The URL can be used to link to this page

8-16-95 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1995, 7:00 Rodenittsnn CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Review of a 9,161 square foot office/warehouse facility on a 1.57 acre lot, property _ zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development Industrial, located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, Highland Development, Inc. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. James and Karen Meyer for a preliminary plat request to subdivide 6.55 acres into 4 single family lots and variance request to Section 18-57(o) which allows up to four lots to be served by a private drive on property located at 6225 Ridge Road, north of Pleasant View Road, James and Karen Meyers. 3. *Item Deleted and rescheduled for September 6. 4. Holasek Greenhouse for an Interim Use Permit request for an "after the fact" grading/earthwork for 36,000 cubic yards of material located south of Lyman Boulevard (Co. Rd. 18) and west of Galpin Blvd. (Co. Rd. 19). 5. Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 22.4 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 79 lots, 3 outlots and associated right-of-way; site plan review for 76 single family _ detached zero-lot-line homes on 19.64 acres; and a wetland alteration permit and wetland setback on property located on Lake Riley Boulevard, on the north side of Lake Riley, North Bay, Rottlund Company, Inc. 6. An amendment to the City Code regarding seasonal/temporary sales. 7. *Item Deleted and rescheduled for September 6. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. *Items Deleted 3. Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Buildings (2) on the same lot and site plan approval for a 1,255 sq. ft. drive through car wash on property zoned BG, General Business District and located at 335 West 79th Street (West 79th Street and Great Plains Blvd.), Gary Brown. 7. An amendment to the City Code regarding limited pawnbrokers as a conditional use in the BG, General Business and BF, Business Fringe Districts. C I TY 0 F PC DATE: August 2, 1995 `, 1 cllANHAssrx CC DATE: AugustAugust 2816,, 1995 1995 \�1 CASE #: Site Plan #95-11 �1y By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site plan review for a 9,161 square foot office/warehouse (1,802 sq. ft. office and 7,359 sq. ft. warehouse) — Z LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition hon COY Administrator QOdorsectivil II APPLICANT: Highland Development, Inc. ` ted ?4- CL 2060 Majestic Way Dab Molded to Ccnmission Chanhassen, MN 55317 612 470-8901 8-/b-95 — ( ) Dak Submitted to Council PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD ACREAGE: 1.57 acres (68,250 sq. ft.) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - IOP, railroad, vacant S - PUD, National Weather Service E - PUD, vacant lot, Jehovah Witness, Power System W - PUD, open space/pond area pt. WATER AND SEWER: Available to site. — Q ' PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is being prepared for development as part of the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. There are no W significant environmental features on this lot. Vacant office/industrial lots abut the property to the east and south. The lot abuts a public right-of-way on Commerce Drive. • 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial AlIii. ...1611/11 . _ LA ANN (5..? L.5 V 4 I I 1 1 P 4' •• i e I Mr x •- ...rrii._• , . . . , .......,,,,,,,., , „..,........... I ..,....._ , 7,1i1/4„.,T.,H. „ _ ........._ ., . .... .r..„, ... .„.„ . .. ...„ ..:, A litho. ,-•i I I I 111 111 LAKE III -- ll ANN PA-K —.. ----,1 - ftligill. iWird _. STA • W 1-- al .-- ,----:--- 4.5:7- ilk ipka,71 H Z14 •:?9'.-*F. : I 11011TIVALIII 1 ' VIII.411111 siii"!%. w ap, F.r. lik'..4% L0100-ff ...:, eill!: 11210, STA SIT 404104 go II, I, i 1"6111111411 . ti7 VAMP.”111- AI a CATI • . _ ,%1 ,11-E;„' 0141211111,1111 ,-- -Aill •,. -iacc ISMIllionsa La_ nig -111110 -- -1 All iii 1I ..1' •ii.A' ...... . •,...‹.....N. iNs...,........„...... ••JI o' ia isostis% -,.4poluil Zi,*cysi ' AIS041111,,t ! S,..-•‘ - .ift:t-isittiiia 144-•••:,-I (CR.181 (YUAN8/VD _.z.....i....--• 1 I I O O o 0 0 N 0 - OW ,•." I la. pop . , t .c I I 8700—: ..._ .Ame to...Iscia .Nitiiiipill:,,,i9or.:7,4:::::.-2;. 0 t'Air!6.5 '' 4 vis, :i•-1*.: 1 ? 8 o 2 e €- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , .r.,..71/- gt:•4 IV. 1..sye 40,.E.mio 8800— e Amin& .,.... •.l'4in• ,-- 0 °W411111115"N6,-- L 8900------ - T . 0 0_ it. La ri 9000 OF , _., w cr %SSEN 9200 MAP 9300 - rilliss / N 1 ,— o / a I 9400 i 1 - -- _ -A....- 9500 • 7 I 9600 co, o •?! , ----e/A: i MI- I 1,..... 9700 1.1 .... .7. 9800 , 0 , 1 4t 4.3 I 1 — 9900 1 ' e 4 0000— / IIIIW ./ . 1010,:, *, — 10200 *NGINEERING DEPT. ‘ •--•- :•-;6-1 '1•-=-.40 ••:::-''',....''-',-, 0300 4%---- ' "::::!?::-:::' i^/• ', ED JAN, 1995 .'3. 1 10400- / / 10500 I I I \ / Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 August 2, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a 9,161 square foot office warehouse building on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. The warehouse is approximately 20V2 feet in height. The office portion of the building is 12 feet in height. There is potential future expansion area for the building on the north and south sides of the proposed structure. The applicant is proposing the use of unpainted tilt-up random ribbed concrete panels for the warehouse portion of the building and a dry-vit (textured finishing system). The PUD requires that all walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. Staff is concerned that the applicant does not provide sufficient architectural interest within the warehouse component of this development and recommends that additional architectural detail be provided on the northeast and northwest elevations. Examples of such detail are the use of glazed tiles, projection of concrete panels to add relief, _ incorporation of smooth areas or bands within the facade, geometric patterns, etc. The applicant has proposed using a blue horizontal band to accentuate the building (based on revised elevations dated 8/4195). The southwest elevation of the building can be relieved through the use of landscaping. Additional landscaping needs to be provided north of the building to provide screening from the residential development to the northwest which the applicant has incorporated in revised landscaping plans dated 8/4/95. Staff believes that the proposed development meets the standards established as part of the PUD and is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions contained in this report. The Planning Commission tabled action on this request on July 19, 1995 so that the applicant could revise the building elevations and landscaping plan per staff comments. BACKGROUND On January 13, 1992, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for the Chanhassen Business Center as shown on the attached site plan. The PUD was amended on February 8, 1993 to allow for a church as a permitted use and the final plat for phase I of the project was approved. On April 24, 1995, the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subdividing Outlot C into 7 lots, was approved by the City. The Chanhassen Business Center is an industrial/office park on 93.7 acres. The original plat consisted of 12 lots and 2 outlots. The ultimate development for this proposal was to have a total of 700,000 square feet of building area with a mix of 20% office, 25% industrial and 55% warehouse. The first phase of final plat approval included two lots. The National Weather Service (NWS) was built on Lot 1, Block 2 and the Jehovah Witness Church was built on Lot 1, Block 1 of the 1st Addition. Power Systems was built on Lot 4, Block 1 and Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 August 2, 1995 Page 3 — Paulstarr Enterprises was built on Lot 7, Block 1 of the 2nd Addition. One of the original conditions of the PUD was that the perimeter landscaping was to be installed as well as the — trail. Due to the extensive costs of grading and utility extension, the developers sought relief from this requirement. When the first two uses were approved, the perimeter landscaping was required for these two uses only. The Jehovah Witness Church has completed their _ perimeter landscaping. The NWS building has posted surety for the completion of perimeter landscaping this spring. Staff added a condition on the 2nd Addition plat that all required perimeter landscaping be completed with this phase. This landscaping will be consistent with — the approved landscaping plan for the original PUD. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The development standards will remain the same as previously approved with the PUD. a. Intent — The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more — sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. — b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that — interpretation. 1. Light Industrial. The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, — or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. 2. Warehousing. Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. — 3. Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity. FINDING: The proposed uses of light industrial and office are consistent with the parameters established as part of the PUD. Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 August 2, 1995 Page 4 c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and parking setbacks. The landscape buffer on Audubon Road is 50 feet, south of Lake Drive and 100 feet along the southern property line. The PUD zone requires a building to be setback 50 feet from the required landscape buffer and public right-of-ways. There is no minimum requirement for setbacks on interior lot lines. The following setbacks shall apply from the right-of-way: Building Parking Required (interior road system) 25' 15' Provided Commerce Drive 110' 20' FINDING: The proposed development meets or exceeds the minimum setbacks established as part of the PUD. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition CBC Lot Size - Bldg Bldg Sq. Building Coverage Impervious PUD Acres Ht. (ft.) Ft. Surface Proposed 1.55 40' 17,000 26% 65% Lot 2 Highland 1.57 20' 8" 9,161 13.4% 37 % Develop., Lot 2 The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses. Parking Standards: Office - 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet; Warehouse - 1 space per 1,000 for first 10,000 square feet, then 1 space per 2,000 square feet. Staff has estimated the required parking at 16 spaces. The applicant has provided 24 spaces. Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 August 2, 1995 Page 5 Building Square Footage Breakdown for entire development Office 20% 120,700 sq. ft. Manufacturing 25% 150,875 sq. ft. — Warehouse 54.09% 326,425 sq. ft. Church 0.91% 5,500 sq. ft. — Total 100% 603,500 sq. ft. FINDING: The proposed development meets the development standards established as part of the PUD. The city has previously approved the following square footages within the Chanhassen Business Center: church - 5,500 square feet; office - 32,219.5 square feet — (National Weather Service, Power Systems, and Paulstarr Enterprises); and warehouse - 38,333.5 square feet (Power Systems and Paulstarr Enterprises). e. Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. — 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block. 3. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 4. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 5. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, _ textured or coated. 6. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HVAC screen. 7. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. — 8. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, — etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. 9. The use of large unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be — prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 August 2, 1995 Page 6 and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. — 10. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures for all developments in the Business Center. FINDING: The applicant is proposing the use of unpainted tilt-up random ribbed concrete panels for the warehouse portion of the building and a dry-vit (textured finishing system). The PUD requires that all walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. .: - - i - - - - ' The applicant has revised the plans to include a two foot wide horizontal blue (Glidden Life Master Pro Hi Performance Acrylic Coating, Spellbound) band on the warehouse portion of the building (revised plans dated 8/4/95) which compliment the banding around the office area of the structure. The office area's basic wall color is dover sky (grey), with accent panels of periwinkle blue, and two eight inch bands of spellbound blue below and above the windows. Staff believes this revision meets the intent of the PUD design requirements. f. Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I area to be installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of individual site plan approvals but we believe the buffer yard and plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 2. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or landscaping. 3. The master landscape plan for the CBC PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 August 2, 1995 Page 7 4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive along Audubon Road shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of Phase I grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. — 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. — FINDING: The landscaping plan nccds to has been revised to provide building relief and additional screening (plans dated 8/4/95). Specifically, six deciduous trees, 25 feet on center, shall be planted on the southwest side of the building beginning at the northwest corner of the warehouse. A landscape screen consisting of a mix of between five and seven evergreens and deciduous trees shall be incorporated in a triangular shaped area, with a minimum of 60 foot — sides, located in the northwest corner of the property south of the NSP easement. Additional evergreens shall also be provided on the east property line, north of the driveway to screen the loading area. — g. Signage 1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 2. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All signs require a separate permit. 3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. 4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. FINDING: The applicant has not provided details regarding signage for the site. _ h. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 August 2, 1995 Page 8 2. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. 3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. FINDING: The applicant has not provided lighting details or calculations for this development. However, city ordinance and the PUD standards provide sufficient control to assure compliance to an established standard. GRADING The entire site will be graded in conjunction with the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. Only minor site grading for the parking lot will be necessary in conjunction with this site plan. DRAINAGE Storm sewer is proposed to convey surface water runoff from the parking lot area into the existing storm sewer. Staff requests that detailed stormwater calculations for a 10-year storm event will be supplied prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan proposes planting trees along the storm sewer line on the east property line. The trees should be placed in a fashion so that they are not directly over the storm sewer. In addition, the applicant should enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for these planting materials that fall within the City's drainage and utility easement. UTILITIES Sewer and water service is being extended to the site in conjunction with the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition improvement project. MISCELLANEOUS Erosion control measures are proposed around the perimeter of the site. Staff also recommends that a rock filter construction entrance be used and maintained until the parking lot has been paved with an all-weather surface. In addition, the catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the parking lot has been paved. Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 August 2, 1995 Page 9 LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan nccds to has been revised to provide building relief and additional screening (plans dated 8/4/95). Specifically, six deciduous trees, 25 feet on center, shall be planted on the southwest side of the building beginning at the northwest corner of the warehouse. A landscape screen consisting of a mix of between five and seven evergreens and deciduous trees shall be incorporated in a triangular shaped area, with a minimum of 60 foot sides, located in the northwest corner of the property south of the NSP easement. Additional — evergreens shall also be provided on the east property line, north of the driveway to screen the loading area. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The applicant has not provided lighting details or calculations for this development. However, city ordinance and the PUD standards provide sufficient control to assure compliance to an established standard. The applicant has not provided signage details for the project. — SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; — (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural — i site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; _ (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 — August 2, 1995 Page 10 a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; — c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the — public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light — and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design guidelines established as part of the Chanhassen Business Center PUD with the modifications outlined in the staff report, and the site plan — review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous development in the area. The site design is compatible and harmonious with the approved industrial developments throughout the city. Neighboring properties will be — protected through the incorporation of the revisions to the development contained in this staff report. — RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: — "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Site Plan 95-11 for Highland Development, plans dated 6/19/95 prepared by Bernard Herman Architects, Inc., subject to the following conditions: — 1. Fire Marshal conditions: Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 — August 2, 1995 Page 11 a. Submit technical data to Fire Marshal which spells out processes, product commodity manufactured and warehoused. This is used to determine fire sprinkler design density. b. Add one fire hydrant on the east corner of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. — "Notes on site plan." d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #07-1991 - "Pre-Fire Plan." Copy enclosed. e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1992, - "Premise — Identification." Copy enclosed. f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #36-1994 - "Combination — Fire Sprinkler/Domestic Supply Pipe." Copy enclosed. g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #40-1995 - "Fire Sprinkler — Systems." Copy enclosed. 2. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed stormwater runoff calculation for a — 10-year storm event. 3. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement for the landscape plantings — within the utility and drainage easement along the east property line prior to issuance of a building permit. No landscape plantings shall be placed over the city's utility lines. — 4. The plans shall include a rock filter construction entrance as well as the catch basins being protected with hay bales or silt fence until the parking lot has been paved with an all-weather surface. 5. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing — material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 August 2, 1995 Page 12 7. All freestanding signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. 8. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than %2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pac units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off-site and no more than 1/2 foot candle of light is at the property line. a. geometric patterns, etc. 10. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide building relief and additional �c ccning. Specifically, six deciduous trees, 25 feet on center, shall be planted on the - - -- --- - - I, ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Reduced site plan 3. Reduced landscaping plan 4. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated June 27, 1995 5. Letter from Bernard Herman to Bob Generous dated June 29, 1995 6. Chanhassen Business Center Preliminary Plans Highland Development, Site Plan 95-11 — August 2, 1995 Page 13 7. Tree Guide, from A Guide to Field Identification: Trees of North America, C. Frank Brockman, Western Publishing Company, Inc., 1986 8. Preliminary Landscape and Grading Plan for Chanhassen Business Center — 9. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 10. Material specification. 11. Site plan dated 6/19/95. — i 86/14/95 14:41 :36 612-937-5739-> 6125151254 Page 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN 890 COULTER DRIVE RECEIVED CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JUN 1 (512) 937•,600 1995 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 'APPLICANT: v ent Inc. OWNER Highland Development Inc. 2060 Majestic Way 2060 Majestic Way —AbbRESS; ADDRESS: Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE(Day time) 470-8901 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprellensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Varianoe Qr dlrti/Ecavation Permit 13. Wetland Aiteratlon Permit T4.- irft6rlm Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal "r5.. 6 __ Pitinned Unit Development15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 8. RsZoning 7. _ 814n Permits 1.177Sin Plan Review Notification Signs rg.: , Bh6 Plan Review Esorow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds p0. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 5-91 . 56- A listf all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Inoluad with the application. — Twenty•BIx full size joldel copies of the plane must be eubmitied. OW' X 11" Reduced Dopy of transparency for each plan sheet. - 'NOTE • When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall>be charged for each application. " Escrow wilt be required for other applications throuoh the dAVAIAIIMG011 rf,nIrAM 86/14/95. 14:42:11 612-937-5739-> 6125151254 Page 3 — fl OJECT NAME'. Highland Development Inc. t. CATION Chanhassen, MN — LE 3AL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1 . Chanhassen pusiness Center 2nd addition. PRESENT ZONING 10P — i REQUESTED ZONING 1 np PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION, off ire iwarehotlse REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION of f i ("P/warehouse - REASON FOR THIS REQUEST • Tali application must be completed In full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be aocompanied by all Information — and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Dep rtment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This Is to oert y that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City re ulrements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party whbm the Cit should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of — ownership (alt or copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I w I keep myiselt informed of the deadlines for submission of materiai�and the progress of this application. I further — understand tht addltidnal fees may be charged for =suiting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization t proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of thy knowte e. i — i also understand that atter the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the titl4 to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's — Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. ,i, OL—r- 6--i�-S') - Sig ature of 4plicant Date iSrSature of Fie Owner G Date Application Recelv&d on CI /9 % Fee Paid ✓ 9/ •• Receipt No. ,1--)1.15--- ) The applicent should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be evei:able on Friday prior to the _ meeting. If nbt contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. __ yam. 1,y� � v mmeme !W_..�.� =: t R� �.r JIB ii 013A3a YIY-.+J 1 Z RI SE. 'LI i •�i... Wir ?44 I0 - ! _ ,rTzev ii __ii ,.. 1 4 O 0- �( a • __ Z I '� 1: alae :A sa.i�:S F aI�e J ;110 11 i IP l j" 0 W 0 map I i _ 1I11i"hflh" ';i1ih;;IIitUiii ii ... r------__...., .___ . 1 -- I .... I I .l ,. _ �- 1 I- 1� "� 1 j I I( i i. 1 fT , . I I ue I ! .. I o c. , a I L L '-...../C1—.."-tkl"r 7:1 i.--', I-1 Lmaw' ...-- .r- • 0 - , r l{■■{ "fO 1� {mow$ n.fl0 f•nt-tM-n. an,•— Or MI Mf .w�.Lww�..�...wr=I MM' T�i�Mf1�Mw I r '0NL1A8NdO�K0 GIrHOH P1VV 31� I I J ERIIBIIII .... .,.. 1mi 's y y my arkp . II 'A-7E 1 1st 1111111111 . 1 •;moi 3 1:41,1 ',.rw,',-7I _ 3 `jjAI4 L' = ea�if • 11110 q 11 • — t!i� — ��fs:ii Ilh eosaaaa!III �`I',''•'r �` : ;Pkv ©ocooaao©iii — _ n Y — . t C a -0 C I . 4 ___ I i I ' 4 ! _, (u--i'- 0rL RA - 1s ze ..tt �� — — — CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: June 27, 1995 SUBJ: Site Plan Review of a 9,161 square foot Office Warehouse, Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition Planning Case 95-11 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, and have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan review was based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Submit technical data to Fire Marshal which spells out processes, product commodity manufactured and warehoused. This is used to determine fire sprinkler design density. 2. Add one fire hydrant on the east corner of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 3. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. "Notes on site plan." 4. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #07-1991 - "Pre-Fire Plan". Copy enclosed. 5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1992, - "Premise Identification". Copy enclosed. 6. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #36-1994 - "Combination Fire Sprinkler/Domestic Supply Pipe". Copy enclosed. 7. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #40-1995 - "Fire Sprinkler Systems". Copy enclosed. g:\;afety\m1N5.11 CITYOF CHANEASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY — CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS 1. Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFPA 13-8-2.1. 2. A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are available. 4. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases of construction. 5. The use of liquefied petroleum gas shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard 58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is available. (See policy #33-1993) — 6. All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by an approved UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy is issued. 7. An 11" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built — shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07-1991). 8. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use. — The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located by the Fire Marshal. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Page 1 of 2 — _ 9. High-piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article #81 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High-piled combustible storage is combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height. For certain special-hazard commodities such as rubber tires,plastics, some flammable liquids, idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet. 10. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy #06-1991). 11. Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section 3305G, Exception#5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for installation and system type. (See policy #05-1991). 12. Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36-1994). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Approved - Public Safety Director Page 2 of 2 CITYOF •, i_ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING PRE-PLAN Prior to issuing the C .O. , a pre-plan, site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval . The following items shall be shown on the plan. — 1) Size 11" x 17 " (maximum) 2 ) Building footprint and building dimensions — 3 ) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes 4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or dead end 5) Fire hydrant locations 6) P.I .V. - Fire Department connection — 7) Gas meter (shut-off) , NSP (shut off) 8) Lock box location 9) Fire walls, if applicable — 10) Roof vents, if applicable 11) Interior walls 12 ) Exterior doors 13 ) Location of fire alarm panel 14) Sprinkler riser location 15) Exterior L. P. storage, if applicable 16) Haz . Mat . storage, if applicable 17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable 18) Type of construction walls/roof 19) Standpipes PLEASE NOTE : Plans with topographical information, contour lines, easement lines, property lines, setbacks, right-of-way lines, headings, and other related lines or markings, are not acceptable, and will be rejected. I1 Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991 — �/ Date : 01/16/91 Revised: 02/18/94 Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 — CITY OF C I-IANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal . Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Requirements-General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script. 3. if a structure Is not visible from the street,additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must still be met. 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Residential Rectuirernerrts(2 or less dweiTlnq unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Requfremerds 1. Minimum height shall be 12". 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department _ Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 — / Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved — Public Safity Director Page 1 of 1 to O. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY 4FCHANHASSEN \, 4- 2. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROTECTIVE INSPECTION DIVISION POLICY MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE — ON A COMBINATION DOMESTIC/FIRE SPRINKLER SUPPLY LINE 1. Domestic water line shall not be greater than 1/4 pipe size of the combination service water supply line. 2. 1 1/2" domestic off 6" line 3. 2" domestic off 8" line 4. 2 1/2 domestic off 10" line Option 1: Domestic sizes may be increased if it can be calculated hydraulically that the _ demand by all domestic fixtures will not drop the fire sprinkler water below its minimum gallonage required. Option 2: Combination domestic and five line service shall have an electric solenoid valve installed on the domestic side of the service. This valve shall be normally powered open and close on loss of electric power or signal from the system water — flow indicator. Must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Mechanical — Inspector. Chanhassen Fire Department Water Line Sizing / Policy #36-1994 Date: 06/10/94 / Revised: Approved - P:lic Safety Director Page 1 of 1 t CITY OF 64 • CHANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 1. Permits are required for all sprinkler work. 2. A minimum of four sets of plans are required. Send, or drop off plans and specifications and calculations to: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 3. Yard post indicators are required and must have tamper protection. 4. All control values must be provided with tamper protection. 5. All systems tests must be witnessed by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Appointments can be made by calling the Fire Marshal at 937-1900, ext. 132, between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Please try to arrange tests at least 24 hours in advance. All revisions of 25 heads or more will require a test. 6. Main drains & inspector test connections must be piped to the outside atmosphere. 7. Water may not be introduced into sprinkler piping from the City main until the Fire Marshal witnesses a flush test per NFPA 13-8-2.1. 8. The City of Chanhassen has adopted Appendix E (see 1305.6905 appendix chapter 38 of the MBC). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Policy #40-1995 Date: 01/12/95 Revised: 04/26/95 Page 1 of 2 9. All systems must be designed to NFPA-13, 1991 edition and Chapter 6 Standards. All attic systems are to be spaced at a maximum 130 square foot coverage. 3/4" plastic — piping will flat be allowed at any time in attic space. 10. All equipment installed in a fire protection system shall be UL listed or factory mutual — approved for fire protection service. 11. Fire protection systems that are hydraulically calculated shall have a 5 psi safety factor — at maximum system flow. 12. Acceptable water supplies for fire sprinkler systems are listed in NFPA-13, 1991 ed., — Chapter 7. Swimming pools and ponds are not acceptable primary water supplies. 13. Pressure and gravity tanks shall be sized per the requirements contained in NFPA-13 and — 22. Duration of the water supply shall match the hazard classification of the occupancy. 14. Include spec sheets for fire sprinkler heads - dry pipe/pre-action valving. — 15. The definition of inspection is contained in MN Rule 7512.0100 Subpart 10, and states that inspection means: 1. Conducting a final acceptance test. 2. Trip test of dry pipe, deluge or preaction valves. — 3. A test that an authority having jurisdiction requires to be conducted under the supervision of a contractor. Only licensed fire protection contractors are permitted to conduct these tests. 4. All other inspections including the inspectors test, main drain and other valves are permitted under MN Rule 7512.0400 Subpart-2G, as maintenance activities and do not require a license as a fire protection contractor. 16. Per Section 904.3.2. and the 1994 Uniform Building Code, an approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupants shall be provided in the interior of the building in a normally occupied location. (Location must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire — Marshal). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Policy #40-1995 — Date: 01/12/95 Revised: 04/26/95 Approved-Public Safety Director Page: 2 of 2 • BERNARD HERMAN ARCHITECTS. INC. June 29, 1995 REC.E-IVELz City of Chanhassen _. 690 Coulter Dr. 'JUL ti 7995 Chanhassen, MN 55317 lTY C'::. Attn: Mr. Bob Generous Re: Highland Development Building Dear Bob: As we discussed on the telephone, there are several informational items that should be noted on the drawings previously submitted for this project. They are as follows: Sheet Al - Add a dashed line on the south side of the Office building (front) with a note "future office expansion". - Add a dashed line on the north side of the Warehouse (rear) with a note "future warehouse expansion". Sheet A2 - The mezzanine will be expanded over the Assembly Area for an additional 840 s.f. The Assembly Area will be enclosed with block walls on the north and east sides. - Add double doors on the exterior north wall, 10' west of the building corner. Sheet A3 - Delete reference to painted pre-cast concrete walls of the Warehouse. Painting of the pre-cast panels will be deleted. Sheet Ll - Add a note that the two boulevard trees shown adjacent to the entry drive access to the site, Type D and C, shall be furnished by the Developer. • 4825 Olson Memorial Highway.Suite230 Minneapolis.Minnesota 55422 612-545-1253 June 29, 1995 Mr. Bob Generous Page 2 - Add two coniferous trees in the side yard setback area at the east property line for additional screening. These trees would be located in the spaces between the first tree Type B trees. If you have any questions or require additional information, lease call. Sincerely, BERNARD H - AN ARCHITECTS, INC \ AI ( t :e nar: He .n, AIA BH:crk cc: Benson Orth Associates, Inc. - Tom Osterberg \`\ _ \ FIL r1i E IiiIt E --E --E sFF c :`` i tt llc / t s c s \� • i s ik �t t=itiiiiikt ! i t:Et r F s �s�t I. tiF££ ! £ s :sssss .II s -ass, 1 j11iti ksrr - EE s 1- i ii i ; � \ . £ i it £iiiiii ifs t� iiii41 s ;i Eil= s I E £�es A i i L o«1 \ 11111 £ it £'s££-E££ �I £££££ _ L£ : Ei t� \ t £�E3i:'s£3 =E!£'s££ t E£ • s EE \'1 \ i, \ • ‘ I. — WOW 11=-_ =- \\ Si ssssfF 'Fitt ff5-.A Is 0 4 e.+. ,4 t 's Y 4 $ .i P srt tt ', uses E s ! c H _ s . >_k , 'I o� ' J' ix*. ^•r —\ e \� low r ---yr -11 \--_ , i 'r (A t co s',• F n I z c --'---------fit % . � — — — --__ -. .-.....•.--• \ \ 3- CD j i : 1 i to i --` {... e ,s• • 1n F y, ss\ . i .71S, ... .. ... .- ,\ `'-?.�, ` i :.- R y// \��•;..' '- ` ¢ _. ✓. dna C >/A • xs oQ 99.10.\ -.��` •' 4 \ > �2j • g R• -Ic1 k n .♦..ld C!.HSanOa• .CVYd.S 0.'4. i ..O•CCT t Y17.It...! O.R - _ t PREuMt.ARFLANS ANS . •••••••• Jr/ ,cyi•V R i��_..ac]T aSSOOAiES,INC -_^ �.- , .+mow s .-uoue !2 VutnCRSi+� I {NOT FOR COKSSIIUC11O�I�� sc C •SJ.'4 CN0NEERS - 15241 C C(IC COtRt1 ANNASSE\BVSNCSS CCN wS1ER S'T_ .... EDEN PCI Mint.w1•55.6 ""...L.Tn!fD-tim ss-— .//' /'rte!.,• .*Or+p d. ..vrjsOla svgs .-w._. •OP i I 1.1 I .._.....1 is 1 �,.: ,,z.;.. :„•��'�. x �- , x N H 4 V• a a O ��f�� W `t�� Z Z I i ' ditiN'i 6 r M��! H W Noiik. E 3 - - ; N.L. L:- _ • e ! \ O ., y_. ` - • Ci • t4' ':�. ... t �t�-.� i • G}' .rte. .4-:-..-31...!,•t.,..:-...„.....47.i.,,,- 41 ••• ... ....:-..,.,!•?.• ,-f A.-.k-,•`-.„; it ...--"- •-ti.vc. • . o , 'L.t,. . ,. , ;• • r \ ..--,--• - i 4- t ..,.....s.- ..t,.•...s • C 0•-`� 7 a 4✓ a a ` > 647 ^ O('7 a C�_Y p .O. !T a) a)C a r 72 >• `h I S,• - 3 u u L a,.� a - a p > L O Y -O p, o,-p O L L IE K O a Q, .G a 'O O a •E N 0 3-0 C > ` 3 Q O• D a•O L 0 `ao+QQ � O � aE '" rnX... 0o - gym- c . - D mmEoo v0L0aoc00 ` d a L N 6 .42 E C T O W O H a 0 3 0 L , a 1 a O n le c L a' a, L c c L O L a- O o, o ui d 6 -.-•v L-. a-p o '- °-0. �•,� 41) E - -Q v ° d ° c 0) 0..v D-C-0 N 00.O o d Y .-, c a1 -O C1 2 >.n d C L c Y a,U ,n `o c O.a c ° O, O I o f aL° ° .0•3•- 6ZL 0 ao o � o o m a �L o f .- or-� o d -c-•E 0 3 m� ` O ,n O dr a, a, a-o a_ 3 c r)-a N d M C c a cn a O p E a, -0 _c O - >•CO c d >` L O 44 L 1` ° •0n Q c ° •O •- U' -0 ° O CO ›•• C U .- 43 . . ? 6 p .- E ;• G, «O w ,Vi, O•.c C „ N 3 t-o ci,0 O b C -o-o-C o a s O E- O 0 c 0, ._�c y a „c Q•- c0 d c s'a o c `j w O.7., p ch d '11• '- C.E u 0 0 --:LI 5 c-O a E u, a 3 ,' 0 0 ° 0 0 N 0 0 vl E o �+ e ,. ,-. - . x d. aov� �« c vc u2o `o_a°, ° o � a.v . do,- E0 ° aov ` °- "3 c 0 v v Q 4 p a s - 3 a fl `m " - o .. . — a, c c N ; c y o a M N k o 4 8, 8. -.E 0 ; 300 0 o ^ o-i a, o rn o o= 0 m..- . 4, - g . 81,_ ,3, C c . y o :)r ,t 'a, 3 - �� ° D• o a` .7_ 4) .- 6 0 > ; � Ec m�a� O a �L a° �� x 0 ...-C ° O .- ' J °L °•- a . 3 3 o c p 0 -L a ..a a` c c g a, 0 0•3 I .. .`_ 0 p NaLLvvv� uc c c a ° p�• cu) • c0-0 m v .x a• or " > .--I- c, c ° J 0n Qa 0• c a s a �.rn m N 0 a.` a.= '� a or 3 > E v W o r> 0 0- 0.^_' u 0 i �11� W 1�u�i '., OWC I YEcga. cc •�3 • r: o • Li :1 4., ' ' , . ''',,./1: • w. ,� :,.. \ 'v W 1‘,,: ‘.,./ Lx: ‘ ...111.,".:.-,I:7. /.... ' I �., OL � .":\ _ [� / 0 m c ,"A .,... ''..f`ti".4't.._,..,..A. 3 .,-( - 1:Cip, ir_.Arrp',.. t". , o ---'`,:-t-',..::: re (- .-: .:4 vei.:3,41;44: ''s It) ---- -\! (1 f" dr:�•t` _ N 4 • dYu N cu _>-• C-5-=:' wV W C,L- E O •c `'C C� K3N a _,--, T T a0cdr- • L p T Y 3 Q .•^ O - .1 ' p3a M C °L a 'rc y `a ou 3'm > ° CS) oO d -H ° Va > N O_ O Y oca . Qovv Q, v • vc E_a o - v � ° o 0,n • C C v y a - .E o, a 3 ° d�'rn_a a o _oa, °o• ° 0 ° � o�_ E ° � o- c -0 'nmo •c .- - oayacrnfl- oa•3 ° % , CN °o 0 La ° _ ° : L ° o• — u Y L rn . M E� H Ca V Nc v .co -0 > m f > c o 3 p cda) a'a.=' 2 °y° O,._ ° O E ` SL ` O U 0 ° Q ° C.,n ME O L _c C 0_0 O OHO .' > E _° ` 01 Cr, Oaa) 01 0 i ) ) pO ac N � SL Of O O MOO aNO.E p 0 ` O 6 ,- - - d O .9 O .YM C 'D.D `• of v „_ ° ri 6Ca! � _c00000 .- 0 ,_ . O °4 O_0 C O 3 �_Ta .n o ° TN ° ° — X• °, Na)w E 0 °L O, ONO3 ° > ° 6. o • °, ,. °-L O ,'O _'L' LNC O ° u °, Q 7 O Ya) ▪to L °'.. 0 L 0 L • a ° V a °) J C .c ° ` co a) E ° c O a ° -,T., a) Cd O ` O > O ) ` °,. oOL• E a -° 01 V-p a `LOSCaE Y O - ° c O ` cH Q C•C aa) O OT d O) ` a •-L ]-- _ aa ° v"O •'V 'C ° . d ° a ° ` Qa) -T-3Z ' , E ° = ,^ v '" vM 0p., U O OE E-° EOc .. VV ^ N ° a .oac 'Es- O 0 ,'1 L O C .0 3 ° O a1 O m N.` v Oc UC V0 _ a) 0 ac ° �d E 0) c ° 6 p M O, ›••• O A E v , Y OTpQt3Z —'. ,. ._ a_ •- C •• 6) vo ° - u cLC d C v "0 °iU,L -2 N O a o O • O ° E °- ^ ° Q 7 p 4,.0 V. 'N °L `,'� O • S O vE aGN O, O O.E O E o_-• • � N C O ••- , c C N- E �'DC C ? aa ° 0 3 C c N 3 U CO 0 -0 c • a - Caal'N2 1T-0 0 E L .L0 Qd ° o C Ld1 0) d N ° ° C ° C y a) O O > a) nE'� O NEw O U yo,E o ' o° x- y o ` o OC E ° o v� m W v ^oY ° U au yf • LU • XV ° ° >...E.E ° •a • a Q ° ° 3 g c ° ° ° ° t�— ° pc— ° = 2vvo • F' o.21 o— - c a o•D :10 NC �•` C : CyN ;d Q 6 M .0 Od °07 - O , O ° m6 a, al_C~ V ° o -.61) ° `- an d ,O p.O. O ° • 0 oYV > Q o °MvO O.- '°WQ = O v ; cZ aV CD On a °- pec o v 2 d, a ° i • C E o 'C OO Oa)LC C O ,,. _ _ n M a •° Q CV . 0 ° aCLZ N COCC ` 2 ° E -1aa ` OO ° ° rO . 2 a .c2 a O'° °= YI ._ ` y^.4-L v, a.-o o a _a o. W 0 o aL • 4 A W Or • i - -----------1 I • I 1J W J d N G `# Y a u. CE rc °m[ ..., a. wcL© gt v' 1' m r gi' ' ...---.aNi.lik 1/4C.. .r vt cc I.) 5--,-;,:-';-- -:,:_. • F It : ,i II I �, law • . R e - F • ..-::ii:*:"'a -:sVC:•16 A\ _ - I kris .:� i, 1 .: . 1�.6 - N''...N .0d ,'. 4. ._V �• IJP 12-.I 0 3 L ' C •••• " C 0 M " `-0 N CD 7 = .&) 4, 61 a• --o 0 'D�.2 ° •pc-0 p7 'C L CW° .- 0 O ) W°-C c L . N Co O,� O "" O p d s c Lu " " 0 c O " ° pdN� 4O ` > °'° c 0 > Nw ' 0m 4 " t; V O C ° Oy.E.B c onafa a, > a ; v—-p -N • L 0 L 7E ; >. ` ` . . ° ° 8 ° d Nm -cmc °-° a mOCpNtx .Eo ° " c3 'a O >-2v• c `E—a- ". a.- -N t3 ` a wO - Ot o— c0•- °° v•-C'; ° _ ° ac • - _ E G- 7 °a .°. E aE `0- `am >, _ 0)OLp, -0o a, ° C . a, 0 dr 0 "'p p N c `fo c•° O ° >• d= ;?O O-2c • v°` C K a "° " > -O a-0 c E SD-- -) °-- •--Q >. ° c C o c °- O N ° -0 c • O a.0 E_a_-oa -13_.0 d ° I ° v uE ' ad v > c'= ° °c ' Ew)-- '.eryC 0 C E p•9z•D °m � � , 0 . 0 ° d E _° O Y , c 1E,- C c > a, .CLc,wa °f °L OOC °• a O °, a, p T 7- a,V > al .'N „ E0 jOp, Ev 3 >,O > ae-o•ap ` OprL. 8 >- " t2.- .' .2) -- ." o. c — " 3 N OO `- O 0VNo 0Y ` O a ° 0 OA - v -ra, ° d °1 C a, O. D!v .- ._•- NcO a, ° ?.VC O 00 O , c L < a - a ° ° > L` v ° ° ° • " ° ca� ' '033c ° " °° 30 " E -pa, . IA .6o ° o ' Ca ' • OO ° ▪ " �, L4 ca, c a j 0- -0H- rn udpNY =-C a,L V 0a 6, 0 CO N -O Q > v a J '^ O W v vs >. o 6 E C.0 E, c t >. c O v E " oOv °P' >. CC) o a E `;33 - 'o E- — " a v E . a,rn ° a hv W > D CD 11 63°no� o�� ' � Er, ° aFc0. ` va, o a E 15° o a� v a...f.. owc . � ° • Lo ea ° = Ma' ava= 3csc ° o °° o �� do' � D ~ E ; ° cv 9 • p � _° ° ca Gh W v a c v o c > o-0 c s.c °iw•E ` . ,t,'-oa,.Ev L°•- ;Qp4' v E E OQ• mE o o0v v • • v°a, V v•" ° v E 0. dE v OC yNy >' aEYC °r < a Q ° v aOQ 2 F " 0 °.'^ ° a IV-CCEL ° p o p N ° O O ; M° VID yEQ a E ° v Lti i° y • o oQpv L 9 7 -av a ° co E ; • — ! r _ N K `c o ‘ StIlI IIIIIIIII‘ j /f o • c W *4411.11.1‘ W W P C _ a / . O ° ., t' ' •�! Y a ® o a d d 11iQ /I�I/ 1�• 0w Y � NY•\!1�♦\,+ c t, M 3 •Y. Y.\\ Q L 13.N �%, it: \+ ._ . Ji I/ 0 22 . ,., V,1)4 . * c' . .4,4'1 iti ri ' . V)1 Y 4E ' • c o: N 1 ;f'4 ' ..fid 4• �) fp o , t'i I , *i 1 "` V O C Y )1 y! • •� . _ ' , • 40 J � 11 i' .. , ` ,l, . • t t . -;... 04! v ° a: t..fdj •./Sil • /�. .y'''.......hl:rz„"••• •• c .11 a i -- 7 o ' y G C0 o T.` 0-0 ` T a v O ' dL•E O w V + T ``— O fO ono .2 o ,_ _ � p +3L $= ' E 0cu � o � aE= OL � CU � c� �YLE�- ao cvim _ •o • ` 0 a' E • ,, 0L Lrn, ' E ° `� v vv u2 3 E ° coc � oy Q1 o 13 Zrn •- o o o ° ° - O o U -• u0 )Y u a _ " .• ,ZN ° C ° •- c EV '- rn o 0 ° a • 3 a., c • mE ° ° -0 cu ° rs, 010_ > ,, — t .E o -p yp•� a O — y, ° -p a ° OOcTO ° a^TO a) cc ` _ -_ ° E •C C ° d•C c-- -_0u07, p co' -F., c O c ° T.n H � -c -0a0 . >, p c ^ °� c> m75 > a; u a) 0 '•2 a' o o c E° `mE c0c .E 0 0 o E a, _ vy0tivC G = co vpp3 ELd v m 0'N 0 00 ` °wL a' 006,n -eVV '- : 0 -0 0 m T ° p C) C.0 •u aO -0 CO > C C al LO 00 Ya, E E•;-, V _,c `••- C d 4)0 6a0 ao ` = _- adCl.' , > 0 -O O L O L a °' O a d d ° ° v•6 y 'O. ToO'E.° N0Cv Ec Z- r:° d -- :� NC-0 o - •n0= Ft ° a1n d ° Ca) N o)_ > ° aO ° a7 U - 0 •C v u _ 0uC ._COC ° Q ° °) E V ° L c N L al ° 3 t Y ° W ` p-p d 0 0 °L Q = a ° g0p03Ou jC_0130a,pa ? OT O v H CO.O` >.-- L` a`2V 0 CO a)a ° E -. ~•`-O o -0 ,(. vL - c c-0 -c26v ` p ° 0, VM a r E o, .•'_ ., o V-° . ° c H c Y 3 O a, L0•- p N V, ° ° EY,w rA vam-° o,VaE 0T m0O - O Oc V ° - C- cO0 -° T • V ° c c 0 ° c3 ° CN a °, L 0! Tr0 s-C rn . IX -0 d» ° D— . 0 cs a 3` - w Z 36 c v, a T c 3 0 00, no c c° c _ o v E L 0 ul N ? ° OE ° `j ° u1v ° O N 0 a). o a ° v ° co °c, '- ti? c v3v ` = ° v `c o `-c . . 6ZU L W oV 0• a) a- ° a a ° c ) ° L o 0 n o- NTN 0 o,- ° , a N' `�.EEEo d _ 1, o a''''` y °Uo• < '` o g : a)YL rnv Wo o•. c 0-8 o0 0 = 06.0 > > o d • � >' alccuE m ° N„ 3�o23_ a a�°r�+ � ° °)o— 2x ; 3 ° H6w "74 J 027-• � ap >O 0) O O,..7:3 O 0 - !L VL c a ' ° Z o9.•1 � ou £iil1ti1 43 • 'T A i €` • • • i 4"� y. / /f •' w� i. 2/NOTE+ 8 — „r" /. / ,/.4 ./ D / I BUSINESSN( SCHEDULE ( " '5- - --' l fl u �,,,'•/-:' �' -\ •., - i / P �� ESS .v; - i AS • ... _S N�� B , c . - ! moi; <'/S ,„O4-7-,...,,,,,\,,,,•,P ,:' \ \ / I / -- • - Kyr-,, '/ ,/ �. ��\ ` \j `4 ' -� ./� .C--/ ":<"?‘'. tit'Y g , • 6. o.o � SECO % '. , i t,...C2 „..., •-•':" • '". ' Pc, \ - 4,-44,7,,/ ';' .. 7 * V':‘. , ..- \ . • ' . \- 7 .e. .....„- ,. \ ..... 6-. .43-.- --,.,„. -i.,_ ki:14,..,. \'-. . %'. s$9-6'.-- \ ,.. ..r- •_dfr. \ /, .N.V-fik.' \ \\ \,5 . '• --1.' I . t-- -:.1. I \‘.0 \ A ( •° a � ` tej ..7..-'- ' 71--•------- '. ° �( •1 .' -_/-9.-. \ - . . )1 .2-- _. V- :. ' — --"' $1 \'.,.."1, 1-• • i aP3' . \ \ \<\\ . .:. igt# \ . \ , " as V' POND NO. I q. 4%- 96 ` Arr NWL 913.00 \�. ` ` R' )( K ; — H WL 916.73 ,4'• ;••• • ; .,/ '."....," • .1 F \'•' S''•.' • ,. ilf /.,/ .,• ., .7,.•.,/,/, No p ...),„ -.6\s., \, „, , .,.. , .:,... , .,. • R, f.. Nl. � , ,i. /i � AH SSEN � • • . ; :• • : "105/ jr./c,,_,;..<3:...,-: \,.,. • • fl , . I -Ns -_ CHAN H ASSN �z2 G • BUSINESS . CE N "N A DDITI0N- --~ • l - OUT LOf T - A - _ LA\-711 __ lARB RE V. . !arlik V „a .. N OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING = - A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I... "�• ' _ Wednesday, August 2, 1995 , ��` at 7:00 p.m. 10*11• ' � �' - --. �, CityHall Council Chambers ��_•`� '� '� CATI •. �' � p via 690 Coulter Drive 611117,7 =31111 !! i i ��!, &L Project: Office Warehouse Facility ,�,e� ��N;,�� +A _ d %i,!4; Developer. Highland DevelopmenVW-14-7-1. ---- -��%- f•'+• =344-44V11x i ' �c IP . it-ice'• Location: Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen �:�_ „o. I�,�.,�•�4.4�n �� Yi�U -��Q Business Center 2nd Addition— � f �-ll M.sE.14411 `^ I iii �� ` :IJ l . LVM Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is Highland Development, Inc. for a site plan review of a 9,161 square foot — office/warehouse facility on a 1.57 acre lot, property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development Industrial, located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following _ steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. — 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. — Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose — to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 20, 1995. . te6— a ii -4Y\fr Heritage Development, Inc. Chan-Land Partners 450 Co. Road D East 200 Hwy. 13 West Little Canada, MN 55117 Burnsville, MN 55337 Audubon 92 Twin Cities & Western 15241 Creekside Court Railroad Eden Prairie, MN 55346 2925 12th Street East Glencoe, MN 55336 Latex Masonry Paint, Acrylic L • _ L SPRED' House Masonry & Stucco E- , ,,,-, t , �� Glidden Fnih (GLIDE.ON` Formula) x • No. 3525 Series o For Exterior Concrete Block, Concrete, Brick, LStucco and Cement•Asbestos CD 6' I, _ MI`_ (/) TECHNICAL DATA rn Road Label and Material Safety Data Sheet Prior to Use. os�,�� Product No.—Y 3525 f See other cautions on third page Generic Type—Latex C F'R )DUCT DESCRIPTION c ' L qt: ck drying acrylic latex exterior masonry paint.Provides excellent protection Color—White CD t I st uctural concrete, stucco, brick,block and cement asbestos shingles or Sheen or Gloss Fiat F lint Is.Resists blistering,mildew,chalking,staining,fading and the erosiveef- W f rr:t z of coastal salt air. Percent Solids by Weight-413.3% In O t_ I'Ii )DUCTS AVAILABLE Percent Solids by Volume--31.0% 0 P ti. )525 White,No.3b 1 3 Pastel Tint Base, Nu.3587 Intermediate Tint Base Theoretical Coverage per One Mil Dry(3.2 E Id No. 3580 Deep Tint Base. Mils Wet)-501 sq. ft./gal. 2* Ln hP:CIFICATIONS C Recommended Coverage(Calculated) 1.5 C '" .,e following products meet or exceed the performance requirements of the Mils Dry 45.0 Mils Wet) •321 sq. ft./gal. n •f id :rat Specifications listed. they do not neeessarlly IIIcct the CQmpesition re Wh,ncarrp:tion 9�5 ;J 's. {kinace i �coverage.allow far an- 0 r it;meats of the specification. . alia71 6 I tt( DUCT DESCRIPTION. FEDERAL SPEC. NO. Percent Vehicle (Solids) by Weight— 7• 10.5% (.7.:.i'f ED House paint TT-P-0033 S I ria:onry&Stucco Latex Base (Exterior} Percent Pigment by Weight-35.64'0 ._ I .tit,hNo. 3525 iPF ED House Paint TTP-19b Percent Solvent by Weight-53.9% ala: onry&Stucco Acrylic Emulsion Viscosity-85.90 KU I ..ii th Colors (Exterior) I'1'PICAL USES Weight per Gallon—11.2 lbs. lit, m ht I.II'ype3 of exterior residential,commercial and inirution3l masonry stntctureS VOC—1.36 tbs.!gal. (1 G3 gm./liters).cx m , ire a high quality,durable latex flat finish is required. eluding water r• L Q 11F ODUCT ADVANTAGES Drying Time—(Normal 770F., 50% RM.) 're - F ;lists alkalies and acids • Dries in 30 minutes Touch-3D minutesm r Elister•resistant • Clean tools in water Recoat-4 hours -,Z GO r F esists efflorescence • Applies easily with brush, Imo I Exceptional durability roller or spray RetUuction Solvent—Water N O 0 r F]de-resistant =, Clean-up Solvent--Water D 'rE.RVICE CONDITIONS z Type of Cure—Coalescence I{ •r-: ervice temperature limit is 200°F. on a continuous basis. The color may ` ;. 0 nye,depending upon pigmentation, but the film will remain intact. Tinting—Do not tint No.3516 White.Use CIO Bases Nos. 3518, 3587 and 3580.MATERIAL PREPARATION These tint bases are included in the Color 11 . 1,1i :thoroughly bet ore using.Thinning not usually required,but if necessary to Naturals''' System • ;cl:ieve satisfactory application,may be thinned with water for spray applica- R,r > II a t and for brush and roll. • Q' 2 !;' JRFACE PREPARATION c.iz Masonry Surfaces n l rolo Level any surface projections and mortar spatters by grinding,stoning or x D — scraping Rake mortar joints clean. Remove oil, grease, dirt, dust and -13I_.i 2 _ chemicals with prescribed cleaning methods—see Protective Maintenance �' - Coatings Data Sheet"Surface Preparation"No.3 for more details.Masonry 5 block should be filled IZd free of voids, pinholes. N 96 :39e?d 917:E.E+ t +d 1;6-re-Enoa T'-zzs-Z.t9 :XIj3 63111_+n 1439109 N300119 :w0eld Si;1NED' House Masonry & Stucco FinishIContinucdl _I SI1I3.=ACE PREPARATION lcontinued) 0 it lasonry Surfaces (Continued) 5r mvoth,poured should adhesion solution f Part s� riatic ecid to Oparts water.Allow toeolr1r-20 miueRinse thoroughly with water and allow to dry flncenldew try srubbngwtha ed ndry ent and one art oi to three sc 'idiot)ofwarm water.A ter scrubbing rrinserthoroughly with water,Wear protective glasses and rubbehousehold ylr gloves to avoid qi.art;:of wa ' e• e and skin irritation. f reviously Painted Surfaces P eviously painted Ypai painted Furf Etas shop primed surfaces wdulled tti h ore partially ly reper or otu ed by blistern method pee1ir g insure rupture cs arc: Aat h e U Y l the primer U tsi;r ilediochle easilyscraped o tttthe surface,rt shouldrbe•d for new surfaces.If completely removed.iore than 25%ot txtrccc rely porousre prev`ouc previously paintedcJ h:s aces orcanapplication of product. s rrfaces should be reconditioners with a coat of a surface conditioner prior to 3pp � of ofNothis5 tv00DMA5 1 F.R-r"Spar F -Jr heavily c;lralked or axtren;cly pororIS surfaces apply a mixture of 2 parts by volume t ire'afiref 1 per b volume by volume of either VM&P 85 WOODMAS ER Spar Vary Varnish Mineral 2 parts Spirits. volume ofteitlirrV chalking Naphtha or Mineral t ire of 1 part by .5.pints. I frlmonsurtace.Averagecovarage f‘lake sure surface conditioner sutu'ates rough areas and dons not appear as a visiU a glossy c I surface conditioner(No.85 reduced as above)is 700-400 square feet.Allow condrliuned surf ace to dry at least 2-&hours t;;fore applying surface coat. I'rimers, Fillers, Sealers For Masonry Surfaces— Poured Cunerete.Brick,Stucco, Cement-Asbestos,Concrete Block' -None required. *Voids in concrete block should be filled with 3LOCKAID1- Masonry Block Filler Nu. 1971,White;or ULTRA-I ME Acrylic: Latex Block Filler No. 5317,White For Ferrous Metal- 0 GLID•Gl!r RD~' RUSTMASTENo. 5206 Gray,�l�o!k520-11NhPict,ar No.500,White;GLID-GUARD Tank&Structural Universal Primer No. 5205 Red, For Galvanized Steel— ' CUD-GUARD All Purpose Metal Primer No. 5229,White;GLID-GUARD Tank&Structural Universal Primer No.5205'1 Red, No. 5206 Gray, No. 5207 White • For Aluminum— GLIDDEN Prirnc-Coat No. 3651 or GLID-GUARD•`- All-Purpose Metal Primer No. 5229,White /1 PLICATION Ai:p y uniformly with SPRED brushes or rollers. — iP lAY APPLICATION • Airless Spray Glidden equipment is specified. Gun:Glidden Super G:Fluid Tip; 512: Pump:Glidden"500.:'Glidden"i ormula One";Pres�:urc: 1600 1750 psi. i::CIVERAGE ( :,•yrs up to 317 square fee:per gallon on smooth surfaces and sealed surfao.es:less on rough,porous surf aces. 'tic s to touch in 30 minutes. May berr:coated in 4 hours under normal drying Conditions (77°F., 50"�Re'.ative Humidity). '.,.L EAN-UP i:'e in up immediately with soapy water. • 0 — 16 r3end _r•ea t.+3 :6-t0-6ne 2yt�—Z S—il? rY.ti3 r,311r_.rr N30109 N309I19 rWGei3 • FROM: GLIDDEN GOLDEN UALLE'/ FAX 612-522-3108 Rug-04-95 Fri 99:46 FAGS: 05 t am r_ m. • .. • • mm m LIMITATION OF LIABILITY M u the Pest of our knowledge the technical data contained herein are true and accurate et the date of issuance bur,are subject to Cha tgri . witnout prior notice,We guarantee our products to conform to Glidden's Specifications.WE MAKE NO OTHER WARRANTY OR GUARAN -Eli OF ANY KIND.EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND Fl MESS FOR PARTICUI AR PURPOSE.Liability,if any.is Iirr.tent m. to replacement of the product or refund of the purchase price.LABOR OR COST OFLAIJOR AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,,fel!r HEREBY EXCLUDED. WARNING'HARMrULIF INHAL ED.MAY CAUSE CFNTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM EFFECTS.INCLUDING DIZZINESS,HEADACHE ORNAV:Eli ft''' � MAY DC HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN,CAUSES EYE,SKIN ANL)RESPIRATORY TRACT IRRITATION.OVEREXPOSURE f,IA' CAUSE BLOOD,LIVER,KIDNEY DAMAGE.USE ONLY WITH ADEQUATE VENTILATION.KEEP OUT OF 1 HE REACH OF CHILDREN. NOTICE:Tlri:,product contains.sntvents.Reports have associated repeated and prolonged occupational overixoosure to solve:Its with prri • manent brain end ncrvoireua system damage intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and it dun!the contents may he harmful or f 3t I MAY CONTAIN ETHYLENE GLYCOL WHICH CAN CAUSESEVERE KIDNEY DAMAGE WHEN INGESTED AND HAS BEEN SHOWN TO Cl U:1 BIRTH DEFECTS IN LABORATORY ANIMALS.• - 1 For emergency information call=0)545.2043.rot additional safety and chronichamrd information.,refer to the Material Safety Data 5,ni I: for this product.See label analysis for list of hazardous ingredients. Close Cnntainer after each use.If sanding is done.wear a dust mask to avoid breathing of sanding duet. IMPORTANT!Sprby equipment must be operated with care and in strict accordance with rrrenufacturer's instructions.Avoid ltrt:athi.rg ' • vapor,spray mist or sanding dust.Wear an appropriate.properlyftepiratorNIOSH/MSH Aapply during and of tee ppnctionu air monitoring demonstrates vapor/mist levels are below applicable limits. tomanufacturer's ons Pou:rI FIRSt AID:In uese of skin contact.wash off quickly with plenty of water,then soap and water;remove contaminated clothing.For eye cn,• m. lur:t, flush immediately with large amounts Of water,especially under lids.for at least 15 minutes.Obtain emcrrlencyomere ydical`trro;i i cr'i If..w.artowed,obtain ur.:dtnni treatment imenertintaly.If inhaiatinn reuses physical discomfort.rrannve to fresh ai • trnued breathing.Have trained person give oxygen if necessary.I f drscurnfort persists or arty breathing ClifricO.ry occurs.get rncdir.al loll • In case of spillage,absorb with inert material and disaose of in accordance with applicable regulations. X5)5 �,;2 r vv,,en ,n:ed with PRAMATUNE' Coiorents l KEEP FROM FREEZING. __ _ ---------- r isti •Paints World Leader Glidden The Glidden Company Cleveland,Ohio 44115 The C!iddan Company is a member of the ICI Paints World Group • FROM: GLIDDEN GOLDEN VALLEY FA/.: 612-':2-7.1' Aug-04-95 Fri 0'i4; PAGE: 02 • PROTECTIVE MAINTENANCE COATINGS DATA2 • For Industrial Use and Professional Application Only L1FEMASTER PROTM Hi Performance ( Glidden Acrylic Coating No. 6900 Series - • i For Interior-Exterior Metal, Masonry and Wood 7' ..r It — ,•1 x I Read Label and Materiae Safety Data Sheet Prior to Use. TECHNICAL DATA 2 See other cautions on last page. — r.:r•.ul;5c Product No. Y•0925' CD Generic Type-Acrylic r PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 3 I A high gloss,writer reducible acrylic coating having excellent exterior durability. Color-White toughness and flexibility.Ideal for IISA on exterior and interior surfaces of corn- Q)G{oss-Appraximatel 65 f�a, 60' D merCi3.structures. This product is also well suited for use in industrial plants, y ' on storage tank exteriors, on structural steel, and on other properly prepareC7 til d C) CO metal,wood and masonry surfaces.Provides H hard,nonporous,non-yellowing Percent Solids by Weight-49^'v � 1`ii I finish.Suitable for use both inland and in coastal environments.Provides many )) Solids by Volume-37% = tut b Characteristics previOuSly associated only with epoxy coatings. 1::'Theoretical Coverage Par One Mil Dry I% — PRODUCTS AVAILABLE Mils Wet)-593 sq. ft.lgal. rs ) LIFE1MASTER PRO"' Hi Pcrfurr,ancff.,Acrylic Coating is available in No. 6925 Rernmrnended Coverage(Calculated)I el G F White, No. 6900 White Tint Base, No. 6918 Pastel Tint Bare, No. 6087 In- Coat- Q; tcrrnCd'ute Tint Base,and No.6980 Deep Tint Base,and Ready-Mixed Colors. Minimum-1.0 Mils Dry12.5 Mils tt1 -z-,• TYPICAL USES 503 SQ. ft.,gal. r.) Typical--1.5 Mils Dry (4.0 PMIS W.3,,t1Commercal structures, structural steel,tank matArinr5,equipment,decorative 395 sq.ft igdi. metal,and ether large metal surfaces. Maximum 3.0 Mils Dry (8.1 A. il;; PRODUCT ADVANTAGES Wetl 198 sq. ft.fgal. fWet mil figures rounded to news! • Superior gloss and color retention • Non-yellowing 0.5 mill • Highly resistant to dirt pick-up • Hard,tough film Whencompu:inQwurklrl lvPraea.allarYful a: • FlCxif:tri ane!1 Csistant to thermal shook • Water reduced— y' p'ihen CO tosses• work l coveirrigulariti7:-.all r.w t • Resistant to light industrial fumes and non-combustible chemi;als Percent Vehicle (Solids) by Weigh —• --I 25% ± 1% I SERVICE CONDITIONS — Will withstand 200'T.continuous dry heat.The nolor may ehonge os this limit Percent Pigment by Weight-24% ± 1 % Z; a ;_ is approached.but the film will remain intact. Percent Solvent by Weight—51% ;. 1 ('0 Cj ! - no NOT USE for immersion or direct food ContvCt service.Suitable for incidental 3 ,Q food contact. Do not use on large expanses of exterior wood such as wood Viscosity 75-87 KU a- siding.Incidental use On exterior wood (trim,railingA,etc.)is-acceptable- CD Weight Per Gallon-10. 1 lbs. MATERIAL PREPARATION (JO.VOC-2.0 lb.lgal. (242 AmrL1 exclud mi LD'� Mix thorcughiy before using by stir:ing with a lifting motion.Material is of pro- water rs our consistency for brush nr roller application. For spray application, may be- reduced with water(up to one-half pint per gallon)to obtain proper atomization. Flash Point (Closed Cup)—201'F. - Add DRArv1ATONE• Mufti-PurpO C Tinting Colors to tint haaa not exceeding the amount rucoirimencied. Mix tinted colors tholot:ghly before use. DO NOT Drying Time(77°F., 50% R.H.) •• Cern add unspecified solvents or mix with other paints. - Touch- 1 hour liai'dla--1 hour` • -➢ SURFACE PREPARATION i coat•--24 hours C7 Ful(Cure 3-5 days Refer t;,selected primer's Glidden Protective M.aintena1lCd Coatings Data Sheet Z • for soec:i1:(.requirC:n•unts. Reduction Solvent—Wet,?r SII •. Metal Surfaces7-1( ) Cledn•up Solvent-W ate• I7-•n S�rfdcc;;niu.it be thy,clean and free of ail contaminants(SSPC-SP1.82 Sol- (7.7-') vent Cleaning).Remove oil and grease:with Solvents such as mineral ateirits Type of Cure-Coalescence- N yr ',view., Cle.an ferrraur:meta(surfaces by sandblasting;Commercial Mast to , .1 SSPC•SPC-52 is recornrnerided.Minimum surface preparation is hand tool Tinting This pi OduCt line 1s included n hi. i j clvoi.i,rgSSPC-SP?-82.Non•fcrrousmetals(galvanized,aluminum)must COLOR NATURALS'-' tinting system I n:i I(-�- be thoroughly cleaned but do not require sandblasting. See Protective on the Colors for industry color card. Maintenance Coating;Data Sheet"Surface Preperetinn''Nos. 2. 5 and ti fn, r'-' .ir,t ale •C4mp.r.:n„n,Bl.laid fol blh9r v'od,+ei--..e1•i1- •e 1 FROM: GLIDDEN GOLDEN VALLEY FAX: 612-522-3108 Aug-04-93 Fri 09:44 PAGE: 03 LIFEMASTER PROT" Hi Performance Acrylic.Coating (Continued) SURFACE PREPARATION (Continued) Masonry Surfaces • Thc applicator should verify that all surface projections and mortar spatters have been leveled ON/grinding,stoning or serer int; ; and that ell mortar joints have been raked clean. Remove oil, grease.dirt,dust and chemicals with prescribed clear•:nli methods—sce Protective Maintenance Coatings Data Sheet"Surface Preparation"No.3 for more diwil;.Meeonrybl :cl' should be filled free of voids, pinholes. Wood Surfaces Sand smooth and apply primer as specified.Holes,splits and scratches should be filled or spackled smooth after the pri:n';! has dried.See Protective Maintenance Coatings Data Sheet"Surface Preparation" No. 9 for more details. Previously Painted Surfaces Pmvinr:sly painted surfades with hard glossy finishes should be dulled by sandpaper cr other abrasive method to ensure a: h! sion,All provioirsly painted serfaces and shop primed surfaces which are partially removed by blistering,peeling,rep.:.rr or scratching should be spot primed with the primer recommended for new surfaces.lf more than 25%of the previous cop has failed or if the previous coating can be easily scraped off the surface,it should be completely removed. Primers, Fillers, Sealers For Ferrous Metals— LIFEMASTER P110 Metal Primer No.6970,Red,GL1D-GUARD5 RUSTMASTER! Alkyd Metal Primer No. 590,WI.it(! Tank&Structural Primer No.5205.Red,No. 5206,Gray,No.5207,White or other approved primer.l=or spot priri iirll small areas of exposed metal,the selected LIFEINASTER PRO topcoat may be used. For Galvanized and Aluminum Metals— • • .LIFEMASTER PRO may be applicd directly to aluminum surfacers;for maximum adhesion,a coat of GLiO.GUARD Al• Purpose Metal Primer Nu. 5229 or Llf EMASTER Il Metal Primer Nv_6970 ir;recommended For galvanized metal sur• ' faces,prime with No. 5229.Weathered galvanized may be primed with No. 6970. .For Wood— Interior—GLIDDEN!' Oil Wood Undercoater No.310,White or GLIDDEN' Latex Wood Undercoater No. 300,W Citi. Exterior—GLIDDEN Primecoat, Oil Base Alkyd No.3651,White or Latex Base No. 3690,White. • , For Masonry— • • Concrete Block flnterior•Exterior)—ULTRA-HIDE' Acrylic Latex Block Filler No. 5317,White.BLOCK AID"Mas Block Filler No. 1971,White. Poured Concrete—None required. APPLICATION May haat;^,plied by brush,roller,or spray(airfe;s nr conventional).For roller application a short nap(3116"-1!4")roller C0%e• s recommended.NOTE:Inc use of two finish coats will greatly increase the lite of the system and extend time before repeit tin is necessary.DO NOT APPLY WHEN SURFACE TEMPERATURE IS BELOW 50°F.Application in excess of the maximum re• on - mended film thickness should be avoided as sagging and bubbling may result. SPRAY APPLICATION • . Airless Spray • •• Glidden equipment is specified. Gun:Glidden Super G Fluid Tip: 617 Pump:GLIDDEN "SPRINTT",' GLIDDEN "500T","-GLIDDEN"750` or"750 GE-","GLIDDEN "FORMULA ONE''" Pressure: 1800-2000 psi. COVERAGE • Typical coverage per coat(calci limed)is 395 sq. f tip!.at 1.5 mils dry(4,0 mils wetl.•Minimun,a,:rapt&ble film thick ne:s :r coat is 1.0 mils dry (2.5 mils wet)—593 sq. ft.lgal.;maximum 3.0 mils dry 18.1 mils wet)-198 sq. ft.!gal.When comp Ai! woreing coverage, allow for application losses, surface irregularities,etc. .t DRYING • . . . Dries to touch in 1 hour,to handle in 4 hours,to recoat in 24 hours.to full cure in 3-5 days at 77°F.; 50%R.H.Allow long(.•cl!1- ing err:es under cooler, more moist cuiluiti ins. CLEAN-UP Clean equipment immediately after use with soapy water.DO NOT USE hot water. • ( • FROM: GLIDDEN GOLDEN VALLEY FAX: 612-522-3108 Aug-04-95 Fri 09: 45 PAGE: 04 LIFEMASTER PROTM Hi Performance Acrylic Coating (Continued; _ CHEMICAL RESISTANCE TESTS Soot resistance after 24 hours of contact. C k = Resistant NR - Not Resistant D - Discolors — 2 ORGANIC ACIDS ALKALIES OXIDIZING AGENTS NR Ammonium Hydroxide 23'. . . .NR Chlorox - R Aceti97.5°U , , . . . .NR Acetic 37"r„ . . • . NR Ammonium Hydroxide 5% ft Chromic Acid 30"v . . Citric 17% R Sodium Hydroxide 50% . . . . .R Lactic 8b% R Sodium Hydroxide 5'a . . . • • R WATER Tall 0•l Fatly Ac:ds . . • . . 8 Fresh Water R SOLVENTS Salt Water R MINERAL ACIDS Mineral Spirits 19 Deionized Wate: R — Hydrochlor:c 37% D Gasoline R I lydrnchtoric 50/r„ . .R Toluene NR MISCELLANEOUS Nitric 70% . . . . NR Acetone Vegetable Oil Nit•ic 5% . . . . NR Methyl Isobutyl Ketone NR Phenol 8% NR — Phosphoric 8591, . . . . . . . . . . .R Methanol R JP-4 Jet Fuel R Phosphoric 5% R Denatured Alcohol R Motor Oil R Sulfuric b0' NR Butanol A Styrene R Sulfuric ;i% .R Ethyl Acetate NR Triethylene Tetrarrine . . . . .R — Carbon Tetrachloride . . . . . . . .R Skydrol 500 . . NR Per chloroethylene R Sugar Solution . . . . . . . . .R Detergent Solution R PHYSICAL RESISTANCE TESTS All tests Ware performed on fully cured films. — Direct Impact-Passes 28 inch-Pounds Pencil Hardness(ASTM D3363)-5B Salt Spray (ASTM 81171- 800 hours — System I-Y-6970:Y 6925 Face of Panel -No rusting 0Scribe-1'4' • 341" rust creepage — System ll Y E90:Y-6925 Face of Panel-No rusting Scribe-1:8- -11E-rust creepage Sward Hardness-5 Oscillations Taber Abrasion(ASTM D4000)-CR-17 Mee!, 1000 Gm.Load. 300 Cyr..:es.-WAight Loss-40 Mg. I r t,-0. C ' PC DATE: 8/2/95 \ 1GHNH�SS�N CC DATE: 8/28/95 CASE #: 95-16 SUB By: Rask:v iiimmirimmimmaistagimismimmffilmammiiiimmimintommimirimmiNiganiffsmnimmin STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat request to subdivide 6.24 acres into four lots with a variance from Section 18.57(o) to permit more than four (4) homes to be served by a private drive, Meyer 2nd Addition Z —4 LOCATION: 6225 Ridge Road, Lot 2, Block 1, Meyer's Addition, and Parcel 1 which contains V the Meyer Home. APPLICANT: Carl Zinn Owner: James and Karen Meyer Q— 5820 Ridge Rd. 6225 Ridge Road -Q Shorewood MN, 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 470-2534 470-5431 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential, RSF ACREAGE: 6.24 acres DENSITY: .64 units/acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Residential, City of Shorewood S - RSF, single family homes LQ E - PUD-R, open space/park W - RSF, single family homes & Christmas Lake WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site currently contains one single family home (Meyer's residence), cabin, and a detached shed/garage. The eastern 1/3 of the property is heavily wooded, with sparsely scattered trees throughout the remainder of the lot. The lot slopes from west to east. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net.Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 units/acre) 0 0 $ 0 0 O O 0 _ tD ti_ �_ I Op JILACLALeCATI { I - I �oN MA - It :Of• IMER0 0 w t nt; I LAKE -Naw :IR ri::: .lir .m. wm..., winrItsilv WI Ir. a ■cam I6.15�1014 �I �'' �� Q 0wall CIRCLE Mill 7a11"11 PP �. ` zIL'44 ,•Army Ai • �� SV12111,4t a A kS �� ,t PHELlSAN �� Q .3. , . , kali = PARK `�� 0 11 �Q k i b. m-ell :,j Ow -.-..„...7 in 10 LU Yi 171 Fri,.. _.1 i �L eafick. ..4401reASS'A t4Vii P° i Mir LIDMIM elfin 211110"v-.111-. ginguiiis- .11 Yriratarivill Italikat&ibb11.111441 : GI fes+ 401CARYER BEACH .✓�\ .4M � �j, � ti �ii.!Al o�R 0.-V,X�,�JE_�CS. IRCLE�'IMPS �`? �• u /�`ff C. M 111_ - _.' ' wasuwargiri re 4: poziv4 : - vic /. �� um Imo. � '��r ��, r=� K*�v' , f))qir 401111111 : 64# tta gm'it .I.es- At %To vt'e.,_ , £ LUCY LAK ii f cr(611 mita . .ao ' i E le OA — att foe. v-.TA/AS ..0, am oh -- . w___ _ (44•Aid BE milt --7-:Pa a: -;gialatr%17:OS* I A gli OIL IC.Dieifit til If . IltiV 7-AN , 4 - --- _, Aniiiiiial4m;14 oc-\;4 wan" tot; 7_ ,,,, ,___ \ • SHORES 4ViiItdu, PARK r� e. ? Meyers 2nd Addition August 2, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 6.24 acres into four lots. The subdivision will create four lots from the existing two. In conjunction with the subdivision, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.57(o), private street standards, which allows no more than four (4) homes to be serviced by a private driveway. The application, as submitted, does not dedicate any right-of-way or provide for any improvements to the existing private street. The four lots average approximately 1.56 acres and range in size from 47,891 square feet (1.10 acres) to 96,017 square feet (2.20 acres). All lots meet the minimum width, depth, and area requirements of the zoning ordinance. Minimum lot area for a RSF, Residential Zoning District is 15,000 square feet. Proposed Lots 3 and 4 are a replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Meyer's Addition, and proposed Lots 1 and 2 are a subdivision of an existing parcel which contains the Meyer residence. The existing cabin and shed/garage would be removed to accommodate the proposed building pad on Lot 3. BACKGROUND Ridge Road was created in the early 1930's by the owners of the property on the east shore of Christmas Lake and the west shore of Silver Lake. It consists of a series of easements which provide access to the various parcels. Ridge Road is approximately one mile long. The north .8 miles is located in the City of Shorewood with the remaining .2 miles located in the City of Chanhassen. The road is blocked with a chain gate at the city limits between Shorewood and Chanhassen. In November 1978, the city approved the Meyers Addition subdivision (#78-12 SUB) creating three lots on the east side of Ridge Road. As part of subdivision approval, a variance to the subdivision requirement for lots to front on dedicated public streets was approved. The subdivision included two additional lots south of the Meyer residence. Lot 1 of the original subdivision contains a single family home which was constructed in July, 1993. Lot 2 is currently vacant and is proposed to be replatted into two lots as part of the current subdivision request (#95-16 SUB). In January, 1981, the city approved the Edwards Addition subdivision (#80-5 SUB), creating two lots on the west side of Ridge Road. As part of the subdivision approval, a variance to the subdivision requirement for lots to front on dedicated public streets was approved. The concern at the time was to have an assurance that the lots would be able to access the private drive in perpetuity. It was also believed that Ridge Road would remain a private street. In March, 1990, the city amended the subdivision regulations through Ordinance Number 125 to provide the standards for private driveways that exist in the code today. These standards were established to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare by assuring to the maximum Meyers 2nd Addition August 2, 1995 Page 3 extent feasible that all properties would be accessible for public safety vehicles. The use of private driveways to access up to four properties was contingent on the city making the following — findings: 1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a — public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographical conditions and the existence of wetlands. 2. After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. — 3. The use of the private driveway will enhance protection of wetlands and mature trees. In March, 1994, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a variance (Variance 94-1), for Patrick Cunningham, from Section 18-57(o) to allow two additional points of access onto Ridge Road. The applicant applied for and received a variance prior to requesting preliminary and final — plat approval to address the private street issue before incurring the costs of a preliminary plat and the associated surveying and engineering fees. On January 23, 1995, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plat for Cunningham Estates (Sub 94-20), creating three lots. — ANALYSIS The Meyer property and the other properties along Ridge Road are served by a substandard private street. Under current ordinance, common sections of a private street in a RSF district must be built to a seven-ton design, paved to a width of twenty (20) feet, utilize a maximum — grade of ten (10) percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Ridge Road is between twelve (12) and sixteen (16) feet wide and does not have adequate turnaround area. A road width of twelve feet — permits only one vehicle at a time to use the road. Traffic passing in opposite directions is difficult and may be impossible in many instances. In addition, the overgrowth of trees and brush reduces the width of the roadway. These deficiencies in the private street presents a — potential safety hazard to residents who access their property on Ridge Road. The variance from the private street standards, as proposed, would increase congestion on the street and negatively impact fire and/or public safety. Private streets may be permitted by ordinance if the city finds the following conditions to exist: 1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographical conditions and the existence of wetlands. Meyers 2nd Addition August 2, 1995 Page 4 — 2. After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The use of the private driveway will enhance protection of wetlands and mature trees. "" Prevailing development patterns would make it infeasible and inappropriate to construct a public street at this time. Property line and home locations, as well as the location of trees along the roadway would make it difficult to upgrade the road to urban street standards. Ridge Road — currently provides access for eleven properties (eight homes and three undeveloped lots). If this subdivision is approved, another two homes would be permitted to use this private street. Because of the number of homes, a narrow road width, and lack of turnaround area, — improvements need to be made to the existing private street in order to satisfy public safety concerns. Location of bluffs, the existing home, tree preservation easements, wetlands, and proposed building pads eliminates the possibility for future subdivision of the lots within this subdivision. This also holds true for the other lots located along Ridge Road. If this subdivision and variance are approved, thirteen (13) homes would be the maximum and total number of homes served by Ridge Road. Staff is recommending that a variance be granted to allow a total of thirteen (13) homes to be served by the private street, provided the street is upgraded to the private driveway ordinance — standards including a turnaround, and that parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. STREETS/ACCESS Access to the site is from Ridge Road which is a private street. City ordinance prohibits more than four homes on a private street. If this development receives approval, there will be a total of 13 homes on the private street. There is also no turnaround at the end of the road (city limits). A chain gate exists to restrict through traffic to and from the City of Shorewood. — A standard development would be required to dedicate one-half of the 60-foot wide street right- of-way and constructing the street to urban standards (31-foot wide, back-to-back, with concrete curb and gutters). The street currently exists as a 12 to 16-foot wide bituminous surface with — no storm drainage improvements. This development proposal is very similar to the Cunningham subdivision directly across the street. In that proposal, the City required the developer grant a permanent easement for public right-of-way purposes at no cost to the City. The easement becomes effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge Road). The City does allow for private streets to serve more than four homes in higher density land uses such as multi-family R-8 and R-12 land uses. However, the streets are basically constructed to City standards with the exception of roadway width. Roadway width would be a minimum of Meyers 2nd Addition August 2, 1995 Page 5 24 feet wide with parking prohibited. Staff is concerned with the storm sewer runoff and providing acceptable turnaround for public safety vehicles with this development proposal. Since Ridge Road is and probably will remain a private street, the applicant should obtain and convey the necessary cross-access/driveway maintenance agreement for the new lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge Road. The street should also be posted No Parking to permit adequate room for traffic to pass. Staff still contends that the street should be upgraded to city urban standards, however, due to the existing development pattern, this may not be feasible given the close proximity of existing homes. In order to satisfy public safety concerns, the street should be upgraded to the private driveway ordinance including a turnaround and prohibit parking on both sides of the street. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water lines are located in Ridge Road and along the rear of the parcels adjacent the wetland to service this development. The sanitary sewer in Ridge Road is relatively shallow, approximately 10 feet deep. The applicant and/or builder shall verify the sanitary sewer elevation in Ridge Road prior to constructing any homes. Due to the sewer elevation this may require relocating the homes further up the hill closer to Ridge Road. Another option would be to extend a service up the hill from the line located adjacent the wetland. This route would — require additional tree removal and slope disruption. The new lots may be responsible for hook up and connection charges ($2,425 and $7,000) depending on previous assessment history. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Canopy calculations for the site have been performed. Estimated coverage is 55% (3.4 acres). -- Minimum canopy coverage to be maintained according to ordinance is 35% (2.2 acres). Tree removal due to development is .64 acres, leaving 2.76 acres or 44%. The proposed subdivision is within the tree removal limitations of city ordinance and therefore will not have to provide replacement plantings. The applicant will be required to provide one tree in the front yard setback area if one does not already exist. Trees and wooded areas are scattered throughout the site with the major concentration of trees occurring along the eastern edge of the property. Construction of homes will mainly impact the western and central portions of the site. In order to protect the trees and the wooded nature of the eastern edge, staff recommends a tree conservation area be established on the easterly 135 feet of Lot 3 and the easterly 200 feet of Lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the woods, staff recommends the building pad on Lot 3 be pulled 30 feet to the west. This would lessen the amount of grading done in the wooded area. Two trees of special interest exist on Lot 1, a 36 inch multi-stemmed maple and a 36 inch oak. The oak is scheduled to be removed as part of the grading for the house and the maple will be Meyers 2nd Addition — August 2, 1995 Page 6 heavily impacted by the driveway that will be constructed less than 5 feet away. Staff recommends the driveway be moved to the north side of the lot in order to reduce or eliminate construction damage to the maple. Presently it is unknown whether or not the oak could be saved. The only possible alternative appears to be relocation of the home closer to the road. This would potentially reduce the need for grading east of the building pad close to the tree. The applicant may suggest other possible alternatives. LAKES AND WETLANDS It appears that the only wetland on or near this plat is the wetland associated with Silver Lake. Silver Lake is a Department of Natural Resource protected water (27-136P). The ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of Silver Lake is 898.1 feet and the wetland borders this elevation. The _ OHW should be marked on the grading plan. The property is considered riparian to Silver Lake, and therefore, the shoreland district extends 1,000 feet from the OHW of 898.1 feet. The development must be consistent with Chanhassen's shoreland management regulations. Staff requires that a qualified wetland biologist survey the property for wetlands and write a brief letter verifying the existence or non-existence and impacts, if any, of wetlands on site. If there are wetlands on-site they must be staked, surveyed, and included on the grading plan and plat map. Buffer Strip _ The City of Chanhassen has a wetland ordinance protecting wetlands from alteration. There is also a buffer strip requirement associated with the protection of each particular wetland. If the wetland is natural, the buffer strip width is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. If the wetland is ag/urban, the buffer strip width is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback from any wetland is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective,the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. The water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Meyers 2nd Addition August 2, 1995 Page 7 — Storm Water Quality and Associated Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond _ construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City's SWMP proposes one regional water — quality pond for this site area. The best location for the regional water quality pond is on the property to the south along the edge of the wetland bordering Silver Lake. The proposed SWMP water quality charge is $800/acre for single-family residential developments, and therefore, this _ development will be responsible for approximately 6.55 acres of developable land or $5,240. Storm Water Quantity and Associated Fees — The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, — proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total developable area of the property is 6.55 acres. Therefore, the proposed — development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $12,969. DRAINAGE — The property drains east down steep wooded slopes and bluffs in the southern part. The northerly portion of the lot contains vegetated steep slopes before discharging into Silver Lake. — Three additional building sites are proposed with this development. Staff believes detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans should be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The plans should address roof and — driveway runoff by designing a plan to dissipate the stormwater over a large area. This will allow for the natural infiltration of some of the runoff. The rest of the runoff will be filtered through the property and the wetland before entering Silver Lake. — Ridge Road does not have a storm drainage system. The roadway carries the runoff southerly to the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Ridge Road. With new home construction occurring, this road has been a source of erosion in the past. There are no storm sewer facilities in Ridge Road or Pleasant View Road to accommodate the runoff. The City's Surface Water _ Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a future water quality treatment pond at the southerly end of the wetland complex adjacent to Silver Lake (east of Ridge Road/north of Pleasant View Road) to pretreat approximately 12 acres. This area includes the drainage from these proposed — lots. As a result of this subdivision, staff does not believe the increased amount of runoff from this subdivision will adversely impact the wetlands. Staff is concerned about the runoff from Meyers 2nd Addition August 2, 1995 Page 8 Ridge Road and believe storm drainage improvements may be warranted with or without this development. At this time, Ridge Road is not upgraded to city urban standards (concrete curb and gutter and storm sewers). Staff recommends the applicant pay the applicable SWMP connection fees in lieu of constructing any of the downstream stormwater improvements as outlined in the SWMP. GRADING _ The preliminary grading plan proposes only minimal grading to prepare the driveways and house pads. To further reduce grading impacts, staff recommends moving the house pads up (west) the hill closer to Ridge Road on Lots 3 and 4. The final grading plan should show erosion control measures and the plan signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan needs to be incorporated into the final grading plan and submitted to city staff for review and approval. Staff recommends erosion control fence be used at the grading limits at the top of the slope. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and staked or restored with wood-fiber blanket. COMPLIANCE TABLE BLOCK LOT AREA (SQ. FT) FRONTAGE DEPTH 1 1 47,981 100' 380' 1 2 96,017 351' 408' 1 3 66,182 155' 1 4 61,706 152' TOTAL 271,886 FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District, provided that the existing private street is upgraded to '— urban standards. Meyers 2nd Addition August 2, 1995 Page 9 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans, including the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure subject to the conditions specified in this report. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. — 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: — a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. — c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is not premature provided that improvements are made to the existing private street. Adequate access would consist of a public street built to city standards or upgrading existing Ridge Road to a twenty foot pavement width. Meyers 2nd Addition — August 2, 1995 Page 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat and the variance request from Section 18-57(o) permitting up to thirteen (13) homes on a private street for Subdivision 95-16, Meyer's 2nd Addition, subject to the plans dated July 14, 1995 and the following conditions: 1. Individual detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be submitted to the City for each lot. The City shall review and approve the plans prior to issuance of building permits on the lots. a 2. All wetlands and wetland buffer strips shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction of the new houses. The applicant will be charged $20 per sign. A qualified wetland biologist shall survey the property for wetlands and write a brief letter verifying the existence or non-existence of wetlands and impacts, if any, to wetlands on the site. 3. The proposed single-family residential development of 6.55 developable acres shall be responsible for water quantity and quality connection charges of $12,969 and $5,240, respectively. These fees will be due at time of final plat recording 4. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading is completed. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and — staked or restored with wood-fiber blanket. 5. The grading plans shall include the following items: a. Erosion control fencing. b. Move the house pads on Lots 3 and 1 closer to Ridge Road to improve driveway — grade and minimize tree removal and grading. c. Access Lot 1 from the northern end of the lot to minimize tree removal. d. The plan certification shall be signed by a professional engineer registered in the — State of Minnesota. 6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a permanent right-of-way easement over the — westerly 30 feet of Lots 1, 3 and 4 and the west 25 feet of Lot 2. The easement shall become effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge Road). Subsequent to the adoption of the resolution, the road shall remain as a private right-of-way and not maintained by the City. The applicant shall obtain and grant cross- Meyers 2nd Addition August 2, 1995 Page 11 _ access and maintenance easements over the lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge Road. _ 7. Ridge Road shall be upgraded to meet the City's private driveway ordinance which includes a 20-foot wide, 7-ton design street section and turnaround to accommodate public safety vehicles. Parking on Ridge Road shall be prohibited. The applicant shall provide _ and install the necessary traffic signs. 8. A tree conservation area be established on the easterly 135 feet of Lot 3 and the easterly 200 feet of Lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the woods, staff recommends the building pad on Lot 3 be pulled 30 feet to the west to accommodate a driveway which _ does not exceed a ten (10) percent grade and for tree protection. 9. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The applicant shall obtain the necessary demolition permits. 10. Obtain a permit and install a pool fence prior to recording the final plat. 11. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application. 12. Tree and branch overgrowth along Ridge Road shall be trimmed to the satisfaction of the _ Fire Marshall. 13. A thirty (30) foot front yard setback shall be maintained from the dedicated right-of-way." _ ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter to Planning Commission and City Council from James and Karen Meyer, dated July 11, 1995 2. Memo from James and Karen Meyer dated August 9, 1995. — 3. Map of Christmas Lake Watershed 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official, dated August 3, 1995 5. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated July 13, 1995 — 6. Memo from Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern, dated July 24, 1995 7. Memo from Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator and David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated August 7, 1995 — 8. Letter from Joe Richter, DNR Hydrologist, dated July 24, 1995 9. Referral Notice _ 10. Public Hearing Notice 11. Fourteen (14) letters from surrounding property owners AUG-09-95 WED 02:29 PM BURNET REALTY MINNETONKA FAX NO. 6124749583 P. 02/03 TO: THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANING COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN FR: JAMES AND KAREN MEYER-SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS 6225 RIDGE ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HOME TELEPHONE - 474-2900 DATE:AUGUST 9, 1995 RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING OUR REQUESTED SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR MEYER'S 2ND ADDITION We have some additional information and suggestions which we hope will be helpful to you in approving our subdivision and granting our variance in order to keep Ridge Road unchanged. SAFETY ISSUES A key point with regard to safety is that Ridge Road is not a "dead end" street. The south end of Ridge Road is a through street which for many years (without a problem) has been blocked at about the county Line by a chain hung between two cement-filled poles. The original purpose of the chain was to restrict traffic to Ridge Road residents There is a large turnaround on the Hennepin County side of the current chain as well as egress through the Hennepin end of the road. In order to accommodate emergency vehicle ingress and egress we will agree to remove the chain and the cement filled poles and construct a sufficiently wide gate similar to those found at the entrances to state parks. The gate will be locked in such a way as to permit emergency vehicles easy access to the north end of the road while at the same time restricting public traffic. We can provide keys for emergency vehicles and/or use a lock which can be cut with the bolt cutters carried in emergency vehicles. We will agree to repair any damage done to the gate by emergency vehicles. We also agree to trim the trees on our property to a height and width necessary for the safe passage of emergency vehicles. As you know there are two fire hydrants on this .2 mile section of Ridge Road. We will agree to keep them visible and accessible year around. AUG-09-95 WED 02:30 PM BURNET REALTY MINNETONKA FAX NO. 6124749583 P. 03/03 Page 2 "SETTING PRECEDENT" ISSUES We understand there is a concern that a granting of our variance will set a precedent for future subdivision on Ridge Road. To alleviate this problem we will agree to place restrictions in the deeds of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Meyer's 2nd Subdivision eliminating future subdivision of these parcels. With regard to our property, we believe that a precedent was set when the Cunningham variances and subdivision requests were approved in 1994 and 1995. In the Staff Report to The Board of Adjustments and Appeals on the Cunningham request dated March 14, 1994,the City is advised that they will be creating a precedent for our property. The ANALYSTS section of the Staff Report reads: _ "Permitting additional access for the Cunningham property off of the private drive will create a precedent for the other - properties along Ridge Road. Currently,there are only two homes on the east side of Ridge Road. However, there is ample vacant land available between these houses to permit the further subdivision of these properties if the owners would so choose." This variance was subsequently granted by the City and the Cunningham subdivision approved. We think we are entitled to equitable treatment and should not be encumbered with additional requirements which will create an undue and severe hardship. Thank you for your review of this additional information as well as for your study of the entire proposal. Hopefully you will agree with us and with all of our neighbors that this property can be divided without changing our neighborhood "country road". Sincerely,/-1947d4 - f�2 James Meyer Karen Meyer 3 TO: THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANING COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ FR: JAMES AND KAREN MEYER-SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS 6225 RIDGE ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HOME TELEPHONE - 474-2900 DATE: JULY 11, 1995 RE:- REQUEST SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR MEYER'S 2ND ADDITION We are the owners of the attached referenced properties. We wish to divide our homestead, a 3.44 acre parcel at 6225 Ridge Road, into two lots by creating one approximately 1.2 acre parcel to the north of our home, AND we wish to divide our lot to the south of our homestead, MEYER'S Addition lot 2, a 3.11 acre parcel, into two lots of approximately 1.5 acres each. We understand that a platted subdivision is required rather than a simple "lot split" because even though the proposed lots conform to all other ordinances, Ridge Road is a sub-standard private road and requires a variance to create an access/driveway for each of these two new lots. BACKGROUND ON RIDGE ROAD Ridge Road was created in the early 1930's by the owners of the property on the east shore of Christmas Lake and the west shore of Silver Lake. The road was created on this glacial ridge, then called Silver Ridge,to provide access to the road on the south, The Excelsior- Eden Prairie Road, now named Pleasant View Road, and the road to the north which must have been close to what is now State Highway 7. The road is unique and historic. Ridge Road (then and now) is described as "a series of easements restricted to no _ more than 12 feet in width, with an occasional stretch not to exceed 16 feet in width to accommodate the passing of vehicles". The road is maintained today as it was then by an association of landowners along the road. The road is approximately one (1) mile long. The north .8 mile of Ridge Road is in the city of Shorewood in Hennepin County. The south .2 mile is in Carver County, City of Chanhassen. All of the subject property is in the City of Chanhassen. Carver County. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION _ The proposed subdivision will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property nor substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, _ nor increase the danger of fire, nor endanger the public safety nor diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. All of the neighboring properties are on similar sized parcels and are of similar value. — • The Carver County side of the road is fairly straight and level with good sight lines for safe access. There is no through traffic; the road is blocked by a chain at the county line. The City just approved additional access to Ridge Road on the west side of the road for the Cunningham Subdivision. The additional traffic from two additional homes will not cause a safety problem. This type of roadway is not unique. As an example, a similar length of road at the entrance to the north end of Ridge Road, the northern most .2 miles of the north .8 miles (the portion of — Ridge Road in Shorewood) services the traffic of over 30 homes. The north end is curved at several points, is much more sloped, is the same dimensions and construction, and is still safe and works well. Another example is Holly Lane on the west shore of Christmas Lake where the City recently approved a subdivision (Ravenswood Sub.) on a sub-standard road. Carver Beach on Lotus Lake, is another example as are many of the roads around Minnewashta(Red Cedar Cove) — and Lake Riley. In fact, because of the uniqueness of lake shore development many if not most of the areas around our lakes which have roads which are sub- standard by current ordinance. — The subject properties are the last parcels on Ridge Road in Chanhassen which meet the frontage and area requirements for subdivision. The two additional — access points should be the last access points required for development according to the "reasonable use" standards as defined by all of the comparable properties within 500 feet of the subject property. The requested variance is made necessary — by the pre-existing standards of the neighborhood. The contemplated subdivision will meet the "reasonable use" standards. We have looked into the possibility of accessing the subject property from the east with a private road off of Pleasant View Road. We have discussed this with the — planning department of the City. We believe this is not a viable access due the steep grade which would require extensive grading,retaining wall construction and extensive loss of trees in what appears to be a Bluff Impact Zone. This would also require an easement over Lot 1 MEYER'S Addition(Eastwood's Property) and/or the City/County property to the east. There are designated wetlands on the County property. In addition, the city would have serious questions about an — access to Pleasant View at that point because of the nearness to a large curve and restricted sight lines. The lots would be less desirable with a road on both the front and the back of the lot. The literal enforcement of the "private road ordinances" would cause undue hardship. The property could not be put to "reasonable use" because there is no — other reasonable way to access these parcels. The lakes and wetlands prohibit access from the east or the west. The topography of the ridge is unique and clearly defines the only access as Ridge Road. The proposed lots are homogeneous with all of the property within five hundred(500) feet and the pre- existing standards of the neighborhood. There is no downward departure from the — existing neighborhood standards. It is most important that the City not require Ridge Road to be widened as a — requirement for subdivision approval. The neighborhood is, and should continue to be, a "country neighborhood" served by a"country road". The road is lined by mature trees. It is an idyllic setting, aesthetically pleasing to the entire neighborhood. We have planned lots far larger than required by the City in order to maintain the existing "countryside" nature of the neighborhood. — Please contact our representative, Carl Zinn, for additional information and for giving notice of any necessary meetings and/or hearings. Thank you for your consideration. We respectfully request your approval. Sincerely A#01 f'7-' fr.a414-f M K James Meyer Karen Meyer — CARL ZINN - OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE 5820 RIDGE ROAD BUS TELEPHONE 470-2534 SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 HOME TELEPHONE 470-5431 LAKE WATERSHEDCHRISTMAS PRESENT WATERSHED ORIGINAL WATERSHED 457 Acres 57% INCREASE 291 Acres , --_ .,-7------ .. 6.. .,7•01,711‘. 1..._,._•--411, ,.4, .\_...t.t._____‘_.,,,, 1 r � ' '�\ ' Y:a �`•` •'' 'Z'\.11,smar y ...3e=:-....:•-•t. I'i � r- -"-N•1-+}+.~/ t .t• ."11 N. ia-:.'•'-l •• r = sTs\••t i_--i.'i t:-t� - -.i - b 5: \�. eco._i '�!:_ + i i r a 57. : ... -2-,•-:::"4-4.-,-c•-i--=---... v:— ;. . . • '''t•` ...e...Al-- _ rvttir ear • -'►_` ,t q`l�._ r "1/4 . 1 --Ci I may--• f _+ :4:y atr - _:.�� e• -'�� -.� ::i::,+y_ . 3,. tt:r•a. t f.'f��l vtcv \ .�-r` _t { 1 d,` I-- ' - 1 - =om 1r.A. �j _ A� `~ a ' '� . �` • • . e , . �a .� -- � •- :s4 t o .�Q awe.a .� > Nr. r . N( t 0 v P ,��INN \ L �� , Ozsr Z. ter',", ; •4 • p�®1® s , :n •••• mt 'die , - ' 04 ___ - -,--- t i -LT1T1. I ` a `• e CITY OF 1 CHANHASSEN',‘ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official •of), DATE: August 3, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-16 SUB (Meyers 2nd Addition, James and Karen Meyers) I was asked to review the subdivision proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUL 18 19 9 5, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis; Demolition Permits.Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition perrn its. Proof of well abandonment, if applicable, must be furnished to the City and a perm it for septic system abandonment, if applicable, must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Existing Structures. The submitted plans indicate there is a swimming pool on the existing lot. An inspection on 8/3/95 revealed the swimming pool is not fenced. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-1021 requires all in-ground swimming pools be protected by a fence not less than five feet high with self- - closing, self-latching gates. The fence must be designed to be nonclimbable and designed such that a sphere four inches in diameter cannot pass through. A new lot cannot be created which violates City ordinances, so the required fence must be built before the subdivision can be recorded. Recommendations; 1. Obtained demolition permit for existing structures before their removal. 2. Obtain a permit and install a pool fence. This must be done before the plat is recopied. g:\aarety\cak4nan os'pIan\neyers.bg I CITY of \ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �-r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Planner II — FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 13, 1995 SUBJ: Ridge Road _ PLANNING CASE: 95-8 Variance I have reviewed the variance request in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, and have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan review was based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be _ addressed. The Fire Prevention Bureau has 3 items of concern that I would like addressed and corrected: 1. Due to the narrowness of the road, the tree and branch overgrowth over the road is substantial. Currently, if fire apparatus had to negotiate the road, damage such as _ broken emergency lights, broken mirrors and scratched paint would occur. Tree trimming must be done, preferably by City crews. 2. This is also a serious concern that due to the narrowness of Ridge Road (roadway width varies from 12 to 16 feet), firefighting access could be greatly jeopardized if vehicles were parked on Ridge Road, resulting in delayed or blocked emergency vehicle access. With 13 homes at stake, there must be assurance that access is maintained at all times. Therefore, "No Parking Fire Lane" signs must be installed per city policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 3. Section 10.204 (d) of the Chanhassen Fire Code states that "Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved provision for the turning around of fire apparatus. With the length of Ridge Road being .2 miles long, an approved turn-around must be considered. _ Memo to Robert Generous July 13, 1995 Page2 If this were a new project being proposed, 3 homes or more on a private drive would have to comply with the Fire Code requirement pertaining to roadway width, design and turn around. With 8 existing homes on Ridge Road, and the potential of those increasing to 13, the — accessibility concerns have to be corrected. The Fire Department also recognizes the fact that there were homes existing there prior to a City Fire Code being established. The first two items should be easy to correct. With regards to item three, in lieu of a turn around, the Fire Code will take into account that when buildings are completely protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions may be modified by the Fire Marshal. This is something that I would consider. g:\safety\ml\ridgerdmem CITY OF . . ii CHANHASSEN _ ,, \ . • ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 - MEMORANDUM — TO: John Rask, Planner I FROM: Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern, DATE: July 24, 1995 — SUBJ: Tree Preservation and Removal, Meyer Addition Canopy calculations for the site have been performed. Estimated coverage is 55% (3.4 acres). Minimum canopy coverage to be maintained according to ordinance is 35% (2.2 acres). Tree removal due to development is .64 acres, leaving 2.76 acres or 44%. Applicant is within the tree removal limitations of city ordinance and therefore will not have to provide replacement _ plantings. Applicant will be required to provide one tree in the front yard setback area if one does not already exist. Trees and wooded areas are scattered throughout the site with the major concentration of trees occurring along the eastern edge of the property. Construction of homes will mainly impact the western and central portions of the site. In order to protect the wooded nature of the _ eastern edge, staff recommends a tree conservation area be established on the easterly 135 feet of lot 3 and the easterly 200 feet of lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the woods, staff recommends the building pad on lot 3 be pulled 30 feet to the west. This would _ lessen the amount of grading done in the wooded area. Two trees of special interest exist on lot 1, a 36 inch multi-stemmed maple and a 36 inch oak. — The oak is scheduled to be removed as part of the grading for the house and the maple will be heavily impacted by the driveway that will be constructed less than 5 feet away. Staff recommends the driveway be moved to the north side of the lot in order to reduce or — eliminate construction damage to the maple. Presently it is unknown whether or not the oak could be saved. The only possible alternative appears to be relocation of the home closer to the road. This would potentially reduce the need for grading east of the building pad close to — the tree. The applicant may suggest other possible alternatives. Meyer Addition July 24, 1995 Page 2 Recommendations: 1. Tree Conservation Easements be established on the easterly 135 feet of lot 3 and the easterly 200 feet of lot 4. 2. Relocate the building pad on lot 3 thirty feet to the west. 3. Relocate the building pad on lot 1 thirty feet to the west. 4. Access lot 1 from the northern end of the western edge. CITY OF .11 \ • CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask, Planner I FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer O DATE: August 7, 1995 SUBJ: Meyers 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat Review- File Nos. 95-16 SUB, 95-27 LUR — Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings dated July 17, 1995 prepared by Schoell and — Madson, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: LAKES AND WETLANDS It appears that the only wetland on or near this plat is the wetland associated with Silver Lake. Silver Lake is a Department of Natural Resource protected water (27-136P). The ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of Silver Lake is 898.1 feet and the wetland borders this elevation. The OHW should be marked on the grading plan. The property is considered riparian to Silver Lake, and therefore, the shoreland district extends 1,000 feet from the OHW of 898.1 feet. The development must be consistent with Chanhassen's shoreland management regulations. Staff requires that a qualified wetland biologist survey the property for wetlands and write a brief letter verifying the existence or non-existence and impacts, if any, of wetlands on site. If there are wetlands on-site they must be staked, surveyed, and included on the grading plan and plat — map. Buffer Strip The City of Chanhassen has a wetland ordinance protecting wetlands from alteration. There is also a buffer strip requirement associated with the protection of each particular wetland. If the — wetland is natural, the buffer strip width is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. If the wetland is ag/urban, the buffer strip width is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback from any wetland is 40 feet measured from the — outside edge of the buffer strip. John Rask August 7, 1995 Page 2 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective,the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and _ minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. The water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. — Storm Water Quality and Associated Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based — on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. — Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City's SWMP proposes one regional water quality pond for this site area. The best location for the regional water quality pond is on the property to the south along the edge of the wetland bordering Silver Lake. The proposed SWMP water quality charge is $800/acre for single-family residential developments, and therefore, this development will be responsible for approximately 6.55 acres of developable land or $5,240. — Storm Water Quantity and Associated Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total developable area of the property is 6.55 acres. Therefore, the proposed _ development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $12,969. DRAINAGE The property drains east down steep wooded slopes and bluffs in the northern part. The southerly part contains vegetated steep slopes before discharging into Silver Lake. Three additional — building sites are proposed with this development. Staff believes detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans should be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The plans should address roof and driveway runoff by — designing a plan to dissipate the stormwater over a large area. This will allow for the natural John Rask August 7, 1995 Page 3 — infiltration of some of the runoff. The rest of the runoff will be filtered through the property and _ the wetland before entering Silver Lake. Ridge Road does not have a storm drainage system. The roadway carries the runoff southerly to the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Ridge Road. With new home construction occurring, this road has been a source of erosion in the past. There are no storm sewer facilities in Ridge Road or Pleasant View Road to accommodate the runoff. The City's Surface Water _ Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a future water quality treatment pond at the southerly end of the wetland complex adjacent to Silver Lake (east of Ridge Road/north of Pleasant View Road) to pretreat approximately 12 acres. This area includes the drainage from these proposed — lots. As a result of this subdivision, staff does not believe the increased amount of runoff from this subdivision will adversely impact the wetlands. Staff is concerned about the runoff from Ridge Road and believe storm drainage improvements may be warranted with or without this — development. At this time, Ridge Road is not upgraded to city urban standards (concrete curb and gutter and storm sewers). Staff recommends the applicant pay the applicable SWMP connection fees in lieu of constructing any of the downstream stormwater improvements as — outlined in the SWMP. GRADING The preliminary grading plan proposes only minimal grading to prepare the driveways and house — pads. To further reduce grading impacts, staff recommends moving the house pads up (west) the hill closer to Ridge Road on Lots 3 and 4. The final grading plan should show erosion control measures and the plan signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. _ EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan needs to be incorporated into the final grading plan and submitted to city staff for review and approval. Staff recommends erosion control fence be used at the grading limits at the tow of the slope. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and _ mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and staked or restored with wood-fiber blanket. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water lines are located in Ridge Road and along the rear of the parcels — adjacent the wetland to service this development. The sanitary sewer in Ridge Road is relatively shallow, approximately 10 feet deep. The applicant and/or builder shall verify the sanitary sewer elevation in Ridge Road prior to constructing any homes. Due to the sewer elevation this may — require relocating the homes further up the hill closer to Ridge Road. Another option would be to extend a service up the hill from the line located adjacent the wetland. This route would John Rask August 7, 1995 Page 4 require additional tree removal and slope disruption. The new lots may be responsible for hook — up and connection charges ($2,425 and $7,000) depending on previous assessment history. STREETS Access to the site is from Ridge Road which is a private street. City ordinance prohibits more than four homes on a private street. If this development receives approval, there will be a total of 13 homes on the private street. There is also no turnaround at the end of the road (city limits). A chain gate exists to restrict through traffic to and from the City of Shorewood. A standard development would be required to dedicate one-half of the 60-foot wide street right- - of-way and constructing the street to urban standards (31-foot wide, back-to-back, with concrete curb and gutters). The street currently exists as a 16 to 20-foot wide bituminous surface with no storm drainage improvements. This development proposal is very similar to the Cunningham subdivision directly across the street. In that proposal the City required the developer grant a permanent easement for public right-of-way purposes at no cost to the City. The easement becomes effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge Road). The City does allow for private streets to serve more than four homes in higher density land uses such as multi-family R-8 and R-12 land uses. However, the streets are basically constructed to City standards with the exception of roadway width. Roadway width would be a minimum of 24 feet wide with parking prohibited. Staff is concerned with the storm sewer runoff and providing acceptable turnaround for public safety vehicles with this development proposal. Since Ridge Road is and probably will remain a private street, the applicant should obtain and convey the necessary cross-access/driveway maintenance agreement for the new lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge Road. The street should also be posted No Parking to permit adequate room for traffic to pass. Staff still contends that the street should be upgraded to city urban standards, however, due to the existing development pattern, this may not be feasible given the close proximity of existing homes. In order to satisfy public safety concerns, the street should be upgraded to the private driveway ordinance including a turnaround and prohibit parking on both sides of the street. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Individual detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be submitted to the City for each lot. The City shall review and approve the plans prior to issuance of building permits on the lots. 2. All wetlands and wetland buffer strips shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's John Rask August 7, 1995 Page 5 wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction of the new houses. The applicant will be charged $20 per sign. A qualified wetland biologist shall survey the property for wetlands and write a brief letter verifying the existence or non-existence of wetlands and impacts, if any, to wetlands on the site. 3. The proposed single-family residential development of 6.55 developable acres shall be responsible for water quantity and quality connection charges of $12,969 and $5,240, — respectively. These fees will be due at time of final plat recording 4. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and mulched or sodded — immediately after grading is completed. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and staked or restored with wood-fiber blanket. 5. The grading plans shall include the following items: a. Erosion control fencing. b. Move the house pad on Lot 3 closer to Ridge Road to improve driveway grade and minimize tree removal and grading. c. The plan certification shall be signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a permanent right-of-way easement over the westerly 30 feet of Lots 1, 3 and 4 and the west 25 feet of Lot 2. The easement shall _ become effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge Road). Subsequent to the adoption of the resolution, the road shall remain as a private right-of-way and not maintained by the City. The applicant shall obtain and grant cross- — access and maintenance easements over the lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge Road. 7. Ridge Road shall be upgraded to meet the City's private driveway ordinance which includes a 20-foot wide, 7-ton design street section and turnaround to accommodate public safety vehicles. Parking on Ridge Road shall be prohibited. The applicant shall provide — and install the necessary traffic signs. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:eng\diane\plannmg\meyers pc �nn��STATEnnOF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO. 772-7910 July 24, 1995 Mr. Robert Generous AICP, Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: James and Karen Meyers, Silver Lake(27-136P), City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City#95-16 SUB) Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received July 18, 1995) for the above-referenced project (Sections 1 and 2 , T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Silver Lake (27-136P), a Public Water is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of Silver Lake is under the jurisdiction of the DI\TR and may require a DNR permit. The OHW for Silver Lake is 898.10' (NGVD, 1929). 2. The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. The project site contains steep slopes and bluffs that could be severely damaged by erosion by runoff from the project site. Routing untreated stormwater to Silver Lake could also cause sedimentation and water level bounces that are detrimental to Silver Lakes wildlife values and water quality. A stormwater management plan should be developed for the site that will protect the steep slopes and bluffs from erosion and remove sediments from the stormwater before the stormwater reaches Silver Lake. 3. 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 DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over Silver Lake and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Robert Generous July 25, 1995 Page 2 4. Silver Lake has a shoreland classification of Natural Environment. The shoreland district — extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with Chanhassen's shoreland management regulations. In particular: a. The project area contains bluffs and steep slopes. The bluffs overlooking Silver Lake should not be disturbed and all structures should be setback at least 30' from the top of the bluff. Topographic alterations should be minimized in areas containing steep — slopes. b. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore and bluff impact zones. The minimum shore impact zone is an area within 75' of the OHW. The bluff impact zone is an area within 20' of the top of the bluff. — c. The plans indicate that areas of woods will remain untouched by the project, which is good. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Silver — Lake using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. 5. Silver Lake(27-136P) should be labelled as such in future plans or plats and the OHW should be noted. _ 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. The site contains steep slopes and bluffs which could easily be severely damaged by erosion. Erosion control measures must be taken during the construction period to prevent damage to the site. 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. The City of Chanhassen should inspect the erosion control — measures on the site on a regular basis and after heavy rainstorms. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million — gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. Mr. Robert Generous July 25, 1995 Page 3 c. The comments in this letter address DNR-Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ,pati e,L.c . _ ' Joe Richter Hydrologist cc: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer USCOE, Gary Elftmann Chanhassen Shoreland File -� Silver Lake (27-136P)File City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 — Date: July 17, 1995 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Robert Generous, AICP, Planner H Subject: Preliminary plat request to subdivide 6.55 acres into 4 single family lots and variance request to — Section 18-57(o) which allows up to four lots to be served by a private drive on property located at 6225 Ridge Road, north of Pleasant View Road, James and Karen Meyers. Planning Case: 95-16 SUB The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen _ Planning Department on July 14, 1995. 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 Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on August 2, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than July 24, 1995. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your — cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments elephone Company — Ca. ity Engineer JUS West or United) "b. City Attorney _ City Park Director or Company ire Marshal r MN Valley) e :uilding Official j" _ f. )Water Resources Coordinator L10./Triax Cable System i 2. Watershed District Engineer 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife _ 3. Soil Conservation Service 12. Carver County a. Engineer — 4. MN Dept. of Transportation b. Environmental Services 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Bonestroo Engineering — Minnegasco 14. Other- &IAN Dept. of Natural Resources 0 0 2 V g m f� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING L.,c L,, eChTIb r has ,, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �� w 1r;,— �, LAKE 1°E �' Wednesday, August 2, 1995krA��t ��f _ '�� c„A at 7:00 p.m. 'Irak; r *gniy �� en e,�c CityHall Council Chambers � _ `i, J1 I ■4�� 690 Coulter Drive �� - _`' �r 1 i .�� i J \■e al!”Vrat , Project: Meyers 2nd Additionamid!4T, ,,- ■■Tl� \\ " _ IrIIiDeveloper James and Karen Meyer �11r �T'WZN �'J2 erelPX4hegill11111111.111-1.21-1m 167A Location: 6225 Ridge Roadiu1` ?■Ear■ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is James and Karen Meyer for a preliminary plat request to subdivide 6.55 acres into 4 single family lots and variance request to Section 18-57(o) which allows up to four lots to be served by a private drive on property located at 6225 Ridge Road, north of Pleasant View Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 20, 1995. FAEGRE & BENSON PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 2200 NORWEST CENTER,90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402-390I TELEPHONE 612-336-3000 FACSIMILE 612-338-3026 JERRY W. SNIDER 612/336-3142 July 21, 1995 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council P.O. Box 147 — Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Meyer' s Subdivision on Ridge Road — Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council: We write in support of James and Karen Meyer' s proposed — subdivision at 6225 Ridge Road. We own the property at 6270 Ridge Road, which is directly across the road from the proposed subdivision. Our conclusion to support the subdivision was — reached after reviewing the detailed subdivision plans as well as participating in a meeting of our neighbors to discuss the subdivision proposal. We are very impressed with the thoughtful approach the Meyers bring to the decision to subdivide their land. In particular, we appreciate that the plans carefully consider the — environmental impact of the development as well as public safety concerns for our neighborhood. In our opinion, the variance they seek is a reasonable one, represents the best use of this property, and, because of increased tax revenue enhancement, is in the public interest. We believe this limited subdivision proposal is consistent with the overall character of the neighborhood. — While strongly supporting the subdivision proposal, you should know that there is neighborhood concern that Ridge Road — remain "as is" without widening or altering the roadway. In our opinion, the present roadway can easily absorb three additional homes without creating congestion or safety concerns to the community. Moreover, Ridge Road is a "through" roadway and can — be approached from either the north or the south by emergency vehicles. We believe there are no safety concerns created by the proposed subdivision. — In short, the proposed subdivision has our wholehearted endorsement and support. We respectfully request the Planning — Minneapolis Denver Des Moines Washington,D.C. London Frankfurt Moscow Alrnaty July 21, 1995 — Page 2 — Commission and the City Council vote to approve the Meyer's Ridge Road subdivision as proposed. Very truly yours, — Jerry W. Snider Katherine M. Snider JWS/jhh MLL29C96.WP5 CC: James and Karen Meyer Carl Zinn City of Chanhassen 21 July, 1995 — Planning Commission and City Council P O Box 147 — Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Re' Meyers Subdivision on Ridge Road — Dear Commission Chair, My wife and I have lived at 6110 Ridge Road for 27 years. We support the proposed subdivision of Jim and Karen Meyers and their desire not to have — Ridge road widened. Ridge Road residents like the road the way it is. We have lived with the road the way it. is for over a quarter century and see no reason to alter it now. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, — � � �� s Torn and Cokey This 61 10 Ridge Road Excelsior, MN. 55331 — 1 MGLAUGHLIN GORMLEY KING COMPANY 8810 TENTH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55427 WILLIAM D. OULLICKSON,SR. CHAIRMAN July 21, 1995 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sir or Madam: We have recently been informed of Dr. &Mrs. Meyer's plans to build a home on Christmas Lake and to subdivide their property on the east side of Ridge Road. As only two houses will be built east of Ridge Road, Mrs. Gullickson and I fully support the "Meyer Subdivision on Ridge Road" and trust that you will approve their request. Very truly yours, , - William Gullickson, Sr. John S. Fess 6280 Ridge Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ph:(612)474-0045 Fax:(612)470-9144 July 18, 1995 City of Chanhassen — City Council P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear City Council Members: Re: James Meyer property located at 6225 Ridge Road and the Meyer's request for a variance for two additional access points to Ridge Road while wishing to divide their 3.44 acre homestead property, as well as Lot #2, a 3.11 acre parcel into two lots. I write to you to explain my position as a homeowner at 6280 Ridge Road relative to the James Meyer property. This is not the first time I have written to the Planning Commission and City Council in support of neighbors asking for permission to divide their properties. This request will be the last time I will support a variance for — property subdivision on Ridge Road In regard to the property in question, it is very highly desirable, beautiful and large. To put three additional new beautiful homes on the east side of Ridge Road with minimum turnoffs would only enhance our unique neighborhood The lots are quite large, and this would complete the subdividing of the east side of the road from Pleasant View to the chain with a total of five homes. The west side of the road is currently complete and contains a total of eight lots. I request that you support this proposal providing that Ridge Road remains a private road is not changed and remains in its current form. ,=D tc Ls; ..A i . UY G1-1/%i'ir A:,3ti4 John S. Fess City of Chanhassen Page 2 July 18, 1995 I am the road representative for the south portion of Ridge Road and handle road maintenance for our neighbors as to plowing, road signs and general repair. Each new homeowner who has built on Ridge Road since 1994 has agreed to contribute a set amount of money for repair of the road when their home is completed. This money is held in our road maintenance account. We will use these moneys to reblacktop the road from Pleasant View to the chain once all properties in question are sold and developed. Ridge Road is a unique road in Chanhassen. The City has worked with our neighborhood in granting variances in the past. We, as homeowners, watch countless Chanhassen and Shorewood neighbors from adjacent developments walk,jog and bike on our private road daily year around. They, too, enjoy the quiet area. It is my intent that once and for all the Board approve this last variance so that all may continue to enjoy this private road for years and years to come. Your help and cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, 7‘c-71 , John . Fess 4T4jfY, .. ',5 Y i9. • ,JULY I 995 DEAR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE PLAN FOR THE MEYER VISION I THOROUGHLY BELIEVE THAT THE RIDGE ROAD SHOULD BE I DT IN ITS )RESENT CONDITION I HAVE BEEN A PROPERTY OWNER ON RIDGE ROAD FOR 40 YEARS, WE HAVE A ,,UMMEP CABIN ON CHR I STM A. LAKE I HAVE LIVED ON PLEASANT W 1~':)A! Fop ovER 80 YEARS. I HA." E NEVER EXPERIENCED, DURING THE _ YEAI? I HAM: 1,1`mf[) T Hr R1DSE ROAf) ANY TRAFFICCON(.E;.,TI("IN f P PROBLEMS THE COUNTRY ROAD CHARACTER OF RIDGE ROAD HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT PAR1 OF PEOPLE'S DESIRE TO LIVE HERE. IT SHOULD NOT BE - CHANGED SINCERELY, ea./1 --<--crn, �1 A.T CUNNI NGA M L L L 1 to i= 1T . !I APE L v� E aPE PITitlf5 iN i�'FGARD ' THE MEYER SUBDIVISION. WE WOULD THE SiIrl'►i v i S 4ON WITH NO ALTERATIONS MADE TO HE -• ;1-J:,!5Ei`i V!SON 1!OE5 NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE L - F ONPI ►i,;E Poop i5 KEPT TO THE BARE MINIMUM BY THE c !_1h11 __ FI "E MILES PFR HOUR, 05 WELL AS THOSE CAP RATTLING H45 ztNj t;OF=T Elul STATED PL EDGE TO .MINIMIZE THE TLEES .. ,";A._IOP 4 TERA T iON TO THE WIDTH OF RIDGE 4_r L t.1_r PEO►URE THE PEMO V 4.L OF M 4NY BEAUTIFUL TREES !_!-i.:f i 7+ 714- f_ H-14pA( TFR op A UNI( LE NIESI=HR.ORH0HD71 THF . i - 1.i�!1_ " ) + WOUL1.! `•E EX T ENSI vF i iNW,AN T Fri ANO r E 'r`t`11-f 1 t.j' WITH THE 1C H c: R H�� T -✓ 017i- T H i- !r'►1DPO P ,T f }WNIFP WHO (`,!,1 _1 F^!i` OR ;/is 1 1r 1 r.IEMONSTRATPS i_ONCERN FOP i HR L r-!? 1 ' t zrsi11 I r H_ SI `01F DDE AL 0,6 I N ► 1-'!1_' D45' �`F ra�1`` I HA VF c' !!1 AND ` TRiW THF LANE 1 E ✓� 4.{,,;,F r:'!I ! F- r :� 1 H'r:E i 1,..tC! c.i.s.1 C 1 NOT (;t,lF j!`..FF ; t,L;:1;.T!)N.j►jv HERE TO 4:1A VE :a.ND NOT D7 ,7•12 tOy1 wOULi TO ILK T L THANK YOU, L ?QTSy AND GRODY WHITEMAN ith L L L . Il iI 1' '.a I iay= BEAR CI v CQ1!NC I I , PE I-IEv Ek j1 iE,f,l v I':I oN I rIVIE D I ATE NEIGHBORS To THE MEYERS, wE SUPPORT AND — ENCOURAG THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AS PLANNED. GPC►C30 4G A LOW DENSITY DE /ELOPEMENT THAT INCLUDES THE DEVEL.OPEP':> C1v!N HOME ENCOURAGES THE CHARACTER OF THE — NEIGHBOPHOOD TO REMAIN CONSTANT. WF WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS DEVELOPMENT APPROVED WITH NO - CHANGES TO THE WIDTH OR OWNERSHIP OF RIDGE ROAD. THE CURRENT ROAD IS ADEQUATE TO SERvE THE MINIMAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. THE TREES E5ORDERINC- THE ROAD SHOULD REMAIN TO ASSURE PRIVACY AND TO KEEP rHE COUNTPrSIDE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU, , 77( H A.NF. AND SHARON GR AFF - --re7 2eon : Jo : fr-tpie."2„..? o — / iy Io_cz„( 7e R„, , 0 Gc-i- e.c. E .1.L_ek..7z--- , 67v • - • 44.1_ r . 4t/ hvet-i — _ • eae_ 6z, ze4_ 4. 7 , aft4-vt---) Jon W. Joseph, M. D. 6290 Ridge Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 July 21, 1995 • City of Chanhassen ,,.i City Council P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Council Members: I am writing to support the Meyer Subdivision on Ridge Road. I would also like to voice my opposition to any requirements the city may feel necessary to widen the road Dr. Jim Meyer is a very sensitive man with a true love of the atmosphere along Ridge Road The inevitable development of his property is best completed with the requirements he is placing on the proposed home builders. He has both a financial and aesthetic interest in this development since he will be living across the street. — Unfortunately, I have been told that any further building on Ridge Road may cause a "knee jerk" reaction by the City of Chanhassen to widen the road I — would oppose that overreaction. The increase in density from the current eight homes to the proposed or approved five more homes will not significantly change the traffic activity. However, treating this road as a — typical subdivision throughway would be a pity. I have full support for Dr. Meyer's home building plans. I also have a fear — • he City of Chanhassen may impose inappropriate requirements on the • inevita ale deve ;. ' ent of the Meyer's land — Sincere ' I. ► — Jon W. oseph, , . D. cc: D Jim Me er, 6 25 Ridge Rd, Chanhassen, MN 55317 . Carl Zinr :20 Ridge Rd, Shorewood, MN 55331 William A.J. "Tony" & Mary S. Boire 801 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 612-470-9194 July 24, 1995 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission & City Council P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Ref: Meyers 2nd Addition To whom it may concern; We understand our neighbors, Jim & Karen Meyer would like to subdivide their property on Ridge Road. They would also like to maintain the current road width that will preserve the wooded beauty of the area. We support these requests and hope that the City of Chanhassen City Council and Planning Commission will approve Jim & Karen Meyer' s well planned and desirable requests. Thank you for your consideration. IP William A.J. Boire Mary S. Boire CC: Jim & Karen Meyer 6225 Ridge Road Chanhassen, Mn 55317 July 12, 1995 Dr. and Mrs. Ronald Mason — 901 4th St. N. Hopkins, MN 55343 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Mason, Karen and I want to inform you about two exciting events in the Meyer family and ask your help in a matter we feel is very important to our neighborhood. First, Karen and I have purchased a lake shore lot across from our current home at 6225 Ridge Road. We are very excited to have the opportunity to build a new house on Christmas Lake without having to leave our wonderful Ridge Road neighborhood. Secondly, we want to inform you of our plans to sell our home and our property on the east side of our road. We have applied to the city of Chanhassen for the subdivision of -- our land into two additional lots. We wish to divide our homestead, a 3.44 acre parcel at 6225 Ridge Road, into two lots by creating one approximately 1.2 acre parcel to the north of our home, and we wish to another lot we own to the south of our homestead, MEYER'S Addition lot 2, a 3.11 acre parcel, into two lots of approximately 1.5 acres each. We want the subdivision to be approved without any requirement to change the width or construction of Ridge Road. We want Ridge Road to remain as it is and have included — the following paragraph in our request for subdivision. (Complete application is attached) "It is most important that the City not require Ridge Road to be widened as a requirement for subdivision approval. The neighborhood is, and should continue to be, a "country neighborhood" served by a "country road". The road is lined by mature trees. It is an idyllic setting, aesthetically pleasing to the entire neighborhood. We have planned lots far larger than required by the City in order to maintain the existing "countryside" nature of the neighborhood." — With regard to density, there are 8 home sites on the west side of Ridge Road between Pleasant View and the county line. If approved as requested there will only be 5 home sites over the same distance on the east side (an increase of two). Our neighbor(6270 Ridge Road), Jerry Snider who is an attorney with Faegre & Benson tells us that is extremely important that all the neighbors within 500 feet of our property publicly support the subdivision if we are to get approval without having to significantly — change the width and construction of Ridge Road. We are asking you to write a letter of support to the City of Chanhassen City Council and the Planning Commission. The letter should reference the MEYER'S SUBDIVISION ON RIDGE ROAD and be addressed to _ • City of Chanhassen ....- Planning ". Planning Commission and City Council ' 1995 P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dr. and Mrs. Mason if you have any questions or concerns at all please call us(Meyer's home-474-2900), or if you wish call Carl Zinn with Burnet Realty(470-2534)who is working on the subdivision process and the sale of the property. Thank you very much. Sincerely, L im and Karen Meyer 6225 Ridge Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ Tel. 474-2900 Lfry /✓i/)/G 19 UV: C- ;y Ur C 7741frsi LA /-fes /SIO �i -A /t-3 77,4, 3 L WC A S. F y 1 (...E C2-41/J i771r= csr✓ ram Michael & Mary Eastwood . .r• Telephone 612-470-4297 Fax 612-298-1945 6285 Ridge Road Chanhassen,MN 55317 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council P. 0 Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Council and Commission Members, We are residents of Ridge Road and want to publicly voice our opinion on the proposed Meyers Subdivision which is scheduled to come before the council on August 2, 1995. The principle reason we built our home on this road was because of the country charm _ and beauty that this road offers to its residents because it is a private road. We personally do not feel that the additional homes being built by the proposed subdivision would warrant widening the road. We are strongly against any changes being made to the road — and feel that they would ruin the privacy that is currently offered by the existing road. We believe that the proposed development with its large lot sizes and with the — construction of the new homes designed to compliment the existing nature of the lots, is a benefit to not only to the city but to the nearby residents as well. We want you to consider the feelings of the residents of this road in studying this matter for we will be the ones that will be affected by your decision. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, 2/104e,//61) Michael and Mary Eastwood Susan K. Price,Ph.D. ' ` ' Licensed Psychologist 80 W. 78th St Suite 265 Chanhassen MN 55317 612-934-2209 - , July 24, 1995 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Re: Meyer's Subdivision on Ridge Rd. I am writing to document my approval of the Meyer subdivision as long as there are no requirements to change the Ridge road. The"Ridge" is a beautiful,private road and should remain so. As a resident on the Ridge Road for twenty years, I believe it is important for the neighborhood to maintain control over what is built and where it is located. This is a unique spot and maintaining that feeling is very important. The potential addition of three more houses would not change significantly the character of the road or the neighborhood. Sincerely, Susan K. Price • Date: July 27 , 1995 To: City of Chanhassen — Planning Commission and City Council P .O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 From: Steve & Colleen Rosenberg 6175 Ridge Road Shorewood, MN 55331 — ( 612 ) 470-7460 Re: MEYER' S SUBDIVISION ON RIDGE ROAD To Whom It Concerns ; We are the owners/residents on the Shorewood/Hennepin County — border to the north that abuts the Meyer property on Ridge Road , in Chanhassen. As their neighbors , we support the Meyer ' s application to you for land subdivision. Jim and Karen Meyer have been cooperative , attentive and forthcoming to the concerns and issues that have been brought up by the neighborhood as a result of this proposed subdivision. Those issues we mutually agree on and support are as follows : 1 . That Ridge Road should remain in it ' s current state as a f private country lane that works well as a result of cooperation — amongst both Chanhassen and Shorewood property owners . With respect to width, construction, traffic. foliage and private local control . Ridge Road should not require any changes as result of this subdivision and should remain so . — 2 . As residents on the Shorewood/Hennepin County side of Ridge Road, we agree and support the current common road use and — maintenances with respect to privacy, traffic, access/egress , snow removal , road gate upgrading, control , monitoring, cooperation and, that this successful working relationship — between communities and counties should remain so following the subdivision. 3 . That the proposed northerly lot shall define a restricted building pad enforced as a permanent restrictive covenant and, that this proposed buildable area is acceptable to us as neighbors sharing a common property line with that lot ( site plan — attached) . Respectful" , Steve & Colleen Rosenberg �;i CITY O F PC DATE: 8/16/95 ` CC DATE: 9/11/95.�• C HAN HSSEN \�I CASE #: 95-3 IUP . By: D. Hempel STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for an after-the-fact interim use permit to place 36,000 cubic yards of till material z — Q LOCATION: Holasek Greenhouse south of Lyman Boulevard (Co. Rd. 18) and west of Galpin (� Boulevard (Co. Rd. 19) 12- A PPLICANT: Holasek Greenhouses U— Earl Holasek, Jr. - Q 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 _ PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate District Action by City Administraq ACREAGE: 64 Acres Endorsee ��►�f>- • (Modifi ;:__ Rejected , DENSITY: N/A Date g•'g'`% Date Submitted to Cori,• .,n ADJACENT ZONING g-1 to-`7'5 AND LAND USE: N - A-2 Date L.,urcii _ S — City of Chaska Industrial/Commercial QE - SFR - Stone Creek W - City of Chaska Industrial/Commercial — Q . WATER AND SEWER: N/A W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Generally agricultural use consisting of greenhouses and/or agricultural farming practices. The property does contain some wetlands. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial A g N ° 8— S 0 $ 0 S o° ` o o 0 _ N tics- N N N _ _ b h f A p 8_ O 0 0 MNAN•N RP I / C1 G _ a r�-..t• ` — , — I F f� 1c1 I I• I..?-- .�.E..v< I LIrL.0 LA I[ I I :',I I / I I -.-._. k' \igtoli."Matti,P7104t7 o��NsRSWr aM 2 4491. ■ i`��,ir'/i�r s-e"tii-- _WINIMOM'!4I2t v 1 , .mollu,,,,,„,,,, CHLAKE AS,NW SII>>s..r.�f r um I •.:yi�4'SB[",_C 2,1511 ,�.��=nu im ESA *144:nIgi■ ngnq� A -• svll� 11111 "lir izi7hribriiritfiliffal d I "r i MAN P/ELD , a `r1 OM f,AR,:::1'fillir,,406111,...:4..„:„.,.,..T.; wI ' ' � � �.IIII,'Ei;!IFr+�zt>?F�_...1 ,II f PARK , �L/=nrA / �■, /� " 111771 4111 � � � �!y� -sem a� �t//i p \moi 1 Q r 7u n•� e9��►�� 111.1rift...;, - -, , -2- tr: ._ . . �n A' R BEACH eIV4Sr ; ci A ♦ �• LAKE ' 1 �I;- . ,S 6 �I `z: .�■� �fli�. ». ` t®1®all y.;-V's!,: E �rr.�. +r Ill �Ir)af�l- �_ LI+ fa 4 ji M/NNEIYASH7A r W�� . ;��'�� -[7� '��ii 1�"!�� ....i: REGIONAL talk ji ?��.0151' t. 11 ",r.�r . C �� ---!` ter„/I . _ PARK i Fr =I,1 As' - '.:-.44%,`'• 4 W1:7" , j4 MiI.AI jOM �� 1 LAKE LUCY B le ir, -_•• `! �'`;.T'ltr7., .+( .- 6 - r.. :J11111111111111U s0� �t� It �Pr� a SHARES •t ��....t.��r %� 1 aim% �,�E�� o p ARK G��Ilfll��IIIII. ,,ii !1111 . , + GREEN MEADOtPARK ,.�'1, '""-...:-',44 'I*ife;ili�Iu+V' ,,N�� LAKE ANN ,`•e�� `�` o.rrc ..„,,,,. .Ad�il1 . (\ i v��`o�1i iu1D�- ... _,;, ■lylllllt: . ,1,,‘,t..,„., ,-; =qi►r� =y. inirmitunii 1 AKi - w. III ANN �,. •.�•LI PAT K - Lit • . per''' yy ,. r -AY Ill aft, NIIIIIIIIII ikg. Immo , A-.•• i• 80l/LEVAR. ICO. _daliar ,..._.....iir iv 1 : meivi 1.1/.7L *w AN I C _ 02ND STNE[7 — C (! �� ,$ mu /iza/ IIII 4' k4 .1lfS� - . S PARK •■ 7-4 ,tai . re fig 7v,, : ,c,T-1!VW,i!' I �x/111!1 / .4.•. «1' ; LAKE SUSA—• �JISA�� / . • �r..�a ma.��L, m �� • 111% $`00111.d/ /L si i i.1�6�j.�t,• 41.1 VN LYMAN &VD (CR 181 . `�,,�/ "'I/11� �1•. *-3111►��,�f�'�W .�•nm7��► III ` rii la m ;8; I 4740,-17-' / •�•• i ce. T �•. Ir` ='.4..W.‘1-'11 ``.�.W.•1-'11 10 Filliff":"="7._,/, C1 8700- � 'ARK 'i lf 2 °"i. t p-"��1 �IIIII 0 0 0 L '/ 1:-.4 A �r cl (3 OHO Iu. �� ,av��, ��1�: %I /W.:. � I,y ^l'�C / lean' . NIP . k-.4i's‘ss lirT RE • 8900lib 1_ todi ,A111 wpdtlfs ik ft g 144v .0, 5V T LrM I r1iY��/Y,1!7. EVAR� _.� Lo1•-$ ( GH SpPpFKo/Ij Ir it 3:0. _ l Nlll yF. II o ; cr pQ/ 920C, - - QQ I i- 1 9300 ^ 1 I /•,\. I.� Holasek Greenhouses Interim Use Permit Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The city has received an application from Holasek Greenhouses for after-the-fact filling and grading of approximately 36,000 cubic yards placed over the Holasek Greenhouse site south of Lyman Boulevard. City staff discovered this violation after the fact and therefore required the applicant to come forward with an application to bring the site into conformance. Staff is recommending approval of this interim use permit with the conditions outlined in the report. BACKGROUND On January 11, 1995, city staff received telephone calls from Mr. Holasek, property owner at 8610 Galpin Boulevard, regarding obtaining a grading permit to place fill on his property. Mr. Holasek was informed that an earthwork permit which involved that magnitude of fill material would require an interim use permit and take approximately 45 days to receive approval. Mr. Holasek indicated that there was not enough time to properly obtain a permit because the fill material was available now and inclement weather did not permit delays. The conversation ended with Mr. Holasek not pursuing obtaining a permit or interest in receiving the fill material. Over the weekend of January 14, 15, and 16, 1995, staff discovered that a large amount of dirt had been trucked into the site from sites within the City of Chaska. On Wednesday, January 18, 1995, staff placed a stop work order on the site until the proper permits were applied for and obtained. The earthwork activities did stop and the applicant proceeded to obtain the necessary permits. The applicant has been working with staff to obtain the necessary data for complete submittal. In conjunction with the earthwork activities, fill material was placed within some wetland areas on the property. However, these wetland areas were previously employed in agricultural practices and therefore a certificate of exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act has been obtained through the City by Mr. Holasek. All earthwork activities have been completed and the site restored, for the most part, with vegetation. No additional earthwork activities will transpire in conjunction with issuance of this interim use permit. Staff believes that the earthwork activities that have occurred on the property are compatible with the use. Staff is recommending approval of this permit with an expiration date of October 15, 1995, to ensure that all disturbed areas have been properly revegetated. Fill was placed generally in two areas. Approximately 11,800 cubic yards of material was _ placed east of the driveway for future expansion to the parking lot (Area A). The other area (B) is located south of the mini-storage buildings and greenhouses along the west property line. Approximately 24,000 cubic yards of material was placed in Area B. Most of the areas need to be reseeded and mulched to establish vegetation. Holasek Greenhouses Interim Use Permit Page 3 — FINDINGS — When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the _ conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience — or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The project has been completed with the exception of site restoration, — therefore, no endangerment to the general public exists. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this — chapter. Finding: The earthwork activities that have transpired have blended the clean fill — material with the existing terrain. The additional fill material that has been placed is compatible with the adjoining properties. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. — Finding: This area has been employed in agricultural uses for the past 20 years. The site also includes a number of greenhouses. Fill material has been — graded to be compatible with adjacent properties. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. — Finding: The project has been completed. No further trucking activities will transpire. The site still needs to be revegetated. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, _ police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed — use. Finding: All the material has been hauled into the site and blended into the _ existing topography. The site still needs to be revegetated for the most part. Holasek Greenhouses Interim Use Permit Page 4 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The project has already been completed except for restoration. The City will continue to monitor the site until the disturbed areas are revegetated. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The trucking activities have been terminated. The site will not be receiving any additional fill material. The site work has basically been completed with the exception of restoration. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: All trucking activities have been completed. No additional earthwork activities are proposed. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The project has been completed. The grading did involve filling a small portion of Ag/Urban wetlands which have been previously employed in agricultural use for the past 10 years. A certificate of exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act has been obtained by the applicant. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The project has been completed and the site restored to be compatible with the existing property lines. The site needs to be revegetated or employed in cropland. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The project has maintained or improved property values by restoring the area with vegetation and controlling erosion. Holasek Greenhouses _ Interim Use Permit Page 5 — 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. — Finding: The applicant has provided an as-built grading plan and has obtained the certificate of exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act. The — site still needs to be restored or employed in agricultural practices. RECOMMENDATION — Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #95-3 for Holasek Greenhouses for the material that has been hauled in as shown on the plans prepared by William Engelhardt & Associates dated May 31, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: — 1. The applicant shall pay a grading permit fee in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, Appendix 70-B, based on the amount of earthwork hauled into the site (36,000 — cubic yards). The applicant shall be responsible for a grading permit fee of$319.50. 2. The applicant shall complete and resubmit the signed Wetland Conservation Act certificate of exemption. 3. The interim use permit shall expire on October 15, 1995. All disturbed areas as a — result of the filling shall be reseeded and mulched or employed in crops. The applicant shall supply the City with a financial escrow in the amount of$2,500 to guarantee restoration and compliance with conditions of this permit. — 4. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred for the enforcement of this permit including engineering and attorney fees. — 5. The applicant shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from — permit approval or work done in conjunction with it. The applicant shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses that the — City may pay or incur in consequence with such claims, including attorney fees." — ATTACHMENTS 1. Permit Application. — 2. Memo from Dave Hempel to Grading Permit File dated January 19, 1995. 3. Certificate of Exemption from Wetland Conservation Act. Holasek Greenhouses Interim Use Permit Page 6 4. Public Hearing Notice. 5. Grading Plan prepared by William Engelhardt & Associates dated May 31, 1995. c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator Mr. Earl Holasek, Jr. Hazeltine-Bavaria Watershed District g:leng\dave'pclholasek.iup i 610. KNUTSON STIER KNUTSON,EARLEY,SHERIDAN & BURNS ATTORNEYS AT LAW HOWARD A.KNUTSON 120 MIDWAY BANK BUILDING LEGAL ASSISTANTS: PAUL J.STIER 14300 NICOLLET COURT MICHELE M.GUTHRIE DAVID L.KNUTSON BURNSVILLE,MINNESOTA 55306 DANEA M.PAGE JOSEPH P.EARLEY OFFICE:(612)435-7704 KELLI A.GRUND DANIEL M.SHERIDAN' FAX(612)435-7070 - JOHN T.BURNS.JR. BELLE PLAINE OFFICE (612)873-6868 •LICENSED CPA HAND DELIVERED July 24, 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN IR Mr. David C. Hempel — Assistant City Engineer JUL 2 41S9 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ENGINEERING DEPT. - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Submittal for Earthwork Permit-Holasek Greenhouse Grading — Permit File. : 95-1 Dear Mr. Hempel: Enclosed please find the completion of Holasek Greenhouse's application submittal for the above permit. The additional information is submitted per the items outlined in your letter dated March 3, 1995. Enclosed please find the following: — 1. Proof of Ownership: Enclosed please find a copy of the 1995 proposed property tax statement listing Earl J. — Holasek as owner. 2 . Adjoining Landowners: Enclosed is an ownership list prepared by Carver County Abstract showing all owners within 500 feet of the boundary of the property. 3 . An existing and proposed grading contours map: A — grading plan map has been prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. , (Hereafter "grading plan") and submitted to the city in 24 folded copies. As the — applicant is no longer requesting additional fill being brought to the site, the proposed grading is now moot. The grading plan shows the amount of fill that has been hauled in over the past year. The grading plan notes existing buildings, driveways, treelines, any wetlands and pipline easements. _ Mr. David C. Hempel Page 2 July 24 , 1995 4 . Wetlands delineation: This information is also included on the grading plan. 5 . Hauling narrative: No future earthwork will be hauled into the site. 6. Access routes: Access route for past hauling is shown on grading plan. No future hauling. 7 . Erosion and dust control: Shown on grading plan. 8 . Topsoil storage: Shown on grading plan. Please contact me or Earl Holasek with any questions or concerns or if addition information is required. Sincerely, rti Joseph P. Earley JPE/dmp encs . cc: Earl Holasek APPENDIX 1991 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE TABLE NO.70-A—GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES1 50 cubic yards or less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $15.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards 22.50 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards 30.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards—$30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus — S15.00 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—$255.00 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 FEES1 • 50 cubic yards or less $15.00 51 to 100 cubic yards 22.50 101 to 1,000 cubic yards—$22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus$10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. ...,` 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards—S 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 1'1,Et'n cubic yards—$198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards,plus $40.50 for ea ha.•"••. II' 100.001 cubic yards or more—$562.50 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 hour' (minimum charge—one-half hour) tThe 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. 998 14St)c —1-0;ari_ 311 .5" CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Earl Holasek, Jr. OWNER: Earl J. Holasek, Sr. Deloris B. Holasek ADDRESS: P. O. Box 147 ADDRESS: 8610 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhasen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) 474-6669 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. XX Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit ( Filling & Grading Permit) 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNARJWAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ u Or0 -OD A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME N/A s LOCATION 8610 Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen LEGAL DESCRIPTION Sec . 21, Township 116, Range 23 44 . 06 acres; The NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and Govt . Lot 1 , NW of RR and in S22-T116-R23, 20 .46 acres in NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and in Section 15 and 16 PRESENT ZONING A2 REQUESTED ZONING A2 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Grading and Filling Permit This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am t. authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's - Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature of Applicant Date 2/7 / Signature of Fee Owner -' Date Application Received on ' Z 5; ��9S Fee Paid 4`f00 �n Receipt No. 3?// (3 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. The following is the revised information required for applications for Earth Work Permits as set forth in the Chanhassen City Code 7-35B: 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. ANSWER: Owner: Earl J. Holasek, Sr. and Deloris B. Holasek 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Operator: Earl Holasek, Jr. 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Proof of ownership is attached as 1995 Property Tax Statement. 2 . The correct legal description of the property where the activity is proposed to occur. ANSWER: Section 21, Township 116, Range 23 , 44 . 06 acres; The NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and Govt. Lot 1, NW of RR and in S22-T116-R23 , 20 . 46 acres in NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and in Section 15 and 16. 3 . A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners - owning property within 500 feet of the boundary of the property described above. ANSWER: Attached. Prepared by Carver County Abstract. 4 . Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: _ a. Proposed grading plan. ANSWER• See grading plan map prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. (hereafter "grading plan") . b. Proposed stockpile sites. ANSWER: See grading plan. c. The physical relationship of the proposed designated _ site to the community and existing development. ANSWER: See grading plan. d. Site topography and natural features including location of watercourses and water bodies. ANSWER: See grading plan. e. The description and quantity of material to be excavated. ANSWER: See grading plan for existing material. No further _ exavation contemplated. f. The depth of water tables throughout the area. ANSWER: Based upon the depth of the well on-site, water tables are -� estimated to be 260 to 280 feet. g. The location and depth of wells and buried garbage, water, and fill . ANSWER: The well depth is 280 feet and located approximately 1, 000 yards east of the present stockpile. There is no buried garbage on the site. There is no water on the site. See grading plan for wetland and fill locations. 5. The purpose of the operation. ANSWER: The purpose of the operation is to beautify the area _ surrounding greenhouses, to widen the driveway providing for better access and to stockpile for replacement under existing greenhouses upon removal. 2 6. The estimated time required to complete the operation. ANSWER: The operation is completed. 7 . Hours and months of operation. ANSWER: The operation is completed. 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. ANSWER: See grading plan. 9 . An end use landscape plan and interim screening plan for the operation period. ANSWER: See grading plan. The disturbed stockpile area and driveway slope will be seeded with prairie grass. 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. ANSWER: The plan of operation is as follows: The driveway and parking lot area is essentially done. It requires seeding. The stockpile will be used as replacement fill under the existing greenhouses when and if they are removed. 11. Travel routes to and from the site and the number and type of trucks that will be used. ANSWER: Travel has occurred along the side of the existing greenhouse on County Road 18 . 3 12 . Plans for drainage, erosion control, sedimentation and — dust control. ANSWER: See grading plan. — 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 plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and surveys where appropriate, the following: a. The contour of the land prior to excavation and proposed contours after completion of excavation and after completion of restoration. ANSWER: See grading plan. b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of topsoil and overburden. ANSWER: See grading plan. '�- c. A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation of land lying within the extraction facility. — ANSWER: Not applicable. — 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. ANSWER: See grading plan. e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve final restoration as well as intermittent stabilization. ANSWER: See grading plan. 14 . A statement identifying the applicant's program to 4 — insure compliance with the permit conditions, method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a result of complaints. ANSWER: The applicant will work closely with the City and the neighbors to resolve any complaints or conflicts that may arise. 15 . Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental assessment worksheet, if required by the City. ANSWER: Not applicable. 16. A wetland alteration permit, if required by the City Code, which shall be processed concurrently with the excavation permit application. ANSWER: This has been done with the City. 17 . Other information required by the City. ANSWER: Not applicable. 5 _ _ , _ --, _ gu, x 00 1-Y - I to 0O +nc14 0 Mc� LJ .Y D 1-74J 111 zp ..:LY .. .. < ..u., :x R d n v) r'. z o aL op- 1L d8 . a Qv, 2 1 — ttJ I v)= I �C ! c]C I W �1 .JCI KU 2 1-Z U (5 ¢W .t`1 (7 74)11 ON t Cr J I CT)C.7. - 01- :.Cl 8,,,..0 ►74 D .-4 J v) r+r d r•t 4� q f VA LI .a m!.• .t/)0 ..t; A a a.-1 W ZZ — crIC9.'! Q rnv)L CTT,i • u. • 7 2 g3 . t Z . rl x'('� 0 r0-0-- N .-1)-2* 0041 _If- 7_ _JXK >-L JfJ aCA la u✓1 • ux0 >I-•Y 0cra L.)4 Z p4 I rn..0^- 1110 0 01-•T W4 UJt u F- Ip*- - ' 1-0.]eM G1u1..) ZL)c.) u1Z 0Yc/) aZ N c.1 ti)X - -1 ;=1()<X 74 a$ iRa! d+P alp J1 re, r-, '(;L1.) d C) a rr1t7 4- 17 C In LI.")L.)d WW • • • • • • • n.1, 0 Z N . A.1 CO1,'l r rrt � CC > .. u1 Y J • N 7: 4 1 C7U a Cr- N 1N CO a C .J►-+2 - a) r3 f3 co en 0 r'1 a M 0 C: in a u 1 0) .-0-4 r. • • • • • • T'_I II) • • (� tr r1 .-r 1n N Cl'r Q vs .�r1 OW Ut ,-• 0 J -It CC I'i n w> +v rti T O r+ ') d O _JO:, LL W W CZ,-+a tlj CI4OL C uJ r:s s F a" �0 O Zwacr- +A IA Ili W W 4.411./ .A .A y 1 i C. �- Cn nl •4. J 31 c.0 UA r_ a.� �(X W • • • . • . . / ' ) O 1n (:)7) 1 7 r,i r Cr m {a r J .L) ,-a N .-s a �, Q a� . Q Q Q 6 61,2 -4 -4 +r( _. LYi �, o o b....,„ 011.1 1,2 (n 0 S a. ri fi W.p .A to v rxA L cc Qt C) M 4 uti M C CC cz ~ • a • • • f 4 .-1 0 cx'1.1 a- tCl .. — O /- ,r j I-) (./. .-a in CO m J w j •a ,L) .rU� 1 F.}-•• cv Cr O 19 CC VI w w ..1 W ' rr1 O P N4-22 V, 0\r.. ,L) I ,-4 Z.-4 I- .-. C/, y 1 1 LU i s t-/ m ,7 to A102' ... 28! a1 11) 0 V) Q .QraC4lft 4 IX W x 111 4c <: Wrr1 I-X l_- (,'}Q- a 0.4•:_7 •u I - Y• u-s i d T_ O Q U' Ift U)Q (t)c) xxZ I-d (17 •.. _>r Q t 1 r � � z a C - UwQ auk 0 Tiid in 1.._ t» In I Tr'w wSW2 frU .J Z� LLZ � t�H n10. n Zcc Q j 10 coax:f) "_IV cncc0 ,›.2- U)a.j wds X ~j�rN�. CO¢0 u 0sC OU I O� 004, Q-�uJa (AoV U) Ix fV ,J.J ggcr 2 <a amv) 2 Ovxw ntn Uriiw � w�? Q a r�r-�` f. F 7 oe 4I 1-04 1I.J 04 wm NU) T X H 0 - 1L Q1nT w{T= u) -,r d �NQ O a 11 tOr1 .. f H a 0 t.)a,4-) tJ UV .--it.„) 011 1....< ' D. �7J tDNG CITY OF ...„. . „.. ._ , .,,,,,„ CHANHASSEN ,q, ..„, \ 0 .._ , .._ . ,ted ,,. ,. , ite ,, „-,-y:.7 - - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM — TO: Grading Permit File No. 95-1, Holasek Greenhouses (4610 Galpin Boulevard - PIN 25.0210100) _ FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer h1` , DATE: January 19, 1995 _ SUBJ: Violation of City Earthwork Ordinance No. 128 — On Wednesday, January 11, 1995, City staff received a telephone call from Mr. Earl Holasek, property owner at 8610 Galpin Boulevard (Holasek Greenhouses), regarding obtaining a grading permit to place fill on his property. I spoke to Mr. Holasek regarding an earthwork permit and explained the permitting process. According to City Ordinance, 50 cubic yards to 1000 cubic yards could be administratively authorized and amounts over 1000 cubic yards would require an interim use permit which takes approximately 45 days to receive approval. Mr. Holasek indicated there was not enough time to get a permit because the fill material was available now. The conversation ended with Mr. Holasek not pursuing a permit or interest in receiving the fill material. Staff also believed Mr. Holasek would not be accepting any of the fill material. Later that same day I was visited by Mr. Bob Nyen with Nyen Excavating and Roger Hartman. They stopped by my office to inquire about an earthwork permit for filling on the Holasek Greenhouse site. I had indicated to them that Mr. Holasek had already telephoned regarding obtaining a permit and I proceeded to tell them the permit requirements. They both left the office with no interest in pursuing a permit due to the fact the timing was all wrong. — On Tuesday, January 17, 1995, Park and Recreation Director Todd Hoffman indicated he had witnessed numerous trucks hauling fill over the weekend of January 14, 15 and 16, 1995 to the — Holasek Greenhouse and Mini-Storage site south of Lyman Boulevard. The Mini-Storage site is located outside the Chanhassen city limits. On Wednesday, January 18, 1995, Bill Bement, Engineering Technician, and myself visited the Holasek Greenhouse site to find many dump trucks hauling clay-like material from Chaska into the backside (south) and east side of the Holasek Greenhouse property. In addition, fill was also r_ being leveled out and pushed around and into parts of the wetlands and wooded areas on the site. We spoke to Mr. Holasek about the filling activities initially at 11:00 a.m. on January 18, 1995. Grading Permit File No. 95-1 _— January January 19, 1995 Page 2 — At that time, it appeared most of the filling was occurring outside the City of Chanhassen limits. We did issue a stop work order for the portion of grading activity on the east side adjacent to the parking lot which Mr. Holasek agreed to stop filling. After returning to the office and reviewing city maps, we discovered that all of the earthwork activities were being performed _ within the city and thus returned to the site and told Mr. Holasek that he did not have a permit and would have to stop work immediately. We also stopped the trucks and the dozer operator and told them that the work activity would have to stop until a grading permit was obtained. All work activities stopped at 2:00 p.m. on January 18, 1995. Mr. Roger Hartman met us on the site shortly after we shut down the operation to discuss his — options to keep the operation going. We told him that they needed an interim use permit for this activity and I would be sending Mr. Holasek a letter regarding this violation shortly. We also took numerous pictures of the filling activities that had transpired on the site. — ktm c: Don Ashworth, City Manager Charles Folch, City Engineer ..� Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Tom Scott, City Attorney g:\eng\dave\memos\holasek . _ CITY OF . 2 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 April 28, 1995 Mr. Earl Holasek P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Exemption to Fill Wetlands - SWMP-8C - (1, Dear Mr. Holasek: Enclosed is an affidavit and a certificate of exemption to fill prior converted agricultural wetland for agricultural use. Please sign the certificate and sign and notarize the affidavit for our files. —� We will return a final copy of the certificate after we have received the signed forms. Please call me at 937-1900, extension 156 if there are any questions concerning this project. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN ,401kgro-: Diane Desotelle, P.E. Water Resources Coordinator DD:ktm Enclosures g'\eng'•diane\wetlandslexem pts`Jtolasek.let ti /1-7-rimini6,4cJ> MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT (WCA) • AFFIDAVIT EXEMPTION EVIDENCE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGU) I do hereby certify that the following statement of evidence or activity is true and may be used as evidence to support qualification for WCA exemptions. The LGU may require additional affidavits or verification evidence before making an exemption determination. Location: NV/1/4, NW1/4, Section 22, Township 116 N, Range 23 W, Carver County. Description of Evidence for Exemption: #1 - A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland that was planted with annually seeded crops, was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grasses or legumes, or was required to be set aside to receive price support or other payments under United States Code, title 7, sections 1421 to 1469, in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991. Set aside land used for this exemption must be wetland types 1 and 2. Clarification from the City of Chanhassen's attorney and the Board of Soil and Water _ Resources states that the fill for expanded parking area and greenhouse expansion falls under the definition of agricultural use since the applicant has a wholesale nursery business. On penalty of perjury, I hereby swear under oath that the information above, made for the purpose of documenting qualification for an exemption from the WCA, is true to the best of my knowledge. --� Signature Social Security No. Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me on , 1995. _ BY: (Notary Stamp or Seal) c: SWMP-8C g.\eng+dianehcetlands`exem ptslholasek.aff WE; AND CONSERVATIC ACT CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION OR COMPLIANCE OR NO LOSS* City of Chanhassen Diane Desotelle 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 ext. 156 Earl Holasek, Jr. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 474-6669 (Name, address, and phone of applicant) — Filling of a prior converted agricultural wetland for agricultural uses as defined in the Wetland Conservation Act rules. (Description of project/Name of development) — Carver County, Township 116N, R23W, Section 22. NW1/4, NW1/4 (Location of work:Township, Range,Section,Qtr.Section, Lot, Block, Subdivision,City, County) (For seasonal/annual exemption attach proposed general location information, i.e. maps,aerial photos) — The wetland activity at the above site is exempted from or in compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) for the following reason: [Please Circle (A), (B), (C), (D), OR (E)] _ This exemption certification expires May 5, 1996 . (Date) (A) A Wetland Does Not Exist; OR - (B) Exemption # 1 (per MN Rule Chapter 8420) Description of Exemption A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland that was planted with annually — ' seeded crops, was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grasses or legumes, or was required to be set aside to receive price support or other payments under United States Code, title 7, sections 1421 to 1469, in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991. Set aside land used for this exemption must be wetland types 1 and 2. Clarification from the City of Chanhassen's attorney and the Board of Soil and Water Resources states that the fill for expanded parking area and greenhouse expansion falls under the definition of agricultural use since the applicant has a wholesale nursery business. OR (C) Wetland Loss Has Been Avoided; OR - (D) Wetland Has Been Replaced As Per Approved Plan (attached); OR (E) No Loss Determination (attach plans). The information provided for this determination is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge. — (Applicant Signature) (Dated) - (LGU Official Signature) (Dated) * THIS CERTIFICATION ONLY APPLIES TO THE WCA OF 1991. Permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with the appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. The Combined Project Notification form can be used for this purpose. - FOR ALL EXEMPTIONS: A landowner draining or filling a wetland under an exemption shall ensure that; appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation of the water, the drain or fill does not block fish passage, - and the drain or file is conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state and local requirements, including best management practices and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103H. glengldianetwetlandslexemptslholasekext HMO STREET r`'r Si NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING �Nli� p ;� � = PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 4 1 Wednesday, August 16, 1995 a at 7:00 p.m. • 04s City Hall Council Chambers (0_R ��v L.YUAN BLVD. �_-- i 690 Coulter DriveI mmAipT*7 _ /� 8700— Project: Interim Use Permit for 0 0 c,oA' � • �z%' o Grading/Earthwork �(�O.st-4.ee00— 0 13900 Developer: Holasek Greenhouse 1.)33 LT-- u 003 �l Location: Suth of Lyman Boulevard l..oc.+mot.s (Co. Rd. 18) and west of 900 Galpin Blvd. (Co. Rd. 19) 9200 Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, Holasek Greenhouse, has a request for an Interim Use Permit request for an "after the fact" grading/earthwork for 36,000 cubic yards of material located south of Lyman Boulevard (Co. Rd. 18) and west of Galpin Blvd. (Co. Rd. 19). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. — During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact David at 937-1900, ext. 123. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. — Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 3, 1995. Hans Hagen Homes & e- rle & Jane Volk William & M. Nason Noel H. Lehrke • 300 2361 Stone Creek Dr. 2329 Boulder Road 2 _.i-Iillwind Dr. NE Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 idley, MN 55432 S. Motlock Chad Gniffke Douglas S. Hipskind 25 Boulder Road 2321 Boulder Road 2317 Boulder Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Stephen & M. Harf Thomas E. & Lisa J. McKenzie James & J. Larranaga '305 Boulder Road 2322 Boulder Road 2318 Boulder Road 7anhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _maid W. & Cathy Borgmann Scott & A. Weldon John R. Fischer 2308 Boulder Road 2292 Boulder Road 1820 Ridge Avenue ianhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Watertown, MN 55388 harles W. Mattson City of Chaska J. Carver Agency zt370 Wheeler Street North 1 City Hall Plaza 11050 Windmill Court R��Avilleee, MN 55113 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Minnetonka Inc. MK Properties Norback-Duemeland Inv. o Softsoap Enterprises, Inc. c/o Dart Distributions, Inc. 6620 West Shore Drive 17.0. Box G 130 Columbia Court Edina, MN 55435 "'haska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Lake Hazeltine Properties Chaska Investment LTD Preferred Products Inc. 'o Joseph H. Wyers Partnership Corp. Tax Dept. 22 Lake Hazeltine Drive 5201 73rd Street West P.O. Box 990 Chaska, MN 55318 Edina, MN 55435 Minneapolis, MN 55440 .ehaska Investment, Co. Twin Cities & Western Railroad Quali-Tech Products, Inc. Wallingford Properties 2925 12th Street East 318 Lake Hazeltine Drive 201 73rd Street West Glencoe, MN 55336 Chaska, MN 55318 'Edina, MN 55435 tate of MN in Trust 316 Lake Hazeltine Dt LTD Pt Lake Hazeltine Properties c/o Carver Co. Auditor c/o Robert P. Kult 335 Lake Hazeltine Drive `00 East Fourth Street 16600 Glendale Drive West Chaska, MN 55318 haska, MN 55318 New Berline, WI 53151 Tlenn Pauls & Terri Pauls Chaska Watertower Mini Storage Willard Morton —amily Limited Partnership 149 Jonathan Blvd. North 1100 Wills Place 5441 Zumbra Circle Chaska, MN 55318 Golden Valley, MN 55422 xcelsior, MN 55331 CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. eitt - CARVER COUNTY (612)448-5570 201 Chestnut St.N. FAX(612)448-5155 ABSTRACT&TITLE. P.O.Box 106 Dale B. Kutter Chaska,MN 55318 David E.Moonen —I _ March 15, 1995 HEIREM CITY OF CHUM Remax Carriage House 332 2nd St JUL 2 4. 1995 Excelsior, MN 55331 — ATTN: Mike Meyer ENGINEERING DEPT. According to the 1994 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the following persons are listed as owners of the property within Carver County, Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: See Exhibit "A" Attached. 1. Hans Hagen Homes Inc & 9. James & J Larranaga Merle & Jane Volk 2318 Boulder Rd 241 Hillwind Dr NE Chanhassen, MN 55317 Suite 300 — Fridley, MN 55432 10. Donald W & Cathy Borgmann 2308 Boulder Rd 2. William & M Nason Chanhassen, MN 55317 2361 Stone Creek Dr Chanhassen, MN 55317 11. Scott & A Weldon 2292 Boulder Rd 3. Noel H Lehrke Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 2329 Boulder Rd Chanhassen, MN 55317 12. John R Fischer 1820 Ridge Ave 4. S. Motlock Watertown, MN 55388 2325 Boulder Rd Chanhassen, MN 55317 13. Charles W Mattson 2870 Wheeler St N 5. Chad Gniffke Roseville, MN 55113 2321 Boulder Rd Chanhassen, MN 55317 14. City of Chaska — 1 City Hall Plaza 6. Douglas S Hipskind Chaska, MN 55318 2317 Boulder Rd Chanhassen, MN 55317 15. J Carver Agency 11050 Windmill Ct 7. Stephen & M Harf Chaska, MN 55318 2305 Boulder Rd — Chanhassen, MN 55317 16. Minnetonka Inc C/0 Softsoap Enterprises In( 8. Thomas E & Lisa J McKenzie PO Box G 2322 Boulder Rd Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. CARVER COUNTY (612)448-5570 201 Chestnut St.N. FAX(612)448-5155 ABSTRACT a TITLE. P.O.Box 106 Dale B. Kutter Chaska,MN 55318 David E. Moonen 17. MK Properties 24. Quali-Tech Products Inc C/O Dart Distributions Inc 318 Lake Hazeltine Dr 130 Columbia Ct Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 _ 25. State of Minnesota in Trust 18. Norback-Duemeland Inv C/O Carver County Auditor 6620 West Shore Dr Edina, MN 55435 26. 316 Lake Hazeltine Dt LTD Pt C/O Robert P Kult 19. Lake Hazeltine Properties 16600 Glendale Dr W C/0 Joseph H Wyers New Berlin, WI 53151 322 Lake Hazeltine Dr Chaska, MN 55318 27. Lake Hazeltine Properties 335 Lake Hazeltine Dr 20. Chaska Investment LTD Chaska, MN 55318 Partnership 5201 73rd St W 28. Glenn Pauls & Terri Pauls Edina, MN 55435 Family Limited Partnership 5441 Zumbra Cir 21. Preferred Products Inc Excelsior, MN 55331 Corp Tax Dept PO Box 990 29. Chaska Watertower Mini Story Minneapolis, MN 55440 149 Jonathan Blvd N Chaska, MN 55318 _ 22. Chaska Investment Co. Wallingford Properties 30. Willard Morton 5201 73rd St W 1100 Wills P1 Edina, MN 55435 Golden Valley, MN 55422 23. Twin Cities & Western Railroad 2925 12th St E Glencoe, MN 55336 rver County Abstract & Title Co. , Inc. This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. EXHIBIT "A" -- The Northeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter (NE} of NE}) of Section 21, Township 116, Range 23; Also: Beginning at a point on South line of Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, which point is 3.60 chains West of the Southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter, running thence North 22}° West 17. 18 chains; thence North 47}° West 2 chains; thence North 71}° West 8.60 chains to the Northwest corner of said Northwest — Quarter of Northwest Quarter of said Section 22; thence South 20 chains to Southwest corner thereof; thence East 16.40 chains to place of beginning, situated in Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter (NWi of NWI) of Section — 22, Township 116, Range 23, and containing 22.52 acres. Also: All that part of Government Lot One (1) , Section 21, Township 116, Range 23, lying Northwesterly of the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company. EXCEPTING from the two (2) tracts of land, hereinabove first described the following tracts and parcels of land, to-wit: All that part of the Northeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter (NEt of NEt) of — Section 21, Township 116, Range 23, lying Southeasterly of the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company and all that part of the Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter (NWi of NWi) of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, lying Southeasterly of the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company and Southwesterly of the Excelsior and Shakopee Road. AND The South one hundred (100) feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter -- (SEI of SEi) of Section Sixteen (16) , Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) , Range Twenty three (23) , Carver County, Minnesota, and That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SWi of SWt) of Section Fifteen (15) , Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) , Range Twenty three (23) , Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 15, and running thence East along the South line of said Section 15 a distance of 275 feet more or less to the centerline of County Road No. 117; thence Northwesterly along the said centerline of said County Road No. 117 a distance of 115.5 feet to the point of intersection with a line 100 feet distant and running parallel to the said South line of said Section 15; thence — Westerly along said line running parallel to said South line of said Section 15, to the West line of said Section 15; thence South a distance of 100 feet along said West line of said Section 15, to the point of beginning. PC DATE: 5/17/95 CITY OF CC DATE: 6/12/95 IIANIIAE1I _ \� 1 CASE #: PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 By: RG, DH, DD STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential, to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide 52.1 acres into 78 lots, 3 outlot and associated right-of-way; site plan review for 76 single-family detached zero-lot-line homes z on 19.95 acres; wetland setback variances; and a wetland alteration permit. —Q The project is known as North Bay. ULOCATION: Lake Riley Boulevard, on the north side of Lake Riley — APPLICANT: Rottlund Company, Inc. Q. 2681 Long Lake Road — Q Roseville, MN 55113 (612) 638-0500 PRESENT ZONING: R12, High Density Residential ACREAGE: gross: 52.1 net: 14.83 DENSITY: units/acre (gross): 1.46 units/acres(net): 5.12 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - R12, Hwy 212 corridor and proposed open space S - none, Lake Riley _ E - R12, Lakeview Hills Apartments W -RSF, vacant Q WATER AND SEWER: Pending, part of Lyman Blvd. & Drainage Improvements/Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has been in agricultural use for many years and is devoid of trees within the proposed developable area, except for (f) the areas immediately around the major wetland in the southwest corner of the site and within the area between Lake Riley Boulevard (future Lyman Boulevard) and Lake Riley. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - High Density (8 - 16 units per acre net) •� ! _ g 1 LAKELI=...z..:4,. / 1 11 [IAS.:1 ea• w``+q[ `\1 �..-. ANN r �.• I \�-••�„A\\ irrIIllratrfits 07,31*-01,3L-Pai wow 11 ::..”e��it�.1..e 1 /' 1111 PA K1 y l i .1c:r..[:m :-: r'IS ® I in iii. .,..en-ma,MINI ma..nil W. (,` I'�' ��L• `��'111111111111111111 �J = Ara IIIN.I ' my1"„■■niiiri:�pA'-. '111111111111 `� =au B.. Ev ' • • 11117133 *' 4'1'�,.4J.: ,,, � MIN nf ori! _■■ -� )111111,4 li � .,,,,,,,„.c. ANNASS wow.- ... w:44 um PARK �A7mi,tor �R 1\•r. ��1.•� IW 14, ja''' .' S;ili•r-f, •.7.ril 0 b.OKE �'~I�i�ie{��ilIii!* R 1 Atli�� •ItitikAll �� _IF . t SUS PARK ' c [I:�ii11_i��lb NR�CE Z e200 I a�t •'1 1(7, t W Sffilliratall - PII--VII ‘ Ailik LAKE 7-�__ \ ME a) t ► C ti LAKE SUSAN I J/ w+� �/ "to:PNV A,- 4+2 1 f"o=iinco RIC£ Ai RSH LAKE f'.v` , •vW`1i��3k$ ci�9 � '\ dairpP.;.4irila �. .. .-- C------ - i 7 ,z ,itt7f.401111,11111 mki,..0,0 ,_.N. -; -, / PARK migy tA pi n. a IIII i r�i-� "! �.7 --...A.?... ° 41 R. . -� , f�lesoo — • 1 / z-� 4V11I'1� PillLi. • =It' ji '_' lq d �,� �':J� 's• �y_•. "011 .`.;', :i: v t'S E Q1 iv" , (� \ '.%%'1"-- Am lik -‘74N 1-..k...4.- "1";',:i*vrq.._ ---) . ,11 �� et. - Jtc�+ IBS .__Li..'. .._ 9000 ATIO; ��...,. t r I LrM• ��Jiti7� "�. EvaR — S �a� Tom (°� !NassEK ( �.. ; 1 ENA s ppR o I t�i 1 NIL` y�",/ � � - — QQaQ% n a _- —noo �_ cc V �. I eavonvtR[ `4 ,, r,-,\ / LAK£ �", ___-9300` ui- 1 ./- r GOMMV,v�TY r _ 1 I •/ J I r 1 MRK y �MIi RILEY YY Et% \ ) I i % - —- - - I /1�/ #400:0# � _ --500_ •-� ..� � 6�.! 96017 O 1116 ,anti I ,,� - `i= i1 701 ,71114 ______19,900: - oQOS I 4 + : otd.•_.' l*Pailr's 1.--- ,,,.:. ,,...: ii ; ---','"117 11111!..! ION• SSP' //f7 Illik. 1 . ,______,c / '1 1 I as, / e •1/4,, CREEK , ® f 1•.r. ------ PARK ,I�. / - r. [ Mr MB .03C :if':•./ •ate wISS:-�� -.1'!'..- IPlory c . 11 ; y _/- It Yoffiviiive =‘,„ --tat11 e,. .., 1000 I I 1-.0.-06 ill 1 / KE /: , i— Fill+l'c,�' •v LJ. `''' -- -- North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 — Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Rottlund Homes, is proposing a 76 dwelling unit single-family detached project based on a variation of a zero lot line concept. The applicant is proposing a standard setback — of 20 feet from both Lake Riley Road East and North Bay Drive (a proposed private street). The standard 30 foot setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. Staff believes that this variation is warranted due — to the large common open spaces being provided as well as a reduction in the amount of wetland filling that is taking place. In addition, the applicant is proposing 35 foot building setbacks from the east perimeter of the PUD and a 30 foot setback from the west PUD — perimeter, the standards are 50 feet. In this instance, it may be appropriate to permit this setback due to the uniqueness of the development and the fact that this is a single-family detached project. The 50 foot standard is more applicable to higher density attached housing. Two housing types, two and one story, are being proposed with attached common open space. All structures will be slab on grade. A total of seven different unit plans are proposed with — living areas ranging from 1,300 to 1,600 square feet. Homes will be 24 feet in width with a minimum of 11 feet between houses. Houses will have windows on three sides with one side windowless to provide privacy for adjacent units. Individual lots range from 2,432 to 3,864 — square feet with a total lot area of 5.07 acres. Common open space consists of 9.76 acres with an additional 4.81 acres of wetland. Proposed Block 3 will be maintained as common open space and will be brought back under a separate Conditional Use Permit for approval. — Until the city resolves the status of the potential parkland dedication of Outlot C as well as the status of the non-conforming beachlot, the review of the beachlot cannot be undertaken. The applicant should also be aware that boat/marine sheds are not permitted on beachlots. — BACKGROUND — The city approved the conceptual PUD on June 26, 1995 for this project. At that time, three issues needed to be resolved to permit the development to proceed to preliminary development stage: Lyman Boulevard alignment, the location of the access road within the — development, and the stormwater ponding area. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 17, 1995 to review the proposed development. By a vote of 6 for and 0 against, the Commission passed a motion recommending conceptual approval of the proposed plan subject to the conditions, issues, — concerns and recommendations specified in the staff report. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant, as part of the next submittal, provide some criteria or options for the potential use of the proposed common areas including better defining pedestrian access — points for commons area users. In regards to architectural features, the applicant should provide the city with some assurance that there will be some variation in brick and siding North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 _ Page 3 colors, potentially designating certain areas within the project for specific brick and siding _ colors. Due to the problems encountered as part of the Mission Hills development, another Rottlund project, the Commission requested that the applicant provide a greater guarantee that erosion control measures will be installed and maintained throughout the construction of the project as well as continuous control and clean-up of construction debris. The Planning Commission also directed that the applicant apply for the conditional use permit for the beachlot as part of the submittal for the preliminary PUD. Finally, the Commission requested — that a traffic impact analysis be provided to determine the capacity of roadways in Chanhassen and the impacts of this development, especially without Highway 212 being constructed. — The property is currently zoned R12, High Density Residential, which permits townhouses, two family, and multi-family dwellings or apartments. There are numerous design applications that could be applied in this district including rental apartments and for sale townhouses. However, the district does not permit single-family detached housing. The applicant is proposing a single-family detached project with a PUD, Planned Unit Development, zone. The PUD zone is the only district which permits zero lot line and cluster development. — To the east of this project is the Lakeview Hills Apartments which contain 170 dwelling units. The Klingelhutz property located west of this property is zoned Single Family — Residential (RSF). To the south of the project is Lake Riley. This development is within the shoreland district. The property immediately adjacent to the lake will be maintained as common open space and will be brought back to the city requesting a beachlot. — Basin A is an ag/urban wetland adjacent to the large natural DNR basin located on the northwestern edge of Lake Riley. Portions of the basin were excavated in the past to create — some deep water areas. The basin extends via a drainage swale to the east and stops near the easterly property boundary. This basin will be impacted as a result of the development. The original submittal proposed filling a portion of the wetland to construct the street with lots on — both sides of the access street within the North Bay project. Staff believes that impacts to the wetland were reduced by directing that the applicant investigate a common or joint street access point for this development and the Lakeview Hills Apartments. This minimizes impacts to the wetland, increases the stormwater holding pond capacities adjacent to Lyman Boulevard, and reduces the number of access points to Lyman Boulevard. In conjunction with the City's Public Improvement Project No. 93-32B, Lyman Boulevard is proposed to be upgraded to City urban standards. The applicant has been working with the — City regarding the horizontal realignment of Lyman Boulevard to provide enough area on the north side of the street for stormwater ponding. Staff has reviewed the horizontal alignment North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 Page 4 change and finds that the Lyman Boulevard alignment meets a 35 MPH design standard. However, typically this type of street is designed for a 5 to 10 MPH higher speed than the proposed posted speed limit. It should also be noted that the developer's proposed vertical alignment for Lyman Boulevard differs significantly from the City's plan. This discrepancy will have to be resolved. Lyman Boulevard is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Collector streets typically have an 80-foot wide right-of-way with a 36 to 48-foot wide street section. In addition, an 8-foot wide bituminous trail is proposed along the south side. Lyman Boulevard is designated on the City's Municipal State Aid System and therefore must meet state aid design standards. The final alignment of Lyman Boulevard will be contingent upon MnDOT state aid approval. Therefore, any changes as a result of the state aid approval process will need to be included on the final plat. Staff supports this type of development. It provides another housing alternative in Chanhassen for detached single-family residential houses. It can provide additional protection for the wetland area located north of Lyman Boulevard. Finally, this project provides a transition from the Lakeview Hills Apartments to the single-family residential (RSF) district to the west. Currently, the Lakeview Hills Apartments have a non-conforming use permit (#92-8) which _ established the level of use of the beachlot as well as providing conditions for the continuation of nonconforming use of the property. The nonconforming status was due to insufficient lot frontage, insufficient area for a dock, vehicular access and parking on site, and _ the boat launch. Any legal nonconforming status of the beachlot will be lost with the development of the beachlot. It should be noted that the legal description for the non- conforming use permit #92-8 was for the property to the east of the Rottlund site. Therefore, _ staff contends that there is no nonconforming use status established for the beachlot. These issues need to be resolved prior to the city approving a beachlot for the development. No improvements to the land south of Lyman Boulevard will be permitted until a conditional use permit for a beachlot is approved by the city. Staff is recommending that the preliminary PUD and preliminary plat, site plan, wetland setback variance, and wetland alteration permit be approved subject to the modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions contained in this staff report. Site Characteristics The site has been in agricultural use for many years and is devoid of trees, within the proposed developable area, except for the areas immediately around the major wetland in the southwest corner of the site and within the area between Lake Riley Boulevard (future Lyman North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 — Page 5 Boulevard) and Lake Riley. The site slopes gently from the north central portion of the _ project with an elevation of approximately 910 feet to Lake Riley with an ordinary high water (OHW) mark of 865.3. An extensive tree canopy area is located along the shore of Lake Riley. Lakeview Hills Apartment complex is located to the east of the site. Land designated _ for low density residential is located to the west of this property. The Highway 212 corridor borders the project on the north. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD — The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 82.6 acres from A2 to PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are three components to the PUD: industrial/office, multi-family — and single family. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation _ of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the — expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. — FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. — Finding. The major site characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex. The wooded area in the southern portion of the site will be maintained as private open — space and will largely be left intact. The shoreland area will be maintained as common open space. — — North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 — Page 6 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The proposed development, through the use of smaller lots and reduced front — and perimeter setbacks, is an efficient use of the project site and reduces infrastructure costs. The applicant is proposing a nine plus acre common open space for the future residents of this project including a future beachlot area. A segment of the city's trail — system is along Lyman Boulevard. The applicant's sidewalk along North Bay Drive and street will connect into the Klinglehutz development to the west, in which a neighborhood park may be located. 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. Lakeview Hills Apartment complex is located to the east of the site. Land designated for low density residential is located to the west of this property. This — project is unique to Chanhassen and will provide a natural transition between the different densities of use. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The comprehensive plan guides this land for Residential - High Density which permits a net density of 8.0 to 16.0 units per net acre. The proposed development at 5.12 units per net acre is lower than would be permitted in this area. This development provides an alternate housing type as envisioned by Housing Policy _ No. 8: "The development of alternative types of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single family homes." 5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The development contains a large wetland complex that will be maintained and enhanced as part of this development. While not providing open space for the — general public within the confines of this project, the proposal maintains large areas of open space for residents of this neighborhood. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that Outlot C be dedicated to the city as public open space. 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. — North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 — Page 7 Finding. The applicant is proposing a development with housing costs projected to range between $110,000 and $140,000. While these amounts do not represent affordable housing in the strictest sense of the term, which would require housing prices of under $80,000, it does represent a lesser cost housing product than is — typically found for single-family detached developments in Chanhassen. 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings _ and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. Narrower lot frontages and clustering of units allows for more efficient — infrastructure provision and lower development costs per unit. 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic — conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. The use of curvilinear streets tends to reduce vehicular speeds. The access to the site utilizing a common entrance with the Lakeview Hills Apartment property to the east will reduce the number of connecting streets to Lyman Boulevard which is — designated as a collector street in the city's comprehensive plan. The applicant shall provide the necessary right-of-way for the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard. Lake Riley Road East will also connect this development with the Klinglehutz development to the west. A sidewalk is being required along one side of Lake Riley Road East to facilitate pedestrian traffic reducing vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to — request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: — Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lake, — trees, topographical features) through the creation of common open space. Sensitive development in transitional areas. More efficient use of land. Development that is unique to the community North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 Page 8 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The applicant, Rottlund Homes, is proposing a 76 dwelling unit single-family detached project based on a variation of a zero lot line concept. Two housing types, two and one story, are — being proposed with attached common open space. All structures will be slab on grade. A total of seven different unit plans are proposed with living areas ranging from 1,300 to 1,600 square feet. Homes will be 24 feet in width with a minimum of 11 feet between houses. — Houses will have windows on three sides with one side windowless to provide privacy for adjacent units. Individual lots range from 2,432 to 3,864 square feet with a total lot area of 5.07 acres. Common open space of 9.76 acres is being proposed with an additional 4.81 acres of wetland. It should be noted that only a portion of this common space is usable for recreational activities. However, much of it will be revegetated with trees. — Exterior materials consist of brick accent, vinyl lap and shake siding, asphalt roofing, and a mix of rectangular and arched window systems. Building elevations which vary through the use of single- and two-story structures, option "bonus" rooms over garages, variation of garage orientation, option front porches, and a 30 percent offset from the street for cottages. Brick (Gray Copperfield and Ohio Limestone) and roofing (Crestwood Shadow - Shale) colors will be consistent throughout the project. A palette of three colors for siding (Cape — Cod Gray, Antique Parchment, and Platinum Gray), three colors for shakes (Antique Linen, Desert Tan, and Sterling Gray), and two colors for trim, soffit, and facia (Ivory Shell and Special White) are being proposed. — SITE PLAN FINDINGS — In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: — (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; — (2) Consistency with this division; — (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping _ with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 _ Page 9 (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and — d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the — public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. — (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: This development creates a harmonious and functional project, protects natural features and is environmentally friendlier, consistent with the comprehensive plan and city code. — SUBDIVISION REVIEW The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the entire 52.1 acres. The northern 30.11 acres, being platted as Outlot A, contains the Highway 212 corridor and land guided for parks and open space by the city's comprehensive plan. Block 1, located north of Lake Riley Road East, contains 57 lots of which Lots 1 through 56 are developable. Lot 57 is undevelopable (for a dwelling unit) and will be maintained as common open space for the residents. Block 2, located south of Lake Riley Road East, contains 21 lots of which Lots 1 through 20 are developable. Lot 21 is undevelopable (for a dwelling unit) and will be maintained as North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 — Page 10 common open space for the residents. The property south of the Lyman Boulevard right-of- - way will be kept as park and open space, either in private or public hands, and should be platted as an outlot. The subdivision also plats the right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Road East. WETLANDS — There are six wetlands on the property and one wetland outside the property and they are described as follows (see Figure 1): — Basin A is a 4.81 acre ag/urban wetland adjacent to the large natural DNR basin located on the north western edge of Lake Riley. Portions of the basin were excavated in the past to create some deep water areas. The basin extends to the east and is associated with a drainage — swale that ends near the easterly property boundary. Approximately 0.31 acre of the easterly portion of the basin and 0.03 acre of the northwestern edge of the basin will be impacted as a result of the development. Staff believes that impacts have been reduced by directing the road around the basin to the property line. If City Council approves the wetland alteration, a permit application will still need to be approved under the State Wetland Conservation Act with replacement at a 2:1 ratio. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) — proposes to raise the water table of this wetland as a water quality project and staff may pursue that project in conjunction with this development. Basin B is not discussed here since it was a wetland that was determined to be located off site to the north, within the proposed T.H. 212 right-of-way. Basin C is an ag/urban wetland located in the northeast corner of the property. A portion of this wetland (approximately 0.25 acre) lies on the property; the rest lies on the property to the east. Portions of the basin were excavated in the past and it appears that there was a great _ deal of disturbance to the area since there are vegetated mounds of presumed fill around it. This wetland, however, is more diverse in vegetation than some ag/urban basins. The basin will not be impacted as a result of the development. A swale exhibiting wetland — characteristics along the northeastern boundary of the site extends from the wetland south to the sanitary sewer manhole. Staff agrees that this drainageway is exempt from wetland replacement according to the Wetland Conservation Act. — Basin D is an ag/urban wetland approximately 0.89 acre along the southern property boundary and is associated with Lake Riley. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the development. — North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 _ Page 11 Basin E and F are ag/urban wetlands located in the new Lake Riley Boulevard road _ alignment. The City is the applicant for wetland alteration to these wetlands since the impacts are a part of the road project. Basin G is an ag/urban wetland located in the northwest corner of the property. Except for approximately 0.03 acre of wetland on the property, the rest of the wetland lies on the property to the north which is the future road right-of-way for TH 212. A swale extends _ south of this wetland to Basin A along the road alignment. Staff agrees that this drainageway is exempt from wetland replacement according to the Wetland Conservation Act since it appears the wetland was created by actions due to the construction of the road which was — approved, permitted, funded, or overseen by a public entity. Although the drainageway will be impacted, Basin G will not be impacted as a result of the development. Buffer Strip The buffer strip width required for ag/urban wetlands is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge _ of the buffer strip. All lots shall meet the buffer strip setbacks; however, the structure setbacks of some of the lots on the north end of Basin A and near the mitigation area by Basin C will need a variance. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in — accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Mitigation This project will impact a total of 0.34 acre to Basin A, and therefore, mitigation of 0.68 acre must be provided. The applicant proposes two mitigation areas. The first area is 0.47 acre in — the southwest portion of the site adjacent to Basin A. The second area is 0.21 acre near the northeast portion of the site adjacent to Basin C. The proposed mitigation areas are expected to become continuous with adjacent on-site wetlands. The wetlands will be similar to the — existing ag/urban wetlands that will be impacted by site development. Vegetation will be established using a native seed source from the excavated wetland soils when available. Staff encourages supplementary seeding with a native wet meadow seed mix throughout the — mitigation areas in order to encourage a diversity of plant species in the area. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) — The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional — perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, _ the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 Page 12 uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow — water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for . treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus — a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the water quality basin for this site is already in place these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$1,530/acre for multi- - family residential developments. The applicant is proposing to provide water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards, and therefore, the water quality fees will be waived accordingly. Credit toward the applicant's SWMP fees will also be given for — providing water quality treatment for the 2 acres of road reconstruction on Lyman Boulevard and the treated runoff from the property to the east. Storm Water Quantity Fee The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Multi-family residential developments will have a connection charge of $2,975 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 22.29 acres; however approximately 6.22 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for approximately 16.07 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of — $47,808. DRAINAGE The site is part of a large drainage area that drains south and west into the large wetland (Basin A). Prior to discharge into the wetland, the runoff needs to be pretreated for — phosphorus retention of 35 to 50 percent. The site is approximately 22 acres, however, approximately 10 acres will runoff into the stormwater quality pond for pretreatment. The — rest of the area is either wetland or undeveloped area south of Lyman which drains into Lake Riley. The property to the east is approximately 23 acres. The applicant is able to provide North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 — Page 13 water quality treatment for 14.6 of these off site acres. If the adjacent property develops in the future, water quality treatment will be necessary for the additional 9 untreated acres. — Currently, the runoff from the developed section (apartments) of the property to the east discharges through the North Bay property. This storm sewer must be tied into the North Bay storm sewer system so that the stormwater is pretreated prior to discharge into Wetland — Basin A. The storm sewer proposed to convey runoff from the wetland basin in the northeast corner of the site may directly discharge into Wetland Basin A. The channel proposed _ through Wetland Basin A shall be deleted. The water quality pond will also have to be sized large enough to pretreat the 2 acres of runoff from Lyman Boulevard. The City will credit the applicant's SWMP fees for land, excavation, and oversizing costs of the storm sewer system. Along with additional ponding area, some of the storm sewer laterals may need to be oversized to accommodate runoff from the site to the east. Changes _ due to off site accommodations for storm water quantity and quality should be noted in the hydrologic calculations so that staff can credit the applicant's storm water fees appropriately. Final review of the construction plans may require additional storm sewers and relocating the ponding areas to be compatible with the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. Detailed storm sewer calculations will be required in accordance to the City's SWMP. _ The City is working on a SWMP water quality project that involves Wetland Basin A and the natural wetland to the west. The water table of the wetlands will be raised in order to — provide more storage for treatment. Staff will continue to discuss these plans with the applicant as the plat progresses. GRADING A majority of the site is proposed to be graded for house pads and streets. Staff believes that — Lots 4 through 31, Block 1 should be adjusted to drain from back to front to avoid concentrating the drainage along the backs of these lots. Also, grading for a drainage swale in the backyards of Lots 15, 16, and Lot 21, Block 2, should be, if at all possible, deleted or — at least minimized through the wetland. Due to the magnitude of the site grading, at least one temporary sediment basin should be employed on Lot 57, Block 1 between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1. This basin may be removed once the storm sewers have been installed and are -- operational. All site grading must be completed prior to any street construction. The site grading in general appears to be compatible with adjacent properties with the — exception of the apartments to the east. It appears the berm that is proposed along the east will encroach slightly into Lakeview Hills Apartments' property. The applicant will need to acquire a temporary construction easement for this grading. The plans also propose on — extending a public street (Lake Riley Road) north from Lyman Boulevard along the common North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 — Page 14 property line of Lakeview Hills Apartments and this development. The applicant is proposing — to dedicate one-half of the necessary road right-of-way with the final plat. The other half of the road right-of-way will have to be conveyed to the City by easement document from Lakeview Hills Apartments. Without this easement document, the applicant would not be — able to proceed with the development. Site grading will also need to be compatible with the future upgrading and widening of Lyman Boulevard. — The applicant is proposing to construct the storm water pond on the north side of Lyman Boulevard as well as wetland mitigation areas. Both the pond and the mitigation area should be located outside the City's right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard. Grading of these ponds should be compatible with the future widening of Lyman Boulevard. EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and development plan and submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff recommends that Type 3 erosion control — fence be used around all of the wetlands. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. All wetland mitigation areas shall be seeded with native wetland grasses. A temporary sediment basin should also be incorporated into the construction plans to provide an added degree of protection. The sediment basin should be constructed on Lot 57, Block 1 — between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1. UTILITIES — Municipal utilities (sewer and water) are proposed to be extended along Lyman Boulevard as a part of the City's public improvement project (No. 93-32B). The project is tentatively scheduled to begin this fall or next spring (1996). This project is dependent on the public utilities being extended to the site. Without these utilities, this development should be considered premature. Final plat approval should be contingent upon the City Council — awarding a bid for the Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction/Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32B. The development proposes both public and private infrastructure systems. The utility system should be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of the Standards Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be required for review by City staff and formal approval by the City Council. The applicant will also be required to enter into a PUD/Development Contract with the City and provide the — necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. If the applicant is willing to dedicate a 40-foot — North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 _ Page 15 wide public drainage and utility easement over the utilities along North Bay Drive, the City would assume ownership and maintenance of these utilities. Currently, the City has an existing sanitary sewer line located in the northeast corner of the site. This line runs south parallel to the east lot line to approximately where Lots 19 and 20, — Block 1 are located. The line then proceeds easterly and serves the Lakeview Hills Apartments. This line will need to be abandoned or relocated in conjunction with this area being developed. The developer may be able to do a phased approach whereby a limited — capacity in the existing utility service to this area could be temporarily employed to develop the southerly portion of the site. This existing utility easement may be vacated once _ alternative sewer service has been provided to Lakeview Hills Apartments. Sanitary sewer and water service shall also be extended to the east for future extension to the parcel south of the apartments and east of this development. _ STREETS In conjunction with the City's Public Improvement Project No. 93-32B, Lyman Boulevard is proposed to be upgraded to City urban standards. The applicant has been working with the City regarding the horizontal realignment of Lyman Boulevard to provide enough area on the _ north side of the street for stormwater ponding. Staff has reviewed the horizontal alignment change and finds that the Lyman Boulevard alignment meets a 35 MPH design standard. However, typically this type of street is designed for a 5 to 10 MPH higher speed than the — proposed posted speed limit. It should also be noted that the developer's proposed vertical alignment for Lyman Boulevard differs significantly from the City's plan. This discrepancy will have to be resolved. _ Lyman Boulevard is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Collector streets typically have an 80-foot wide right-of-way with a 36 to 48-foot wide street — section. In addition, an 8-foot wide bituminous trail is proposed along the south side. Lyman Boulevard is designated on the City's Municipal State Aid System and therefore must meet state aid design standards. The final alignment of Lyman Boulevard will be contingent upon — MnDOT state aid approval. Therefore, any changes as a result of the state aid approval process will need to be included on the final plat. There are two proposed interior streets with this development. Lake Riley Road is proposed to be a public through street from Lyman Boulevard to the west property line of the development for future extension. The other street, North Bay Drive, is proposed to be a — private street. Upon review of the typical street sections it appears both streets will be very similar in design and construction. Staff would like to offer an alternative to the applicant with regards to North Bay Drive. The street is proposed to be private; however, the City _ would be willing to take over ownership and maintenance responsibilities of North Bay Drive North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 Page 16 contingent upon the applicant dedicating a 50-foot wide road, drainage and utility easement over the roadway and increasing the pavement section from 6 inches of granular to 12 inches. This would not impact the setback requirements. Should the applicant wish to maintain a private street system, the street will be required to meet the City's private street ordinance. The proposed Lake Riley Road meets City right-of-way and street design standards except for a portion along the east property line where the street connects to Lyman Boulevard. The — applicant will be required to obtain an easement from the property owner for road, utility and drainage purposes over the westerly 30 feet of the parcel (Lakeview Hills Apartments). All streets and utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings and specifications will be required to be submitted to the City staff for review and formal approval by the Council a minimum of three weeks prior to the final plat being approved by — the City Council. The proposed Lake Riley Road will terminate at the west property line of the development. — The parcel directly to the west will be responsible for the extension of this roadway. Therefore, a temporary cul-de-sac should be constructed at the end of Lake Riley Road and the appropriate signage indicating that this street shall be extended in the future attached to — the barricades. Staff will also include this as a condition in the PUD/development agreement to advise future property owners of the extension of Lake Riley Road. — MISCELLANEOUS An existing gravel driveway runs parallel to the westerly property line. Upon completion of Lake Riley Road by the developer, this gravel driveway may be terminated or removed since alternative access would be provided by the applicant. In addition, the wetland mitigation area will also remove a portion of the gravel driveway. Due to the limited parking in front of the units and given the street width, staff is concerned with a potential parking problem along the private and public street systems. Staff — recommends that parking be prohibited along one side of both North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Road. Staff will give the option to the applicant to decide on which side of the street parking shall be prohibited. — LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has performed the required tree canopy calculations for the development. A baseline canopy coverage of 11 percent (1.78 acres) is estimated. Code requires a minimum canopy area of 15 percent (2.43 acres). Therefore, a forestation area of 0.65 acres is required which equates to 26 trees. The applicant proposes the removal of 0.43 acres of canopy area. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 _ Page 17 Code requires a replacement area of 1.2 times the amount of required canopy being removed. The applicant must provide 0.516 acres of replacement planting or 21 trees. At a minimum, 47 trees would be required for this development. The applicant proposes the planting of 80 overstory trees, 113 ornamentals, and 39 evergreens as part of this development, which — exceeds minimum quantity requirements. It should be noted that city code requires that evergreens average seven feet. The applicant is proposing an extensive landscape buffer between this development and the property to the east. — Staff has the following recommendations regarding the landscaping plan: • provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings • provide evergreen screening from automobile headlights for Lots 1, 13, and 15, Block — 2 • increase the number of evergreens to 20 percent of the tree plantings as required by — ordinance • incorporate additional evergreen plantings along the TH 212 corridor _ PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission met on May 9, 1995 to review this development. The commission recommended that the city council require the following conditions of approval for the proposed North Bay PUD in regard to parks and trails: — 1. Dedication of the westerly portion of Block 3. This dedication is generally described as lying west of the trail easement at the point where it is — perpendicular to Lake Riley Boulevard. This dedication to be a condition of the granting of planned unit development status. 2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. As a part of a PUD, it is the applicant's responsibility to meet certain criteria. These criteria — include: - Parks and open space—the creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 _ Page 18 The Comprehensive Park Plan identifies this area of the city as park deficient. The UM city is attempting to negotiate the acquisition of a neighborhood park of no less than five acres in an adjoining conceptual plat referred to as Lake Riley Hills (Klingelhutz). The future of this submittal is uncertain. The commission's recommendation to require — the dedication of a portion of Block 3 is directly attributable to this criteria. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: — "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council grant preliminary approval of PUD #95-1: Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to — subdivide 52.1 acres into 78 lots, 4 outlots and associated right-of-way; site plan review for 76 single family detached zero-lot-line homes on 19.95 acres; a variance for wetland setbacks for Lots 12 - 16, Block 1 and Lots 16 - 19, Block 2 to permit the house placement as shown — on the plans; and a wetland alteration permit for North Bay (plans dated 4/17/95 revised 5/4/95 and 7/17/95 prepared by Pioneer Engineering) subject to the following conditions: — 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. — Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 2. Redesignate Lot 1, Block 3, as an outlot. Lot 57, Block 1, and Lot 21, Block 2, are — unbuildable for dwelling units and must be maintained for common open space. 3. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend — the pond into the surroundings; provide evergreen screening from automobile headlights for Lots 1, 13, and 15, Block 2; increase the number of evergreens to a minimum of 20 percent of the tree plantings as required by ordinance; and incorporate additional evergreen plantings along the 212 corridor. 4. The applicant shall provide financial guarantees to the city to assure satisfactory _ installation of the landscaping. 5. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and garage _ floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. — 6. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 _ Page 19 7. Submit soils report with lot by lot tabulations to the Inspections Division. This should — be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. Change proposed Lake Riley Road to Lake Riley Road East. — 9. Obtain a building permit for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height before beginning their construction. — 10. The applicant will need to revise the erosion control plan to include temporary sediment basins, Type III erosion control fence, seeding type and schedule of site — restoration. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. 11. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff — review and City Council approval three weeks prior to final plat approval. 12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's _ wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to — review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. — Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. — 14. The applicant shall enter into a PUD/development agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the — PUD/development agreement. 15. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers — section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland _ fill activity in all phases of the project. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 Page 20 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within any street right-of-way. 19. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 20. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 21. The proposed multi-family residential development of 16.07 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $47,808. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Credits will be applied to these fees after final review of the construction plans. 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. _ 23. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and also with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels. The applicant shall be responsible for acquiring the necessary easements for grading outside the plat. All site grading must be completed prior to street construction. 24. The existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site shall be _ relocated in conjunction with the development. The applicant may petition the City to vacate the existing utility easement once the line has been relocated. 25. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City Council awarding a bid for the Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Area Trunk Improvement Project No. 93-32B and — North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 — Page 21 MnDOT approval of the alignment of Lyman Boulevard. The applicant shall also _ dedicate the required 80-foot wide right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard prior to the finalization of the construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. Final vertical and horizontal alignment for Lyman Boulevard shall be subject to City and MnDOT-state — aid approval. 26. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored upon completion of the site grading — with seed and disc-mulched or sod or erosion control blanket. All grading must be completed prior to issuance of building permits on the site with the exception of one model home directly off Lyman Boulevard. Wetland mitigation areas shall be restored _ in accordance with the wetland restoration/alteration permit. 27. The construction plans shall be revised to include the following changes: _ a. Delete grading of the channel through Wetland Basin A. b. Provide outlet control structures from the proposed pond north of Lyman Boulevard to the wetland mitigation area adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and from the mitigation area to Wetland Basin A. — c. Type III erosion control fence shall be placed adjacent to and around all wetlands and mitigation areas. — d. Provide a temporary sediment basin on Lot 57, Block 1 in or near the proposed irrigation house between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1. — e. All storm sewer catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the streets are paved and the site fully revegetated. — f. Revise grading plan to have rear lots drain through to front yard areas on Lots 4 through 31, Block 1 inclusive versus the swale along the rear lot line. — g. Add catch basins on new driveway access to apartments. h. Prohibit parking on one side of all streets. i. Address relocation and abandonment of existing gravel driveway on west — property line. _ j. Include a drain tile system behind the curbs on all lots that are not adjacent to a stormwater pond or wetland. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 Page 22 k. Use City standard detail plates. 1. Provide utility stub to vacant parcel which lies south of the apartments. 28. The applicant shall obtain and convey to the City at no cost a street, utility and — drainage easement over the west 30 feet of the Lakeview Hills Apartments parcel lying north of Lyman Boulevard and terminating where the full 60-foot wide right-of- way begins in the plat of North Bay. 29. The applicant shall provide a temporary cul-de-sac (25-foot radius) at the end of Lake Riley Road and include a sign indicating that "This street will be extended in the future." A condition shall also be placed in the PUD/development agreement acknowledging the intent to extend Lake Riley Road in the future. 30. Parking shall be restricted to one side of North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Road. The applicant may choose which side of the street to restrict parking. The City will adopt — the appropriate resolution prohibiting parking and place the appropriate regulatory signs. — 31. The applicant and/or property owner shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments associated with City public improvement Project No. 93-32B including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 32. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. 33. Dedication of Outlot C for park purposes. This dedication to be a condition of the granting of planned unit development status. 34. The applicant shall provide the city with some assurance that there will be some variation in brick and siding colors, potentially designating certain areas within the project for specific brick and siding colors. 35. The applicant shall install a watermain along Lake Riley Road in accordance with the _ city's feasibility study for Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction project (93-32B). The city shall credit the oversizing cost back to the applicant by means of a reduction in their assessments for project 93-32B. The oversizing cost shall be the difference between — an 8-inch line and the proposed 12-inch line based on fair market value. — 36. No improvements to the land south of Lyman Boulevard will be permitted until a conditional use permit for a beachlot is approved by the city." North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 August 16, 1995 _ Page 23 ATTACHMENTS _ 1 Development Review Application 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/8/95 _ 3. Letter from Robert C. Obermeyer to Robert Generous dated 8/3/95 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 5. Non-conforming Use Permit #92-8 _ 6. Section 20-263 Recreational beach lots 7. City Council minutes of June 26, 1995 8. Letter from Cyrus Knutson to Robert Generous dated 6/7/95 _ 9. Letter from David Mitchell to Charles Folch dated 8/4/95 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION = APPLICANT:— ,If. E7. .1111-11. (I Ip/1 / i - . OWNER: ebQ r/ s Odd/mail it_, ADDRESS: ADDRESS: /4/l — I1/ ' 9 7 1 1Z• i'110 I ll•l lit) ,e/m737/m.-% � /iJ/iu1, TELEPHONE (Day time) l' lfi TELEPHONE: C-T'g v 450 3 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. X Vacation of ROW/Easements 17' 74/-2i=i tt fat r (' relied /74/- 2. . Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance t« rL) 7 3. Interim Use Permit 13. X Wetland Alteration Permit 1 f 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal _. 5. X. Planned Unit Development ;, ,- - 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 11Z7- _ C� /S IT cwt ! I L7 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs i 9. ,% Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" / $100 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdivision ' ��i �\ fI t TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME R-11 k& ` ` err I\IGv b-`� _ LOCATION �u K iia✓'�i (7 --tt Ievat( Fn1IC1 tL'e 't G''f a*/ L�1ptlf LEGAL DESCRIPTION /k kerf 6Y1 pre I I kpi 1 t?wa/CT (frim{1ll PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING {'U — • PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION 7,`� i1 iLk��' f 1. 1 11 )I:�-71-'r f REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION '1C(k�flfllL�") REASON FOR THIS REQUEST TL: 11(4L, tfiliIIC(L'S-1-eY G 1 • r s rr I h / r �' J. , • I�t _�11(e t (Ls IA E��t.L{l►'it &t;l�V - 1 a.()C qe JIZk{' sr ,v vl2c This application must be completed in full and be type<vritten or clearly printed/and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the _ Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. - I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded - against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. 2 Imo[/ /`J Si nature of A plicant 7 , ,r /1b11!!v"c:✓ Date Se,e4ou Signature of Fee Owner J Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 1-1PP-12-199`• 1S:T_ FF'CIM HHQ i2=2= HH To 'I-497.7167S P. =ice' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION .APPLICANT-11,1L 4 n /ktr. , wMwOWNER:g1f.[�,J%', >DDRESS: /4;01 LNi 4j /4.4kfa* 't ADDRESS:///Z'- M ?,- _ 17_e ,i{c 1 h9/1114,, (4II'.7 ?,0G.,<�- o4) "5-15-7-5/ TELEPHONE (Day time) 6, ,U/-- ?TELEPHONE:egg' 53 �.._.,s.. _ - -- - 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment k� 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 10-0 12. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 1 3. Interim Use Permit 13. X Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development ,75-1) 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits J 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs " 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" `1"'1-'C $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds — 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 131 ' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. -- NOTE - When multiple applications are processed. the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract 99FF'ulhl FiHi i HHF1-E: 1:4121 TO 99271675 F'.i i PROJECT NAME NH N6V t5e7u I �`'1Ie - L • L — LOCATION L 3Fz lei F-t i1 e�4ZW JGr i l �t'e-1 nT dekf L-• 11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION /c+ C ad • FY' r n nm' f — PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING x(1117 — PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION t. 7179) Ih REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Ve'S1f�� REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To Ui i (i2Jc= Citi Z'4 a dew 1 C( s f > � Z�J f, wl1f Oft VOL s Y y a4 :5;i• dw'e.J,h s v.)14.v14 i aveva e a sF uvu% ' This application must be completed in full and be tyvritten or clearly prints and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party — whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. — I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any — authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information 1 have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that alter the approval or granting of me permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they aro recorded — against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. rtia yhoc Slgnature of licant , > f ff�ltri Date — Signature of Fee Owner Date — Application Receivea on Fee Paid _ Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CITYOF CHANHASSEN \_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirehman, Building Official ,d ,f DATE: May 8, 1995 v` SUBJECT: 95-1 PUD, 95-9 SPR & 95-3 WAP (North Bay. Rottlund Companies, Inc.) I was asked to review the proposed plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUL 17 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: Elevations. Proposed lowest floor level elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments. This deficiency in the plans was pointed out in my May 8, 1995 memo and has not been corrected. Dwelling Type. The proposed typeof dwelling designations are necessaryto enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations. SOG is not a standard designation. The R designation conforms with the type of structures being proposed. The plans should be revised to include standard designations. Soils Report. Before building permits can he issued a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required. The soils report should include lot-by - lot tabulations for land development with controlled earthwork prepared according to HUD Data Sheet 79G. Street Names. The street designated as Lake Riley Road is likely to be extended considerably to the west in the future with another outlet to Lyman Blvd. City policy requires roads with outlets on the sane collector road that exceed 1750' or serving more than 60 addresses he given and east-west or north-south designation. Because it is quite likely that this situation will occur in the not too distant future, it seems prudent to name the road Lake Riley Road East now. Attempting to change resident's addresses later is a painful, difficult process. Bob Generous August 4, 1995 Page 2 — Retaining walls. the Preliminary Grading & Erosion Plan indicates a retaining wall grater than four feet high will be built. The Unifoffn Building Code requires a permit for such a wall. — Recommendations; — 1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevations and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be clone prior to final plat approval. 3. Submit soils report with lot-by- lot tabulations to the Inspections Division. This should be done — prior to issuance of any building permits. 4. Change proposed Lake Riley Road to Lake Riley Road East. 5. Obtain a building permit for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height before beginning their construction. enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo g:\s a f et yds ak\m em o s\pl an\n n b b ay.b g 2 CITY QF • • CIIANBASSEN fez 690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ` • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN i UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FrLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with tile basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. r SE R SN WO FL � , -- - - - - - - -- orRLO Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. II* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER e • 25 th - Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Engineering Advisor:Barr Engineering Co. 8300 Norman Center Drive Anniversary Suite 300 y ! Minneapolis,MN 55437 832-2600 `�• �• Legal Advisor: Popham,Haik,Schnobrich&Kaufman 1969 - 1994 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower — 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 August 3, 1995 Mr. Robert Generous City Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mr. Generous: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed _ District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the North Bay development in Chanhassen. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: 1. In accordance with Section E(2) of the District's revised rules and regulations, a grading and land alteration permit from the District is required. A detailed grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. — 2. A detailed erosion control plan outlining procedures to control sedimentation from leaving areas altered on the site must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 3. A stormwater management plan for the project must be submitted for review and approval. The preliminary utility plan shows a discharge of stormwater from the site directly into the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Wetland. The proposed — water quality basins along Lyman Boulevard must be extended further to the north to provide treatment of this runoff. 4. Homes to be constructed on the site must have low floor elevations set a minimum of 2 feet above the calculated 100-year frequency flood elevation of the stormwater detention basins on the site. 5. The District notes that encroachment within wetland areas meeting the requirements of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act is proposed. The District understands that the City of Chanhassen is the LGU administering the requirements of the Conservation Act. The — District will require written verification from the City that the requirements of the ECEIVEp Conservation Act have been met. .. 1995 CITY OF CH^,NH.A SEN Mr.Robert Generous August 3, 1995 Page 2 lum Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this development at an early date. If you have any questions or request additional information, please give me a call at 832-2857. Nam incerely, / 1 , R..ert . Obermeyer Barr Engineering Company Engineer's for the District c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Fritz Rohr 28199_1 + ..'"� 'fi .i`,\i —a„ al' 1!".::.1-41fib. u � s�s� sl o , r4ii.:), 'eRAC£ .z 82oo il` N 4040.400 -. MARS//.:o �-- LAKE W -.,1 , u.aa PARK 8300 I j SUSAN r 1 I �w;0, — NOTICE OF PUBLIC .0��,'N ' pir4 RICE M RSH LAKE HEARING �t�,,. :�: -- -, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mit ,.,�;; ,_,�. .- Ii--.7.7-,, _ ::;; .�„ Wednesday, August 16, 1995 ? ...,.,��;� _oma,:::_><: < �" 1 9700 at 7:00 p.m. �=�• Ill 1 — City Hall Council Chambers '= ; `.0 690 Coulter Drive JC--I r 1 r ' =' e900_ (444--18) liIlar.o b �'J :` Project: North Bay ; 9000 — — -•:; ATI • ' 1 zr j. ----T-a\.0 __. , \_ Developer: Rottlund Company, Inc. i ' _ I PARK \; 1 9200 LLL___ ett.o.EAE a , Location: Lake Riley Boulevard, on the co. „�,41111q' 14 P" LAKE 9500— north side of Lake Riley ~'"" •;, _ RILEYss 9.00 1 Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 22.4 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; — preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 79 lots, 3 outlots and associated right-of-way; site plan review for 76 single family detached zero-lot-line homes on 19.64 acres; and a wetland alteration permit on property located on Lake Riley Boulevard, on the north side of Lake Riley, — North Bay, Rottlund Company, Inc. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you — about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following — steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. — 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission _ will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop _ by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the — meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 3, 1995. — ��' )19 5 Klingelhutz Development Co. Lakeview Hills Investment Co. Brenda Schaeffer 3 ) East Highway 212 3025 Harbor Lane 27306 County Road A CFaska, MN 55318 Plymouth, MN 55447 Spooner, WI 54801 Kimberly Jones & Joseph & Gayle Hautman Beverly A. Fielder S`-ffond Nelson 8551 Tigua Lane 8521 Tigua Lane 8`11 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I\...:tro Waste Control Comm. Lakeview Hills Mears Park Centre c/o Remada Co. 2 ) 5th Street East Braemar Business Center S.Paul, MN 55101 7630 W. 78th Street Bloomington, MN 55439 CITY OF CHANHASSEN — CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT #92-8 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen _ hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use: Recreational beachlot (Lakeview Hills Homeowners Association) _ 2. Property. The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: — Legally described in attached Exhibit A. 3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: a. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked day and night (but the residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the management); b. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohibit overnight mooring, and prohibit overnight storage of boats on the beach itself, except for storage of canoe racks (application requests one canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored); — c. All other overnight storage would be limited to designated portions of the existing parking lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd) and other designated portions of the — property lying north of the apartments buildings; d. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet; e. Continued use of the boat launch; f. Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to the number 11 on the application itself but all other historic information has been agreed to. — 4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit. — 5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal _ misdemeanor. Dated: January 25, 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: �ona d J. Chmiel, Mayor By: — Don Ashworth, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) _ ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this :'.t4 day of 19 ; by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanha`Ssen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. td ---1qotaeublinc -.��_.r.e—.7 —DRAFTED BY: CA4►�p!CC— ;;:'YliNrE.SOTa$ NCaRvCampbell, Knutson, Scott — & Fuchs, P.A. Suite 3170.1. 79.;," + � — 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 455-5000 RNK NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT Association Lake View Apartments Lake Riley Number of Homes 170 Apartments — Size, square feet 3,000 sq. ft. Shoreline 120 feet Motor Vehicle Access yes — Off-Street Parking yes Boat Launch yes Buildings none — Picnic Tables yes Grills/Campfires yes Seasonal Dock 1 Diagram 50 feet Canoe Racks 1 with 8-10 canoes Boats on Land not requested Boats at Dock not requested — Boats Moored not requested Swimming Beach yes Marker Buoys not requested — Swimming Raft not requested Miscellaneous •locked gate shall be installed •boats shall be stored at the apartment building and not the beachlot - -shall comply with DNR regulations for the boat launch EXHIBIT "A", All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, and of Government Lot 1, of Section 24 , Township 116, Range 23 , together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13 , Township 116, Range 23 , which lies East of a line drawn 641. 67 feet West of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with the East line of the Northeast Quarter of the North- east Quarter of said Section 24 , Township 116, Range 23 , and its extension. (52 . 80 acres) [PID #25-0240100] OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF MINNESOTADER COUNTY OF CARVER 41 756 This is to certify that this document w led in i3 office D atno'clock of� M. and was duly recorded as document no. 147565 CARL W.HANSON JR. Coonly Recor•dey by M_I-G-G § 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-263. Recreational beach lots. Intent. Based upon experience, it is recognized by the city that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be an intensive use of lakeshore that may present conflicts with neigh- — boring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself. Further,beachlots may generate complaints if they are not maintained to the same standards as single-family lakeshore lots. Therefore, the city requires the following conditions for rec- reational beachlots, in addition to such other conditions that may be prescribed in the permit: (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. (2) Except as specifically provided herein,no structure,ice fishing house,camper,trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos) shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beachlot. For the purpose of this section, a gazebo shall be defined as, "a freestanding roofed structure which is open on all sides." (3) No boat, trailer, motor vehicle,including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, — motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. (4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. — (5) Boat launches are prohibited. (6) No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one(1)dock,however,the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. — Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes,windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored — on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one(1)rack slip per lot served by the beachlot; however,in no case shall there be more than four (4) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is — permissible at any time other than overnight. (7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beachlot is three (3). No dock shall — be permitted on any recreational beachlot unless the beach meets the following con- ditions: a. Shoreline of at least two hundred (200) feet per dock, and — b. Area of at least thirty thousand (30,000) square feet for the first dock and addi- tional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for each additional dock. (8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six(6)feet in width,and no such dock shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four(4) feet. The width (but not the length) of the cross-bar — of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length de- scribed in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length. — Supp. No. 7 1176.4 ZONING § 20-263 (9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that the owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites,if the common dock is the only dock on the two(2)lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. (10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one (1) sail boat mooring shall be allowed for every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. (11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the sub- division of which it is a part.For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms shall mean those beach lots which are located either within (urban) or outside (rural) the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the comprehen- sive plan. a. Urban recreational beach lot: At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot. b. Rural recreational beach lot: A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply. (12) All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. (13) All recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beachlot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, veg- etation, distance (width or depth), or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the city may impose conditions to insulate beachlot activities including, but not limited to: a. Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other al- lowed recreational equipment or activities; b. Hours of use; c. Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs; d. Erection of fences; e. Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming;painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; f. Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. To the extent feasible, the city may impose such conditions even after approval of the beachlot if the city finds it necessary. Supp. No. 7 1177 § 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (14) Overnight docking,mooring,and storage of watercraft,where allowed,is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. — (15) The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council. — (16) Portable chemical toilets may be allowed as a condition of approval of a recreational beachlot. The maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beachlots may be _ unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or lake users.Any use of chemical toilets on recreation beachlots shall be subject to the following: a. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots and the lake. — b. It may only be used Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the lot during the rest of the year. c. It shall be securely anchored to the ground to prevent tipping. • — d. It shall be screened from the lake and residential property with landscaping. e. It shall be serviced at least weekly. f. Only models designed to minimize the potential for spilling may be used. g. Receipt of an annual license from the city's planning department. The license shall be issued unless the conditions of approval of this ordinance have been _ violated.All license applications shall be accompanied by the following informa- tion: 1. Name, address, and phone number of applicants. _ 2. Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets. 3. Name, address, and phone number of chemical toilet supplier. 4. Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of any agreement for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number of person responsible for maintenance. 5. A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet from all views into the property, including views from the lake. (17) No watercraft or boat lift shall be kept, moored, docked, or stored in the dock setback zone. (18) Gazebos may be permitted on recreational beachlots subject to city council approval and the following standards: a. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) — feet. b. No gazebo shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback for the zoning district in which the structure is located. — Supp. No. 7 1178 ..... ZONING § 20-263 c. Maximum size of the structure shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet. d. Maximum height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. e. Gazebos shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high-quality design concept for the lot which is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures. f. Gazebos shall be properly maintained. Structures which are rotted, unsafe, de- teriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired, removed, or replaced by the homeowners or beachlot association. g. The following improvements are prohibited in gazebos; screening used to com- pletely enclose a wall, water and sewer service, fireplaces, and electricity. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(11)), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-A, § 1, 6-15-87; Ord. No. 87, § 1, 6-13-88;Ord.No. 121,2-26-90;Ord.No. 146, §§ 1,2, 5-6-91; Ord.No. 160, § 3, 2-10-92;Ord.No. 230, § 1, 1-9-95) Editor's note—Section 3 of Ord. No. 160, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, added subsection(16)to this section. Inasmuch as there existed a § 20-263(16) added by Ord. No. 146, the editor has renumbered the new provisions as § 20-263(17). Supp.No. 7 1179 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 — CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL TO REZONE 22.4 ACRES FROM R- 12,HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.57 ACRES INTO 78 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 75 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE HOMES ON 19.95 ACRES; AND — A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY. NORTH BAY ADDITION,ROTTLUND COMPANY. Kate Aanenson: This property is located off of Lake Riley Boulevard. That's how it gains access. It has 212, future 212 alignment running through the middle of it and it is adjacent to what was a plat by Mr. John Klingelhutz and to the east,Lakeview Hills Apartments. The property is guided for high density, zoned R-12. Rottlund Homes is proposing 75 unit, single family dwelling project. It's a different type of project than we've seen in the city because it's zoned for medium or high density. You can do a zero lot line. Single family detached, which will be the first one of this type in the city and we're, the planning staff, are in support this type of project. Again we think it provides a different market nitch of housing product where there could be — something different based on the zoning. We think it is appropriate for the land. But there are some issues with the property. One being, the wetlands and road access. When this plat was originally submitted, the wetland had not been staked and was originally going to be in this area. After the wetland had been delineated, it actually goes on the most easterly portion of the property. Staff believes that to reduce the impact of the wetland and combine access with the future development of Lakeview Hills, that's probably appropriate to move the access to the most easterly portion of the project. Approximately where the red line is right now. And therefore combining accesses. And again reducing the impact to the wetland. The project itself, as indicated, — would be accessed off of Lake Riley Boulevard and would provide a public street with access onto the proposed Klingelhutz plat. It would stop at the 212 right-of-way and provide appropriate buffer and screening. As indicated, there is a wetland and...appropriate buffer setback from the proposed wetland. One of the other issues with the plat is the use of this area here. The Park and Recreation Commission, which I'll let Todd Hoffman speak to, had looked at acquiring some of the property and using it as a public park. The applicant himself would like to use it as a part of a recreational beachlot. This is before you just for concept approval right now. We wanted you to look at some of the broader issues but if it does come through for a beachlot, they would come through with a conditional use permit. We are in support of the PUD zoning, as I indicated. We believe it provides a different market nitch. It could meet some other type of product but we think this is a different one that we haven't seen in the city and is appropriate. We believe it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and the goals. Again, it's conceptual. There are some issues to be worked out. One, I'll let the applicant speak to that Charles Folch had put a memo to you on the cover sheet is the applicant would like to realign the old Lake Riley Hills. But with that staff is recommending approval of the conceptual PUD with the conditions in _ the staff report and I would like to let Todd Hoffman speak for a minute or two on the park issues that he has. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Todd. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and the audience. The conditions that the Park and Recreation Commission has recommended is in your packet... Essentially what the Park Commission is investigating the possibility of acquiring a portion of the lakeshore for public use. Specifically...area for _ picnicking and then a... They studied two alternatives, which I'd like to show you on the overhead at this time. They include alignment number 1, which is the...city alignment if you will. It allows for the parking area, and this is again conceptual, to lie outside of the tree cover canopy area of the large oak trees. The little kind of savannah areas...and then would not interfere with the wetlands on the site. The other alignment, the Rottlund alignment or as presented by the applicant, this would cause the parking area to be pushed forward towards the lake. Obviously either alignment would work... So that's an update I have for you and with that... 32 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 MEM Mayor Chmiel: Any questions of Kate or Todd? Councilman Berquist: That Lakeview, that Lakeview Apartments, is that the name of them? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Berquist: Nov that's on the lot directly next to them? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Berquist: Right next to them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to do your presentation? Don Jensen: Certainly. I had this set up but, I just visited during the break. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Don Jensen, the Land Development Manager with Rottlund Homes. Rottlund Company Inc. We are proposing to be both the developer and the builder for this development, and are proposing to undertake all of this...approval. Staff outlined the concept for this development. What I have in front of you is the plat as presented to the staff. We are in concurrence with most of the conditions with the exception of the... conditions in your packet and I'll have a chance to discuss them briefly. You have a long record of Minutes that we went through with the Planning Commission so I won't bore you with a tremendous amount of the details that are covered there but I wanted to briefly overview development. What we have is a package of two different housing types. One which is targeted for empty nesters. One which is targeted for,probably just _ above first time home buyers or perhaps first time detached home buyers and they're represented primarily along the public street we have the empty nester product. As you can see there's quite a bigger footprint and plan view. And then to the north, looking around on a private street, up off the future 212 corridor, we have a two story product that would be targeted more for a move up, first time home buyer. The square footages for the two products, I'll take this down for a moment. for what we're calling our cottages and what it's designed as empty nesters, it's a rambler. At grade. Dwelling units, there is no basement and at the moment there are no second floor spaces. They're approximately 1,400 square feet up to 1,600 square feet, depending on the floor plan. But they're intended to have quite a different facade as well as the building color ranges. As you can see on the sample board that we have down below, it's pretty much in the earth tones or muted tones that much of the siding manufacturers have gone to these days. The plan that I just kept up on the easel now, the floor plan of that same product. The empty nester orientation. What we're doing there, similar to how...Planning Commission, is we're pushing the buildings approximately 30 degrees to the street. What that does is it shortens up the distance between the structures to approximately 40 feet of the 72 foot length of the structure. It opens up a front yard entrance area to the doorways. In cases where we have additional square footage or bonus space that this floor plan would indicate, the foyer slides around and we'd still have essentially a front yard space. And likewise you'd have a large back yard space with a patio or three season porch opens up off the corner. You accomplish that by twisting the building and having it at an angle. You can see from the site plan that that really is how we've oriented a majority of the dwellings throughout this roadway condition. The final plat would twist and massage that so that we could make that angle occur and... The second building product that we're looking at is a two story. You've seen our villa development at Mission Hills. What we're doing is increasing the square footage a little bit and adding a two story space. Having some of that space as bonus above the garage. Again it's somewhat similar to our villa but each unit is it's own structure. These are coming in your packets as we have in our design development area, anywhere from about 1,630 square feet on up to about 1,850 square feet. Two bedrooms and three bedroom plans. Flexibility on the elevations... Flexibility on 33 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 building materials that are also coming with that package and again some flexibility on a floorplan. So you have a variety of front elevations. The site plan twists these buildings a little less aggressively as submitted in the sketch plan form and the cottages, it's not so true to the concept of the dwelling and building plan that they need to be skewed. However, it's probably an idea that's going to be pursued more...sketch plan here. Skewing would do the same thing with twisting the garages and the street that would be head on. They'd be angled so depending on your line of travel...It would push the front door a bit closer to the street. The building materials would be consistent or...have in front for both product lines but they will have varying colors. Both in brick — and in door accents and window accent colors as well as the siding colors. Unlike...product where we start to have a lot more uniformity, these have a little bit more variability...completed about a year and a half ago. That's the product that we have. What I'd like to do is come back to the site plan. We have an aerial here, if the Council is interested in just having a general orientation of how this development fits. And we'll come back to the site plan. Staff has suggested in their conditions that the, and as Kate just went over, that this road entrance onto Lake Riley Boulevard, move over to be straddling the property line. After some review at our offices we will agree that that's a reasonable effort. We wanted to make sure that what we were doing, slipping the roadway to the other side of these buildings so there is less wetland fill than on this plan but still some based on that latest delineation that we had. There would be buildings to put that on this site. I'm not exactly sure how many different plans you may have received in your packet. We did submit some different road — alignments and building plans that were for the engineering staff to prepare their memo, which I know is attached to the packet there so presumably they have to have received those. Regarding our big issue is what we have in front of the Planning Commission was a desire to program this space a little bit more than we have on our sketch plan proposal. We would like to allow this central commons area, between the two developments to be able to be developed and programmed by the residents that move into this area. We would prefer, and that's not something that's in any condition, that we will forward, possibly even set up an escrow where at 50% of the build out, this escrow money and a design would be done between the neighborhood and Rottlund — Company and the city could designate or appoint a planner, park planner to be involved in that process. But we have had greater success when we allow the residents to program what is their background than we have by having some...trying to predict what that site can be in the future. The way that the grades work out, we believe that ultimately that...for two different levels. This street is rising and then it starts to fall back down as it joins what we're calling and labeling North Lake Drive and this street gradually falls all the way down to Lake Riley. There's about 35 to 40 feet of change, as some of you know by looking at the property, from Lake Riley Boulevard on out. That translates into about a 5% street grade. So this center space and the spacing between — buildings will need to step approximately 8 foot...between buildings so it becomes more difficult to get... space in that area. I'll give you a for instance and then I'll get off of this topic. We just went through an empty nester development in Lakeville,where as part of the approval process the Council there thought it was good — that we develop a playground for their grandkids. And we did so because we were conditioned upon approval to do so. Now that the neighborhood is 60% built up, they don't want to have to pay the insurance costs in their homeowners association for liability purposes. It's park rated equipment. They've asked the city to remove it. The Council as well as the manager have agreed and now we're going to go back in and install a perennial garden and use the same monies. It's those kinds of decisions we'd like to leave up to the residents and we're more comfortable saying that we'll spend x amount of dollars to improve the site but we'd rather not have it to be playground if nobody wants a playground. We'd rather not have it be a garden if nobody wants a garden. — We'd like them to be involved in that process. We did have success with that in the city of Inver Grove Heights where we have an escrow set aside for,there was a playground... That's one of our issues. This common open space. This is approximately an acre. As was described in our Minutes, it's about 180 feet long. As an average, it's about 120 feet wide in it's current configuration and as staff has pointed out, there's going to be some massaging with this road alignment to make sure we have our wetland buffers for this zone in through here. We have a large quantity of open space, depending on the calculations that you do or don't get credited in 34 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 this area, and again what we were describing, instead of this whole zone of approximately 2 acres as common area for all of these residents and as part of their common open space. We can and will program and plat as an outlot a portion of that for city park purposes. We have heard a couple of different things. Both presentations I've heard this evening talked about acquisition which is something that we did not hear coming into tonight's meeting. We're not in a position that we can take full park fees for all these residents and then dedicate lakeshore. We would be more than willing to set aside for purchase or to have an abatement of some of the park dedication fees for land along, for lake use for public purposes. We've been working with staff regarding moving the trail off of Lyman Boulevard and both of the sketches that were held up...to get the public closer to the lake experience as they go on the bike trail and move through some mature trees rather than being along side a road all the time and that's been a consistent theme of our development. Regarding some of the other conditions that are in the staff summary and maybe what I can do is just go straight to those because I know it's late and I'd like to be available to...all your questions regarding both our product and the site plan, sketch plan. We are concurrence all the way, conditions 1 thru 19 are fairly standard. Part of the concern of different road alignments, and I'll explain it briefly on this plan here which is condition number 20 about storm water ponds. We have been pursuing different alignments of the road for two purposes. One of which is to, what we believe is improve the storm water purpose of the whole region as a part of this storm water quality plan. This road is slid further to the lake. As you look on the aerial you'll see there's an opening there that we've been just sliding the road within. If you've been by the property you know that there's kind of a dirt area on the lakeshore side of the road. It opens up the area between the water and the wetlands to the north and the road. On this plan and on our plans there's a large space in here for wetland mitigation and we've been able to do a water quality pond also off of this road and just imagine the road and these houses flipped over and you have pretty much what our preliminary plat might look like with your approval. The water quality pond gets a chance to grow a little bit bigger. When we do that, we believe and our engineers have the calculations and staff has had a chance to review those at a preliminary level, to take all the runoff from the road, which currently doesn't have any water quality from the adjacent development to the east when it develops the undeveloped land. Quite conceivably enough to accommodate the project as it is currently designed. There's no water quality for it today. This development and a small portion of the road through the Klingelhutz property. The other alignment, which for park purposes gets a little bit more parking, eliminates virtually all of this area in through here to function as a water quality pond, and from our engineer's estimates, what it does is it limits the ability of this property to accomplish all of those downstream goals and it really allows only enough area outside of wetlands for ponding for this development only. It's squeezed to get anything from Lake Riley Boulevard. There is no ponding capacity for the property to the east and probably accommodate a couple hundred feet of road going to the east. It's slightly higher here and that...a better drainage area. That's been our focus and it's... _ unanswered as to what is the overall goal. The second overall plan that we had in trying to move that road was to make use of the land and space that was in that park area as targeted so that when we get the trail a little closer to the lake and so that we could maximize developable area just north of that road that carries with it a large setback area and that primarily impacts our ability to have a dwelling unit down in this location. The city code eliminates any building, for all practical purposes, other than a boat shelter. Storage space as a beachlot improvement. The collector road with it's setbacks pushes any development almost 200 feet away from that lakeshore. So by having the road slightly forward, that does improve the developable opportunity for both the structures and for water quality. We're not taking any trees of any large size that are not taken by the current plans that we have received from the city's consultant, OSM. There are a couple of small, low quality wetlands that show up on the current state requirements for wetlands that are impacted in all cases slightly by road improvements for their highway. Some are a little bit more aggressive than others. The up side is that those are low quality wetlands and by taking them on the lake side, you can more than compensate for them north. And you can clean up the water quality, which we think is an important element of trying to preserve the water quality for Lake Riley. It provides a lot more opportunity. The legislature didn't help us out this spring. 35 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 — There's certainly an opportunity this project would not go until probably spring next year, based on the plans for Lake Riley Boulevard and utilities. There is a possibility that this land in through here that's currently a wetland could function as a good water quality if the legislature changes the rules but we don't know that now and that's not something we can propose to you at this time. We believe that while some of the conditions in this memo state that the proposals that we've had on road alignments would not meet state aid standards. That there's still a possibility that a flat road could be staked,depending on how far back in the Klingelhutz property the road could be changed to meet that alignment. We have only dealt with the road alignment on this — development starting here, working back through here. And then working with staff on that. So that's, condition number 20 is just a point of clarification. Condition number 21 deals with what is developable acreage. I would say as we move forward with the preliminary plat, those acreage numbers switch. If it's 17.1 acres, we have no problem with this cash number. If for some reason it drops to 16 acres, 15.5 acres, that number tends to be calculated off the developable acreage. We'd just like it to be known that that number is a floating target or moving target. Number 25 we dealt with in some detail and staff has in their memo. Our comments there are just that we believe we can still massage something. It's not an all or nothing in terms of the two alignments there at the northerly alignment and the southerly alignment that were shown both in park and for engineering purposes. There may be some middle ground difference between and what we're trying to do is decipher whether water quality is the most important aspect. Whether it's plenty of parts in a parking lot is the most important aspect. Whether or not you can have a roadway that's designed for 40 mph next to Lake Riley that ends 300 feet away on a gravel road in Eden Prairie, for the time being. Whether or not it's a small, what's called a super elevation. In other words, instead of...ground, the outside edge is just going to be tipped up at the same grade that it tips down on the outside. This...in order to maximize the water quality. We really have two separate components to this development. We have the housing in the neighborhood and then we have really kind of urban infrastructure here and how we can accomplish that. We're saying we can accomplish all of these things. It's just how well does it work for you and how do you want to create your hierarchy. — Regarding the condition number 29. That's what I want to clarify here. I've heard acquisition and it's acquisition, not dedication. That can be amended. We don't have a whole lot to dispute or discuss...park fees if there's acquisition on 29 as well. I'll give you some brief acreage we asked our consultant to look at. The two — park plans, if you take the tighter right-of-way and the sides of the parks, came up with approximately an acre that the roadway is pushed somewhere in this vicinity they would have as the boundary line between what would be retained by the development and what is proposed to be acquired. If the roadway slides to the north, it's approximately 1.3 acres. I'm not here to tell you what I think that lakeshore is worth. I think we'll be able to work with the city on that. We are concerned about the, I'm going to say opportunity to have some overnight slips, and part of your regulations are that our lakeshore distance that we're entitled to so many slips per how much frontage we own and if our frontage is taken away, then that diminishes some of our ability to have — overnight slips, which we've... At a minimum we've got a docking program that's out there as with the apartment complex to the east. We've been looking at all the other conditions that are on the plan. We went over item number 31 which was define the options of the development for the open space area. We would just as soon be comfortable with an escrow. With a dollar amount...landscaping, benches and... Item number 33. Our plan we believe...briefly touched on. The fact that we would have a dock. We would have the opportunity to have possibly some storage for paddles and that kind of thing for people who could use... All of the other items are quite easily accomplished...35 conditions. With that I'd like to thank the Council for allowing this presentation here. Hopefully our product presentation is clear as a need in the city. The zero lot concept for the Rottlund Company is one that we think is...can have some success. It's been about 10 years since these type of...had any buildout in the Twin Cities. We have a couple underway now. We have several more started and in the — approval process and throughout... The key for us here in this concept is again having minimal maintenance to the buyer. They can be in a detached product and they don't have to worry about mowing the grass. They don't have to worry about shoveling their driveway on a daily basis. They don't have to worry about watering the 36 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 lawn, taking care of the shrubs. They can live. They can take care of the inside but they don't have to deal with the exterior maintenance and that's we think a key opportunity for those folks. In particular, many of our single buyers that we have out there that are hard pressed to work, play, and find time to take care of a house... Two family wage earners in our home so that's why we think this really has an opportunity in Chanhassen. Our target point that we discussed with staff, that we had in your Minutes for Planning Commission, is we are real hopeful that we can start down in the low 100's. Around $110-120,000.00 and then depending on options, try to cap that at about $140. We are not trying to capitalize on the opportunity that the lakeshore has at this time by doing a lot of things to drive the price higher. We think our nitch is trying to provide for that first time, move up home buyers and somebody who's trying to downsize. An empty nester. They might have an $120,000.00 house with a very small bathroom on two floors and they're trying to just move that capital into another location and still live in or near the Chanhassen or Chaska market. And that's been our focus for a lot of our housing products...still for this neighborhood here. With that I'll be happy to answer questions and... Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? It doesn't look like it right now. Do you have something? Councilman Berquist: Well no. I just, this is a very, it seems very complicated. It seems we're going to have, in my simple mind I want to, I'd like to take it issue by issue. Park and Rec is concerned about some things. The common driveway. The switch and stuff has not been, we're not looking at what has, we're looking at stuff that's old right now. Don Jensen: We're looking at the...plan. Staff has proposed a condition of approval for the sketch plan that would take and put the roadway on the common joint property line and move this similar amount of houses to this side. They believe that the sketch plan is conceptual enough that that's... Kate Aanenson: Maybe I can address that Steve. This is concept and the intent here is just to see that you're comfortable with trying to develop the framework for the product. We didn't want to over burden them with a _ lot of drawings. You'll have an opportunity under preliminary plat to see the whole revisions. All these issues addressed under the preliminary. So we felt that we would just try to express to you the concerns, issues that we would have and then he'd have to go back and articulate those in another plan and come back before you. Councilman Berquist: Okay. Good. I hoped it was conceptually. Concept I have not a problem with. Alternate A, Alternate B and Alternate C and the pros and cons, they don't relate to alignments 1 and 2? Alignments 1 and 2, the alignments 1 and 2 do not show the road as it is. Do they? How is the existing alignment? Todd Hoffman: Alignment 1 would be the existing alignment. Councilman Berquist: This is the existing? Charles Folch: Yeah. And that would correspond to Alternative C. Councilman Berquist: And that corresponds to Alternate C? You've solved it and broke the code. Don Jensen: Alignment 2 would correspond to either Alternative A or B. Councilman Berquist: Alright. It's become clearer. Thank you. 37 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 — Mayor Chmiel: 78 units is what you're looking at? Don Jensen: There's 75 on this plan now. Mayor Chmiel: Or 75 single,yeah. Don Jensen: In all likelihood that's probably going to drop 1 or 2 more, depending on what you decide, especially if the road alignments would take one for sure. If you went with Alignment 1. Mayor Chmiel: Currently what are your clearances between those structures? What setbacks do you have? Don Jensen: Well right now what we have is, we have a 20 foot setback to the right-of-way line with the standard city 60 foot right-of-way for public street through here. So you have a full space to park a car away from the road. A public sidewalk in the right-of-way all along the southern side of the north face through here. And we have approximately 15 feet inbetween structures. The...larger footprint through here. And we have approximately 10 feet inbetween the structures when they are aligned in a parallel fashion such as this. In this location. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have a little bit of problem with the total numbers of 75 units. I'm not sure where I'm going to go from there as to how many but it seems like it's very congested. Don Jensen: Well what you really have is a similar concept to, if you were to attach them into configurations of 4 to 6 dwellings. You'd have a party wall and you might have 20-25 feet between a building. If you allowed everybody to have their own dwelling...party wall,you've got really an area of 10 to 15 feet. It's not all that unusual for some single family neighborhoods, 15 feet is not all that uncommon with 10 foot setback... design this zero lot line concept. 10 feet is, it's a question inbetween here that you don't have any comparables but again the zero lot line concept is looking at people buying into the idea of having a little tighter proximity to each other and a way that you would design that living area space inbetween the buildings so that you have really the people looking at it in an area that's landscaped inbetween that is not window to window. It's window to blank walls so they have that privatized feeling in there. And the front entry again is more of a private entry space. This is a new product line for us. We've had distances. These are...couple feet bigger. It would be — easier for us to respond if they said well, I'll give you 10 feet or 12 feet or 13 feet is better than... Councilman Berquist: ...10 feet... — Mayor Chmiel: You got it. That's what I was thinking the distance inbetween. That I think we can look at as we progress with it. Anyone else? Councilman Mason: I like the concept. We certainly have had this discussion before about lot lines and square footage and what not and I think there is a place. I certainly wouldn't want the whole city to look like this but I definitely think there is a nitch in this town for that sort of set-up. I've got to believe that with that price and that close to the lake, they'll go quickly. Would be my guess. And again, I don't city wide, I certainly wouldn't agree with the zero lot line but this does afford, and I caught the Minutes about no, it's not low income and you could argue it's not even affordable but it certainly is closer to affordable than whatever else is going into this — city right now and I like the concept. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. 38 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 Councilman Senn: Just echoing Michael. I like the concept and I like your price points. Other than that, I think we need to... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion? Now there's also one other thing, before I go. Some of the things that he was referencing Charles. Number 20, 21, 22. Charles Folch: Well basically, it's kind of a horse and cart situation so to speak. To a certain extent what happens with the potential use of the park property, if you will, adjacent to the lake will sort of affect to a certain extent where we want to put the road. Then again on the other side of the coin, we have to meet certain design standards for that type of road that we have there and I think as long as we work out those issues through the preliminary platting process, I don't have a problem. I think at this point in time staff would be looking at more thoroughly into either Options B or C. B I should preface as being, looking at it if it's a viable option where we don't have to super elevate the road. I think you would find Carver County Engineer and I know a couple of the other neighboring City Engineers from communities adjacent to us here that I've spoken to over the number of years regarding road issues and one thing you don't want to do is super elevate an urban road because we've got problems now trying to get people to obey the speed limits on local roads. 30-35 to 40 mph. If you super elevate a curve, it makes the motorist much more comfortable to drive at a faster speed so we tend to discourage using super elevation for our low speed urban roadways. But again, if there's an opportunity to try to massage it a little bit at the end touchdown points for the development, to try to eliminate that, then maybe it's a viable option so. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike. Councilman Mason: I guess I'd like to move approval. It is a concept. Conceptual plan at this point. And assuming that these issues can be worked out with staff and Rottlund and if not, it's going to come back to us and we're going to decide it one way or the other anyway. So at this point I'll move conceptual approval for, Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential as stated in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: PUD #95-1? Councilman Mason: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Mason: You're welcome. Thank you. Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, a motion on the floor and there's also a second. Did you want to say something? Kevin: Yes...Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Kevin...with RLK Associates. ...Lakeview Hills Investment Group to look after their interests of their property. Not only apartment buildings but to develop a portion of the property... One of the issues that was brought up was the common access. You may be interested to know that the Lakeview Hills Investment Group does go along with that comment... There are several issues that would come into play on how this development affects the property. One is the existing drive that services the apartment buildings that need to be maintained as... The common access... Secondly, there's some storm water 39 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 — drainage issues that would be impacted by the development of this property. One is the ditch line comes through here. I'd like to see that preserved and run this line here. That we recognize as this develops, as this portion of the property develops, we'll need to address...storm water ponding area. Other issues have to do with access. If this road did come up, one of our concerns was access between properties... There was a park down in this area where it's previously proposed but to be sure that residents of the apartment building in the future would have access to that regional park. If this road does indeed come up here, there would be a sidewalk... We don't have any problem with this realignment...modifications at this end of the problem. ...proximity to the — road to the lake. There's not too much we can do with it but it helps the overall...That's about it. All and all it should be, I'm not opposed to this plan as presented and we have met with Rottlund...Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to grant conceptual approval of PUD #95-1 with the following conditions, issues and concerns and recommendations: 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,NSP, — NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 2. Fire hydrant changes: a) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection of Lyman Blvd. and the new proposed street (near Lot 1). b.) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection by Lot 43. c) Relocate the current hydrant between Lots 46 and 47 to between Lot 47 and the trail. — d) Relocate the current hydrant from between Lots 36 and 37 to between Lots 33 and 34. 3. Submit street names for review and approval. 4. Submit turning radius of cul-de-sac to Fire Marshal for review and approval. 5. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 6. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 7. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final — plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 40 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. 11. All utilities and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utilities plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts resulting from sanitary sewer installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement plan application. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. Imo 18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 19. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetland shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. 20. The proposed storm water pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 41 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 21. The proposed single family residential development of 17.1 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$50,873.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 23. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and also with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels. 24. Existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site will need to be relocated prior to development of the area. 25. Lyman Boulevard alignment may be further refined conditioned upon the following: — a. The right-of-way must remain uniform throughout at 80 feet. This applicant at this time is considering a narrowing down or neck in the right-of-way to minimize conveyance of right-of-way. The City — would need to have the right-of-way dedicated prior to finalizing construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. b. The street design must meet State Aid, 35 mph design standards. Upon review of the proposed layout with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the 35 mph design standards. c. The proposed alignment should not add any extra cost to the project, i.e. retaining walls, steep slopes, — surcharging, etc. 26. The applicant shall meet with the Lakeview Hills Apartment property owners to discuss a common street _ access along the easterly property line of the site. The current submittal of the roadway alignment is not acceptable due to the impacts to the wetlands. 27. Lots 1 through 12, Block 2 shall be adjusted northerly to minimize impact to the large wetlands and trees. — This also requires the realignment of North Bay Drive through the site. 28. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the — surroundings; provide additional landscaping screening south of Lot 1, Block 1; revegetate the area behind Lots 6-11, Block 2 with central hardwood species which would expand the forested area adjacent to Basin B; and increase the number of evergreens to 20 percent of the tree plantings. — 29. Dedication of the westerly portion of Block 3. This dedication is generally described as lying west of the trail easement at the point where it is perpendicular to Lake Riley Boulevard. This dedication to be a condition of the granting of planned unit development status. 30. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. 31. Define the options of development for a commons area and access. 32. A guarantee of minimum brick variations and colors of siding be defined. 42 • City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 33. Define the dock or boat mooring or storage as per proposed use for the shoreline. 34. A heighten guarantee of runoff control and garbage clean-up. 35. A future projection of heighten traffic use without Highway 212 development. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS,5 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE REQUEST TO BUILD AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE STALL, 650 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, SAM & LAURIE CURNOW. Public Present: Name Address Teri Frederick 660 Pleasant View Road John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The applicants are requesting a 5 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback. The property is located at 650 Pleasant View Road. It's approximately 26,000 square feet. It's zoned single family residential. Surrounding land use consists predominantly of single family homes. The site currently contains a home and a two car garage. The entire area slopes to the south towards Lotus Lake. The subject property is located in the Reichert's Addition, which consists of 9 lots along the north side of Pleasant View Road. Staff is unaware of any other variances that have been granted in this subdivision or in this immediate area. Staff is recommending denial of the variance as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that warrants the granting of a variance. Staff feels that if the request would be approved, that it create a standard that deviates from surrounding properties within this subdivision and the surrounding area. In addition Imo staff feels the applicant has a reasonable use of the property with the existing home and the 2 car garage. On July 12th, or excuse me on June 12th, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing to consider this variance. The board denied the variance appeal on a unanimous vote. The applicants however were not present or represented by anyone at this meeting. The adjoining property owners located to the northwest, it'd be 660 Pleasant View, were in attendance at the meeting and they did express some concern over the addition for the fact that it may block a portion, or some of the view of the lake and they were also concerned with the location of the garage addition in relation to the property line. Staff had pointed out that a survey would be required showing the garage addition at the time of the building permit application. The neighbors were also concerned with possible effects on drainage, seeing that their yard kind of slopes down to where the garage addition would be located. Just one other additional. We did receive a letter from the neighbors which would actually be to the south and to the east. You received a copy of that letter earlier. It's from Kevin Benson basically stating that they're in favor of the variance because of the parking situation out there. They don't want to see the cars parked on the road. They'd prefer the applicant have some additional room in his yard in which to park vehicles. And with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks John. Any questions that we have of John at this time? Councilman Berquist: They currently have a double garage and a 30 foot wide double wide driveway, right? John Rask: Correct. 43 City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995 Councilman Berquist: How many cars are normally on the site? Three? Teri Frederick: Well they have a mother and a father and then the son has a Jeep. Councilman Berquist: The neighbor's encouraging the garage addition because with cars parked on Pleasant View it blocks his view when apparently they drive onto Pleasant View, and with extra cars parked on the road, this is an extra hazard to motorists. With 3 cars in the family and a visitor, that's 4 cars. And you've got a — double driveway and double garage... Anybody ever talked about, is it permissible to simply pave next to a garage without a variance? John Rask: Yes, that would be permittable. Councilman Senn: Steve, at Board of Adjustments we talked about additional paving to the side. We also talked about extending the garage back along the north side of the house with a tandem bay if they thought they — needed an extra bay and also an option of adding a bay effectively to the south rather than to the north property line, all of which could be done without any variances and without affecting the property owner to the north, which was our primary concern, you know given the proximity there. _ Councilman Berquist: Yeah, 5 feet's pretty close. Councilman Senn: So I mean we thought they were pretty much, there were other pretty viable options to — pursue and so that's why we denied it. That's pretty much in keeping with the same...similar type of situation. Councilman Berquist: I don't have any more questions. I Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Mark,you don't have any others? Councilman Senn: No. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion? Councilman Mason: I'll make a motion to deny the variance request. Roger Knutson: Based upon the findings set forth in the planning report? — Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Mason: Yes. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Berquist: Discussion? During the Board of Adjustments and Appeals when you were talking about all these other alternates, the applicant is just all this, this is what we want to do? Councilman Senn: The applicant wasn't even present so I mean it was real difficult. Councilman Berquist: Are you the applicant? 44 — 0N k. Minnesota Department of Transportation ° 16 Metropolitan Division 0:5 Waters Edge Building — Fti 1500 West County Road B2 ' OF Roseville,Minnesota 55113 June 7, 1995 Robert Generous Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Dear Robert Generous: SUBJECT: North Bay Preliminary Plat Review P/95-038 South of new TH 212 corridor, east of TH 101 Chanhassen, Carver County CS 1017 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the North Bay preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments. • Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential land use adjacent to highways will usually result in complaints about traffic noise. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has established noise standards and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development also has guidelines. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by these agencies. Since the MPCA has issued Indirect Source Permit #94-3 for the proposed highway, Mn/DOT will not be expend highway funds for noise mitigation measures for the proposed development. The developer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any traffic noise. Attached is a copy of the proposed Trunk Highway 212 Official Map in the area of the plat with elevations shown. A noise wall approximately 20 feet high will be needed to protect the development. The mounding shown in the plans indicates encroachment on the TH 212 corridor. It appears that the right of way width is sufficient for about 8 feet of mounding. Questions may be directed to Ron Erickson, predesign engineer, at 582-1295. RECEIVED An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY utl nANhASS! N Robert Generous June 7, 1995 — Page two • Drainage patterns and rates of runoff are currently away from the proposed TH 212 corridor. These drainage patterns and rates of runoff must be perpetuated. No additional drainage will be allowed to the TH 212 corridor. Questions may be directed to Mary Hondl of our Hydraulics Section at 797-3040. Sincerely, Cyrus Knutson _ Transportation Planner c: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer _ John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor '". . _ . -.--—.__ _. • -":"--,--- ..- . . " L , .. . .--z°4-. • -,. ---- -----1-::\.,-)419 •• -:. • • 1...--e / --.....__........ ‘ --„,;:i-1•i,,,- --- -.,_._... . . -,... ...... . . : ____ ,..- 9 ..... 4) 1 • \ ' / .•-•,.. -1' .- 17 t kt ANN E'rfu_...:\ ,.-- ..----1-,N; , ____----------,, __ ( Is \,.. , F1 45 4 - tit( 9 1: ; - <Z1- -----7-- ; . . ,4, tig. I 2•,?.._••_;----" . / ''.......----4-1-- 1 , /' \•. , „ Al'C i 24 ' 0 'COS Any '•• __________.--- , 1 _ ?io 1 ..-----------C -- --- \ , ......-- % _/ - 1 p 1 AA" "--,5178 ' .1...---- '• -, L c \ 1 op t 0 L \., oe 6.y6,_,t-• %%I's ArO (:.,..../____-' 1-NNE S;;M: t ',_::* ,,Vr, ..sPe2- ------ ---- \ too ' 1.... ; ; \ , , 0 I ..•••_ „..,...„..-- , ...... ./ \ \ .• \ .....\ o : ; . ./ ./ ; .-...-r L ..... \ ,‘ , % , -- ,.‘ - , . , ..,..„. ,... ____--,,, ,...,:_,. .. :,....._ . , • , .._. • . ,,.... .„.. ... „_• ___ _ ......6 .... „„, ,,, ., „, I . • • 1 . . r- ....-... ,.-- L ._ . . .„ ,, , , , , • - ,,, „ F/2.0 P. i . .......-._ .,„..-_ __.... 1 • • .i.. 1-- 'LI- . 0. . ... ,: ........ , . • „od ,...,..t ,..,.....•••• /4...$'' •``.,,,t`. L . i• , . . . ... .„......___._i, - — , ...,, . . _ . . ... • . . , . . .,.,--- • ,• :,.....,_:„ , ..• •... _,__ .... .... •• , .._ _ . .., 4 I'.;'•f, L , ... .,..._ , .., . „.. ,.... z cl. - tit . 4...-E .. - • ---•/.7 \\ • - . ., i -5---. 7.:?.- , , ii..• • 1 • 0"cy 1 1 , \ L : f. . 1..”. I ,i zli . , , , ,r- --- • . ,:,..., i•,_ 1 .,,....- L , ... . ...,.. •-• / ,. ----„, ......---- ,...., , .i."— :„.•t:AV h u.,,, ,,,,..t I i ‘,... '.. ..,_ ,- ...- ....,, „ L ,/ ,. ...._ s.p.Iv (212,-..19_) 902 ---....„,... ' *. ------- -...,,, / / /I ( ., , -. L .... , / ‘ ,.... ,.., , , , ... • ..- 00 _. ., „. , . .. ... . • • . , . L .. . • . •• , . . \ . • ,-,‘„„i• . . , . ... , . . L , . .• <.'..A. f .... .... ., .. • . ... .. • • „e‹,,. ''' _ _ , , • . .,.. . . , . L , . ..::. ., _ - - ... . . , / . , . . • \.,.... . Sod�ielen ‘' VEU 4, 1995 Mayeron& August , - Associates,Inc. pjqq -:1 00 Park Place EaSt9Jr 775 Wayzata Boulevard Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. Minneapolis:hiliMeee# — Director of Public Works Ci Engineer 612-595-5775 / g 1-800-753-5775 City of Chanhassen FAX 595-5774 Engineers P. O. Box 147 Architects — 690 Coulter Drive Planners Surveyors Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Review of Preliminary Plat Property ID No. 25-0136300 Proposed Right-of-Way Design & and Utility Improvements — along Lyman Boulevard (Lake Riley Boulevard) Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements: Phase II City Project No. 93-32B — OSM Project No. 5183.00 Dear Charles: We have reviewed the preliminary grading plan and preliminary site and utility plan for the above Adelman/Rottlund property as requested by Dave Hempel on July 26, and offer the — following comments as they relate to City Project No. 93-32B: 1. The developer's proposed horizontal alignment (480 foot radius curve) of Lyman — Boulevard meets the minimum 35 mph design for the City's typical 3% roadway crown. However, OSM's design for Lyman Boulevard is 35 mph minimum, with 40 mph being the desired speed. The developer's proposed centerline alignment is located approximately 27 feet south of the currently proposed City project (see attached preliminary plat). 2. The developer's proposed vertical alignment, as indicated on the preliminary grading plan, does not reflect our proposed vertical alignment for Lake Riley Boulevard. _ Our proposed profile indicates a low point located approximately 390 feet from the westerly property line along the centerline of Lyman Boulevard. 3. We are assuming (without having the hydrology calculations) that the pond design for Pond 20 took into account storm drainage from Lyman Boulevard. Elevations on pond 20 are inconsistent with the given data. The storm sewer design along _ Lyman Boulevard should be verified with the final design of Lyman Boulevard. 4. The eight inch watermain along the proposed interior dedicated City street should — be changed to a 12-inch watermain. This change would be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Water Supply and Distribution Plan. 5. The sanitary sewer manhole invert elevation of 867.9, shown at Lyman Boulevard will work with the preliminary design of the sanitary sewer along Lyman Boulevard. The design of the sanitary sewer should be verified with the final design of Lyman Boulevard. H: 51E3.00\CIVIL\COMES\080495.0 F Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. _ Director of Public Works City of Chanhassen August 4, 1995 Page 2 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 595-5699, or Wayne Houle at 595-5736. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. autijk) "Mb David D. Mitchell, PE Project Manager Enclosure w/attachments c: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, City of Chanhassen Kate Aanenson, City Planner, City of Chanhassen Wayne Houle, OSM Project Engineer wh/ce HA5183.ao\CIVIL\CORRES080495-CF 6, CITY of V CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: August 6, 1995 SUBJ: Temporary Sales BACKGROUND The Chamber of Commerce Retail Committee is sponsoring an amendment to the City Code to allow for an administrative permit and review of temporary outdoor sales events. Their goal is to develop an ordinance which would allow outdoor sales to occur without going through the interim use or conditional use process. The Chamber is recommending an ordinance which would allow special sales for the following situations: 1. Individual retailer special promotion. 2. A retail center promotion. 3. Retailers on a city wide promotion. The temporary sales ordinance has a lengthy history of discussion with the Planning Commission and City Council (see attached minutes). Previously, the Planning Commission supported a temporary sales ordinance, but the Council wanted sales limited to non-profit uses. The ordinance was never voted on by the City Council. One of the main concerns was over which uses to permit and how to regulate transient merchants who sell items such as furniture, stereo equipment, sunglasses, posters and art displays, etc. Staff has attempted to address these concerns by specifying which type of temporary sales events will be permitted, providing additional criteria, and clearly describing the purpose and intent of the ordinance. ANALYSIS Attached is a draft temporary sales ordinance prepared by staff. The ordinance is based in part on the criteria provided by the Chamber. The ordinance prepared by staff would allow Planning Commission Temporary Sales Ordinance August 8, 1995 — Page 2 individual retailer, retail center, and city wide promotions by permitting, through an — administrative permit, Christmas tree sales, seasonal produce stands, temporary food and beverage sales, and sidewalk sales. All other temporary outdoor sales or displays would be required to obtain an interim or conditional use permit as required by City Code. — Temporary sales is currently listed as an interim use in the CBD, BF, and BG district. An interim use permit requires a $400.00 application fee, a public hearing before the Planning — Commission, and review and approval by the City Council. Staff is of the opinion that, if the appropriate standards and criteria are developed, temporary outdoor sales could be approved administratively. Temporary sales would be limited to the CBD, BG, BH, BN, and OI — districts. The purpose of a temporary sales ordinance is to allow certain uses which are transitory in — nature, as either accessory or seasonal uses, in a manner that will assure compatibility with the underlying zoning district and adjacent properties. The main areas of concern with temporary sales are location, compatibility with surrounding uses, and safety issues, including — traffic and building code. The proposed draft ordinance is consistent with the underlying zoning districts and would protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by specifying the type of uses and the location of sales events. Aesthetic considerations are addressed by setting standards for the use of signage, stands, mobile equipment, lighting, and other related items. Because the draft ordinance involves an administrative permit, staff considered it necessary to clearly spell out the required information, procedures, criteria for approval, and standards which will be used in evaluating the permit applications. Including this information in the ordinance will make it easier for the business community and the city to determine the location and type of events to be permitted. The draft ordinance also clearly spells out appeal procedures to resolve a dispute concerning the issuance of a permit Purpose and Findings sections where added to the draft ordinance to further define the intent — of the temporary sales ordinance. Staff is of the opinion that, with reasonable guidelines and criteria, temporary outdoor sales events can add "flavor" to the community from both a social and economic perspective. If done properly, produce stands, sidewalk sales, Christmas trees — sales, and similar events help encourage community interaction and evoke community spirit by luring people downtown. Outdoor sales events allow the sale of unique seasonal products and provide the public with direct access to locally grown produce, farm, orchard, and garden — products. Planning Commission Temporary Sales Ordinance August 8, 1995 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and make any necessary changes and recommend that the City Council adopt the Temporary Sales Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Temporary Sales Ordinance 2. Memorandum to the Planning Commission from the Chamber Retail Committee 3. Chamber proposed temporary sales ordinance 4. City Council minutes dated September 13, 1993 5. City Council minutes dated December 9, 1991 6. Planning Commission minutes dated September 15, 1993 ARTICLE TEMPORARY SALES (1) Purpose and Findings (a) Purpose. Temporary outdoor promotional and sales activities are subject to issuance of an administrative permit and the requirements of this ordinance. It is the intent of this ordinance to provide for temporary outdoor events and sales which are distinguished from — permanent outside business activities that are allowed only by Conditional Use Permit or Interim Use Permit approved by the City Council. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating — temporary outdoor sales activities. 1. Establish standards which permit businesses an opportunity to conduct temporary outdoor sales; 2. Ensure that temporary sales do not create safety hazards by occupying required — parking spaces, emergency access, or impede the efficient movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic; — 3. Provide standards, guidelines, and procedures for an administrative review of temporary sales permits; 4. Provide a means of allowing citywide retail promotions; 5. Allow certain uses which are seasonal in nature, while providing standards that — will assure compatibility with the underlying zoning district and adjacent property; — 6. Provide the public with direct access to homegrown produce; 7. Allow temporary sales events which require an outdoor location; and S. Limit temporary sales to activities which are short-term or seasonal and which — do not require permanent improvements to the site. (b) Findings. The City of Chanhassen finds it necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the location, size, and appearance of temporary sales events be controlled. Further, the city finds that: 1. Outdoor sales and displays have a direct impact on and a relationship to the image of the community; 2. An opportunity for merchants to sell produce and seasonal merchandise are an integral component of economic development; _ 3. Temporary outdoor sales events may present an obstacle to effective fire fighting and other emergency services by blocking necessary exits, fire lanes, or turnaround areas; 4. Uncontrolled and unlimited outdoor sales and displays adversely impact the image and aesthetics of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and growth; and 5. Uncontrolled temporary sales events may conflict with existing and neighboring uses. (2) Application. (a) Application for an administrative permit for a temporary outdoor promotional _ or sales activity shall be made by the property owner to the Planning Director on forms to be provided by the City at least ten (10) business days prior to the date of the requested event. (b) A written description of the proposed use including requested length of permit and hours of operation. (c) Unresolved disputes as to administrative application of the requirements of the ordinance shall be referred to the Planning Commission and to the City Council for review. (d) The application shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee which shall be imposed in accordance with the fee schedule established by the City Council. The intent of this section is to recover costs associated with administering this article. Permit fees shall reflect the costs of reviewing and processing permits, as well as costs associated with periodic enforcement activities and compliance checks. (3) Required Information and Plans. (a) A concise statement describing the proposed event, including the purpose, type of merchandise involved, dates and times of operation, number of employees involved, provisions for onsite security, provisions for onsite parking, name of person or organization requesting permit, and other pertinent information required by the Planning Director to fully evaluate the application; (b) A copy of the approved Site Plan drawn, to scale, for the property or an "asbuilt" survey which accurately represents existing conditions on the site, including entrances and exits, and bona fide parking and driving areas, and which accurately indicates any proposed temporary structures, including tents, stands, and signs; (c) An accurate floor plan of any building on the property, when, in the judgement of the Planning Director, such a plan is necessary to properly evaluate the location of the event and the effectiveness of building entrances and exits. — (4) Procedure. (a) The Planning Director shall review applications for administrative permits and shall determine if the proposal is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, and the specific standards for temporary promotional and sales — activities as set forth in this paragraph. The application shall also be reviewed by the Public Safety Department and/or other appropriate review agencies. (b) A written permit shall be issued to the applicant. Specific conditions to assure compliance with applicable codes, ordinances, and the standards in this paragraph shall be attached to the permit. — (c) Determination of noncompliance with applicable codes, ordinances, and the standards in this paragraph shall be communicated to the applicant and the — application for the permit shall be considered denied; unless, within ten days of the date of such notice, the applicant submits revised plans and/or information with which the Planning Director is able to determine compliance. — (5) Criteria for Approval. -� (a) The event or sales shall be clearly accessory to or promotive of the permitted or conditional use approved for the site. Only merchandise which is normally — sold, or stocked by the occupant(s) on the subject premises shall be sold and/or promoted, provided that seasonal merchandise and produce may be allowed. (b) Tents, stands, and other similar temporary structures and temporary vehicles and mobile equipment may be utilized, provided they are clearly identified on the submitted plan and provided that it is determined by the Planning Director — that they will not impair the parking capacity, emergency access, or the safe and efficient movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on or off the site. (c) The submitted plan shall clearly demonstrate that adequate off-street parking for the proposed event can and will be provided for the duration of the event. Determination of compliance with this requirement shall be made by the — Planning Director who shall consider the nature of the event and the applicable parking requirements of the City Code. Consideration shall be given to the parking needs and requirements of other occupants in the case of multi-tenant — buildings. (d) Property owners and tenants signature(s) are required to locate a temporary — sales event on private property and/or in front of another tenant's space. (e) The temporary sales event must be consistent with other uses permitted in the zoning district. No use that is prohibited in a zoning district shall be allowed as a temporary outdoor sale or activity. (6) Definitions and Standards. (a) Definition. For the purpose of this section, temporary outdoor sale is defined as, "Activities characterized by their short-term or seasonal nature, require an outdoor location, and by the fact that permanent improvements are not made to the site." (b) Permitted temporary sales events are limited to the following : 1. Christmas tree sales. 2. Seasonal produce stands. 3. Temporary food and beverage sales. 4. Sidewalk sales. (c) Standards. The following shall apply to all proposed temporary outdoor sales activities allowed by this paragraph in addition to other applicable building and safety code requirements as determined by the Planning Director. a. Christmas tree sales and produce stands shall be the period specified in the Administrative Permit and, in no case, shall exceed sixty (60) days per calendar year per property or center. There shall be no more than three (3) sales activities per year per property or center. b. Temporary food and beverage sales prepared on-site and sidewalk sales shall be permitted for the period specified in the Administrative Permit and, in no case, shall exceed fifteen (15) days per year with a maximum of a three (3) day display period. c. Christmas Tree sales shall expire December 26. d. The site shall be cleared and all remaining debris removed from the sales site on the last remaining day of the permit. e. Acceptable space for off-street parking and traffic circulation generated by the use must be provided. Curb and gutter with drive approaches is desired to provide safe turn movements. f. Lighting shall be compatible with surrounding adjacent uses. g. Hours of operation shall be compatible with adjacent uses. h. Signage should be limited to window signs, and one outdoor sign no — greater than twenty-four (24) square feet. Special signage for purposes of traffic direction and control may be authorized by the Planning Director. — i. Front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. — j. All other pertinent city and state permit must be obtained. k. The approved permit shall be kept on the premises for the duration of the event. 1. No public address system shall be audible from any residential property. (7) Administration and Enforcement. (a) The Planning Director may, upon written notice and an opportunity to be heard, — suspend or revoke the temporary sales permit of any person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance or any of the conditions set forth on their permit. (b) If, at any time, a permit under the provisions of this ordinance is suspended or revokes, it shall thereafter be unlawful for that person to operate, open, — maintain, manage or conduct any temporary sales. (c) Violation of an issued permit or the provisions of this ordinance may be — grounds for denial of future permit applications during a calendar year. Add the following definitions: 1. Sidewalk Sale. A temporary outdoor display of merchandise normally sold, or — stocked by the occupant(s) on the subject premises which is located on an area used as a pedestrian walkway. 2. Seasonal Produce Stands. A temporary stand which is used to sell locally grown farm, garden, and orchard products. Add temporary sales to the CBD, BG, BH, BN, and OI districts. MEMORANDUM TO: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission FROM: Retail Committee- Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce DATE: Monday, April 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Temporary and Seasonal Outdoor Sales RECOMMENDATION In response to recommendations from the memo dated September 9, 1993 by Kate Aanenson, an ordinance amendment has been drafted allowing for administrative staff approval of temporary/seasonal sales including Christmas trees, flowers and other retail products in the CBD, BG and BF district. The three main purposes of this amendment are to allow current permanent retail businesses to extend their business for special circumstances or sales for the following situations: 1. Individual retailer special promotion. 2. A retail center promotion. 3. Retailers on a city wide promotion. The approvals are subject to meeting acceptable site standards. APPLICATION PROCESS The intention of the application process is to provide a quick and simple procedure, including the actual application and a one page description of the requirements and limitations of application. The application should be a one page form accompanied by a one page description of the requirement of the applicant. The application would be handled by City of Chanhassen Planning Department Staff. REQUIREMENTS,CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES PERMIT The application must be submitted 10 days prior to the date of requested use.The Planning Department may deny an application or issue a Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales Permit. In authorizing temporary sales,the Planning Department shall impose such requirements and conditions as considered necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the public welfare in conformance with the standards provided in this section. All Christmas Tree sales shall expire December 26. All sites shall be cleared and all remaining debris,trash removed on the last date of permit. REVOCATION OF TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAII.SALES PERMIT _ The Planning Director shall,upon reasonable notice be empowered to suspend or revoke the temporary sales permit of any person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinances or any of the conditions set forth on their permit. If,at any time,a permit under the provisions of this ordinance is suspended or revoked,it shall thereafter be unlawful for the person to operate,open,maintain,manage or conduct any temporary sales. STANDARDS FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES Temporary sales shall comply with general standards as provided below, including any additional conditions as may be established by the Planning Department. 1. Acceptable space for an off-street parking and traffic circulation generated by the use must be provided. Curb and gutter with drive approaches is desired to provide safe turn movements. 2. Night Lighting should be compatible with surrounding adjacent uses. 3. Hours of operation should be compatible with adjacent uses. 4. Signage should be limited to window signs,one outdoor sign no greater than • square feet and one directional sign not to exceed square feet. 5. Uses should be required to comply with all necessary Building Code requirements,including inspections for any buildings,electrical connections, sanitary conditions,etc. 6. Permission from the owner of the property with limitations as to the number of temporary sales for one location. Signed and Agreed to above: Signature By: Retailer Requesting Permit Date: APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES PERMIT Conditions for approval: Not applicable to peddlers/solicitors operating door-to-door, or street-to-street. 1. Retailers requesting the ability to offer temporary outdoor sales, (e.g. display of merchandise on private property), are required to locate in a Commercial Zoning District from which retail sale activity is permitted. 2. No temporary sales may occupy areas designated as front yard, side yard, rear yard . setbacks of the Commercial Zoning District, parking lot stalls, or driveway aisles. 3. Temporary sales locations may be displayed outside and beyond the confines of a Commercial zoned building provided the display area shall not constitute a greater number of square feet than 10% of the ground floor area of the commercial building or tenant's space from which a outdoor retailer will be located. 4. No temporary sales location may occur in public right-of-way or public property. 5. Property owners and tenants signature(s) are required to locate a temporary sales location on private property and/or in front of a tenant's space. TEMPORARY OUTDOOR RETAILER PERMIT 1. Address of temporary location: 2. Square feet of commercial building: 3. Square feet of tenant's space in commercial building: 4. Property owner's Signature: Date: Include proof of ownership 5. Tenant's Signature: Date: 6. Product(s)/Service(s) to be sold: 7. Requested Length of Permit: 8. Hours of Operation: Also required: vicinity map, information to determine sanitation facilities and availability of parking to serve the use. This Zoning Certificate is subject to all conditions of the license issued. PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: Zoning: Date Approved: Comments: Date Denied: By: Chanhassen City Council Meeting - September 13, 1993 Addition to Shenandoah Ridge. 25. The developer agrees, in writing, that the plat shall be assessed $44,900 for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water mains to provide service to the property. Said assessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this contract is signed by the city. The developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M. S. A: §429.081. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason: Do we have to do item 2(e) or is that just kind of'? Mayor Chmiel: We also have to do the acceptance of 9. This is for the approval of plans and specs in the development contract. Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the plans and specifications and development contract for Shenandoah Ridge, Project 93-20 from the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. DISCUSSION OF TEMPORARY SALES FOR TARGET. Kate Aanenson: This is a request from Target to have outdoor sales of pumpkins. When people request they also ask for...We still feel like this temporary use ordinance makes a lot of sense instead of making them go through the interim use process. Christmas tree sales...Meanwhile, while we're working through this process...It's a PUD. We did address it as a part of the PUD contract... Councilman Senn: Is the action tonight then to specifically approve one time, this season, they can sell pumpkins on the Target and it simply is for the reason that it allows the existing pumpkin stand to move over there and sell pumpkins on Target's property? Kate Aanenson: No. It's a separate stand. Councilman Senn: So Target is going to be selling pumpkins? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: With some kind of promotion that they're proposing. Kate Aanenson: They're opening in October... 72 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - September 13, 1993 Councilman Senn: Okay, but how does this relate back to no outside sales and no outside stuff? I feel real weird about this but I mean to me it's just going to open Pandora's box. If we allow pumpkins this time and the Christmas trees are going to be there, then we're going to have every charitable organization back in here...because they're selling Christmas trees and I don't know. I'm having trouble. Councilman Wing: I remember when Steve Emmings on SuperAmerica made it real clear there was going to be no signs, no outdoor storage, no outdoor sales, no nothing and that station looks nice because of it and I agree with you. That's something to really stop and hold the line on right now. Councilman Senn: If they want to have pumpkins as part of an opening promotion and put them inside the store and make, and give them away as part of the store. I have a real problem opening this up outside. Councilman Wing: I agree. Ditto and I'll back off. Mayor Chmiel: Any other thoughts? I was just looking at the letter that was written and just seeing that they house these in a wooden bin and of course that is outside in the front entrance doors. I think it'd be pretty hard to sell those pumpkins from that standpoint unless you grabbed one and walked in. What happens if you came out from shopping and just grabbed one and walked out. Councilman Mason: I'm sure the citizenry of Chanhassen would never do that. Mayor Chmiel: Oh I agree, but I'm talking about other people...What's Council's feeling? Councilman Senn: I would move we not approve it and wait for consider of and to comment to and to change it or whatever. Kate Aanenson: Wait until you see the temporary use ordinance? Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's probably a good idea because we did have a lot of discussions for the last few years in regard to outside storage and it does look clean and it does look nice. Councilman Mason: I'll admit prior to this discussion, I was going to say ah, why not. Councilman Wing: It's America. Councilman Mason: But some excellent points have been brought up here though. I mean that certainly would open up that Pandora's Box and what not. I agree. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's been made and is there a second? 73 Chanhassen City Council Meeting - September 13, 1993 Councilman Mason: Second. There was a second already? Oh, I take my second back. Councilman Wing: Although if my company fails, I may need a job there. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the City Council deny the request for Target to sale pumpkins outside. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SET SALE DATE FOR BONDS OF 1993. Don Ashworth: Dave MacGillivray is with us tonight with Springstad. During the break he distributed this document here. You might look and see if you can find that in front of you and with that I'll turn it over to Dave. Oh, we should note, well he'll present it. We're recommending a change in the date but Dave will go through that. Dave MacGillivray: I'll try and be brief but it's about $10 million so I at least want to go over some of the basics. What we're asking for is a resolution setting the sale date for getting competitive bids on four issues. Two tax increment issues, one improvement issue, that being repaid by special assessment, and one tax increment refund being issued. The total is slightly under $10 million. The packet I gave out, I think we can cut to the chase in just a few pages. If you turn to page 7. We use this to explain the composition of the...Is everybody there. Across the top we have the GO Tax Increment Fund of 1993 B and there are four different projects there. All of those would be repaid by tax increment district No. 1, which is the pre-1979 district. The big one. The one on the far right, the GO tax increment bond, Series 1993 D where it says land. That land is for acquisition of school property. That is repaid by increments in Tax Increment District No. 3 which is the McGlynn District. If you go down here where it says total...$630,000.00. And TIF 3 under land, $680,000.00. What we've done in conjunction with the city staff is develop where all of the good money is coming from and where it is going...for everything for both of these districts. If you turn the page and that's page 8. This is an...starting right now of all the anticipated revenue that is now on the books. Less all the expenditure that is on the books and would be on the books after this issue. To show you where or how much money you have in the bank at the end. This goes out to the year 2001. The beginning balance of 1993, $1,051,313.00. That's from the audit financial statements...1992. Under revenue, the big line there is tax increment 1 and 2. What that figure represents is projects that are already in the ground for which you are collecting taxes now or things that are under construction...If you skip down to expenditures, the big one there is loan payments. That's really everything that is currently outstanding. This is TIF #1 which is pre '79 so there's a lot of things in there. New issue right under that is this issue. How that would come out as an expenditure. And that gives you an ending balance which is the second to the bottom line. At the end of 1993, the estimate is $1,362,000.00 and you see over time that as you get out to here at 01...So this is a lot less than I think you've seen before but you're selling close to $6 million worth of bonds right here...so just to give you an estimate. Funds that would be available at the time... Mayor Chmiel: Dave, what's the going rate right now? Dave MacGillivray: Okay, whoa. I think they're about 4% on these issues. 4 1/4%. Somewhere in 74 — . City Council Meeting - D' )er 9, 1991 Roger Knutson: It stops at the setback zone and the prior draft had continued, in such a way that the watercraft or any part thereof extends across the — extended side lot lines of any lakeshore lot. That was dropped out . And the reference to boat lift was added. Identical change was made in Section 3. Councilman Mason: Why are we dropping that off? Roger Knutson: The original draft would allow you to moor your boat in such a way that it extended all the way to your side lot line. Your dock must be 10 feet from your side lot line but your boat went out parallel to the shore, it could extend all the way to your property line. The change says you have to keep that boat moored so it 's at least 10 feet from your property line. Mayor Chmiel: In other words so you're not encroaching on any adjacent — property's water area. Roger Knutson: That 's right . Mayor Chmiel: Alright . Richard? Councilman Wing: No, I'm very pleased with this. I think it almost resolves - some of the recreational beachlot problems by itself. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make your motion to move this item? Councilman Wing: Yeah, with just one quick look at Mr. Krauss. Paul Krauss: No, that 's fine. Councilman Wing: I would move then. — Mayor Chmiel: Item (1). Councilman Wing: Item (1) . • Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the First Reading - of Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Mooring of Watercraft. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 0. DEFINE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR TEMPORARY SALES/CHRISTMAS TREE SALES. • • Councilwoman Dimler: Item (o) having to do with temporary sales/Christmas Tree sales. When I first read this I guess I was looking for a reason why this was - being enacted. So I thought the only, as I was reading through it , I thought the only concern I wauld would oe safety concerns that I could possibly see that WE would wa to do _cmething like this. So I checked with Scott Harr to — find out if there had been any safety situations in the past on any temporary sale at all. He assured me that there had been none at all, and even if in the future that would be a problem, that this can be taken care of current regulations through the safety hazards. 6 City Council Meeting - Dec r 9, 1991 Paul Krauss: No. No, not at all. No, this gets more into. - Councilwoman Dimler: Selling out of your home. Cosmetics. Paul Krauss: If Mr. Burdick is correct , and I hope he is. I heard the same information but once we get a shopping center up and if they want to bring in a carnival into town, are you going to want to regulate that? Well you might. Again it 's like the seafood shop setting up in a gas station or it 's the velvet paintings out on a fence on TH 5. Those kinds of things typically cause some problems and there's very little mechanism we have to deal with it. When the Twins got into the playoffs I had several calls from National companies that wanted to come down, they go around the country whenever there's a big sporting event and they set up those stands. They wanted to do that here and I convinced them not to. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess I'm going to say that that would be going against the Constitutional rights because the Minnesota Constitution, Article XIII, Section 7 says that any person may sell or peddle the products, and I'm talking here about farm and garden, not t-shirts, that are grown or cultivated by him without obtaining a license to do so. Paul Krauss: Well there's no question that , the farm sales. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying this would be a hazard to that. Mayor Chmiel: That 's completely acceptable and it 's not intended to be governed by this respective temporary. Councilwoman Dimler: That 's not what I saw in here. I thought I saw something about Kerber's being grandfathered in. Where did I read that? It must have been in the. Paul Krauss: Well it says that these are either grandfathered in or allowed since they're located on land used for agricultural purposes. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The intent is not to govern that aspect of it . Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but even if it isn't grown there. The shrimp truck can still come in, wouldn't it? Paul Krauss: No it can't . Councilwoman Dimler: Why not? Paul Krauss: That 's not grown in Minnesota. I mean it doesn't fall under the State protection. Mayor ChHiel: We don't q,l_te have the ocean front . — Councilwoman Dimler: I know but how do you prove. I know there's obvious but how do you prove the produce was grown in Minnesota? 8 City Council Meeting - Dr ier 9, 1991 to do it that way. Then outline some of the things that we thought we might like to get at in ordinance later on. If you don't want us to pursue it we won't . Councilman Workman: No, that's not what I'm getting at because I think there's some middle ground here. The one that comes to mind for. me, and maybe the - firewood was grown in Chanhassen but the firewood guys just come out of the wood work. In fact I was sitting in a driveway at my old home and a neighbor, they look at the stacks to see if you've got the fireplace or not. Well the _ neighbors got a false stack. They had the zero clearance look on it but they didn't have a fireplace and I kind of said to them, we were sitting out with some friends and I said number one, they're not home. Number two, they don't have a fireplace. The guy turned around and said well they're probably a bunch - of jerks. I wasn't going to get in an argument with the guy. I knew the people was good people but I get a lot of hostilities from some of those people. They come all the way down from Brainerd and wherever and whatever and they've got a load of wood and they've got to get rid of it and they're quite aggressive which, and I won't bring up Mike Mason's velvet Elvis prints. I think something needs to be done. If the produce stands that are found in town in the Fall I appreciate and so what I mean by getting along with Ursula, I understand the free market thing and so I don't want to do something that we don't want to do. And are we doing that with this. It does start to get a little, we need control but maybe we ought to sit down and figure that out . Pick out who we don't like - and I don't know how to do that because there are State laws to go by and we've got to figure out . Last year we restricted the sale of used cars at the corner of TH 101 over there which a guy said hey, wait a minute. People have got to _ sell their cars you know. It seemed like a good place to sell cars but it was causing a safety problem so I realize that but I don't like to keep people from being able to sell what they have because it's important for them to do that . - Frank Kurvers: I was just listening to this. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you come up and introduce yourself. Frank Kurvers: I was listening to this, I mean controlling all these businesses and everything. What about the Schwann man? I mean you talk about things that people sell in the store. They carry about everything on that truck and a lot of people like their products which I'm one of them. Now are you going to regulate the Schwann man? He just gave $7 million dollars to the Mankato College of some of this profits. I think that 's a good business. Mayor Chmiel: But he didn't give anything to Chanhassen. Frank Kurvers: No he didn't . Councilman Wing: That's not a good analogy because Schwann is ordered on a rris.L:e bat. It 's liFir saying UPS cari' l come. in anc _:liver a paage . I . t see l gat . I thin.!. h tere's a nEc. fcr centro_. :Wink t4.E always had a live and let` live attitude. I don't see that this is cutting it out . It 's cutting out the problem areas but I still see, I like your corn stand. I 'd protect that because I think we should have that. The raspberry stands. I don't see it hurting those or cutting those out . It is getting rid of some of the nuisance stuff. It does give Paul and Scott the authority to 10 City Council Meeting - De- 1r 9, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Aanenson: You could except I think you'd have to, you know get...I'm just looking at if you want to see that, if you establish a criteria and you feel comfortable with that, then I think we could go through that permit. If it's something you don't feel comfortable with or they don't agree to the criteria you've established, then I think you do want to look at it. Mancino: Well the only thing I'm not clear about, what is, would be under temporary sales. What's going to be under interim use and what's going to be under conditional use? I'm not clear. Aanenson: I think the only one staff is a little uncomfortable with at this time is more on a produce kind of line where it's grown or maybe flowers, pumpkins, Christmas trees. Those sort of things. They're not looking at bringing in merchandise. Mancino: So that's seasonal? _ Aanenson: Right. — i Mancino: Because if they have to be grown. Aanenson: Right. — Mancino: So does that mean that our definition of temporary sales is temporary seasonal — sales? - Aanenson: Yeah, that's how the staff feels comfortable doing it. Scott: You could maybe call it seasonal agricultural products and then we don't have Elvis paintings, I know darn anyway. Farmakes: My worry about that is, what if you, what if you get a bad load of shrimp up here or something? Scott: Well I don't know if you could, that's not agricultural though. Harberts: It is. Scott: No it's. • Harberts: It's regulated under the Department of Agriculture. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Scott: Plant material. Farmakes: For temporary use, what we're saying is...I think they've got seasonal shrimp. They have the Christmas tree lot and they have the...or something showing up with a bar-be- _ que and they sell hotdogs. And on occasion, it seems quite often on occasion, they have truckloads of pop coming in for sale and I don't know if that's non-profit or if that's part of the supermarket that got a good buy on pop. They have teaser type sales stuff where there will run an ad at a very low price to get people to come in and do their shopping. So the limitations of doing that type of stuff, does that become. Aanenson: You can see the depth of the problem trying to define. That's one of the other things Target had requested too. Is to put a greenhouse...and you'll notice a lot of grocery stores they try to do that. In the summer there may be overflow parking. In the winter, unless they clear all the snow off, if you want Christmas trees down there, that could be a real problem. So they can really proliferate. That's why we need to be careful about what we allow and how many we allow on the site. Farmakes: Do we limit, you limit a site location but do you limit, let's say for Market • Square. You have how many stores there. Do you allow each store to do a promotion? Or do you limit the numbers or do you just limit it to that site itself? Aanenson: I think we would be saying...because that's part of an PUD, that whole center. I would say if you say they can have a grand opening or let's say they tie the 4th of July celebration. That would be the sidewalk sales. Whatever promotion they want to do then. Because with the sign ordinance, we want to allow them 3 times a year to have special signage and I think that's kind of what we would like to see...and then the seasonal thing ..fall or summer and winter. Harberts: How would you categorize, I noticed when Festival does a brat wagon. Aanenson: That would fall under, that was kind of a summer festival kind of thing. A grand opening. We do allow one grand opening. I think that's what Target was going to do. Harberts: I think I counted it more than once though. Aanenson: They also have requests for Girl Scouts who want to sell cookies out front. It's a never ending thing. I think there's certain things we sort of want to control but do we want to be out there if someone's selling... 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Scott: No, because I think that, I mean I personally don't like to get hassled. It's a hassle enough to out and buy something at retail and it's especially bad I think when you have the Nestea Clown out there trying to get you to take a drink of something. So I mean I think if we're talking about, it's going to be we have the different zoning areas. I think also too when you talk about property owners doing something on their own behalf versus someone getting permission from a property owner, I think we need to be a little bit more restrictive in that sense. I think we should give a fair amount of leeway to non-profits. But the thing I don't want to see is. Harberts: Community based non-profit. _ Scott: Yeah, there you go. Yeah, community based non-profit. The thing I don't want to see is, I don't want to see people from who knows where getting permission from somebody and who knows what the heck they're going to sell. Farmakes: Can you target use to industry? I mean you're saying agriculture. Can you do _ that? Aanenson: Well I did speak to Roger about that issue and there is, you have to...I did call -� some other cities and ask what they do. Sometimes they restrict...but then they choose on the other hand, just to ignore the corn huts and that sort of thing. Farmakes: The only thing that worries me obviously, it's almost that corn or something have a built in protection. There are some perishable type foods. Who's responsible if that's not up to par, and I'm not familiar enough with that industry to know how they touch that or who's legally responsible if someone gets ill. Are those people gone in 2 weeks and back down to Florida? Mancino: I feel I take my chance when I stop at the hot meat man or the hot shrimp man or woman, and buy something and I don't know but that's kind of my responsibility. Are they going to be there the next day? I doubt it. Scott: Well that's why I think if we talk about local groups and obviously Christmas trees aren't grown locally but I mean we think about who sells Christmas trees. We're talking about the Lions. Well that's what I mean. I think if we're looking at the local non-profits and limiting it to, as we can legally, but I think we've got some leeway. I like what you're doing with, if you owned the property or you're something like Market Square. You have 3 of these a year and that's great. I'd actually like to see 4 of them a year so they can do something quarterly but you know, be that as it may. But I think we have to be really 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 careful. I think I know what you don't want. I know what I don't want to see is this random junk. People selling junk. Farmakes: So this wouldn't be for individual stores per se? This would be considered for the entire development? Conrad: It should be for stores. I think the stores should have the opportunity to do their, if they wanted a truckload sale, or if they wanted a special event. Farmakes: You have individual stores and you've got 16 stores and they each had 4, then you would multiply that times 16. Conrad: You've got that potential. Scott: But it doesn't, I think from a sanity standpoint, what the people tend to do at a shopping mall is that there's usually some sort of a loose association where they say okay. We all want to have this sidewalk sale. Let's all have it at once so the tendency, if you look at Market Square and some of the other places in town, where there's some sort of an association, they tend to do it all at once and it makes better business sense because you want — — to attract as many people as possible. Farmakes: But that's really a different animal. If you have a sole proprietor, you're not going to have the money to do the type of advertising for special events. So if they go through their association and they advertise an item, that's one promotion. You have an individual store doing a promotion, it usually has to be a fairly large store to advertise it. So you've got Festival say, how do you, does Festival go ahead and take up the 4 times versus the smaller store that doesn't have the opportunities of being able to do it even once a year. Aanenson: I think we need to break them into two categories. Like to see is one would be, a group that wants to find a space to sell Christmas trees... They're not tenants in the city currently. That's. Mancino: They're not owners of property. Aanenson: Then we need another category of people that are in town already doing business that want to have a temporary or a grand opening or a summer sale, whatever. So I think right away I think there are two different types of uses. Farmakes: So do you figure that by how you classify what they're selling as non-merchandise and you do that solely by they're somebody totally separate. Say for instance I'm assuming 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 that somebody is coming in as an individual contractor selling pumpkins at Target. I assume that Target isn't selling pumpkins. — Conrad: They could do it either way. Farmakes: That's not their typical merchandise. Conrad: No, but any other season departments, I don't know what they're doing. — Farmakes: Moonlight sale or Crazy Days, that's getting rid of inventory. Conrad: Actually Target's garden department never used to be their's, and I'm not sure what it is right now. Aanenson: Yeah, one of the things they requested was... Conrad: But Jeff, it's one of those cases where Target has the responsibility. They are sanctioning that vendor to come in and so you have, on their property, so it's their integrity more than. At least we have somebody to count on to be checking them out. Farmakes: They usually a retailer is going to use them for one of two things. One is to bring people on a teaser item. And the other is, there's usually a section of parking lot that's _ dead. it's too far away from the store and it's usually during non-peak hours, it's usually a dead spot and it allows them to get some income out of either a percentage of sales or, it isn't necessarily part of their store. Then the question becomes, as we were talking before, the — difference between merchandising and a seasonal type sales use. Christmas tree versus a... Scott: How would this also affect Septemberfest, Art Festival, St. Hubert's Harvest Festival? — Aanenson: ...the city's really never done anything. Farmakes: Like if you had a flea market on a parking lot. Aanenson: Well one of the things we looked at too, if we did a park and ride...that'd be a — great place for a farmers market and that may be a place where we...but that'd be a great place to make sure... Scott: So it's kind of what we need to do is to come up with 3 or 2 classifications of things. I mean it's like there's the agricultural stuff. Seasonal agricultural stuff. The local not for profit seasonal thing. Then there are, I don't know if you'd want to call them city sponsored — 6 — Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 or local, a festival sponsored by local organizations. Maybe that's another little bucket but I think if we can separate these things out and then be able to deal with them individually, perhaps that's because I can see this thing being a huge octopus with all sorts of. Conrad: Well it shouldn't be complicated you know and I think there's also a trigger if there's, I think the rules will never be right. They'll always be, so the rules have to take care of a certain amount of things and if it doesn't, then they kick it into, then it comes to the Planning Commission and we take a look at it. Yeah, and that may take some time and that will discourage some people but that's the way it will have to be. This could be really a fiasco. You can out guess all the things we're talking about here and I'd rather not see a huge ordinance. I think the logic for what we're doing and not have it come through the Planning Commission. If we can come up with the standards that are simple, that are real clear that we know that we're controlling them, then it should be administrative approval. For those things we can't figure out because there are too many variables, they've got to come in to see us. Farmakes: Then I think you should clarify the intent of what we don't want up front. Maybe that's the... Conrad: The only other thing Kate, I think you've got to keep in the back of you mind, you know what other shopping centers and other retailers are doing. I don't think we're trying to be, well you see what they're doing. The sidewalk sales are very typical. Sometimes there are truckload sales, and I think some of those are fun things. I guess I.don't feel that we need to discourage those. I think we're trying to prevent some of this other stuff from happening: That's the bulk of this ordinance. Not to keep Target from having pumpkins out in the front of their store. Scott: Isn't it what we don't want transient for profit merchandising going on in town, unless it's controlled very tightly. Conrad: Yeah, right. Scott: Is that kind of what we're doing? Aanenson: ...temporary sales currently being outdoor storage. Conrad: Right. Scott: That's like the first two sentences. This ordinance is designed to discourage the following, you know two sentences. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: It would be helpful though if we do get a farmers market type situation, that would be helpful to, so you don't have these kind of location signs all over the city and cardboard. You know, I'm not sure though, can you do an ordinance? I can see that we've done profit and non-profit for things like in signage. But can you designate that it has to be local non-profit? I've never heard of that. — Scott: That's the intent but I mean I think. Mancino: Legally, I doubt it. Harberts: No because then you're discriminating. — Farmakes: Particularly if you're targeting industries. I'm not sure if the signage I know that if it had to be fairly unrestrictive of industry that was applied across the board. A temporary — sign for a house. A temporary sign for a building. Scott: Or do we grandfather in certain things that we. Farmakes: I noticed that...said it was illegal in the zoning to target, when we were talking about Highway 5, it was illegal to target a specific industry. That would make it more restrictive for hotels. Scott: Or auto related uses? Harberts: I'm guessing Kate that you've talked with other cities or continue to talk with other cities. You know I think that with an ordinance you could, what you don't want to do is get into a checklist situation and I think you have to look at what is your overall goal in terms of what you're trying to, I guess control. Because of whatever reason. If it's public safety related or whatever. I think that really has to be the basis. In terms of the overall goal that you're trying to achieve with the ordinance otherwise you start getting into a checklist and it's almost like you're creating a, I don't know, maybe to some extent a glass, a bubble around Chanhassen in terms of we'll allow you in or we won't allow you to do this and I don't think that's really what the role of government is all about. Farmakes: There's one other thing too that we're not, right now we do Oktoberfest and a couple other, two seasonal holidays. Excelsior does a lot more. They draw a lot of people in. Currently we don't really have a location for that unless we use the parking lot or baseball — field. If the city does, say finish that park up in front, they may have, or the farmers market there may be an opportunity to have like a citywide type situation for that can be 8 - Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 conditions made for flea markets and that type of thing throughout the city. Again, that'd be on a limited basis. Harberts: Is there an opportunity to keep the ordinance to some flexibility? You know as _ maybe Chanhassen matures towards this type of issue, I think there's a lot of what ifs and I think we need to keep that ordinance, or potential ordinance somewhat flexible so we can maybe address those things as things develop here. But I think again the overall goal is to, what are we really striving to do. I don't think we want to make things burdensome for anyone but you know there's clearly reasons to regulate different sales. Temporary sales or whatever. Aanenson: In the past we haven't had any large anchors downtown before. So now...and we're not sure if we approve those uses...we want all this stuff outside. And so some of it does...with the community. I guess what we're looking for is... Scott: And if it's a tenant or a landowner, that's one thing and we can say you can do 4 of those a year. And then if it's somebody who's temporarily leasing, I think that's a whole other, different use and different type of merchandising and then throw in the non-profit piece so I think those three things, that keeps something fairly simple and you can always amend an — ordinance you know. Conrad: Well, do you have enough input? I think that's pretty good. And I think the intent of this is real important. I think you've heard some good comments from the people here. Ledvina: I have some specifics. I don't know if you wanted to hear. Conrad: Go ahead. Now's the time. Ledvina: Well, I'll just start out and say that just kind of following up on Ladd's idea to provide some guidance on what constitutes an application that would necessitate it coming before the Planning Commission. I think maybe all these things that we've talked about go in an intent statement and then kind of a little blueprint for an applicant that serves as, if you're going beyond or cannot meet the requirements that are laid out here and you always have the right to go to the Planning Commission to discuss your proposal. So I think that would be appropriate. On page 4, standards for temporary sales on the bottom of the page. I have a real problem with that language. Just save the clause, including any additional conditions as may be established by the Planning Department. I think Diane would say, well enables you to have the flexibility but I don't know. That's kind of carte blanche and I don't kind of like that. So take a close look at that. If there's a way of saying it a little bit differently, I would prefer that. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Aanenson: It's hard to hit all things. Sometimes... Ledvina: I understand the difficulty but at the same time, you don't want a situation where the applicant feels that you have the power or you can point to this thing in the ordinance and say, well we can make you confine your operation to 10 x 30 rectangle or something like — that. And that's our condition. I don't know. Maybe that's obtuse but. Aanenson: I can think of a couple ways we can handle that. Why don't we just say, any — other proof that would deemed necessary and then we could put a clause that would say, if staff feels that the information that's been provided is insufficient, then we would request that you come here. It'd be like what you're giving them... Ledvina: That's fine. If we could just take another look at that because. — Conrad: And that triggers a thought for things going through here. Is the City Council always the end? It doesn't have to be. Planning Commission could be the grantor of the — permit. A lot of responsibility folks. Mancino: My shoulders are heavy. -� Conrad: That is an alternative to shortening the process. I think you can make us. They won't is my guess but. Scott: We're usurping their. Conrad: It is a way to shorten it. Aanenson: To shorten the process and that's the part... — Farmakes: Granting a permit, you don't waive the rest of the city ordinance? Say for temporary signs. There's a size limitation for temporary signs. They have to conform to that.... Aanenson: ...limiting walls signs and we did... Ledvina: That's another thing. That was my exact next point. If you've got the Boy Scouts, they don't even have a warming shack. I mean if they don't have, if they're limited to wall signs, then they don't have any signs. Farmakes: Temporary signs don't necessarily have to be wall signs though. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 mom Ledvina: But it says right here. Farmakes: What is it, it's 4 x 8? Mancino: I thought they always had a warming shack. Ledvina: Okay, whatever. But I mean, a trash barrel or something. And then if you're _ saying they have to conform to the ordinance, which is, I think it's 15% of the wall space in the frontage or something like that. If they got this little bitty trailer, or whatever, they're not going to be happy with a 15% as a sign this big or something. I don't know. • Farmakes: That formula gives them a minimum they can make. I think that's 4 x 8 on a temporary sign. And they could build that. That formula comes into play when you have massive Targets. Ledvina: I don't know. I guess I would just like you to revisit that item there. Conrad: Can they have banners? They can, can't they? Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know. I don't care. Streamers, banners. Conrad: Banners would typically be the way to do it. Ledvina: Little kids with sandwich signs walking around. Scott: Also too, if there are things like, I get concerned about the temporary food sales. And as part of the permitting process should be anything that's licensed by the Department of Agriculture or the State. The Board of Health or you know, whatever. I don't know who these authorities are. They should be made to produce a copy of their certificate or whatever that happens to be. I think we should take advantage of work that other governmental bodies have done to regulate stuff and piggy back on that as much as possible. Conrad: What else do you have Matt? Ledvina: And then I'd just like to go on record as saying that I think Target should have their 4 x 4 bin of pumpkins. Scott: That's all it is? Ledvina: It's 4 x 12, I'm sorry. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 — Mancino: 4 feet by 12 feet. Ledvina: Yeah. 4 feet by 12 feet. I think they should be able to have their bin of pumpkins. — Scott: Yeah. I'd go on record as saying they should have their pumpkins too. Conrad: You know if you want to see an affect, Cub effectively merchandises the front of their store in a very presentable way so it's not tacky. We're trying to get rid of tacky but it's fun to walk into their store. Sometimes it's cut case stuff. Sometimes it spells out, you know — merchandise that spells out things. Or it's pumpkins. Nice merchandising. Makes it a little friendlier. It doesn't last forever. Gee I'd hate to see us discourage them and become this clinical looking town. Antiseptic type of thing. I don't think we want that. — Mancino: How long do you think of as temporary? Two months? — Aanenson: Well, I think...each type of use. Now you have a produce stand, it may be 6 to 8 weeks. That's something we're going to have to try to establish with each different type. If _ it's the Christmas tree sales, probably Thanksgiving until the day after Christmas. So I think the one...seasonal. That they're leasing the space and try to give a time line for those. The owner occupied, the guy that owns the...pot sales, things like that, I think we limit those to maybe a week, 3 times a year or whatever we decide... Scott: You're heading in the right direction. I like that. — Aanenson: Because if they do want to sell brats out there once a year... Ledvina: Other than that, I guess I support, generally I support the ordinance and I think it's reasonable. Reasonably good effort. Conrad: Unless there's anything else, Kate I don't think we need a motion. Just go and do it and then we will, it will be a public hearing when it comes back. Okay. Farmakes: We should be aware too that there's, the Highway 5 situation, the sign ordinance is coming up. The architectural ordinance is in there. They're all sort of merged together. I think it wasn't necessarily planned that way but we have to be aware I think that there may be — a perception to the Chamber that we are being anti business on some of these issues. And we should be aware of that potential and try and deal with that through communication. I know the last meeting we had, Brad stood up and said that for instance the parking ordinance was — anti business. And you were talking about the signage package and saying, when in fact...It was half of the committee were members of the Chamber but they weren't part of Market 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Square. Well, I mean I think we need to be up front with that and let people know and talk about that. Address that every time it's brought up and try to be educational about that. Especially on the intent statements of what these things you're accomplishing, rather than arguing. No matter how you do it, it's going to affect somebody's business in some particular way and I think that the perception is that the people who are sitting on the Commission don't know anything about me trying to make a living in the business world and you're arbitrarily making restrictions on me when I'm trying to make a living and pay a couple of people and pay my bills and pay the taxes and so on and I don't need that type of bureaucracy thrown at me. In a way that's easy to come up and say and the opposite direction is kind of hard for us to come up with these ordinances to make a community that we want to live in. Scott: It's an interesting circumstance because I know that on the sign ordinance, even before, I mean when, before things got serious, I got a call from Paul saying Joe, we're going to do this sign ordinance. Can you give me some names of some people on the Chamber of Commerce who'd be interested and that's how Kevin McShane got on there and all those sorts of things. And I quite frankly don't have any sympathy for business people in town who don't get involved in the Chamber of Commerce because Kate sits on our Board. She's at every Board meeting and there are a large number of people who get involved in this kind of input, but I have no sympathy for business owners who don't get involved in the process and make this is a very, this is a commercial for the Chamber membership obviously. But if they want to get involved and they're members of the Chamber, they'll know what's going on and they will have the opportunity to have input. If they don't, c'est la vie. • Farmakes: We're going to have to know that it's in someone somewhere's advantage to put up a 40 foot pylon signs down the main drag of downtown so that they can be seen from Highway 5. It's to someone's advantage and someone's going to want to do that. Who and when we feel we don't think it's right, you're dealing more ascerteric things. You don't think it's going to look good or I think that every time that comes up, particularly from the • developer's standpoint, it's going to make them far more easier to sell a lease if they have that 40 foot sign. Scott: Then you can't, then another thing too is, you can kind of, I take a look at the Target situation is that within probably 2 to 3 months, the way Target markets, within 2 to 3 months of the time they have their grand opening, everybody who could potentially buy stuff there in their market area will know where it is. So a 40 foot pylon sign, you know. And I can see from a developer's standpoint, you know for rents, for leasing and that sort of thing, they have the opportunity to say well we're going to, this is the signage and signage and parking are the two hot things when you're trying to lease property. But then we also have to take it with a grain of salt because obviously they want the world so they can give part of that world to their lessee's. So when I hear business people talk about things, some of them are very, very 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 good at explaining, you know this is what I really need. Very straight forward versus the embellishment and I think as a Planning Commission, we have to see through the _ embellishment and kind of cut down to what do these people really need. Conrad: You have to give them reasonable exposure. That's a fundamental thing. That's — part of the business. It's just where is, what is reasonable and whether it be, I can empathize. I work for a lot of people that depend on signage and Jeff, you know a lot about signage. Farmakes: But we don't seem to argue the intent. It's just, you know Brad was up here and he's...he wasn't arguing the intent. And that's what really seems that we should be communicating on. What the intent of what we're trying to do. The thing...come back on something that would fit in to how they're doing something, fine. Come forward and say what they are. Conrad: But it is, boy these are tough issues. Signage for services. Signage and strip type- malls. Compare what's on the Frontier building. That doesn't light up but is relatively ugly. We don't find fault. At least I haven't heard a lot of fault with those signs but they're not — attractive. They just don't light up. But we find a lot of fault with the ones that light up. And we find a lot of fault by putting more than 6 per running feet on 100 or 200 foot building. We find a lot of fault there if they're more than 14 inches. But go out and take a look. The signs on the Frontier building are not a piece of art. They're pretty ugly and again, it's tough to come to these conclusions. Or come to, not to a conclusion but come to what's the style for Chanhassen. I don't claim to know it. I just know that reasonable works and if — you give them some reasonable exposure, nobody's going to complain and then the standards really make sense beyond that. To aesthetically keep Chanhassen a good looking community. Farmakes: I said the same thing...we're looking for a reasonable type structures with reasonable type of quality. — Scott: High quality. Conrad: See that's where, I think the high quality is such an important deal. Farmakes: But we still deal with minimums. I mean we're selling high quality. Our — ordinances deal with minimum requirements. Conrad: You're right. Mancino: Well I just want to add one thing, a little bit about the Tree Board. We are doing some new ordinances with landscaping and how much developer's can remove from the lots, — 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 • etc and we invited them to our meeting last Monday night and not one showed up so we are going to hold a second meeting on the 27th of this month hoping that developers will show up because they have a concern about what we're doing for tree preservation. So we're hoping that before we get it into the Planning Commission that we have reviewed it with them and we've listened to them and made some revisions or whatever. So we're very definitely on the Tree Board trying to bring the developers into the process and making sure that we communicate with them before coming here. Conrad: That's good that you're doing that. That's the way the process should work. They shouldn't come to the meeting of the public hearing and raise issues at that point in time. Okay. CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVES NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Any comments? Ledvina: So we have to have, I saw three public meetings. Aanenson: We thought maybe just two meetings specifically on the plans and then one public hearing but if we need 3 meetings before we can hold a public hearing to go through the whole document. Ledvina: But how many public hearings do we need? Aanenson: One. Ledvina: One. Aanenson: Specifically we don't need a public hearing on the preferred alignment because that just needs to be an information meeting. We do need a public hearing on the Comp Plan amendment. Ledvina: How about the Environmental Assessment? Aanenson: The Environmental Assessment's...We don't need a public hearing specifically. — We just need information which we have held but I think in fairness because of looking at the land use. 15 — CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 2, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Ron Nutting, Mike Meyer, Bob Skubic, and Craig Peterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad _ STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II, John Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer _ PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS. REQUEST FOR A SIGN HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN 8 FT. HIGH ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BLVD. AND HUNTER DRIVE AND HWY. 41 AND LONGACRES DRIVE. — John Rask presented the staff .rpoit on this item. — Mancino: Do any of the commissioners have questions of staff? Peterson: Is the actual, having looked at it, is the actual, what is over 8 feet? Everything? I mean you look at the lights. — Rask: That's pretty much measured from the back side of that sign up. Peterson: So from the curb. Rask: Yeah. So if you took it from the top of that planter box, you're probably about 7 feet. Peterson: So the actual lights, the lighting and the sides are actually much higher than that? Rask: Yeah. Yes, they are. The stone columns there? Peterson: Yeah. Rask: Yeah. — Mancino: John, how long have we had that sign ordinance? Because I know Lundgren Bros have been building in Chanhassen for a while. How long have we had the sign ordinance that gives the height? — 1 - - Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Rask: Actually that part of it, when we updated the sign ordinance earlier this year, back in January, that was one of the areas that remained unchanged. Those requirements, we did — clean it up a bit. A little bit, the language of it but those requirements have been in place ever since we've had the sign ordinance here. Mancino: Oh, okay so throughout the years through Willow Ridge, through most of their developments in Chanhassen, that's been the ordinance? Rask: Correct. Yeah, the 5 feet has been in place. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff? Thank you very much for the — staff report. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come up. State your name. Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm a Vice President of Lundgren Bros. I'm here tonight with one of my associates, David Hinners. I was the project manager for the — Meadows at Longacres. The 1st Addition and...to express my contriteness in failing to obtain a sign permit. To clarify, I have been around for a while. I have obtained sign permits for other signs and basically, in the context of the development problems that occurred with that — particular project, we felt because of numerous reviews that had been already undertaken with the city, that we were doing something that was going to be acceptable but I flat out forgot to get a sign permit for that particular sign. And just as a point of clarification, we've got a — copy of the city ordinance in our office. The whole thing, and it's necessary because ordinances change, to have the pages sent out from time to time from the Planning Department and other departments. I know for a fact that the version of the sign ordinance that we have in our book, which is dated, does not say anything about 5 foot high signs. It says that public institutional signs may be no higher than 5 feet or residential area identification signs. All it says is the maximum sign area is 24 square feet. Now that is not an excuse. I'm not going to try to make an excuse but that's to correct the statement that I heard. The fault still is our's knowing that permits are required. Should have taken the proper steps to assure that the submission would be made and if the submission had been — made, that would have been discovered. But it wasn't and we've got to try to carry on in some fashion. Dave is going to present more information on the site, and the reasoning behind why the sign that's in place, is what it is. I think there's a substantial hardship on the — Highway 41 side. I think that sign can be justified and Dave will make that point I'm sure. Beyond that, one of the reasons I'm not working on the Meadows at Longacres 2nd Addition, or Woods is that I'm getting old and I forget things. With that having been said, I've — temporarily stepped back and would like Dave to kind of take you through our reasoning. Mancino: Thank you. 2 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 — David Hinners: I'm David Hinners. I'm with Lundgren Bros. I want to first of all, before I go any further, explain the sunglasses. I just recently had eye surgery and my left eye is sort of out of sorts so out of courtesy to you all, I'll keep it covered up. I had my choice between the sunglasses or a pirate's patch and I felt the sunglasses were a little bit less, I'm more comfortable with sunglasses. I hope that's okay. Longacres is a project that's approximately 225 lots in size and is approximately 200 acres in size. It's composed of basically two components. We have the Meadows at Longacres, which is the western side of the project, and then we have the Woods at Longacres, which is the eastern side. This is Galpin — Boulevard right here. This is Highway 41 here. Our project has three entrances internally to the project. One is off Highway 41 at Longacres Drive. This is Longacres Drive. And it exits or enters off of Galpin Road and Longacres Drive. That's entrance number two. And — our third entrance will be down here off of Hunter Drive, which is in our 1st Addition to the Woods. At the present time we are building houses in the Meadows at Longacres 1st Addition. We are currently under construction, under development, streets and utilities at the Longacres 2nd Addition. Additionally we are under development with street and utilities and a Parade house in the 1st Addition of the Woods at Longacres. Because of the three entrances that we have, and the size of the project, we wanted to make a strong statement as one enters into the project. We feel that the Longacres Project, because it's a beautiful site. Very wooded. A lot of wetlands. That we wanted to use a material that is made of, in design, and sort of rural in context and for that reason we selected a fieldstone type of monument coupled with fieldstone columns and incorporated a split rail fence and the appropriate landscaping to match those. The entrances all come off of main roads, highways if you will. Posted speed on TH 41 is 55 mph and I believe it's 45 mph over on Galpin so _ the highway speeds are quite significant. The other thing that one notices as you drive down Highway 41 is the fact that there's a lot of woods and vegetation that come right up to the right-of-way. There's virtually a curtain of trees and vegetation as one goes down the road — and as one travels either north or south on Longacres, if you're turning from the north going south, you actually start to decline in elevation as you enter into the area of the entrance to — Longacres. As shown from the south going north, it's just the opposite obviously. But the point I'm making is that as you're driving down the road, that you see a curtain of trees and occasionally an opening where there is either a driveway or something. We have that same constraint here on TH 41 in that there, and I'll show you on a slide here in a moment when I'm taking about. But I'm going to use terms like a window, or sense of arrival and entry. Those are key. A lot of money and time and effort was put into the design of our entrance features. We put a lot of effort into that. It's almost like the nameplate on a house. It's something that's a statement. It's something that we want our customers and we want obviously the city and our customer's guests to feel that when they arrive at the project, that they have this feeling of passage and arrival as they enter into the project. And we feel also that the entrances should all be identical in design and that they should all be of the same shape and scale and proportion and the reason for that is that Longacres is the project, even 3 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 though there may be the Woods at Longacres and the Meadows at Longacres. It's still Longacres and we want people to arrive either at this entrance or those entrances to know that — they're in the same project. The scale is important in design to create the feeling of arrival and passage. As one enters a development, we feel that the subdivision name needs to be prominent. We feel that one needs to know when one enters and when one is leaving so that — entrance is extremely important. And we feel that to reduce the height of the monument to 5 feet would seriously jeopardize, not only the design characteristics of our entrance, but would also be a hinderance to what we're attempting to achieve with this sense of arrival and — presence. I'd like to do the slides here if I could. Now I can't focus in on anything so, can you see that? Mancino: That's fine. David Hinners: When we, is it possible to dim the lights a little bit? This is the entrance — sign on Longacres Drive at Highway 41. The picture is taken standing right in front of the flower bed, looking in an eastward direction at the sign base and what's applicable about this photograph is I wanted to show the fieldstone, the copy, the logo. How the arch is in relation — to the width and how everything is proportioned. We feel that this proportion is extremely relevant. Mike Pflaum: Before you change the slide Dave. The topic and matter at hand is strictly this element of the entrance. There was some comment earlier about the columns. The columns _ are not part of the entrance monument. The columns are not in question here. The big question is the fieldstone wall that bears the name. David Hinners: Right. The 8 foot dimension goes to here. As John pointed out earlier, it was an issue that the back of the sign I believe up to the top of this. The 5 foot level is approximately to here, so in order to bring, in order for this sign to be in compliance, this — arch would need to be down here, which would force this copy down into this range here, which makes it very difficult, I think, to be able to read at a significant distance that one's going to be viewing the sign from. I included a couple of slides here to show how the — entrance feature, the center island entrance feature is in relation to the other elements in the entrance design. As Mike pointed out, we're basically containing ourselves with the center island median. However, I think it's important to point out that that has been designed as an — integral element in the overall design. The top of the arch is the same level as the top of the two side columns. The pre-cast concrete columns that are here. There's another one right here. — 4 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mike Pflaum: Dave, you might point out the trees that are actually behind the monument on the median. It's tough if somebody hasn't seen that on site. It looks like those trees might be along the boulevard. They're actually the backdrop for the entrance monument. David Hinners: You can sort of see them there. There's several large poplar trees that sort of frame the entrance monument. This is another view of it. I'm standing now right at the edge of the curb on TH 41 looking in and as you can see, the center island median monument is in relation to the proportion of scale to the columns and the columns in turn are proportion in — scale to the fence, which is 4 feet, 6 inches tall. Another view of the monument. As I was pointing out earlier, as you go down TH 41. This is the view from the north, looking south. You can see how the elevation is declining in there, but the curve in the trees is what I — wanted to point out in this. As you're driving down TH 41 at the posted speeds, you just don't see that entrance until you're right on top of it. And second of all, if you can notice in the break of the trees on the left, you can see a couple of the columns over there. You can — see that it's a lesser elevation than the road. That decline in elevation further hinders the readability of that sign if the sign is reduced. — Mike Pflaum: Before you switch that. The center line of Highway 41 is over 100 feet from the sign, which is a long, long ways. This is by way of saying that a sign that is slightly larger than 5 feet might be perfectly appropriate at a location that far from the public street. — David Hinners: This is a view from the south, viewing north and our entrance is off to the right. Again, the idea is to show the narrow window in which one has to view, and not — taking the entrance. And then I'm standing directly across the street and that is basically what I term the window and it appears for only a moment as you drive by on the road. As you can see, even from this distance, the size of the sign. If we were to bring that down, as I — indicated earlier, the copy would be just above the tops of the flowers and in winter if there was any sort of a snowfall, this sign, you wouldn't be able to see the sign at all. This is a picture of a vehicle that is traveling south that is in the window and the idea is to give you — the location where someone is driving on the road may not be absolutely sure where Longacres Drive is. There is a left hand turn lane there, that if any of you have had the occasion to drive down there, I think you'd see what I mean. It comes upon you very fast. Mike Pflaum: Before you switch the slide there's two things I would say. One thing is, if the commissioners have driven TH 41 past the project, or maybe even driven into the project from TH 41, and are aware that Longacres Drive is going down hill off of TH 41 and by going down hill off TH 41, it again recommends a slightly higher sign to be seen by passing — vehicles. The other thing that I want to point out. Dave has mentioned that it's hard to see the entrance. One of our sales people who sales out at that site, was in a very serious automobile accident out in front as she was stopped with her turn signal on waiting to turn — 5 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 into the site and was plowed into from behind by a guy towing a trailer. People don't even see this intersection coming down TH 41. That's a different issue from the sign but it is — certainly evidence that her car was totaled. I mean she was lucky she wasn't killed. But that is basically a blind sort of intersection because of the fact that Longacres Drive is falling away from TH 41 on down. No matter what kind of monument you've got there... — David Hinners: In that regard, I think the sign needs to be as large as it is so that when one is looking, one isn't spending time searching for the words. One can see it as they turn right — in. I was going to mention that any of you who have ever gone out, especially in the evening to try to find a house and all you have is a number and the house numbers are so small you can't read them. Or the signs, the street signs are so small that they're illegible. So it makes —" it very difficult and very frustrating. I've had to even stop my car, get out my flashlight and walk up and look at it just to see it. Identification signs should be simply that. They should identify and be large enough to be legible. We feel that a 5 foot height in our instances, not only on the TH 41 entrance for the two Galpin Road entrances, that they should be of a larger size to be legible and also be readable. Again, to recant what Mike had said earlier. We regret that we have to come to you at this time to discuss this topic but here we are and in all honesty, we did think that we had the approval to proceed when we did. We would respectfully request that the City of Chanhassen approve the request for Lundgren Bros to — have a sign height variance to allow the 3 entry monuments at the intersection of TH 41 and Longacres Drive, Galpin and Hunter Drive and Galpin and Longacres Drive, to remain at the size that is designed and is represented by...Thank you. If you have any questions, I'll be — happy to answer them. Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. Mike Pflaum: Could I ask a question of staff? Mancino: Yes. If you could ask that of me and then I'll direct it. Thank you. Mike Pflaum: Madam Commissioner. The question is this. How many signs could we have — within this project? It's two PUD's and I know what the old sign ordinance that I've still got in the book but I think that there is benefit to the city, obviously. There are many benefits to the city in having large planned unit developments. One of the benefits that I can see here is if in fact we would, me or other developers, plural, would have the opportunity to put up many signs within this project. It would seem to me that the city would probably benefit by having fewer signs. Maybe larger signs. Rather than having many signs and smaller. It just — so happens that we've acquired a large piece of property and are developing it as a unified whole. Actually it was two separate PUD's, as I'm sure the commission knows. Two separate PUD's were assembled and they have become Longacres and Longacres with some 6 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 — — stub neighborhoods. So that's a benefit. It seems to me that there probably could be 10 different neighborhoods. 10 different entrance monuments. So I don't know what, is this true? Mancino: Well I think the question isn't how many. It's really the height variance at this — point. Mike Pflaum: I know, but I'm not talking. I understand. The matter before you is the height — variance. I'm talking about benefit to the city. Mancino: Appreciate it, thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing. Nutting moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public healing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this issue, please come up and state your name and address and any views that you may have on this. Seeing — none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the — motion canied. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Thank you. Commissioners comments, and please remember that the public hearing is closed so that no one from the audience is to speak after the public hearing is closed. Comments from commissioners. Jeff, you worked on the sign ordinance forever and a day and know it probably backwards and forwards. Could I ask you to give some comments on what's before us tonight. Farmakes: I do not have total recall of every ordinance, as I'm sure. — Mancino: Every line of the ordinance? Farmakes: Every line of the ordinance but I think what's before us is a variance, and we have an established criteria of what that is. In this case I think clearly the criteria isn't being met, and I think that the staff has pointed that out pretty clear. The argument is that, as I understand it, is that there are other reasons of benefit that are being explained to us. However, when we look at these things as a matter of procedure, every sign could be built as — the client would like it and then can come back and say, well this serves our needs better. It serves the city better. It's a safer sign. The way to correct that, if there is a problem, is to go back into the ordinance and then look at what is established. There's no such thing as a 7 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 perfect ordinance. That's why we're constantly changing things. They were changed a while ago. The ordinance was passed a while ago. The issue of more signs and so on isn't really — relevant to what's before us. Although the amount of signage in both size and quantity could curtail to get the job done but be low impact. Height is an issue of signage, just like it's an issue in building. There's building codes that governs the buildings that Lundgren builds, and — those are established over years and procedure with either safety or fitting in with rules that govern congregations of people. It makes for stable property values and it makes for a way to resolve issues of conflict. As a matter of consistency, by making variances of this nature — once something is built, and it doesn't conform to what the rules are, it seems like a trifle matter. But in fact we deal with this every day when we're here in establishing what a community believes is in it's best interest and then asking people who build here to follow — that. I think this, as it was explained, this is a mistake and it's a mistake however that seems to fit better with the logo and it's an attractive sign but the issue I think goes beyond that here. It's not, it really now is not the aesthetics of the sign. The issue is one of, if a variance — is made for this sign, then what about the next sign or what about the other 15 signs that were made by other developers. We ask one developer to follow the criteria and the other, through an error, doesn't have to. But I think that I will fall back on what we've relied upon is a set of criteria. We've asked staff for this and what is the criteria for granting variances of this sort and I think clearly it's not meeting that criteria and I believe in any one case, if it — doesn't meet it, we should not grant variances to remain legally consistent. That's it. Mancino: Bob. — Skubic: I agree with Jeff and I see, sort of see an element where styling is taking precedence over function here. It's certainly a larger logo. The name is easily accountable. That doesn't mean...easier to see over a distance...point was brought up that the sign was 100 feet back from the center line to a highway. If that's one of the issues, I don't know what the minimum setback for that would be. If that's another parameter that I think could be used to satisfy that — issue of visibility. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I also agree. I think it's more of an aesthetics issue than it is probably an issue of trying to find where you're going. I generally don't look for logo signs when I'm looking for — a house. I drove by there tonight. I wasn't looking for the sign. I was looking for the street sign to bring me into the project so I see it really is, even though a mistake was made, I see the two additional signs as being more of an aesthetic issue as you come into the property than I do anything else, and I don't see a need for a variance for aesthetics. Mancino: Ron. — 8 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 — Nutting: This is a tough one for me. I understand the criteria necessary for a variance. I understand staffs recommendation. You can't excuse not getting the permit. Mistakes happen. I don't have a problem with the sign. I think, having driven by it myself, aesthetics — can be part of why a variance is granted. It's not, invariably everything is aesthetics to a certain extent. Staff, in their report, say that it doesn't meet the criteria but that they're _ making appropriate use of scale and materials. If this were before me originally for a variance, I think I probably would vote for it. So I'm going to buck the trend. Mancino: Okay. You're welcome to. Mike. Meyer: It just sounds like they made a mistake and are actually asking us to compound it by — doing it two more times. The sign isn't in compliance and I guess from our point of view, we should be looking at enforcing the rules in place. I too think the sign is a good looking sign but I don't think that's the issue. That's all I have. Mancino: Thank you. I think the staff report was well written. Thank you John for the findings of fact and I also feel that, like everyone here, that the sign that is up on TH 41 is an — attractive, well designed sign. However, it doesn't meet our existing sign ordinance and I think the findings of fact here show that we really don't have grounds to grant a variance. So with that, may I have a motion. Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the variance request for an 8 foot high entry monument sign on the staff report dated August 2, '95 for the following reasons, 1 thru 3. Mancino: Is there a second for the motion? — Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? — Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the variance request for a eight (8) foot high entry monument sign for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. Neither the size, physical surrounding, shape or topography prevent the placement of a sign which meet ordinance requirements. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship appears to be self-created, because the applicant could have reduced the overall height of the sign while maintaining the same size area. — All voted in favor, except Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. — Mancino: And could you please state your reasons. Nutting: I think as I indicated in my comments, I think I would vote for a variance. I think that's the issue. The criteria are one thing. What makes sense in terms of the scale of the project is just the way I feel. Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Does not pass. When does this go to City Council? Rask: Actually it's going first City Council this month on the 12th. So it'd be at the very next one. Mancino: Okay, thank you. So please go ahead to City Council. PUBLIC HEARING: BLUFF CREEK GOLF COURSE HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR AN — INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE FILLING AND STABILIZATION OF AN EXISTING RAVINE ON BLUFF CREEK GOLF COURSE. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE RAVINE, THIS PROJECT WILL BE ONGOING AS CLEAN FILL BECOMES AVAILABLE. THE — INTERIM USE PERMIT WILL BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY. Public Present: — Name Address Jim Sabinske 775 Creekwood Gary Anderson 725 Creekwood Dale Gunderson 845 Creekwood — Gloria & Spencer Boynton 777 Creekwood Claire & Anne Vogel 815 Creekwood LaVi & Mike Lynch — Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. 10 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time? Does the applicant wish to come up and make their presentation? Norm Berglund: I'll make just a few comments. I'm Norm Berglund, General Partner in Bluff Creek Golf Course. As explained by Mr. Hempel, we have this very large ravine. What it says here is the golf course is on your left looking towards Shakopee. It's been there obviously for thousands of years and last fall we cleaned up a lot of cars and miscellaneous junk that had been dumped in there. Now this will be clearly...and what we'd like to do. What's happening, the soil conditions are such that about 20 to 30 feet below the surface, you have about a foot and a half to 2 feet of sandy soil. Basically it's clay before that. So you have the sandy soil and you get the ground water percolating up through which saturates that sandy soil and that runs horizontally out, which results in a lack of support. You get chunks that break off that are 10-15 feet back into the mountain, or hill. So...what we'd like to do is bring in clean fill on an ongoing basis and stabilize things and save some very, very nice trees. These are...I think it would be a great advantage and a way to improve...so many yards required and our thought is that the amount of activity going on...in the Chanhassen area, that to get fill...so we'd like to set the stage for this could go on for a number of years. It will result in the stabilization of the bluff and general enhancement of the beauty of the area, because it really is beautiful. So we appreciate your consideration of this opportunity. Any questions? MED Mancino: Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing please? Meyer moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Does anyone wish to come up and speak on this issue? Dale Gunderson: My name's Dale Gunderson. I'm from 845 Creekwood, which is right next door to the Winton property which is right next door to the ravine they're talking about. I know Norm and...real nice. I think this plan is a good plan. There are some things that I'm concerned about is the yardage of this thing and the tonnage that is being brought into this neighborhood. I'm very close to the road there and..big project that's been going on out there. My question to you Norm is when are they going to put bituminous down or is it going to remain gravel? Norm Berglund: Well we're going to, on the parking lot done early this fall. The driveway, because they've been doing this for a month and it rains about every third day...so we're going 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 to let the base materials settle over the winter and stabilize and put bituminous in in the spring. On the driveway. — Dale Gunderson: Okay. And then they will start, if they give you your interim permit for filling. — Norm Berglund: Oh it starts as soon as we can. Dale Gunderson: And I'm just really concerned because of the project, what has happened in just the creation of bringing in the new road. I'm 50 feet off of this thing and I'm really close to it. When they have the equipment coming through, our whole house is rattling and I'm on — a point that's built there and I have a ravine between me and Lynch's and I have a ravine between me and the house on the east. Just from the equipment that's come in to do the road, my whole house is shaking and I'm worried about the erosion and problems that I could have — by having continuous truck traffic on gravel roads. Norm Berglund: You'll never get a situation where you have continuous truck traffic. We — brought in a lot of rock earlier but we were hauling in, normally when you get...let's say free fill, it's a load now and again. It's not steady. But I can't guarantee that. Mancino: Dave, can you give us any thoughts on that and the continual shaking of Mr. Gunderson's home? Hempel: I'm not sure of the foundation that Mr. Gunderson's home on but it's not that uncommon for construction traffic to rattle the china in the cabinets as heavy equipment goes — by. That's certainly not that uncommon. A remedy to that? I'm not sure other than maybe trying to slow traffic down adjacent to homesites to minimize the disruption and the vibrations. — Mancino: And maybe there's a plan that can be worked out to figure out how to take care of this. — Dale Gunderson: Well my problem is just the gravel that's in there, when they're running on that, I mean that is like unbelievable and if there's bituminous in there and they're coming in — occasionally, at least they're getting a smooth ride in. And I'm deadly serious about this erosion problem. That valley out there has several spots like what you're talking about in this plan and it's not an unusual thing for erosion to happen. Several of the ravines have been — filled 2 or 3 times in the 10 years that I've lived there. And I'm just really concerned that I don't end up being a victim down on the ravine because of a construction project that's ongoing for years and years and years. I want to voice my concerns on that and make it part — 12 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 of the record. The key issue is the pavement of the road and when it happens. The maintenance of the road. I've read through the plans here. I had a question about November _ 15th. I saw in the findings here that that's when the permit will expire. Am I correct when I'm talking that here? Mancino: Yes, you are. Dale Gunderson: When that expires, are you shutting down for the winter? Hempel: We will file a permit extension. Dale Gunderson: Then it will be an ongoing situation and even through the winter they'll be bringing fill in? Mancino: Yes, and I have some questions about that too, which the commission will address a little later. So that will come up. As far as how much hauling there will be during the winter, etc. Do you have any comments on item, there's a recommendation about the hours of operation should be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday and 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays. Dale Gunderson: Well my comments to that situation, I know they've got a big job to do that's going to take many, many years but I would just as soon not listen to the equipment after I work all day and come home and have to listen to that. Saturdays are a situation that's, you know I'm open. But it's still a situation where it's evoking on free time that I might be enjoying without having semi's going by. The 7:00 to 7:00 I think is too long. And who will be checking the clean fill that's coming in this thing? And how do we verify what's going on. Mancino: David, who would be? Hempel: City staff members will make periodic reviews on the site as we're summoned by the applicant that hauling operations will commence. The Watershed District has also issued a permit for this operation and they will periodically make inspections on the site as well. There will not be anybody on site on a full time basis to monitor the filling activities. Mancino: Thank you. Dale Gunderson: So if I have problems and this is approved and I have problems, who do I get in touch with? I'm sitting in a pretty different spot there. I'm right in the middle of it and that's my concern. The road has always been a concern for a million years because of the 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 dust. Obviously we're all looking forward to bituminous and that's a great benefit to look forward to...bituminous down before all this starts, it will be worse than ever with only Class V being there. It's just phenomenal the dust problem out there. Mancino: Well I'm going to take the liberty of saying if you have some problems, you can — call City Hall and talk to Mr. Hempel here. Dale Gunderson: Well those are my concerns and I just wanted to get them on record. — Thanks. Mancino: Terrific. Gary Anderson: You met my neighbors. Gary Anderson, 725 Creekwood and I have concerns about the whole project in general. I'm the first house on Creekwood and I look at this program as how many years will you be hauling into this site? Is this a 10 year project? Is this where I moved into a construction zone... The staff says it's going to improve my quality of the price of my home. I can't see where those trucks are going to improve the — quality and price of my home. I look at the clean fill issue. We all have private wells out there. It's going to be free fill. Who's to say what can be dumped into that ravine? I don't think anybody here can tell us what's going to be dumped in that ravine. Besides that, it's — going to be free. With private wells, I'm going to have the well tested prior to this activity starting. I have a real concern about what's going to be put into the ravine. It may be just but who knows. I look at 193 acre golf course. I can't see where there wouldn't be an opportunity to come across the golf course at some point instead of utilizing Creekwood and coming across the golf course and then filling in that ravine. I look at the, we paid for that, — 10 years ago we paid, the neighborhood paid to have that road blacktopped out of our pocket, with Mr. Berglund and the golf course, and the ravine that was filled there, I would say about a month ago, took a toll because of the trucks on that road. Mr. Hempel was out there I — believe he's going to videotape that road. If you see the destruction that those trucks have done to that road, I had to pay $500.00 out of my own pocket. It isn't a lot to you folks but it's a lot to me. The other thing is that I don't have air conditioning. I have hot water, base board heat so it's very costly to put air conditioning in so I have to, in the last 2 weeks with the trucks being rolled through there now to upgrade the road, which I think is an excellent project and I think it's...to the west of me. But the traffic, the truck traffic and the dust that's — created from those trucks is unbearable. I look at the whole size of Creekwood, which is only 20 feet wide. It doesn't allow for a truck and car to drive past safely. I look at the approach from TH 101 and I think that the Planning Commission has looked at that Halla — Nursery project and the off and getting on to TH 101 is a real problem. I look at the sweeping of, who's going to sweep it after they came out. I can't believe that we're going to continue to have trucks rolling in year after year. I think we need to really look at the — 14 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 program. I talked to Dave Hempel here the other day in regards to this issue. I mentioned about who's going to be, the staff report mentioned nothing about who's going to be monitoring...A ravine is a ravine but sometimes...in order to dump that fill in there, what's going to hold that fill in that ravine? That fill to me is going to, once you dump it in there, it's going to slide right down the hill and I can't see dumping 150 yards of fill in there at one time. What's going to hold that fill? It's just going to keep it...so I think as you walk around the golf course and you see all the ravines that are out there. I know that what we're trying to do with the watershed and $5.00 that we spend, pay to the city every month...that's close to 2,500 truck loads going up and down that's gradually going to, unlike 50 yards...so I have some concerns about the road and I'd like to have the Planning Commission come out there to Creekwood and see, to actually see what we're dealing with there. We have the traffic from the golf course right now and I think that relationship and the number of cars that are going down Creekwood right now, I would say in excess of 150 to 400 cars a day and I don't know of too many residential streets in the city of Chanhassen that has that many cars. We did a study here I believe 8 or 9 years ago telling them that road really has been...I invite the Planning Commission to come out and take a look at the site before making a decision and listen to the neighbors. I think a lot of the neighbors are here and I think that yes, I think Norm is doing, I mean he's trying to do the right thing. There could be other ways. Maybe coming onto the 193 acres of the golf course with dump trucks. Establishing construction roads through the golf course and bringing the trucks in there. I don't know but I'm trying to think of some suggestions... Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Nutting moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Questions and comments that you may have. I think that Mr. Anderson brought up a lot of good questions and good discussion items. Audience: We can't hear anything. Mancino: Thank you. I'll try and be louder. Is that better? Audience: That's better. Now we can hear. Mancino: Actually I should probably stand up so it all comes out. Okay, this is fun. Bob. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Skubic: I have a question...that would be regarding the letter of credit. It states here, it says to maintain erosion control, site restoration and street cleaning. Will that amount be adequate for street repair or the complete project if they default? Is there something in addition to that? Hempel: The cost for security that I've placed in the conditions of approval is for site restoration, dust control, erosion control, fencing on the property and would not be for substantial repairs to the road. Typically when you get truck traffic hauling like that, you'll — discover bad spots in the road where it will alligator or break up and have potholes. Most of the time it wouldn't be the entire roadway that would need to be replaced. It'd be certain spots in the road that would need repairs. I was just checking to see if there's a condition in — here that would cover additional claims for like street repair and so forth. That certainly could be added if it's not found in the conditions. Mancino: And what could be added, not only who covers the cost but who decides when the repair should take place. At what point is the road worthy of repair? Hempel: You would see the visual damage effects from the truck traffic by potholes or alligatoring the surface with numerous cracks and so forth. — Norm Berglund: Mr. Hempel, if we're going to do that, then we should have a film survey of what the road conditions are before we start... Hempel: That's one of the things that I indicated to Mr. Anderson in a telephone conversation. That the city could videotape the surface of Creekwood Drive at this time — before the hauling activities commence and use that as a benchmark for any road damage resulting from the truck hauling activities. Mancino: Good idea, thank you. Go ahead Bob. Skubic: Thank you. First off I wonder about filling in...result of natural conditions over — 1,200 years. Providing surrounding development is influencing it. I'm not sure if you do these sorts of things. At one time we filled the wetlands. Now we're creating them. If there's some value to these bluffs. I don't know. But I think staff did a good job outlining the planning here...we have some financial guarantees...a number of checks and balances in there to assure that this can work... Mancino: Craig. 16 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Peterson: Dave, I guess keying on previous questions. What is the long term ramifications of not filling it? Obviously it would get more degregation but I mean, is this a never ending — process? I mean every time you're going to get a major rain or a storm, will we get to a point where we're going to say, it's full and it's not going to degregate any farther. Is that the case or not? Hempel: We believe so. The city is undergoing a ravine restoration project for the last 10 years or so down there south of Mr. Halla's and this year we've done I believe a job that — hopefully will take hold by extending, one of the major contributors to the erosion out there is the surface water runoff. For not properly handling that. That's gouging in there and contributing to it. Opening up this vein of sand where the water table, there's more seepage — and just magnifies the problem. By covering that, restoring that bluff line and controlling the surface water so it doesn't have the capability of creating that gouge to start this erosion problem, really delays or in most cases, ends the ravine process through the property. The ravine here has gotten, in the past, very close to their driveway. Continual erosion would lose the driveway but now the golf course association has put in a new driveway which pushes the driveway further back from the ravine which will help but with nothing being done over time here, it's subject to further erosion into the golf course property. Peterson: Further to that, I assume that there are no other alternatives as far as entrance with — the trucks logically or financially would be acceptable. Hempel: I'm not aware of any. I guess I did not look in depth here to it other than across _ one of the fairways or something out there from Pioneer Trail. Peterson: Well I mean based upon those comments, I'm comfortable approving staffs — recommendation. I would like to add on that, I do believe that 7:00 p.m. is a bit late. I guess it'd be my preference also to come home and have some kind of quiet, at least during the evenings, so I'd like to see that changed to an earlier time. I throw out 6:00 p.m. as a — possibility. I'm open for discussions certainly so approval with that exception. Mancino: Thank you. Ron. Nutting: Just to echo the previous comments. I think in addition to the hours of operation, I would also throw out 6:00 p.m. unless the neighbors happen to be getting home at 5:00 routinely, I could be swayed to 5:00. I would perhaps leave that as perhaps that's appropriate that we amend in the motion, or if we permit staff to work out that time with the neighbors. I would also delete Saturdays from the hours of operation. And I guess getting to the issue of the road repair and the responsibility for the repair, should it, I guess I would be in favor of city staff taking a survey of the road prior to the fill activity commencing and being able to 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 monitor that, for those individual who have put their own money into this road. To having some remedy. I don't know that that would impact or suggest a change in the letter of credit or cash escrow but I would leave that to city staff to work out. You know, the fill is going to come in when it's available. I think we all agree that there's a lot of construction that's going to be occurring in the foreseeable future. It could be that the trucks come in twice a week or it could be they come in daily, 2 or 3 a day and I can see where that can be a strain and potential problem to the surrounding landowners. I'm not sure if there's any way to control that or if you limit the number of trucks per day or whatever. I mean if the fill's there, it's — going to be there and I don't know that you can get it to stay on site where it's coming from to work... I really wouldn't want to see, I wouldn't want to be living there if I had a non-stop parade of trucks coming down the road for the next two summers with all the activity. So — I'm not hearing anybody say it's not a worthwhile project. You know both the applicant and the neighbors who have spoken. It's just, how do we control the impact on them during the course of that. That's really where my concern is so I'm in favor of staff's recommendation. I — would change the hours, as I indicated and put in a condition regarding a survey of the road. I would be open, if someone had a constructive way of addressing the limiting the amount of truck traffic on any given day or period of time. Mancino: Thank you. Mike. — Meyer: I don't really think I have anything additional to say. I really agree with just about everything that Ron just said and no use saying it again but... — Mancino: A little louder. Meyer: I agree with what Ron said. That's all I really have to say. Mancino: Jeff. — Farmakes: I think it's reasonable that the citizens that live along the road have the opportunity to enjoy their home. I think maybe perhaps better than leave it open ended, — because it's such a long construction project. It probably will go on for quite some time. That we limit the amount of trips that go up and down that road on any given month. I don't think it should be open ended the way it is here. Granted fill does come up on an irregular — basis but again, if it happens during business hours, I think it's reasonable that somebody should have the opportunity to enjoy their home more than 10 days a month so I think we should limit that so that they know in a given month that it's going to happen this much and no more than that. Or total trips. If the road is improved, it would be the following spring I believe I heard the possibility of the road being improved. If there's a substantial improvement to the neighbors homes, as far as the rattling and so on, perhaps you can relook — 18 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 at that at the time of the application for renewal. I certainly agree on the Saturday issue. I would limit it to during business hours when people are at work. I don't know whether the neighbors are away from the home while they're at work. We have spouses who are at home, or children. I don't know what the particulars are but I do think it's reasonable that someone who lives in Chanhassen, we all have to put up with construction inconveniences because of the city that we're living in, but I don't think it should be interminable. I don't think it should go on forever and that they should know what the limit is, and that it's reasonable that they can enjoy their property. So that would be 4 under the recommendations, which has the timing and the days. I'm not sure what could be worked out there so I'm not, I'm a little adverse to come across and say that, make a specific recommendation. Perhaps the city engineering department could get back to us and the neighbors could have a discussion on that issue of what would be an acceptable amount and what would be in the realm of reality to getting the project done. The quality of the fill, I believe the city has an established criteria for that as to how it will be placed in the ravine. I believe the city also has established criteria for that. It is true that it is up to the applicant to follow through with the rules. The city does check. As we have all this construction going on, I think you saw in the previous applicant's situation, the rules do get, there are mistakes made and so on. The city's certainly making every effort to enforce the ordinances and rules. As I said, there are criteria established for putting in fill next to the creek or any water body and if you have any questions in that regard, please ask city staff to go over that with you. I'm not sure at this point, I think this is a viable project and I would be happy to entertain sending it forward with those proviso's or putting it on hold until we can get answers to that. Come up with _ something there. I'm not sure that I feel qualified to come up with something that's workable at this point, based on there's still discussion between the neighbors here in the forum with the applicant. Maybe there's some discussion yet to take place. Mancino: Yeah, Dave can you help us with that as far as trying to set some sort of a limit or more or less a defined time. Not just in hours but how many days that this can happen during a month. How many truck loads. Hempel: I can touch on that, sure Madam Chair. When you do that, when you limit it to 100 truckloads a day, who's going to be standing out there counting these trucks? Mancino: The neighbors. Hempel: The neighbors will definitely and I will hear from them, believe me. I'm just wondering if, because the construction season is basically pretty short during the summertime. Rain plays a major role in hauling activities and construction in general. I'm just wondering if maybe we narrowed up the days of operation to 3 days out of the week. 4 days out of the week. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: That might. Hempel: To still give them the chance. I mean they can plan accordingly to haul the fill material to the site. I mean they don't need to have it there that day. They can plan a week in advance. So maybe limiting it to Tuesday thru Thursday. If that would satisfy the — neighborhood and one other comment. We did previously issue a permit to the golf course for the grading and paving of the driveway. It was my belief that the driveway was going to be paved yet this year. That can be another consideration. — Mancino: So, prior to commencement of the operation, and that could be one of our recommendations to make sure that that is done. And we could also recommend that city — staff and neighbors meet with Mr. Berglund to talk about the hours of operation or that we make a suggestion here as a recommendation. My other question is, excuse me just one second please. It says in the, Mr. Berglund's letter that we will take fill as it becomes — available, which could be any time of the year, during normal working hours. So Dave, could you help me with that. So that's saying that summer, winter, spring or fall, this operation could be going on. Hempel: That's correct. I'm a little concerned too during the winter time because of freezing — conditions and that. It may be difficult to try and get the compaction on the slope that you would want to have to prevent the sliding of the material in the spring once it thaws. Generally there's not much construction activity during the winter time. It shuts down for the — winter time. Mancino: Then maybe we can put months around this and days of the week to have some — parameters. On number 4 of your recommendation it says, all disturbed areas as a result of this construction must be restored with seed and disc mulch, sod or wood fiber blanket within 2 weeks from the completion of construction. Now what does that mean? Does that mean that when you make the dumps, that has to be done? I mean when they come let's say for 2 weeks they're going to keep coming 3 days that week and 3 days the next week. They have to put, they have to restore it within 2 weeks? — Hempel: The condition here was to mean that November 1 everything had to be seeded and disc mulched. The watershed district had a condition in their permit that required as they fill — 10 feet vertically, that bottom 10 foot area had to be restored with seed and mulch. And I did attach a condition that they shall comply with the Watershed District permit so it's, the minimum, every 10 feet of fill they bring in from the bottom up, they have to restore that with seed. Mancino: Within 2 weeks of when it's up there? 20 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 O EM N M Hempel: Once it's in place. Once it's in place. And their condition here that says by November 1st. That's if they have not achieved that 10 foot level yet. At November 1st, they need to shape the site and seed and mulch. Mancino: Well so what happens if they don't have 10 feet, they only bring it up to 6 feet and they do that in August. Don't they have to re-seed it within 2 weeks or can they wait until November, because by that time it all could have eroded out again. Hempel: There will be erosion control measures in place downstream. Type III erosion control fence to minimize that. Mancino: Okay. And are the calculations that I think it was Mr. Anderson suggested, or as many truckloads as 2,500. I mean I don't know if you've done any calculations as to how many truckloads it will actually be. Hempel: I've done a rough estimate based on the proposed grading plan and I've estimated close to 40,000 cubic yards of material to complete the restoration of that ravine. To bring it back up to match the bluff line. And based on an average of 10 to 12 yards per tandem dump truck, that's 4,000 truck routes to do that. That's over an extended period though. Annually, I suspect to see anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 yards of material a year, which — would be 500 to 1,000 truck trips on the street. Based on how construction is currently in the city. It's also possible if, I mean we have a site right next door here that has 30,000 yards sitting on it right now. West of the Byerly's site that is available. So there are places that — have a large magnitude of dirt that could be moved in a short period of time to accomplish the filling that they're so seeking. Mancino: Once this, if it does go further and there are some parameters around hours of operation, how many days, months, etc. When it comes back after a year from, how do the residents, will it come back to a public hearing so that after a year and everybody's evaluating — it, that all the parties who are interested can get together and have a discussion to say, you know this didn't work, this did work, etc.? Hempel: We would re-notify all the residents of the renewal process. I believe it'd be another public hearing. Correct me if I'm wrong Bob. Are you aware of the procedure? Generous: Now the way it's established in here. It would be, there would be notice through an advertisement in the paper as part of the City Council agenda. Mancino: And on the City Council agenda, would that be a public hearing? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Generous: Council doesn't hold public hearings but they do open them to the public for public input. The Planning Commission has the public hearings. — Mancino: Thank you. Because I would want to make sure that on the renewal date, that those interested parties can speak to the Planning Commission or the City Council publicly. — And go over it. I do, being a resident who has a lot of development happening near where I live, I understand the neighbor's concerns about hours of operation and so I do agree with the 7:00 to 6:00 p.m. and no Saturday work. And otherwise, I think with some good parameters — in place for the neighbors and to keep their lifestyle and where they live, and to get the ravine filled, if we can do it and do it well, I'm in favor of it. Do I have a motion? Norm Berglund: Excuse me, Madam Chairman. May I make a statement? Mancino: Yes you may. Could you come up to the podium. — Norm Berglund: Mr. Hempel commented that he thought the, Mr. Hempel commented he thought the driveway would be put in this fall. That may or may not happen because we're concerned about the compaction of the subgrade material. This last month it's been raining about every third day. Just enough to wet it so I think the driveway will not go in this fall, _ but in the spring so just so we clarify that. Mancino: Okay. And Dave, how do you think that will affect, if the driveway does not go _ in? Hempel: It will be a source for a dust problem that will require daily watering of the _ driveway to limit dust. It's possible the tracking of additional material onto the paved portion of Creekwood Drive as a result of being a gravel driveway. Mancino: Would it be your recommendation then to wait and to start this in the spring once the driveway is paved? Hempel: I guess there's the applicant's choice whether he'd want to maintain the dust control and the cleaning of the streets as a result of tracking material, without having to pave the street. Pave the driveway. I would think that he, that they would want to have the street — paved to minimize that because it is a lot of work. It does require a water truck. It's a substantial length of driveway to water. And also to clean the city streets. Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Do I have a motion? 22 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Farmakes: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit. Audience: Can't hear. Farmakes: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit #95-1 for Bluff Creek Course as shown on plans prepared by Schoell and Madsen dated June 6, 1995, revised June 7th, 1995, received June 29th, 1995 and subject to the following conditions. I would modify 4. To read the hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday thru Thursday, and that no work be done on Saturdays or Sundays or legal holidays. I would add on 7. The fill shall be placed in accordance with city ordinances. And I'm wondering, entertain a motion on the issue of paving access. I think perhaps we should make that a requirement and send that up to the City Council. See what they want to do with that. Mancino: So you want to add that as number 16? Farmakes: Yes. Prior to any work being done, that the access road be paved. It seems to be a central issue to this. Mancino: Do I have a second? Meyer: I'll second it. Mancino: Discussion. Peterson: Dave, if we limit it to Tuesday to Thursday, your best guess, would that, could that substantially lengthen the time that this process goes on or is it? Hempel: During the period where the fill material's available, it's a large substantial amount, yes because generally they would haul it in a week or 2 week period and be done hauling. By making it Tuesday thru Thursday would drag it out obviously for 4 weeks. Peterson: I guess I'm, with that part of the motion, a little uncomfortable that if I was a resident, I may want to get it over with versus having a few days of more quiet. To get it over with during the week and have the weekends and nights free. Again, I'm speaking on behalf of the people that are in the audience that I'm comfortable doing, but if it were I, I would rather get it done Monday through Friday when it's available to get it done faster over, it may lengthen it by another year. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 • Farmakes: I would change the motion to read, actually whatever the individuals in the room here would like it to read in issues in that regard. — Mancino: I'm not sure we'll get a consensus so let's put something in and they can talk to City Council. They can come to the City Council meeting and ask for. — Farmakes: We could do that or send it up as a choice in regards to what the neighbor's preferences are. –" Nutting: Is that just direct staff Madam Chair, or are we saying we'll put in actual, we'll either recommend Tuesday through Thursday or Monday through Friday and then let them. Mancino: Well I think that first Craig should make a friendly amendment, if he'd like to on number 4 and that Jeff can say yes and then let's hear what the friendly amendment and number 4 actually says. So do you want to please do that formally? Peterson: Yeah, to that end I guess I would like to have staff make a formal recommendation upon getting feedback from the residents as to what the appropriate number of days would be to have as hours of operation and appropriate number of days during the week for activities. — Farmakes: That would be acceptable. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion or friendly amendments? Can I make a friendly amendment? I would like to make a friendly amendment and that is that, the hauling and the work, that the work being done can happen April through October. Those months and not November through March. And there is, and I don't know if you accept that friendly amendment. Farmakes: I accept that. I believe that there's some limitations with county roads that extend until May I believe. You may want to check on that or ask the city staff. Mancino: Dave, what are the correct months that you can have so much tonnage on the roads with the thaw, etc? Hempel: Road restrictions usually go into place approximately the first week of April and last through May 15th. Mancino: Okay. So then it would be May 15th through October? Thank you. And I know that there was also discussion on street repair. As far as, was it on Creekwood? 24 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Nutting: Yeah. I think that was. I guess I would offer a friendly amendment on that point. That city staff do a formal survey of the road prior to the commencement of the project and monitor road conditions and address any necessary repairs in a timely fashion for the residents. Farmakes: That would be fine. Mancino: Good. Do we have a second to the motion? Meyer: Second. Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #95-1 for Bluff Creek Golf Course as shown on the plans prepared by Schoell and Madson dated June 6, 1995, Revised June 7, 1995, (received June 29, 1995), and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be required to provide the City with a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee maintenance of erosion control, site restoration and street cleaning. The financial guarantee shall be released upon completion of the project. 2. The applicant shall fence the top of slope area for safety purposes and to discourage/prohibit unauthorized filling after hours. 3. The site will be subject to periodic reviews by the City and inspections to ensure compliance with the conditions appropriate to ensure health, safety and restoration. 4. Direct staff to make a formal recommendation upon getting feedback from the residents as to what the appropriate number of days would be to have as hours of operation and appropriate number of days during the week for activities. Mos 5. Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of any filling operation. Erosion control measures shall remain throughout the project until the slopes are fully revegetated and removal is authorized by the city. 6. All disturbed areas, as a result of this construction, must be restored with seed and disc- mulched, sod or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks from the completion of construction or no later than November 1, 1995. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 7. All fill material to be placed in the ravine must be clean fill free of any debris. Clean fill consists of clay or granular type soils. No organic or landscaping debris, asphalt or concrete larger than one foot in diameter will be permitted. All unsuitable material discovered must be removed by the applicant as direct by the City. Fill shall be placed in accordance with city ordinances. — 8. The applicant shall comply with the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District's permit. — 9. The applicant shall daily clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the applicant, it's agents or assigns. If the streets are not — maintained, the city shall use the applicant's security escrow to hire outside forces to complete any necessary work. 10. This interim use permit shall be renewed on an annual basis. The permit shall expire November 15, 1995. The applicant shall contact the City to request a formal extension 45 days prior to expiration. The renewal permit shall be subject to City Council — approval for renewal. 11. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all costs incurred in the enforcement of this permit including engineering and attorney's fees. 12. The applicant shall hold the city and it's officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval or work done in conjunction with it. The application shall indemnify — the city and it's officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses that the city may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney fees. 13. In the event of default by the applicant as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder the city, at it's option, may perform the work and the applicant shall promptly reimburse the city for any expenses incurred by the City provided the applicant is first — given notice of the work in fault not less than four days in advance. This permit is a license for the city to act and it shall not be necessary for the city to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. If the city does any such work, the city may, in — addition to other remedies, assess the cost in whole or part to the property owners. 14. The applicant must notify the city engineer in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to — project commencing. 26 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 15. The site shall be graded in conformance with the approved ravine restoration plan prepared by Schoell and Madson dated June 6, 1995, revised June 7, 1995. 16. Prior to commencement of the project, the access road shall be paved. 17. No work shall occur from the months of October through May 15th. 18. That city staff do a formal survey of the road prior to the commencement of the project and monitor road conditions and address any necessary repairs in a timely fashion for the residents. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: When does this go in front of the City Council? Hempel: It's proposed to go before the Council on August 14th. Mancino: Okay, and the motion kind of stipulates that you get together with the neighbors to discuss with the neighbors hours of operation, days of the week. Thank you very much and thank you for coming. _ PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 9,161 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON A 1.57 ACRE LOT, PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT _ INDUSTRIAL, LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION, HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT INC. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you Bob. Any questions for staff? Bob, have you had time to review the new architectural enhancements from the building? Generous: We've only discussed it on the phone. Basically their result is a lot like the Powers Systems building where he went with the, he was discussing using a banding. A painted band in the blue color. Mancino: And that's it? Generous: Well I don't know exactly what he's. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: So you haven't, you have not had time to review it? Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant wish to present, to address the Planning Commission? — Bernard Herman: Madam Chair and members of the commission, my name is Bernard Herman and I'm the architect for the project. I will make a brief presentation. Just to touch on a few of the key issues and some of the things we'd like to discuss. I would like to mention that David Obee is also present here and he's from Highland Development and he's here to answer any questions that you may have relative to the project. Just a few comments — about the company itself, if you have any questions about it, maybe I'll answer it at the beginning... The type of business that they do, they are a manufacturer's rep for construction heating equipment. They've been in business for 15 years. They currently employ 10 to 12 — people and they have about a 5 year projection of going up to about 15 people and a site which we'll talk about that allows us to also expand and we'll... At this point I think I'll put up the site board. Make some brief comments about the site development. Obviously we — have a site that's rather narrow and somewhat long so that dictates a lot of what we do architecturally in setting up the building orientation on the site. You've had occasion to look at the packet of information relative to the design. I think I would just mention to you that the way the building is situated, the surrounding office area to be expanded all in front and that's part of the reason why we've got the setback that we do. To allow us to do this. Otherwise obviously the office, their own portion, could essentially be constrained from any expansion. So by moving the building back, it allows us to do this. Also you have a dash line indicating the future warehouse expansion. So you can get an idea of what this future — building can be on this site. It can follow this longer, linear direction. The office entrance, or entrance to the building actually is right in this corner. We have a...line which is directly on access to the vehicle. The vehicle entrance onto the site. Our loading area, in this area, — just kind of mention that loading area is somewhat interesting. We have one semi truck station and then that was at 48 inches and then we have one smaller truck station that's at 20 inches. The site has a catch basin and interior drain. All of it is...bundled down to the catch — basin process. Parking is situated so we have office and visitor parking along this side and then we have warehouse employees and surplus parking along this property line. The site lighting that we're proposing are wall pack units. This site is so terrible, we really don't find an immediate need as we look at to having the pole lights. We think if we were to provide two wall pack units on that wall and one on this wall up high, we're going to get more than the required minimum foot candle for lumination of the parking area. As far as the — landscaping is concerned, and I'll use the same drawing just to touch on that. We tried to introduce a variety of species and that's indicated on the table and I won't go into that but there's several, as you can see from the list you have probably 8 or 10 different species of — trees and plant material, which we think will...on site. One of the focal points that we're developing is where we have a recessed area of windows which has a spread of new shrubs and then we have these 5 trees which are radiant crabs which is a more decorative tree. –' 28 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 — We've gone to some trouble, as you can tell, to screen the dock area on the site properly. You see quite a bit of planting. And in talking to staff in our meetings and so on, and _ discussions, we've gone to some extent to create enough planting beds around the dock areas to give that additional amount of landscaping. Bob talked about his recommendations for landscaping along the side and the rear corner, the northwest corner I believe. I think one of the things we'd like to do tonight is just kind of ask your consideration of maybe modifying — that. We have a concern, number one as far as that triangular group of trees that Bob talked about in this area, has the potential of conflicting with our proposed addition. Right now this line is somewhat arbitrary because we don't know what the size of the addition is going to be but obviously we don't want to limit the potential expansion of that site by planting that large triangular area of trees back here, which...We're certainly not against trees. I don't want to find myself talking against trees. I was even involved once in writing an ordinance for a municipality for their landscape ordinance and I make strong appeals for trees so I find myself talking against it. I'm not against trees but I think we can't limit the purpose of this — site for future expansion. Secondly, as we're talking about the row of trees along this wall. I'll just mention that there's a huge planting area where a ponding area is proposed off of that area and the hill drops down, I don't know, 20 feet. As topography drops down and that hill is fairly well planted and it's going to be enhanced with additional plantings by the developer so it seems to me that the natural configuration of the topography, the ponding area, the distance from the adjacent development, which is substantial. I'm not talking about — immediate adjacency. We're talking about a very long distance. And a very definite difference in topography, probably begs to question the value of that landscaping. All I would ask is would you please talk about it. Maybe give it some consideration in your Mmir deliberations. We're taking some issue with it. We're just asking you to consider that. As far as the. — Farmakes: Can I ask a question? A clarification. Bernard Herman: Yes. Farmakes: The addition that you're talking about, as you said in a 5 year plan. Do you have a quantifiable time that you're talking about? Bernard Herman: I really didn't associate the addition with the 5 year plan, and if I mentioned that. — Farmakes: I'm assuming if you're going to go up to 15 employees, that you're going to expand. The expansion is. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Bernard Herman: Well it could be related but I don't know. Maybe Dave, if you could address that... — David Obee: The building is, as it is designed now, is able to handle 3 more employees. I've got 11 now and will probably have 12 this fall. We're talking about an expansion of 3 — employees_ The building expansion is speculative at best. I can't say that it's going to be needed in the next 5 years. 10 years. I don't know. Farmakes: So if I understand you right, what you're asking for is to limit the amount of landscaping or trees in the area that you're going to plan on expanding to but that may be difficult to quantify. — Bernard Herman: I think that's a fair assessment. Farmakes: Okay. Bernard Herman: The longer it takes to put the addition on, and the more mature the trees — are, of course the bigger the problem is. I think there's some other critical spot where some additional planting might have value but I don't think...This is the front of the building. Bob's comment pretty accurately describes what's happening. We've been talking about architectural features and so on for this warehouse. The warehouse portion of the building doesn't... a lot of elements to really work with. It's a pretty basic box so we've introduced as a method of — putting in an architectural feature, is using a fairly wide band that would have the...ribs interrupted so it would be a smooth surface, much consistent with the recommendation of staff as a method of dealing with that. The blue color that's being used is the same as the — logo company color, of this company so we're trying to incorporate that into the architecture of the building in color. It was mentioned that the front of the building is the stucco...there's two horizontal bands which are the matching blue of this band that you see on the warehouse — so we're carrying that color through. Below the windows, it may be hard for you to see from here but there's a light blue panel color directly below the windows and this...is also passed around from the color scheme of the logo in the company colors, which you basically have two colors of blue. As I mentioned earlier, these windows in front are recessed back a couple feet and planted so that's one of the little architectural features of the office building that I wanted to mention. The windows and door and side light frames are all...anodized aluminum. — We're attempting to develop somewhat of a high tech character for this building, which is to use the blues and the grays and the natural aluminum and that's the theory behind it and that's highly consistent with the industry of the business and the kind of image that we're trying to — create. The warehouse panels are random ribbed. I think Power Systems, you've probably all seen that building. You have many random ribbed buildings in the city but that's basically what we're doing with this building and it's going to be the natural color of the concrete, — 30 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 which is consistent with the color of the stucco. Now I don't know how much of this you can pick up. Sorry for how small these samples are. Mancino: Is dry-vit the same thing as stucco? Bernard Herman: It's a form of stucco application but instead of, whereas stucco might be 7/8, 5/8, and 7/8 inch thick in pre-coat application, dry-vit is a skin coat that's put directly over insulation. But the appearance is basically the same, and maybe in some cases some people would say it's better. Mancino: So does the dry-vit, the gray of the dry-vit match the gray of the warehouse panels? Bernard Herman: Yes. Mancino: Okay. The medium. Bernard Herman: This is the basic wall. Does the camera pick this up? Can we get a close- up? This is a sample, which is a gray. Mancino: It's kind of a medium gray? Bernard Herman: Yeah, that's exactly right. It's as close as we can come. The dry-vit you're using a lot of colors, as you can see and so we just try to pick the gray that identically matches the gray of the warehouse building, because the whole idea of what we're trying to do is to carry out that color right across the whole building. And then the blue colors. The band color's down here and the panel color below the windows is right here. Would it be any better if I circulated that? Mancino: Thank you. _ Bernard Herman: Are you interested in looking at this? It kind of reverses itself. These are the window and then on this side is the basic wall. Mancino: Thank you. Bernard Herman: At the same time, while you're passing it, this is the, this is your metal. That's your. It's a small building and it's a pretty simple building and I think our intent is to keep the colors very high tech and very simple as well. Well that's about the extent of our comments. At this point we'd certainly welcome your questions. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Farmakes: This drawing that you're showing us here. Is that something you worked out with city staff or is that what you've done in response to staffs recommendations? — Bernard Herman: Well we've done that in response to staffs recommendations, which identified 3 or 4 alternatives to handle the architectural solution and one of the alternatives was to provide an architectural band on the smooth surface with interrupted ribs and we felt that was most consistent with what we were doing because we already had a banding technique going on the stucco office buildings so it gave us a chance to take that color and — carry it around the warehouse. Farmakes: Okay, let me rephrase my question. Have you met with staff with this drawing — that you've just shown us? Bernard Herman: No. We've only discussed it. Farmakes: Okay. Mancino: I have a question about the roof mounted equipment. How are you going to handle screening that? Now, the staff report, especially the warehouse which is what, 20 1/2 — feet tall is going to fit very high and so that it will be seen from probably what, Highway 5? Generous: Well McGlynn's, yes. — Mancino: Yeah. It will be seen from TH 41 and it will be seen all over. How is the, very specifically, how will the roof top heating, cooling be dealt with? Because you can't put. — Bernard Herman: The only roof top unit we have now is on the office building. At this point, which is on the low building. Mancino: So are you saying there won't be any on the warehouse? Bernard Herman: At this point, if there is, we aren't aware of it. And the reason I edge on that is we don't anticipate one at this point. The warehouse is not air conditioned. We expect it will unit heaters only, and that's all we're going to provide in the warehouse at this point. I only hedge and say because there may be something that comes up down the road where something is added but at this point, no. There's nothing on top of the warehouse roof. There's an air handling unit on top of the office only because that's the air conditioning — portion of the building. Mancino: And how will that be screened? — 32 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Bernard Herman: Well, we were planning on using metal panels to match the color of the, we can get the pre-painted metal panels that would be erected on a metal frame and just set around the equipment and it will be the same color. We try to stay in the same kind of monochrome, that's our approach. Mancino: Thank you. My only other question is with your landscaping. One of the, part of the PUD requirements is to screen, what is it, the truck, the overhead doors, etc. And that is year round screening. Will that be year round screening there? Bernard Herman: Well we've added two coniferous trees. They're a little bit differently placed than where Bob's diagram showed them but we intended to provide two coniferous trees in these spaces between the others that were shown to create a more dense buffer, as far as screening in this area. The screening around here are arborvitae's and the other, I guess we want to say coniferous trees for the most part around here so the screening for the loading area will be primarily coniferous material. Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? Nutting: Yes. Ifyou could refresh mymemory. Whenyou were describingthe lighting just g g for the site, was the lighting that you described consistent with staffs recommendation number 8? Or were you saying, staff was saying a pole and you were saying building. Bernard Herman: I think maybe it was different because I remember in the staff report they talked about one of these box, shoe box types of a pole. And I guess our assessment is that we don't have a wide enough parking area that's far enough away from the building to warrant that. So our intention was to put the wall pack units, which are fairly typical for these types of buildings, to provide the parking lot lighting. Nutting: Could I ask staff what their reaction is to that? Generous: That's an acceptable method. The conditions in there that they were to use pole lighting. That they had to have the shoe box sodium. Nutting: But staff would find the applicant's alternative acceptable? Generous: Yes. Our concern would be the spillover light. We want to minimize that, which are code also. Mancino: Any other questions? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Peterson: As it relates to the exterior redesign, is staff comfortable with that? Generous: Well that's basically what I envisioned when I talked to him on the phone about it. It brings to mind Power System right away. That's exactly what they did. A little bigger building in that instance than this one but they have that other component which adds variety with the stucco and the smaller bands around the office portion, which Power Systems doesn't have. Bernard Herman: Actually just an application of that may be saying the same thing except with different words is that the two bands that we have on your office makes it a natural extension. With the same color and a larger scale in proportion to the warehouse from the — same... Farmakes: Do we still paint concrete? Aanenson: It's applied... — Generous: You can't paint block is what the PUD I believe says. Farmakes: It says pre-cast random ribbed painted. Generous: No, that's. If you have to look in his letter, they're going to take that out. — They've decided not to paint the concrete for the tilt up. Farmakes: It will be colored. — Generous: It would be the natural color. What they're going to do is coat it I believe. Bernard Herman: Yeah, we're just going to seal it. By the time we picked out the colors, they were the same colors because of the natural concrete. David Obee: That might have been a misunderstanding with Bob when I earlier had talked about painting it, the concrete and Kate, I don't remember if it was you or...said that they don't allow painting of concrete so at that point I told Bernie, I said, we're not going to paint — it. I guess we can't paint it so then we got a reply back from staff, this is what Bernie had said what Power Systems had done so. Do you allow concrete being painted? Block or the tip up. Farmakes: No. I believe that was addressed in the architectural standards issue. 34 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 David Obee: How do we get around that then? For this stripe in. Because I like it. It adds a lot to the building. Farmakes: In the past I believe we took, on the issue of detailing, there's different materials. Contrasting materials I think. It's semi described in the design. Aanenson: Correct. We put tiles in or. Farmakes: Versus painting a band. Aanenson: Yes, because if the paint chips off and then. Mancino: It starts looking a little tacky after a while when the paint chips off. Nutting: The Power Systems is different material or painted? Generous: It's painted. David Obee: Is that epoxy paint or anything? Mancino: I don't think we know that but if we don't allow painted concrete, I think that you may have to go back to the drawing board on that. Any other questions at this time? Peterson: The only other one that I have is more of an observation, an FYI. Having checked, in looking at the floorplan of the internal design, which we normally get into, and again this is prefaced by saying it is an observation. I checked with city staff today regarding, as you look at the restroom design, you have shower in the men's room and no shower in the women's room and although there is no regulation stipulating there has to be parity between two as it relates to showers, I would suggest you may have a potential problem there down the road. Again, that's only an observation but. Mancino: Thank you. Are you all done with your presentation? Bernard Herman: Yes, that would conclude our...ask any questions that you have. Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing? Meyer moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. If anyone would wish to come up and to approach the Planning Commission on this issue, please do at this time. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Nutting moved, Fatmakes seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Comments. Observations. Questions from the commissioners. Bob. — Skubic: All I want to say is we do have to deal with the tree issue on the northwest side. It's not clear to me how effective the trees are going to be on the north side. There's a 4 foot — elevation difference there... Mancino: You can ask for taller trees then. Skubic: So I think we should consider doing something like that so we do have a more — effective barrier there. That's... Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I would concur. I do believe that we need some type of trees on, as staff has suggested. I'm a little confused as to the triangular, Bob you had talked about earlier. How _ far over that would impinge on their potential future site. I would assume that there's a balance between where that triangle, that you had talked about, and their proposed site that we could place some trees in there. _ Generous: Well what I was trying to describe there gave them an expansion area to the north of the structure of at least 60 feet before even that area would come in and then depending on how they design the landscaping in there, I was thinking more like a U shaped landscaping area with the conifers mixed in with some evergreens so you get a mix of landscaping. I don't know if the 60 foot expansion to the north is enough. I didn't, this looks like it's a little longer than what I had provided space for. Peterson: Well I guess that would be my only concern that I think that with that expansion, if there can be trees placed in there without being, without sticking out unnecessarily or looking inappropriate, I'd certainly like to see those in there. That would be my comments. Mancino: I would just like to add to that also, knowing that there are big tree spades that can go in there and pick things up during the construction period also. 36 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Nutting: That's what I was going to say. I guess I would, I don't want to infringe upon their ability to expand but as long as, either staff works with them in terms of the placement, where it's something they're comfortable with or they know that they have the ability to move at a later date. It's hard to say right now. It's anybody's best guess. Expansion could be in 3 years. I mean if business goes really well. It really becomes an issue of what's the right spot for them. And if they expand, what's the right spot. If they truly expand all the way out to where they're going. So I can't say where they should be placed but I guess I would direct staff to work with the applicant on the placement of those. The right placement of those. I would also, just based on the comments that I've heard, I think the screening issue for the rooftop equipment, in answer from your questions to number 6 is, as long as they're screening is consistent with that, I'm okay. It looks to me like staff recommendation number 8 could be modified if staff is agreeable to the wall mounted versus the pole. I would be in favor of modifying number 8 to state, I'm trying to think of the right words in terms of adding it. Perhaps leaving what staff has and adding or acceptable wall mounted fixtures as discussed with staff. I think that's the extent of my comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: I'm not sure, I'm probably just a little confused on the stripe that's shown on the elevation there. What that's going to be or it's not going to be or, maybe...? Mancino: That is what the applicant is suggesting at this point. Meyer: Okay. But he's talking about painting it? Mancino: Yes. Meyer: And he can't do that. That's pretty much it. So Bob is there an alternative? Are we going to be sending that up like that or what are they going to do there? Generous: They could not paint it. They could put glazed tile in it. Mancino: That's the applicant and staff need to work out and... Aanenson: Unfortunately there's some ambiguity between Bob and myself with that interpretation. I gave them one interpretation and Bob and I didn't check on, they were given a different direction so in deference to them, I would like the opportunity to work it out with them to try to meet the objective that we're trying to achieve. What we don't want to have is something that's going to be a maintenance problem and I'm sure they don't want that either 37 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 so if we can...we can achieve that goal, that's really the objective and generally painting, just general painting seems to be ongoing maintenance, especially when it's a tall building. — Mancino: Plus, we don't want to start a precedent for other people to come in and say. Aanenson: Exactly. But as Bob indicated, that's what happened on the other one so. Mancino: I think we should stop. — Aanenson: Right. So we want to look at that issue. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: Not enough trees. I think the landscaping should be done on this half without the expansion consideration, unless expansion is conditioned with a finite date that would not make it reasonable to place landscaping there. Based on what the applicant said, that that — may not occur or it might, I think we should approach that as the existing structure is and up until such time that they decide to move, they can scoop the trees out and move them. So I go back to the issue that staff noted down there. To treat it as it currently is on the plan. — This is a PUD so it's, I think appropriate for us to do, and I don't want to micro-manage the architecture here. It's a warehouse. Primary warehouse. It would be a better looking building with the materials as he's talked about the issue of band. It's not our place to be up — there and specify the type of aluminum you use for the band. You deal with that with the architect. The purpose of the ordinance is so that basically we don't have people building cracker box and somebody next door to you may be complaining that they have a nice office building and somebody came in and put in a cracker box. I don't think that we should ask staff to comment on these things. I agree Madam Chair that, now it's the first time they've seen that drawing. They should have an opportunity to review it and sit on it and come up with their recommendations are to the applicant and then the applicant deal with that with his architect. Coming up with solutions that fit the spirit of the ordinance. Mancino: Would you like to see that come back again after staff and the applicant have resolved the architectural? Farmakes: Well, I'm uncomfortable. Normally I like to send this forward but we're not looking at any of the additional landscaping in this situation so if we did that, we'd be approving it as virtually half of it is missing. The issue of the architecture, I don't see that — that's something that can't be worked out with staff. It doesn't sound like there's a problem with the applicant conforming to that so give them an opportunity to work that out. I would like to see what that is, but other than those two hurdles, I don't see. So they can come up 38 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 with a clever way of wording it. But I think under the circumstances in looking at that landscape plan, typically we don't send stuff forward in that state of open design. Mancino: Thank you. I have no new comments to make. Do I hear a motion? May I have a motion. Do we have more discussion? Farmakes: I would make a motion to table, as soon as I can find the right page here. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the, if I can find the right spot here. Site Plan Review #95-11 for Highland Development, plans dated 6/19/95 until such time as the conditions of the landscaping and building exterior detailing can be worked out as per the recommendations of staff. Mancino: Is there a second? Meyer: I'll second it. Mancino: Any discussion. Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan Review #95-11 for Highland Development, plans dated 6/19/95 prepared by Beira d Heiman Architects, until such time as the conditions of the landscaping and building exterior detailing can be worked out per the recommendations of staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: Any questions from the applicant at this time? Bernard Herman: Well yeah, I guess...question. I think a table is kind of difficult...but that's fine. We are getting late in the year. August is coming up fast and I'm not sure...we look at _ structural steel and pre-cast products today out in the market, and this could be killing the project for this year potentially. You're about 14 weeks for steel and none of that can in good conscience be ordered until this has been approved. Mancino: Sure. I understand. Bernard Herman: That has a very potential delay. I also think just to comment on to table it. I think it would be just as appropriate for us to recommended approval with the understanding that we can work out those same conditions with staff which would have allowed us to work out those issues and still meet the 1995 schedule. I don't see anything that controversial about finding the landscaping for instance. We raise the issue but I don't think it's anything MEND 39 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 controversial about incorporating the staff recommendations. I think this will delay the project several months. — Mancino: Appreciate your comments. When will we be able to, Bob, get this back? Will we be able to in 2 weeks? See this. — Aanenson: It's up to them. Mancino: It's up to the applicant, okay. Do we have time on the schedule if they meet. Generous: Well I would assume that any, the next review would be just on those two issues — so it should go pretty quickly. Mancino: Okay. And our next meeting is when? Aanenson: The 16th of August. — Mancino: The 16th of August and when do they need to have something in to you to review with you for the staff report? — Aanenson: Our reports should probably go out Wednesday so he'd have to have something in probably Friday. First thing Monday morning. — Mancino: So this Friday, first thing Monday morning, if you have the revisions in to staff, we will be able to review it. — Bernard Herman: If we have a review on the 16th, that probably wouldn't cause us any delay...push into next month, that's what I was concerned about. Once you get into — September and much beyond that, it could have been a problem but if you're talking about the 16th, that's no problem for us at all. Mancino: Terrific. And if you can just make sure that you schedule some time with Bob to get together and review it and make the revisions by Friday or Monday, you'll be on the schedule. — David Obee: So then the next meeting is the 16th? Aanenson: Yep. Mancino: Thank you. 40 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SUBDIVIDING OUTLOT B, MCGLYNN PARK ADDITION, AN 8.79 ACRE PARCEL, INTO ONE LOT OF 1.15 ACRES AND ONE OUTLOT OF 7.64 ACRES; SITE PLAN REVIEW OF AN 8,044 SO. FT. BUILDING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT MCGLYNN DRIVE AND AUDUBON ROAD, CHILDREN'S WORLD LEARNING CENTER, INC. Public Present: Name Address Mary Terrass Julia Wise 7846 Flamingo Drive Doug Stahl Schoell & Madson Shaimin Al-Jaff presented the staff repoit on this item. Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? Skubic: The second access that...close to the intersection. Was that...properly? Hempel: Madam Chair, members of the commission. That was a slight concern to us but being that it's going to be a looped street back down south into the future Coulter Boulevard, the amount of traffic generated, depending on the user that comes in, shouldn't be too excessive. If we give them another opportunity to go south to get to another road out to Audubon Road as well. What we proposed in there I believe was an access point like 90 feet back from the center line of the intersection that would give enough room for turning vehicles and turning movements in and out of the site so we're fairly comfortable with the second access point at that location. Peterson: I had a difficult time physically finding this spot, as a couple of us already discussed. On your original map, if you go back to it, with the overall, Arboretum and Audubon. Where is it in relation to Pillsbury? Al-Jaff: North of Pillsbury. Peterson: On the same road that Pillsbury is on, correct? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Al-Jaff: Approximately I want to say 300 feet north of Coulter Boulevard. Have the signs been changed from Coulter? — Peterson: Pillsbury's on McGlynn as it is now. So Pillsbury would be where on that map? Al-Jaff: Pillsbury would be right here. Peterson: Okay. Got it. Mancino: On the south side of Coulter, which is now McGlynn. Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to approach the Planning Commission? — Doug Stahl: Good evening, I'm Doug Stahl with Schoell & Madson. We're the engineers on the project, and also I believe Regional Director, is that correct? Mary Terrass: Yes, that's correct. Doug Stahl: From Children's World if you have any questions on the operation of the facility. I guess...if I could just go down through the recommendations. — Mancino: Every single one of them? Doug Stahl: Well. Nutting: Just the ones you disagree with. — Mancino: Before I say yes, how many recommendations are there? Doug Stahl: There's 11 on the site plan. The only one I guess I would like to address is probably number 3 with the trees. We certainly don't have any problem planting additional trees. The one that's probably on the landscape, if I could have the overhead turned back on. — I need to point out one thing that was missing on that. Is the, along Audubon there is the 2 inch maple trees in there. Mancino: I'm glad you're bringing that up because I was going to ask. Doug Stahl: I just realized that looking at that tonight so I guess that is, even though it is not — on the site, it's going to get an additional feature to it on the south and on the west side with additional trees and we wouldn't have any problem putting them in. Maybe if we could possibly do some that are along the west side, put them along the south and the west. The 42 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 line up I believe there is crab trees along the east side of the building. I'm kind of doubling up with the maple trees. We can certainly leave them. We can certainly add more trees. I don't see a problem with that. We had a concern, we added some berms in the front. We may potentially have a problem trying to get berms along the east side between Audubon and the building just because of the grade different has got, I believe a 25 foot setback. Parking... on a building, I think we're about 5 feet above Audubon for elevation. And that 25 feet, coming up at 5:1, we just try to get a 4 to 5 foot berm in there, there wouldn't be room to get it in there. Mancino: So that maybe instead of the berming, the additional crab apples would help with buffering. Doug Stahl: Exactly, and we would certainly leave them there for that. For that purpose. I guess unfortunately we do not have any materials with me. Our architect is in Chicago...but as stated, we're looking at a brick face on that and a darker brown roof material. I assume this was done by the architect and I think the color would be fairly close to what he's looking at. It looks like that is very similar to what you have behind you. Apart from that, the McGlynn Road utilities and street, that is still one thing that Children's World is addressing with the seller to see what the arrangements will be in getting that built because it will obviously need to get built before final plat or the agreement would have to be in the works before final plat would be entered in... If the seller is not done with their agreement in getting those in, it will probably jeopardize this project. It would be a tremendous cost to be carried strictly by the Children's World... Again, we're still working with that with the seller of the project, of the parcel. Again, we would have to...The subdivision is fairly straight forward. Dividing up a 1 acre parcel and leaving the remainder as an outlot...they would sell it for. I guess apart from that, any of the staff recommendations there as far as calculations or seeding and mulch, that's certainly all incorporated into the plan. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Stahl? I would just like to make a recommendation that we do ask for materials to be presented at Planning Commission, and that's part of your requirement to bring those so we can see them. So I strongly advise you to bring them to City Council. Doug Stahl: I certainly can. Aanenson: They won't approve it without. Mancino: Well, usually we don't approve it without either. Aanenson: They were told to bring it tonight so. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Doug Stahl: I guess we can, if you'd like to see them on the 16th, I can certainly bring that then. If you'd like to put me on. — Mancino: Okay. I mean what, everyone will talk to that but a suggestion that I have is that you bring them over to City Hall in the next few days and commissioners can stop and see — them and if they have any questions or any comments, they can make them to staff prior to the City Council meeting. That's just a suggestion that's out there and we'll wait to hear how the other commissioners feel. Thank you. Does anyone else want to participate in the — presentation that's here from Children's World? Doug Stahl: I'm sorry, I didn't address the driveway I guess and we have no, we can — certainly work out putting another access in there. To give the loop wouldn't be a problem. Mancino: Great, thank you. Can I have a motion to open this to a public hearing? — Nutting moved, Peterson seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hewing was opened. — Mancino: This is a public hearing. Anyone who would wish to come up and address the Planning Commission on this site review plan, please do so now. Seeing none, may I have a — motion to close the public hearing. Peterson moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion canied. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: I'd like to see their signage be incorporated into the architecture of their building better rather than just a pylon. I realize the materials in the roof... Doug Stahl: Excuse me, can I address that? — Farmakes: Address your comments to the Chair. Mancino: Can you wait until we all have had comments and if there are any other questions, I will certainly tell you to come up. Thank you. Farmakes: I have no problem with the rest of the signage or the size of your sign. I just think that in the past we have asked that the signage be incorporated into the architecture of the building. My expertise is not landscaping but it seems to me, except for the front face of 44 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 the building, the entrance, there's very little shrubbery around the building itself. From Audubon. There are large trees but they're not going to be large for quite some time. I'm just wondering, concentration of shrubbery to the north, seems to be substantial and the rest of the building seems to be pretty open. So I'll leave it to the other members who spend more time with the landscaping. ...to that building looks like an appropriate building and the signage looks fine and I have no further comments. Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: No additional comments from me. Mancino: Ron. Nutting: I don't have anything to add other than it appears to me that under the site plan — review, recommendation number 3, from what I'm hearing, that should be revised given the topography of the site. That the berm not so much be the necessity but that the applicant work with staff to ensure that adequate screening is provided through additional trees along that side of the building. That can be handled quite easily in the motion. That's all. Peterson: No comments. Mancino: Bob. — Skubic: No comments. Mancino: Okay. I had a couple questions. I was concerned, from a planning point of view — earlier and talked it over in my own head and other people actually asked about having a, I know that it is a permitted conditional use in an IOP, having a daycare and my concern was that it's on Audubon and I don't know what else is going in that outlot and so I had some concerns about, is this the right place for a daycare. I know that Early Beginnings, that buffers Highway 5 is at the end of a cul-de-sac so that it doesn't have trucks running to the north or all around the building. And my only concern, and I'm looking at staff to help me, is to make sure that as the rest of the outlot is developed, that we don't have driveways surrounding the perimeter of the daycare lot. That what abuts the daycare is, or else we get more setback or ask for more buffering because kids are going to be out playing on the south side of the daycare and on the west side and I know that there is a vinyl fence that's going to be up and 6 feet tall and knuckle to knuckle something. But anyway. So I don't know if that's part of the recommendation. I'm not sure how to handle it so I'm asking some direction from staff. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Aanenson: Dave Hempel and I had this conversation. This is a little bit different when we're looking at this parcel because we're looking at an unknown. Normally when you look at _ something this big, we come in with a subdivision plat. This one's kind of coming in piece by piece, which obviously is a concern to the Children's World, as they've indicated, because it's onerous on them now to put the road in. Normally you have a development that it kind of — goes in and it's an assessed project or something like that, so they kind of have to carry the freight so I think until something else happens, maybe this project is, may have to wait until something else come along. If there's something else better to help carry that cost of the — road. On the other issue we raised that didn't get in the staff report is the light. I mean that's a dangerous intersection right now on Audubon and certainly similar to Galpin. But it's a dangerous location and when we did the EA for the other industrial park to the south, which — we just looked at a project on earlier tonight, we did require that they participate in funding towards that light. At Audubon, similar, I think we should put in a condition in here that any parcels in this development, based on their traffic generation, should also contribute towards _ the light at Audubon because it will be a safety issue getting in and out of this park. Not on Audubon but getting back out onto TH 5, which there will be significant traffic movement. As Dave indicated too, this movement, probably a lot of this is going to the school or users — will have the opportunity to get down to Coulter, which will be a collector street, east/west when that's developed but if this goes ahead of that, it will be a short term problem getting in _ and out of the plat until that light's in place. So I think one thing we should do is amend the development contract to include that. But I share your concern about what the rest of this, this is something. We're not doing, and normally we see the whole subdivision with kind of — an understanding of doing a PUD. Right now it's zoned industrial so we don't have to rezone. The other ones that we've done, we require rezoning so we were, we had the flexibility to say let's do a PUD and have an understanding of what's going in there. This we're kind of doing _ piecemeal and I share your concern with that. We want to make sure that there are compatible uses so I think we understand what the issue is, and to make sure that we don't just dump all the parking adjacent to this and that there be building or landscaping so those _ people using the playground have the most of their playground area, as far as amenities. Is that what your concern is? Mancino: Yeah. That's what the concern is, or you know. Aanenson: And I think maybe we can accomplish that by communicating that to the — developer of the property too. Mancino: Okay, terrific. Thank you. That takes care of it. Around the perimeter of the — daycare center is a sidewalk. Is that correct? Is that what I'm seeing? Al-Jaff: Correct. — 46 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: This whole thing is a sidewalk so that there are no foundation landscaping plantings around the building? Just in front? Al-Jaff: It actually runs around the building, yes. And what you see in red is the parameter of the building itself. Mancino: Okay. And you had suggested some more landscaping on that west side and on that south side. Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Six trees on I think the west and 5 additional on the south side to give again, a little more buffering between their play area and what develops in that outlot. Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Thank you. I have no other comments. May I hear a motion? Nutting: I'll make the motion that, I guess three. Well, one at a time. Mancino: Yes, you're right. Three motions. Nutting: Handle it one at a time. First motion, Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #95-14 as shown on the site plan received July 5, 1995 subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report with the following modifications. That under condition number 3, that the applicant work with staff in determining the, I'll say it first, the correct amount of landscaping/trees that are necessary to achieve what staff was looking to achieve with the berm effect. If the berm is in fact not possible given the existing topography. And for that motion, I believe that's all that I have. Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: Would you entertain an amendment? Nutting: Yes. Farmakes: Friendly amendment. Ask that the applicant be, comply with their signage with their architecture. Nutting: Yes. I'll accept that. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Mancino: Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? — Nutting moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #95-14 as shown on the site plan received July 5, 1995, subject to the following — conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on — the building. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on the site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall comply with the architecture of the building. _ 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the parameters of the site. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. Five more trees shall be _ planted along the west portion of the site and 6 trees along the southern edge from the city's approved primary or secondary deciduous. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required — financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to filing of the plat. The applicant work with staff in determining the correct amount of landscaping/trees that are necessary to achieve what staff is looking to achieve with the berm effect, if the berm is _ in fact not possible given the existing topography. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the — necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Fire Marshal conditions (Refer to Attachment #2 for detailed policies): — a. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991 - "Notes on Site Plan", copy enclosed. — b. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #07-1991 "Pre Fire Plan Policy", copy enclosed. c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1992 "Premises _ Identification", copy enclosed. 48 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #36-1994 "Combination Domestic/Fire Sprinkler Supply Line:, copy enclosed. Nom e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #40-1994 "Fire Sprinkler System", copy enclosed. f. Install and indicate on the plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on 6" water service. Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. NEED g. Install 2 "No Parking Fire Lane" signs at entrance to parking lot. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. h. Building and attic space must be fire sprinklered per NFPA 13-1991 Edition. i. Water main may not pass under the building. 6. The applicant shall provide details on material colors used on the building for review and approval. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall MED be submitted. 8. Building Official's Conditions: a. Provide recycling space as required by Minnesota State Building Code 1300.4700. Demonstration of compliance may be provided on construction documents. b. Dispose of existing foundation at an approved landfill. Any roof top equipment should be screened from views. 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within any street right-of-way. 10. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned. 11. Another curb cut for driveway access should be incorporated into the site plan to improve traffic circulation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: Another motion. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Nutting: Motion number two. Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #95-14 for McGlynn Park 2nd Addition as shown on the plat — received July 5, 1995 with the conditions as stated in the staff report. Without modification. Mancino: Is there a second? — Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Nutting moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the — preliminaiy plat for Subdivision #95-14 for McGlynn Park 2nd Addition as shown on the plat received July 5, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Enter into a development contract with the city. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice — Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. 5. The applicant shall construct McGlynn Road and install public utilities along McGlynn Road to the west property line of the site. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 6. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event, 24 hour duration. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 50 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 7. The applicant shall provide to the city written documentation by a qualified wetland delineator stating that there are no wetlands on the site. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. The proposed industrial development of 1.15 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $5,014. less any previous storm sewer assessment paid for the Audubon Road improvements. The water quality connection charge shall be waived. The water quantity fee is payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Nutting: Madam Chair, I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #95-2 subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Nutting moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #95-2 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: And this will be going to the City Council? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Al-Jaff: August 28th. Mancino: August 28th. And I am very sorry Mr. Stahl. I said that you could, you had a comment that you wanted to make about the sign. Would you like to make that at this point? Doug Stahl: Yeah...we are doing the Children's World up in Woodbury and around the bottom of the sign was the brick. You know almost like a brick planter around the sign and that's very possible can be done here. — Aanenson: That's the objective is to have it match the architecture of the building. Doug Stahl: So they would, what I was going to say is that they have one up in Woodbury that may be very similar to this. Mancino: Good. That would be well advised to put that, have that revision for City Council. Thank you. — APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 19, 1995. All voted in favor and the motion _ carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: — Aanenson: The Council approved the second reading of what we call the glitch amendment, which is the overall code updates. They approved the final plat for the 45 lots at Oaks at _ Minnewashta. And they have had a pre-construction meeting so I believe they'll be up there grading shortly. They also approved the extension for the Olivewood Addition, which is 9 lots on Minnewashta. That one's having, they're having a little bit hard time getting good — prices on that since it's a small subdivision. They also approved the Perkins site plan. They tabled action on the buffer ordinance. There was pretty good discussion. Members of the Builders Association and a number of builders were at the meeting to discuss the concerns they have. The Council directed staff to re-work some of the issues based on cost. I think they still felt strongly about the streetscape and the transition between industrial but maybe not between residential. So actually the Builders Association is going to come up with a draft of their own and we'll come up with our draft and we'll see what happens between the two. Farmakes: Any citizens showing up to round off this...? No? Aanenson: I think that's something that we can certainly incorporate. I think that issue was raised too. The citizens aren't involved in that. 52 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Farmakes: Just as a matter of point, counter point. You might let some of these, there are neighborhood associations and some of these newer neighborhoods know about this and ask for their participation. It would seem to me that it would be beneficial all the way around. Mancino: Well, from two points of view. First of all, that's a reason for the ordinance is because property owners are coming to us at the Planning Commission and being very concerned. And secondly, they're the ones who pay for it so I mean, they're the end user. They're where the market is being driven to look at this is from property owners and we certainly have 50 or 60 of them here on Trotters Ridge that have the industrial zone right next to them so. Just a plug for property owners I guess. Actually not really. It's just to have all parties involved. Who it affects here and have a voice is what I really mean to say. Farmakes: Is it typical to have businesses, or lobbying groups write ordinance legislation and then submit it to the city? Aanenson: Well I guess I look at how we did the sign ordinance. The Chamber got involved in that one and I think actually the bulk of the work got done... Farmakes: But that went through a task force situation. Aanenson: Yeah, but then the Chamber got pretty heavily involved and actually the Planning Commission ended up kind of mediating the staff had their direction and the Chamber had their's and the Planning Commission kind of was the mediator and kind of collaborated to come up with the ordinance that we have, and I kind of see that's how this will. There may be points of concurrence and there may be areas where there's significant difference and it will be up to the Council to decide. Mancino: So how are we going to bring in citizens? I mean people who aren't developers but landowners who are in these subdivisions who are coming to Planning Commission and City Council meetings and asking for more buffering. How are they going to be involved in the process? Aanenson: Well, I guess it depends on the streetscape certainly Council felt strongly about. What the Council didn't feel strongly about, but the staff was supporting, is buffering between people. And that's what they're, you know we're trying to create a sense of community and that's what they didn't want to see. Certainly the Council still supports buffering between the mix use, and that's in how much and where and those dollar figures. That's what we're still trying to bounce around. What's the appropriate dollars and what's the, is it too onerous on, and who goes in first. Those sort of issues. That's kind of where we're at. So I think there's some things, and they're looking at the natural topography. What effect does that. Those 53 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 issues weren't addressed in the ordinance, and I think are valid. There may be some large wetland with significant tree. Changing grade that may already account for some of the — natural buffering. So I think that there's some room for improvement and I'm willing to look and see what maybe they have a creative solution. See what they have to say. Farmakes: It's always nice with these type of things that are usually not much fun to go to, and when we see them, they're usually neighbors that are upset for one reason or another, and they show up here but then when these things are actually resolved or these type of — ordinances come up, that they may not even be aware of, that are trying to deal with some of this stuff. When it comes down to the actual discussions and so on, we always seem to have lawyers from Hoffman and we seem to have the vice president from some sort of development corporation submitting how we should be doing this and I'm just, I'm wondering how to incorporate the 90 people that we seem to get in here all the time. Aanenson: Well the Council struggled with that too and there's some interesting things that were said and...people buy, they say that those lots are discounted if you're adjacent to a — street to adjacent to a different zone and those lots are discounted. Therefore, the people take that discount and build a bigger home. Well, those are the same people that are coming back now because they've got the bigger home that want even more protection because now they've — made that investment in that home. So while their problem is solved because they say the person bought a smaller lot, or a discounted lot, and now has got bigger home because they were able to recapture those dollars and not put it in the lot but put it in the home, they — certainly want to be protected from whatever use is there so I don't think that makes any sense from the builders but. Farmakes: But certainly at any real estate transaction, there is a winner and a loser. And as there is in the sell of the stock. There's somebody who gains and someone who loses. Aanenson: Right. And they're saying that they bought knowing that. That's why it was discounted. They bought knowing that there was something else adjacent to them but that still doesn't mean whoever is there first, is going to object no matter what it is for the next — person and that's a hard hurdle. Farmakes: And there are some things that are still fluid. Aanenson: There are a lot of areas in the city that... Farmakes: It hasn't been decided what that rezoning is. Mancino: Okay. 54 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 INOM Aanenson: That's all I had for, I had some things under ongoing issues, if you wanted to. Mancino: Sure. — ONGOING ISSUES. — Aanenson: I didn't think I would be going on this, to this meeting tonight on suburban development. You had a copy of that in your packet. It was an interesting meeting. The — Met Council, the Council itself with a few staff people, toured Shakopee, Chaska, Prior Lake, Savage and Chanhassen. Unfortunately we were last so we had a pretty quick tour but it was pretty interesting discussion so. After the meeting then they went back to Shakopee and a lot — of what the focus of the meeting was, there was probably 60 people at the meeting, including school district superintendents and State legislators, and city, county, local people talking about what the affect of growth has to do on other public facilities, and really what they're — kind of focusing on schools. When development happens as rapidly, what it does to other tax dollars such as duplicating schools when other areas in the metropolitan area are maybe decreasing and losing schools so it was a pretty lively discussion and some pretty interesting things about which communities are working together well, which we're an example of working together well. What we've done with Chaska and 112 and for example Bluff Creek- and the city participated and where other communities aren't working quite as well, but I — think we were held up as a pretty good example of using good resources in those circumstances so. It was an interesting meeting. Again, this goes back to the whole issue of how the legislature is going to resolve school funding. — Farmakes: Was a part of this interaction, did they talk about issues of how to better utilize — their tax resources in regards to purchasing required amounts of very expensive property in tier suburbs for the school systems that are required by the State? Aanenson: They didn't get that specific. The first focus of the meeting was what they're looking at as far as the different approaches to the MUSA expansion. Kind of let market... take place. One would be controlling, limiting. Deciding whether it should be freezing — certain people from growth and allowing other people to move and then leaving it the way it is. Kind of you go back in and ask and justify it, so that was the first approach. And then they just let superintendents talk. Talk about issues they have with growth management based — on what's happening in cities. Really in an hour and a half, there wasn't enough time to get that specific. They allowed the superintendents to talk anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes to talk about how they're handling growth and duplication of services and that sort of thing. But — again, I think Chaska 112 district spoke rather highly of what they're doing with Chanhassen/ Chaska as far as making sure there's the cooperation and not duplicating. Under ongoing issues, I did update this and I'll try to do this every month to show you where we are on the 55 — Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 1995 Highway 5. There is a Bluff Creek meeting next, August 8th. Starting to get that thing going forward. Try to update you and show you, we have accomplished quite a bit. Actually — the Highway 5 is in final draft form. It will be to the printers soon and we'll disperse that to everybody. Get that up to the Met Council. We are trying to plug along on the 1995 study area. We've got some more mapping that we're waiting for on GIS. We're tying it to, it — looks like the referendum's kind of narrowing down what they're looking at as far as areas so that leaves a block. And actually we don't have that much really to look at but we'll be coming back with that hopefully by the end of the year. Some recommendations on work — progress. Bluff Creek, as I indicated, August 7th meeting. Joint Park and Recreation Commission meeting. I'll try to keep this in here the beginning of each month so you can kind of see where we're at. — Nancy Mancino gave the Planning Commission an update on what was happening at the Park and Recreation Referendum Task Force meetings. Faimales moved, Nutting seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the _ motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson — Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim — 56 — Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future August 1, 1995 UPDATE to City Administrators: — Over the next several months, local governments will need to make a number of decisions on participating in various regional initiatives adopted by the Minnesota Legislature. We hope to implement initiatives in partnership with your community. A summary of regional legislation from the 1995 legislative session relating to planning, programs and services is enclosed. We are also scheduling a number of information sessions for learning about these new initiatives. In particular, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act offers opportunities for communities. Its emphasis on cooperation and incentives to achieve regional goals received bipartisan support from state and local policy makers. Financial incentives established by the Legislature and to be administered by the Council offer much-needed dollars to clean-up polluted sites for commercial and industrial development, promote compact housing and business development near transit, and make affordable housing available to meet community needs. You can learn more about these regional initiatives and important community deadlines for community decision-making at the meetings listed below: • Regional briefings on Livable Communities for local government staff and elected officials Aug. 16 - 6 p.m. Shoreview City Hall, Council Chambers, 4600 N Victoria, Shoreview; Aug. 17 - 6 p.m. Dakota Co. Western Service Center, Room L139, 14955 Galaxie Ave., Apple Valley; Aug. 22 - 6:30 p.m. Metropolitan Council Chambers, 230 E. 5th St., St. Paul; Aug. 23 - 6 p.m. Minnetonka City Hall, Council Chambers, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd, Minnetonka • Aug.-Oct. Working sessions with local government staff to develop housing agreements for communities considering participating in Livable Communities-(Council staff will contact communities in August) 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 • Sept. Staff forums (Two dates to be announced) Concurrent half-day morning sessions will provide technical assistance and informal briefings and discussions on Livable Communities, land planning and comprehensive plan changes, regional growth and development options, transit redesign, water planning Council establishes advisory committee for livable communities (your suggestions and nominations are welcome). • Nov. 15 Deadline for cities' decisions on whether to participate in Livable Communities • Dec. Public hearing on community housing agreements to be adopted by Council • Jan. 15, 1996 Council adoption of housing agreements with participating cities • Feb. Grant applications issued to interested cities • July Decisions on grants funding We are also pleased to report progress in streamlining regional government. Consolidation and coordination of administrative functions, and mergers of planning and operations in Transportation and Environmental Services Divisions are in place. Housing planning, the HRA, technical assistance and parks planning are now a part of the Community Development Division. Policy and research units will be combined later this summer. We hope that you are starting to see some positive changes. 104.41 - .1:. • d :•'strata r - • : Summary of 1995 Regional Legislation - tlit ea Affecting:Metro-Wide * 111 111 Planning, Programs and-"•Services MICE� ''_ Overall Results The 1995 legislative session will prove to be a landmark session. Laws passed during the session establish an innovative regional public safety radio communications system and set a region-wide course and funds to achieve more affordable and life-cycle housing, clean up polluted sites and improve the livability of communities. The legislation also reinvigorated the local long-range planning process and makes the comprehensive plan the key document from which to make land-use decisions. Other legislation streamlines the planning review process and allows the Metro HRA to partner with other HRAs. Transit funding assistance, however, falls short of need, requiring immediate service reductions and fare increases. As a result, adequate funding for transportation continues to be an unresolved issue. In This Summary Major provisions of the following legislation are summarized. -Public Safety Radio Communications System Law - Metropolitan Livable Communities Law - Amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Law - Omnibus Environmental and Natural Resources Law - Omnibus Transportation Funding Law and related Laws -Miscellaneous legislation on Metro HRA activities and Council deadlines for reviewing certain items For additional information on Metropolitan Council programs and services related to this legislation, call the Council's Data Center at 291-8140. Copies of laws can be obtained from the Minnesota House of Representatives' Chief Clerk's Office at 296-2314 or the Minnesota Senate Office at 296-2343. L -- PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM ,_°R° (Chapter 195, Laws of 1995) Context The act will lead to improved region-wide public safety radio communications. It creates a system that can be shared by governmental units and developed at less cost than if each unit were to update its current system separately.The system plan, under development for three years,is a result of intergovernmental cooperation to share services effectively. General Provisions • Creates a public safety radio system to be phased in over the next several years. The first stage will be built by the Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT), a process to be overseen by the newly created Metropolitan Radio Board. • Local governments and other potential users are free to join the system if and when they see fit. Metropolitan Radio Board The board is created as a political subdivision. • Membership: 17 members who must be appointed no later than June 22, 1995. • Twelve members are selected by their governing boards or are designated in the legislation. The 12 include the following: seven county commissioners, one from each metropolitan county;one elected official from each of the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Bloomington; a member of the Metropolitan Council; and Mn/DOT's director of electronic communications. • The governor appoints five members: two elected suburban officials (recommendations solicited from the Associa- tion of Metropolitan Municipalities); one elected official from a county, or city within a county contiguous to the metropoli- tan area (recommendations solicited from the League of Minnesota Cities); a metropolitan area sheriff(recommendations from the Metropolitan Sheriffs Association) and a metropolitan area police chief(recommendation from the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association). • The board must create an advisory technical operations committee. Responsibilities of the Board • Within 90 days of the effective date of the legislation,or by Aug. 21, the board must adopt a region-wide public safety radio communications plan. The plan is to include, at a minimum, the following: • A system design for the first-phase backbone(i.e., control computers, fiber-optic and microwave links and — transmission towers); - A system design for subsequent phases; and - A plan to assign radio frequencies. • The board plan will be used as a basis for an application to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for new 800-megahertz channels and other public safety frequencies needed to implement the plan. Local governments or other public or private entities eligible to apply for the channels are restricted from applying until the FCC rules on the board's application. The board may grant an exception to the restriction on applications for channels. • The board is responsible for ensuring that the system is built and operated as planned. This is an oversight function only, as actual construction and operation is the responsibility of Mn/DOT. • The board is responsible for determining how costs for construction, administration and operation will be allocated. The board also can contract with eligible private users and users outside the metropolitan area for service. • The board adopts performance standards for operation of the system and priorities or protocols for use of the system. — Responsibilities of the Department of Transportation • Makes recommendations to the board on the first-phase design, and issues bid specifications for the first-phase system. The department is responsible for construction or lease of the system and will own, operate, maintain and make any improvements to the first-phase system. • Makes application to the FCC for the necessary frequencies and holds the licenses for those frequencies. As local governments participate in the system, those governments may be co-licensed on frequencies used by their subsystems. • Receives$194,000 in fiscal year 1995-96 from trunk highway funds to pay for licensing fees and final design costs. Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council • Provides staff and administrative support for the board until the first-phase backbone is operating and the board can Ievy fees on users. The Council collects the user fees for the board and can impose a deficiency levy on any local govern- ment not paying its user fees. — • Issues $10 million in revenue bonds and $3 million in transit general obligation bonds (see"Funding"below). • Reviews the board's budget and can disapprove the budget if it does not include sufficient funds for debt service on the $10 million in revenue bonds. Planning Requirements • Each county, and Minneapolis or St. Paul--if either chooses not to participate in its county's plan--must prepare a subsystem plan within two years after enactment of the legislation. The planning process must seek participation by all eligible users. • No county, nor Minneapolis or St. Paul, is required to do a technical subsystem design to meet the requirement that it prepare a plan. However, local governments must cooperate with their county in its preparation of the plan. • Counties are encouraged to establish local public safety radio subsystem committees to help develop the plan and advise the Metropolitan Radio Board of local service needs. Administration of the Board • Until the board has its own funds from user fees,the Metropolitan Council is required to provide office space, staffing and administrative support to the board. • The Council will provide an executive director to the board until the board has funding to hire its own executive director. The Council-provided executive director will be a member of the Council staff and will serve at the pleasure of the board. Funding • The legislation authorizes the Metropolitan Council to sell S3 million in transit general obligations bonds to pay for the share of the radio system used by regional transit operations. • The legislation also authorizes the Metropolitan Council to sell $10 million in revenue bonds to fund the mutual aid and emergency medical services components of the radio system. Debt service on the revenue bonds will be provided from a 9-1-1 emergency telephone fee fund. The Council repays the bonds through 9-1-1 revenues transmitted from the Minnesota Department of Administration to the Council. -- • The board is authorized to use 9-1-1 funds, not to exceed a maximum of four cents per telephone line. The funds are for system design,construction, recurring costs,debt service on the revenue bonds and to repay money borrowed from the Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund. • The board also may levy user fees on local governments and other entities that participate in the region-wide public safety radio system. • The legislation does not provide funding for the $15 million share for state agencies. An appropriation of $194,000 is provided from the trunk highway fund to complete the first-phase system design and to apply for frequency licenses. The $15 million will be requested in the 1996 legislature's bonding bill. Sunset • On July 1, 1999 the board sunsets and its functions and assets are transferred to either the Metropolitan Council or to a state agency. The decision on where the board is transferred will be made by the legislature based on biennial reports submitted by the Council on the progress of the system and its expansion beyond the metropolitan area. 3 METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES LAW (Chapter 255, Laws of 1995) Context The law is landmark legislation that will help clean up polluted land, expand housing opportunities and revitalize commu- nities in the region. It represents a policy direction from the state on how to deal with affordable housing issues and provides funds to move from ideas to action. It also has funds for polluted site cleanup and for urban demonstration projects. The legislation uses incentives, not mandates, to accomplish the desired results. It closely parallels the Council Regional Blueprint plan, adopted in 1994, in encouraging communities to include housing diversity and choice and in giving priority for regional financial investments to communities choosing to participate. General Provisions • Creates a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund administered by the Council. The size of the fund is yet to be determined. Funds to be placed in the account will come from several sources, including part of a property tax previously levied by the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, existing Council funds plus funds the Council will levy in future years, and from funds related to Bloomington's fiscal disparities levy originally allocated in 1988 for interest payments on Mall of America highway improvements. • Communities choosing to participate in the housing activities identified in the law can use the funds to: 1) clean up polluted land to make it available for commercial and industrial development; 2) receive loans and grants for demonstration projects fostering more compact development and encouraging housing diversity and development located close to transit; and 3) work toward achieving affordable and life-cycle housing goals, which are negotiated with the Council. • Participating communities spend a designated amount to create life-cycle and affordable housing in their commu- nity. If they are not meeting their goals by 1998, they must distribute their designated affordable and life-cycle housing funds to their city or county housing authority, or to the Council's fund for distribution to other cities. — • Creates an urban homestead program offering an income tax break to people who move into homes in certain neighborhoods in transition toward blight and poverty. • Requires periodic reports to legislature on implementing the law's requirements. Polluted Site Cleanup — • Creates a"tax base revitalization account"for grants to help cities, towns and counties pay for clean up of polluted land in the metro area. Doing so also gives a boost to the urban tax base by making more land available for commercial and industrial development. • Some of the money to fund the clean up program would come from revenues from the Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) levy, which the Council assesses to help local governments purchase rights-of-way needed to build roads. Amounts over and above what is needed for right-of-way acquisitions will go into the"tax base revitalization account." An estimated $1.8 million is available in 1996. • Other funds will come from a levy by the Council in an amount equal to the difference between the area-wide levy certified by the City of Bloomington to cover interest payments on Mall of America highway improvements in tax year 1988 and in the current year, up to a maximum of S5 million. An estimated S4.7 million is available in 1996. • Communities must participate in the law's local housing incentives program to be eligible for funding, and they may use grants from the "tax base revitalization account" as a local match for clean up funds from the Department of Trade and Economic Development. Making Communities Livable • Makes loans and grants available to cities, towns and counties that embark on demonstration projects to make their communities more "livable" and who participate in the local housing incentives program. 4 • The Council, with the help of an advisory committee, will set criteria for determining which projects qualify for funding from the "livable communities demonstration account," based on guidelines provided in the legislation. Demon- - stration projects eligible for funding from the Council must foster more compact development, housing diversity and development in close proximity to transit and other existing services. • The Council is authorized to levy a tax up to 50 percent of the current Metropolitan Mosquito Control District's (MMCD)levy. In addition, the account will receive an annual Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) payment equal to 50 percent of what the MMCD receives. An estimated $4.6 million is available in 1996. $500,000 will be trans- ferred from this account into the local housing incentives account each year, beginning in 1997. Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing • The Council makes grants available to communities working toward affordable and life-cycle housing goals.The Council negotiates housing goals with each participating community. Community participation in the program is voluntary. • To participate in the local housing incentives program, communities must use their locally generated "affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities amount" on affordable and life-cycle housing in their own communities. The "local housing incentives account" provides dollars the Council will administer throughout the region to help communities reach their affordable and life-cycle housing goals. Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Account • The law provides a formula for calculating an annual "affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities" amount for each community. The estimated aggregate sum of all communities' affordable and life-cycle housing during the first year of the program will be approximately $1.6 million. • Participating communities that have met negotiated goals may use their locally-generated revenues to maintain existing affordable and life-cycle housing. Participating communities that have not already met their housing goals can keep their locally generated funds to work toward their negotiated housing goals. • Beginning in 1998, however, participating communities that have not met negotiated housing goals and have not spent a significant portion of their locally-generated funds to create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities must make one of two choices. -They must give dollars from their affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities amounts to their city or county housing authorities to create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities within their communities. -Communities may choose to give these dollars to the Council's"local housing incentives account"for use by other communities. • The law allows neighboring communities to work together to provide affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities. It also allows communities to participate in the housing program at any time,even if they were not participating earlier. Local Housing Incentives Account • Revenue sources for the"local housing incentives account" include: -Funds from participating communities choosing to contribute revenues from their"affordable and life- cycle housing opportunities" amount; -A one-time, Si million appropriation from proceeds of solid waste bonds issued by the Council; -$500.000 per year from the livable communities demonstration account, beginning in 1997; and -Beginning in 1998, $1 million a year from the Council's general property tax levy. • Beginning in 1998 these sources will generate at least $1.5 million per year which the Council will use to support 5 local housing initiatives. • Communities eligible to receive grants from the "local housing incentives account"are those that have not met their affordable and life-cycle housing goals, but are actively funding projects to meet those goals. To receive funding from the account, these communities must provide local matching dollars. • Communities participating in the housing program may receive grants and loans from any of the three accounts. Those that choose not to participate may not receive funds from any of the three accounts, nor may they receive state grants to help clean up contaminated sites. • The Council may consider a community's participation in the housing program when making decisions about funding regional investments. Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative • The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency may create an economic vitality and housing initiative to provide funds for affordable housing projects in connection with local economic development and redevelopment efforts. The initative is intended to help ensure the expansion of the economic base and employment opportunities. In the metropolitan area, the — agency and the Council are to confer on the priorities for use of the funds. Urban Homestead Program • Law creates an urban homestead program giving state income tax exemptions to people who move into homes in certain declining neighborhoods within the metro area. • The Council is to designate one or more "urban revitalization and stabilization zones"by September 1, 1995. Anyone who buys and occupies a home within a designated area would receive an income tax break for up to five years, provided they do not move out of the home,sell the house, fail to comply with building codes or are convicted of a felony. _ • Maximum exemption for married joint filers is $15.000; $10,000 for single filers and $12,500 for unmarried individuals qualifying as a head of household. The exemption is subject to income limits and phases out for filers with incomes that exceed statutory limits. Development Pattern Report • The Council must report to the Legislature by Jan. 15, 1996 on the probable development patterns in and affecting the metro area to the year 2020. The review is to include the present course of growth compared with directed, compact and efficient development, and consider development impacts on the adjacent counties (those in the federal standard metropoli- tan statistical area or those having five or more percent of its residents commute to jobs in the seven county region). Timetable • By Nov. 15 of each year, communities may elect to participate in the local housing incentives program.By Feb. 1 of each year, the Council reports to the legislature on which communities are participating in the program. • By Jan. 15, 1996,Council is to adopt negotiated community goals for affordable and life-cycle housing. • By June 30, 1996, communities are to identify actions they will take to meet the goals. • Beginning Nov. 15, 1996, Council is to issue an annual city-by-city report card on affordable and life-cycle housing in the metro area. • On Jan. 15, 1998, communities begin reporting to the Council on local expenditures to meet affordable and life- cycle housing goals. • In Jan. 2003, Council is to prepare a report to the legislature evaluating the law and any recommendations for legislative action. 6 AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT (Chapter 176, Laws of 1995) Context — The amendments establish the community's long-range comprehensive plan as the principle document for community land- use decision making. Previous law required cities to follow the zoning ordinance if there were conflicts between the two. The law also reinvigorates the local comprehensive planning process by requiring communities to update their plan periodically. General Provisions • Requires local governments in the metro area to review and, if necessary, update their comprehensive plans by Dec. 31, 1998, and at least every 10 years thereafter. — • Requires that"fiscal devices" such as capital improvement programs and official controls, such as zoning and subdivision ordinances of metropolitan local governments, conform to local comprehensive plans. • Permits metropolitan area local governments to include elements on intergovernmental coordination and economic development in their comprehensive plans. Updating Local Comprehensive Plans Local comprehensive plans must be reviewed and, if necessary, updated: • by December, 1998; • at least every 10 years thereafter; and • in response to changes in metropolitan system plans. • By Dec. 31, 1998, each local government in the Twin Cities area is required to review its local comprehensive plan and, if necessary, amend its entire plan and amend its fiscal devices and official controls accordingly. In updating their plans, local governments are required to consider the metropolitan system plans in effect on Dec. 31, 1996. — If amendments are necessary, a local governments must submit its plan amendment to the Council for review, as well as amendments to its fiscal devices and official controls for the Council's information. If an amendment is not necessary, local governments must certify to the Council that it is not necessary. • After Dec. 31, 1998, local governments must review and update their comprehensive plans, if necessary, every 10 years. • Local governments must prepare amendments, if necessary, to their comprehensive plans and submit them to the Council in response to metropolitan system plans the Council adopts after Dec. 31, 1996. For Council system plans adopted after Dec. 31, 1996, the deadline for submission is Sept. 30, 1999, or nine months after the Council sends the — system plan amendment to the local government, whichever is later. • The Council can grant extensions to local governments for submitting their comprehensive plan amendments and implementation tools. The extension must include a timetable and plan for the local government's review and amendment of its comprehensive plan and implementation tools. Consistency of Comprehensive Plans with Implementation Tools • If a local comprehensive plan or amendment--one prepared for Council review by Dec. 31, 1998 or later-- conflicts with the local government's zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance must be changed to conform to the plan. 7 • After Aug. 1, 1995, local governments may not adopt any fiscal device or official control which conflicts with its comprehensive plan or plan amendments, or which permits activity that conflicts with metropolitan system plans. • In reviewing and updating their comprehensive plans by Dec. 31, 1998, local governments must ensure that fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with their comprehensive plans. Assistance for Updating Comprehensive Plans • In awarding grants and loans for local planning, the Metropolitan Council is required to give priority to local governments updating their comprehensive plans under the Dec. 31, 1998, deadline. • The Metropolitan Council is required to consult with affected local governments on the need for technical and financial assistance in updating their local comprehensive plans, and then report the results to the legislature by Jan. 15, 1996. Amendment to Watershed Planning Law • Local governments must submit the water management plans they prepare for watershed management organiza- tions to the Council for review and comment when the plan is submitted to the local watershed management organization. The watershed management organization is required to take into account the comments of the Council in its review of the plan. OMNIBUS ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAW FUNDING REGIONAL PARKS (Chapter 220, Laws of 1995) Context The law continues the state's funding for regional parks operation and maintenance at about the same level as the previous -- biennium. There are also additional funds for acquisition and development of park land. General Provisions • $9.5 million is appropriated for regional parks for operations and maintenance, capital improvements and land acquisition. Operations and Maintenance • • Appropriated $4,476,000 of general funds for park operation and maintenance for fiscal years 1996 and 1997: $2,238,000 for fiscal year 1996 and $2,238,000 for fiscal year 1997. This funding will provide about six percent of the costs of operating and maintaining the system. The funds will be used by the nine units of government that own and operate the regional parks (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington counties, plus Minneapolis, St. Paul and Bloomington). Land Acquisition • Appropriated $1,120,000 for acquisition of park Iand for 1995. The funds can be used for purchasing land for regional parks, park reserves or trails. Funds come from the Minnesota Environmental Trust Fund and must be spent by Dec. 31, 1995. • The Council and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission must select from candidate sites. Two examples are Grey Cloud Island regional park in Washington County and Lake Byllesby regional park in Dakota County. Capital Improvements • Appropriated S3.95 million for capital improvements in parks. Most of this money will be used for park develop- ment projects; some will be used for park land acquisition. Funds must be spent by Dec. 31, 1997. 8 Source of Funds • Funds come from three sources: Environmental Trust Fund (E11-), the state's general fund(GF)and Metropolitan Council bonds. ETF provides 60 percent of funding and Council bonds provide the remaining 40 percent for some capital improvement projects. Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grants for trail projects, $500,000 for disability retrofitting, and$1.12 million of fiscal year 1995 ETF monies for land acquisition are not matched with Council bonds. OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, OTHER RELATED LEGISLATION (Chapter 265, Laws of 1995) Context The law increases the state contribution to the operation of the region's transit system compared with the previous bien- nium, but underfunds the Council's original request by $10 million. Service cuts and fare increases will be required. Other legislation (Chapter 265) authorizes the Council to bond for S32 million for capital improvements planned in 1996. A request for an additional S50 million in bonding authority for years 1997 and 1998 was not approved. General Provisions _ • Provides operating funds for regional transit services and the Metro Mobility program, a transit service for certified disabled riders. • The law, together with several other transportation-related laws, re-authorize Metropolitan Council bonding authority for capital improvements, earmark the use of some state funds. and give direction to several highway projects. Transit Funding • The omnibus law allocates $83 million from the general fund to support Metropolitan Council Transit Operations in the 1996-1997 biennium. • $30.6 million of this amount is to be used for the Metro Mobility program. • The Council may spend up to$625,000 of the state appropriation for a high-speed bus pilot project between the suburbs and between the suburbs and downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul. • Bus security improvements to enhance driver safety, including plexiglas shields to protect drivers and surveillance cameras, are to be installed on buses traveling high risk routes. • A separate bill (Chapter 265) re-authorizes the Council to issue $32 million in transit bonds for capital projects overall and also for the capital needs of Metro Mobility.The amount is sufficient to meet needs in 1996_The law prohibits use of bonds to pay for new driver uniforms. Highway Provisions • An additional lane of traffic is to be added in each direction on Interstate Hwy. 394 near the Penn Ave. interchange in Minneapolis. The action removed a previous state prohibition against adding additional lanes. The law does not establish a timetable or provide funds for the lanes. • MnDOT is to complete the Wakota Bridge reconstruction at the earliest feasible date consistent with available funding.No specific dates are included. MnDOT was also directed to find alternative ways to fund the reconstruction of Hwy. 212 between I-494 and Cologne, such as through use of public-private partnerships or toll financing. 9 Mandatory Vehicle Inspection • The vehicle inspection law(Chapter 204,Laws of 1995)was amended to exempt cars up to five years old from mandatory annual inspections. — MISCELLANEOUS LEGISLATION METRO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Chapter 112,Laws of 1995) • The Metropolitan Council,acting as the Metro Housing and Redevelopment Authority,is now authorized to enter into joint powers agreements with certain other HRAs to carry out joint activities.Previous law prohibited the Council from doing so. — DEADLINE FOR COUNCIL ACTION (Chapter 248,Laws of 1995) • The Council,effective July 1, 1995,must complete action on requests for expansion of the metropolitan urban services area or zoning items within 60 days.If the Council doesn't act or seek an extension, the item is considered op- proved.Until now, the Council has had 90 days within which to consider major local comprehensive plan amendments. Extensions of up to 60 days may be requested. 10 - About the Metropolitan Council The Metropolitan Council conducts regional planning and operates transit and wastewater collection and treatment ser- vices. The Council's responsibilities include: • conducting comprehensive planning for transportation, environment and community development; • working with other local units of government to ensure that their planning is consistent with the Council's plans and the plans of their neighboring communities; • operating the regional wastewater collection and treatment system: • operating the regional transit system; and • administering the Metro Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Upon request, this Metropolitan Council publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabili- - ties. Please call the Council's Data Center at 291-8140 or TTY 291-0904. July 20, 1995 Publication No. 14-95-042 AAA Metropolitan Council ALL Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 11 am lam 23rd Annual • Minnesota CCS f OL State a-0101 Planning LPIT, A ,:� te ,�� Conference • ism a dtt� a yel ;' Si'i"�; . ice,-c ' S114r*IG GTN-- • etiA-14GiNIG. COøOdVMITIES • • • • • • • • • • • OOOOO • • • • • • • • Joint Sponsors: • • Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association Minnesota Planning Association - ._ • Radisson Arrowwood Resort Alexandria, Minnesota - September 27, 28, 29, 1995 • • SUAp'IWG QIQWT1. -• - Qv CJ1AGiMG CpOdvMsTIrs • September 27–29, 1995 — Radisson Arrowwood Resort, Alexandria, Minnesota HE 23RD ANNUAL Minnesota State Planning Conference promises to be a dynamic and diverse — offering on the theme "Shaping Growth— Our Changing Communities." IN THE 1990s,and indeed during all of the modern era,change seems to be the only constant.How are _ our communities changing?How do we anticipate change?How do we respond to change?As'planners ' we are literally at the leading edge of shaping growth in Minnesota.To discuss this range of issues and more, we are pleased to welcome, among others, these special guests: • George Latimer,former St.Paul mayor,currently Director of Special Actions for the Secretary of HUD in Washington.Mr. Latimer is working to respond to enormous societal changes in the development of our cities and rural areas. _ • Tim Penny, former Congressman from Minnesota's First District, now a sought-after author and commentator educating the country on the changing realities of financing government programs. • Kit Hadley,Commissioner of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency,discussing affordable housing issues in the State. • Curt Johnson,Chairman of the Metropolitan Council,charged by the Legislature with planning into _ the next century for our changing Metropolitan Area communities. • Eric Damian Kelly,distinguished author and professor,and the newly-appointed Dean of the College of Architecture and Planning at Ball State University. Dr. Kelly will comment on the changing legal — and land use framework surrounding our planning efforts. This year's conference also featufes: _ • Expanded sessions — a full 75 minutes each, more classroom time, more exposure to our expert presenters, more time for questions. • • Information you can use—most presenters wiN have handouts with clear information and concepts — you can take home. • Mobile tours in the afternoon — scheduled so that they do not conflict with other Thursday _ conference sessions. • A special Thursday evening session—informal discussion with special guest George Latimer. • The Best of'94—repeat sessions brought back by popular demand. The Minnesota Chapter of the APA and the Minnesota Planning Association invite you to be a part of this important gathering. WEDNESDAY 23rd Annual Minnesota State Planning Conference SEPTEMBER 27 • Exhibitors Setup 12:00-4:00 p.m. • Registration 12:00-6:00 p.m. • • Professional Development Workshop 1:00-4:00 p.m. • Conflict Management MARY JO WIMMER, Blandin Foundation (Professional THIS YEAR'S PROFESSIONAL Development Workshop will be an interactive Development Workshop) session focusing on conflict which occurs in community settings. Participants will explore the `conflict culture,' the stages of conflict, principles of community conflict,management styles,and specific skills which aid in managing conflicts in a positive way. This is a remodelled session from the 1994 Conference, back by _ popular demand,now in an expanded 3-hour time slot. Ms.Wimmer's presenta- tion was among the highest-rated of all events by last year's Conference partici- pants. Don't miss it. - • Opening Reception 7:00-9:00 p.m • Welcoming program at 7:30 p.m. Opening Remarks WE'LL START THE Conference with an informal gathering open to all.There will and Informal Gathering be a cash bar,snacks,outdoor activities,and a chance to meet others attending the Conference. Official opening and welcoming remarks from your Conference organizers and Alexandria area hosts at 7:30 p.m. THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 28 • Registration 7:30-9:00 a.m. • Breakfast Keynote/Introduction 7:45-8:45 a.m. TOM MELCHIOR, Maxfield Research Group "Who Are We?" — OUR OPENING BREAKFAST session will feature a brief keynote by experienced An Overview real estate market researcher,Tom Melchior.He will give us a broad sense of who -we are as Minnesotans and how our communities have changed over the decades, and are likely to change in the future. • • Morning/Session I: 9:00-10:15 a.m. Planning Foundations I JOHN W. SHARDLOW, AICP, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban ANOTHER REPEAT SESSION from last year,owing to the enthusiastic response to Mr. Shardlow's two-part program on the fundamentals of planning. This session presents an introduction to community planning principles,basic planning tools, and the roles and responsibilities of the participants. It includes a basic review of the comprehensive planning process and an overview of rezonings, variances, conditional use permits, and subdivision approval. It also includes a basic summary of key legal requirements including the preparation of findings of fact to support zoning decisions. • THURSDAY MnAPA MPA 14111145 (continued) • • Morning/Session I: 9:00-10:15 a.m. (continued) • Adult Uses JAMES THOMSON, Attorney, Holmes & Graven; PHILIP CARLSON, AICP, Senior Planner, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban. AS ADULT USES become more common,and their legal defenses more sophisti- cated and tenacious,every planner and city official should know how to prevent these businesses from invading their communities where they are not wanted. Learn how to walk the fine line between protecting community standards and — guaranteeing First Amendment rights of free expression.This session will cover the legal and planning foundations of adult use regulation,preventing businesses from moving in,moving them out if they are there illegally,and crafting ordinances and — regulations that will stand up to the latest court rulings.Mr.Thomson has argued • adult use cases in the Minnesota Supreme Court. Mr. Carlson has assisted many • cities with adult use regulations. Sustainable ROLF NORDSTROM, Environmental Quality Board; Development LEE RONNING, Land Stewardship Project; JAY BLAKE, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Crow Wing Co. WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE development?Why should it be the goal of all planning efforts? Come here a discussion on how this idea is taking sh;pe with our three — speakers.Mr.Nordstrom will discuss a paper titled"Shaping Settlement Patterns We Can Afford," the final report of a recent citizen/legislator task force on the issue. He will also have available for review and comment a paper titled "A — Minnesota Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development". Ms. Ronning will describe the Land Stewardship Project and the organizations long term goals, • • changing demographics in the State and describe models developed by the LSP _ including cost/benefit studies related to different land uses.Mr.Blake will offer the Crow Wing style of sustainable development.Crow Wing County is the first local unit of government in Minnesota to adopt a comprehensive plan based on the paradigm of sustainable development.Adopted in May of 1994,the plan outlines — goals that balance the rapid pace of growth within the County with the need to protect the quality of the environmental resources that make the area a desirable • place to live and work. • "Up Against the Wall,fl ERIC DAMIAN KELLY, Ph.D., AICP, Dean of College of Architecture and Legislative Issues Planning, Ball State University; g JOEL JAMNIK, Senior Intergovernmental Relations Representative, League of Minnesota Cities — RECENT LEGISLATION—proposed and adopted—has focused on land use planning and regulation issues as never before: takings and compensation, environmental and wetlands regulations, government down-sizing, and more. Some planners sense that responsible planning is being targeted and that we are virtually up against the wall. What can planners do to influence and cope with these emerging federal and state policies? In what promises to be a spirited and — informative session,nationally-recognized author,attorney,and APA activist Eric Damian Kelly will take us through the changing landscape of federal legislative _ issues that might dramatically affect how we.plan for change. Dr. Kelly will be joined by Joel Jamnik,an articulate expert on the Minnesota legislative scene,to — share his perspectives. THURSDAY 23rd Annual Minnesota State Planning Conference - (continued) • Morning/Session I: 9:00-10:15 a.m. (continued) Visioning JILL FISHER, Duluth; BILL SCHLENVOGT, Cloquet "VISIONING"—what does the concept really mean for planners and what is its place in community planning? Usually the term implies an intensive community- wide effort to articulate shared goals, extending beyond planning's traditional sphere of land use and economic development into areas as diverse as cultural diversity, education, health services, and "quality of life." Planners from several communities with recently completed or ongoing visioning processes will discuss their experiences,focusing on the role of the private sector in the process,the extent of public participation, the relationship between "the vision" and their planning . efforts, and the short- and long-term results. • Morning/Session II: 10:30-11:45 a.m. - Planning Foundations II JOHN SHARDLOW, AICP, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban THIS SESSION PICKS up where Planning Foundations I leaves off. More advanced and sophisticated zoning techniques and applications are presented and discussed through examples.Subjects covered include PUDs,performance zoning, overlay districts,environmental review,and annexation.It also includes practical advice on alternative ways to involve the community in the planning process and creative ways to work within limited budgets. — What's Hot and What's JIM GELBMANN, MN Board of Innovation & Cooperation; Not: Annexations, STEVE RECKERS, MN Planning Consolidations, and SUBJECTS TO AVOID in polite conversation: "Religion, politics, and annex- - ation. Mr.Reckers will provide a legislative update and will outline the findings Combinations and recommendations offered in the April, 1995, publication "Annexation Criteria:Report to the Legislature" which was requested by the legislature during the 1994 session. Mr. Gelbmann will enlighten attendees on what role the newly created Board can play (including offering financial assistance) in jurisdictional boundary matters. Social Implications SHARON JOHNSON, Community Action of Suburban Hennepin County; of Planning ALAN LOVEJOY, Planning and Economic Development, St. Paul; BRUCE PETERSON, Planning and Development, Willmar. OUR THREE SPEAKERS will discuss the human social issues that go beyond the facts and figures of planning and zoning. Ms. Johnson works with suburban Hennepin County communities on the issues of poverty, transportation depen- dence and affordable housing.Mr.Lovejoy has worked on many different projects in St. Paul,most recently on the Phalen Initiative plan, integrating development with affordable housing on St. Paul's lower East side. Mr. Peterson has seen the growth of a sizeable Hispanic community of migrant farm workers in recent years. THURSDAY _ MnAPA MPA 4 ' (continued) -`- • ■ Morning/Session II: 10:30-11:45 a.m. (continued) _ Feedlots — BOB PATTON, PAUL BURNS, MN Dept. of Agriculture; People or Pigs? TERRY BOVEE, Le Sueur County MN. — WITH DEVELOPMENT EXTENDING into areas that used to be solely "farm country",the issue of regulating"feed lots has become increasingly controversial. How do-you allow people to make a living raising hogs and chickens while — controlling environmental problems such as odor and water pollution?Mr.Patton and Mr. Burns will present results of work that has been undertaken by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture this year on a handbook relating to these — issues. Mr. Bovee will relate his experiences as a County Zoning Administrator where the regulation of feedlots and their effects is a hot topic.He will offer helpful advice on how to work with your community in developing and enforcing new regulations. He will also address questions including whether their is a need for — financial assurances for feedlots, where are good/bad locations for feedlots, and how big is too big for an operation. • Lunch/Keynote: 12:00-1:30 p.m. Contract Versus TIM PENNY, former Minnesota First District Congressman - Covenant REPRESENTATIVE PENNY WILL discuss the differences between the Republi- — can `Contract with America' and President Clinton's 'New Covenant'. He will address how changes in Washington will affect social services,state government, and local government. — • Afternoon/ Mobile Tours: 2:00-5:00 p.m. _ The Heart of A WALKING TOUR(weather permitting)of Alexandria's downtown district will Alexandria be offered. A bus will depart Arrowwood and take urban explorers to the south end of downtown Alexandria, where city officials will lead the group in a brief Walking Tour discussion of local points of interest from a planner's perspective. Downtown - issues, economic development and historic preservation will be addressed. The — tour will allow time for photo opportunities and souvenir shopping before reconvening at the Douglas County Historical Society to rediscover the "birth- place of America".-Big Ole and Lena jokes are welcomed. — _ The Lakes of Douglas DOUGLAS COUNTY OFFERS water lovers over 300 lakes to choose from.Come• — CounBoatingTour learn about various shoreland issues that face most Minnesotans as we "set sail" on a pontoon boat to see firsthand the importance of planning for our natural resources.Local experts will discuss the importance of"lakescaping,"cost-share — programs and aggressive zoning requirements.As our lakeside communities grow, there is more stress on our lakes,rivers,and streams.The tour promises explana- tion of innovative concepts in protecting Minnesota's water resources. — THURSDAY 23rd Annual Minnesota State Planning Conference (continued) - • Afterrfoon/ Mobile Tours: 2:00-5:00 p.m. (continued) How Much Fish Can A COME LEARN ABOUT one of the fastest growing sectors of farming today - Fish Farm Fish? •aquaculture! "Fish farming" is poised to be a major source of revenue for Minnesota investors as we compete in this expanding global market, as well as a major source of food. What are the implications for rural economies, rural landscapes, planning and zoning for agricultural uses? Representatives from the fisheries program at the Alexandria Technical College will offer their insight into this growing industry as you tour by bus an actual aquaculture operation to see how this business works. Recreation/Golf FOR THOSE WHO don't get on the buses, the golf tournament is back! Get to Tournament know your fellow planners at the second annual MnAPA/MPA best ball golf tournament.Golfers of all skill levels are sure to have fun(sign up using the Conference Registration Form).Many other activities are available at Arrowwood for non-golfers. • Dinner: 6:00-7:30 p.m. On Your Own • Evening/Discussion Session: 7:30-9:00 p.m. "Shaping Growth — Special Guest GEORGE LATIMER, Director of Special Actions, U.S. Our Changing Department of Housing & Urban Development; former St. Paul Mayor, �� former Dean, Hamline University Law School; former Regent, University Communities of Minnesota Board of Regents. (7:30-9:00 p.m.) GEORGE LATIMER is familiar to most Minnesotans as an elected and appointed official, and as a one-time candidate for governor. In his current position under HUD Secretary Cisneros, he heads the newly-created Special Actions Office. He and his small staff serve as catalysts for creating nontraditional partnerships to address the needs of both urban and rural America;as advocates for citizens living in rural areas. particularly migrant farm workers and Americans living near the _ Mexican-American border; and as a resource for community organizing. The Special Actions staff are alternately called upon to be innovators in bringing • various groups together, incubaiors for bringing new ideas to reality, facilitators on behalf of the Secretary's priorities, and champions for non-profits, advocacy groups, and community organizations who might otherwise not have a contact within HUD. Mr. Latimer will conduct an informal discussion on the conference theme,sharing some of his office's successes,and stressing ways that communities large and small can meet the challenges of housing our people in the face of enormous societal changes. FRIDAY MnAPA MPA . ''4"" SEPTEMBER 29 — ■ Breakfast Roundtable Discussions: 7:45-8:45 a.m. Planning and CHOOSE A TOPIC to discuss informally with others who are interested or • Design Topics involved in the following: Township Issues Agricultural Preservation Big City Issues Elected/Appointed Officials Affordable Housing Wetlands/Water/Environmental Issues Growing Areas Zoning Issues Main Street Design GIS in Planning Economic Development in • , Small and Mid-Sized Cities • Morning/Session I: 9:00-10:15 a.m. Downtown/Mainstreet GEOFF MARTIN, ASLA, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban; Design Issues BARRY WARNER, ASLA, Barton-Aschman; BILL SANDERS, ASLA, Sanders, Wacker, Wehrman and Bergly; RICK JOHNSON, Minneapolis Planning Department HOW DOES THE design of our public spaces and public thoroughfares shape our communities?What design principles can be brought to our downtowns and main_ streets to improve their function,their livability,and their economic vitality?Join the discussion with four experienced landscape architects and project managers, bringing together both the broad issues and specific examples from award- winning projects across the State. • _Neighborhood PAM KRAMER, Manager of Community Development and Housing Planning Division, Duluth; ALLEN TORSTENSON and ALAN LOVEJOY, Planning and Economic Development, St. Paul; JULIA PAULSEN, Minneapolis Planning Department. SUCCESSFUL CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT in planning is challenging. Some Minnesota cities have taken planning to the neighborhood level,asking neighbor- - hood residents and associations to take an active role in shaping future develop- ment and redevelopment.In some cases,planning takes place within the framework of a city comprehensive or land use plan, in others, planning begins at the — grassroots but must be implemented with the help of city agencies that have their own priorities.This session examines three very different neighborhood planning efforts in Duluth,Minneapolis, and St. Paul. We will explore the issues of how to balance neighborhood and city-wide planning goals, and how the role cf the planner can vary. FRIDAY 23rd Annual Minnesota State Planning Conference (continued) • Morning/Session I: 9:00-10:15 a.m. (continued) Met Council/Growth CURT JOHNSON, Chair, Metropolitan Council; Management CHUCK BALLENTINE, Met Council Staff Planner - _ AMONG THE MINNESOTA planning community,the Metropolitan Council is the Mother-Of-All-Agencies grappling with future growth.Our speakers will talk about the Council's Regional Blueprint,the document which is the framework for sustaining and improving the livability of the Twin Cities area. Policies in the Blueprint cover such issues as sustaining economic growth, building stronger communities, managing growth, planning regional public facilities, preserving natural resources, and expanding life-cycle housing opportunities. What the Council contemplates affects not only the Metropolitan Area,but all of Minnesota in direct and indirect ways. Come hear two leading players in the arena of growth management and planning discuss the latest challenges and opportunities. Affordable KIT HADLEY, Commissioner of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; Housing Issues COLLEEN CAREY, President, Cornerstone Group MS. HADLEY,the newly-appointed head of:MFA,-will outline the policies and programs in -place statewide that encourage the development of modest-cost _ housing.Ms.Carey will outline the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program and its use as a tool to encourage development of affordable housing, both new • construction and rehabilitation of existing buildings will be discussed with examples in the Metro Area and in Greater Minnesota. Finally, participants will receive a summary of the steps which must be taken to bring a similar project to their community. • Morning/Session II: 10:30-11:45 a.m. Saving the Soul of THERESA WASHBURN, Wisconsin Conservation-Corps Your Small Town LEARN HOW TO focus on downtown with specific approaches and strategies used to revitalize numerous Midwestern towns.Topics will include the importance of incremental development, dealing with discount retailers, using the town as a team,not looking for the"big fix," ideas for economic restructuring,promotions, design,and other issues.Starting in 1989,Ms.Washburn worked with the City of Viroqua,Wisconsin, spearheading their renovation and revitalization efforts. In three years, she helped find and focus $800,000 of public and private money on the downtown,winning numerous awards in the process,and the attention of the Wall Street Journal and Smithsonian Magazine. More recently, she has worked on revitalization programs for eleven communities in Minnesota,Wisconsin,and • North Dakota. - FRIDAY MnAPA MPA ' "''--' — (continued)• _ • Morning/Session II: 10:30-11:45 a.m. (continued) Rural Cluster DAVE DREALEN, Carver County;• Development AL BRIXIUS, Northwest Associated Consultants; BILL WEBER, BRW. HOW TO ALLOW residential development in rural areas without destroying rural character? Rural clustering—subdivision design that preserves substantial portions of open space and natural or scenic resources by reducing lot sizes and concentrating the homes on part of the parcel=is certainly not a new idea,and is gaining increasing popularity in many parts id the county. Yet Minnesota has few examples,either of successful "open space developments "or the ordinances that would permit them. This session will explore both new and existing cluster — provisions with a focus on what has worked here and elsewhere, and how to _ introduce these simple yet powerful techniques to local officials and the public. Water ISMAEL MARTINEZ, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc.; Management Issues DIANE DESOTELLE, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Chanhassen _ MS.DESOTELLE WILL talk about Chanhassen's experience in trying to develop in the Bluff Creek watershed in an environmentally friendly manner and the steps needed in developing an ecosystem-based management plan.Many communities are rethinking the level of environmental protection desired to reflect the community's identity. Mr.Martinez will talk about a holistic approach to Water - Resource Management and planning for development. • Back to the Future: TONY FILIPOVICH, Mankato State_University; Kids and Planning RANDY THORESON, SEH. • — THIS PANEL PRESENTATION and discussion is sure to bring out the "kid" in all of in. Interesting discussion and "take home" materials will highlight how children and planning play an important part in communities today.Tantalizing — topics presented will include: needs of children in the city, research methods for working with children,planning in the school curriculum,specific examples and national perspectives, and how wve as Planners can incorporate planning in the — • classrooms in our communities. • Lunch/Keynote 12:00-1:30 p.m. "Managing Growth, CURT JOHNSON, Chair, Metropolitan Council the Challenges Ahead" • End of Conference 1 Conference Registration Form 1995 Minnesota State Planning Conference — September 27,28,and 29, 1995 Radisson Arrowwood Resort,Alexandria , Complete this form and return it to the address below with full payment of fees.This form is for the Conference only.Arrowwood lodging reservations can be made by calling 1-800-333- 3333.Call by Sept.6 to guarantee a room.Please use one form per individual.(This form may be copied.) IS ii,n- 7„,,A14 ••� Name re c Iiiii:• i,,,,,,,,e„ar„ City/Organization _ .,..„....,.. .. e�'Di- �•ti 1 ♦ • ` IP : soia,:g Address i • I vua • • • • • . — III �•a- .• =� City/ZIP '•t z n•r entre•. • _ J - Phone Fax Lake Darling . Please check the appropriate fee(s): Amount Enclosed: — Radisson Arrowwood Resort = Early Registration, if received by August 24 Cost: 5100.00 ' (full conference &meals included) • -11-'-'7*-- _-y„_,,.".-- - .--- ;. ^ Late Registration, if received after August 24 $120.00 -4; _ _r __- (full conference&meals included) . Y4T. ` .—e'`Yom, -".••' ";� _• 7 — •Single Day Thursday Only (breakfast&lunch included) $70.00 ` Single Day Friday Only(breakfast&lunch included) $50.00 - Planning Commissioner Registration $60.00 .. . (full conference &meals included) l - _ Student Registration $60.00 (full conference &meals included) --,".7.-;.:! .' ` Professional Development Workshop(Wed.)with full The golf course overlooking Lake Darling Conference Registration `$10.00 0 Professional Development Workshop(Wed.)only $30.00 Arrowwood ❑ Additional Meal Tickets Number of persons - $50.00 r Drive---., .mCen (spouses and guests) I:Hanen 57. .W. I 0 Golf Tournament(pay at Pro Shop) Nano ® 0 'Mobile Tour 1 —Heart of Alexandria Walking Tour — 82p`; ' 27/29 0. Mobile Tour 2 —Lakes of Douglas County Boating Tour ._ ❑• •Mobile Tour 3—Fish Farm Aquaculture Tour 29 — fit• _% •These tours are limited to 40 participants (please indicate a 2nd choice) . ALEXANDRIA Total Amount Enclosed (Make check payable to MPA) $ o'er �t..W. If you require special services or have special dietary needs, please attach a written description eenneesn and we will do our best to accommodate you. Reminder:for Arrowwood lodging reservations, call — 1-800-333-3333. Room rates are $80.00 per night. Conference location Send this registration with check for full amount to: - Register early. 1995 Minnesota State Planning Conference Fees will be refunded if we receive c/o Phil Carlson & Lynn Rabuse cancellation by August 31st. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. — For further information,contact Phil or , 300 First Avenue North, Suite 210 Lynn at (612) 339-3300. Minneapolis, MN 55401 • • • m Z r Ocu 2 com — v. cn0 _ v w o 1 2o <a. EL, E c u) �; m Z d - .v a a y .44 C.) M O U 1 — 6 V M' tn z , , W /Y - 4) q tit V v Q c .Z' ''' W :� Z co Zi H > Ce Cc v = v1 V -.7, z - V Q J Q s }�^ LY ,,tj s •NN tt - t3" (9: r V Con In Q - - O rl Oz Nv visR C 01 Z • — CI C oo 3 O JL Vi `4-► �' Q 0 CN — It `�' O � GI Q 14-__ 41 O N ZS Q X h. ; i � N c z Z V N N S 1.• Q 3 'Z3 E G15 a� 41 R R • -11 a v cY ca s LL I 4 ,� i 01 -- T N v) G4 o g -54 Q t 411 cQ E Ms 't .4 _ 41 4- VI 0 — ..:. . : :.,_ 0 I''' e;:,i: ..- ',--(-23 of-4.;: .; 0 - 4,.0 01 lQ kl 41 c 3 s �} �, ‘z.t 41 s , -c ¢ 41!n IZI �� csN NX -