual and I know that you 've got the average lot sizes must meet or exceed 15 and that 's in bold here so we can decide whether to keep it or strike it . And - the 10 ,000 square foot minimum . We also have the applicant must demonstrate the 60 x 40 building pad . I don 't recall that there was a lot of other debate left on this . Krauss : No . It really did boil down to that . Batzli : But you and I talked the other day and maybe you can repeat for - everybody else . Ladd 's concept of having a density rather than , you know putting a fairly low minimum in there to give people comfort if they need comfort . 10 ,000 . 9 ,000 feet . Whatever that is . Make it low enough so that you basically couldn 't get any lower and still have a 60 x 40 foot building pad . Whatever it is . How does density help us or hurt us? Having a minimum density figure in there . Or maximum density or whatever we 're going to use . Krauss: I 'm trying to recall exactly what I said . Fairly profound I 'm sure . Batzli : It was . It was very profound . Conrad: Anybody remember it? Batzli : I ' ll get you started here . As I recall , we were talking about how that ties into the Comprehensive Plan and do our ordinances in general do that? Should we be doing that in this particular instance and is it helpful from the standpoint of will we be getting better developments out of it? I think your opinion at the time at least was that , well you didn 't - commit but I think you indicated that it would be worth looking at . The question is , is it worth looking at and do you think it would be helpful just off? Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 44 Krauss: I think to tie it back into the density though raises the same doubts and concerns that eliminating the minimum lot area has for people . I mean theoretically it 's a good theoretical construct . I don 't have a problem with it as long as we get decently utilizable lots . But at this point I 'm not going for philosophical purity . I think that the ordinance , the way it 's structured right now , it doesn 't give the development community probably exactly what they would want which is somebody coming in on a parcel of ground saying I want this in it 's entirety to be 10 ,000 square foot lots . But it does give a good builder like a Hans Hagen the flexibility to do the job that he felt , and I agreed , should have been done on that property . Batzli : Can we then direct instead , do something that Steve talked about earlier and that is saying we ' ll go down to 10 ,000 square feet and then instead of saying , average lot sizes for the project must meet or exceed 15 ,000 square feet . Why can 't we say , and this is I hope , I think Steve said this at some point or another in the last 3 years talking about this , was why can 't we say , look our average lot size out of a PUD is 15 ,000 . If _ you start going below these lot sizes , we 're going to look at it carefully . I mean put in an intent statement that tells the developer the smaller you get , average lot sizes and minimum lot sizes , the closer it is we 're going to look at it . Put everybody on notice and why can 't we do it that way? Krauss: We sure could . I mean I would love to have the flexibility that gives . Ahrens: We ' ll allow them to have smaller lot sizes . Batzli : They could have smaller lot sizes but at least it would put them on notice right up front so they don 't come in here and say well gee , we 've got this and that and now we got to go through the expense of another site plan . At least we 'd be able to say look right at our ordinance you know . We told you up front . When you start going to these small lots , we 're going to look at it and if we slam dunked you , sorry . Ahrens : I like that wording . Krauss : If you 're comfortable doing it that way . I mean that goes back to more original and pure intent of what a PUD is supposed to do . Batzli : Yeah . Well that 's what I think we have to pass up to the Council because I think that 's what the Planning Commission . I mean we 've been wrestling with it and my crusade to keep the 15 ,000 and make it attractive by doing something else has died a glorious death so let 's move it along . That 's my motto . Would people like to see that kind of language or with a _ minimum in there of 10 ,000 square feet like we have it right now? Would you feel uncomfortable backing it up with 10 ,000 square foot minimum plus language talking about kind of the intent? If you get smaller , we 're going to look at it closer . Anybody? Farmakes : The point is , if they wanted to change that figure , they would . At least they 'd commit to what the difference would be between 15 and 10 , if there is any . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 45 Batzli : I 'm sorry , who would commit? Farmakes: City Council to give us direction as to what they want to do with that thing . Batzli : Well we may never see it again . I mean they change the number . Farmakes : I understand that but it 's still the problem is sort of we 've got this boat dead in the water . Batzli : Yeah . Yeah . Well I think we have to pass it up . I 'm trying to find something that we can at least have 4 people vote on and send it up . Emmings : I would be interested in the density approach . I 'm kind of interested in the idea that you 've got to have a minimum size of a building _ pad , deck , and stuff exclusive of easements . I don 't mind that idea . I don 't want the 15 ,000 in there and I don 't particularly want the 10 ,000 . It sounds like a good , strong intent statement . Here 's what we 're doing . Here 's what we 're looking for . Batzli : Well I think we already have the intent section in there in our PUD . The question is whether you want another intent section in RSF . Emmings: Yes . Krauss: It 's probably appropriate to do that . That 's not difficult . Emmings: It 's always smart to put the intent in there . Ahrens: On those 9 ,000 foot lots in Near Mountain , are those 60 x 40 building pads? Krauss: I honestly don 't know Joan . I mean I think they 've got fairly good sized homes on them . Ahrens : Yeah they do . And deck . Krauss : And to the best of my knowledge , we haven 't had a lot of variances or any variance situations up there . Batzli : I hope they meet sideyard setbacks . _ Krauss: Well , I think the sideyard setbacks were relaxed for the entire PUD . Batzli : So what concept would you like to see Joan? Let 's take a straw poll here . Ahrens: I 'm still thinking . Batzli : Okay , Jeff . _ Farmakes: I like the minimum building pad . I 'd just split the difference between 10 and 15 . I think we have to go on with this thing . What is this Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 46 the fifth time it 's come back? Split the difference . Other than that , your intent statement is fine . I just think we 're talking about a difference between 20 x 100. Batzli : We 're talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a man . Farmakes: We're talking about a very small piece of property . Batzli : Okay . Matt , what do you think? Ledvina: The history on this goes back way before me but I think , I can see the argument for both sides . The security issue of having the numbers in there . I can see the purity of if you 're going to have a PUD , why don 't you just , if you 've got the control in other forms within the ordinance , why do you need to identify the numbers . So I don 't know but I think generally a minimum of 10 ,000 in terms of keeping the thing moving and giving the developer something to work with . I would support a minimum of _ 10 ,000 square foot . Batzli : How about building pad? Do you want to see that in there? Ledvina : Yeah , I think those are reasonable things . I added it up and I don 't know , maybe I didn 't look at this exactly but I got about 6 ,200 square feet looking at my calculations on the setbacks . So that doesn 't - make 10 ,000 square feet but no . I like the idea of having the setbacks . Ahrens : If you have the building pad and the setback , but you could put that on a 6 ,200 square foot lot . What 's the point of having that in there? If you want to go along with a 10 ,000 square foot lot? I mean what 's the point of saying it has to meet these minimums? Batzli : Well because you could have wetland . You could have a lot of things . You could do the deal like they had over on the Ersbo property . Ahrens: Yeah but if we 're saying that the lot must demonstrate it has 60 x 40 building pad , 12 x 12 deck . Krauss: If you provided those things , you have a 30 foot frontyard setback . The house is 40 feet deep . You have a 12 foot deck and a 30 foot yard , that 's just depth right now . You 've got 112 feet of depth . To maintain a 60 foot wide building pad , you need 80 feet for 10 on the sideyards . So you 've got just under 9 ,000 square feet would be the absolute minimum that somebody could do . You 've got 112 so if you add 112 time 80 . Batzli : Okay . So what do you think of the intent statement? Do you want to see an intent , an overall intent statement? Krauss: Wait , wait . I 've got to take that back . We did relax the front yard setback in a PUD to 20 feet so you could knock off . Emmings : You 've got 102 x 80 . So now we 're down to almost 8 ,000 . 8 , 160 . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 47 Ledvina : I think there should be an intent statement in there just to . - Batzli : Overall or we 're going to look at it more closely if you start getting smaller? - Ledvina : I don 't know what you mean by overall? Batzli : Well , Steve wants an overall intent statement of here 's what the PUD is . Emmings: I want the other part too . The smaller you get , the harder we look . Batzli : Oh , you want that? - Emmings : Oh yeah . Batzli : Oh! I thought you chided me and didn 't like that at all . You said you didn 't like that at all . Emmings: No , no . When I said intent statement , I meant . - Batzli : Let 's take a vote . Who thought Steve said that I was . Ahrens: He just changed his mind . Emmings: I 'd like to go home . Batzli : Okay , so we want intent statement . Okay , Ladd what do you want to - vote for here? Conrad: Are we going to do something tonight? Batzli : We 're going to tell Paul to put something together so we can vote on it next time . Conrad : Ah , okay . I still like the overall density direction and getting rid of feet . I 'm not sure what the number is but something that 's comparable to development today that we feel comfortable with . And if we - don 't have the votes for that here . Batzli : We don 't so far . You and Steve . Maybe me . Emmings: Joan 's still thinking . Batzli : Yeah , Joan 's still thinking but I 'm just , the people that spoke . Conrad: I 'm also trying to think of what 's going to make the City Council comfortable too . Batzli : Density 's not going to make them feel comfy . Farmakes : That 's it . We ' ll get it back a sixth time here . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 48 - Emmings: No , because then they ' ll make a decision to do it another way . They won 't send it back to us . Batzli : They won 't see it for another 3 years if they send it back to us . Emmings : I think we shouldn 't try to anticipate what City Council 's going to do . What we should do is the best job we can and then give it to them . Conrad : But my perception is they might not settle on a solution and if we can give them a solution that they can buy into , we 've got a good chance of getting something through . But if it 's not palatable , I don 't think they 're going to come up with one . Batzli : So your contingent choices are? Conrad: I can go along with the 10 ,000 feet in here but I do need , some of the wording is just not comfortable yet . Like I really do want to communicate to that developer that it 's not just a mix but , every time a mix of lot sizes . I 'm not real thrilled about going under 15 ,000 feet period . And I want them to know that and I don 't want it to be a standard . I don 't want to set , what we basically said is 15 ,000 feet is the standard here and that , all of a sudden that 's exactly the number that they 're going - to come in at on average . Basically 15 ,000 feet is the minimum for a single family subdivision . And so I 'm not sure what we 're communicating in this . And words are real important and so far I 'm not sold that we 've communicated to the developers what we want . And I know that that 's not much direction for staff to word it but I 'm just not there yet . But I can accept some of the numbers that are in here . Batzli : Do you want to see a building pad in there? Conrad: That 's okay . Yeah , I don 't have a problem with that and I don 't - have a problem going down to 10 ,000 . I really don 't have a problem going down to 9 ,000 . I guess my problem is , if I saw more than a few that were down that small , I 'm not going to approve it . I can see one or two and 100 _ or 3 just because it may be the right thing to do . I also can say , from a philosophical standpoint , if there are , the reason Near Mountain works on a 10 ,000 square foot basis is because there are a lot of trees . That 's the only reason and it 's got some elevation here and there and therefore it looks good . Well , a developer comes in here and they 're going to put some 9 ,000 , 10 ,000 square foot lots in the middle of a farm field , that doesn 't look good . I 'm not going to approve it . But I want to communicate that as _ much front end as possible so I don 't waste his time , or her time . Batzli : But I think if you , not to you and him fight , but I think that what we 're proposing with the PUD 's is if we had a farm field going up into trees , we 'd put the larger stuff up in the trees to save the trees and the stuff down in the corn field would come in as 9 ,000 square foot lots . I think that 's the direction staff would push on . Conrad: Probably so and I might have a disagreement with that . Because I 'm taking a practical example of something that I , I guess we 'll preserve the trees by putting the large lots up there and I understand that . But in terms of quality development , the reason Near Mountain looks good at the Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 49 9 ,000 square foot in their PUD is because they had a lot of , they tucked those houses in . Variety of styles , I don 't know if I could say variety of styles . Not a variety but a fairly attractive housing types in trees in a terrain that was kind of rolling and not flat . I 'd like it . I might not like a 9 ,000 square foot development in another situation . I don 't know . So I 'm not sure what we 're communicating . I don 't want to communicate to a developer the potential of doing something when I don 't have , I don 't want to mislead them I guess is my bottom line too . Batzli : Joan . Ahrens: I think that we should go with , I don 't have any problem with the - language in here . The average lot size is 15 ,000 . I think we should have an intent statement . Building pad thing should be , wording should be included . Batzli : Do you want to go density or no? Ahrens : No . Batzli : And the minimum? Ahrens: I knew that was coming . Minimum . I think we should have a minimum of , actually I feel uncomfortable having a minimum square foot in there . Batzli : So you 'd just leave it as we need an average and a building pad size? Ahrens: Yes . With an intent statement . Batzli : I don 't like the average because I think you 're going to end up with the PUD that has 4 or 5 huge lots and everything else is small . That would meet it . Granted it may not meet the intent section but I think it 's , I don 't think it accomplishes what we want it to do so I don 't really like the average other than as part of an intent section which basically says , our minimum lot size in other districts is 15 ,000 and so to the extent you 're going below those kinds of numbers , then we start looking at it more and more carefully . If it 's included in the intent section . You don 't even have to put the number in there . I mean you could basically just say , we 're going to look at it related to lot sizes in other districts or whatever . Then we can look at it how we want to look at it . So I don 't know if the 15 ,000 even needs to be in there in that regard . I 'd be interested in looking at density but it doesn 't sound to me like Paul is gung ho about the whole thing and I don 't know how it would work . I think we 're going to end up with like , I think we 're going to end up looking at the density anyway during the development process . That 's typically something that when the lot sizes start getting small , we end up asking those questions . What is the density of this project? So I don 't know how much that adds . It 's an interesting concept though because it allows both us and the developer I think some flexibility . And I think that 's what the intent of the PUD should be . And so I don 't know whether we 're giving the developer enough flexibility to make it worthwhile to them and yet have not only a pleasing resource for the city but a nice place for the people who Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 50 move in to live . And those two things I think are what we need to be worried about . Unless we make it economically attractive , the developers aren 't going to do it anyway . And so we 'll find out right away once we pass this thing , I think whether it 's economically realistic or not . And maybe we ' ll make a mistake . Maybe we 'll have to come back and address it but we 're going to find out right away when we start seeing plans coming in , one way or another . If we don 't see any for the next 3 years because the City Council puts a minimum of 15 ,000 square feet , we ' ll know . Conrad: Well it didn 't work at 12 ,500 . Batzli : Yeah . Conrad: We got no takers at 12 ,500 . Showing the flexibility coming from 15 down to that number . -- Batzli : Well we had very few . Krauss: Yeah the only one really was Lake Susan Hills which was a big one but arguably the City didn 't achieve any of the goals that we think you should be in a PUO . Ahrens: Practically speaking , I don 't think developers are going to come in though . If we 're working with average lot sizes , come in and fill this 200 unit housing development and put 4 large lots in or half a dozen large - lots and everything else small just to meet the minimum . Krauss: If you 're really concerned about it , you can put a statement in there that lots larger than 40 ,000 square feet will only be counted as 40 ,000 square feet . So you artifically juggle the average . Ahrens : Who 's going to come in and buy . I mean practically speaking , somebody with the money to buy an acre , and acre and a half lot is not going to buy it in a subdivision of 9 ,000 square foot lots . Krauss: It doesn 't make sense , right . Ahrens : They 're not going to do that and a developers not going to attempt to sell expensive lots that way . I just don 't see it happening . Conrad : Okay , correct me if I 'm wrong . You can , if you 've got a wetland there , the wetland will count for your lot size . Krauss : But we can define that too . Conrad: And that 's important . So you could end up having 4 way , you can divide up your wetland and end up with 4 large lots of x number of feet , huge and then every other property comesin at 10 ,000 square feet . Emmings : I get screwed up on this but why do we let them count wetlands? I don 't understand that . Of course if we 're going on density , we avoid that problem . Another good reason to go on density folks . Conrad: That 's right , if you go on lot size . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 51 Emmings: But even if we 're going on lot sizes . It seems to me they shouldn 't be allowed . I didn 't think Lundgren Bros . on the Ersbo thing should have been allowed to count what was under water on their lot sizes and I think we should get rid of that . Krauss: Well , and that 's a problem throughout our subdivision code too but the Lundgren development , I don 't want to open up old wounds but the Lundgren development had an average lot size exclusive of wetlands of 18 ,000 square feet . Emmings: Yeah . I didn 't mind the development . I didn 't like them drawing the lot lines out into the wetlands and saying this is part of this lot . That I didn 't care about . Ahrens : Is that what TF said? Krauss: TF? Oh yeah . 3900 Wayzata Blvd . . We actually make them though draw those lines to the middle of the wetland for a different reason . We prefer not to go outlot status on the wetland . Emmings: Yeah , you want it in ownership? Krauss: Yeah . Emmings: Yeah I guess that 's okay but when you tell us , maybe it gets back to using the buildable area . I like that idea much better . It seems much more honest to me . Farmakes: I think that 's how he did it in his chart . He used the total figures when he was charting them . Krauss: No we actually made up , the last time this came through we . Batzli : The last time . Farmakes: The first time we saw it here , he used the total . Krauss : Yes , but we presented charts that . Farmakes: He was asked about the question when he was up here and he said , yeah . It should be out to the middle of the lake . Conrad: I think density has it . Emmings : I agree . Batzli : Well , the density , I mean even if something is zoned PUD and it 's developed PUD , the comprehensive plan densities still apply do they not? Krauss : Yes . Batzli : So the only thing that that does is give us more leeway . It doesn 't . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 52 Krauss: Well I don 't think it does much of anything for you since it allows up to 4 units an acre on the low density category and that 's 10 ,000 . Well , actually maybe it does . 10 ,000 square foot lots . We 're right in that ballpark . So you can 't ever exceed that anyway . Although , once you knock out roads . Emmings: Right . You 're down to your 2 .8 whatever . Maybe less . Batzli : I think the things that have at least the votes to pass here are building pad , intent statements and the minimum lot size . I don 't know how Tim would vote . If he 'd go density or not . Ahrens: I think he 'd go average lot size . Emmings : I do too . That sounds like Tim to me . We ' ll find out next week . - Batzli : But I don 't think average carried the day other than Joan and perhaps Tim . So give us a 10 ,000 square foot minimum , intent statement and building pad . Krauss: So we eliminate the 15 ,000 square foot average? Batzli : I think so . There was a minority of people who liked that . Krauss: I 'd be happy to do it that way . I mean that 's the way I would have preferred to have done it . Batzli : Oh, sure now he says . _ Krauss: No . I mean Hans Hagen came in and was able to do it with a 15 ,000 square foot average and when I saw that , I said well maybe I can salvage something out of this and if we can get a PUD that at least does that much , - maybe I can get enough flexibility . But this I think gives us more . Batzli : So unless Tim comes in and is really gung ho with density , then we ' ll go this route . Emmings : I have a question . Farmakes: . . .convinced that they can still turn this down if they don 't like what they see? Batzli : The City Council? Farmakes: City Council , yeah . They 're hung up on the minimum pad . That 's the numbers . That 's the hang up correct? Emmings: Oh no , but then he tried to get some direction on that and it doesn 't sound like he got any . Farmakes: No , I understand that but the original problem was the 10 ,000 square foot figure . That 's what the original problem was . Emmings: It 's still the problem . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 53 Farmakes: The understanding is that that 's not a zone requirement , you could still can the whole project correct? Batzli : You could can it because you wouldn 't rezone it . Krauss : Well that 's right and that 's a critical thing . A PUD is , I forget what they call it . Legislative action . I mean it 's a rezoning . You don 't have to , well you have a lot more latitude to turn it down . Farmakes: I think it 's an important point when it 's being brought forward because if that 's what is frightening to the Council , that 's their lever to flush it down the toilet and say they don 't like it . Batzli : Okay , that 's a wrap . Steve? Emmings: I remember some time ago , and this feels like it was a long time - ago , when we used to see Jo Ann . Jo Ann once said we have to do the shoreland zoning . - Krauss : It 's in process . Emmings : That 's a long time it 's been in process . I know she said we don 't have to do it right away . Krauss: We have 2 years . - Emmings: And I remember I thought , but if you 've got it right there in your hand , why don 't we do it? Krauss: Well because I 'm arguing with the DMR . Emmings : About what? Krauss: About their model ordinance . Batzli : Yeah but didn 't we just see something on our last packet as an informational thing? Krauss: In fact the swamp committee asked that we put it on their agenda . I don 't see why we couldn 't do the same for you . What we 've done is we taken what we have and taken what they would like us to do and we 've laid out , we agreed that this makes sense . We don 't think this makes sense . Aanenson: Or how we 've already addressed it on our ordinance . Emmings: We certainly have an opportunity . We can make , our standards can be more strict than their 's . Are you talking about? Krauss : Yeah . Some of the things they do like , a shoreland district is anyplace within 1 ,000 feet of a water body . Emmings : That 's every place in Chanhassen . Planning Commission Meeting May 20 , 1992 - Page 54 Krauss: Within 1 ,000 feet of a water body , you have to have larger lot sizes . 20 ,000 square feet . You have to , there 's all sorts of other things that it trips and I 've long maintained that that 's ridiculous . I mean are you telling me that everything within 4 block , 5 blocks of Lake Harriet is in a shoreland district and should be 20,000 square feet . That 's what the - law says . It 's a stupid . It 's made for every lake in Minnesota and up to 14 ,000 we have , maybe it works for most of them but it doesn't work very well in the metro area . Emmings: There 's no distinction between what 's within municipal limits and what 's not? Krauss: Not a bit . Emmings: That doesn 't seem reasonable . Krauss: And there 's no distinction between what 's in the metro area . Emmings : What 's sewered and what 's not . Krauss: Well they do have a .sewered and non-sewered . Aanenson: And it 's classification of a lake . Krauss: But why don 't we throw it in your packet because we have it written up . We can show you where we 're at . Emmings: I just happened to think of it . Emmings moved , Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. .1 Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim REVISED MAY 29, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) City Council approved study launch on and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study April 29. Work to begin with concurrent set up of advisory committee. First issues meeting expected late June. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow. OTHER I'1"EMS 1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated information for Planning Commission direction. 2.* Sign Ordinance Work is continuing to progress with task force. Program expected to be completed shortly. 3. Tree Protection Ordinance Inventory in progress. Over view of Mapping of significant existing tree protection regulations vegetative areas requested by Commisser Erhart. 4. Wetland Ordinance/Surface Main group establishing public Water Management Program information and erosion control program Task Force established. along with other work. Special wetlands subcommittee working to fast track development of new ordinance. 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on a draft of the ordinance. Initial comments delivered to MnDNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. 6.* Group home ordinance PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Currently preparing draft ordinance. Schedule for 6/17/92 meeting. 7.* Rural Lot Area Policies CC approve final reading 6/8/92. 8. PUD Ordinance Future meetings required. 9. PC input in Downtown Ongoing Planning and Traffic Study — 10.* Review of Architectural 1992/may be combined in part with Hwy. Standards to Promote High 5 work. — Quality Design 11. Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line Preservation — Greenway ordinance, CC referred item to Park and Recreation Commission. Staff working with Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek — Watershed District to develop joint Bluff Creek corridor program. 12. Ordinance amendment to Non- PC approved. City Attorney to redraft. conforming use section to clarify — ordinance. 13. Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance revisions to follow. 14. Truck and trailer rental standards. Request by PC. 15. Sexually oriented businesses PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Sent to Public Safety Commission. 16. Lot sizes - what is involved in PC review on 5/6/92. reassessing lot sizes 17. Review of Alternate Target site Joint meeting held on 4/29/92. plans 18.* Tree conservation easements. To be reviewed by PC on June 17, 1992. * Change in status since last report CITY OF OtblCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: May 29, 1992 SUBJ: Report from Director At the May 18, 1992, City Council meeting, the following items were reviewed: 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Chapter 20 of the City Code pertaining to mining and earthwork, first reading was approved on the consent agenda. 2. Interim Use Permit for grading/excavation located on Lot 5, Vineland Addition, Fortier and Associates, was approved on the consent agenda. 3. Interim Use Permit for grading/excavation located on Lot 7, Block 1, Park One 3rd Addition, Fortier and Associates, was approved on the consent agenda. 4. Wetland Alteration Permit for the construction of County Road 17 and the mitigation of an additional 0.005 acres of wetland along Lake Drive, City of Chanhassen. This item was pulled from the agenda by Councilwoman Dimler. She raised a concern that since the Council was not at this time proceeding with the construction project due to cost ramifications, that in her view, the wetland alteration permit was irrelevant. Ultimately, the Council voted to table the item in case the project is resurrected. 5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to require that boats moored in front lake front parcels be owned by and registered in the name of the lake front property owner, final reading was tabled by the City Council. 6. Concept plan and rezoning for a conference/spa center on 19 acres located at 1350 Flying Cloud, Leland Gohlike. The Council appeared to be excited about this project as the Planning Commission was, and was very supportive of the es two, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission May 29, 1992 Page 2 proposal. We expect to have the applicant back before us shortly to come in receive PUD, rezoning and site plan approval. 7. Non-conforming use permit for a recreational beachlot for Trolls Glen Homeowners Association. The Planning Commission may recall that the issue on this non-conforming beachlot was whether or not they should be allowed to dock the two boats found in 1981, or the 4 boats present today. The Planning Commission recommended 2 boats based upon the 1981 survey. The Council ultimately allowed for up to 4 boats on the property based upon data submitted relative to homeowner association minutes of that time period which did indicate that 4 boats had been anticipated. 8. Comprehensive plan amendment and zoning ordinance amendment regarding minimum lot sizes in the rural service area, first reading. This amendment would allow reductions in minimum lot sizes in the rural service area without lowering average density. The purpose is to promote clustering where appropriate. The Council was supportive of this proposal and approved it accordingly. Non-Council Items Target Site Plan - Target and its representatives continue to negotiate with city staff relative to site location. Although no site has yet firmly been selected, it is appearing more and more likely that Target would be developed on the Burdick property in accordance with plans developed by the city in conjunction with Bill Morrish and Barry Warner. Staff will keep the Planning Commission posted as to further progress.