Loading...
11-1-89 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1 , 1989 , 7 : 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. *Item Tabled Until December 6 , 1989* Wetland Alteration Permit Request for installation of a dock in a Class A wetland located at 695 Pleasant View Road, Michael Clark. 2. Preliminary Plat to subdivide 5 . 06 acres into 7 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located east of Powers Boulevard and just south of Lake Lucy Road, Richard Ersbo. 3 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code with regard to establish the maximum lot size for church developments at 15 acres. 4 . *Item Deleted By Staff* Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code, modifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores , gas stations, and automotive service stations . 5 . *Item Withdrawn by the Applicant* Preliminary Plat to subdivide 109 . 7 acres into 11 single family lots on property zoned A-2 , Agricultural Estate and located at the southwest corner of Bluff Creek and Pioneer Trail, Bluff Creek Woods, Brian Olson. NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS 6 . Cenvesco, Oak View Heights , property zoned R-12 , Residential High Density and located between Powers and Kerber Boulevard north of West 78th Street: a. Preliminary Plat to subdivide 27 acres into 11 High Density Lots for 200 condominium units b. Site Plan Review for 200 condominium units . c. Wetland Alteration Permit to permit grading within a Class B wetland. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: Nov. 1 , 1989 C.C. DATE: Nov. 27, 1989 ((( CHANHASSEN _ Y CASE N0: 87 36 SUB 88-7 WAP Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 5 . 06 Acres into 7 Single Family Lots F- Wetland Alteration Permit for Development Within Z 200 Feet of a Class A Wetland U LOCATION: 1211 Lake Lucy Road J 1.. APPLICANT: Richard Ersbo William Engelhardt Associates Q 1211 Lake Lucy Road 1107 Hazeltine Blvd, Suite 48 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 5 . 06 (gross ) acres 4 . 42 ( net) acres DENSITY: 1 . 38 lots per acre ( net ) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family S- RR; vacant QE- RSF; single family - Q W- RR; Class A wetland WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water is available to the site . W I. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains one single family residence with a swimming pool and a steep slope from the middle of the site towards Lake Lucy Road. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential - , . 111_=Ani K * i-�L.,� _ --.t" ..--...m....-_. ' *AI lailla in la _ itigict• 0 ilaila R I II 0 On C K 0 . sT ay . ,1,‘, . ` _ : i !I - III s � 1 ImR, , kii4:, 4. .__ ...1 ., Jill.. 4-1 IR : jI, ``w R• _• di • `iia ii taulal• aril fir, IIIIIMIIIV"iriz 4 1\, AI mm,--------..- ..--,„,z( -ll . .;,<...,30 , .„ , ... ......• E ....viv. Lt--- i- AW. 07 TH STREE tJ 11 ,r�1 �� A if illa‘ ' .� re \N„..____, iip. ,0 V FirfV �,v �51 .,11 ��`� _. i,i . iiiiikiik WNW v ��. 4, III I■ ii it / 44// NIPSIMINI APAZ-i• MI P" ow._Ah • 1/-7''''', ,1 I 1 .& V. mamma. NMI INIII.011.7..% MIMI la lir Y I :ice LAKE LUCY kIN r • %� • "♦ _1 �� RD r9►Si� on�1 mg A „lIE Oat. all 1i ul��nt • - ii % olami =g raiiiII: 13 LA no \ zimii ♦2::::...••I , ., /Mil ,..,. .1:17:1; ''' o0 \� ` r, I 1 . T J o l LANCE ANN RSF 0 RD 1 t 1 ` A/ R , V -------7-- -1-- It i R4 R1 ' f RR R12 1 R 12• - . S, -OU EVA • 1 � �. W BG fan _Y / .( OT ' -r Ersbo Subdivision/WAP November 1 , 1989 Page 2 BACKGROUND — On June 13 , 1988 , the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Ersbo Addition ( Attachments #1 and #2 ) . The lot con- — figuration of the 1988 approved plan contained 4 new single family lots with a fifth lot containing the existing single family residence. The site was serviced by a 50 foot wide right- of-way from Lake Lucy Road along the northern half of the pro- perty on the western edge of the site. A full street standard cul-de-sac serviced the four new lots and a 50 foot easement south of the dedicated 50 foot right-of-way serviced the existing — single family residence. The preliminary plat also provided a 50 foot easement located east of the cul-de-sac which could serve as a future connection to the property to the east. The approved _ plat was filed with Carver County and the applicant was in the process of having the property developed. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat for City approval . According to the applicant, he is requesting approval of a new plat because the cost to make the necessary improvements to the previously approved plat was such that he could not afford to develop the property. It should also be noted that the origi- nal plan would have created only 4 new homesites while the current plat will create 6 . The new plat proposes to serve the site with a 300 ft. long cul- de-sac off of Lake Lucy Road directly across from existing Arlington Court (Curry Farms ) . The cul-de-sac will service six new single family lots . The existing single family residence will be located on the seventh lot and serviced by the existing bituminous driveway along the westerly edge of the property. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements for lot area, depth and width, except for Lot 1 , Block 2 , which contains the existing — single family residence. Lot 1 , Block 2 is a flag lot with only 30 feet of street frontage containing the existing bituminous driveway. Therefore, a variance to the lot width requirement of 90 feet is required for Lot 1 , Block 2 . The original plat approved a substandard lot width of 50 feet for the lot with the existing house . A variance was not required although the lot really had only 50 ft. of paved frontage, the undeveloped right-of-way ran parallel to the lot. Thus it was technically in compliance with City standards . Staff supports the variance and revised plat for several reasons . The original approved plat runs the street right-of-way along the western edge of the site. A careful review of currently available information indicates that this road could not be constructed without significantly impacting an adjacent wetland and requiring the removal of a forested bluff line. The approved alignment also would not have served many potential homesites since the wetland would be on one side and the bluff line on the other. Staff has also reviewed overall access to surrounding Ersbo Subdivision/WAP November 1 , 1989 Page 3 properties and concluded that the original roadway configuration did not adequately provide service for those lots and, in fact, raised a number of additional problems that are detailed in the report. Finally, we note that the current layout is not substantively different than the reality of the original , approved plan. When we look further at Lot 1 , Block 2 we conclude that there is not much opportunity for further sub- _ divisions that would result in additional homes using the dri- veway to access Lake Lucy Road. This is due to the location of the existing home and swimming pool and prevailing grades . In conclusion, the plat is generally well designed and is in compliance with virtually all applicable standards . It is essen- tially a modification of an approved plat with the primary change being revised access that in our opinion results in a more reasonable roadway pattern on this lot and for surrounding par- cels . Since the plat is located within 200 ft. of a Class A wetland, an alteration permit is required. We note that the current plat has significantly less potential for impacting the adjacent wetland. Staff is recommending that the plat and wetland alteration permit be approved with the variance to allow 30 feet of lot front for Lot 1 , Block 2 , subject to appropriate conditions . Access The original plan illustrated a new public street called Arlington Avenue running south from Lake Lucy Road over the western 50 ft . of the site. The right-of-way would have only been improved over approximately the northern 160 feet whereupon it would turn east and end in a cul-de-sac that would serve the four new home sites that were then being proposed. Additional right-of-way was reserved to extend the cul-de-sac to the east to serve an adjacent property. Arlington Avenue could theoretically be extended south at some point in the future to accommodate additional lots . The current plat is considerably different in that the Arlington Avenue right-of-way would be vacated and a new cul-de- sac referred to as Eagle Circle would run south from Lake Lucy Road and would only serve the six new home sites that would result from the current plat. The existing home would continue to utilize a driveway to Lake Lucy Road that is contained in a 30 ft. wide "neck" . Staff worked with the developer to insure that the Eagle Circle right-of-way is directly in line with the existing Arlington Court right-of-way to provide for a safe four- way intersection . Staff supports the new access positions for several reasons , least of which are problems which have become evident with the original street layout . Based upon data that we currently have, the Arlington Avenue right-of-way would probably have been dif- ficult to extend to the southern perimeter of the plat to serve Ersbo Subdivision/WAP _ November 1 , 1989 Page 4 future home sites . It is evident that there is a significant - grading problem in that construction activity to build the street would likely result in serious impact to the adjacent Class A wetland as well as destruction of a number of trees on a wooded - bluff line through which the alignment runs . The roadway would also be expensive to construct since it could not have any homes along the western side due to the presence of the wetland. Staff is also concerned with the original proposal that the Eagle Circle cul-de-sac, which was shown off of Arlington Avenue, could ever be extended to the east as indicated. The goal of extending the street to the east would be to service adjacent lots between this site and Powers Boulevard in order that the number of curb cuts on both streets could be minimized. However, the alignment that was approved would have resulted in the running of a new _ street within 15 feet of an existing home located east of the Ersbo Addition and would have also resulted in the double fronting of lots between Eagle Circle and its extension and Lake Lucy Road creating an undesirable residential environment. During the past week, the City has obtained aerial topographic maps that will be presented to the Planning Commission when this item is reviewed. From these maps we have concluded that the - best means of serving the area is to allow the Ersbo Addition to be accessed as proposed while working to combine driveways and/or create a new cul-de-sac to service lots to the east as they are subdivided. We also believe that when the MUSA Line is extended and adjacent properties are subdivided, there may be an oppor- tunity to bring in a new street from Lake Lucy Drive looping east to Powers Boulevard with the alignment dropping down from Lake - Lucy on the west side of the wetland. The proposed new 300 ft . long cul-de-sac uses street grades ranging from 2 . 2% to 6 . 6% which are acceptable by City standards . The proposed paved cul-de-sac bubble should be increased from a 40 ft. radius to a 42 ft . radius to meet City standards . Final plans and specs should be developed for staff approval . Existing street right-of-way granted under the orignal plat will need to be vacated. Utilities City water service is available from Lake Lucy Road. An existing 6 inch line has been installed under Lake Lucy to the northeast corner of the property and can provide adequate service . Staff is recommending that the water system be looped to serve future developments to the east and to provide adequate levels of ser- - vice. Therefore we are recommending that a watermain extension be stubbed between Lots 2 and 3 to the southeast corner of the plat. Sanitary sewer service is provided by an existing 6 inch - line extending onto the property from Lake Lucy Road. This line is inadequately sized to accommodate the project and needs to be upgraded to an 8 inch size from the existing manhole in Lake Lucy Road. The fire hydrant located at the south end of the cul-de- sac needs to be provided with a 10 ft. clear radius . Ersbo Subdivision/WAP _ November 1 , 1989 Page 5 Grading/Drainage Site grading is quite extensive with the existing hillside being cut back to allow the construction of the cul-de-sac and building pads . The amount of disturbance, however, is very closely aligned with the grading plan that was approved with the original plat . Staff is recommending that the grading plans be accepted with a series of modifications as follows : 1 . To construct drainage swales around each of the homes to make sure that water is directed around the house pads . 2 . The plans illustrate a berm in the Lake Lucy Road right-of- way. This berm cannot be allowed in the right-of-way and should be removed from the plans . Staff believes the con- cept of a berm along the right-of-way is a valid one, however , and encourages the developer to relocate it onto his property. 3 . An erosion control plan acceptable to staff is required before grading work can be initiated. Type 3 erosion controls must be supplied along the western elevation to pro- tect the adjacent wetland. 4 . While the grading is virtually identical to the original plan, we note that there is some tree loss that will be experienced along the hillside. Prior to initiation of grading, staff wants to walk the site with the developer ' s — engineer to make modifications to the grading plan that may be required to protect trees and to establish a no cut line for trees that are to remain . Grading plans may be modified by staff in the field to protect trees where possible . The site naturally drains to the west into the adjacent wetland. Plans call for utilization of a storm sewer system to perpetuate the natural flow. Catch basins in Eagle Circle will intercept the flow directing it into a sedimentation basin on Lot 6 . It will then outlet into an additional pipe into the wetland. Staff finds the drainage plan to be adequate, however , there are several modifications that are required. Based upon directives of the Planning Commission, staff is recommending: 1 . That the sedimentation pond be provided with a skimmer device. 2 . Plans illustrate the outlet for the sedimentation pond running north the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way rather than discharging directly into the wetland. Outlet pipes should be realigned to directly run water into the wetland. Additional engineering detail is required, however, based upon current plans it appears as though the applicant may need to obtain a drainage and utility easement for the pipe and outlet from an adjacent property owner to realign the pipe. Ersbo Subdivision/WAP — November 1 , 1989 Page 6 3 . Project approval by the Watershed District is required. Park Dedication Fees — This plat has been reviewed by Park and Recreation staff in a manner consistent with the original approval , a cash dedication is — recommended. Wetland Alteration Permit The subject parcel is located adjacent to a Class A wetland. This wetland is protected by the City and by DNR. The proposed development directs runoff from the site to the northwest corner of the property into a holding pond and then discharges runoff -. into the adjacent wetland. Although a small amount of runoff is being generated by the development, the proposed pond location — will benefit in removing sediment from the runoff prior to it entering the Class A wetland. The discharge runoff from the pro- posed site will occur across the adjacent property into the Class A wetland. Therefore, a drainage easement shall be necessary — from the property owner prior to final plat approval to insure that the proposed drainage plan can be accommodated. In addi- tion, a permit from the DNR will be required for construction to — allow runoff into the Class A wetland. The proposed preliminary plat actually decreases impact to the — Class A wetland over the existing approved plat in that the the improved street is being removed from adjacent to the Class A wetland. Easements The following easements and right-of-way should be provided: — 1. Right-of-way for Eagle Circle. 2. Request the City Council vacate right-of-way for existing — streets and easements approved under the original plat. 3. Utility easements are required for the proposed watermain and — sanitary sewer alignments including the watermain stub be- tween Lots 2 and 3 to the eastern property line. 4 . Drainage and utility easements are required over the pond and storm sewer pipes on Lot 6 , Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; and based upon final engineering design may be required over an adjacent parcel to the west. — 5 . Standard utility easements around the perimeter of each lot. Ersbo Subdivision/WAP November 1 , 1989 Page 7 Compliance Table COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setbacks 15 , 000 90 125 30 ' front, 20 ' rear, 10 ' side Block 1 Lot 1 15 , 547 117 132 N/A 2 17 , 565 140 132 N/A 3 15, 840 105 129 N/A 4 17 , 230 106 160 N/A 5 16 , 800 110 131 N/A 6 16 , 981 116 137 N/A Block 2 Lot 1 92 , 394 30* 257 65 ' front 80 ' east 100 ' west 130 ' rear * Variances Required - Variance to allow 30 ' of frontage on Lot 1 , Block 2 . RECOMMENDATION - WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-7 as presented on the plat stamped "Received October 11 , 1989" , subject to the following conditions : 1 . Acquisition of a drainage easement from the adjacent property _ owner. 2 . Approval of a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources . 3 . Creation of a storm water retention pond in the northwest corner of Lot 6 , Block 1 . 4 . Installation of Type 3 erosion control between the develop- ment and the Class A wetland. " Ersbo Subdivision/WAP - November 1, 1989 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION - PRELIMINARY PLAT Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the - following motion : "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #87-36 as presented on the plat stamped "Received October 11 , 1989" , with a variance to allow a 30 foot lot width on Lot 1 , Block 2 , subject to the following conditions : _ 1 . Provide final detailed plans of the streets and utility improvements . The plans should be modified as follows : - increase the paved cul-de-sac radius to 42 feet - replace the existing 6" sanitary sewer to Lake Lucy Road _ and utilize an 8" line exclusively to serve the plat - extend water main service between Lots 2 and 3 with a stub ending at the east property line - the fire hydrant at the end of the cul-de-sac is to be provided with a 10 foot clear radius - 2 . Lots 1 and 6 , Block 1 are to gain access solely by driveway to Eagle Circle. Access to Lake Lucy Road is prohibited. A _ notice of this limitation should be placed in shared title of both lots . 3 . Provide final erosion control plans acceptable to staff . - Type III erosion control will be required along the western perimeter of the site adjacent to the wetland . Prior to the initiation of grading, staff will walk the site with the - developer to mark out trees designated for preservation. Staff will modify the plans as required to improve tree pre- servation efforts . Drainage swales are to be provided around each of the homes . The berm located in the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way is to be relocated onto Lot 1 , Block 1 . 4 . Provide final drainage plans for approval by City Staff . Provide a skimmer device on the sedimentation pond. Redirect the pond outlet directly into the wetland providing the City with such easements that may be required to cross an adjacent property. Watershed District approval of the plat is required. 5 . Easements to be provided: a. Right-of-way for Eagle Circle. b. Request the City Council vacate right-of-way for existing streets and easements approved under the original plat. Ersbo Subdivision/WAP November 1 , 1989 Page 9 c. Utility easements are required for the proposed watermain and sanitary sewer alignments including the watermain stub between Lots 2 and 3 to the eastern property line. d. Drainage and utility easements are required over the pond and storm sewer pipes on Lot 6 , Block 1 ; Lot 1 , Block 2; and based upon final engineering design may be required over an adjacent parcel to the west. e . Standard utility easements around the perimeter of each lot. 6 . Enter into a development contract with the City. % tic , .• ...... • $ . . • 4 .. . .1 ...? ...! . . 4 . ce% • . . . Lal 4 ' % • • w- . w x • t:-•;• ,.• •.: -. .. ... •. • . •'. . .. _ / • , . • •,, /... • , . , -I • . C\I - •I . - _ • 1 : ..4. • /". _I di 1 I.' . . • 1 .. 4 7 1/.11W — OW——7— 7- /- ••• a / — ,I l. V • r.:' I / • • e ........, • ii • - ,. r•4,., • e t ) ...\: i „.1 , ,,,, , I, - I 1 I N \' V. • i i A .g. , . \ rf, i 1 ' ..,c, / 4,,, ., , • • .... •q .. / 1 7 , • : / •. f-' ' 3 g ‘4'4 1 : :I: — 1 ' \ / , .... .' , • c, i 1 : A •0 .....\_c_. ......***- / /., -. el I \ r f' ,,, ," /,' / , ,' . •II• • .. I ' - J ' ,, ,,,,,,.., , . ....., • . . ' , . /,e 4 '1 _t• . - e >- _ . CD ' ill I : 1 / AP 1. • :s"°': ' "" i 1 0 _ ••- -, • .e' t '1-,.. f I..L1 - / ' -•-•/... I , ' fr ._. - I - -- ...' I, I . I • < • „. , , , 5 1 ' \ ,'.••••" N ,. , 44' ' .. ,'1 i I a_ -- _ 0 - UJ / /j .‘e 8 ! r tr N. • \ i I l• 1 EL • •' \I .11 , N • I; . I g ,•• ., • en . 1 „• I t • 1 f / • / I • ., .. L I i • ' • . i - .t, __ _ 1 /...1 I r / L.— t. -—71—li 1 l • / . — _ I ' ro i ; , • I ,w , to I '14 ! . . , to co , 0 ' I ei I . / ,•' (—SI v i — o. g2: , I 1If • . ol 1 i . 1 ,' e a •••t :1., I 1.. • ., 9 • I, , "-t • I h. r •• :. ' • — • 1., 1 WI . 1 • I I . , :— II" i ' e:- 4 - - i . , • ., • • 1°. . _ _ _11 - - "e&11, 1 r. - . 1111.1.M.111° Mr' I — i. ;• . • • ' . • t• . 1 , — ...— aNno Omm 335 S5I/ .mc[ 114131111011$ o I -.LAKE `LUGY ROAD ,S —) 1 — _ ,I I I I y'30 ' 137.92````` '11 ;0—,—'- ---o'__ t117.S9 a. '! I - --- I I" 1 0 1 125 25 r---:------,------i 701 ,- �--� I _ " coli 1 1 IN �I 1 , I J/` ' I, ` 1D I ! I s r- %I I I; I S ISI ,o)� 11:, .14 m I I-' € 1 '� I I i I - % 1 1- _ * I _ _ii, n Y�I .' I m I "III ,I ,r"' 0/ 01 • 1 I I ,I 40 t--, I I I 1 � / Iw o I. I I I I' ------- --I .'I 1 1'" - 1 '•I — ; I 1 �_rsTar_-—f- - I I L -7, __/_ i' ,' / ,, 1 /' 1 I I ;1 �� ; l?---y• m --- �I' + 1 I ` ' 1 /I :" ,''NI, -1 "a. \ \ I I j ' • / 1 • 10 , I G'I_ ' ,' 1 N 1 11 •I I i �. \Jd' �' •..(• I --- \ - 1" I 3i sJ 'vr - " -j=-------- I -- :. 1 ( 1 ! - "" / . ,\p;,,•/, -f ,• �'� _-1— s` I I 1 i" / b 0t0^ I I- 1 ' A ,".,• •'` 6o _..10C. \. 1 20 Tjet,7,..--,..;., \ _ ,,. 1 I - ,' ,,',../I ,i,,,, r (21 of • I: ii. I r.' N — \ .i It ''-i/_. ... 3 .'•--•,' ��/,-- ----- - -- \� e•) 1 A • ; 1136.4- - „ 'r .+�:•) 1 I 301.60 I I I I I I I ‘ — N V , LED yy \ �/ ;A • ;v 12 O''1 .. r 6 _ .t .7 :,.... 334 36 Wei-1ctnA IIvoINIIIIIMMEINIIIMMIIMIII i \NNI N\ � '' \ IN 1 ��\�\....N. \ ilt \\ (\\\\\N \ \ --- . :7 °I \\..••/ \'N J ...:' \�l I l � \l \ ,— — ___ --___7. -._. r_f S 1.) / � II „..,' ,,...- ../ __.-. ---- ---. — ..---• ----" --/?n" j/ ----7\ 5 _. _2-, .5.3.. ______ _____ ,____ ,.___ ______-_, --- __ , ...---" / // j_LY � r / z ,it 6-7 _.- -....\\ \\\--.... __.- ) / / // � 1/� !- \ �\ � � / i / / JIL- j/ / \ �-�1� - - - - `- J V� � ` -- � _ L. .si r oourtr nom n pas 11.40.) O > e r r D i IEiJ i1, 1 armxirns > 13 I— > Z I CITY QF iA CHANHASSEN .... .„ , J ... y 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olson FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: August 22, 1989 RE: Ersbc' Comments and recommendations: Fire hydrant shall be located at end of cul -de-sac with — a ten -foot clear radius around hydrant . ML: 1 w __ / CITYOF t*. CHANHASSEN , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM — TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: October 27 , 1989 _ SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Ersbo Addition File No. 87-36 Subdivision Upon review of the preliminary plat, grading plan, street and utility plans dated October , 1989 , submitted by William — Engelhardt Associates, INc. , I offer the following comments and recommendations . Sanitary Sewer Plans propose connecting to City sanitary sewer from Lake Lucy Road at the northeast corner of the plat . An existing 6-inch — service line was previously extended to the property for a single house hookup. The plans should be modified to include replace- ment of the existing 6-inch line with an 8-inch line from the existing manhole in Lake Lucy Road. Watermain City water service is available from Lake Lucy Road. An existing 6-inch line was previously stubbed across Lake Lucy Road to the northeast corner of the plat and will provide adequate water — supply for this plat. Plans propose approximately 400 feet of dead-end watermain. It is desirable to loop the water system for future development and improved water service to this sub- — division. Therefore, the watermain should be extended between Lots 2 and 3 to the southeast corner of the plat. Roadway — The plans propose a 300-foot cul-de-sac off of Lake Lucy Road across from Arlington Court with street grades ranging from 2.2% — to 6. 6%. The proposed street is a 31-foot wide back-to-back urban section within a 50-foot right-of-way. The cul-de-sac is designed with a 40-foot radius . To be consistent with the City ' s — standard cul-de-sac design , the 40-foot radius should be increased to 42 feet. Jo Ann Olsen October 27 , 1989 Page 2 Previous plans for this subdivision made allowances for a future street access to the south . However , it is felt due to the existing terrain and adjacent wetland, access to the south would not be feasible from this parcel . Grading and Drainage The plans propose grading over a majority of the site which will include removal of some trees . The hillside is proposed to be cut approximately 12 feet to provide for house pads . Slopes along this hillside are proposed at 3:1 . It is recommended that drainage swales be constructed between all house pads and the upstream sides of the lots to help direct drainage around and away from the proposed house pads . Earth berms are proposed along Lake Lucy Road within the proposed right-of-way . These berms should be relocated outside the right- of-way . Proposed drainage from the development will follow the natural drainage path towards the wetland west of the plat. A storm sewer system will convey storm runoff via pipe into a detention pond located on the northwest corner of Lot 6 which outlets via pipe into the adjacent wetland. The outlet pipe should be realigned to direct runoff into the wetland instead of the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way . The applicant may need to acquire a drainage easement across the property west of the plat to accomplish this . Due to the small size of this detention pond , staff feels that no skimmer control device is necessary unless the DNR or Watershed District requires one . Based on drainage calculations supplied by the applicant, it appears the pond is adequate for maintaining the predeveloped runoff rate and pro- viding adequate storage for a 100-year storm event . Erosion Control The plans propose erosion control along the north and west peri- meters of the plat . The erosion control type is not specified on the plans . Due to the potention impact on the adjacent wetlands , it is recommended that Type III erosion control be installed . Recommended Conditions - 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the public improvements . 2 . The applicant shall pursue acquisition of a drainage easement across the parcel to the west of the proposed plat for drainage purposes . Jo ann Olsen October 27 , 1989 Page 3 — 3 . Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house — pads and upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from the house pads . 4 . The plans should be modified to include replacement of the — existing 6-inch sanitary sewer service stub with an 8-inch line from the existing manhole in Lake Lucy Road. 5 . Lake Lucy Road shall be restored to the pre-existing 9-ton road section ( see attached section ) including any fabric and/or drain tile which may be present. All pavement markings shall be re-established, i .e. trail. — 6 . The earth berm shall be relocated outside of the proposed right-of-way. — 7 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of _ Natural Resources (DNR) . 8 . Wood-fiber blankets shall be used to stabilize all slopes greater than 3:1 . — 9 . All street and utility construction shall be in accordance with the City 's standard specifications for urban construc- — tion . 10 . The cul-de-sac radius should be increased to 42 feet. 11. Erosion control shall be Type III . 12 . Construction plans for street and utility installation shall — be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . 13. Lot 1 and Lot 6 shall not be allowed driveway access to Lake — Lucy Road. 14 . Plans shall provide concrete valley gutter across Eagle Circle at Lake Lucy Road. — 15 . Extend watermain to southeast property corner between Lots 2 and 3 for future looping of system. — CC M M ,-. O f N N M WI 1- F- _ M a I M g O N J ti W _ 2 ir)M N. Pi .O J \\ N. W O W 0 2 O Q `\ \N O \ cf' Z W N \ ` -• N NO 2 ] 2 N N ` - �2 p a: J O -a•in,„. I LI a V a 0 9 W a p u s U Z .• � 3 - UWNa m \ N z Y N a a - a D m U m m� k S 3 Z I-- j N W Q -� Q J L� • Y 4 2 O Z V O W 1 SI O ! •,-. m m 2 Z �� O o la W ehN > ON CC 12 !`YL • 1 N m m a0 m in• M W I - .. N m N NU N 0 in • ct a .:( re ,ir � O . '..J L., W pr, n O O r r I M_ PENNE w cy) UMW IT_ ' . ii an ii:r -.s.. . 0 —J i a it) ii"N 1 cc v. 1 la 2 • i _ W II _O Z W-J I W o r0 I Uy4 0 O JLIU2� 0 �v zI a °Cx to 1 Z Q VP - a .0 m 1 H-47 J W Y ` Z H LL 1 m ; it W --L ilk uf. - W v. v 1 Mf o f 1 J 7 a ,_ _L\\ / =w • - /, f,d I . , 3 I J J �m it T — - O W / <5 Q Cl) / N i� . i __' , a: L-- I \ V v v – -_•er CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OFFICIAL COPY APR 19 egg COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. CHANHASSEN PIAS DEPT• CITY OF CHAN , PRFLIYINARY PLAT-NO. If G ' • DATE SUBMITTED P.FPVD.PLAN.COM n. �/' �4. APPVD.COUNCIL • wc?irt Q OP /— —i ANI L _ i �► i� \\ / J r T1 I - - a55I � I • ' i r.A; , _ , ,. . 1",k. •c i'. '5D-) ' I i- . t\ If \ I +? t 1 _ )3(k N:..... ...„„ 'I ` 998 { • iiii VI ilk: `� i / , ' / ' i '• 0 � \ ,Ir j ` goo / I i . Iii/ � i` - 7 Y..1,,,,or.vail,, 4,_ •.- / �z r 1�-- 1 \‘. t , ik '' \ i Z fit4./"N ' , I: e /��I At ,- i 56Kt 'r \ \`r1on; .. ;i -,-1 ..—itti,o, . . r� \ - . :it::- , ., . Ifflom 4'4/1,111111,1 , ,,,>,' - , Ili i 4‘,., : -1640 \ \ I ! -t � , i 1 ,,' ',...: 1/ ..02111/11r, 01,7,16.TA . 40, _ . ! -- .,, . . , 7/ sir r ` _ ,4-:... w A ` I \ ii •• lel. iti I ma .\ _ 3t,', .ail l o <' ! : 1. , • 4–:,'"., \ b>S\<-1 ' i — .* 1 , ik. 3 , .;.,,,,, „ , , , ,.... ,A / . 7'. -. .."" ..-. '00 / .C7‘*"-"/W r ass . / i..... ..____.....!...______,t , Ipt. . i aee i+y i ,� //fir',' .1r A A \ ,„ 4, 1 I /t / oti , - — 1 0) li N-1 \ - 1i, \'\, ,� t 4 `�Y .6:17 IS'+r7 \ .. CITYOF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 — March 20, 1989 Mr. Richard Ersbo 1211 Lake Lucy Road T — Chanhassen, MN 55317' Re: Ersbo Addition Dear Mr. Ersbo: It has come to staff' s attention that the final plat for Ersbo Addition has been filed with. Carver County prior to specific con- ditions of final plat approval being met. Specifically, the development contract and the financial security must be provided to the city and recorded with Carver County prior to any building permits or construction taking place on the site. Attached is a copy of the development contract which was aporobed by the City Council on July 25, 1988. As you can see there are blanks that need to be filled in which your engineer can help you with. Please contact either me or Gary Warren, City Engineer to fina- lize the development contract and submit the security. Also, — note if any property is sold prior to completing the above steps, the new owners will be required to consent to the recording of the development contract. — Again, the lots will not be able to be developed until these are received and recorded by the city. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ) Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner JO:v -- cc: Gary Warren Development contract file _ CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated , 1988, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("City") , and RICHARD ERSBO, a widower and not remarried (the "Developer") . 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for ERSBO ADDITION (referred to in this Contract as the "plat") . The land is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2 . Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract and furnish the security required by it. 3 . Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be prepared, subject to City approval , after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control . The plans are: Plan A--Plat dated , 19 , prepared by Plan B--Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan dated , 19 , prepared by Plan C--Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated , 19 , prepared by r07/06/88 4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: A. Sanitary Sewer System B. Water System — C. Storm Water Drainage System D. Streets E. Concrete Curb and Gutter s _ F. Street Signs G. Street Lights H. Site Grading I. Underground Utilities (gas, electric, phone, CATV) J. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments K. Surveying and Staking 5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by November 30, 1988. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, — it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public improvements, the — beveloper shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ("security") for $ . The amount of the security was calculated as 110% of the following: Sanitary sewer $ Watermain $-2- On-site storm sewer $ Streets $ Street lights and signs $ Erosion control $ Engineering, surveying, and inspection $ TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $ This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security shall be subject to the approval of the City. The security shall be for a term ending December 31, 1988 . The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval the security may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a point less than 25% of the original amount until all improvements are complete and accepted by the City. 7 . Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: 1211 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen, Minnesota - 55317 . Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall , 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 , Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 . -3- 8. Other Special Conditions. A. A berming and landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval providing screening on the two double frontage lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. B. The Developer shall pursue a utility easement across the parcel to the east of the proposed plat such that a manhole located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated. — C. Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from the houses pads. D. The Developer shall maintain the 50 foot right-of-way and driveway as shown in Attachment No. 3 until such time as the — proposed north/south road is extended to the south as a public roadway. E. The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road. — F. The Developer shall exert all due care to minimize destruction of Lake Lucy Road. All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing 9 ton road section specifications. G. Two 20 foot utility easements shall be provided as described previously as part of the final plat review process. — H. The Developer shall provide storm sewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all _ storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process. I. The Developer shall obtain and comply with all — conditions of the Watershed District. J. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. K. The Developer shall be responsible for daily on and off site cleanup caused by construction of this site. L. The Developer shall meet the following conditions concerning the wetland alteration permit: — 1. Creation of a storm water retention pond on the northwest corner of Lot 1. 2. As part of the plans and specifications for utilities, the Developer shall create a culvert drainage solution beyond the holding pond which is acceptable to the property owner to the west and to the City. -4- 3. Approval of a permit shall be obtained from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 4 . Developer shall comply with the conditions of subdivision approval No. 87-36. 9. General Conditions. The general provisions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Mayor BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager DEVELOPER: RICHARD ERSBO STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC -5- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) — The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by RICHARD ERSBO, a widower and not — remarried. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange — South St. Paul, MN - 55075 (612) 455-1661 -6- CONSENT , fee owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them. Dated this day- of , 19 t STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 -7- CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT — (Developer Installed Improvements) EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove — r trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following — conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security has been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County Recorder's Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City Engineer has issued a written letter that the — foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2 . Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multi- phased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and the — breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. 3. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, — except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development — density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless -8- required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract. 4 . Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances , and plans and specifications which have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer' s expense, have one or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two complete sets of blue line as-built plans, -9- (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4) location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing of all — utility stubs, and (6) bench mark network. 5. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, — employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 6. Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are — issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except — as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as — possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it — deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in — full compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control -10- needs to be maintained until vegetation cover has been restored, even if after construction as been completed and accepted. After completion of — construction the City will remove the silt fences. To pay for the removal, before the City signs the final plat the Developer shall pay — the City a fee of $1. 00 per foot of silt fence that is required to be constructed in accordance with the erosion control plan for the plat, Plan B. 7. Clean up. The Developer shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris from streets and the surrounding area that has — resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 8. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and the Developer and his engineer shall submit — a written statement attesting to same with appropriate contractor waivers. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City — Council resolution. 9. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial — guarantees posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at -11- least ninety (90) days before the security required by this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22 , Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance — with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it — pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees. 10. Park and Trail Dedication. Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential construction within the plat, the — Developer, its successors or assigns, shall pay to the City the park and trail dedication fees then in force pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions. 11. Landscaping. Unless the lot already has one tree on it, the Developer shall plant a tree on every lot in the plat. Suitable trees include: Maples Ash — Linden Basswood Green Ash Birch Honeylocust Ginko (male only) — Hackberry Kentucky Coffee Tree Oak Other species of trees may be approved by the building inspector. Trees which can cause a public nuisance, such as cotton producing trees, or can be a public hazard, such as bug infestation or weak bark, are prohibited. The minimum tree size shall be two (2) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled and burlapped. The trees may not -12- — — be planted in the boulevard. The Developer shall sod the front yard, T boulevard, side yards to the rear of the structure on every lot, and drainage ways. Weather permitting, the trees, sod, and seed shall be — planted before Certificates of Occupancy are issued for a lot. — 12. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of one (1) year after its completion and acceptance by the City. All trees, grass, and sod shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be — warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other security acceptable to — the City to secure the warranties at the time of final acceptance. 13. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits an acceptable Grading, Erosion Control, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot as required in the Special Provisions, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage — is maintained away from buildings and that tree removal is consistent with City Ordinance. 14. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be respread against the plat in accordance with City standards. — 15. Street Lighting. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $200. 00 for each street light _ installed in the plat. The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity for each light for twenty (20) months or until homes have been built on each lot in the plat, whichever first occurs. -13- 16. Street Signs. All street name and traffic signs required by the City as a part of the public improvements shall be furnished and — installed by the City at the sole expense of the Developer. 17. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the development of the plat to cover the cost of City staff time and overhead. The fee shall be calculated as follows: — i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500, 000, three percent (3%) of construction costs; ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between $500, 000 and $1, 000, 000, two -" percent (2%) of construction costs; iii) if the cost of the construction of public — improvements is over $1, 000, 000, one and one-half percent (1 1/2%) of construction costs. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with — the City a fee based upon construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special Provisions. B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all out-of-pocket costs incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat. C. The Developer 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 plat approval and — development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. -14- D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees. E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and special assessments may be imposed such as but not limited to sewer availability charges ("SAC") , City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees. 18. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract 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. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. -15- 19. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the — subject property within thirty (30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. — B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract. — D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any — reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Delays. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all resulting liability and costs from delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents, or third parties. G. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City engineer, no one may occupy a building for which a building permit is -16- — issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface. H. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. I . Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property . After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver to the Developer a release. J. Insurance . Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City has accepted the public improvements , public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500, 000 for one person and $1, 000, 000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $200, 000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1, 000, 000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days advance written notice -17- of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. — K. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing — may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. L. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any — part of it. M. Construction Hours. Construction equipment may only be operated in the plat between 7: 00 a.m. and 6: 00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday. Operation of construction equipment is also prohibited on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, July 4th, — Christmas Eve Day, and Christmas Day. -18- 50ft. RIGHT OF WAY 111%4011 rimmimmeTerammirwerasommei • • f � C � LAKE LUCY ROAD ATTACHMENT 3 CITYOF J1 GCHANHASSEN t , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 January 12 , 1989 Mr. Richard Ersbo 1211 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 and Mr . Willis Gilliard 516 Morgan Avenue No. Minneapolis, MN 55405 Dear Gentlemen : This is to confirm that the City Council at the January 9 , 1989 , meeting approved the final plat for Ersbo Addition subject to the following conditions : 1 . A final landscaping plan shall be submitted as part of the development contract providing screening on the two double - frontage lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvements . 3 . The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the par- cel to the east of the proposed plat such that a manhole located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated. 4 . Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from the house pads . 5 . The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road. 6 . The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize destruc- tion of Lake Lucy Road. All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing 9-ton road section specifications . 7 . The applicant shall provide stormsewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process . January 12 , 1989 Page 2 8 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 9 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 :1 . 10 . The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction of this site. 11 . Park and trail fees shall be required at time of building permit application in lieu of parkland dedication . 12 . Compliance with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-7 . The next step in the process is to execute a development contract with the city. The City Engineer prepares the development contract . The development contract must be approved by the City Council . Upon execution of the development contract, the letter of credit and all other administrative fees must accompany the contract. Easement documents for dedication of the road ease- - ments to the east of the proposed cul-de-sac and along the western border of your property will need to be prepared for each of these easements by your surveyor . Attached to assist you in finalizing your project is a checklist to accomplish execution of the development contract and receiving plan and specification approval for the construction of the street and utilities . The plan and specification review process will require prepara- tion of the construction plans certified by a registered civil engineer . These plans are the construction drawings that need to be approved by the Engineer Department as well as the City Council . Should you have any questions , please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Stephen Hanson Planning Director SH:v CITY OF G ‘ ,..1::%.1i1V CHANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM . V - TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager �: : >rq �- ec)i* Lex.:,s::: :_ :-•ascon FROM: Steve Hanson , Planning Director • DATE: January 4 , 1989 '" - "1 1 r. G SUBJ: Final Plat Approval , Ersbo Addition File No. 87-36 Subdivision The preliminary plat for Ersbo Addition was approved by the City Council on June 13 , 1988 . This approval was subject to the following conditions : 1 . A berming and landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval providing screening on the two double frontage lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Road . 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvements . 3 . The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the par- cel to the east of the proposed plat such that a manhole located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated . 4 . Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from the house pads . 5 . The applicant shall maintain the 50-foot right-of-way and driveway as shown in Attachment No. 3 until such time as the proposed north/south road is extended to the south as a public roadway. 6 . The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road . 7 . The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize destruc- tion of Lake Lucy Road . All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing 9-ton road section specifications . Don Ashworth January 4 , 1989 Page 2 8 . Two 20-foot utility easements shall be provided as described previously in this report as part of the final plat review process . 9 . The applicant shall provide stormsewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process . 10 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 11 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1 . 12 . The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction of this site. 13 . Park and trail fees shall be required at time of building permit application in lieu of parkland dedication. 14 . Compliance with the conditions of Wetlands Alteration Permit No. 88-7 . The final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat and the applicant has amended the plat in conformance with con- ditions #1 , #5 and #8 . The additional conditions will be complied with as part of the development contract and building permit process . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Ersbo Addition subject to the following conditions: 1 . A final landscaping plan shall be submitted as part of the development contract providing screening on the two double frontage lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Road . 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvements. 3. The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the par- cel to the east of the proposed plat such that a manhole located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated. 4 . Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from the house pads. Don Ashworth January 4 , 1989 Page 3 5 . The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road . 6 . The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize destruc- tion of Lake Lucy Road . All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing 9-ton road section specifications . 7 . The applicant shall provide stormsewer calculations which — verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process . 8 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 9 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3: 1 . 10 . The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction of this site. 11 . Park and trail fees shall be required at time of building permit application in lieu of parkland dedication . 12 . Compliance with the conditions of Wetlands Alteration Permit No. 88-7 . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Final Plat. 262 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 n. Richard Ersbo, 1211 Lake Lucy Road: 1. Preliminary Plat Approval to create 5 single family lots. 2. Wetland Alteration Permit to develop within 200 feet of a Class A Wetland. r. Reassign Conditional Use Permit, Jack Brambilla. t. Approval of Accounts. u. City Council Minutes dated May 16, 1988 City Council Minutes dated May 23, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 18, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 1, 1988 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 24, 1988 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated May 19, 1988 2 v. Resolution #88-55: Bluff Creek Roadway Improvements. - All voted in favor and the motion carried. Roger Knutson: Just one small correction. I don't think it's necessary to pull it but there's a typographical error in item 1(j) which our office prepared. On page 2 of that item, the first line refers to, in the road east of Mr. Hanson's lot. It should be in the road west. I got my directions backwards. If you just want to note that one change. TH: Will Mr. Hanson be made aware of that change or already has been? Gary Warren: Yes. CONSENT AGENDA: (E) APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR STRATFORD RIDGE ADDITION, BOB PIERCE. - Councilman Bovt: The only comment I have about this is on the tree removal plan and I'd like to see our development contract language changed to reflect this as well. The applicant is required to submit a tree removal plan but it doesn't - saying anything about the City having the ability to approve or disapprove of that plan and I would like to ,ce the plan must mcct approval by the City Engineer added to the language. Mayor Hamilton: That's item (k) so you want to add to that, the applicant should supply the City with a tree removal plan that will be approved by the City Engineer. Anybody have a problem with that? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Development = Contract for Stratford Ridge Addition with the noted changes. All voted in [E: favor and the motion carried. 2 t r CITY OF Ze-\ . CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 June 15 , 1988 Mr. Richard Ersbo 1211 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 and Mr. Willis Gilliard 516 Morgan Avenue No. Minneapolis, MN 55405 Dear Gentlemen: This is to confirm that the City Council at the June 13 , 1988 , meeting approved the subdivision request based on the plans stamped "Received April 19, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1 . A berming and landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval providing screening on the two double frontage lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvements. 3 . The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the par- Atmtik•., cel to the-east`of the proposed plat such that a manhole located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated. 4 . Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from the house pads . 5 . The applicant shall maintain the 50-foot right-of-way and driveway as shown in Attachment No. 3 until such time as the proposed north/south road is extended to the south as a public roadway. 6 . The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road. 17 I June 15 , 1988 Page 2 7 . The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize destruc- tion of Lake Lucy Road. All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing 9-ton road section specifications . 8 . Two 20-foot utility easements shall be provided as described previously in this report as part of the final plat review process . 9 . The applicant shall provide stormsewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process . 10 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 11 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 :1 . 12 . The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction of this site. 13 . Park and trail fees shall be required at time of building permit application in lieu of parkland dedication. The Council also approved the wetland alteration permit request based on the plans stamped "Received April 19 , 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1 . Creation of a stormwater retention pond on the northwest corner of Lot 1 . 2 . The applicant will work with staff to create a culvert drainage solution beyond the holding pond which is acceptable to the property owner to the west and to the city. 3 . Approval of a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. r:-j..•;.;tet... - � - 2 . 4 . Compliance with the conditions of subdivision approval No. 87-36 . The next step in the process is to execute a development contract with the city. The City Engineer prepares the development contract. Attached is an example of a contract. The development contract must be approved by the City Council . Upon execution of the development contract , the letter of credit and all other administrative fees must accompany the contract. Enclosed in this letter are two easement documents for dedication of the road easements to the east of the proposed cul-de-sac and along the June 15, 1988 - Page 3 western border of your property. Your surveyor will need to pre- _ pare a description for each of these easements . Also attached to assist you in finalizing your project is a checklist to accomplish approval of the final plat , execution of the develop- ment contract and receiving plan and specification approval for the construction of the street and utilities . As we discussed at the Council meeting, the plan and specifica- tion review process will require preparation of the construction plans ceritified by a registered civil engineer. These plans are the construction drawings that need to be approved by the Engineering Department as well as the City Council . Please feel free to contact me regarding a meeting to review these steps so that you are fully aware of what is expected of you. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. SiAcere`�y, / \-tck Barbara Dacy City Planner BD:v Enclosure 1n ; _ ; ITY 0 C C. DATE: May 18 , 1988 1 CHANHASSEN C.C. ::E:87 :eS :;8 :8WAP J119 Y CASE Prepared by: Dacy:k - STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1 . Preliminary plat approval to create 5 single family lots . 2 . Wetland Alteration Permit for development Z within 200 feet of a Class A wetland — Q VLOCATION: South of and adjacent to Lake Lucy Road — approximately 500 feet west of Powers Blvd. Cl. APPLICANT: Richard Ersbo Willis Gillard - Q 1211 Lake Lucy Road 516 Morgan Ave . North Chanhassen , MN 55317 Mpls . , MN 55405 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 5 . 03 acres _07XF, DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF, Curry Farms Subdivision u//2/d S- RR, Rural Residential �- �.., E- RSF, Single Family __ W- RR, Rural Residential and Wetland W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Topography slopes to the south and east, existing residence on the rear of the parcel . 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential - I - ,r .art'Jaw, K /11 1' __ ilkipi&4i , evioAtiiiiiiefiLlith''aiii&1 ' tl tom. ' 7 . • a um imin P 6.04 (4,.., 'a ; . „„., willy 1011 1 ii Lawn.I le 0 irli . r.* / w a' writ I, -. . / ► • ,i) •- 1 M , a . w 47 m STREET ` = r ,.4 I , Tr " i i \ .7j ii .. slim a lip, - 446' 4- 44 L.I --)' / / ,, SIO um 0 Lr.24;i john rats .• _� .,irr� _ • t � : �en •IM MI if �--LAK£ LUCY B ■ll01 I.• A . �► � RD •IJIFIIIPAR, OA • ;.:,1�IMNO1111V1 ------- -Ai I. IOW Ili MI rl'-i '14044:• ga' LA so .. . m v • 1 21r:I -ingii■ t $:. ii......E000 J 7 Cii RSF CLAKEANN o -r1 7 f.* ( RD 1 i .. p ___--- R • R4 RR • R12 R12• - ------1 r ?ii 4 ARB RE UM i • - BG W p •T Ersbo Subdivision/WAP May 18 , 1988 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #1 Fire Department Attachment #2 Building Department No adverse comments MnDNR Attachment #3 BACKGROUND The subject property was considered by the City Council for a similar preliminary plat in 1978 . The request at that time was to create four lots in the front 300 feet of the property. The plat at that time did not include the existing residence. The City Council , on January 22 , 1978 , approved the preliminary plat request; however , because of lack of watermain to the area, the applicant did not pursue the subdivision . Because preliminary plat approval has expired, the applicant has resubmitted his application . In this application , staff requested that he include a lot for the existing residence. ANALYSIS The proposed lots meet the lot area, lot width , and lot frontage requirements for the RSF District . In preparing the street layout, the proposed street pattern was created so that minimizing conflict points on Lake Lucy Road could be minimized and the easements reserved for potential expansion to adjacent lots . Arlington Court , a cul-de-sac approved in the Curry Farms Subdivision, is located approximately 150 feet east of the proposed street entrance. This off-set is adequate and, in fact, it is a better street arrangement as it will minimize conflict points and turning movements entering both cul-de-sacs . Because each cul-de-sac serves a small number of lots, there should not be a significant amount of traffic generated at these intersections during peak hour periods . As is noted on the plat , a 50 foot right-of-way is provided to to the fifth parcel where the existing house is located. The 50 foot right-of-way can also be extended if needed for the parcel to the south by a proposed 50 foot easement. Creation of the 50 foot right-of-way gives the existing home street frontage. Therefore, the proposed plan not only accommodates both existing street and house arrangements , it accommodates potential sub- - division patterns for adjacent properties . An application on the Kerber property to the east was received last year but was withdrawn by the applicant. Because this area near the Powers Boulevard intersection has several property ownerships it is necessary to preserve future street easements to discourage direct access of driveways to Lake Lucy Road. Ersbo Subdivision/WAP May 18 , 1988 Page 3 The two lots abutting Lake Lucy Road are double frontage lots . The Subdivision Ordinance requires reservation of a ten foot screening easement. A berming and landscaping plan should be submitted to provide screening of these two rear yards . This screen should not extend into the area where a small stormwater pond is required to be created ( see Engineering report) . RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #87-36 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 19 , 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1 . A berming and landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to - final plat approval providing screening on the two double frontage lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvements . - 3 . The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the par- cel to the east of the proposed plat such that a manhole - located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated. 4 . Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house _ pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from the house pads . 5 . The applicant shall maintain the 50-foot right-of-way and driveway as shown in Attachment No. 3 until such time as the proposed north/south road is extended to the south as a public roadway. 6 . The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road. 7 . The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize destruc- tion of Lake Lucy Road. All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing 9-ton road section specifications . 8 . Two 20-foot utility easements shall be provided as described previously in this report as part of the final plat review process . 9 . The applicant shall provide stormsewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process . Ersbo Subdivision/WAP May 18 , 1988 Page 4 10 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District . 11 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1 . 12 . The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction of this site . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request as recommended by staff . STAFF UPDATE The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that park and trail fees be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication . The Commission wanted to insure that enough room was retained within the street right-of-way for a trail if the street becomes a through street . The standard fifty foot right of way will be provided which does provide enough room if a trail is constructed. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Subdivision Request #87-36 as recommended by the Planning Commission and adding the following condition: 13 . Park and trail fees shall be required at time of building permit application in lieu of parkland dedication. WETLAND ALTERATION REVIEW ANALYSIS The subject parcel is located adjacent to a Class A wetland. This wetland is also protected by DNR. The proposed development plan directs runoff from the street and rooftops to the northwest corner of the site and then discharges into the adjacent wetland. The engineering office has recommended that a pond be created in the northwest corner of Lot 1 to retain the runoff prior to discharging into the wetland. Although a small amount of runoff is being generated by the proposed development, the proposed pond location will help in stripping sediment from the runoff . Jim Leach from the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service inspected the site on May 13 , 1988 , and agreed that the pond should be created. He also recommended that site screens and hay bales be installed at the inlet and outlet to trap as much sediment as possible. Ersbo Subdivision/WAP May 18, 1988 Page 5 Discharing of the runoff will occur across the adjacent property owner' s land. A drainage easement should be obtained from the property owner prior to final plat approval to insure that the proposed drainage plan can be accommodated. DNR has notified staff that a permit will be required for construction of the proposed discharge into the wetland . RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit Request No. 88-7 as presented on the plans stamped "Received April 19 , 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1 . Creation of a stormwater retention pond on the northwest corner of Lot 1 . 2 . Acquisition of a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner. 3 . Approval of a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural - Resources . 4 . Compliance with the conditions of subdivision approval No. _ 87-36 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request as recommended by staff except that condition #2 was amended as follows : 2 . The applicant will work with staff to create a culvert drainage solution beyond the holding pond which is acceptable to the property owner to the west and to the city. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-7 as presented on the plat stamped "Received April 19 , 1988" and subject to the following con- ditions : 1 . Creation of a stormwater retention pond on the northwest corner of Lot 1 . 2 . The applicant will work with staff to create a culvert drainage solution beyond the holding pond which is acceptable to the property owner to the west and to the city. Ersbo Subdivision/WAP May 18 , 1988 Page 6 3 . Approval of a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources . 4 . Compliance with the conditions of subdivision approval No. 87-36 . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Memorandum from City Engineer dated May 12 , 1988 . 2 . Memorandum from Steve Madden dated May 5 , 1988 . 3 . Comments from DNR. 4 . Application . 5 . Detailed location map showing location of Arlington Court and Devonshire Drive. 6 . Area map showing potential future street alignments . 7 . Planning Commission minutes dated September 27 , 1978 . 8 . City Council minutes dated January 22 , 1979 . 9 . Mmo from Lori Sietsema dated May 16 , 1988 . 10 . Park and Recreation Commission minutes dated May 10 , 1988 . 11 Planning Commission minutes dated May 18 , 1988 . 12 . Preliminary Plat stamped "Received April 19 , 1988" . . CITY QF _. , p , - CHANHASSEN _ ki 1 4 , .7 -- 417- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer l - DATE: May 12 , 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Ersbo Subdivision Planning File No. 87-36 , Ersbo This site is located on the south side of Lake Lucy Road approxi- mately 500 feet west of County State Aid Highway 17 . The five- acre site is comprised of an open rolling field with an existing home located on the southerly portion of the site. Sanitary Sewer _ Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line which has been installed from CSAH 17 _ to 450 feet west on Lake Lucy Road. It is recommended that the applicant pursue a 10-foot utility easement across a portion of the property to the east such that the manhole located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated ( refer to Attachment No. 1 ) . The depth of the proposed sanitary sewer in the proposed cul-de- — sac is approximately 6 feet deep. Those portions of the sanitary sewer which have less than 8 feet of cover shall be properly insulated. A 20-foot utility easement should be provided along the easterly property boundaries of the two easterly lots to facilitate possible future development . Similarly , a 20-foot utility ease- ment should be provided along the common lot line of the two southerly lots to facilitate future development to the north (refer to Attachment No. 2A, B, and C) . _. watermain Municipal water service is also available to the site by an 18-inch watermain which exists along the north side of Lake Lucy Road. The plan does propose a 300-foot dead-end watermain . Although this is typically avoided wherever possible, location of Planning Commission May 12 , 1988 Page 2 the existing watermains do not lend themselves to looping of the watermain until future development to the west occurs . The por- tion of the porposed 6-inch watermain underneath Lake Lucy Road should be jacked underneath the roadbed to minimize the destruc- tion of the newly-constructed Lake Lucy Road. Roadway The plans propose a cul-de-sac which has a proposed street grade of 6 . 5 percent as compared to the City ' s recommended maximum of 7 . 0 percent . The proposed right-of-way is 50 feet in width which is consistent with the City ' s standards for urban construction . The plat also proposes 50-foot right-of-ways to the north and east of the entryway and bubble respectively. This will facili- tate access to the east and north without incurring any addi- tional connections onto Lake Lucy Road which is a collector street . It is recommended that the 50-foot right-of-way located on the westerly property boundary of the southwest lot ( refer to Attachment No. 3 ) should be maintained by the applicant until such time as development occurs south of the plat . Grading and Drainage The proposed grading plan calls for cutting down of a portion of the hillside located to the southerly two lots. Maximum cut areas are approximately 8 feet to the south, while fill depths have been kept to approximately 3 feet. It is recommended that drainage swales be constructed between all the house pads and the upstream sides of the lots to help direct drainage around and away from the proposed house pads . Drainage from the development is directed to the west via the proposed storm sewer system and eventually in the existing wetland located to the west . The proposed plan maintains the natural drainage path. The plans do not address on-site ponding and will need to be revised as per the Watershed District ' s recommendations as well as the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) . The proposed plan shows the storm sewer pipe extended onto the neighboring property to the west . The plans should be revised , or the applicant shall provide the City with the appropriate easement documents prior to the final plat review. Erosion Control The plans do not address erosion control . Therefore, an erosion control plan should be submitted to the City for approval as part of the plans and specifications review process . Planning Commission May 12 , 1988 Page 3 Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvements . 2 . The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the par- cel to the east of the proposed plat such that a manhole — located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated. 3 . Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from the house pads . 4. The applicant shall maintain the 50-foot right-of-way and driveway as shown in Attachment No. 3 until such time as the proposed north/south road is extended to the south as a public roadway. 5 . The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road. 6 . The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize destruc- tion of Lake Lucy Road. All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing 9-ton road section specifications . 7 . Two 20-foot utility easements shall be provided as described previously in this report as part of the final plat review process . 8 . The applicant shall provide stormsewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process. 9 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District . 10 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 :1 . 11 . The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction of this site. — Attachments 1 . Sanitary Sewer Diagram 2 . Easement Diagrams (A, B & C) 3 . Right-of-Way Diagram ,0 �s• �: �� �„� �V p 6• 11.14-r G Al!t C) �� �� � ;_. - �-- — - — L.r / , MFt12 ` i n rc=444.2 �_ \ REMOVE MH ~�s-9Q$1'OE -7) 2 \, ).2 l _ i j \ t55 t \ , i . i // t\A: - • S act' b ', ` f �) t r 4 7 Z ,'7 " Wa I \1 i �. 1 ' 10112t?2 / t.ce --=7. , • i 11 k t ,, , ..::_.........--707 x 99 r ,), , 1 6, .. , , / 1 - i ...:( i , i . :. , , .. . ....._., , , , , - --, - ->6 , _ , 4:c...../_„L, 1 t / in , ' 46.,., :y.:44,7„.....: ..,:".,-,4-#._7, , ,,, Pri ,Agoe. 4 anipr,. .._,fi.:.: ,,, \\ , , *pop i t7- •,, of / ,V �' ...A "A�' . , r:._ ��� �, K S. 6%1 E%-' T-..• jr, 1 —10 > ir A I i ii r/ Oa rilk i 11 I I kill r 1 -1 i-- - , . _ __ / ► \ i .. 8, ot 1 `r I _Lee o ,/ _ '.:1'- s 9, ..."4/ 44itiNs / \ e it' _ __ '., • . , kt -0 / titi//(--.- _ 7 _____ ...----- --.. •._. if. a,o II ii i — - I di , .j • is: 1 . .t : ', r . 551 ,'1"� � Q` Rk �" ' i 1„I ,/,, / c‘ -----. 1.- / ' 1 / .4°.•"I i-fF •� t ' / 'e,.:.-, ' i 0 i% 1 „tei. ; 4 ...... . • :1 "----- / , gab i is t t t / 1 #'/ fk‘ j ` I , J _ ... . _ : ,. `, k -ct t 1 . .. ,.... . ,,,,I, ..2.., 1 t - ` , , / I • , .. (. .. ,% X /1 1 vN i .a,,,, : / I' la‘191 ''-'-7 , --/ I _LI,k-..-,fe. i i4; ,G - . -fr4itailop ?gr.- - ., Ns ' , if, ...- , i -... -: - 4. - . ..,_ , rar %-. , ..„--- - : , . - Afi , , .-- • f , , i.., _ I, k � , t ,. . ...., (\.1. i ! -,- . �. - , , . .. . . „_ ,,, .. , ^ - - gIis NI il 1 •-� ' ir :...., ,u, . : igarearrJ • s ;tit 1- 414,. logi: . . t / '- :b.-4 TIPA - ---'c , fi,v :,„_ ., , ck , ----- /' . - '---, 1 r 1 L i 1 i ' it 'n • /,.--‘', \ f.; . • ik...............A.....,.: 4 ..„.....0 W: .2.....1.. . ' r . 1 ..' qi NI \ L. , • Ic.:try,A) LP / ',' i 1it' • t ' / • � �" 20 FT.-� MEN 4 r i. , / ,cfroo, ,,S Ll ° r /( 4,/ - vol$ il , ......didalligm 97-1 1l � e j I — • i , 1 • �` &• _ •V aL e W V a ,�r STIIs GW It / / Mttit C. TC.7-441.1 14 \ *.\91-s\i— --\-- \i \\ -- ,_N ,ieze.*0 1401 44/ 1 ' til - ` � 15 , 1 Jfr i i -) i . ) sk , : -4.\/1/4--- fi re ! A .../ • 1 7./ c'tr(: c 161Kifter . i ' ,1 i il ! 1 i.- y , . , A . ,: - 0 ,Q 9t. „ F L � l , ,, . - ks% . , i A .--i t t I' /.0. 1...° 4-'—'----, • le /. . N. ,/ -f" 1 1 -..._996 I )6 / '1.°Stsgto 14, --- 4 1 , Ie. 0..1..J;4.,,.-•4:..•/,"-4-440.N;_v.?./-.-7r°..--.:-', 1.....s.. KS.'" 1 1 .r:.•.. Il...s/.',,v 4cv,ul•x1,7 .i• 7Ah2f- ,i/e.ip,, -le--' t c1k4:. .- t.)-,' 4►0 , - , 5, -r ... _1:1•:! iii -7.... 1791111111). j M ft, agr/ larlibor4 kiihl Ck 1 . / )11„b., I 7Yc .....\ i -.... , 0 7 A 4 ., , 5. ) \ l ..°Z. 6,e. N: /, 'i � `. \4\a'44444"k\%-. 1° ----- ---:- --ll s_ v`i / , \ ' 1 .,..0'..''''..:0/ /, >— ::; /;45V -' i...65/ I ....,-11.-----...." S -i; %4•-ms --.. . r t • . . • _ , 3 .. ' • — I c . f ' - - I i 1 i t:!-- _. :,, 7.-... ,/ ... IA . :... . .44 { " — �� _ - • •1.—ir(1 r1 Ft/: 4, .. •)_ 1 %/ ! ' fir// �`� `, .— . . i .--tje' , - . :alga,.. ,,‘,...„:, i ...7., ,.....:\ ........‘ • .r. ' di 7' ! h .... ,...c. 1 \. .. .:;/. clv 1 PI --- - ../0,11 1 / 1 -1 I / • °DroA2 I . ',.. _., i , / / ./ - * . M\ ; I i t i .18� - I0 1 i ' ' f/ / ooh 1 1 1, /i \ illir crLfil i39 ,y/ ��_ / rit, 1 ���, \ . iii 1 O ` l� v. , .01 , , °� gtosiijovi ilieli ...1 A� � I .s _ If ` - ,.... ;)4 \ • . a -/., /4.•5-.50 \, �_ \ I iic '.. r— I � — — ✓ . i I — C. 1 1 * .3 _ CITY OF *s ' ./. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector��� DATE: May 5 , 1988 SUBJ: Ersbo, Subdivision Request 87-36 and Wetland Alteration Permit No. 88-7 Upon review of the site plan for Ersbo, I request a turnaround area on the main street entering the area (Uniform Fire Code, Division II , Section 10 . 207 [ A] ) . If you have any questions, please contact me . City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (612)937-1900 Date: May 2, 1988 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Barbara Dacy, City Planner Subject: Preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit request to create 5 single family lots on 5 acres located south of and adjacent to Lake — Lucy Fuad opposite Curry Farms subdivision Planning Case: 87-36 SUB and 88-7 WAP (Ersbo) The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 25, 1988 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 pro- posed 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 May 18, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hail. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 11, 1988 . You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departrents MN Dept. of Natural Resources City Engineer ` Telephone Company b. City Attorney (NW Bell or United) ( City Park Director S\ Public Safety Director / 9.:' Electric Company e... Building Inspector (NSP or MN Valley) /717)f Watershed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System (3...• Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Mac: ier/Jim Anderson U4. MN Dept, of Transportation 12. U. S. Fish and Wi131ife D �� T P 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Carver County Engineer ���� > 'Merl 1,' 6,, Minnegasco 14. REGION VI ✓a-�-�-� 4 /0 — /3/ c,-/ ` No WATERS 110 S}lore ��pf Goy-�c e�✓7 _ EroS,e-,-. C-rj7-0 / /41\t' b` �r2 �G -z/ — ce. S 84- 7L- n ee ds 611Y'S fire eo{ G,Jc -r-1 ��^ f — /Yo i'// o-e1/, 4;li.,) 0 4- /G— /3/(A) `�, LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)1 937-1900 Tc, C,- C !3, OWNER:APPLICANT: !j �(,,.R � EPS 4:14.64// f �a--4 r ADDRESS /2 // / 1-4- y 2j< I? ADDRESS Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 3 - /2-y2 L TELEPHONE 4-/7 -5 REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment • Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION �P`� r�+C �'t¢►, ' �;. �:1-� REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION ��tf""-L PRESENT ZONING 7 REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED ` ' f, ! „ SIZE OF PROPERTY 2 ��% L LOCATION REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) - %.'4 �e w ,..c5' � 01 v Er.,snr14r l --'MM it ' —'� \ tmy•lBf.oF /i/ •, r1 I 1 - N 15C� '�I - ''' D,rr 3'") ' / 0." ' ' I , I 'la .1•I* ..41 : '46 , .. __...___.._417"-. I:#'''''''.7.1111b :14b i .1,00.../: /: ' ... ' / A ' 111 :000.0.°°..1.--- : -J : . 1 \ I 014 : i ,.. PPg.---`1` \I i rt i 36 „, ' ,_ 1 , . , ,.,, ,, t ,. . .,,..,..--.7 .1 ----L. /li 1 I t • It: aliklr 4 A A: rA ,:'-eV ''6 / ` ( ,1 -VI 4t44,- / \ 1 — , . .-. 7,....vren.F.E. ..., , i . -.. !. . , - ii,,,. Ar, , ,,, ;.,„_ ,....., _- ,, , ‘ , A,r :,.; r•-1_5 6.46.-7--P'''' , ; ;;.. 1. :.1,, 4- -mak Towrit i ,,l _ . -- \--\ ‘ ! 1 ..... .4 -----;\ — ..... . f`j i ' : .!. :. ti III -Alierik or tit dif , . .. GO' .q' , ..-- ''' ..,.;.,,7,.r . .., ...„,. , . . , , „ ,.... , . .. .,,,,t. ,.. ..._ _ ___. ....‘ ...,. ..,........ , . , „ ; c,„ , . , • To, , . .. . \- , B — a- Se's ti - v" , i • , 14 z • • `/t • �, 'o.? of• 1 ` l -to ji i <�p' ,:-.--:) V . r-r, r . ' / • , 1 r v\-..____,- , • , ,\., i , / /.... ,,.„,..z,. t ,, , t I I , 1 I i C d pkv / / D _O '4.4, q , f ► 1 )------------•---..._. 5 . _ . I.,,..; 1. . . I . c 0,;(„me. /447 So-, -• T` _ 1/1 • I Jr k'', r 5 - o\----. g 2MIN ` T� K. • .• - o 1 �'— . \t2 ~ Q Ct 1111111 z 14414 ' at, • ` Ni Illk 14 ii': ; 19 : , r . _ y. .11 URT\:- .9' ' girl* a1 100 ;' (Vacated BLACKSTAD ?�! z' Y 01111C)tulaxi 5 C 2 HELEN ADDITION I I l JACQUES it.J�J Lo (05Cb 0 • 7 6 1 2 3 z I I } 50 501 - 4 .: Z � In M 1/tttr-- -- — ' i.i ,n M 'r•►— i // I oottoNil 4 I. I • . JONN CLARK F-: . , 11K108 P 2116 0: It: i 1 ¢ ; rr . I 1 co 200 r- (r r'` VJ%�J q �',ffialHJR1.7.VM JSR gm • t- 0 W- O, o N, . •if / ' n U, or n ` / / mm I Zn a;r' , �v W„ `-.F. to M.asA - / g .PaOAH CIRCLE(j&E �;,/f/ /..._ _190 °' _ 1 Ir I I or . , , R.L. PETERSON I , BK 97, P 319 {=Qr ...I , _ _ . RICHARD ORTE(�18LAD .. a 00 ;10 • BK 117, P175 ex' 1` \ \ \ \GLp -- 215 1 .:11,1,r-1/7/ s• ►- '. t iu a ` JAMES C. RAVIS +0•' r .4--- ,. ed - - BK 144,P BS i ��__� , I -150 Ei irr- SYLVESTER TRUTNA0 • '• i CARVER SK 140, P103 ,y0 Cr/ - 28 0 - M i C 111. Eri LEWIS A. WOITALLA 0 : Z 27 . BK95, P235 I I r =;_..0\--"' 6 2MIN ` T% K ' % ..-- _ o ^I ~ 5cz) gid ` 2 f �/ Q Q ,, o et 011111 lilt: "ta, J.4; • 1.,... 20 ' 10 7. i ce, n-4. 1v rn7 - cp h j COURT 111 it/ 10o'` /' ..4, `` - TON c 2 /...... �.f•- dlisp .:. . • 6 7 . _ 0 9 ::\t \1 111/410 100 , p (Vacted BLACKSTAD -1 > �� � w. 5 ' p ' 8 o 33do .MCQL ES ADorTronl 1 1 .1 01'. .,J - � c - 'rye o 4 6IMI 0 1 2 3 I ;; 'JO! — Z ' 50 501 M .. I r l I NI • .. 44 m tE,-o fIT '' ,) 417 .� I — CO (-..,.. N CLAR1� • ♦� ► !�/ t—, 1 - M IOE.P2114 al W N 3 — — —— !!__ COM- o, - —i km Cl (-I- 4:Ii ' I, 12 -1 d zrr W / -� 1 LOP — ' 04( `` - Q N I 'Li'. 'O, o K I 41:b W •U. nr Iw V Y N 2� (.1/4. q;rte III • J Q W Y F• dcc r VA Er Z as �LI a) u I ;o - t 4. NI 19 m I 6-1-: 4 OAH CIRCLE . l • ;• _ I Yol _ I —190 r: • I . - - ts.-- ' ' U R.L. PETERSON . h BK 97P319 Q ,� . . RICHARD ORTE�VBLAD _ a �'; 714 er ''L 1 1 BK117, PI75 �++° }.1.!trA EN ..---- 215 'i•r M I I • n JAMES C. RAVIS 11M-- - - f-4-- �'J N ,144, P 96 i r I i f r�- g -t-�150 -.�f���'-�l I . 1 f H t i CARVER SYLVESTER TRIJTNAV ' BK 140. P 103 I ,� o 4 0:::i Wall 28 • to LEWIS A. WOITALLA h : Z 2 2 27 BK 95, P. 235 ` I T : r CITY TF CHANHASSEN 'INV690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 frg (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: May 16 , 1988 SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Action on Ersbo Addition The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the Ersbo Addition proposal at their May 9th meeting. The Comprehensive Plan does not call for park land in this area and trails are in place along Lake Lucy Road. The Commission felt the City should retain enough room within the street right-of-way of the cul-de-sac for an off street trail in the event that it becomes a through street . The Commission unanimously recommended that park and trail dedication fees be accepted in lieu of park land and trail construction . _ Y Park and Recreation Commission May 10, 1988 - Page 2 REVIEW SITE PLAN FOR ERSBO ADDITION. Hoffman: This is a proposal for a subdivision of a 5 acre site into 5 single family lots . It ' s located south and adjacent to Lake Lucy Road opposite the new Curry Farms development . The applicant is Richard Ersbo. Present zoning , residential single family. It ' s 5 acres again and you can — see the adjacent zoning there . Existing parks currently serving this area are Curry Farms Park which is under development at this time and Carver Beach Playground which is existing . An on-street bike trail is located on _ both sides of Lake Lucy Road abutting this proposal . The Comprehensive Plan does not call for additional parkland in this area . Recommendation , this is a small subdivision with lies within the service area of existing parks and on-street trails exist along Lake Lucy Road . Therefore , it is the recommendation of this office to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land and trail construction . With this map you can see exactly what they' re proposing. Lake Lucy Road, Curry Farms development is back over in this area . The existing home and road comes in down here and the existing home is in this area . What they are proposing is to subdivide this whole acreage into 5 lots and put 4 new ones coming in with a _ cul-de-sac. Lake Lucy Road has the on-street trail on both sides . Curry Farms is over here and then Carver Beach Playground is over here. Schroers: Would the access then be off of Lake Lucy Road or off of the — Cexisting road? Hoffman : The access right here would be off of the existing right-of-way. _ So the access to these homes would be off Lake Lucy. Schroers : Okay, but it comes in along what would be the west side there and then goes in? Hoffman : Correct . It comes in and the existing road is shown here . Hasek : Todd , what ' s the potential of any development happening south of that? Is that one right on Lake Lucy? Hoffman: No it 's not . — Hasek: But there is land to the south of that? Hoffman : I 'm not sure if there ' s a blow-up of that area on there or not . Yes , it shows it on there . Hasek : There ' s potential that there could be development behind them then? Mady: Also , is that a pond or is that more of a slough right there? CHoffman: It ' s a marshy area . It ' s not really a pond . Lowland area . It' s probably a foot to 2 feet deep at the deepest . Hasek : What I 'm thinking is the possibility that maybe at some point that land behind there might be developed and this might become part of a loop 7 Park and Recreation Commission May 10, 1988 - Page 3 road that might go through there . Maybe there' s a loop road that does something like that. Maybe what we should do is take an easement along one side or the other of that road . Hoffman: If this has the potential of continuing through? Hasek : Yes. Through and down and actually coming back onto Lake Lucy Road at some point or over to Powers Blvd . . I don ' t know if it would ever get through there but it might come back . I really believe that if it ever did develop, it would probably go right back onto Lake Lucy Road to the north so maybe it ought to be looked at with the potential of an easement by staff on either one side or the other and I guess I 'd like to make a motion that staff take a closer look at the potential for development of land surrounding this and the possibility of a trail easement along one side or the other of the north/south road into this project. Hoffman : I do not have the information on the potential for additional development there to the south. Hasek : I think you can see though that there ' s a fairly substantial amount of land that might want to be developed. He does show an access going to his property and he may want , at some point in the future connect ( to something else. Hoffman : Yes , because it ' s kind of a dead-end piece there that you ' re probably not going to get access off of Powers Blvd . real easily. Mady: One of those lots is the lot that . . . owns . Schroers : They have a lot but I think that the property that I know that Klingelhutz pointed out to me that he owned was much further down Lake Lucy Road. In fact over towards CR 117 where they' re proposing coming through with that boat access . I just have a question , Ed did your motion, to accept the recommendation as it is but then to add checking in on the easement? Hasek : I think rather than make a motion on the suggestions by staff , I just simply said that maybe it needs to be looked at a little bit more closely and it ought to come back before us . It might be something that was skipped . If we take cash in lieu of and trails . Schroers : That ' s what I was wondering . If you ' re directing staff to do that then it ' s not written in the motion. Hasek : Let ' s go with staff ' s recommendations and also to ask them to investigate as indicated in the motion. Hasek moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and directing staff to take a closer look at the potential for development of land surrounding this subdivision and the Park and Recreation Commission May 10, 1988 - Page 4 C possibility of a trail easement along one side or the other of the north/south road into this project . All voted in favor and motion carried . REVIEW SITE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT SITES LIMITED. Hoffman: Item 4, a subdivision of 11 acres into 5 industrial lots . The location of this one is west of and adjacent to Audubon Road and north of the railroad tracks. Present zoning is A-2, Agricultural Estate and Industrial Office Park acreage is 11 . 09 acres . Adjacent zoning and land use is stated there. Existing parks , there are no parks in the immediate - area however , this area is served by Lake Ann and Lake Susan parks . Lake Ann is real close and used quite extensively by the industrial park already. Comprehensive Plan , the Comp Plan does not call for parks in this area. The Comp Trail plan calls for an off-street trail along Audubon Road . Background of this proposal , this proposed development lies at the west end of the industrial park and is part of Zone 4 on the recreation section in the Comprehensive Plan . Zone 4 calls for parkland to serve the development needs of development taking place along TH 101 and around Lake Susan. As the needs of this area are being met with the parkland dedication of Lake Susan Hills West and Chanhassen Hills , - 4: parkland is not needed from the proposed Audubon West development . The trail plan identifies a need for a trail along Audubon Road which we have requested a trail easement along the west side from developments both north and south of this proposal being the McGlynn development and then the Graham property to the south . This alignment should be continued . It 's the recommendation of this office to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and to request a 20 foot trail easement along the west side of Audubon Road. Hasek moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and to request a 20 foot trail easement along the west side of Audubon Road. All voted in favor and motion carried . REVIEW REQUEST TO RELOCATE TRAIL EASEMENT, HIDDEN VALLEY. Hoffman: Recently the City was contacted by United Mortgage Corporation requesting that the City consider realigning the trail easement through the Hidden Valley development located just west of Chanhassen Estates along the south side of Lake Drive East and the east side of TH 101. You all know where this area is. The area down behind McDonalds . Over here is Chanhassen Estates . The easement that is in question , originally the trail was located along the utility easement . This would be Rice Marsh ( Lake with all the wetland in this area . Those people came in requesting that that trail easement be moved farther south to get it out of those people ' s backyards as far as possible without trying to get into the wet area . What Lori sent back to them was as long as we took that easement to put the trail on there because it ' s already all platted , if you go ahead Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING : RICHARD ERSBO, 1211 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO LAKE LUCY ROAD: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS . B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS A WETLAND. The staff report was waived as there was no public present besides the applicant . Emmings : Have you seen the conditions that the staff has put on this? Richard Ersbo: Yes . Emmings : Do you have any problems with those conditions? Richard Ersbo: No . Emmings : Do you have anything you ' d like to add to the staff presentation? Richard Ersbo : No . Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : I guess I 'd like to recommend that we include the staff report by reference into our Minutes of the meeting here since we get the staff report on record . I didn ' t have a whole lot of questions . I thought the conditions were appropriate except for this one storm water retention pond . Were we going to talk about the within 200 feet of a wetland? Since we' re talking about storm water retention ponds , I guess I was kind of curious as to exactly where that was going to be . Dacy: That ' s going to be located in the northwest corner of this lot right in here . Batzli : Is that going to be similar to the one we talked about last time? Dacy: No, this is much bigger in scale and character . It ' s much smaller than that one . Brown : As a matter of fact , staff had originally looked at not having storm water retention pond simply for the fact that the increase in run- off due to the rooftops of the homes due to the cul-de-sac really wasn ' t adding a whole lot of additional flow. However , on the other side of the coin obviously we can ' t ignore the sedimentation process that occurs in a holding pond before discharging out into the wetland . The pond is going to be very minimal in size . More to answer the question , I don ' t know at Y� 1 Planning Commission Meeting _ May 18, 1988 - Page 12 this point , something we can cover through the plans and specs phase of it but it' s going to be very minimal at best . We had to at least extend the courtesy to the Watershed District since they' re in charge of evaluating water quality. Batzli : That part I guess that I didn ' t get yet is that your requirement _ that they receive a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner . Where ' s adjacent? Which one? Brown : That would be to the east . Batzli : But in your report you say the drainage is directed to the west so you' re saying that instead of directing it . . . Dacy: He ' s right . It ' s west . It ' s the easement going into the wetland from the culvert. It ' s on the west side. Batzli : I 'm confused now. You ' re draining things to the west correct? Brown: Correct. Batzli : So your acquisition of a drainage easement is to the east? Brown: There are two easements in question here. Number one, the easement to the east is strictly, it states in condition 3 that the applicant shall pursue a utility easement . It has nothing to do with the drainage and our motive for that . . . — Batzli : I 'm in agreement with your utility easement . I ' ve only been talking about the within 200 feet of a Class A wetland . Who do you want to get at the drainage easement from? Erhart: Doesn ' t that property drain through there now? Brown : The property does drain through there now but the applicant has shown on their plans , since this is the property boundary line here, over here this parcel is owned by Mr . Ordenblad and this pipe is shown — extending onto his property and therefore the applicant again has the responsibility of providing the City with either some sort of easement document or revising his plans such that his pipe stops here at the property boundary. No way that he can extend that pipe into somebody elses property. Batzli : He ' s got a culvert going under the road then? Brown: Yes. Batzli : So that ' s going to drain his holding pond into the next door neighbor ' s property? Brown: Correct . -- Dacy: Into the wetland . Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 13 - Brown : Into the wetland . However , it will be at the predevelopment runoff rate. Batzli : So you want the easement just because the pipe sticks out of the property a little bit? Brown : If the applicant wants to pursue that , yes . We would like to have — that pipe extend out to the edge of the wetland . However , if it comes down to a hard situation and they can ' t reach an agreement , then we ' re certainly willing to look at a revision of this plan . Wildermuth : It looks like the easement requires about 30 feet . Brown: Correct . Batzli : I guess I would like to clarify what we ' re trying to do there . I would rather make a strong recommendation that we would like to see that - it goes to a certain point and he work with staff or the adjacent property owners. That ' s it . Wildermuth : I agree with Brian that we should word that just a little bit differently. Other than that, I have no other questions. It looks like the staff report all of the requirements for the subdivision are satisfied . Ellson : Nothing here . It looks fine . - Erhart : That ' s the only thing I had was again, I think we should change item 2 to basically say to work with staff to create a drainage solution that will be acceptable to both the City. Otherwise I think it ' s great . Emmings : I don ' t have anything either . . . so is there a motion on this? - Ellson moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-36 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 19 , 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1 . A berming and landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval providing screening on the two double frontage lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Road . 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvement . 3. The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the parcel to the east of the proposed plat such that a manhole located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated . 4 . Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from • Planning Commission Meeting _ May 18 , 1988 - Page 14 the house pads. 5. The applicant shall maintain the 50 foot right-of-way and driveway as shown in Attachment No . 3 until such time as the proposed north/south road is extended to the south as a public roadway. 6. The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road . 7. The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize destruction of Lake Lucy Road. All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing - 9 ton section specifications . 8 . Two 20 foot utility easements shall be provided as described _ previously in this report as part of the final plat review process . 9. The applicant shall provide stormsewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer capacities as as part of the plans and specifications review process . 10 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District . 11. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. 12. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction of this site . — All voted in favor and motion carried . Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-7 as presented on the plans stamped "Received April 19 , 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1. Creation of a stormwater retention pond on the northwest corner of Lot 1. 2 . The applicant will work with staff to create a culvert drainage _ solution beyond the holding pond which is acceptable to the property owner to the west and to the City. 3. Approval of a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural - Resources . 4 . Compliance with the conditions of subdivision approval No . 87-36 . All voted in favor and motion carried . Planning Commissi Meeting September 27 , 197' -6- That would give us an opportunity to go to Council and talk to them about the proposal and what we are trying to do and get an idea as to whether it would fly. C Members were polled as to their feelings on recommending the Council rescind the resolution. Dick Matthews - With the lakes there it should have sewer . Tim Stone - I think there are a variety of other planning considerations besides the financial base of the city that come into play here and I have to swing with Dick, I feel uncomfortable concerning this project . Jerry Neher - I would like to see it postponed until such time as the sewer is imminent . Hud Hollenback - I agree. Walter Thompson - I' ll agree . Roman Roos - It is pretty much unanimous on the resolution. We would postpone any further action until there is some status of the sewer . That would be the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the Council . ( Bob Waibel - In all fairness to the developers , that 911721 applies only to planned unit developments . There is a possible alternative route where they ask for rezoning to a subdivision classification. In other words they drop below the 24 lot minimum threshold for the planned unit development . That would involve another rezoning in the unsewered area . SKETCH PLAN - RICHARD ERSBO : Mr. Ersbo is proposing to subdivide approximately 1 . 5 acres into four lots . The property is located on the south side of Lake Lucy Road and is zoned R-1A. All of the lots shown are deficient in lot area . Bill Brezinsky - He has shown a 60 foot right-of-way coming into the property. That can be reduced to 50 feet . Although the Subdivision Ordinance does require a 60 foot right-of-way radius for the cul-de-sac , this is such a short cul-de-sac that we would recommend that a variance be given to reduce that to a 50 foot radius . The lots are under 15 , 000 square feet . We feel with this reduction in the width of the right-of-way and by shifting the lot lines between Lots 1 and 2,and 3 and 4 to the south he will be able to pick up four lots that have 15 , 000 square feet in area. As far as the status of Lake Lucy Road, our indications are that the most right-of-way that will be needed in the future is 80 feet . Right now there is 66 feet . We would recommend that they dedicate a seven foot right-of-way easement on the north side of Lots 1 and 4. Hud Hollenback moved to hold a public hearing on October 25 , 1978 , to consider the Ersbo subdivision request. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. Planning CommissiL Meeting October 25 , 1978 -4- Roy Barke - In talking to all of the people I have always stated that _ if I am a problem I would like you to tell me so that we can work together to eliminate the problem. I don' t want to become the scape goat for every problem in the neighborhood but I have always stated I would actually assist the people to either attach a filter to the source of it or to remedy the situation. Even without the tower I have been on the air in different antenna's which are less efficient which do cause more problems with interference and I have been on the air since the first part of June and I have had no complaints in that area. When you look at amateur radio or any type of transmitting the higher the antenna the less problem you are going to have . You do have a limitation on how high you can go and that type of thing but what I do have is at a reasonabTh height so that I don't have that problem as much as I would if I had to go down to a real small antenna which is almost on the ground or a wire antenna along the house which would be a greater risk for the neighborhood. Walter Thompson moved to recommend the Council grant a conditional _ use permit for the erection of an amateur radio transmission antenna at 6901 Shawnee Drive and that the setback will be such as the height of the tower and antenna will not fall outside the lotline . The permit will be subject to review upon complaints by neighbors . Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION AND REZONING - RICHARD ERSBO Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8 : 10 p .m. with the following interested persons present : Richard Ersbo Bob Petersen Wendell Gravelun The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. Mr. Ersbo submitted a revised plan showing recommended changes to the City Engineer. The Assistant City Planner did not receive a copy. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing . Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 8 : 15 p .m. SUBDIVISION AND REZONING - RICHARD ERSBO : Dick Matthews moved to table action until November 9 , 1978, to give staff time to review the revised plan. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. RILEY/PURGATORY CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT: The watershed district has requested all proposals of one acre ofiarger be sent to them for review and comment . Council Meeting JE ry 22 , 1979 -3- Councilman Matthews moved to endorse Gayle Kincannon as Metropolitan Transit Commission representative from Precinct H. Motion seconded — [ by Councilman Pearson . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson and Matthews . Councilmen Neveaux and Geving voted no. Motion carried. 7r SUBDIVISION REQUEST - RICHARD ERSBO : Mr. Ersbo was present seekin g approval to subdivide his property at 1275 Lake Lucy Road into fou r residential lots. Sanitary sewer is extended to the northeastern corner - of the property. The nearest water service is approximately 400 feet east . The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the subdivision and rezoning to R-1 . The Assistant City Manager/Planner recommended approval conditioned that the applicant make all public improvements including a looped water system, and also petition for extension of municipal water to serve the property. - Councilman Matthews moved to accept the Assistant City Manager/Planner ' s recommendation, reference Planning Case P-584 . Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor : Mayor Hobbs , - Councilmen Pearson, Matthews , Neveaux , and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried. _ NATURAL GREEN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT : David Luce was present seeking approval of a conditional use permit for his business at 1660 Arboretum Blvd. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the conditional use permit . Councilman Pearson moved to table action and direct the City Manager , along with Bruce Pankonin , Jerry Schlenk , and Bob Waibel , prepare - a narrative on the past history of this proposal . Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor : Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson , Matthews , Neveaux , and Geving . No negative votes . Motion carried. SIDE YARD VARIANCE - GREGORY HOOPS : Mr. Hoops is requesting a 7 ' 10" side yard variance to construct an attached garage to his home at 7604 Great Plains Blvd . The Board of Adjustments and Appeals met and recommended denial of the request . Councilman Neveaux moved to deny the request based upon the planning report and the minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals , Case P-608 . Motion seconded by Councilman Matthews . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson , Matthews , Neveaux , and Geving . No negative votes. Motion carried. FILL PERMIT APPLICATION , JEAN LOVETANG : Ms . Lovetang is requesting • a fill permit to install 250 cubic yards of dirt on her property at 6850 Chanhassen Road. A letter was received from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District stating this project does not meet their - requirements therefore a grading and land alteration permit will not be required. _ Councilman Neveaux moved to accept the Building Inspector ' s report of January 11 , 1979 , and allow the fill permit . Motion seconded by Counciln Matthews . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearsor Neveaux , Matthews , and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried . CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hobbs asked if any council .member wished to discuss any items on the consent agenda. Mayor Hobbs asked that item a. Nv C IT , O F P.C. DATE: 6e 14,. � , 1989 Y C.C. DATE: Nov. L3 , 1989 .00% CUA7UA7 CASE NO: 88.24 SUB, 88.14 WAP 88-15 Site Plan Review Prepared by: Olsen/Krauss/vc STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 27. 1 acres into 11 R-12 lots and a 5 acre park (Outlot A) �— Site plan for 110 Condominium Units on property Z zoned R-12 . Q Wetland alteration permit to Locate a Holding Pond (� into a Class B wetland. LOCATION: Between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Approximately LL Mile North of West 78th Street 0 - Q APPLICANT: Cenvesco Hedlund Engineering 3650 Annapolis Lane 9201 E. Bloomington Frwy. Plymouth, MN 55441 Bloomington, MN 55420 PRESENT ZONING: R-12 ACREAGE: 27 . 1 acres DENSITY: 9 . 6 units/acre ( net) townhome lots ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; Saddlebrook S- BG; vacant Io/al/F? QE- R-12; townhomes /o//a 0 W- R-12 ; vacant WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available to site. _ W PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of the property. It contains a Cr) Class B Wetland and has heavily vegetated areas . 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential cl 14116 `/ � 0 . aft ` �� t1�,., r ,:%.wke " ,%awake.. -- SH A DOW .,�i�iii� � ° m1 �, . f11"��. rA �r . i1 R4 t= 1---111R1S- 15,-1. VIM EVEPPOTLN 74411eillig(i 7voimlis I . Vilowl" "'' • • '''4 ,D- ' - '4MP ortz RS % • 4 s,,. ,-..4 :- 1.*."- w .��l(AI sWililli \, W� Flii..... mi a _ , /' , R i; -.Win frrr1••1ia now , IT �� S ;�fl IIIA tier: . -‘tit '' 1l / In 11111 1._ 1'. ,.41 0 At 1.1 .) s*411 ••43V: "IIPOLV.w,"4"1" . R4 ,�'l,_ �... w: .- . .. ..F. z , . -:: • � Iv I � � 0 - .� if* y� I ditiltra ., ? irnwillill "WM. dm i si Willp\ ' Lc6/1_ra_i or 71 op Ilin 1 .. loni.. , Jut, win: lilt isin-lra I 4 .4 I .. -, 7741111 I.° .r �►aMG ; sir note mii 11111.11 "!'1'I�Lil 4 11111111 ••� 1�'� P� 1 G-i'll ••66 �I .11111111111P v - iiM-All i FA �P�1�� :111 111 ' I�G 10 3 Ilk 7 '' ■a : Il�lr • 0_,.. ---••••-. : . - � � ' cLIU:. .2 -.00--1.• _.......1 4 �ti 4111: _ .. ........,* ivilli ir .'elk iiii,e . ., ,... . • _:. hp.4: me 1. ��TOaka‘4%- •...,':rr- WINIF WIP13 -i- Oil al.lisin �_ IG►fWAY �1j4 ` R �= �����ill 1 ... , • ls 01 \ ') ) `: Y •. ,_ 1 , ,......." —.›, , 1, 142 4so4,4,r ai 1��� ��� :.I.1:• ,� A) 1• i :La1i , - 17 SF , go- 413.11""Tir Mffsla 1111 3-. .,.. Algae it !� � I. ..iii o L A ASE SUSAN ....-____,,----.../ SlaNal RD l'ir� r---# ,R/CE A/, Pr/ \UD-R rillpi ��' � ikiiii �'.,�In _ es TN ST. • •Pi' � III 4 �. . �7' . t. ���** ��n ,��)•�. �� M� � RSF ! Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18, 1989 Page 2 BACKGROUND On August 16 , 1989 , the Planning Commission reviewed the Oak View Heights condominium proposal after it had gone through many revi- sions. The August, 1989 , plan proposed 11 R-12 lots on 18 . 9 acres with a total of 112 condominium units . A concept plan was submitted that illustrated an addition of 70 apartment units located in two buildings . No approvals for these buildings was being sought nor was staff giving any indication that the plan was acceptable. At the August 16 , 1989 , Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested that the item be tabled so that he could continue negotiations with Saddlebrook properties , located directly north of the subject site, to purchase addi- tional property which could be used as park land ( Attachment #1) . — The most recent submittal ( September 22 , 1989 ) is similar to the August, 1989 , plat with 6 high density condominium lots located on the south side of Jenny Lane and 4 condominium lots located on a cul-de-sac located north of Jenny Lane. The future apartment buildings are still proposed on the north side of Jenny Lane bet- ween the wetland and the cul-de-sac. The major change between the two plans is that a 5 acre park has been illustrated , located north of the condominium lots and adjacent to Kerber Boulevard. The park area is located on land that the applicant has recently acquired. The number of condominium units have been reduced by 2 ( 110 ) and the number of the proposed future apartments have been increased by 20 ( 90) . The following is a list of the major concerns of the Planning Commission and City Council with the proposed development. Density Impervious surface Parkland Access points onto Jenny Lane Emergency access visitor parking Landscaping Concept plan for the apartment buildings PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 27. 1 gross acres into 10 high density lots with condominium units and one lot for future apartments and an outlot for park dedication. All of the ten condominium lots meet the lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements of the R-12 District. SITE PLAN REVIEW Density and Impervious Surface Since the last review by the Planning Commission, the zoning ordinance has been officially amended to clarify that the density Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 3 for the R-12 District is net density (Attachment #2 ) . Net den- sity is defined as "the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands , lakes , roadways, and other areas not suitable for building purposes" . The site is proposed to be subdivided into 11 R-12 lots and one outlot. Ten of the R-12 lots will contain condominium units ( Lots 1-6 , Block 2 and Lots 2-5 , Block 1 ) . The remaining R-12 lot , Lot 1 , Block 1 , is proposed for future development as apart- ments . Outlot A contains 5 . 01 acres and is proposed for park - dedication. The following list contains the net densities for the ten condominium lots : Lot 2 , Block 1 9 . 8 units per acre Lot 3 , Block 1 9 . 9 u/a Lot 4 , Block 1 9 . 4 u/a Lot 5 , Block 1 9 . 9 u/a Lot 1 , Block 2 9 . 5 u/a Lot 2 , Block 2 9 . 5 u/a Lot 3 , Block 2 11 . 3 u/a _ Lot 4 , Block 2 8 .6 u/a Lot 5 , Block 2 9 . 6 u/a Lot 6 , Block 2 9 . 0 u/a A maximum density of 12 units per acre is allowed in this district. The ten condominium lots meet the net density cri- teria. Concept Plan for Apartment Buildings Lot 1 , Block 1 , ( future apartment buildings ) contains 8 . 85 acres and is proposed to contain two buildings containing 90 apart- ments . A large percentage of the 8 . 85 acres is wetland and steep forested slopes . Staff is recommending that a conservation ease- ment be granted over the majority of the steep slope and tree areas to preserve the site on Lot 1 , Block 1 ( 980 contour) . In addition, there is a Class B wetland with a 75 foot setback and - wooded area cannot be used towards the net density calculation. The concept plan for the apartments is very poorly designed and staff finds it to be unacceptable. As illustrated a tremendous amount of grading is required and it is not clear how access and parking issues can be resolved. Therefore, we are recommending that a condition of approval of the current proposal should be - that the apartment buildings are not included in the approval of the condominium units and that the 90 apartment units will not be accepted by the City unless all conditions of the Zoning Ordinance and site plan review are met ( net density, preservation of wetland setbacks , and conservation easement) . We strongly suspect that the site will satisfactorily accommodate sign- ficantly fewer apartments then are illustrated. Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 4 Impervious Surfaces The ordinance establishes a maximum impervious surface coverage of 35% . Each of the proposed condominium lots meet this standard as presently illustrated as follows : Block 1 Block 2 Lot 1 9 . 2% Lot 1 35% Lot 2 34 . 7% Lot 2 35% Lot 3 32 . 8% Lot 3 34 . 9% Lot 4 34 . 7% Lot 4 34 . 7% Lot 5 33 . 2% Lot 5 34 . 9% Lot 6 34 . 8% = Data provided for Lot 1 , Block 1 is misleading since it is based upon the unacceptable concept plan for the apartment buildings. In addition it does not appear to be based upon net density as currently defined. It is clear from the data provided above that the plan is pushing the maximum limits of density allowed by the ordinance. This is due both to the number of units being proposed and the design of the buildings and their resulting footprints . The plan also con- tains several inaccuracies that result in staff ' s questioning the accuracy of hard surface coverage calculations illustrated on the plan. For example, the developer indicated that driveways were designed to be 24 feet wide while they are drawn as only 20 feet on the plan and many parking stalls are far too small to accom- modate a car. Later in this report there are concerns raised regarding the lack of visitor parking, convoluted and under-width drive aisles and lack of turnaround areas required to meet standards established by Fire Code. Satisfying these standards will result in a com- _ mensurate increase in hard surface coverage that will , due to the project design, result in the need for variances for hard surface coverage. Staff does not support the variances noting that there is no hardship and that they are self-created by nature of the design of the plan. Since the project otherwise is in compliance with ordinance requirements , staff is recommending that it be approved conditioned on revising the plans to meet Fire Code standards and to accomplish this without requiring hard surface coverage variances . These revisions could result in a substan- dard redesign of the plan . Setbacks The setbacks of the R-12 district ( 25 feet front and rear , 10 feet side) are being maintained except for areas where the parking areas adjacent to the road right-of-way are not meeting the 25-foot setback ( Lot 6 , Block 2 and Lot 5 , Block 1 ) . Section Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18, 1989 Page 5 20-119 of the Zoning Ordinance states that on-site parking and loading facilities shall not be permitted in required front, side or rear yard areas . The plans should be revised to provide the 25 foot front yard setbacks . If the plans are not revised, the • - applicant will have to apply for a variance to the setback requirement. Staff would not be in support of a variance since a hardship does not exist. Parkland The current proposal dedicates 5 . 01 acres for park dedication but is also adding additional dwelling units to the proposal . The Park and Rec Commission reviewed the proposal on October 10 , 1989 . The Park and Rec staff recommended that 5 to 7 acres of land would now be required to be dedicated due to the increased number of units . The area dedicated for parkland contains wetlands protected by a 75 foot setback and steep slopes including a ravine. The total area usable for active parkland is approximately 3 acres . In order for the parkland to meet the requirements of the Park and Rec Commission, the ravine would have to be filled in and a massive amount of grading would have to be required. The Park and Rec Commission visited the proposed park site to determine whether the area would be suitable for park purposes . Mark Koegler also attended the site visit and was directed to prepare alternative park designs (Attachment #3 ) . The Park and Rec Commission approved Concept Plan B which improved the level areas of the site and preserved the ravine and sloped areas as open space. The Park and Rec Commission felt that the proposed dedicated area of 5 . 01 acres would be well suited for park area and that the ravine should not be filled. The Park and Rec Commission recommended the following: 1 . The developer shall dedicate the proposed 5 . 01 acres of parkland to the City. 2. The developer shall do the rough and fine grading on the park site in accordance with a grading plan prepared by the City. 3 . The developer shall seed the park site with park grade all purpose grass seed. 4 . The developer shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the sloped area above the wetlands from the park site to Powers Boulevard . 5 . The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard, the entire length of the proposed development and that such be constructed at the time the street improvements are made. Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 6 6 . The developer shall construct a 5 foot wide construct concrete sidewalk on the north side of Jenny Lane and that such be constructed at the time street improvements are made. Access Points Onto Jenny Lane, Streets and Sidewalk Staff has been concerned, as has been the Planning Commission and City Council with the number of access points onto Jenny Lane . _ The original plan would have resulted in 19 curb cuts on Jenny Lane. This was unacceptable to the City since it is hazardous from a traffic safety standpoint, makes it difficult to plow snow since it restricts storage area and is visually unappealing. Staff would use the authority provided by the site plan review procedure to recommend denial of such a poorly designed plan. _ With the current plan, the applicant has reduced the number of access points from the lots south of Jenny Lane to 10 and the number of access points on the north side of Jenny Lane to 3 ( 11 exist on Jenny Circle) . The number of access points onto Jenny Lane can be further reduced by combining individual driveways into one. The applicant is also proposing individual access drives onto Jenny Circle . Even though Jenny Circle is a cul-de- - sac , there will be access from Jenny Circle to the dedicated park and staff recommends that the individual driveways be com- bined into one on Lot 2 , Block 1 and Lot 4 , Block 1 . The indivi- dual driveways on Lot 3 , Block 1 can remain since combining them would result in the building being pushed back and further alteration to the slope and vegetative area. Thus the resulting number of curb cuts on Jenny Lane will be 6 and on Jenny Circle will be 7 . The westerly driveway onto Jenny Lane from Lot 1 , Block 2 needs to be relocated 150 feet or as far to the east as possible to allow for proper stacking of vehicles at the intersection of Jenny Lane and Powers Boulevard (Co. Rd. 17 ) . Staff has concerns with the landscaped island proposed in Jenny Circle. The maintenance of such cul-de-sacs with islands is dif- ficult and have not been supported by staff in the past. The applicant is also showing the island containing one of the oak trees to be preserved . Staff is doubtful that the oak tree will survive with the amount of alteration ( installation of street and utilities ) around the oak tree. Therefore staff is recommending that the island be removed from Jenny Circle cul-de-sac. If the Planning Commission and City Council approve the island cul-de- sac it should be conditioned that the homeowners association be responsible for maintenance of the island. A six foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Jenny Lane on the Street Plan ( Sheet 3 ) and on the north side of Jenny Lane on the Landscape Plan ( Sheet 5 ) . The sidewalk should be constructed on the north side of Jenny Lane to avoid Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 7 possible pedestrian/vehicle conflicts . In addition , the sidewalks should be reduced to 5 feet in width to allow for addi- tional boulevard green area. As indicated in previous staff reports , a feasibility study will need to be initiated to extend the Jenny Lane road section from Oak View Heights easterly through the West Village Heights Townhouse site to Kerber Boulevard. Emergency Access , Visitor Parking and Internal Circulation The issues surrounding emergency access , visitor parking and internal circulation are inter-related. The current proposal utilizes a series of long dead-end, often curving private driveways to access many of the condominium units . The drives are 20 feet wide, have sharp turns and contain a series of addi- tional curb cuts . Parking is provided by a single car garage _ serving each condominium with an additional exterior stall located on a pad outside of the garage door. Staff has pre- viously raised concerns with the lack of visitor parking thus the current plan has been modified by the theoretical addition of 42 visitor stalls . Staff has a number of signficant concerns with the plan. These are discussed below. 1 . The use of a 20 foot wide drive aisles is unacceptable and is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance. Section 20-1101 states that driveways should be a minimum of 24 feet and that _ the City can require up to 30 feet wide driveways to accom- modate two-way traffic. Fire Code allows the Fire Marshal to require additional width if it is needed to accommodate fire apparatus . In an attached memo the Fire Marshal has indi- cated a need for a minimum 24 foot wide drive aisle unencum- bered by parked vehicles is required to operate equipment they would normally want to use if a fire occurred in this _ project. The purpose of these codes is relatively straight forward. It is to provide for adequate levels of access for residents and emergency vehicles . As we noted above the drives contain a series of 90° turns . As designed these corners provide an insuffficent turn radius to accommodate City fire equipment. A turn radius of at least 20 feet is required. 2 . Fire Code and reasonable design practices require that all _ private driveways over 150 feet in length be provided with an acceptable turn around area at the end. Details of accep- table designs are provided in an attached memo from the Fire Marshal . Current plans provide no means for turning vehicles. 3 . As we noted, current plans illustrate 42 visitor parking - stalls . The ordinances does not provide a specific standard for visitor parking. It specifically requires that each Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 8 multi-family unit be provided with two stalls , one of which must be enclosed . Proposed plans comply with this section . However , the ordinance also states that on-site parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons , customers , _ suppliers , visitors and employees shall be provided. It further states that the parking standards provided in the ordinance are minimum. Thus it is our belief that the ordi- nance gives the City discretion to require additional parking if needed to satisfy projected demand. Section 18-56 of the Subdivision Ordinance also states that standards created in teh ordinance are minimums and that the City may impose more stringent standards as deemed appropriate. We also note that parking problems are further exacerbated by the fact that the Engineering Department is requesting that the City Council post Jenny Lane to prohibit on-street parking due to concerns with maintenance and access . Based upon our experience, we believe it is valid to require 0 . 4 stalls per dwelling unit to satisfy visitor parking. Based upon a total of 110 condominium units , a visitor parking requirement of 44 stalls results . If the developer has information indicating that a smaller visitor requirement is valid, staff would con- sider that data and possibly modify the requirement. Current plans show 42 visitor parking stalls . However, all but 15 of the spaces are inappropriately located at the end of dead-end driveways . This is unacceptable for 3 reasons . These areas are needed for Fire Department turnarounds and must be posted to prohibit parking , the areas are also needed so cars backing out of end driveways can use them to turn and we also note that the plan is so poorly designed that some of the illustrated stalls are only 6 feet deep, they cannot be used without blocking entry to the driveway of the nearest condominium unit. Plans should be revised as required to: 1 ) provide a 20 foot deep parking area in front of each garage door; 2 ) provide 44 visitor parking stalls 84 feet wide and 18 feet deep, all stalls must be located outside of the 24 foot wide driveway; and 3 ) post all drives and tur- naround areas to prohibit parking . Landscaping/Tree Protection As has been stated in previous reports , the applicant is removing a large number of mature oak trees . Sheet 3 of the plans shows that three of the oak trees are proposed to be preserved and remain as part of the site. Two of the trees are located in the Cenvesco/Hedlund — October 19, 1989 Page 9 southeast corner of Lot 2 , Block 1 and the third is located in the proposed cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle . Staff does not feel that the tree located in the cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle will survive. Extra precautions will have to be taken for the two oak trees located on Lot 2 , Block 1 for trees to survive the proposed construction. The landscaping plan replaces the caliper inches of trees being removed but we believe that new — landscaping does not replace the trees being lost. It is likely that with a different development concept and well designed plan that many of the trees could have been preserved. Additional opportunities for tree preservation are found on Lot 3 , Block 1 . The plan indicates the grading of a large area con- taining a mix of mature and scrub trees with a 3 : 1 slope. The use of a retaining wall in place of the 3 : 1 slope will avoid the need to disturb such a large area and is being recommended by staff. This should be illustrated on final grading plans . _ Retaining walls over 5 feet in height require building permits . Prior to the start of work, the developer should be required to walk the site with staff to mark out areas for tree preservation. Trees lost in these areas during construction should be replaced by suitably sized materials approved by staff . Certain areas of the landscaping plan do not correspond to the proposed site plan, specifically Lot 4 , Block 1 where the rest of the plans show one individual driveway onto the cul-de-sac separated from the shared driveways. The landscaping plan should be revised to reflect the current site plan and the landscaping plan shall be revised to provide two-foot berming between any vehicular area and right-of-way with hedging and at least one tree per 40 feet on the berm between the vehicular area and road right-of-way. Wetland Alteration Permit As part of the site plan review and the development of the site, the applicant must provide retention for the stormwater runoff - from the site. Initially, it was proposed to have the stormwater directed through a disapation chamber and then into the Class B wetland in the northwest section of the property. Staff pre- ferred to have a ponding area provided to allow for the sedimen- tation of the stormwater prior to it entering the Class B wetland. This option was preferred over the chamber in that it _ would better preserve the quality of the wetland. Therefore, the applicant must receive a wetland alteration permit to provide for the holding pond at the southerly edge of the Class B wetland. Staff has visited the site twice with the Fish and Wildlife Service and it has been determined that the Class B wetland would not be detrimentally impacted by the holding pond and by directing the stormwater into the Class B wetland. The proposed Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 10 holding pond would prevent erosion of the wetland and would allow the sediment of silt, etc. prior to it entering the wetland . The Engineering Department and the Watershed District has confirmed that the size of the holding pond is adequate to contain all of the runoff prior to it entering the wetland. The proposed holding pond will be altering the most southerly tip of the Class B wetland and the remaining portion of the wetland will remain in its natural state. Since the holding pond is not totally within the Class B wetland and needs to be designed to a certain contour to enable it to contain the stormwater prior to it entering the wetland , staff is not recommending that the holding pond be designed to the six Fish and Wildlife recommen- dations . Staff is recommending that the vegetation around the holding pond be returned to its natural state and not be sod or seeded with grass . The size of the holding pond depends upon the amount of water it must retain as a result of the development . The holding pond proposed within the Class B wetland may have to be larger to meet the requirements of the City Engineer and Watershed District. Since the alteration may be changed, staff is recommending tabling action until it is verified what size the pond must be . Summary The project has had a long and involved review record since it was first submitted. Throughout the process , the plans have been modified to respond to the various issues that have been raised. In the end staff continues to have reservations regarding the quality of the plan. It appears to have been designed to provide the maximum number of dwellings while attempting to meet the most minimum possible standards . The plan the applicant chose to use is relatively inflexible as to site design requirements . We also believe that the plan itself is not well executed and contains a number of flaws and oversights . Having said that , we believe that a property owner has the right to develop the property if it can be demonstrated to be in comformance with the City' s stan- dards . Staff has drafted conditions that will bring the plans into conformance with the zoning and subdivision ordinance. Therefore, we are recommending that it be approved subject to appropriate conditions . Those conditions include the requirement that driveways be widened to 24 feet, provided with turnarounds acceptable to the Fire Marshal and that a reasonable amount of visitor parking be provided. Satisfaction of these conditions and other relative conditions to maintaining proper setbacks will likely increase hard surface coverage beyond the permitted 35% . A variance would therefore be required to the impervious surface standards . Staff sees no reason to support the variance since a hardship does not exist and that the need for a variance is a result of the developer ' s design of the project. Therefore, we feel that the number of condominium units will need to be reduced to comply with the conditions of approval . Cenvesco/Hedlund - October 19 , 1989 Page 11 RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: - "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #88-24 as shown on the plan dated September 22 , 1989 , for 11 R-12 lots and a 5 acre park with the following conditions : 1. Lot 1 , Block 1 , shall be designated as an outlot . 2 . A drainage and conservation easement shall be provided over the 980 foot contour and vegetative area on Lot 1 , Block 1 ( Outlot B) . No alteration to the topography or vegetation below the 980 foot contour will be permitted . This includes any future development of Lot 1 , Block 1 . 3 . A conservation and drainage easement shall be provided over Outlot A (park area) as determined by the Planning and Engineering staff to preserve slopes and vegetated areas not affected by the park development . - 4 . Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City for park purposes. Grading of Outlot A for the park will be the responsibility of the developer . 5 . Cross access and utility easements be provided over each lot running in favor of adjacent lots as required. 6 . Conditions of Site Plan #88-15 and Wetland Alteration Permit #89-8 . The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #88-15 as shown on the plat dated September 22 , 1989 , and subject _ to the following conditions : 1 . The applicant shall remove individual driveways and provide shared driveways as outlined in the staff report to reduce - the number of access drives onto Jenny Lane and Jenny Circle. 2 . The westerly driveway onto Jenny Lane from Lot 1 , Block 2 shall be relocated 150 feet or as far to the east as possible to allow for proper stacking of vehicles at the intersection of Jenny Lane and Powers Boulevard (Co. Rd. 17 ) . 3 . The cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle shall be removed . If the Council allows the cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle, it shall be maintained by the homeowners association. 4 . Revise internal circulation and parking provisions as follows : - all driveways shall be widened to 24 feet and provided with 20 foot radius curves Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 12 - provide turnaround areas acceptable to the Fire Marshal on dead-end drive aisles - post all internal drives and fire lanes to prohibit parking - provide 44 visitor parking stalls on-site . They shall comply with setback requirements each stall shall be 8i feet wide and 18 feet deep. - verify that an 8i ' x 20 ' pad is provided in front of each garage door 5 . The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the north side of Jenny Lane. 6 . A feasibility study shall be initiated by the City Council to extend Jenny Lane from Oak View Heights easterly to the West Village Heights Townhouse site to Kerber Boulevard. 7 . The landscaping plan shall be revised to be consistent with the site plan and to provide two foot berming between any vehicular area and right-of-way with hedging and at least one tree per 40 feet on the berm between the vehicular areas and road right-of-way. 8 . Prior to grading the site, the developer shall walk the site with staff to designate and mark trees to be preserved. Designated trees lost due to construction will be replaced by suitably sized materials acceptable to staff. _ 9 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the improve- ments . 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access/Watermain Crossing Permits issued by Carver County. 11 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 12 . Provide final grading and draiange for approval by the City. Modify the grading plan to remove the 3 :1 graded slope area located on Lot 3 , Block 1 and replace it with a retaining wall designed to maximize tree preservation. 13 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. Cenvesco/Hedlund — October 19, 1989 Page 13 14. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar — plans will also be required upon completion of the construc- tion. 15. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities. — 16. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- main under County Road 17. 17. The City Council will post signs to restrict parking on Jenny — Lane. 18. All conditions of Preliminary Plat #88-24 and Wetland Alteration Permit #88-14. 19. No approval or indication of support for the concept plan for _ the apartment buildings is being established. If an applica- tion for the buildings is made, they will be reviewed on their own merits and subject to all applicable standards. r WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending tabling of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 until it is verified what size of pond will be required. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 16, 1989. 2 . Net density zoning ordinance amendment. 3. Memo from Lori Sietsema dated October 20, 1989. — 4 . Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 26 , 1989. 5 . Memo from Dave Hempel dated October 11, 1989. n i • . miff.van Ili fI 1. 'wm• kw', Iql - ---- 1 l ' MkL . \\\ \)___ p( , at\ n, ,.,--....., ..... , ,-.... 1 _k____ I I 11 I ~ I u) 04,---11 , 61:,,,,, .. , _ w 1_ it ,....i,i , i1 \��\\ �, I `�, ' /J1 r, lif 1 / ,, 1 11,7 Allili , e 10 I , tilfP11 Ile ' .,- • • i i i NI a`/ /S ,/ //' / - - �_ / IC m i PC �4n- Igoi".6E2Pe OCOOO1.oTOO1 �n1 T :, ; _ u . .o r o• rn m_, m a » ° n r; . a ss;ssroaaa NNa1K s I ; v, mu,r`n z 16 $ n. = s • c 4 i-aafg08vJ4 g"Ifo `111 ..P ,n T a so 5 111 _c= s- Z r.'uo=: . s v $ n� s I - ,0 CaC = = o P .■ r 0. . ..1 D u'P mmm mom+ D s e Q.•io� wN " :NB • Ft' z_sa J i N IIP 10t0 til VI rn TNOO r ii C .. Me • ...... .e••O g S2vti P 0•.•fuN ::•;Val to! ■. moi int;-,,T,!, fEYNx >2 L � e trtra01 tr>rr. "# t •;•i- 81'" NI a e1 Pr •A 1 g••1 Ai- 0C •a ., z 12 ! iii :T —r $> < I i.1 e.�v' ZC m !:I m m I _ th . :.o" mz ° N cn ° # my m 2 C t 1=3 o O i ' i1 1. Oma Zr of !iii ��" I> g>'i — oo Z Z IiiR >= in Z N ('� iO a i'E �� nz - i ;: m ' z GI • 1 1 II COUNTY STATE AID HWY. NO. 17 (POWERS BLVD. ) -------------- -----�------------ I IOPtrlrt MN ' \-- • 1 i ................� ■711d0141l�' 1 J 1 1- 4 %Isle, . 484, I 1 {IV 1 �� � ; 1" ; • - it WSW 2 L J c 1 '1/4 71s 2-1 3 ; Ir 1p `� \\ s e e ` ' � \� '.\ lit or 1 I ` I, -'F- t F r 1 I I' ,I '� 1* �� I ... 1 jf 1 I I / 1 go I 1 < ,I ; Y ; el;Pt 11 1 I ;Ii ,- Z \' 1 1 11 'I 1;!: I , , . Iffili 1 1 1 mii mg I 1•233 i a R I I �� I 1' Z Imo n . . 1 1 s q�`- a 1 VI \ir_ 1 1 / , \\.. . .o,r 1 I I ft 10111;. i .", Ire {Ats •0 \ \ Ia 1 9 DON \ �„ %,::: \ 1 . VI • .a<tl \ OW 10 RI 1 \\ Z- 11.01..— or I tr E�71 _ 1 • i I ; • MI 70 A `{`r r T t r '..mi 5fe zm 1K 7 m ; '�yu- 111 •• s 3.1!Pr e » z C o • S= m p !WP RPC; .. "' in 1 1422• h--U !el –13 Si; - R I i> >.r._3 m FF 70 ' ;Iasi u n y Tos 1SP. '� _ f"1 > c z n R t�R1 ►A r a r. ' '° i i r c0 M '< m I -C I. z — M E7 2 w 1 i COUNTY STATE AID HWY. NO. 17 ' ___ (POWERS BLVD. )___-3 ..' _ =__-_ ----_- ==-__- _"p4'?ft* _\ - �• ��__�-! =`; - 7- 1 'IA_ tie; r \ \ X11p''17 aa:. - y-- g, ��� 1. _ i1 ". . • I 1.:. nrriiga t• V - fiS :v.‘, s,1 ot,----- k • .. -,N.. \ 1• 411 V : hi I — !` • 11 i � ! ;`. = ..7,.....,„ ..,..„.•,, \ `i I I1, :db • _ :\; .\ --- \ \ \ \ _ Alio; ,;, I ::1,1 tt 014111114r 7.1,., lirovrikl . _,.....____z____ _, , ,, s, .,.‘ %. IA P1 I11iI! I A V ` til i,f , } -` - \\\`\ +\ 11\1\\ \\•• \--L`. ,!1,1 ...... im_or___ .....41,14c1112 I r....1'''....-.'"-------\:.• 0\\‘‘‘\‘‘‘, ‘‘\\\‘‘..',.I ‘,‘ II 11„11 I i 111' �� ! r •'_'\‘\‘, %Ir• ` ,':,\\\‘‘‘:1‘t <•....+ \\\ . 1.. \ ss— :~ — . 1 ;,1 ::..„ -10.1.7".....14.17071i 11 ' \'''1,\_ .::.•‘ \.!" \\ \ \\$ :-\ \ \ * • NC—--/ ..0.e....:' ...- ' **A I :: - tili I( lirii ' 1 ' ' - '` ••• '' -'ke6,;..N4)14-: -.:'-• L- :. , .., -- ''''N '.• A i:. >E to 1I ®i I / >-'t' �• ��;��'= � ;`� ILr. ` \ZT 1 [i a' I1 I 1 1 • awi0•am. ,rgill•A''11 1 /-rA_ ''s \• iltir: 111111 I \ci iiii, i --- t \ 111 hi 1 1 II €8 I I, II -"II-:".11 �. C- -- I 1 to 1 1 1 i 1�. • ili ri i� 4.4 • \tiv :.\, III! 1 h tit-'11 _i :• =lir, rtt n. �. -� "3~��� 1, \+II�,II,I,, , "e _. +•'i!• �e '7I ►` \ ,+\, II l Al,1 11 t ,... •� : ii. / � !►„tol'�� \"i i ‘::‘,..:1/:, \\\\\/ \1111 1 _ I ; Ir;) r I A 11.1 ') "111111 I , `l ,i frni 44;4V 1"...1" IllI \ ►I1 I ^IIS `\ f 1 �t i �� 1*1.� 1 4:64611111*4111/4.11$• I1 ' Ill1 MP „ ,,,, ` :::,---;:,-z-------------,:t-:--....-->----_-,-------: Din , 1 i i 1 1toto ,' \� '- • 4. , r. ,_::-.7.---c; Lr�9:::-.-....,.-- -_-_----__:-----___.-- .,,,;-, ti ii -,,, ,./:. . ,, ,o, 0,. i. --1%.,, , .7i? w 1,1/4::‘,::::::: \ ' 111 \ / , + _'. \` ` ! \l• \�� ,���^\ _ oo \\\ 111\\�\\�> ..... i f i \t .) \`=�//� �\1 , ilk 41 CM < c"'-- A)1,----, , __ ‘,\ _ , , 0 • . , „ ,, .... ..._ .,..war(as s• . ` 1 /J ; ' _">rT1 1 IN r•.I1 §2 g o ; Ido' < '' ` 'i ' 5o,„, � '3S: ;Ay zc ran sii m e d - -- v1, ,- ^1 o Z f !!I- = me m =:o w 1 \ , n7 _ -P � l;-a; •�__P av < � � o $ • ; a Z n 0 c ;i vii g> f _ - ' IMP Mia 1, T Z h} _ z z 1 - " t, >„ In z rs t y P > le F. f m i >am 4 o Z z CI '" 1r Z 0 0 w 4 v 1 7 � .... T ,., N i_ w .—^ I COUNTY STA E AID HWY. ND. f7 'i (POWERS BLVD. ) 8 ICC P'1T'F,It:FF 2 tern!mann— , 1 i' ( fii� �_ 12111I it:tit _ N._ e , W 1 ligillillIll IIII %it 4Ao' ,------- K,..1.1‘n ....._ ... ,,, ---,..... , `-, \ I. \ , \ 0 T1. .: ...._, ....._____ --_„ ,, L r .„ \ ,... \\ ‘ > > _t ' Itirl \ \ r i i I Q C I IIii 1 // I 1 GT :- Milrim I - __•••=lei__1._ ii % ii, teastia,.., , ,_4= 11Firlia Icsal milos,,,,10.1.......7.,witv I, I, v.) -- --II----- -____ - ...21 i\ \\147, ff.1--. 4.,. , i'- ,--2 IL:----------- 1"1.%iii i° di°6-1111 ' I NVAA-1.1\ , -, impla ; \ ,,,i4k70\ 4441I-1 ; , TT (A ,o i iti3n.i,::--- •*4 it--- -- _ _ i z FT, ..\'' , 7- .-- , v \Ail\, ° . N V,D m o 7- ,e ,• \ \ , \`\ bio pey 4/4 m p •, \ \ $ ` I J 1 MP h' E t 1 S : 1 ; r .1Q 1 z 1101.1 i' S�j�- IN mS D �9m L7 a O tF j --�-:i zr, Glp i. mcw < i d z, u RI z a i ;he: i,"_, ; MZruzm N • w • I .0071 trF lit II T I14111 Al C s :Z. :_t ; mmz; ETH O a i c roo �Z o' Z [:t InZ L7 ' s i : ��t aL _ < iI - , I 4J 'rI E�(g O 0 0i ' _-COUNTV_STATE AID HWY N0�17--_-_-_ (POWERS BLVD. ) .n. { IOP 37.171 731 11 ailyQ qq •y C C1 11 `3 5 1 9 , r� t Mlle I�C1iat lr" i I, sr:: Ett rOr gal FAAA ig97i 34 09 :..1 ., " . i MI ;11 4 �l .tE ii ��� .,t iiii pFFs �� perr yr ,, w— 2g ' q ' 11' ,. 1 1: r, . „ ,,„„„ - . ill 1 ii • t ,1 , r Iriptia. , -tAt. :- ........... 1 il i iii _\ y A.ii '. \ a� 31 iii :aha ��� ,l ` _ `� ' ' cc c;:; .. .n.. .www Ilii n el �: � ,; r �.. 18 �p3E 3§ X333 �3A3 §fi33 pp; �1� \ ` \ • '' Ii . ' • • ed errr :_ val: .:cs .... •.:.F � ; ` 9^ ‘ ` C5. tat I nw wnwn .w none s.s� •..• ww.ww $ Y11' m I 1h, ` . , ` \ \\ N . u �i ? •�W 1 41. SegleglAl till. X.... rifirtirp A so._ , x, g ::•7 p , , ,. :::—4I OWN'*"a \ , . Ap. ;I. a, 4 ti, 7.1 >. 44, - * gip 0 < !'ti .10of i.,m,a, I a i 0 i a e A . 14411%." i0...._ _Air v. ....L:,s.,., 0 ri 2 1. i 1 il ' ,...111.1571111N0h q g tit - iii, ig , iir . a J 11 n ..tp _ $,5ttLo. igt., 41.: i ;11 J ( \ lir '-. 11-' wrIO' 'PI' Adi)v 'IktAilli" It. " 40 ...mr----empat IA .021f4- * .4 tAg- r.„,,,L,, \.„\ ,,,,,,. .,A.L . E � �,�' ;fib . 4411., .. TO . , OIL �.� ��.� 1a 'IS _ `\\ 1' `o gyp\ .\ �II\‘41,.4111,161 1%6.421r-sal •1 I I O ~ P•• E.l' i o0o zmrT'x • A r ..s s m, c3o �� IlOrilliiiiiill •�. Z cv (P m m a= o D :Netr- . rapAvrt I n i;;; N J czi s or- �S I •a f d 'F' i . L� ng= z � z ;. j ; 111 :s;i Nz n p i D Z P r # • �� 1 Ll= v1 <G)rn r J i1 E Z 6F v .� Z a • cf,/ ! ,�'S' -, - ........1 > *...,1,:. 4, ,,,i /lir ( --- \s .....)i;‘,AVfill ...-"::: ;,-, ::‘,\.:-,.. _ 73 f., '.cti i v ,, , 1 \ r !!II, ,g,;,..-,/,,,,,, , 'i iriii:ii..:a.:-- -z. z-,-,,.:it , .....-- • ,, Tf ? _ / ,'/- \\' 1." 0 -.... ' !j..y.,/, ,.. •'' / n x • / ��% 0 IT1 i_ cw...Matt AID u. In„ (MOO KIM I 1:/y/...7 y 0 '2 14 Iii1111 • P 1 — f p ; f S f ' w /moi \ f , • 1 I a \\ 1 pm .9 // \ \ PI 7.n la r-• m )1' ?„= Z 1 /..v1,7onZ II 11 N NW r_ ~ y ,'N / gionnojii , / enC Rif } • /; • 1i `\ /- z�.� I 0 i i:: - 13 00 13 2. / Z0 `• =izi a41 z o :=i m b // // 0 a t _ ti11i €. 76 q Stb CI 11 C $ /,-• / c •< j - rii _ '- czi s Tv,— / no. ITf ! $go z g_zit u1 z n r a _ i : -I :T a � _ i t Za M Z ” 0 2 z Park and Recreation Commission October 20, 1989 — Page 2 3 . The developer provide a 20 foot trail easement along the sloped area above the wetlands from the park site to Powers Boulevard. 4 . The developer construct an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard, the entire length of the proposed development and that such be constructed at the time — the street improvements are made. 5 . The developer construct a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on _ the north side of Jenny Lane and that such be constructed at the time the street improvements are made. Park and Recreation Commission Update (October 24 , 1989 ) : The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this item at their last meeting. Upon walking the site and reviewing the park con- _ cept plan prepared by Mark Koegler ( attached) , they felt that the proposed dedicated area of 5+ acres would be well suited for park property. The Commission agreed the ravine should not be filled and choose the design ideas on Exhibit 3 . The developer expressed that the requirement of grading and seeding the park site in addition to land dedication was asking — too much. Staff explained that this was typically required as in Chanhassen Hills and Lake Susan Hills West . Staff would also like to point out that of the 5+ acres being dedicated, only _ 3 . 75+ are developable due to the wetlands and the 75 ft. wetland setbacks . The City does not tyically accept undevelopable prop- erty in lieu of fees . (A case in point would be Chanhassen Hills. They were required to dedicate 7 . 8 acres of developable — land for which they were given 50% credit on their park dedica- tion fees. They also dedicated roughly 22 acres of wetlands for which no credit was given. ) — The park dedication fee requirement for property with a density of 9 . 6 units per acre is 17% of the land value. The developerhas __ indicated he has paid $40 , 000 per acre bringing the fee require- ment to roughly $180, 000. A land dedication of 3 . 75 acres would be valued at roughly $150, 000 , thus the grading and seeding does not represent a requirement above and beyond what is typical . Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission is to require the following conditions before final approval is given : 1 . The developer shall dedicate the proposed 5+ acres of parkland . Park and Recreation Commission October 20 , 1989 Page 3 2 . The developer shall do the rough and fine grading on the park site in accordance with a grading plan prepared by the City. 3 . The developer shall seed the park site with park grade all- purpose grass seed. 4 . The developer provide a 20 foot trail easement along the sloped area above the wetlands from the park site to Powers Boulevard. 5 . The developer construct an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard, the entire length of the proposed development and that such be constructed at the time the street improvements are made. 6 . The developer construct a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the north side of Jenny Lane and that such be constructed at the time the street improvements are made. Planning Commission Meeting August 16 , 1989 - Page 20 4 . The applicant shall submit a new plat designating Lot 2, Block 1 as - Outlot A. All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Headla : I don ' t like the term easement . I think it should have been right-of-way and the line should have been calculated from the right-of-way. Conrad : This item will go to the City Council when Jo Ann? Olsen: The 28th of August . CENVESCO, OAKVIEW HEIGHTS , PROPERTY ZONED R-12 RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY AND LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARDS NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET: - A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18. 93 ACRES INTO 11 HIGH DENSITY LOTS FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS . C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PERMIT GRADING WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND. - Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . - Conrad: Dean, do you have any comments? Dean Johnson : Hello again . I guess I 'd like to hear your comments you know on this now that we have it but due to recent developments, I guess we ' d like to ask you to continue this for 2 more weeks . We have been negotiating with Charlie James the- owner of the ground and we might have a - little more latitude that we didn ' t realize we had before so maybe with your comments and this new information , maybe we can come closer together on this thing to get this thing to work. The only thing that is again we want to be able to present this to you so that can we have the public meeting or public hearing part of this remain open or be opened again? Conrad : We' re typically pretty flexible . Dean Johnson : I ' ll make a formal request at this time. Conrad : So basically to table the item or to continue the hearing later or is what Dean ' s asking for . I think it probably is wise to go through the Planning Commission and just give comments specific to, I think he'd be _ interested in our perspective on the park and whether we endorse . The City Council , with the Park and Rec reporting to them, at their recommendation goes to City Council but we can make some comments on what we think about that park and obviously if 4 acres comes out of there, it throws the plat in front of us in a little bit of disarray. The other question that we Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 21 should take a look at and we ' ve seen it in about 4 meetings now is curb cuts . We' re saying there were, I don' t know. It started at 17 and there ' s 13 or 14 now and I guess the comments have always been , there have got to be fewer but we' ve never settled on a number so if anybody has a concern with curb cuts on the south side, please raise that so the applicant knows . Obviously what they' re doing is the more the curb cuts , the more impervious surface. No , I take that back. The curb cuts are there to help meet their impervious surface yet there is a safety issue and just good planning issue there so I think that and maybe some of the other comments that the staff has reviewed but I think the review of the item are pretty valid but let' s give Dean our most current feelings. Dave, why don ' t we start with you. Headla: I didn' t understand what you first said about the impervious surface. Olsen : They have provided an amended plan showing that all the lots meet the impervious surface. Headla : And you agree with that? Olsen: The numbers , all I can do is review the number and yes . Headla : Okay. As far as I 'm concerned , I think the Park and Rec has good rationale why they want so much land . I ' ve got to support their position . r I don ' t know why we can ' t put the sidewalk on the north side . Get away from, the trail committee preferred it there and the last time we talked it was going to be there. Olsen: It is on the north side . Emmings : It switched . Headla : When did you switch it again? We talk about it every time . It ' s on the south side. We comment on it and then you say it ' s on the north side. Olsen : The plans show it on the north side. No , I thought we made it clear on the south. Batzli : The engineering report says it' s on the south side again . Conrad: It' s still on the south Jo Ann . Olsen : But Lori told me it was on the north . Emmings : That ' s what they said at our last meeting is that it was changed to the north . Headla : And then I read it in the report it ' s on the south . If Park and 7 Rec wants it on the north, I want it on the north and the north seems to make a lot of sense . Emmings : That ' s what they said last time we talked about it . Planning Commission Meeting August 16 , 1989 - Page 22 _ Olsen : Yes , and I talked to her again . Mary Colley: Last time we showed it always on the north and they said they want it on the south so we put it on the south this time . The north would - be quicker. . . Wildermuth : Basically I have the same feelings about the configuration _ that I had at the last meeting . With the density issue taken care of, I think there are really three issues that have to be addressed and that is the parkland, which I support , the access points and visitor parking and storage. At some point I think we have to revisit the ordinance and require two garages per unit but I understand that that would not apply to this case . Batzli : If in fact they have to give up that much parkland and that throws the densities into all sorts of turmoil doesn' t it? Be that as it may, I guess we talked about it last time that Park and Rec reviewed it . _ Determined they required some parkland and they apparently had some fairly good rationale for it with the closest park being maxed out and it ' s a somewhat isolated area that may require some parkland . It is interesting though that the useable parkland is in that upper right hand or northeast - corner and it does seemingly take out 3 units which would put that sizeablE of a park on the property which is unfortunate . So I don ' t know what that does and I don' t know what Dean was referring to when he said he has a little bit more flexibility. I don ' t know whether that refers to densitieE or what have you but I like this plan better than the one with the two accesses and the double frontage lot and everything else . I guess I 'd prefer to see a few less curb cuts but if the sidewalk is going to go on the north , that reduces a lot of my concern of the curb cuts . The safety issue and the kids wandering around , going up to the park, whatever was for me at least a great extent of that concern . I guess I 'm not as , I 'm concerned about visitor parking . I don ' t know if I 'm that concerned about single garages . I think the applicant has tried to work with lis a little bit on that and has provided some and I understand to some extent if they try to include more they' re going to be running into impervious surface problems so I guess I 'd like to see them continue to work with staff and ii they' re in the middle of negotiating something else with the current owner , I 'd like to see the end result . - Ellson : I don ' t have anything new that hasn ' t been said before. I guess I like the idea of a park but I 'm the crusader for those trees and this still- isn ' t solving my gorgeous 200 year old oak trees and couldn ' t they have the park where there' s just like picnic tables or something and leave all the trees in an area? I think that we ' re really losing out on something by getting rid of those trees so I still don ' t like it for that reason . Emmings : I don ' t have anything new but I 'm going to repeat what everybody else said . I don ' t have any problem with the density issue anymore. This - way of looking at it lot by lot I guess I don ' t have a problem with . I still feel , and I ' ve said before that I thinkthis is a good place for R-12. I think it' s appropriately zoned . As far as the parkland is concerned , I 'm uncomfortable with what Park and Rec did there . I think it' s a tremendous , to have 4 acres together is a tremendous burden to put Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 23 on this piece of property if you want to have it R-12. It takes such a chunk that I think it makes it impossible. I think they are winding up saying that we want something here and you ' re pulling the rug out from under your own feet by imposing that large a burden. I think there should be some park areas up there . I don ' t know what ' s appropriate but I think 4 acres is too much. It obviously, to me, is a project killer so I don ' t like it for that reason . The other thing that bothers me about it is we heard last time that 2 times this went in front of the Park and Rec and they agreed to take fees and then the third time it comes , then they want 4 acres and that' s an extreme change of position which suggests that, I don ' t know why they did that but I ' d be interested to know. I 'd like to know what standards they applied the first 2 times and what standard they applied the third time that they got such a different result. Batzli : It' s the Steve Martin rationale . I forgot . Emmings : As far as access points onto Jenny Lane , there are too many and I would vote against this project on the basis of that alone. I think it ' s that important . I would never vote for it the way it is . Somehow there has to be a way to plan in roads so that there aren' t so many people backing out of their garages onto Jenny Lane . I wish I was an engineer and knew about these things I tried to figure it myself but I 'm not. Visitor parking is another issue . I 'm very much for 2 car garages . I would not impose that on this one because our rules don ' t call for it now. I think our ordinance should be changed . I can live with the one car garages . I can' t live an absence of visitor parking and again, that would be an item that would cause me to vote against this . There ' s got to be some attempt to get visitor parking there. I know there' s a problem with impervious surface but again somehow it ' s got to be designed in . I guess basically, I don' t mind the preliminary plat. I don ' t mind the wetland alteration permit . I ' ve got problems on the site plan with those items . Erhart: I 'm never going to tell Steve my problems with something when he' s first again . Emmings : I 'm supposed to feel like I stole his . . .? Erhart: My concern is pretty much the same. Number one is , as in the past , even though we made ordinance on specific subdivisions and projects , I have voted against them if I thought there was a specific safety issue involved . I think , as we look at this thing over and over again , I have a real concern when we have cars backing out on Jenny Lane. Before I would vote on this thing , I would have to see the driveways reoriented so that everybody accessed Jenny Lane driving out as opposed to backing out. And that can be done . I think the buildings on the southeast corner are oriented so that people do drive out forward and you have access points that look like at about 100 foot intervals which is what you'd find in a regular residential subdivision. So by turning some of those buildings 90 degrees I think you could solve that problem. Secondly, on the park issue , just to complete that. As far as the surface area , that' s just a question . To me the access points have nothing to do with the impervious surface area. The impervious surface area is a direct result of how many buildings you' re trying to put on this site so to say that the reason that we can ' t Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 24 l have, the reason that we may not have all these curb cuts is because the _ impervious surface is because you ' ve got too many buildings so I don ' t accept that. Regarding the park, in reviewing Mark ' s discussion here and I guess the 4 acres in general , I agree that if the developer won ' t put - recreational activities on this site commensurate with the density, then the City will have to take a stand on that in the form of recommendations from the Park and Rec and they' re appearing to do that. On the other hand ,_ 4 acres , I guess I just question are we applying with the number of 4 acres, are we aplying the same standards in arriving at the 4 acres that WE do other developments . Then if we are , then I guess it ' s okay. Olsen: They use the same calculations . Erhart : Same calculations? Then okay. Then I think I agree with Steve. In this particular case, if those same standards make R-12 literally impossible, then I think we have to take that into consideration in viewing the 4 acres and maybe it ought to 2 acres or something . On one hand I think the developer simple isn ' t providing enough open space . . .and 4 acres isn ' t reasonable either . And I agree with the others , we've got some ordinance work to do here yet . Wildermuth : Just one thought Ladd . The property immediately north of that is also zoned R-12. I wonder if the park were to be located along that northerly lot line , east of that wetland , maybe there ' s a possibility that something could be worked out there with that adjacent property so we cotilc look at maybe 2 acres and fees or something like that and 2 acres or 3 acres also to the north . Conrad : I agree . That ' s a possibility. I think everybody' s mentioned some of the concerns and curb cuts still remain one and that' s got to go from 14, it ' s got to be reduced . At least I agree with Tim. The backing - out is not what I want but I think 2 curb cuts per lot is probably reasonable in my mind . Densities look okay as long as we ' ve got parking for people. For visitors. The park area , the park issue is not our responsibility but it is in terms of how it affects the plat in front of us. There' s got to be park for the people and I think that ' s something that the developer , that Dean' s got to work on with staff to figure out where that is and from what we' re being told , there' s no room in the inn . - The bigger park so there' s got to be places for these people. From the standpoint of whether_ -it' s 4 acres , if that ' s the calculation, I guess we need that . If somebody told me that we could have a mix of 2 acre park and_ then the balance in fees , I could listen to that but right now I haven ' t seen any other options for park and therefore I guess I have to go with what I see. That' s my comments . We' ll continue this and bring everybody back . Dean? Dean Johnson : To the park issue for a moment . Like I say, with the flexibility. . . if we want the 2 acres and again because we' re bringing this -- back and trying to work with it , if we try to take 2 acres . . . is that something that you people, as you see if obviously, I know it' s the park commission that makes the recommendation but is that something that would _ be something that you could see conceiveable or that you might then be willing to work with? Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 25 Conrad : We' re not really experts in the park issue . That stuff sort of comes in and typically we' ve never had a problem with that. That sort of passes through here real quickly because the Park and Rec reports directly to City Council and we' ve never stumbled on this one before. To tell you the truth , and I 'm going to speak which I can ' t do for the Commission , but more than likely if you solve some of our other issues , I think we' re going to be much more flexible on that issue . I don ' t know if like Annette , she ' s more concerned with trees and I don ' t know that you' ve solved any of the trees problems. That way I think a couple of us are concerned with teh curb cuts and if you can solve the curb cuts and still keep some extra parking . If you solve some of these problems and they' re starting to shrink. They' re fewer and fewer the more we see you. Another couple times . We keep telling you Dean to build up not out . But I can ' t say that we' re going to approve or deny. I think just based on a general feeling that we get when you come back in and obviously if you take care of a lot of the problems , we typically become sensitive to maybe being a little bit more lenient but I think the bottom line is for Chanhassen , the Park and Rec' s got to be comfortable that there' s enough space for people. And we don ' t really, we want to make this development basically provide for that and whether that be fees or area , you ' ve got to do it and the Park and Rec , from what we' re hearing , is saying we need land . So I don ' t know. Somehow you' ve got to get some feedback from them. We can' t give you a blank check on that one but just generally the more you take care of some of our issues I think the more flexible they' re going to be on the others . Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat , Site Plan and Wetland Alteration Permit for Cenvesco, Oakview Heights. All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9. 5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION, (VINELAND FOREST) . Public Present : Name Address Chuck Van Eeckhout Applicant Daryl Fortier Representing Frank Beddor Todd Owens 6661 Nez Perce Pat Cunningham 865 Pheasant View Road Scott Anderson Dean Wetzel 6260 Ridge Road Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report . CITY QF 690 COUL11011111 TER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM - TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator, DATE: October 20 , 1989 Le' SUBJ: Oak View Heights At the last Park and Recreation Commission meeting, staff was directed to prepare a potenital park design for the proposed land dedication on the Oak View Heights site plan . Mark Koegler has prepared two concept plans for the site, one that shows the ravine filled and one that does not . The Commission also questioned whether the ravine could be filled. There is nothing in the City ordinances that specificaly prohibits the filling of a ravine. The developer or the City - whoever owns the property at that time - would have to obtain a — grading permit which would be reviewed by the Engineering Department and the Watershed District to determine the effect such would have on drainage, etc. Additionally, if grading is _ done within 200 feet of the wetland area a wetland alteration permit would be needed to insure that the wetlands are not adver- sely affected. As the ponding areas are protected wetlands , no structures would be allowed within 75 feet of those areas . Staff feels this 5+ acre site has the potential to be a unique and interesting neighborhood park. The ravine provides a natural explore and discover area that is not available in any other neighborhood park. The desired facilities ; basketball , tennis , totlot , parking, picnic area and open space, can all be accom- modated without filling the ravine. It is the recommendation of this office to approve the Oak View Heights site plan with the following conditions : - 1 . The developer shall dedicate the proposed 5+ acres of parkland. 2 . The developer shall do the rough and fine grading on the park site in accordance with a grading plan prepared by the City. Van DorEn Hazard Stallings ,,,bu,ects•e,gn,e..s•Pt r. s MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegl er Y"""/ DATE : October 17 , 1989 SUBJECT: Oak View Heights Park As per the request from Lori Sietsema , we have reviewed the proposed 5+ acre park dedication for the Oak View Heights development . The primary purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of the ability of the parcel to accommodate needed recreational facilities . Other than to provide general comments , the review does not cover the acceptability of the property for park purposes . That decision needs to be made by the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council based on input from a number of sources including the information contained herein . Exhibit 1 is a copy of a site plan for the park area submitted by the developer . The plan identifies locations for a ball field , parking , basketball , tot lot , tennis and open skating . These facilities are consistent with the list of desired facilities previously prepared by the Park and Recreation Commission . The plan calls for filling the major ravine area that drains to the ponds on the north end of the site . Filling the ravine and grading along the southern property line would necessitate removal of one large oak and one medium sized ash . All active facilities would be placed on the upland flat area and the pond at the north end has been identified as an open skating area . This plan contains the desired facilities , however , it has a number of shortcomings . Even with the filling of the ravine , the flat area of the park is inadequate to accommodate all of the identified facilities . The developer ' s plan compromises the locations of some of the facilities in the name of accommodating all of the desired uses . For example , the location of the tot lot adjacent to the ball field outfield area is undesirable due to potential interference with fly balls . The tennis court should have a north/ south orientation , however , the amount of open land will only allow an east/west placement . Additionally , the plan calls for open skating on the pond area which is classified by the city as a protected wetland . This area is also hard to reach with a truck mounted sprayer which is the method used by the city for maintaining quality ice on all skating areas . 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 Memorandum October 17 , 1989 Page 2 Concept Plans For review purposes , we have prepared two additional concept plans to assist the Commission in the decision process . Exhibit 2 contains concept plan "A" which provides parking , a play area ( tot lot ) , a tennis court , a full basketball court and a picnic /overlook area. This plan which calls for filling the ravine area does not include the open skating area that has been featured on other plans . The ball field , as shown , has a 180 foot outfield area and is suitable for casual neighborhood "pick -up" games . The plan — contains a trail meandering through the park which would provide a link in the city ' s overall trail plan . Exhibit 3 contains concept plan " B" which is different from the other two because it preserves the ravine and the specimen red oak and correspondingly , accommodates less intensive facilities . Plan " B" features a play area and picnic / overlook area on the top of the knoll at the 1000 foot contour in the south central portion of the site. From this location , users of the park will have a vista that stretches beyond Chanhassen Pond to the northeast and to portions of Lake Ann Park to the west and northwest . All of the tree cover on the east , north and west sides of the knoll would remain undisturbed . A trail could be installed linking the passive area of the park to the active area on the eastern side of the ravine . This trail would serve as a connecting link in the overall trail system . The trail could even feature a small bridge crossing at the head of the ravine for added interest . On the active side , the park could accommodate one tennis court , a full basketball court , a small ( 150 ' ) backstop area for casual ball games , and a four car parking lot with access off of Kerber Boulevard . The remainder of the site would consist of open space available for hiking , exploring , sledding and cross country skiing . Structured ball fields and open skating are available in City Center Park located across Kerber Boulevard . Conclusion A final decision on the acceptability of the 5 acre park rests on the flexibility of the City of Chanhassen ' s park programming . If a 200 or 250 foot ball field is necessary along with a tennis court , basketball court , parking lot , play area and skating area , then the five acre parcel is insufficient for park purposes and additional land now containing proposed housing units should be added to the park area . If , however , the city can do without a skating area and can accept a backstop area suitable only for casual play activities , plan " B" could establish a neighborhood park in Chanhassen that is truly unique . The play area and picnic/ overlook at the top of the knoll have a commanding view of - Memorandum October 17 , 1989 Page 3 the surrounding countryside . The ravine , hillside and pond are excellent open space areas for hiking and adventurous play activities . Exhibit 1 /, _ ( •0A18 SH3MOd ) , , ' ter,/ ,/ , /./...-,- / .'�/ / 1 ', ' W lA\ 1 /i/ ; /, /'/. \ — 1 ,'' . / /'' // ' \ in I j 11 ► 1 ti l 1 /',' V - ' /', .// Z$I 3.R.Lt.00M \ 1 �t 1 (I l I ��1```"' �''7,.... /'., - 200 / '' 1\ j I 111111 i `— / ��, • / opo/ 1 $ \t ( �' !„?...Lt k , , _ / ( i) (,!r 1 1 / �' .,,� // 1 X I / / / / I 1 �. Q, / .• ,/, / • / / / 1 \ I �d 1 ' , / 4"<// r . r . ‘ i, \ \ ...._. ,-4616/.4141 — — ••• •• MEI ;-2 / 1 'lam I 1``� \ ' ,' • ....N ( /// // / / / . • // 1 t \' `.�i \ / / ` , 1 / 1 X '0... ir'. \ A \ % \ I .;/ / I ......../,/.' T\ li : \ \ . _1/1 ,,,." . 1 „,..- ,...- , t. ..., io , . ..... i\, , - . \ k . ilk 1 0010-0.... iii. -„, _„,_ .... .. / \ .• . s. „.......1 � � \, - ` \ �` \ 1 ` - • -� `• \i 1 \` Is. 11l ,�—� ��� Nit, . - K iI. _. . . , .., ...., , .. ,- , , ,---::. - 1 1 . 1 i eiI, .- t•','/.At,'Nlg `7N‘k\iiN,1‘,\1,11,\4)1,,I1• • I / , ` \ \ �.` •,•1,. ttso/ .--r — // \ \ \\ \\ .‘\f , 1 1 i% .( 1 _ I, 1 1 t 1 / • r 1°i 1 \ \ \ \� ` \• t I ' 1 1 1\1\ ���� 1 I 1"I i �� \` \ \ 1 t 1 \ / ‘../... ' / \ig \ \ 1 \ 1 \ \ # 1 . / / / 1 \ �\ -.5--S I\ \ \\\ \t`�,\ 7\ `‘ �\ �i // rg \ / i �e/ /' i �`\ I.% . ' 11 I �t11\ lt`,11 tt �\ �� I i/ / I / /� 11 i 1 eJ.L i � \� ` 1 tt ♦� I f l j 1 ,,, / i, 1 ' 1, 1,111 ! 1 1;1 ;1 ; 1 I 1 I r 1 1 t t t� .eV % •i• " '-::' � ` I. I l II i •N IiiI 11'111` '\\ \ - -..... _,, , \ 1•1 , � 1 1 Inti1,1 \ . ' \ 1 ! (— ,„,' / i �� 111 I 11 \`\ \\% --� 1 , / / ' ,' 101 1 11\` ` �---` • t 1 ' f / ! \\‘\ 1 / / / tt 11 ` \ t\ \�\\ : _" Z ` `\ til / , / r/// i ! Ir I 1 ` ` ` ...\N.".x2...'I -. — ' N 1 111 (V '( I // ! /\� . \ \;„``� 1 {I 111 l / ! f 1 o : ' \ . : ? =:7:N_ . 1111 1111' 1 �t \1 1 1 1 — \ \‘ —_ 1 111 111 t , `\\ 1� 1� 2, :� -� ‘ill1lt ` t \ t 11 %. %, `1.\:0{t 1111 `:`t� \t"`• ` t 1 __''...S (POWERS BLVD 1 _ ;7 i — — WO 3"1"E I _ t2 43 313 191 IrAilare - � s 1 s \� \ OA. IA �, \ e Pk \ \\\ tib \ IU s ` t\ ` \ f N. . I ---' -.., 1 ,4 ,., .‘ _ _, . .., \ ...'''......'' , . - ., ri\ N \: , - \ , _ -`• --- - \ '''''%`\/ ... I 7 \ \ \ ".. ....,"" E,) 1 --) 1 -------.N.‘•\;,\"',,:,,,,r. , , .. , , ....... .... , , , --„.......-..s.s.,„%,,, ,,,,,, ,.. .,, .....,-......... ..... ,:_ , . .... , „ , i__,....:-,,,,\‘‘,,,, ,,,,, 0,i'il;'1'.'".------ I, - , • I I II Ii i ii r il;El'\\ ,. —._ . ' I 1 ' I l‘VC‘K,Ii,1 i'04:`s, \ -, • //I— \ ,, ` rX` \\`\t`•`',1•\, \\i\`,\lE`'\\„\\\ \\\`\\ . , /i, , iSti'l \.7/ / ,\ \\\ I ,Z, -''',1,7,4 - ;`•�:`. .;`,``% I;, '\\ \ :: - yip - - ..---%‘..,`\\�s•, ` '''r',�t• \ \.' • • % © _ 5.• IMPS'SrE VS 34 . / t!..D I ' ga ' • .1' ” . / ,i a a 7 ‘\. ri ., , 1 / 4�`,Y / 1 ! �I .4,„tr-x/ :1P, ii / , / I c Q m 2 `\� /" ,/,/7‘,',111 t,VA" I 1 n 15 G n O rdP II ME EI2 3 i� '7 --A TI .;�/ 1 I I CL • rnR sr N < s wIID _-i a .rtst»i - .� - .>�. 17 (POWERS BLVD f' ■1'77',^E III/11r — — -- - - ' zla :mr. :wsI r I• ::\� '�_ ‘t `� t. 1 J st `• . \II \ ` / `'.. • \\9r y, \ ,\ "rte♦\; �* i�/ _ / e \ \ •YI`` IMS �\`/ ,I� �, • �' / / ,../ / /�I W I . \\ \\\; ``. 111 - t\ ig \ 0 1 / w / � ‘ _ _ `\\ ` ttai,\t`tl`\1f11`\ _\♦ . ‘ j Y.:. to•,,10,‘a\‘„. ---,,,..... / ,., ..:;;I:: / ' ��,` // `t tt`, ‘2,0‘,..,,x‘` .4v ,\ t` / t ` 1'1i1„ J1\``` d ` t \\ , Na.. \, ,',/ , / /\ . -*\ fwg-.,;1„,,,,17,,,,,,Ls...,,o,,,, 4,. N.-- i ,/ • ,..• , \ ��// _ _ ........ ,, , „ , ... , 9 0 i 4§44:---f'r---- „....,,,:,.... ::.•,z, ..---,,-,...... , ,, \ 0 .4;\\,\ i . f ..- - I''' --:ss:• 0:0, --. '-,---N--'V. \ /, I ` \ , . -,... ,., k•N 1 „, _.,--,..„, ElEg \, of—13 t 00......-v. t�..- ,,,x,-, .- ✓ ,10r:rut SK 71 — — — 't%I,:_-..,es ` :\ ` %/, ,' /' I T .47,0% rn�i, � , / x,11; 1 r 13 ` \'j i// //'./''/ 111 K / r',// am S ✓ x a c▪r m a Z` E 2 0 _ (I:5) Van DorEn Hazard Stallings W chaects•€ng.nee-s•Planners MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegl er Y1/2"---- DATE : October 17 , 1989 SUBJECT: Oak View Heights Park As per the request from Lori Sietsema , we have reviewed the proposed 5+ acre park dedication for the Oak View Heights development . The primary purpose of this review is to conduct an analysis of the ability of the parcel to accommodate needed recreational facilities . Other than to provide general comments , the review does not cover the acceptability of the property for park purposes . That decision needs to be made by the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council based on input from a number of sources including the information contained herein . Exhibit 1 is a copy of a site plan for the park area submitted by the developer . The plan identifies locations for a ball field , parking , basketball , tot lot , tennis and open skating . These facilities are consistent with the list of desired facilities previously prepared by the Park and Recreation Commission . The plan calls for filling the major ravine area that drains to the ponds on the north end of the site . Filling the ravine and grading along the southern property line would necessitate removal of one large oak and one medium sized ash . All active facilities would be placed on the upland flat area and the pond at the north end has been identified as an open skating area . This plan contains the desired facilities , however , it has a number of shortcomings . Even with the filling of the ravine , the flat area of the park is inadequate to accommodate all of the identified facilities . The developer ' s plan compromises the locations of some of the facilities in the name of accommodating all of the desired uses . For example , the location of the tot lot adjacent to the ball field outfield area is undesirable due to potential interference with fly balls . The tennis court should have a north/south orientation , however , the amount of open land will only allow an east/west placement . Additionally , the plan calls for open skating on the pond area which is classified by the city as a protected wetland . This area is also hard to reach with a truck mounted sprayer which is the method used by the city for maintaining quality ice on all skating areas . 3030 Harbor Lane North BIdg.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 Memorandum October 17 , 1989 Page 2 Concept Plans For review purposes , we have prepared two additional concept plans to assist the Commission in the decision process . Exhibit 2 contains concept plan "A" which provides parking , a play area ( tot lot ) , a tennis court , a full basketball court and a picnic /overlook area . This plan which calls for filling the ravine area does not include the open skating area that has been featured on other plans . The ball field , as shown , has a 180 foot outfield area and is suitable for casual neighborhood "pick -up" games . The plan contains a trail meandering through the park which would provide a link in the city ' s overall trail plan . Exhibit 3 contains concept plan " B" which is different from the other two because it preserves the ravine and the specimen red oak and correspondingly , accommodates less intensive facilities . Plan " B" features a play area and picnic / overlook area on the top of the knoll at the 1000 foot contour in the south central portion of the site . From this location , users of the park will have a vista that stretches beyond Chanhassen Pond to the northeast and to portions of Lake Ann Park to the west and northwest . All of the tree cover on the east , north and west sides of the knoll would remain undisturbed . A trail could be installed linking the passive area of the park to the active area on the eastern side of the ravine . This trail would serve as a connecting link in the overall trail system . The — trail could even feature a small bridge crossing at the head of the ravine for added interest . On the active side , the park could accommodate one tennis court , a full basketball court , a small ( 150 ' ) backstop area for casual ball games , and a four car parking lot with access off of Kerber Boulevard . The remainder of the site would consist of open space available for hiking , exploring , sledding and cross country skiing . Structured ball fields and open skating are available in City Center Park located across Kerber Boulevard . Conclusion A final decision on the acceptability of the 5 acre park rests on the flexibility of the City of Chanhassen ' s park programming . If a 200 or 250 foot ball field is necessary along with a tennis court , basketball court , parking lot , play area and skating area , then the five acre parcel is insufficient for park purposes and additional land now containing proposed housing units should be added to the park area . If , however , the city can do without a skating area and can accept a backstop area suitable only for casual play activities , plan " B" could establish a neighborhood park in Chanhassen that is truly unique. The play area and picnic/overlook at the top of the knoll have a commanding view of Memorandum October 17 , 1989 Page 3 the surrounding countryside . The ravine , hillside and pond are excellent open space areas for hiking and adventurous play activities . Exhibit 1 /.., / .2 ( •0A19 SH3MOd ) / ' ' .'/' ._, / W/ / tt'',, �'i i v,1 .,„ , '/ '' j - — , in / 1 11 11,1%,�,7 - v_-. ' /'% -/ • 211 3 .LE.0011 \ 1151%1I 11 �/ / -�:-•ILS - •./ 1 t 1 111{1 � `i i I i. • �/ r ooa. ioo / a \\1 1 ,t � // // /I /// if /L-Ii�;, 'y- l r' • ` / / ///1/ 1 / i • I / / / ' - ` /It._ _•I , g_ k f /- / / '/ // • I•.��Niro:. , 1 \ r IJ — — •••••=.• i /, / l �� 1 / // , --�!'.�/ 1 , \ A��� \ / � \•. 1 f %// I /--','' ,/k \t , _, ,/ / ` / • _S.. „. , ,- . , ... 4 „ „. , � '- ---.... \ t \.._ __- „„, , • ' ---tal ,:, , .„ , ___ , . r- , de• \N \1,\,i --44411h41/4 V‘ ..-••• _ -•% 1 lt, ‘II,‘:,v‘‘\Ii‘\/',,-‘W„.°I,‘%,t 1i,/%V,:g\4 1m-,- 1-,i1a-1- 1 4•.:)4=1`,4‘,/.44.,..,.•4••.1:r't'„i,.kv•.\A ` \ 'e,,,‘ r -ki-. l4-1t .. ' / _ _ , \`,i , ���,� S 1,'t ,, Illi , 1) 1 1 .'/I/-fi,,-r\`-...-V „•..,\:.‘ •‘\\,.\o%, 1\\,,‘1Nlf,,. '/_- i/•,-I'.1I,IN1f 7I i 1 \ , ` /i1 - \. , „ \ 1 / , `,� \ 1 1 X1111 `1 \, \ %\ / �// / f \ \ \ \ gr I t 1 , 1 .� 1 \ \ / / / / El / 1 `1�, I ell_ ,, l 1 1 ' \\ \ 1 \1 �� 1 1 j 1 /' ' . 1171 f Illi 11 f 11 ♦ i 1., 1. • ( ; , \ � ..� X11 t 1 11 I 1 �~ `� ``� ♦� `♦ 1 / 11 11 1 , (11 1 I I 1 - ' -- %.� ,\ N\ ♦\ ♦\ II '/� - , � 1 �1 f Q 1 11 \ - -•� \ \ ♦ ' I 1 / �•� , ;1, 1 1/ ;;, 1• 1\;`\ �� •-• \ . %1 1 / L -;�� I, 111 `,1+ \`� ,N. \� . • I , 1 / iit ‘;‘, Ik, t ,, 1 \1‘ :,.\....\,..'-Z.-, _- . / / 2 / / i .1... I \ \ ` \ 1 o/ / / / / \ / 1 \ \ \\ �\�`�♦♦�```�`\`` -`-. 1t I 1 / '/ I /// // // \ 1 �•• \ \�`%.- - ..• Ill 11 ti( I f / / — '� � � �� 1�t1 III 1II 11 f f I f • -._-� L 1 ` _ I 111 LAI 1 ` 1 / ” ti it • t 1 tlittotk. ‘ ‘L ♦� \ \ 1 \ ti kN [ —V ., i W L Ic x , > +N-, O_ I W s ..0 1%11 , I', \ �,' T w i r,1 .., .L 0 s t J1 111 rf 1 / c . —... •. ; U d > — / /,� \_ I // / / // . 0 / �, 111 OE' / \\ ! - - - -• 1 I i t / , Pt*Set 3ASAt.n+ /../„..icrr -•-'- --;' I. N e •\'4,. • it. . .. .ss...\. de \ \\\: ..,....., " , ( '• ', ,s',..','',N ‘s` -:.. :..7c...‘ ','S 0 # I N \ ...„ ,, ,,, ‘.....,..„...,.....,,,,,\„ s ....,.. _ -... _.„--..,,,,.,-..- ,.,,,. . \;\ . , . — ..... . ,. %,,(- ,.,---_-::::::,: .,•,‘ ss,szs..„-r-N... • 4.17,-,..._-. , . ... i• t - :--.-:,.. ... .=---f-s---... 1 ,-- 1 ..\\ #. ,- 7\ 1 ! �1``,` :1 _t ,I ' 6,,i Y\\� I 0 \\\ / /‘ / \s. \\ • 7 \ 111,\1,\\1`"``\`, \\ ` // '. , ,..‘,, o" . 1 r , ,,,-,, , ,,,., ,,, ,, , I ivip.o......igh , ,-,-, ....-,,:l.,;;;I:,,,,, 4,i; ,\ e,, _,„...,...,..„ „..'...„,.s — .j•, ,,1 ,, t 1, 111 1 1 1 \ ` , i, i 1,,I:II1;,; , 1 1\ 1 /\ / %„.,',,; „, ,11 \ \,\\ ate- i . ,t % 1l , _ ,, , '.!1,1\`\\\ \• I / 1\ c\� -.5: 1 \_ , /,••••• / %.. \ J \ \ • — r f'/ 1 • , \ \ • ", M ',. - , •' •`'71.4 \ •` • \\ ••1 v �\ .— \ ‘, 1 7--ANSUr.rs IssI _, . n 110 r�Tu.Mt ———— may..— —- l i s ( 0A19 Sd3MCd) Li — I M .Y a HACOW • x. s 1 .0 • ,, (01> 1 • �� ,' \. 1 A1g 1 . , ' // / f 'i,\'1 , \: i ' ,6 s A. 'r— — —— — it IN M.K.11M j ' /I ,''''' ' 4 .'--4\ .\/ •/‘.1r--ar 4 ;1 0 /1"y/ •-%%` ,‘ w' 36.1","%i n I t \\ w' 1 t \ )..._-- .•', ■cam �.. `.� \ ..0 \ \IZIP ( .."..),/ ▪ ♦,\ ` ` `\,.`. ` . .; IIP \." • OP N . '-4.-,".% •"-h` .N.�,\��_-- -" r - - I • \\• �/�` `.• \ 111IIP \\ t N • •' \`, \\ .,•�` •,i'' �,,,l Ali[ '>�.• I • \ , // \\ iii • /‘ if . '„ ` �, ,�, I I II f /I, ., ..,,. . .„,,,,:m „,,,, ,- ,; . . .. , lb 1 I 11 .- \.- -,:::,..:-. ,/-• .., ...1,,,,,.,,i.,„,,,:\ % ..1...,..........--__ w a ii ,- .-\\\, , ,„ „N.\ .__., 1 ,, , . _ / it: ‘‘. \ • I I , / ,.., .... , ..... ,,,, :., s,„xt,t,-,. :- _-. .:: \ ` / ' / /~ • • \\ \ r \ ' i '+ .� _ �\�\ '�1 \\ \ t \ — \ `:� I •i �_ \ \ ',` / ` \` b \ '%_ I ......— � : `\ .41— _ —_ — __ \ 1 s ___ maw.- - - 0 TN 3./1 ANS — $ r."' ( 0A-le Stl3MCd l 0 I Park and Rec Corunission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 15 Robinson: But then are you saying next year we also put 50% into the soccer lights and 50% to another project? Boyt : That ' s what we ' ll discuss next year . Robinson : What the percentage is going to be or . . . Hasek: I didn ' t put it all in percentages . I just said let 's build a fireplace and stick the rest into a fund for soccer lights . When the next one comes through, we' ll decide whether we want to put it all in a fund for soccer lights or think of another project . Boyt: Is there a second? I ' ll second it . Sietsema : Do you want me to read the motion? Boyt: No . Sietsema : Okay, the motion was to recommend that the money be accepted and that a portion of the funds be set aside for the fireplace at the Lake Ann Park shelter and set up a fund for soccer lights at Lake Ann with the intention that a portion of future donations goes into the soccer light fund . Hasek moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the money be accepted from the Chaska Lion ' s Club and that a portion of the funds be set aside for the fireplace at the Lake Ann Park shelter and set up a fund for soccer lights at Lake Ann with the intention that a portion of future donations goes into the soccer light fund . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Lash: So you' re sending them a nice letter right? Sietsema: I will be sending this onto City Council upon their approval . I ' ll send a letter with what we ' re doing . SITE PLAN REVIEW, OAKVIEW HEIGHTS. V‘ Public Present : Dean Johnson — Mary McCawley Sietsema : I think that we ' re all aware of most of the history of this item. This item' s come before us on at least 2 or 3 other occasions . The changes in the proposal basically are that they are increasing the size of the development to 27. 10 acres and are proposing to develop 11 high density — townhouses which amount to 200 total units. As can be seen on the site plan, 5.4 acres is to be dedicated for park. They' re proposing that 5.4 be Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 10, 1989 - Page 16 dedicated for parkland in the northeast corner of the site. Robinson: 5. 04 instead correct? - Sietsema : 5. 04 . Yeah . 200 units creates the need for 5 to 7 acres of parkland and the reason that' s such a wide range is because there isn' t a people per unit figure standard that we have for multi-family so that ' s based on either between 2 to 2. 8 people per unit in the multi-family dwelling . The 5 acres the developer is proposing to dedicate currently _ contains some severe topography including a ravine . He' s proposing that with the amount of grading that needs to be done on this site, that that ravine could be filled in to bring the useable parkland or developable parkland to roughly 3 acres. Dean, do you want to make any of your comments now? Dean Johnson : Yeah . We ' ve got a transparency presentation. Sietsema : He' s got some designs on how that can work on the site . Mary McCawley: This is the site . The original site was this rectangular - shape that was the original 18. 9 acres . Mr . Johnson has acquired this property in addition , 5 acres of which will be dedicated to park. The balance will be added onto this part of the project which will go for - density for the apartment units that will be in the future. So these are the 8 acres that Lori was speaking with that are the additional purchase that was different than the last proposal . The ravine that Lori was _ speaking with is this area in here and our proposal is to take grading th, : will need to be done in this area and fill this ravine and part of this bermed area that you see along Kerber as you drive here. This would yeild about 2 1/2 contiguous acres . 2. 7 contiguous acres of relatively flat larJl and this has been graded for the uses that would be proposed for this are, . This is a possible design for the parks . There'd be a ballfield in this area and there' s adequate space. There' s a tennis court in this area that_ wouldbe from off the cul-de-sac of the proposed townhome development . This area for totlot, parking and half court basketball court and there 'd be additional space there. There'd be open skating area in this pond area and the slopes would yeild sledding hills and because of the contiguous area with the wetlands and open space here, there could be other winter sports such as cross country skiing and so on. There's presently as you know there' s public land across the street that could be used as a - compliment to the other public school property on the other side of Kerber So that' s what we' re proposing for the park area. With that there's three- fifths of the area that could be developed. Boyt : I have a question. Does staff feel that filling in the ravine woulJ be allowed? Are you going to kill every tree? Mary McCawley: No. If you go along Kerber and look up here, the trees down in this lower part, this is really pretty open. It looks like it was probably being filled at one time but this area here. The trees, there' s at few right along here and then down by the wetlands which is actually, this is the whole site . There' s more trees here along Powers Blvd. , if you loc.y. from this way, along this wetlands here but if you go down Kerber , this Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 17 area is really quite open . It looks like it' s been . . . Boyt : Who on staff would recommend that this be, is that Gary' s job or Jo Ann ' s job? Sietsema : I think both Jo Ann and Gary would look at it to see . Jo Ann has and I haven ' t heard from her that that would be a problem one way or the other . Mary McCawlev: This was a proposal done by a consultant to the City for looking at equipment on Dean' s original proposal and in our proposal we used the same types of use to show that they could fit on this new plan . Sietsema: Show them where this is located though on the overall site . Mary McCawlev: Okay. I think you can tell by the topography that this area here . This is their original . This area that Lori is pointing out is the area that was really the only natural flat area of the property. Sietsema : When the Planning Commission looked at this , they had the recommendation from the Park and Recreation Commission to acquire 4 acres of parkland and they asked Mark to come up with a concept of how 4 acres could work . This is the flatter area up in the north , the original northeast corner . It does not include what they' re proposing now. Mary McCawlev: But it does speak for the additional 4 acres . This area took 3 of the townhouse units , the larger units . Hasek : So this site is 4 acres? The outline of this site is how many acres? Mary McCawley: It ' s a little more isn ' t it? Sietsema : 4 . 08 acres . These boundaries here . Hasek : So what you ' re proposing is to take 4 acres of facilities and put it into something under 3 acres? Boyt: 2. 7 . Hasek : No . Because that says 4 acres of site that ' s fairly flat and the flat part of this site is now 2.7 acres . Dean Johnson : 3. Sietsema: What they' re saying is , if this represents 4 acres being used in this area . . . Mary McCawley: This is a different configuration. Hasek : Between this area right and this area which is now going to be skating . There ' s 3. 1 acres . Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 18 Mary McCawley: This is 2. 7 and there' s an area down here where the pond area. Hasek: So you' ve got 3. 1 instead of 4 basically with the same facilities . Sietsema : There's a conservation easement in that lower area on those wetlands so. Dean Johnson : That conservation easement is 75 feet. . . Sietsema: Pardon me? Dean Johnson : I read that in your report about the conservation easement - That conservation easement is farther to the west . It 's not even, that easement , even 75 feet from that easement would not be within any of this . Sietsema : But those are considered wetlands and there' s a 75 foot setbacl , Dean Johnson : The wetlands are . . . Sietsema : These aren' t considered wetlands? These ponds? Dean Johnson : No . Mary McCawley: Those are retention ponds. They' re man-made. Sietsema : I understand that but they, it was my understanding that they became wetlands and therefore protectable and there was a 75 foot setback on those. Mary McCawlev: No . It wouldn' t be wetlands with vegetation. It ' s for retention purposes. This is the natural wetlands and it' s all on the parking side . Erhart : Lori , can you explain the setbacks from the wetland . That big area that is wetlands . What kind of a setback do we need there? Sietsema : There would be a 75 foot setback that nothing could be constructed or developed or altered within 75 feet of a wetlands area . They' re telling me I 'm wrong but it was my understanding that these other - ponding areas were now considered wetlands and they also had a 75 foot setback. Hasek: There is an easement line drawn across the plan. What is that? Sietsema : That 's an utility easement . Hasek: Utility? Okay. Dean Johnson: Could I state one more thing about the wetland? These wetlands are Class B wetlands and consequently they can be altered to any shape . They' re not considered to be crucial in form. In fact, in the initial site , the plan for that wetland has already been looked at by staff Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 19 and recommended for approval although it hasn ' t been approved yet , is that we take it and we remake part of that wetland into a retention pond with water coming off of the 18 . 9 acres that ' s going to come off of the hard surfaces and drain down into that . They wanted that part of the site altered into a retention pond and then dumped into the wetlands after that so that is all going to be altered and work be done on a Class B alteration permit by the DNR. Staff has no problem with that . It' s not . . .or has been done or looked at by your staff and they recommend . . .so these are not things that cannot be worked with . This is not a type of a wetland that cannot be touched . I have worked around those types of wetlands . . .but this is not that case . Lash : So when we start filling in this ravine , what kind of a grade are you talking about . . .? What the grade is going to be ultimately? . . .they start filling in , it obviously would make a much steeper grade wouldn' t it? Mary McCawley: No. This is 4 : 1 slope which is really more gradual than the 3 : 1 slope that is generally, the ultimate . You can see the grades there. These are 10 foot contours . Existing grades are extended and they' re not anymore severe than they are now but there ' s nothing proposed greater than 4 : 1 which is very acceptable as far as erosion and you know those concerns . Dean Johnson : I don ' t know what ' s allowed or Chanhassen ' s minimum grade but I know Plymouth is 3: 1. 3: 1 is Plymouth ' s . Mary McCawley : But these are even gentler than what would be the maximum. Hasek : I think what has a lot to do with those slopes though is where they' re located and what their function is going to be. If you leave a 3: 1 slope alone and grass it in and mowing it , it ' s fine but if you ' re going to put it some sort of an active use , we' ll have to look at something other than that . Dean Johnson : If Plymouth they allow you to take what will allow you an area where you mow frequently. In the+ townhouses . . . I have such a bank . But this isn ' t that . This is 4 : 1. This is a good sliding hill . Hasek : Just a general question. Where do we stand with the tree ordinance? Has anything been done about that at all? Sietsema : I don' t believe so . Hasek : Nothing has been talked about at Council? Sietsema: I think that the ordinance is being worked on but I don ' t believe that it' s in place yet . Hasek : Do we have it within the ordinance, the requirement that we are showing where existing vegetation is. . . For example, when they bring the topo in, do they have to show some of the general tree masses and stuff? Sietsema : I don' t know. I think they usually do. Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 20 Hasek: Do we have an aerial photograph section map? Sietsema: Yes. I can go up and get it . Boyt: Dawne and I have some questions of other staff . . .that you don' t have expertise to answer . I think Dawne has questions about the wetland. I have questions about whether or not this would be allowed . . .and I think we'd like to have some of the questions answered before we spend a lot of time. Sietsema : Why don' t you give me a list of your questions . Boyt: Well my question was , if the filling won' t be allowed, then we' re not even dealing with this as parkland because to me it ' s not useable . I guess what it comes down to for me is it still is not a useable piece of property to meet the needs of those people . Erhart: We upped it from 182 units to 200 units . Boyt : And less useable space . Mary McCawley: If you took these 4 acres , there wouldn' t be 130 units . ._ you took these 3 units away for this amount of parkland, it would . . .the project unuseable and then there would a lot less units . Boyt : . . .4 acres but if we took 4 acres and reduced the number of people in the development . . . is the minimum amount for this site . The amount of people. Mary McCawley: . . .this project but you can see there ' s a big corner here of grading that's well above the, well a lot steeper than the 5% so we would actually do the grading to make this workable. You wouldn' t get 4 acres of flat. land in this proposal either . Lash: . . .we wanted a minimum of 4. Boyt: Developable acres . Lash : We didn' t pick the location. We just said what we wanted so . Robinson: So what you' re saying is this has nothing to do with the park? Boyt: Developable acres? Dean Johnson: Why isn' t slope developable acres? Boyt: I guess I 'm not interested in the ravine. Dean Johnson : But a sliding hill? Oak View Heights isn' t a park? Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10 , 1989 - Page 21 Lash : If we take in the sliding hill and stuff , what do we have? Dean Johnson: 5 . Lash : But we ' ve also increased the number of units? Dean Johnson: If you would take your 4 acres that you wanted and divide that into the 182 in the 4 acres , because that' s the original amount of units and then you take and you use that number , that differential , then multiply it by the 200 unitsthatare now there, you come up with that 4 .4 acres is what you want for park. In other words, I 'm over what you ' ve already required . Do you understand what I 'm saying? Hasek: I guess my concern was lies really with two areas. One, if the facilities that are being shown are adequate . My question is , is 185 football field adequate? I don' t know that it is . I think it ' s drawn on there simply because that ' s what fit . I 'd like to see one that ' s a little larger than that if possible. Perhaps we don' t need all the facilities that are on there but we' ve got a real sketchy plan before us . I 'd like to see something a little bit more typed up than that. I don' t have any concern about , I mean a sliding hill is fine with me. We' ve got active and passive uses . That doesn' t bother me so much but if we' re being shown some facilities , I 'd like to know that they' re going to work and I can ' t believe that a 195 foot ballfield , even though it is for kids, we' re still going to get some high school kids out there playing ball with a totlot dead center field so I 'd like to see things I guess tighten up. Show us a plan that makes some real good logical sense . Show us a ballfield that can be used by all the potential users out there. I ' ve got a kid in 6th grade and he can hit the ball 185 feet so if you get older kids, it ' s going to travel farther than that . Mary McCawley: It ' s 230 foot . ti Hasek : 230 is probably reasonable but you've also got it backed up against the property line here about 10 feet on the south side here, and it ' s about 182 feet to this one line so some things need to be cleaned up. Mary McCawley: Is it the developer ' s responsibility to design the park? Hasek : No , but you' re showing us something and if you want us to believe it, I would say that it' s probably your responsibility to make us believe it and I just don' t believe it right now so that ' s my opinion. I don' t believe this one either . This number right here I don' t believe and what I 'm telling you is that I think this was drawn this way because it' s something that worked on the plan . Not necessarily that it would work in reality. Mary McCawley: . . . Hasek : Who did that plan? Mary McCawley: Mark. Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 22 Hasek : He ' s not the developer so. I do this for a living and I personally wouldn' t bring a plan in this sketchy form and expect somebody to believe it . I 'd go in and put the grades in . I 'd put the planting plan on it . I i do everything just to make sure that it got passed . I 'd take the responsibility upon ourself as the designer to make sure the plan is ready to go. What the heck? For a few extra dollars , it just takes a little time and effort to try and convince us , the commission , that is really wh, you want to do with this . Mary McCawlev: Are you giving an outline of equipment you do want to see' Is that the types that you want to see? Hasek : I think that ' s probably up to you to work with staff to figure ou• if we have some specific for sizes that we'd typically like to see and that ' s up to you to work out with them. It' s not our job I don' t think to tell you what+ sizes . . . I 'm just reacting to 185 foot on the ballfield . That ' s a pretty big lot for very young kids . If you get a high school kic out there on that softball field ,+ he' s going to hit it 250-280-300 feet that ' s worth his weight in gold and I don ' t know that that ' s necessarily - what we design all of our parks but it's something you can anticipate that ' s going to happen so the point that I 'm making is that , the totlot at the end doesn' t make any sense. . .rearrange things . That's what I 'm saying, Sietsema : 200 foot baseline is typical in a neighborhood park. Dean Johnson: We did get that from staff . . .because we did work with staf: , I guess you know, the thought that I have at this point is , you know we didn' t expect to design this for you. In our talkings with everybody at the city here , not only Lori but others , we didn' t expect to. We were expecting to show you that things could go on here and that' s why this is as it is . If we had known that we were supposed to bring in more design, we would have. I guess though we' re going in front of Planning Commission and the public here. If the ravine can be filled and if we can work with that . . .is it something that '$ feasible. Is that something that's . . . We need a little , I mean , I appreciate your comments back. That we need a little bit more direction than what we've got here just by virtue of the process . Sietsema : In all fairness to Dean, I think that if this is something that there's no way in God's green earth that this commission is ever going to put their stamp of approval on and you know that now, it'd be nice for hip to know that now going into it. Or if he can revise it and do some work on it and bring back a better plan and there's a chance that you're going to approve it, then he needs to know that. Boyt : The only thing I need to know is, I love that ravine and I 'd like tc see it used as parkland, is he can fill part of the ravine. I 'd like to see it, rather than a totlot when the development happens, have the playground equipment going down the hill . There's a lot of near things that can be done out there and I would . . . if we can find out from staff . Dean Johnson: Again, getting back to, you know I mean we' re donating the land and you guys are going to be putting the equipment on it. We don' t Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 23 mind help designing you know but you ' ve got to give us direction which way. I would have never thought of putting park on the slope because I would have never thought that you guys would have watned that . Boyt : I think we just work with Dean on the grading . Isn' t that it? Isn ' t that what it comes down to? Sietsema : Right . Dean Johnson : So I guess the question is, I ' ve got extra dirt . I mean I 've got quite a bit of extra dirt . I can fill the ravine. I can do that . If the ravine can be filled , is this something that you guys see as feasible? I mean I ' ll work with you beyond the fact of putting the dirt in, I ' ll work with you trying to get , you know the thing designed to something you know that you guys want . I don' t mind as long as I 've got room for the dirt , where did you want the dirt but is this something you can live with because obviously I ' ve got to take it from here and go before Planning and tell them that basic concepts you know if something that looks like it ' s going to be workable but we do have to iron out the details or design the park or do whatever you want us to do. Boyt : There are some nice parks built on hills like Starry Lake Park and I saw a few in Japan that are beautiful that are built on the hillside and that ' s what I have imagined as I ' ve passed through the ravine. What it would be and I 'd love to see it parkland and if you could fill part of the ravine so we have 3 . 1 acres , that would satisfy me. Dean Johnson : Let ' s take it one step farther here too. I 'm going to be putting up this apartment building sometime . It won ' t be until after the townhouses are pretty much up and going but I plan on using the ravine as an amenity for the apartment building . What I mean by that is some kind of a walking trail , that type of thing . I would not mind at that point in saying I ' ll give you an+ easement so that this trail could go from Powers Blvd. say up and through this park . I have no problem with doing something like that either so I wouldn' t mind if you guys want to go with that direction . Hasek : You' re talking about the easement down by the slope? Dean Johnson: Well see the majority of the trees aren' t on this site. In fact there are very few trees in this site until you get on the slopes where it says cross country skiing . Once you get into that area and start going into the original park of my ground of 18. 9 acres , that ' s where you really hit the trees and trees are between the 980 and the 940 contour . That ' s why the City planning staff wants us to put the easement in at 980 because then at that point they can protect those trees. Since I 'm not building down into the 980 contour , that' s fine with me . So that ' s where the trees are. What I was planning on doing is putting a path in amongst , just above or just below the trees and that would be I think walking through the parkland . Lash : I have another question. I don' t know what your , the apartments that are going in, is that included in there too? The total units? Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 24 Dean Johnson: Yep. Lash: So without the apartment what is it? Dean Johnson: 110. Hasek: I 'm sorry, what were those number? 110 and 200 even? Dean Johnson: Yes. There' s 90 apartments. But we need to design for the - whole site now. Hasek: Did you talk about trails at all? Sietsema: We talked about that at earlier meetings and that recommendation would still hold true with the trail going along Powers Blvd . and a sidewalk along Jenny Lane . Dean Johnson: But that ' s already been discussed and accepted so what I 'm talking about is an extra walking path through the trees . Hasek: And that would be a trail separate from the road? Separated from the road surface? Sietsema : Which? Hasek: The trail on Jenny Lane? Sietsema: Yes . Sidewalk. Hasek: And that would be installed at the time the road went in? Sietsema: Yes . Hasek: Which is something we' re going to start doing? Sietsema: Right . Dean Johnson: Are you guys having trouble with things not being done? Sietsema: That piece of property that they just acquired and included in this proposal , the comprehensive trail plan does call for a trail connection to go there that would connect Chanhassen Pond Park over to Powers so you could go from Chan Pond Park over to Lake Ann Park so that easement. . . Boyt: Isn't that where there used to be a cow path? Sietsema: Yes. In that area somewhere yeah. Boyt: That's not there anymore? Sietsema: That's not there anymore. Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 25 Erhart : So in other words what it boils down to is if we can make this workable , is the commission satisfied with 5 acres for the 200 units? Dean Johnson : I ' d say 5 acres plus the easement . Erhart : What ' s what it boils down to? Hasek : Staff is telling us 5 acres is a minimum and 7 acres is kind of a maximum based on their estimates so 5 acres , 5. 01 acres is there, it' s there . I think the lines can be changed a little bit to accommodate maybe even a little bit more . . . The question in my mind is useable acreage . If we can accommodate facilities that we think will provide for the residents of this particular project within that 3 . 1 or 2.7 acres of high ground above and include some of the recreational activities on that side slope plus the trail , I don' t see any problem with it. I 'm not comfortable with what we see yet is my problem. I need somebody to tell me, yeah I think this will work and I guess I 'm looking to staff a little bit more to give us that direction. Boyt : Same here . Do we need Mark to look at the 2. 7? Sietsema : We could have him look at it, Hasek: Part of my situation is , we don' t have a really good definitive grading plan with. this thing . There certainly is nothing wrong with putting some of the uses on the side of the hill . I think that ' s a fantastic idea . I just spent my first weekend out at Chutes and Ladders last weekend . I think it ' s a dangerous spot . Kind of built in a . . .but I think it' s exciting for the kids and I think it' s going to . . . I think that the potential is there . Sietsema : Really the only problem that I have with this whole thing is including a ballfield on this site. I think that it can be used . If the original recommendation was that there should be 4 acres that would accommodate a ballfield and I want to get a reiteration from the Commission that that ' s really what they want . I don' t think that a ballfield ' s going to work on this site. And I think the only way it 's going to work is if you cut into the more developable, the area that the townhouses are sitting in. The ballfield with the other facilities that you want in there, I don' t think is going to work. I think that if you go into a facility or a park design that' s going to be more of your Chutes and Ladders and more using the slope and some original ideas and that kind of thing , I think you can have a very nice park on this site but I 'm just not really, I 'm not r sold on the fact that a ballfield ' s going to work on it. Boyt: I think we wanted a large open space. Sietsema : I think that the large open space is fine for whatever pick-up games but to actually put a backstop with bases and a skinned infield, is just . . . • Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 26 Boyt : Originally we were just seeing pieces of playgrounds in different areas in the development and we wanted a larger space for kids . Sietsema: Right . But this makes me real uncomfortable to see a ballfielc. with the totlot there. I 'mromfortable with a totlot that close to a ballfield even if it' s on the sideline. Lash: But this area is flat . Sietsema: Right and I think there' s other ways to, I just question whetht we need a ballfield within this area or if the grassy open space is going to be used for your frisbee , your pick-up games or your baseball , football or whatever kids happen to be doing just in open space to work on but it' : not going to be a place that you can do anything organized on. Boyt: There's some neighborhood parks, they put up just a mesh backstop - and that ' s it . Nothing else . That ' s it . And it just provides kind of a feeling of baseball but that ' s good for pick-up games . Dean Johnson : Usually a little over 2. Not quite as high. Nothing as massive as . . . Sietsema: Yeah , the typical . - Dean Johnson : Can I make one more point that I asked earlier? I wanted to try and get Mark Koegler to work with this site. I called Lori and I don' know how that , did you ever talk to Don on that? Sietsema: No, I never got to talk to Don until today and I didn' t talk to him about this . Dean Johnson : Okay. I guess what I 'm thinking here is, if the site looks like it has some promise, I would be. I have talked to Mark. He will no• work for me because he is under retainer for you guys , which you know I ci I understand I guess . Maybe can we get him to take a look at this too and have this thoughts to this thing? Hasek: That was the question I was just going to ask. Dean Johnson : I was willing to have him do a quick sketch of the thing . guess I wouldn't like sharing in the cost if we' re getting into some great detailed plans . Hasek: You typically do a conceptual plan too but it's my understanding that when Mark does a conceptual plan, he has a real good feeling of whether the grading ' s going to work when he puts that together . Now. . .has a grading plan or not, I don't. . . When I do this type of thing , I intuitively know that it's going to work and I don' t have to do all the grading to accommodate it but I don't know what our arrangement is with Mark. Dean Johnson : We would have no problem. My engineer , Mary, is a landscape architect. I guess what I 'm saying here is, we can work with Mark to make- Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 27 sure that the grading plan works like he ' s proposing or it doesn ' t work, that he can rearrange that type of thing . I have no problem. . .assistance for doing this . Hasek: Do we have some kind of consensus here? Do we have to make a motion? Boyt : I don ' t know. Do you have anymore questions? Erhart: Well I 'd be interetsed to see if it can work. Then the way I look at it , if you accommodated us , what we asked for before. Lash : I 'm not comfortable with it . I don' t know exactly why. I can' t quite put my finger on it but I 'm not . Boyt: It doesn ' t feel right . Hoffman : Another thing to consider as we talk about the possibility of a potential sliding hill . That is a facility that is often requested and we do not have at this time to provide and if this would indeed become that community sliding hill . Sietsema : We have one across the street from Chan Pond . Boyt : . . .across the street as soon as they take down the erosion control barriers . Hoffman: But are they going to park on street for that? Sietsema : No, they' re putting in parking. Parking' s included in the plan for Chan Pond . Erhart: I couldn ' t take a vote on this now. Boyt : They need more information. Robinson : I know I ' d feel more comfortable if Mark looked at it . . . Sietsema : I don' t think that Mark will have a problem with it if you tell him what you want to see in it . This is the piece of property. It ' s 5.04 acres and+ you want to include what facilities and he' ll come back with something the best and he' ll make a recommendation if something won' t work . You know just can' t but he needs some guidelines set up before he can go to work at it . He needs to know what we want. Hasek : I guess I personally think that the guidelines are going to be based upon the fact that this is really supposed to be providing for a multi-family use. That' s got to be targeted for a market of some sort. Some age group and the facilities that should go in there should be most appropriate for that age group. That range or whatever the breakdown of that might be. I have to believe that there ' s going to be elderly people living in there so there should be some very passive uses of some sort. Perhaps picnic areas or I don' t know what else it could be . I think an Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 28 open field space is appropriate. I think a large totlot is appropriate . Tennis never seems to want to die so I can see where that would be and . . . for appropriate parking spaces . I think that perhaps a little different design of the parking areas is necessary. Can you just show me. . .parking . Sietsema: And half court basketball . Dean Johnson: That was in the original request when we were looking at it . Can I make one other point that maybe should be thought of. This isn' t ml ground. I don' t even know who owns it but there is that little triangle that it comes up and it hits Kerber Blvd . . The townhouse, rental townhouses that line that same behind the diamond there , that goes straigt-. out to Kerber Blvd. so that leaves a triangular piece there. That maybe should be looked at to see who actually owns that because it' s really undevelopable for any building . It' s too small to do anything with . There's no type of building that can be done and I guess the reason I brir it up is that we. . .parking spot there . Boyt : Do we need to direct staff to contact Mark? Sietsema: Yes . Boyt : With our ideas now? Sietsema: Yes . Boyt : So Ed ' s given you quite a few. Hasek: Do we want to give him a . . .of some sort so he ' s got some level of comfortability or is that something we don' t do? Sietsema: Dean you mean? Hasek: Yeah. Boyt : If this motion passes to go to Mark. . . Sietsema : That should be an indication that you' re looking at accepting this based on what Mark finds the useability of the piece of property. Robinson: I also like you idea of taking that official looking ballfield out of there and make it an open area or just a backstop or a green area ox something . Hasek: I think that will discourage that type of a use for sure. Mary McCawley: Are there facilities on the school grounds for organized baseball? Boyt: Yes. Mary McCawley: So is there a real need for. . . Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10, 1989 - Page 29 Sietsema : That ' s saturated. Boyt : There still is a need . Dean Johnson : There' s a need . You just need a bigger area . Hasek: This is just not an appropriate spot for it. Sietsema : See my point is that I don ' t think that the ballfield works with the topography on this site. Anywhere on this site. No matter where you put it really. Robinson : It takes up a lot of space that may or may not be used . Lash: I 'm having a flashback here in my mind to previous meetings and there was something in there about monetary amount for totlot equipment . Is that still a part of this? What happened to that? Sietsema : No . Because now you ' re asking for land and before we were asking for recreational facilities on their property and a dedication of park dedication fees . Now we' re talking about land and no fees . Lash: This is not a PUD? Sietsema : No . Boyt : Are you ready for a motion? Erhart : Have we bought Banidmere ' s property yet? Sietsema : No . Not yet . Erhart : That ' s going to have a little bit to do with ballfields. Sietsema : Well the type of use that Bandimere is going to get and that would be a community park and this would be considered a neighborhood park so you don' t plan for the same types of intensive uses in a neighborhood park. Hasek : I think we' ve had the overflow of some of those planned activities into the neighborhood parks just simply because of we were. . . Boyt : But Dawne was talking about , originally we asked for a ballfield because we needed more ballfields . Erhart : . . . I was just wondering what the status was on the Bandimere ' s property. Sietsema : Well the status of it is that there ' s some problems with , there were some things that the attorney had problems with the title and clearing the title and he was not comfortable with this closing on the property until those things were cleared up so he' s presently working on that and we should be closing as soon as that takes place. As soon as he gets those Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 10 , 1989 - Page 30 things cleaned up. Boyt : Does anybody want to make a motion? Ed? Hasek: If nobody else wants to. I guess what I would like to do is to - send this particular piece of property into our consultant , Mark Koegler and have him give us his expertise and input into what kinds of programs perhaps would be appropriate for a development of this nature and if they - can in fact be accommodated on the piece of property that's proposed . DoE that make sense? (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting . ) Hasek moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direc'- staff to prepare a conceptual plan for the proposed park plan with facilities including open play field , large totlot , tennis , basketball court, parking and area for senior citizens or to render a recommendation if such cannot be accommodated . All voted in favor and the motion cattle( , Dean Johnson : . . .the reason is I ' ve got to make a decision now whether w(--- should ushould hold off for another meeting with Planning before continuing on. Sietsema : The way I would interpret this is that if it can be comfortably- be, if the facilities they want to see on the site can be comfortably accommodated on that 5 acre site , they' re going to be okay with it . Dean Johnson : I guess my thing is , do I bring it . The decision I make is do I bring it to Planning like that or do I just bring it 2 more weeks . . . Mary McCawley: When do you meet? Every 2 weeks? Sietsema : We' ll meet on the 24th. If Mark can work on it within that time frame and get it back to us by the 24th , it will be on the next agenda . As far as whether you should go to Planning, I really can' t tell you that . Maybe you talk to Jo Ann . Dean Johnson : I ' ll see what she says about that too. Maybe if you can talk to her too you can put your heads together . Sietsema : I will and I ' ll clear up some of the questions that we had abor- the wetlands and the ravine. DISCUSSION OF PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MISSION STATEMENT. Hasek: My comment is, I asked around about mission statements and the feedback that I got was there isn' t a mission statement. There' s a primaz-• goal for various parts of the comprehensive plan and that serves along wit the zoning ordinance and our obligations as kind of direction. I wasn' t discouraged from putting together a mission statement but I was encouraged_ at the same time to keep it to one paragraph. If you can' t say it in a CITY QF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMOR ANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: October 26, 1989 SUBJ : Site Plan - Oak View Heights - Revised Date 09/25/89 Comments and recommendations from the Fire Department . 1 . Add additional fire hydrants as indicated on drawing ( 4 additional ) . 2 . Turnarounds Sec . 10 . 207 U.F.C. Turnarounds shall be provided when access roads dead-end in excess of 150 feet . The turnaround shall meet local fire department access turning radius requirements . 3 . Fire Department access road shall be minimum width of 24 ' - Sec . 10 . 207 (e ) U. F. C. Verified clearances or widths required by this section shall be increased when, in the opinion of the Chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access . 4 . The turning radius of a fire apparatus road shall be approved by the Chief, Sec . 10-207 (g) , these shall be indicated on the drawing . 5. There is also concern for lack of visitor parking. This could result in visitors or homeowners parking in the fire lanes or turnarounds, thus necessitating constant patrolling, but still not insuring fire lane compliance . Sections 10.207(a) (b) Firs department access roads shall be provided for all buildings When any portion of the Dior ball of the first story is more than 150 feet from the fire department vehicle access. The 150 fist is measured along the path which a firs fighter would use to lay hose line - not in a straight line through the building. (See Illustration III-A) . Refer to Additional Information # 1 for a further code interpretation of this section. The first exception simply states that when the building has an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, that the access road provisions may be modified. The second exception states that When conditions prohibit an access road from being installed, the chief nay require the installation of additional fire protection systems or equipment. Tose conditions that may prohibit the installation of the road include cliffs, lake fronts, rivers, mountains, etc. The third exception states when there ars not more than two R-3 or ?! occupancies, these requirements may be modified as long as fire fighting or rescue would not be impaired. In this case, the height or width may be decreased by the Chief, if adequate control of a fire is possible. Sec. 10.207(.) This subsection allows the chief to increase the width or height of an 46 access roadway for fire fighting purposes. Two examples for increasing the width are shown in Illustration III-D. Section 81.109 has special access roadway requirements and should be molted for installation of roadways around warehouse buildings that contained high-piled combustible storage. SJETWCE Section 10.207(F) The road surface mist meet local road district standards for an all- weather surface and be able to withstand fire department vehicle weights on a year-round basis. Fire departments mist maintain a working relationship, including written policies, and specifications, for road building with the various federal, state, county and city road departnents within their jurisdiction. An all-weather surface night be anything from gravel to concrete depending an local conditions and requirements. 11 Section 10.207(C) The minimum width of 20 feet or more shall be kept unobstructed from sib, gas valves, protective posts, parking curbs, ire, etc. The 20-foot minimum width requirement allows for two traffic lanes. (Illustration 47 r VFICAL CUMANCZ Sec. 10.207(D) The vertical clearance shall be at least 13'G". In communities where snow accumulation can be expected to reduce this clearance, the - standard is often increased. The clearance may be modified (decreased) if fire department access is not affected and vertical clearance signs are posted. (Illustration IA-C) . Section 10.207(g) The turning radius shall be as approved by the thief in conjunction with the local road districts. Standards should be set and policies written. They should include outside and inside curb radius design, divider strip plats and snow plowing procedures. Adequate access road width and turning radius shall be maintained at all time for emergency vehicle response. (Illustration III-E) . Sec. 10.207(h) Turnarounds shall be provided when access roads dead-end in excess of 150 feet. The turnraround shall meet local fire department access turning radius requirements. Examples of turn-around policies are Shown in Illustration III-F and IIIA. 48 c•:❖zzz•J (5-c _ poi 11 Jr V 20' MINIMUM WIDTH APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS Section 10.207(e) 1 1 1 Illustration HI-B Z750=1 =507 o [62 SNOW BERM PARKING LANE is• NEI. am.NEmow 20' MINIMUM WIDTH 4 THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND IN ALL WEATHER CONDITIONS - 1 1 1 APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS Section 10 . 207(f) - Illustration Ili-C I Permissible Modifications frY7177171 non= ;ams;!G;; O O co o0 0 r Increased clearance at hydrant to allow for hook-up DI 20'REQUIREMENT MAY BE INCREASED BY THE CHIEF TO ACCOMODATE HYDRANT HOOK-UP • •S •• �• in-o-o--„, ,..i.ir _. rIti O O To1:1‘, , n C . is Increased clear width for truck companies using snorkles, water towers or aerial ladders . IN 20'REQUIREMENT MAY BE INCREASED BY THE CHIEF TO ACCOMODATE LADDER TRUCK OPERATIONS r APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS Section 10.207(c) r r Illustration III-6 • Turning radius must be adequate to accommodate the apparatus in your jurisdiction TURNING RADIUS Section 10 .207(g) Illustration III-E , . . lir..„. . '..'fit q.....4-:..i:3i,*2,... '';-s'::!:....P:p4,..!',::. '5.':.''}-'...i:R*:}A,'A/..:....,.i.S.i.:r'...,::...,-'-i:':?•..'.':';:':,...'...."......,....:.:::—:.":,::..."...&ti..::?.'V...'5'.'.'...:%".;.::.::,'.::.::'.. -""'.'' : . we. . .......... __ . A.....:,lf-••::..t.e,..,.,,-,:.•:•*-•.,.s..•.,...;..:,•.:.:„::.,•...4•..:..„..:i..i.:.•..f-.-•:..6,•.. 7- :.e-..i...:....g,...,..t`. ..., ..„, ..1 .f.•••.•:'-„•i.,.::..:i:f:.:.,:i,::4?•••.. ,•i:,,:•:,•,K,.,-,:.0'-.::.iw:.:.-4.,,.:v.„:4.::,.:.§P,:-:.,*,.!,:'::--7-..-4•.,..-,:.•,:,.::.i.,?§.,::...•-:..:-.,?:-,:.....:,:..-. „,-..:,1..:.:..:,.:-..--,„•:-.5.:.::,,.:::„::.,„.:..,.:. 7:4::-:.i::o:H:.:,r.-..,,-.,.,:•,:. .-.:i.:,:.:f.::.t,•. 9,:i....„s,k:r:::4,,t....,:,_._:7,...: TURN4r,.A.,-,.'.,'...,„V.R:,.,..:.•.-...:4O',....•:,. •:;,A•-•U-,.,...l:.mN„ :„.D REQuIRED MORE1AN150 — ,,: 1•.:I•(:”..i*..•.i.•x::n.;•4:.-.•.,.-•.;••;.i,..::..:.„ .. .- *fl ''.:-I:•:.:4"--::::::?:.;:..:::::.ag:*:4:,:,:-z:.i.::,4•..,:•..t.0.••„:•-6.,.w. ••-A1?)::..:,-„.:,,,., .-:.. :... .....:.,... ,,,,,.:..„: TURNAROUNDS Section 10.207(h) Illustration III-F _ , til-'30.-40-30. _L s0'---"111+-60' 1 20' 20' 28' R 28' R -""T TYP TYP 28' R 60' TYP - 20' TO' 1 --► 20' r-- ---0 260,--- 60' 120' HAMMERHEAD HAMMERHEAD --0 20'4- ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO 120' HAMMERHEAD 96' CUL-DE-SACilk ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE TO 70' CUL-DE-SAC 120' HAMMERHEAD 6p 20' T0' 28'R 28'R 28'R TYP TYP 20' 20' 26' nP I I RECOMMENDED TURNAROUNDS • I :iustration III-G V EBIUM Sec. 10.207(i) Bridges on fire department access roads must withstand fire apparatus live load weights. The building department and road should know the weights of fire department vehicles. MEC Sec. 10.207(j) Grades are built to community standards and include limiting factors such as weather conditions and natural geographical conditions. The angle of departure on fire department apparatus will also have to be considered so that the equipment is able to negotiate the grades established. The fire department must coordinate with the road engineer to be certain the fire department vehicles can negotiate the allowable grades. (Illustration 111-H) . Section 10.207(k) The minims 20 feet width (or greater) oust be maintained at all times. Local traffic officials shall not permit parking on roads, cul-de-sacs, delivery roads etc., if the required width or turning radius is reduced.. Section 10.207(1) Signs, curb markings and stripping on the roadway may be necessary to 49 satisfactorily identify fire deportment access roads and keep them unobstructed, policy will Deed to be developed to satisfy local oonditicns. (Illustration BM 3112=2=11 Section 10.208 Approved numbers or addresses are required on all buildings, new and existing. They mist be legible and visible from the street and mist contrast with the background. In light of one of the basic fire department missions, medical delivery, this is a very important provision. Fires can often be located because of visible smoke or fire, but people with a medical emergency cannot. Compliance is doubly important in large multi-family residential complexes where finding addresses can be very difficult and time consuming. The Chief may also require that approved signs be provided to identify streets and roads. YX Section 10.209 Key boxes may be required by the thief for immediate access for fire fighting or life saving measures. They mist be of an approved type, in an accessible location and contain keys necessary to gain entry as required by the chief. It is important that the fire department mathtain proper security to keep track of keys as well as good records on where the key boxes are located. 50 CITYOF CHANHASSEN S 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician , DATE: October 11 , 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review Oak View Heights , Cenvesco File No . 89-1 Land Use Review Upon review of the new plans prepared by Hedlund Planning , Engineering & Surveying dated March 14 , 1989 , revised September - 25 , 1989 submitted by Cenvesco, Inc . , I offer the following com- ments and recommendations: STREETS 1 . Cul-de-sac Island - As far as grades and alignment are con- cerned , the new plans are equivalent to the previous plans subitted with the exception of Jenny Circle . The plans pro- pose an island in the middle of this cul-de-sac to preserve an existing oak tree . Past experiences with such islands have not been favorable . From a maintenance standpoint, snowplowing becomes significantly more difficult and time consuming. It is also questionable as to whether or not the existing tree would survive after the utilities were installed in Jenny Circle . It is recommended that the island _ be removed from the plans or at least the applicant provide a guarantee on a per caliber inch replacement. 2 . Sidewalks - A 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Jenny Lane on the street plan ( sheet 3 ) and on the north side of Jenny Lane on the landscape plan ( sheet 5 ) . The sidewalk should be constructed on the north side of Jenny Lane to avoid possible pedestrian/vehicle conflicts . In addition , the sidewalk should be reduced to 5 feet in width to allow for additional boulevard green area. Previous sidewalks installed in the City this year have been 5 feet wide consistent with the City ' s new sidewalk policy. Jo Ann Olsen October 11 , 1989 Page 2 3 . Street Parking - As indicated in previous staff reviews , overflow/visitors parking will cause parking on Jenny Lane which will only aggravate traffic problems . Council may want to consider placing "No Parking" signs on one or both sides of Jenny Lane . 4 . Curb Cuts - The plan reduces the curb cuts along Jenny Lane from 19 to 11 . This is much better but could be reduced further by turning building #7 on Lot 3 to face the adjacent lots . The westerly driveway onto Jenny Lane from Lot 1 , Block 2 needs to be relocated to the east to allow for proper stacking of vehicles at the intersection of Jenny Lane and Powers Boulevard (County Road 17 ) . _ 5 . Jenny Lane Extension - As indicated in previous staff reports , a feasibility study will need to be initiated to extend the Jenny Lane road section from Oak View Heights easterly through the West Village Heights townhouses site to Kerber Boulevard . SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN The utility service for the plat appears relatively straight- forward. The plans appear acceptable with minor revisions to be resolvea during the plan and specification review process . GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL As indicated in previous reports these plans also require that a majority of the site experience shaping or grading to create building pads which in turn require the removal of mature oak trees . - The plans propose a small sedimentation pond to be constructed on the northwest corner of the parcel adjacent to Powers Boulevard. - Revised drainage calculations should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer and the Watershed District. Minor revisions and additions to the storm sewer system are necessary . This can be accomplished during plan and specification submittal . The plans show the perimeter of the site wrapped with Type III erosion control . Proposed side slopes with 3: 1 slopes are shown - to be stabilized with erosion control blankets. The applicant shall comply with conditions established by the Watershed District for restoring vegetative cover . - Jo Ann Olsen October 11 , 1989 Page 3 — RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with — the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the improve- ments . 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access/Watermain Crossing Permits issued by Carver County. 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 4 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 5 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- - mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construc- tion. — 6 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities. — 7 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- main under County Road 17 . — 8 . The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 9 . The parking and driveway access needs to be revised and — addressed for safety along Jenny Lane similar to past submit- tals where parking and driveway access were restricted, i .e. original plan showed 19 curb cuts. 10 . Eliminate island in Jenny Circle (cul-de-sac) . 11 . Restrict parking on Jenny Lane. c: Gary Warren, City Engineer CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 2, 1989 (The Planning Commission met prior to the meeting with the City — Council , City Staff and Representatives from Cenvesco to discuss the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Oakview Heights Townhomes.) Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Steve Emmi.ngs, Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli , Jin Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson — STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner and Dave Hemphill , Senior Engineering Tech PUBLIC HEARING: CENVESCO, OAKVIEW HEIGHTS , PROPERTY ZONED R-12, RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY — AND LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18. 93 ACRES INTO 11 HIGH DENSITY LOTS FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PERMIT GRADING WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND. Public Present: Dean Johnson - Applicant Charles Nixon - Attorney for Applicant , 11 Third Avenue So. , Minneapolis Charlie James - 2715 Maplewood Circle West, Woodland Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to . order. — Conrad : Dean, how would you like us to approach the item tonight? We sort of whipped it around for the last hour. — Dean Johnson: We made the change for the double frontage lot. . . We took care of that issue by putting in the cul-de-sac. . . We did get rid of some of the curb cuts and stayed within the impervious surface. . . Obviously thE— other issue that was taken that night was the parkland in place for the park equipment. . . I guess we didn' t think it was as much concept as we were likely to vote on it and pass it onto Council . We realize that we don' t — have some of the drainage drawings on it . . .but we did do the densities and we did show some of the engineerings things we could work out with staff before so we are looking for a vote on this. — Conrad: This is a public hearing and we will open it up for other public comments . Are there any? Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 2 Charlie James : My name is Charlie James. I live at 2715 Maplewood Circle West in Woodland. I 'm the owner of the property. I have a purchase agreement with Cenvesco on this property and as I was sitting here I couldn' t remember whether I had seat a letter to the Planning Commission addressing my concerns on this project and I can ' t remember if I sent it to the Planning Commission or not. So I guess my first question is, have any of you, did you get a letter from me. Okay. I 'm getting old . I guess I 'd like to give a little background on this because as I pointed out in my letter to the City Council , I see a lot of new faces here and there may be some people who don't know what the history of this property is so if you' ll allow me a few minutes I 'd like to tell you some things that may assist you in your decision that perhaps you weren' t aware of. We purchased this property, golly it must have been about 1986 I think and at that time we were working with the staff and Gary Warren' s predecessor. I can ' t think of his name right now. Conrad: Bill Monk. Charlie James : Bill Monk. Bill Monk and Barb Dacy and Barb had just arrived because the previous planner I believe had departed and anyway, when we came in with some questions about this entire about 50 acre parcel on the corner there and I had explained at the time that our company was a commercial developer . We' ve never done a residential project. We have done over 100 projects in the course of the 40 years that we've been incorporated and none of them have been residential and I approached the staff about the possibility of zoning this entire parcel commercial . I was told at that time and this was subsequently reiterated at the Planning Commission, that the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Chanhassen had always contemplated that this would be the highest density area allowed in the City of Chanhassen and the rationale for that was that they wanted something that was close to downtown. That was convenient . That was within walking distance that would serve as life cycle housing as I believe. They wanted people just starting out and they wanted elderly. They wanted something that in case there was a HUD program or a farmer ' s home, there' s certain criteria that have to be met in those programs and one of them is the proximity of the project to services. The government will not approve these types of loans for projects if they' re built out in the middle of the cornfield. They want them to be convenient to the people who occupy them. We had indicated at that time that we would prefer to have the whole property zoned commercial and the City was adamant about this that our Comprehensive Plan says this is what we want and we' re going to give you the highest density that our zoning ordinance will allow as an inducement to you to come in with a plan that' s in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and so forth and so on. So that' s what we did. I immediately set about , got a copy of the mailing list from the Minnesota Multi-Family Housing Association and began to try to market this property because as I say, I wouldn' t even know how to go about doing something like this. Some of the other things that came up during that time was the consensus at that time, the people who were in City Hall at that time was that this site was ideally suited to a high density project because number one, if you look at the topography, it' s fairly well isolated . You ' ve got a big ravine to the north so structurally, topographically there is some separation to the single family projects and so forth to the north and Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 3 - there ' s a natural topographic buffer there . Number two , we graded this entire end of our property here. We ' ve been waiting for, I donated he right-of-way for the new West 78th Street and we ' ve been waiting for the City to build that so we could proceed with our plans but we spent a lot of- money out there moving a lot of dirt that can ' t be put back. I mean I suppose it could but I don ' t know where it all went. It was hauled off the site and when we graded that property, we did that in reliance on the - zoning that we were given. On the plat that we had done and we even adjusted the toe of the slope in what we perceived and were told were the setbacks between a commercial project and a residential project and also _ what are the setbacks on the residential side . What sort of setbacks they' re going to have to maintain from a commercial . We designed that slope with Jim Hill Engineers and laid that out so that from the highway the slope was situated to take maximum advantage of the open space that would be created by the setbacks from both these projects . So as you ' re driving down West 78th Street, you ' ll see some commercial stuff at street level and then right behind that commercial is going to be an enormous band of green that is the setback requirement between the commercial and the residential . So you have to combine the setback that we have on our commercial . We can ' t encroach on this residential and the residential area is going to have a setback from us . When you combine those two areas , put - them on the slope, then you ' ve got a big green area there. That also serves as a substantial buffer for this type of density in this type of project so you have an area that is , and it ' s got streets on both sides so - you have an area that ' s relatively contained topographically. It ' s contained by the zoning . It ' s accessible to all the services and amenities and things that are happening in downtown Chanhassen and it meets the Comprehensive Plan. I guess the other thing is with the road up there and we were told originally there was a proposal for a cul-de-sac and we were told that the Fire Marshall and other people would not support a cul-de-sac through that property because of the density of people that were expected - to live in there and that therefore a through road was going to be a necessity for fire and safety and they were concerned about trucks being able to get in and out and this sort of thing. Well apparently this message never got communicated to Carver County and in conjunction with the TH 5 widening and the realignment of West 78th Street , the County has begun work on a redesign of CR 17 and it came to them apparently as a total surprise that this street was going to be punched through there. We had another buyer who was going to come in here and it ' s interesting to point out too that they perceive the market in Chanhassen, they hired a consultant . They did a very expensive market study and they perceive the market substantially as Mr . Johnson is perceiving . This outfit was out of Washington D.C. They' ve built projects all over the country and anyway, what they were basing their project on at that time was, and I don ' t know _ all the ins and outs of this but apparently there ' s some sort of credits that are available in Minnesota for certain types of housing and at the beginning of the year they' re allocated to each community to be paired . When a community doesn ' t use them at the end of the year they' re thrown - back into a pot and if the community' s got a project , they can grab those credits or they can apply for them so what Durand was trying to do was come in at the end of the year when they knew they could grab those things and - they were going to put this project up. Well , they go in with their plat and everything and the Assistant County Engineer told them no problem . Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 4 Yes, this is great and yet when the final plat comes back, the head engineer down at Carver County goes crazy and says, I 've never seen this before and what ' s this street coming in here. We can' t have this. It took us 4 months to straighten that out- and get the street where it should be. That is the only place where that street can touch down . On the other side of the street, I heard a lot of talk tonight about wetlands and I was curious about what the definition of wetlands is because I 'm not aware that I 've got any wetlands on this property and as a matter of fact, when the highway department was looking at CR 17, one of the reasons that they felt they couldn' t expand to theother side of the road was because there were wetlands over there and it looked better on our side. So I guess as Mr . Knutson said here earlier tonight when I asked him this question, I guess everybody' s got their definition of what a wetland is but in any event , I guess what I 'm saying is there are certain things here that have all conspired shall we say to create a project the way you've seen it. There' s _ nothing we can do about the location of this road. It' s fixed from both ends. There' s nothing I can do about that grading but I want you to know we put a lot of thought and a lot of expense into that and I have relied on the relationship that I had here with the staff and everything that they told me. I 've done everything the City has asked me to do on this project. They said this is what they envisioned there and I think that more consideration should be given by this Planning Commission and the new Council to some of the representations that were given in the past . We' ve relied on that and I think that, it seems to me that everyone' s really got their heads together here and I haven' t seen one attempt , I 've come out here to these meetings, I haven' t seen one attempt by the parties to compromise something here. And I ' ve seen Dean try different projects but I haven' t seen anything from the Planning Commission or Council . I 've seen a lot of kind of things where they' re trying to anticipate somebody' s move and let's say well , oh golly, if he' s going to do this, I know let' s go to the Park Board and I know we' ll get land when in fact the land that they' re asking for far exceeds. There' s been court cases on this about how much land is reasonable and so forth and it seems like people, I guess what I 'm saying is, we know what' s going on. Why can't we be, we all know what everyone' s maneuvering here. Why can' t we talk about this? Why can' t we be reasonable? Why can't we compromise something here? Also, I just wanted you to know, I guess I ' ve gone too far here and I 'm sorry but I just wanted you to know what some of the history was and some of these things, I guess what I 'm saying , were set in place a long time ago . Enough said . Thank you. Conrad : Thanks for your comments Charlie. Do you want me to respond? I can' t. There' s too many comments. Other public comments? Charles Nixon: My name is Charles Nixon. My address is 11 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis and Dean Johnson' s attorney. I do have two comments essentially. Number one, that after literally weeks and probably more like months of staff review and this commission's review of this particular submittal . Tonight for the first time a definition pulled in I understand from another section of the ordinance that the Commission would like to read into this ordinance. We have prepared , Dean has prepared based on the ordinance as read, the ordinance was interpretted by your staff. A plat that conforms to that ordinance. I think because there ' s a conforming plat Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 5 — submitted , that it should be approved. Your judgment may be that you would— rather ouldrather see a different kind of development but that is a judgment not based on conforming with your ordinance but on your personal preference or your preference to the way you would like to see this go and I think that that' s- inappropriate . The only thing that might not be conforming here at the moment is the recommendation of the park board. The park board essentially wants to take all of the flat land that exists on this site. That' s it' s — recommendation and that reads as a point I submit that' s confiscatory. Essentially we' re talking about roughly 5 out of close to 19 acres and they' re asking for essentially all of the flat land that there is. I submit that that' s simply a taking without justification. Without '— compensation for it, the. . .ought to be permitted here. Conrad : Thanks for your comments . Anything else? — Mary Lou Cully: Mary Lou Cully, 1663 Illinois Avenue, St. Paul and I represent the engineers . I just wanted to make one point that we were tabled. This project was tabled on three issues. The double front issue, — the parking and the access off of the public street . And this submittal , which is concept granted , addressed those issues. The underlying issues of engineering , grading , those types of things, still could apply and would — apply if anything can be worked out with staff. I just wanted to point out that this is what the tabled items. We' ve addressed those issues . . . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad: At this time, for those of you who are here probably on another issue but we' ll go around the Planning Commission and get their comments . Tim, we' ll start at your end. — Erhart: I guess at this point I don ' t think we have the data to show that the proposal meets the density. The R-12 net density requirement that we _ have. Therefore, I 'd like to see the thing tabled here until we define what's unbuildable area by the definition of density, our ordinance, and then make a calculation of what the density is of this proposal . Whether it meets the ordinance or not. My overall comments about the project remain as stated in previous meetings and earlier tonight . Conrad: Can you summarize those quickly? Other issues besides density. — Anything else? Erhart: Again it' s the parking . It ' s overall density. We' re trying to put too much, the way we' re putting it in there is too dense for the area — in that we' ve got not enough parking for guests and for the people who live there. We've got too many accesses off the street there and the lack of open space for the number of people and the basic underlying reason is it' s— too dense for that kind of development. Not that I say that you can ' t in some way put 12 units per acre in an area like this . It' s just' that the design they' ve used has made it too dense and I question whether it meets — the density requirements of our current ordinance anyway and without specific analysis by staff, I don' t think we can go forward with it. Planning Commission Meeting August 2 , 1989 - Page 6 Emmings : Just a couple comments on Charlie ' s comments . I think it ' s . . . that we get the history the way that I remember it to the extent that I ' ve been involved in it . I think it ' s-. a good place for R-12. I think the zoning , I don ' t have any problem with the zoning that ' s on this property. I also have no doubt in my mind that density, as the word appears in the R-12 section of the ordinance means net density because when it' s used in the same context in every other part of the ordinance, it ' s used to mean net density and I seriously doubt if this plan meets that when it ' s calculated on net density as that term is defined in our ordinance . As far as Charlie' s comments about the road go , you know I think the road is in the right place and probably is in the only place it can go so I don ' t have any disagreement with that. As far as setbacks and the slope that ' s been created out there and everything else, I don ' t think those are the problem that we see on this plat. Aside from that, I don ' t think it ' s possible to take any action on this tonight for the simple reason that the packet that we received , or at least that I received from staff , we got three items here. We ' ve got the plat , we ' ve got the site plan and we have a wetland alteration permit . The packet I got was , all of the emphasize was on looking at possibly going back and starting over looking at a potential PUD designation as opposed to a condominium plat . We wrestled with that for an hour and a half or two here and now we know that they' ve elected to proceed with the condominium plat but we don ' t have the material we need to assess the plat or the site plan or the wetland alteration permit so I think we ' ve just got no choice but to table this . I think that ' s all the comments I have for now. Batzli : I agree with Steve. I 'd like to respond a little bit . I agree that the concept of putting townhomes or condominiums on this lot meets our Comprehensive Plan and I 'm not against this being zoned R-12 but I am against the density if in fact it exceeds net density. I ' ll agree with Steve that I assumed that when we were told originally that it did meet density, that it did. Obviously we don ' t sit down with our calculators and figure it out ourselves and to the extent that there was a mistake made , I can ' t change anything about that. No matter what they were told , I mean they' re going to have to rely on the ordinance and so are we and we — obviously feel that the ordinance for R-12 is net density. This plan I don ' t believe meets that so I 'm against this particular plan for the density reason. I think that a park does need to be included . I don ' t know the number of acres . I 'm assuming that the Park and Rec ' s committee has more expertise in that area . They work with it on a constant basis . They' ve reviewed it and they now feel that some parkland is required . I personally resent the implication that I 'm somehow conspiring to block this particular project and I will state that I have made no contact other than in the public about this . I don ' t know who or why some people are making those types of statements . I personally resent them. I think we have a problem here with trees with the current moratorium. Obviously the parking . Curb cuts which have been previously as a problem. I kind of have a problem with the designation of this road as a local road . Talking about the density and the number of cars and traffic and peopld you ' re going to put in there and I don ' t quite understand the process of how that designation was chosen . I also want to emphasize due to these applicants ' reliance on verbal type comments , we are not approving the apartment Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 7 — building . We are not looking at the apartment building and none of our discussions is centered on the apartment building. Wildermuth: I agree with what BrLan has said. My objections to the — project as it's currently configured are the fact that each unit does not have 2 car garages . There are inadequate numbers of total parking spaces. There is the ancient tree issue. The net density issue. I think one of — the real problems here and Charlie touched on it is that this piece of property has become a very valuable piece of property. There' s been a lot of development money spent in and around that piece of property. Because of the wetland, it' s relatively inflexible. I don' t think that the City — has an obligation to compromise with a developer who comes in, wants to develop something that there seems to be a consensus is not a good appropriate project for that property. People of Chanhassen are going to — have to live with this project for many years in the future. I think a short term compromise is not in the best interest of the community. Headla: I have no problem with what they' re proposing as long as they meet"- our eetour ordinances . Take net density. I think if they would meet the net density, a lot of these other problems would just kind of get resolved by themselves . — Conrad : I have very little new to add other than talking about the park and I hear the developer saying there 's no place to put the park yet I hear_ staff saying we need a park and we' re park deficient because of the 500 net, people coming in. That seems rather significant to me so I think, Charlie was saying we' re not trying to help and I guess I worry about that a little bit because the developers are in the business to do these things and those- of hoseof us who are lay people are not. I think we've been trying to offer direction but I think when the density is the factor and so many units have to go on here to make this a viable project, I don' t know that there' s a — lot of flexibility on the developer 's part. I think there should be a park on site. If not , I think the developer should find the parkland for us where these people can do the things that the Park and Rec Commission feel _ that 500 people should be doing . It appears, Charlie said this area is really quite isolated and has some phsyical barriers by streets and bluffs and what have you and I agree. Therefore, it' s really not a site that can dump people into another neighborhood. It's almost a site that has to — support itself. I think that ' s something that the developer of this property has got to live with. Overall, I think I 've always said that there' s just a lot of stuff happening on a little bit of acreage. I do — believe, I 'm totally confident that the wetland area has to be taken out of the calculation. Absolutely confident of that in terms of density and also I believe that the parkland has to be found within this area too. I haven' t heard anything about trees . Garages, I still have a problem with. _ Basements for storage, these are things that are not required by ordinance but it certainly would help solve some problems that I have here. Basements might help a little bit also. Curb cuts. We haven' t talked — about curb cuts tonight but I think staff keeps hanging on that one and I think the overall design tells me that we've got too many curb 'cuts based on some standards that the staff has so with those comments , re-echoing a lot of what other people have said here, I just don' t think this is the right design of a problem on this land . I was around when we did zone it CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning (7/(- - DATE: October 3 , 1989 SUBJ: Proposal Revision to the Zoning Ordinance to Establish the Maximum Size of a Church Site at 15 Acres DISCUSSION During the review of the Temple of Eck, the City Council con- sidered establishing a maximum size on churches that would be allowed by conditional use permit in the City. The primary reasons for requesting the ordinance are to limit the physical and financial impacts of large scale church development. Loss of property tax revenues was discussed. A memo from the City Attorny outlining a recent court case is attached. The court' s ruling indicates that churches may only qualify for tax exempt status on that portion of their property that is acturally being used for church purposes . Thus the fear that large tracts of church owned property would be removed from the tax rolls may be unfounded. The City Council discussed a 25 acre site size limitation but ultimately settled on a 15 acre cap. I have worked on a number of church sites over the years , including one that had a capacity of 900 members and the site area was below the proposed 15 acre cap. I believe it is therefore reasonable to assume that the ordinance will not impede most "normal" church development. The impact of the ordinance on the Eckankar site was discussed with the City Attorney. The church owns approximately 175 acres but the church building and related development occupy only a small portion of the property. The ordinance is structured so that it will not apply to the existing development. However , if and when they request a subdivision of the property to further develop it , the size of the church site would be limited to 15 acres . This could pose a problem. The Temple is a very large facility that could exceed the 15 acre standard. A lot drawn to encompass the facility could range up to 26 acres in size if it is to have frontage on Powers Boulevard. The smallest possible site Planning Commission October 3 , 1989 Page 2 is approximately 13 acres and would leave a private driveway as the sole access . Whether or not a lot area variance will be required will probably be determined by the internal street layout of any proposed development on the balance of the site . A copy of the proposed ordinance was sent to Peter Beck, the attorney who represented the church during the approval process . He did not voice any concerns regarding it . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the ordi- - nance amendment . LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON — DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L.GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.* 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J. MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 DAVID L. GRANNLS,11I — ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER •AuoAmami)To July 25, 1989 — Plucnc,Iw Wixa4w Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 — Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Churches Dear Jo Ann: Enclosed is the revised ordinance which reduces the maximum — lot size from 25 feet to 15 feet. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, GRAN Y GR. ' S, FARRELL ri BY: �� Ro"'. Knutson -- RNK:srn Enclosure cc: Don Ashworth JUL `' t 1989 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING CHURCHES The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Section 20-258 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: Sec. 20-258. Churches--Generally. (1) The site shall be located on a collector or arterial roadway as identified in the comprehensive plan or located so that access can be provided without conducting traffic through residential concentration. (2) The structure must be set back fifty (50) feet from all property lines. (3) Parking areas shall be set back twenty-five (25) feet from streets and nonresidential property and thirty (30) feet from residential property. (4) No more than seventy (70) percent of the site is to be covered with impervious surface and the remainder is to be suitably landscaped in conformance with article XXV. (5) The maximum lot size is fifteen (15) acres. Section 2 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication, but shall not apply to churches which have applied for a building permit or which have received City Council approval before its effective date. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1989. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1989. ) LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L.GIANNLS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING Eworr B. KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS _ VANCE B.GRANNIS,jR. • 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J. MAYER PATRICK A.FA■.E„ SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 DAVID L.GIANNLs.1II — ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HAIMEYER *Also AorrmoTo July 27, 1989 PRACTICE IN IN WOCQYSCa Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Tax Exempt State of Churches — Dear Jo Ann: Enclosed is a recent decision on the above matter. The decision states that to be tax exempt property ( 1 ) be owned by a church, (2 ) must be used for church purposes. Very truly yours, G' - INIS, GRA , S, FARRELL — & NUTSON ' .A. BY: -' . •er N. Knutson RNK:srn Enclosure — • •;. % JUL 311989 - y : . , CITY OF CHANHASSEA • - .6..4 /.114 L'l' {'11{.1 ...•\•111 Paul W. Flower • Attorney at Law COUNTY OF CAltt'M 418 Norwest Midland Bldg. • 401 Second Ave. South ' Minneapolis, MN 55401 Clerk' s Notice of Piling, • Entry or Docketing Jean Shively ' • Assistant Carver County Attorney . r«, +0 • Carver County Assessor's Office - • % Carver County Auditor's Office • • -. s — In Re: Special Force Ministries vs. County of Carver File No. 88-23902 _ For the above entitled matter, you are notified that on Aoril 4. 1989 , a Findings Order • _ _ x Judgment • .other • w + was duly • _ APR 0 41989 x Filed - x Entered _.1-., • Docketed in the •amount of $ • Dated: April 4, 1989 • — Copies attached Joyce A. VanEyll Court Administrator By: kb . , Deputy • Court Administration -y•. Carver County Courthouse 600 East 4th Street Chaska, MN .,r 55318 Direct Dialing (622) • 448-1201 Civil Division _ - - • 443-1202 Traffic Divitir • 448-1203 Vital Statistic' _ •_ _ +.w.a�.� _ ...r .�r�.. tip : 0 -- STATE OF MINNESOTA TAX COURT COUNTY OF CARVER REGULAR DIVISION Special Force Ministries, Petitioner, d ! LEI; FINDINGS OF FACT, _ '=� CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND vs. ORDER FOR JUDGMENT MAR 2 41989 AND JUDGMENT County of Carver, File No. 88-23902 Respondent. Joyce A. Va^r7,''' Dated: March 20, 1989 - _ ",IIN`c- The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Arthur C. Roemer, Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on October 25, 1988, at the Carver County District Courthouse in Chaska, Minnesota. Paul W. Flower, Attorney at Law, appeared for petitioner. — Jean Shively, Assistant Carver County Attorney, appeared for respondent. The issue is whether the subject property is exempt from taxation in the January 2, 1987 assessment as either a church, church property or house of worship, or as an institution of purely public charity. _ Post-trial briefs were filed by both parties. The Court, having heard and considered the evidence adduced at the bearing and upon all of the files and records herein, now makes the i following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioner has sufficient interest in the property to maintain this petition; all statutory and jurisdictional requirements have been complied with, and the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter C - of the action and the parties hereto . 2. The petitioner is a non-profit Minnesota corporation having been incorporated on November -9, 197-8. 3. Petitioner operates two facilities for mentally handicapped, persons; the subject facility and a larger facility in St. Bonifacious in Hennepin County. - 4. Tax exempt status for income tax purposes has been granted by the Internal Revenue Service and by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. 5. The subject property consists of a residential lot and parcel described as: Lot 3 , Block 2, Schmittville Creek View Addn. , City of Waconia, Carver County, Minnesota ; Parcel No. 07-6000090 . 6. Petitioner purchased the subject 7 property by contract for deed on February 4, 1983 , which was renegotiated by a second contract for deed executed on September 30, 1986. The title was placed in Special Force Ministries , a corporation which is not a church, nor is it a subdivision, agency or instrumentality of a church. 7. Reverend Tom St. Angelo, a duly licensed minister in the Assembly of God Church, resides on the property with his wife. - Residents in the subject property also include three mentally handicapped persons who receive room and board and necessary clothing from the Reverend St. Angelo. 8. All three residents pay $329 per month, which is the rate established by state agencies . One of the residents makes an _ additional contribution of $71 ($400 total ) , another pays an additional $50 per month. -2- i0 9 . Reverend St. Angelo does not conduct church services on the property but conducts a weekly evening Bible study attended by his wife, the three other residents in the subject property and other — close associates. 10. Reverend St. Angelo is not required to live on the subject property by his church. 11. Petitioner admits the subject property is not used as a church or house of worship. — 12. The attached Memorandum is hereby made a part of these Findings of Fact. — CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The subject property is not owned by a church and therefore — does not qualify for an exemption as a church, church Property or house of worship as provided in Minn. Stat . § 272. 02, subd. 1 ( 5) . 2. The subject property is not an institution of purely public charity within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 1 ( 6) . 3. The assessment of the subject property as of January 2, 1987 is hereby affirmed. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. A STAY OF 15 DAYS IS HEREBY ORDERED. of MI,V ta�tc ov~-s���s Q' ,� 'i �\ D BY THE COURT, aelb ti' �q,- '' Arthur C. Roemer , Judge 7N. -4:- -'� 'S Minnesota Tax Court 1 .1A CO_ DATED: March 20, 1989 -3- Q 0 JUDGMENT I hereby certify that the foregoing Conclusions of Law constitute the Judgment in this matter. Dated this 4th day of April, 1989, BY THE COURT: Joyce A. VanEyll Court Administrator By: Deputy MEMORANDUM Petitioner was incorporated as a non-profit organization on November 9, 1978 ; organized exclusively for charitable and religious purposes according to its Amended Articles of Incorporation. Income tax exemption has been granted to petitioner by the Internal Revenue Service and by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Petitioner entered into a contract for deed on February 4, .1583 for the purchase of the subject property. The terms were renegotiated by a second contract for deed dated September 30, 1986 . Thomas N. - St. Angelo, petitioner ' s president, personally guaranteed the debt . The property consists of a residential lot and a residential structure. Few details were introduced in the record regarding the property. The petitioner ' s president, Thomas N. St. Angelo, is a licensed minister, having been licensed to preach by the Minnesota District Council of the Assemblies of God, a Christian religious denomination. flis ministry license was temporarily suspended following conviction of a felony for criminal sexual conduct with a facility resident. -4- C Reverend St. Angelo and his wife reside in the subject property, having been provided the use of said property for his ministerial services performed for Special Force Ministries. — Also residing in the subject property are three mentally handicapped adults. They are provided room, board and essentials by the corporation. All three residents pay $329 per month, which is the fee established by state agencies. One of the residents voluntarily makes an additional payment of $71, totalling $400 . The corporation — provides food, clothing, care and recreation for these three mentally handicapped residents. Admission to the subject property is restricted to mentally handicapped persons. Reverend St. Angelo received a salary of $500 per month and his wife was paid $175 per week. In addition, both receive room and — board. Reverend St. Angelo does not conduct church services on the subject property but conducts a weekly Wednesday evening Bible study attended by his wife, the three residents and other close associates. Reverend St. Angelo does conduct Sunday services several times a month at other locations. Reverend St. Angelo admits that the subject — . property is not used as a church or house of worship. Petitioner filed an exemption request with Carver County in 1985 and again in 1987. In 1985 exemption was requested as an institution of purely public charity. In 1987 exemption was requested as a church, church property or house of worship. At trial petitioner — requests exemption under one or both grounds. The law governing exemptions provides as follows: — I -5- C 272. 02 EXEMPT PROPERTY. Subdivision 1 . All property described in this section to the extent herein limited shall be exempt from taxation: ( 1 ) All public burying grounds ; ( 2 ) All public schoolhouses ; (3 ) All public hospitals ; ( 4 ) All academies, colleges, and universities, and all seminaries of learning; ( 5 ) All churches, church property, and houses of worship; ( 6 ) Institutions of purely public charity except parcels of property containing structures and the structures assessed as class 7 (a) , (b) , (c) , or (d ) ; The courts have held that taxation is the general rule and exemptions are exceptions . Camping and Education Foundation v. State, 282 Minn. 245, 164 N.W. 2d 369 (1969 ) ; Minn . Christian Business Men ' s Committee v. State , 228 Minn. 549, 38 N.W. 2d 803 ( 1949 ) ; Share v. Commissioner of Revenue , 363 N.W. 47, 50 (Minn. 1985 ) . The Court in the Christian Business Men ' s Committee case stated: Inasmuch as taxation is the rule and exemption is an exception in derogation of equal rights, there is a presumption that all property is taxable . Therefore he who seeks tax exemption bears the burden of proof . Christian Business Men ' s Committee v. State, 228 Minn. at 555 [citing State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn . 92, 95, 95 N.W. 2d 882 .(1903 ) ; St . Peter ' s Church v. County of Scott , 12 Minn. 280 (395 ) ; 11 Minn. L. Rev. 541, 549 ] . We will first consider whether the property qualifies as church property. In order to become exempt as church property, there are two requirements : (1 ) owned by a church entity, and ( 2 ) used for a church purpose. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in the Christian Business Men ' s Committee case : -6- In order for any institution to qualify for tax exemption under Minn. Const . art. 9, S 1 -- and — M.S.A. 272. 02 enacted pursuant thereto -- there must be a concurrence of ownership of the property by an institution of the type prescribed by the constitution and a use of the property for the purpose for which such institution was organized. Christian Business Men' s Committee v. State, 228 Minn. at 554 (citing State v. Ritschel, 220 Minn. 578, 20 N.W. 2d 673 ; State v. Willmar Hospital, Inc. , 212 Minn. 38, 2 N.W.2d 564 ; 11 Minn. L. Rev. 541 ; 51 Am. Jur. , Taxation, S 539. ] — The testimony and exhibits established that the property is not owned by a church, nor does the church have any control over the — activities conducted on the property. The Assemblies of God Church does recognize the activities as a home mission. Assemblies of God members and Churches are encouraged to contribute to home missions and — contributions to the petitioner are considered to be amounts given to home missions. Reverend St. Angelo indicated that no worship for outside persons is conducted on the subject property. Petitioner contends the property is exempt as a parsonage. However, petitioner fails to meet the ownership requirement in that the subject property is not owned by a church. Since it fails to meet this prerequisite, it is not necessary to further explore whether the use of the property — . :qualijfies it as a parsonage. i. — Petitioner also contends that the property is exempt as an institution of purely public charity by reason of the charity provided — to the three mentally handicapped residents of the home. The respondent contends, however, that no charity is provided since the — t residents each pay for their food, care and lodging. The fee being the same is charged elsewhere, $329 per month. • -7- o (7) Petitioner relies upon the case of Assembly Homes , Inc. v. Yellow Medicine County, 273 Minn. 197, 140 N.W. 2d 336 ( 1966 ) . In that case, Assembly Homes, Inc. , a non-ptofit Corporation affiliated with the Assemblies of God Church, operated five nursing homes, one of which was in Clarkfield, Minnesota. The exemption of the Clarkfield home was at issue . All aged and ill persons including invalids were admitted, regardless of religious affiliation. Rates charged were similar to those in the state of Minnesota by other nursing homes . Petitioner retained the right to discharge persons who refused to pay, but the president testified that if any applicant was unable to pay, the home would admit the applicant . However, this policy was not incorporated into the corporate policy . In actual practice, arrange- _ ments for payment would be made with the county or the Veterans Administration for those unable to pay. Three-fourths of the patients ' fees were paid by county welfare or the Veterans Administration. A slight profit resulted in the year preceding the one at issue ( 1962 ) and in 1963 , the year at issue ($7, 854 .43 s $51. 61, respectively) . Donations of $5 , 448 . 53 were received in 1963 on behalf of all five homes , none of which was allocated to the Clarkfield home . Donations of $66 . 00 were made to the Clarkfield home in 1962. The District Court denied the exemption on the basis tfiat there was no indication that charity had been dispensed at the Clarkfield home . The Supreme Court reversed, holding that based upon all the facts, the property fell within the definition of an institution of purely public charity. At" Subsequent to the decision in the Assembly Homes case, the Minnesota Supreme Court, in the case of North Star Research Institute -8- 90 - v. Hennepin County, 306 Minn. 1, 6, 236 N.W. 2d 754, 757 (1975 ) , established a six factor test to be applied in determining whether property qualifies as an institution of purely public charity. We — will discuss the extent to which the subject property satisfies these six requirements. — 1. Whether the stated purpose of the undertaking is to be helpful to others without immediate — expectation of material reward. The subject property is owned by a non-profit corporation. The — articles of incorporation indicate that it was incorporated for charitable purposes. Thomas St. Angelo was the incorporater, — president and a director . The other board members, one or more of whom are employees, are close associates of Mr . St. Angelo. Board meetings are not conducted on a regular basis. Both the Reverend St. Angelo and his wife receive a salary for services performed for the corporation. While we are comfortable with the stated purpose of — the corporation, we are uncomfortable with the financial arrangements and whether the expectation of material reward in the form of salary and free living quarters is a motivating factor . Petitioner however does satisfy this requirement. 2. Whether the entity involved is supported by — donations and gifts in whole or in part. i — The petitioner in this case satisfies this requirement in that donations were received from two of the three residents, from Rev. St. Angelo, and from the Assemblies of God Church. The Assemblies of God Church has classified Special Force Ministries (including the — subject home) as a home mission and encouraged contributions by its members to home missions. Contributions of $60,055 were received from -9- members of the Assemblies of God Church. However , the record does not disclose how much, if any, was allocated to the subject facility. 3 . Whether the recipients of the charity are required to pay for the assistance received in whole or in part. The record is clear in this instance in that all three of the recipients pay for the services provided . The payment for the services equals the standard fee established by the state of Minnesota . In the case of two of the residents, an additional payment is made, allegedly in the form of a contribution. The petitioner fails to satisfy this requirement. 4 . Whether the income received from gifts and donations and charges to users produces a profit to the charitable institution. This is an important factor . However , insufficient evidence was introduced in order to make a determination as to whether a profit was produced from the subject facility. The petitioner has not proved that it satisfies this test . 5 . Whether the beneficiaries of the charity are restricted or unrestricted and if restricted, whether the class of persons to whom the charity is made available is one having a reasonable - • relationship to the charitable objectives . The evidence indicates that admission to the home is restricted to mentally handicapped persons . It is open to all mentally handicapped persons, regardless of race, color or creed. What constitutes mentally handicapped persons has not been defined. We are satisfied, however, that mentally handicapped persons constitute a class of persons for whom charity is appropriate, and that the three individuals residing in the home are sufficiently handicapped so as to constitute an object of charity. -10- c o - 6. Whether dividends in form or substance or assets upon dissolution are available to private ; '- — interests . The record is clear that upon dissolution, the assets of peti- tioner are transferable to another non-profit organization. The record is also clear that the Special Force Ministries has not declared any dividends for the benefit of any private individual . However, we do have concern over whether the assets of the corporation are being distributed to Reverend St. Angelo and his wife (and one or — more of the directors who are employees) in the form of salaries and/or living expenses. If that is not now occurring, certainly the potential is there since Reverend St. Angelo is the founder, president and director, whose salary and benefits are set by a board of directors consisting of close associates, one or more of whom are — employees. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in the North Star case, supra, indicated that it is not essential that every factor be present before an institution qualifies for exemption. This was repeated in the case of Mayo Foundation v. Commissioner of Revenue, 306 Minn. 25, 236 — N.W.2d 767 (1975 ) : The general language of our definitional statements and the identification of factors in our prior cases are only guides for analysis. Each case must be decided on its own particular facts, — and it is not essential that every factor mentioned in our decisions be present before an institution qualifies for exemption. — 306 Minn. at 36. Being a non-profit corporation does not guarantee exemption from property taxes . Minn. State Bar Association v . Commissioner, 307 Minn. 389, 240 N.W. 2d 321 (1976) ; Camping and Education Foundation v. -11- State, 282 Minn . 245, 164 N.W. 2d 369 ( 1969 ) . Having a worthwhile objective does not of itself justify classifying an institution as a purely public charity. Share_v. Commissioner of Revenue, 363 N.W. 47, 50 (Minn. 1985 ) . Nor does the fact that the petitioner has been granted an exemption from state and federal income tax have any significant bearing on its exemption from property taxes . The only requirement that need be met to obtain income tax exemption is to qualify as a non-profit corporation. However , this does not establish that the corporation is an institution of purely public charity. While this case bears some resemblance to the case of Assembly Homes , Inc. , supra, the fiscal facts were fully presented in the Assembly Homes case, but not here. In addition, ownership in the Assembly Homes case was broad based, compared with Special Force Ministries where the directors and officers consist of the founder and close associates. We find there is greater similarity to the philosophy expressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of Share v. Commissioner of Revenue, supra, in which a health maintenance organization which provided health care on a non-profit basis to a cross-section of the community but received the bulk of its support from fees, provided no services to individuals who would otherwise turn to the government for such aid and provided no services without charge, was not a purely public charity entitled to exemption. As the Supreme Court noted in the Share case, the services provided were very commendable . Likewise, providing a religious home to mentally handicapped persons is very commendable. However, each of the three residents pay for their care . Since they pay in full for the room and board they receive , one might question what charity is -12- provided to them. And, if they are not the recipients of the charity, who is? Petitioner also alleges discrimination on the basis that another — facility for the handicapped in the county has been granted exemption. The facts regarding that facility, Mount Olivet Rolling Acres, were not introduced since the exemption of that facility was not in issue. We are therefore unable to determine the extent of similarity, if any. Based upon the record as a whole, we find that the petitioner has failed to prove that the subject property is used as an institution of purely public charity. A.C.R. -13- CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18 , 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A DOCK IN A CLASS A WETLAND LOCATED AT 745 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, JEFF MAY. Public Present : Name Address Jeff May 745 Pleasant View Road Steve Decateur 6645 Horseshoe Curve Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Conrad: The applicant' s here. Any comments? Jeff May: No. She' s accurate in what she' s said . I did want to state that just to reinforce that we' re very sensitive about the wetland . We have tried to do nothing to change anything that wasn' t already there. That path that ' s there is on high ground and it ' s been there for at least 25 years because the people that we bought the house from had indicated that the path was there when they first had the property. They had not used it for a period of time so there was a dock there and he left the materials there and footings to indicate there was a dock there. We only placed the dock over the exact length of the dock that was there so we' re just trying to utilize essentially what was there and in no way trying to alter the equipment other than that. Conrad: Okay, thank you. Steve Decateur : Steve Decateur , 6645 Horseshoe Curve. I 'm curious about your intent for disturbing any of the aquatic vegetation that grows in the lake. Do you intend to have a large boat on the dock? A small motor boat or . . .? Jeff May: By the way I do want to make a comment . It came to my attention indirectly that somebody had complained that we had tampered with the water or done something to disturb the lilly pads because the path through the pads down in that area. When we looked into this , first of all the type of lilly pads that the individual , who they might be, they didn' t contact us , had indicated they were concerned about a certain type of pad. The type of pad they were concerned about is not the type of pad , we had the DNR come Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 2 out and look at that. They have no concerns at all as indicated in some letters that we have. Our intention is to have a small motor boat . We have it there now. A small 14 foot fishing boat with a small motor on it so my son can use it to fish. That 's all we actually intended to use. Steve Decateur: . . .weeds? Jeff May: That's not determined yet. We don' t want to do anything that' s going to do anything negative to the area. What we did when we had the — boat there is we simply created a path by the action of the prop going through the weeds. Now the DNR did tell us that if we wanted to that we could ask them to treat a path probably 5 feet wide or 10 feet wide, enough — to run the boat through if we wanted to do that. They would have no problem with that. I have not asked for that. We' re pretty sensitive about that area. We just want to get access to a small motor boat so we can use it for that purpose. Mainly fishing . We don' t intend to have a large power boat in there to waterski . We just want to have access to and from the edge of that land so we can fish . Conrad: Anv other comments? _ Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Steve Decateur: Can I address the commission on a general topic related to this? I 'm curious what kind of precedent might be established. There are adjacent lots in Fox Chase area and I 'm assuming additional requests will come through. I 'm concerned that by looking at that one case we not disturb that end of the lake to any great degree. There' s already been. . . We' re not adding greatly to it. Is there any intent on the part of the Council to establish a policy for what additional applications might be expected for similar kind of development on the lake? Conrad: Jo Ann, in writing the staff report , basically in a Class A wetland, which this is, docks are not permitted? Olsen: Without a permit . Without the wetland alteration permit. Conrad: Yeah, without a permit but basically they are not allowed. Olsen: You have allowed them in the past and what we've always done is try to minimize the disturbance whereas we typically, even like in this case, we would have required a boardwalk to go through the wetland all the way to the open water rather than a path. When we have the opportunity, when we have a new subdivision and there' s a wetland, we usually prohibit at that point, will prohibit any docks going through that wetland but what' s happening now is there' s lots of existing lots along where in the past we have allowed them under circumstances with the least disturbance to the wetland . As far as Fox Chase, there' s a conservation easement all along there and they do not have any right. I think there' s one dock. There' s like 4 lots that can share one dock. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 3 Steve Decateur: So it can' t be. . . Olsen: Not on Fox Chase. Wildermuth: Was that done at the time of the subdivision? Olsen: Yes. And that's right when the wetland alteration. . . Wildermuth: Process was installed? Olsen: Ordinance. That' s when we had more control than lots that already existed. Steve Decateur : Is there a penalty and enforcement situation should somebody develop without knowledge of the easement and what would be the intent at that point should that occur? Olsen: If Fox Chase did something like that? Steve Decateur: If it happens to be in any wetland that would apply to the wetland policy. Olsen: The oridnance now requires to double the application fee plus there can be a misdemeanor and fine. The Council has the power to have them remove whatever has been installed and to restore the wetland . Conrad: Did we allow a dock out on Minnewashta? Dan Hertz? Did we allow that? Emmings: For each lot. Five. Conrad: We gave them access? Emmings: They had permanent docks through the wetland and then temporary, seasonal docks from the edge of the wetland out, if I remember right. Olsen: Right. They have boardwalks through the wetland part. Emmings: Essentially a permanent dock to the end of the wetland. Olsen : I think they only had four . Two of the lots had to share. Emmings: That rings a bell . Conrad: Was that an A wetland? Must have been. Endings: That' s the one I thought of when I thought about this one. Steve Decateur : I hate to dredge up old business but . . . Emmings: Don't say dredge. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 4 Steve Decateur : I 'm sorry. But on the east end of the lake there I know was an issue and to my knowledge it' s not been resolved for wetlands disturbed brought up to the Council ' s attention. Planning Commission' s attention and I 'm interested, as long as we' re discussing it, finding out where that situation is. I 'm not objecting. I understand one person and you obviously have a process and this gentleman has gone through the process . That doesn' t create a problem but I have a problem with people who flagrantly go ahead and destroy the wetland. It was brought to the attention of the Council . There' s+ a remedial action prescribed and there seems to be no resolution to those types of cases. It lays in limbo for months and I 'm interested in an update on that. . . Conrad: Let's wait. Steve, let's wait until this one is taken care of and then maybe we can bring that up. What did we do Jo Ann to, there was a resident on the east side of Lotus Lake who had put in a trail and something and something? Olsen: We made them put in a boardwalk and allowed them to keep the dock. The reason we' re not requesting that here is because again, this trail , the path has always been there and they' re not changing anything . Essentially it's grandfathered in. Conrad : Is that true? Is it grandfathered in? Olsen: It was an alteration that 's always been there. It would be almost the same if a dock had been placed, if the original dock were still there. From our visiting the site with the DNR and the applicant, it doesn' t appear that that' s been widened over and above what' s there. Conrad: So once upon a time I heard there was fill but really the fill was on the trail . Olsen: On this site? There is fill next to it. The lot next to it. That' s where there' s been lots of fill . Wildermuth : From the sewer project? Olsen: No. They were filling in. Jeff May: You' re not talking about my site? Olsen: Mike Clark. Jeff May: Oh, okay. But not on mine. I haven' t filled my lot . Olsen: No. Jeff May: I want to be very clear about this okay? I want to reiterate something. That we're sensitive to this gentleman's point of view. We bought the property because it had lake access. We bought it because it had a dock and we bought it with the intention of using that but we also have tried , I think we've almost bent over backwards not to run afoul of the intent that we have in the ordinance. We just want to use what' s been Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 5 there for years . That path was built there years ago by the previous residents who had a dock there. It' s always been a dock in the past. It' s a high land point and we' re just asking to be able to use it as it was. Not trying to change anything . Conrad: I appreciate your attitude and that' s one of the things that Chanhassen residents 3-4 years ago subscribed to in terms of the value of wetlands and it' s sort of an education process and I 'm not going to preach for talking about the purpose of them but they are quite significant. And any break in the wetland can basically reduce+ the value of that wetland. This commission and previous commissions have spent, and staff spends hours reviewing these things and we'd rather not. Yet on the other hand, we know that there's a water quality issue that the residents really are very interested in. Being blunt , based on the staff report , there seems to be a series of communications with you and lack of response and actions before permits. The Chanhassen ordinance does come before DNR ordinance. We are more restrictive in some cases here and it' s not that the DNR has final say. The City of Chanhassen has final say. Jim, comments . Wildermuth: Who would have done the filling that the area hydrologist talks about? The previous owner? Jeff May: Let me explain that please . I 'd like to explain, or have response to the comments that you just made. There' s one thing to knowingly violate an ordinance. There' s another thing to not know you violated anything and I think what you are, the impression I have is that you feel , through reading what you read , that we knowingly violated the ordinance. It' s not true. We had a misunderstanding but I took action to talk to the City about what it would take to have a dock out there. I wasn't sure, I 'd been told there was a dock out there. I wasn't sure that we had a dock out there and when I talked to the City, I don' t think, in fact I know I didn't indicate that there had been a dock out there. I subsequently when winter cleared, went down there and found out that there was a dock there and I asked people. I made probably a boo boo here but I asked people, it wasn ' t intentional , about that and almost the universal feeling I had was gee, you' re grandfathered in. It shouldn' t be any problem so we went ahead and did that. Went ahead and put the dock in but we were extremely careful not to do anything that wasn' t there previously. Now the only fill problem that we had is on the high path that again hasbeenthere for+years. There were some ruts down there and I tripped and I fell and I felt it was a safety hazard so I put a very thin layer of fill , probably the rut's about like that and a very thin layer of fill . Spread it out a little bit along the pathway only. What happened here is that when the City came out and saw that there was some activity on the property next to mine, they noticed that. They were rightfully concerned about that because if you look at it, it looked like it had been filled in. Okay? And that was the right thing. I wasn' t around . The next thing I knew I received a letter from the DNR concerned about it. I responded immediately on that . They came out . We worked well with the City on this. They came out. Took samples. Immediately saw that we went down that far to solid black dirt. Saw that we hadn' t violated anything and the letter that they wrote is attached. So if I 'm guilty of something , it' s because I wanted to get rid of those ruts because I thought that it Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 6 was a safety hazard and there were about 4 of them that were filled in. It wasn' t our intention to fill in any wetland. It was kept right on that path and we have not filled in a wetland area . Now you made a mistake I guess because I listen to people, . . .we all do that I felt were knowledgeable and it seemed logical to me that we had a dock there. That ' s why we bought the property and so we went ahead and put it in because the people said gee you' re maybe grandfathered . Now the reason I didn' t respond as quickly as Jo Ann would have liked and I should have done it. I indicated in the letter , if you read the letter , was because I travel _ extensively and I was in Hong Kong and also in China during that timeframe because I had business relative to that area and involved in the Teniment Square problems, I was out of the country a lot. So we weren' t trying to dodge anything there. When I got Jo Ann' s certified letter , I was in the process of filling out the application anyhow so I got it to her quickly and I explained it to her and the City Manager at that time because I was concerned that it not be misconstrued that we were trying to dodge anything so I hope you' ll accept that because that' s exactly what happened . Wildermuth: It was apparently above the ordinary high water line anyway as it turns out so it really isn' t a big issue. I guess my thinking is that the dock was put, or the upgraded dock was put in with some degree of sensitivity and it looks like a grandfather situation. It would appear that the requirements for the wetland alteration permit have been satisfied in terms of letter of spirit . There' s only one thing that bothers me and that is that the dock and the work was done and was in existence before the application was made again . At some point we' re going to have to put some teeth in our regulations and requirements I think. There' s going to have to be a penalty. As we talked about earlier this spring . Was it last spring or this fall that we had another issue on Lotus Lake? Batzli : I agree with Jim' s comments. Jo Ann? How do you determine whether something is grandfathered in? There's a statement somewhere that it has to be, if it' s less than 50% destroyed it has to be replaced within 1 year? Olsen : I 'm not saying the new dock is grandfathered in. That' s why I 'm making. . . Batzli : But on the old one, how did we come to the conclusion that it was in such a state of disrepair that it had to be repaired within one year? At what point do you make that decision? Olsen: I don't know if I 'm following you but all that was left were the supports. Batzli : So it was that bad? Olsen: Yeah. Batzli : Other than echoing what Jim has to say, if we do approve this I would adjust two of the conditions slightly by saying the existing path, the first one , rather than just path. And add at the end on the first line of the third condition, or other filling so it would read, any expansion of Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 7 the dock or path further into the wetland or any other filling shall require wetland alteration permit. Wildermuth : Just out of curiousity, why have woodchips fallen out of favor? Olsen : We've found that those wash out into the wetland and they' re a lot of maintenance towards that . Wildermuth: You have to keep renewing them? Olsen: Yes . Elison: I really don' t have anything new that the other two haven' t said . Again I 'm disappointed that it happened after the fact but I think that his intentions are, it' s not like he put in twice the size or 3 times the size or something like that the dock in replaced but you know it still calls to me that we aren ' t communicating or sending out information to people who live on these wetlands that they know if all his neighbors feel this is grandfathered in and that' s just another indication that people who live on them and deal with them still don' t understand what we want out of them so maybe we ought to be looking at communicating directly to these people either through some sort of mailing vehicle or something like that. I realize that most people should be notified when they're buying so they have it but we see it time and time again and it's just another example so I think it' s got to more than us just having an ordinance and then give us reason to slap somebody on the wrist. We also have to be a little more proactive on educating people. His neighbors for example. That it' s not necessarily grandfathered in. I can understand how the majority rules and you think,+well geez 5 people who' ve lived here 15 years, they ought to know. It' s not necessarily the case but as far as this particular request, I could see approving it. Batzli : Jo Ann? Do we have an overlay of the wetlands in Chanhassen? Olsen: We've been working with the Fish and Wildlife to update that because what we have doesn' t show all the wetlands. Batzli : So if we wanted to generate a mailing to all the property owners in Chanhassen about the rules within Chanhassen, we couldn' t generate that right now? Olsen : Well we've been putting that off until we did get that map. The updated one. We can still do it but as you' ll be seeing, there will be other cases coming similar to this but where they did get the wetland map and a wetland wasn't on there. Elison: Right . I like them having a map of the details. . . Emmings: Generally I 'm satisfied that this is a reasonable thing to permit and I also don' t really have much suspicion that there were anything but bad communications here. I don't think there were any bad intentions so I don' t care about that very much. I 'm interested in, I just have a Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 8 couple of "questions here. On that drawing that ' s up there Jo Ann , there ' s a line there, a dashed line and it ' s indicated to be an approximate location of ordinary high water mark and edge of wetland . Olsen: That ' s how the DNR determines their edge of wetland . Emmings : From that line at the bottom it says shoreline . There ' s a line way down there. Do you see that one? Now is the wetland between those two lines? Olsen : No . It also shows the edge of the cattails . There is still wetland vegetation over here too. Not necessarily cattails . This is more the open water . Emmings : Where ' s the wetland on this? Olsen : The wetland is , not having the specific survey, is approximately in this location. . . + _ Emmings : So the line that ' s indicated to be ordinary high water mark and edge of wetland , that ' s not the edge of the wetland on the landward side but on the lake side? Is that what you' re telling me? Olsen: That would take . . . Emmings : It is? So that is the landward side of the wetland , that dashed line? Is that right? Put your finger on it . Okay. So that ' s the landward side of the wetland? Landward edge of the wetland? Olsen: Right . This is where the water . . . Emmings : It says shoreline down at the bottom so that ' s confusing to me . Can you tell me on there where the wetland is? From where to where? Put yourtwohands . Okay. That ' s what I was asking . That ' s the wetland . We ' ve got dock in the wetland? Olsen : Right . Ernmings : Is it all seasonal dock? Is it all going to be taken out and put back? Jeff May: I guess it possibly could be . Right now the way it ' s set is this is left in and then the part that goes into the water is actually taken out . Emmings : Okay, so you' ve got a permanent boardwalk in the wetland and a temporary or seasonal dock in the lake? Jeff May: I guess that ' s it . Ernmings : Okay. That ' s good because that ' s what we' ve done before and I didn' t see that was what was going on. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 9 Jeff May: I 'm not familiar enough with the terminology to make it clear . Emmings: Well, I may be making some up here anyway so don' t feel bad . Jeff May: Again , as I said, we were aware of that and that actually serves as a boardwalk. Not a dock. In fact it was very expensive to do that and we did it with that in mind . There' s only a small part that gets used as a dock. This is all boardwalk by your definition. It' s just enough dock to go into the water so I can have a 14 foot motor boat. Emmings: I understand. I just wondered if that part in the wetland would be put in and taken out every year but it' s permanent . Okay, good . Jeff May: It' s like a boardwalk, so that' s what it is. It' s not a 120 foot dock by that definition. It' s about 20 feet. Batzli : I think we may want to reflect that in the conditions that that is a permanent portion that won' t be removed seasonally. Emmings: Then my next question is , is there any problem with the fact that this dock is on a lot that has a separate legal description and I know you addressed it briefly in the report but it seems to me, is that a buildable lot? Olsen: No. Emmings: It isn' t? Olsen: Well if they separated it. Right now it ' s only separated by an easement that he has ownership of so it' s a continuous+piece of property. Emmings: Okay. So this is Tract B of a registered land survey and where your house is, is that also Tract B? Jeff May: No. Emmings: It's Tract D? Jeff May: Yeah. Emmings: So it has a separate legal description. It' s not the same lot . Olsen: No. It's not the same lot but it's continuous . Emmings: But is that alright? Do we let people live on one lot and as long as they own another lot. Olsen: It ' s not a separate lot. If it' s not separated by a street. That's the definition. . . Emmings: It is a separate lot with a separate legal description period . It is. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 10 Olsen: Well we can confirm that. It was under single ownership. Emmings: Both lots are, yes I agree. There is no problem with that? It' s my own curiousity. Olsen: I think it was okay because it' s just separated by that easement description which they also, it' s not even an easement. Jeff May: It's solid all the way down there. There is an easement granted. Olsen: D is actually a parcel . This isn ' t even an easement. It ' s a -- parcel. Parcel D. Jeff May: A constant strip of land separated by a small tract . . . Emmings: The land is contiguous but has separate legal descriptions and I 'm only asking if that makes a difference to us . Olsen: When we have done, the situation when it' s caused a problem before is like on Lake Minnewashta when they own two lots but separated by public right-of-way by street. This is, he owns this lot but then he also owns a portion of Parcel D which is that. Emmings: I know what he owns . I 'm only asking if it matters . I don' t know. I can't see that it would necessarily matter . Can I have a dock, if I live in Minneapolis and I bought Tract B here, can I put a dock on it? Olsen: If you bought this big piece? Emmings: No. Well , whether I did or didn' t. If I bought Tract B. Olsen: If you owned Tract B and that' s it? Emmings: If I owned Tract B and lived in Minneapolis, can I have a dock on that lot? Olsen: No. Emmings: Why not? Olsen: Because it'd be considered, it' s not a principle structure. Emmings: Because it's an accessory use? Olsen: Yes. Erhart: Your question Steve regarding two parcels of the same ownership came up about 6 months ago in another issue and it was clear at that time that the City treats two parcels with the same ownership as one parcel in the way it applies . . . Emmings: Out on Ches Mar? Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 11 Batzli : That was if the County considered it one lot for tax purposes . Jeff May: And they do. Batzli : They had to go through subdivision because the County considered it one lot and if in fact the County considers this one lot for tax purposes, I think we'd have a tough time arguing both sides of the coin. That'd be a nice distinction . Olsen: I can verify that. Emmings: I 'm not opposed to this in any way. It' s just a question that came up because they' re different lots and I just wondered if it made a difference I guess . Olsen: The fact that they were continuous I think made the difference rather than them being separated. Batzli : I 'd rather see the distinction being that they're considered one lot for the county's purposes . Olsen : Tax parcel and that they would have to, that if he wanted to sell Lot B, he would have to come through the subdivision process? Batzli : Right. They would . Emmings: Really? Batzli : They did on Ches Mar . Emmings: I'm not sure that ' s the same. You don' t have to go through a subdivision if you own, because this is a registered land survey. Tract B and Tract D are separate lots . Olsen: Parcels. Emmings: Absolutely separate legally and they can probably both be built on and no subdivision is required. You would have to tell when the deed _ came through separating them, then they would change that in the Assessor ' s Office or in the Auditor 's Office but I don' t believe there'd have to be any other , there certainly wouldn' t have to be a subdivision. Olsen: . . .Let me confirm that. Batzli : I thought there were two lots that the County combined under common ownership out on Ches Mar. Two separately recorded lots and they even had different property interests because someone held a life estate out there and they combined those and I couldn't believe that. Olsen: It was the City requiring them to get the subdivision. _ Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 12 Conrad: Steve, do you see any negatives to that? Let ' s say you' re right in terms of this. I 'm trying to search for the negative impact. The precedent or whatever and I don' t see it yet . Emmings: I don't see it here because they' re contiguous so that doesn' t , it doesn ' t bother me in this case . What does bother me or what I would worry about is, I think that technically it probably that there' s a problem here and that just under our ordinances I think that there' s a technical problem but I think who cares basically is my answer . I don' t think it' s an important problem. I think these folks ought to have, they bought that to have lake access from their home and I think they ought to have it. You don' t buy a lot on the lake and not have access to the lake in my opinion so. Conrad : So your assumption is it' s. . . Emmings: And if he should ever sells off Lot B, he' s going to lose his access to the lake and that' s up to him. Batzli : But then will that dock be grandfathered in? Emmings: That dock would be grandfathered in to the new owner of Tract B. Not to him obviously. Batzli : Do you mind? Emmings: No. Batzli : So if you lived in Minneapolis , you would have access to the lake through that lot. Emmings: No. Jeff May: No. You wouldn' t necessarily have it because you wouldn' t have a right to drive into it. Batzli : Yes. Jeff May: Would you? Batzli : Sure. You can' t necessarily sell a land locked lot and then not provide access. Emmings : Anybody's going to get access to a lot but I think the point here is that his home is on D and since it's all contiguous, I don' t have a problem with that. Wildermuth: Boy, get two lawyers together and you get all kinds of trouble. E mings: Like I say, I think technically it' s a little strange but I think it ought to be overlooked. I just thought it was kind of a funny thing . The wetland ordinance is also kind of weird because oddly enough the Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 13 prohibited use in the Class A wetland is operation of the motorized craft of all sizes and classifications. It doesn' t say anything about docks and — then in Division 2, under wetland alteration permit it says a dock is a prohibited use unless you give them a permit . — Conrad : That' s real confusing . It sends a real strange message. Emmings: Yeah. It's written in a funny way. Conrad: It' s like fill out this piece of paper and then we flip from prohibited to accepted is the implication. — Emmings: Yeah, but I think all and all , I think it should be allowed and I agree with the changes that Brian wants to add to 1 and 3. I think those are good changes . Erhart: I really don' t any more to add and I would agree with staff ' s recommendations with Brian' s changes. I think it 's okay. — Conrad : I don' t know. I have some concerns . I think the applicant resolved some of my concerns in his comments . I get concerned a little bit when people are not working well with the City but it appears that that was not necessarily the case. Batzli : Is that it? Conrad : Yeah. The silence is it Brian. The silence is it I 'm afraid. I have 3 concerns that are not relevant to this particular application. The grandfathering in of a dock. I 'm not convinced that that ' s really what the ordinance intends and I think the ordinance has to be picked apart because I don' t believe that's true and I don' t believe that if a dock was , if a dock section, I don't understand the grandfathering that we were talking about here. Typically Jo Ann, when a grandfathering , when something hasn' t been used for a year, I thought that use is no longer . . . Olsen: And that ' s what happened here. The reason I 'm making them go through the wetland alteration permit is because it wasn' t grandfathered in. The new dock. Batzli : This is not a true grandfather situation? Olsen: The reason it wasn't grandfathered in is the reason they had to go through the permit. If that dock had been there last spring and then fell apart, they would have been able to restore it without having to do anything . Conrad : Okay. I don' t have any comment . Is there a motion? Emmings: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated September 27, 1989 subject to the following conditions. Number 1 will be altered as Brian indicated by adding the word existing between the first and second — words. Number 3 will be altered to add the phrase, or other filling at the Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 14 end of that first line there. And we' ll add an additional condition 4 that will state that the portion of the dock that's within the wetland will be a permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock. Batzli : Second. Conrad : Discussion. My thought on discussion, Jo Ann? Based on the plan that the applicant has given you, is that good enough in terms of monitoring? Olsen: The plan does give us elevations and dimensions so yeah. This is something we can work with. Conrad : Okay. How do we monitor Jo Ann? Is it sort of, there ' s really not a very good way to monitor . Olsen: We don' t have a sytem. Emmings: Don't tell anybody. Batzli : Can' t they go down there with little soil PH testers? Olsen: Yeah. Althought I do go out on Lotus Lake once a year on a boat. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated September 27, 1989 subject to the following conditions : 1. The existing path shall be seeded with low growing vegetation and shall not be widened beyond 5 feet. 2. The path may be mowed but shall not be fertilized. 3. Any expansion of the dock or path further into the wetland or other filling, shall require a wetland alteration permit. 4. The portion of the dock that' s within the wetland will be a permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Olsen: Do you want me to talk about. . .the property on east of Lotus Lake? Conrad : Almost . I just want to talk about penalties on wetlands. Do we have penalties? Olsen: Yeah. We can go through with the criminal misdemeanor and citations. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 15 Conrad : So it just goes into any kind of a misdemeanor type category and that's what it would be? Olsen: Right. And what we do is double the fee so for an individual it' s $50.00. Conrad : That' s not much. Have we reviewed the new DNR wetland ordinance? Olsen: The Shoreland Ordinance? Conrad : Well no. The new ordinance that is now sort of being down played by the DNR in terms of wetland preservation. It's one that they've had in for , they' re going to let it stay in for 2 years before they start enforcing it. Olsen: That' s the shoreland . Conrad: Is it shoreland? And you've reviewed it? Olsen: Yes. And we will be implementing , we have to add it in . Conrad: We can add it in any time we want is my understanding. Olsen : And that was our intention when we went through the zoning ordinance amendment, we kind of left that section open that we would be adopting . Conrad : The DNR has implemented, has drafted an ordinance that is far more, well more restrictive. They' re being more aggressive about preserving wetlands and how quickly they' re being abused and eliminated but they have a phase in of 2 years which basically says that the new ordinance is not really being applied for 2 years but I think it would be appropriate for us to take a look at it and make sure. Olsen : Yeah. We are working with the DNR. They are going to, in fact they've got monies as far as grants to give to cities to help implement the ordinance and we have been in conversation. They' re going to be coming out and meeting with us and going through it. Emmings: I've seen a copy. You sent me a copy. I think I asked for a copy. I was looking at something for myself and they sent me a copy. Olsen: The new one? ESmmings: Yeah so I looked through it a little bit and it is. Now it ' s shoreland though. The one I saw. I don't know if they've done anything with wetlands or not. Conrad : The article that I read was in the Star and Tribune and it sure gave me the impression we' re talking wetlands but I 'd be real interested. So Jo Ann the plan is to incorporate this in our ordinance? Olsen: The shoreland ordinance? — Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 16 Conrad: Yeah. Olsen : Yes. Paul and I will be working on that. There' s a lot in there that doesn' t apply to Chanhassen. We' ll be taking out the things that do apply and Roger Knutson has already sent me a model ordinance that has used, taken out portions of the new shoreland ordinance so we are working on that. It should be on the ongoing list. Conrad: Is that thick? How many pages is that? Olsen: I' ll send it out to everyone. It ' s thick. I think I did request them to send us a copy of where they crossed everything off unless I might already have that. I ' ll send you copies out . Conrad: I personally would appreciate a copy. I 'd like to take a look at that. Okay. I 'm talking specifically about what Mr . Decateur is interested+ in. The person across . . . Olsen : Right. With VanKoch and Frost . What happened, why that' s taking so long. Emmings: I don' t know what we' re talking about . Can someone fill me in? That name doesn't mean anything to me. Olsen : VanKoch? There was on Sandy Hook Road right about here. They did come, did it ever come in front of you while I was gone? Conrad : Yes . Olsen : And it was tabled. Conrad: Right. Olsen : One of the reasons was because the DNR was involved and the Corps . Batzli : We never pronounced it VanKoch I don't think. Emmings: Okay. Olsen: They're the ones that filled in the wetland to get rid of the purple loosestrife. Anyways, the reason it's taking long is because we were trying to , the City in their action, their recommendation was going to be remove the fill but we were waiting to get a coordinated plan from the DNR and the Corps of what they would like to see removed and how much. I spoke with C.L. Strauss from the DNR again last week asking about that and they do have something . They're supposed to be sending it to me. Once I get that. Once I have a plan to say okay, this is what we want them to do, that ' s when I 'm going to bring it back. Conrad: But my impression was, they didn' t think that what we had recommended was worthwhile. In other words, the restoration of the triangle. Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 17 Olsen : They didn' t like that idea but I think one of the problems was they wanted to actually determine where the ordinary high water mark was and have them remove everything up to that . So they will have to restore but it' s just that we had+ to determine. . . Conrad : And the thing that' s taken so long is because we' ve been kind of contingent , waiting for somebody else from another agency? Olsen : Yeah . I just wanted to let the experts say what should be done you know. I knew we could make them do it . I just wanted them to tell me what they would like. I kept saying what do you really want to see happen . Batzli : Weren' t we trying to get the next door neighbors? Olsen : We do have the application. We did include the beachlot itself . Steve Decateur : Do you think, are we talking a 30 day process? 6 months? Olsen : I still haven' t got their plan but once we get it , it won ' t take long . Steve Decateur : It will be next spring . . . Again , I 'm not interested in making an example out of this gentleman or the other party. I am interested in the Planning Commission ' s position on education and getting some teeth in the enforcement . It appears there is some in this case that ' s partially satisfied but if that ' s going to be the policy going forward, that based on complaints . It ' s one thing to respond and restore but another thing to make sure that the message is in the community that you people are proactive and also that there ' s some teeth behind the ordinance so when there is a problem, that word gets out to the community to stop this sort of flagrant abuse of what I consider a very precious resource . . . .my soapbox . Conrad : I think it will be a nice precedent actually to restore something that' s been tampered with. We haven' t done that before so I guess it ' s quite nice . Jo Ann another comment on my part . Chemical treatment of wetlands. Specifically, I keep thinking+ of the DNR allowing the people to chemically treat which has happened on the north end of Lotus Lake . A boat path. Olsen : That ' s more in the open , in the lilly pads in the open water . Conrad: So it ' s not really a wetland? Olsen : No . Conrad: Okay. Wildermuth : That ' s outside the shoreland? Olsen: Yeah. And they do allow it. In fact a property next to Jeff May does have that big path and they do have a permit . Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 18 Wildermuth: Are you thinking of doing something stronger for these wetland alteration permit violations? Olsen: We have that in place to fine them and the City' s never taken that . Conrad: It's not much of a fine. Olsen : You have the double fee but I think that you could still pursue the citation. Conrad : It 's barely a penalty. Emmings: The potential fine and even jail but no judge is going to do that and he shouldn't. You can argue if they should or shouldn' t but they just won't. Steve Decateur: Certainly if you have restoration , it' s just a precedent that would be very expensive. If you people are willing to enforce that, that' s the teeth right there. Emmings: That' s on the civil side. That ' s not criminal . Wildermuth: Yeah, that's one thing and I think the contractor that does it has almost got to be tied in. . . Ellson: Yeah, what about that contractor from Lake Minnetonka . . .and you'd like to somehow be able to punish that contractor . Wildermuth: Well not punish him but just make it difficult for him to do something like that again. Conrad : As long as we're going to do some things on the new shoreland ordinance, I ' ll be real interested in that. I don't know what we do in penalties but monitoring becomes , still becomes an issue with me. There' s just no way we do a good job of monitoring and there's just a lot of cases where these things get expanded you know. Wildermuth: It sounds like the DNR detected this. Conrad : I think Jo Ann did is my impression. The sleuth. Which is real good. It turns into a little bit of, which is real positive that she, that Jo Ann found that and brought him in. I think that' s really great. Emmings: The other part that makes, the criminal side of it is kind of ineffective or less effective because there' s cost associated with prosecution and I think making the restore it is , that really puts the burden on them where it belongs. I think that' s the best thing to do . Olsen: Or installing those boardwalks, those are real expensive. Emmings: I'm sure they are. Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 19 SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A CHURCH (ASSEMBLIES OF GOD) TO BE LOCATED IN THE UPPER LEVEL OF BLOOMBERG DINNER THEATRE BUILDING, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES . Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Conrad: Is the applicant here or somebody representing the applicant here who 'd like to make some comments? Don Finger : I 'm Don Finger the pastor of what will hopefully be a . . .church someday. We came into Chanhassen last summer looking for some space to begin to hold a meeting where we can be together in someone ' s home and the space that we've got here in Chanhassen with Mr . Bloomberg is about , it ' s the only place we could find . We have a need , with him particularly the rooms and the amount of space that we would rent from him. I 'm sure that it will be at least that one room. . .with an office next to that . There may be some additional space . . . I think there ' s a little over 6 , 000 square feet upstairs and we' re looking at a maximum of 1, 600 to 1 , 700 . But anyway, hopefully when we get this started, I foresee in the next year from 50� to' 75, possibly 100 people. You don ' t know how fast a church might grow. Some people, they grow real fast and that ' s a problem we have to deal with but certainly our intent in talking with Mr . Bloomberg and . . . so he took care of that and actually brought it forward and came to the idea of. . .and wrote Paul a letter and we brought it from that point . But the intent was simply to find a place temporarily until we could of course locate , buy some property and build a building somewhere else . Probably somewhere in the southern part of Chanhassen area so it purely is a temporary situation. Probably I would say on the outside 18 months before we 'd be looking to go somewhere else . I reviewed the list of things Paul would like to have us meet and it ' s all fine . I have no problem with any of it. The services are on Sunday morning . Our denomination also likestomeet on Sunday evenings and it ' s also been part of the tradition , since our denomination is basically been in existence for 75 years, we also gather on Wednesday evenings . Some churches call that a service . Some call it a prayer service. Some call it a study time. Some call it school . Bible School . They meet in various ways . Wherever there ' s a meeting on Wednesday evening, it' s usually not attended as well Sunday morning . It ' s usually about half or a third but we do meet on Wednesday evenings so I would like to have that considered and I don' t think, I 've talked with Mr . Bloomberg about that . I believe the stores are closed and the parking is usually not totally used on Wednesday night , even when the dinner theatres have performances on Wednesday evenings so even a meeting of our group of say maybe 20 or 50 people, I don ' t think would drastically impact parking spaces around the area so I guess I 'd like to throw an exception to also be allowed to meet on Wednesday evenings . Conrad : Paul , how would you react to that in terms of a recommendation? Krauss : Mr . Chairman, I don ' t know that we have a particular problem with it you know. We ' re dealing with something that has to do with a number of people that are up there. If we ' re talking about a small percentage or a percentage of the total group , it can probably be accommodated . I don ' t now how we'd change the language exactly to allow that. That a study Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 20 meeting is allowed on a Wednesday night . We clearly want to avoid having a full bore service with the whole congregation that may be a 100 plus people up there when the Dinner Theatre is active. The reality of it is , if there's not a problem, we won't know about it and we won' t react to it. It' s only there to allow us to intervene if a problem does materialize. Conrad: This is a site plan review and I 'm having a real problem with that because the building is there and it sounds like it' s being rented to the church. The church is not buying it. Batzli : We' re being inflexible up here. Krauss: I have to admit this was an unusual request and it took a lot of thinking about it before we figured out a way of dealing with it in a way that we thought the City' s interests were protected and that the parties got what they felt they needed . Mr . Bloomberg though is technically the applicant on this as the owner . Erhart : I agree with you Ladd. Should it be a site plan review or are we talking. . . Wildermuth : Conditional use permit. Krauss : No. There is no provision for a conditional use of this nature and we weren' t going to make up a conditional use for something that wasn' t listed. Batzli : How about a temporary use permit? Krauss: We don' t have that yet either. It could have been done that way if there was that provision. The ordinance is pretty specific. It ' s not actually taking hammer and nails and building square footage that requires a site plan. It could also be an increase in intensity and we think that' s clearly the case here. The building code even reviews that type of use differently. Conrad : When it' s rental property, how do we have control over rental property? Krauss : Through the owner and the owner ' s the applicant. Batzli : And the owner is co-applicant here. Erhart : We haven' t got the temporary use through Council yet? Olsen: It hasn't gotten through you yet. Batzli : I thought we reviewed it. Are we discussing it? Olsen: We just discussed. Conrad : Okay, Tim. What do you have? Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 21 Erhart: Well looking beyond the issue of whether we should be talking about it at all here, I personally would welcome the Assembly of God church to the community. I think it would be a positive addition. ` Just a few things relating to that building. Maybe I 'd start out. Do you have that building site on an overhead Jo Ann? Krauss: No, we don't have an overhead for that. Erhart : I guess I have a hard time understanding what it is we' re talking about there. Krauss : The interior floor plan? Erhart: Yeah. Krauss : Yeah, it' s tough to figure out. They repeat the circular staircase twice. There is a room there that I label church. The room that they' re looking at renting is that one and probably the one just below that. Don Finger : Just above it. Krauss: Above it? Don Finger : Below it is basically the porch area . Krauss: The staircase that' s going down there is new. Erhart : Where does that come down? Does that come from the hardware store? Olsen: In front of the seating area and Milly' s Deli . Erhart: And is the fire inspector , be able to read something in my packet but has that all been. . . Krauss : Yeah. That' s how we became aware of this. There was some initial contacts made through the building department and they asked us what we thought about it. There are two staircases that are going to be put in there and I don't know what other modifications would have to be made but our building inspector and fire marshall believe the building can be adapted to this use and meet code. Erhart: Aren' t you tying a limit to the number of people that can occupy there? + Krauss : Yes , there will be and they have a calculation for how many people can fit in there. Erhart: And we ' re not going to include that as one of the conditions? Krauss: No. It will be on the building permit. — Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 22 Erhart: They are going to be required to have a building permit? Krauss: Yes, they are and it's the same way that a fire marshall posts an occupancy rating on any building whether ornotthey're coming in, you know a restaurant has it. Any kind of congregation place. Batzli : That's separately enforceable whether it' s in this condition or not by the fire marshall . + Erhart: Yeah. Wildermuth: Why would he need a building permit? Because they' re putting in the stairway? Krauss : Yeah. Exactly. Wildermuth: Because otherwise there isn ' t going to be any other. building? Krauss: No. Whatever modifications were required to meet Code, the stairways are the largest ones. I 'm not aware of any others but they may have to oversize doors or something else. Olsen : They have to receive the occupancy permit. That ' s where it first came to light. Erhart : What are all the other offices currently or planned to use for them out there? Is somebody in them now like Lotus or somebody? Olsen: Lotus is up there but I don' t. . . Wildermuth: These offices are where Bloomberg Companies used to be but Herb has moved . Erhart : It' s potential that somebody will be occupying the remainder of these offices. Okay, then I question. So you' re saying, the fear that I would have is that at some point before you get a new church built or something, that people would come and they'd be standing outside. The temptation would be to exceed the number of people allowed. How would you. . . Krauss : That can happen in anyplace of assembly in an existing church building or whatever. Erhart : I understand but the big difference here, what I 'm getting to, is this facility is being shared with other offices and it relates to the next thing you' re going to have. Are you going to have music? Are you going to have band instruments, which I 'm sure you' re expecting to have and how does that relate to other people who office? Hopefully the services will be Sunday morning and offices will be unoccupied and Sunday night and Wednesday night but let' s just say we do have a service. With the hours you've got Paul , essentially they could have a service anytime during business hours except from 11: 00 to 1: 00 so I just think we should add some conditions that make sure that they respect the other occupants of that Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 23 office given that other churches have their own building and noise and the people thing isn't a problem. Batzli : I would be against that . I think that' s between the tenant and the landlord. The landlord is not going to let the services disrupt his other tenants. Wildermuth: The offices are Bloomberg Company offices so the landlord is occupying the space. Batzli : I think you're right . If this was in an RSF district and you' re going to be impinging on surrounding homeowners that don' t have any other recourse and they've come to the City to get us to stop it but here Merlyn's Hardware or Millie' s Deli or whoever , if they hear organ music all hours of the day, I think they' re going to be the ones going to Bloomberg Companies and saying you know we've got to do something about this . Erhart: I don' t genally disagree with you either but I 'm treating this like anything else. The first thing welookat is intrusiveness on other people and maybe it will take care of itself. I only bring it up because those are the things that I 'd be concerned about so whether we want to deal with it or not . Other than that, it' s a very appropriate temporary use and get the organization started. Emmings: You can' t sell this to me as a site plan. It ' s not. I don' t think anyway at least. I read the stuff in there and again I think that' s hypertechnical . I think it ' s fine and I think Tim' s issue, I think we've got to be a little creative. You've got to find a way here and I think you found an appropriate way to get something done that If think is appropriate and I think Tim' s concerns I agree with Brian. Those are a landlord-tenant problems and I don't think the City should get involved in those. Ellson: I think the applicant answered by first thing which is why did we say temporary. You feel that you' re looking at the longest of 18 months of being in here? Is that what you said? Don Finger: Yes. When we were looking, to talk to Mr. Bloomberg, we just began talking with him about a temporary situation which at that time may be up to 2 years or so. Paul is the one that kind of reinforced the idea of temporary. Even Herb did not want to see a long term lease of 5 years or longer and even if we. . . Ellson: Well I always have a problem with even temporary in it' s nature and I know because this is a different situation, you' re going to be a part of somebody else, that they can always yank you out of there if they don' t want you there versus the City. So you'd be moving into this and you'd still be looking for a place to build or a better facility to move into? Or you're trying to grow and then if you grow that's going to follow? Don Finger : We would hope. I would hope that we would start looking for some land probably this next summer and continue to grow to the point where we could actually build the following year so that ' s why I 'm thinking 18 months. Very close to that. We were thinking of drawing up a lease with Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 24 Herb for 18 months with an option of another 12, from 6 to 10 months if we needed it. If we were running into snags as far as getting the building going or that sort of thing but I 'm sure that the people I 've been talking to already will look . . .into a building as soon as possible so we' re not looking to nest there for a long time. Ellson: And are you going to have, use any of the offices up there during the day like a rectory? Don Finger : The plan, I believe that room that is just above that major room and that major room is about 1,300 square feet. That is kind of an office space and I would probably office there. We' re considering also that following up from that room, you see two restrooms and then another room above that . There is also I think some closet , sinks and other things and we're also looking at that room as an additional meeting room where we can make coffee and things like that . Initially I think I believe those will be spaces. . . Ellson: I think my only concern is you know landlords can come and go and maybe if somebody new comes on and they wouldn' t mind the idea of this church turning into a full fledged congregation and wiping out the whole upper floor or doing what have you. I guess I like the idea of us trying to have some control over the phrase temporary. I 'd welcome any other comments but I don' t know how to do that. I always get a little gun shy with temporary but you' re looking at someone, I went to a church in a warehouse for 3 years while they were building and things like that and growing so I realize the benefit of doing something like that so I 'm not opposed to doing it. I 'd just like to know that it' s temporary. Batzli : That does kind of raise an interesting point in that it doesn ' t appear to me that the portion labeled church is going to be the only portion that ' s labeled church and technically you'd normally have someone come back in to expand or modify their site plan but it doesn' t appear to me that you' re going to do that . Are we going to know before the City Council meeting exactly what part is going to be the church? + Don Finger : Paul is the one that labeled the church. Krauss: My information came from building inspector so yes, we can certainly clarify that. Batzli : I guess I 'd like, if in fact we pass this, I guess I 'd like to see it clarified. Wildermuth : Do we care? Batzli : I think we do if we' re trying to keep it to a certain size. If they expand, then at least then we have a reason to look at it again. Don Finger : Maybe I can address that from the standpoint that the larger is for the church to meet as a unit, as a group. We have room to facilitate other uses where we break down into the smaller groups or have other functions. There's no restraint. There will be no changes in walls Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 25 or any of those other things other than possibly. . . Batzli : I think our concern is that as you grow and you may eventually contemplate taking out walls and making larger meeting spaces on that floor , it'd be nice to have a set floor plan as to what was initially contemplated so you couldn' t expand without coming back in and asking for another site plan so to speak. Conrad : That' s a good idea Brian. Batzli : I had another question. One other one. Otherwise I agree with the comments that have been made. It had to do with, you wanted to be able to meet on Wednesdays. Aren' t there other times during the year when you'd be meeting on evenings that wasn't Wednesday evening or a Sunday? Don Finger : Possibly. Thanksgiving day. Batzli : Those types of events are the ones I 'm thinking of and I just don' t think it' s covered adequately in these conditions right now. Emmings: How about making 2 and 4 alternative? Either number 2 or number 4? Would you have to have the restrictions that are contained in number 2 if for sure there was, if Bloomberg went ahead and built them parking spaces that were adequate for their use, would you still need number 2? Krauss: No, but that raises a different set of issues . Emmings: Okay. Then forget it. I thought it was simple and if it' s going to get complicated, let' s not do it. Conrad : But 2 is not all encompassing or is not satisfactory to the church. Krauss : Well possibly if we modified it by saying full church services or something of that nature? Batzli : But I think on a Thanksgiving evening , that it might be a full church service. Krauss: That' s true but that wouldn' t, I don' t believe the Dinner Theatre would be going at that time. Batzli : Yeah , I don't know when the Dinner Theatre operates. Christmas . Christmas Eve. I don't know. Conrad : The Dinner Theatre doesn' t, I don' t know that they operate on Christmas Day. Krauss : We're not trying to restrict the church's freedom of action. There's just certain times we don' t want them to have a full scale service. Any other time they have one is fine. Conrad: Certain times. Because? Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 27 Conrad : I don ' t see it any different than when another room that Bloomberg has to fill . You need for every square foot of space, the building code should say you have to have so many parking spots . Period . And it should be covered. It should be covered . Krauss : Yes . It is covered you know and I suppose we could go through the analysis and say what' s the maximum number of stalls you have to put in here+ and then as a condition , require the church or Bloomberg to pave it before allowing the church in. What we' ve got here though is a multi- - tenant building with shared use of parking . It ' s the same kind of thing that we have in the shopping center that we ' ll be confronted with with Market Square. You try to avoid parking the place or supplying sufficient parking for the day before Christmas . You try to assume that there' s going to be some cross utilization and it ' s in the City ' s best interest to do that. We 'd just as soon see as little asphalt as necessary to adequately serve the project . In the case of the Dinner Theatre . I think there ' s a hope in the back of a lot of people ' s minds that the rear area behind the theatre will someday be redeveloped or new development could occur back there. I just as soon not see a parking field go back in there that prejudices the case at all against that expectation if it didn ' t have to . Batzli : Is there a problem right now with the amount of parking in the Dinner Theatres when they' re full? I guess when I ' ve been there , there ' s never been a problem parking . Conrad : I don' t recall . There are very seldom any times when the front of the hardware store is packed . Wildermuth : Noon is about the only time and I don ' t think the Dinner Theatre really has much influence on that at all because usually the matinee attendance is so low that the main parking lot can accommodate that . When parking is really going to be a problem in that whole complex there is when that hotel comes in. Parking is really going to get to be a serious issue then. Krauss : We had witnessed some problems on Wednesday afternoons in the summer when there' s a big matinee scheduled and everybody' s trying to go to the shops as well . Also , Fred Hoisington has done overall studies for that area and shown it to be underparked . Generally it works but there are occasions when it doesn ' t . Wildermuth : There is more parking across the street too right? Krauss: Well yeah but that ' s owned by another property owner . As long as they' re not parking on a street , it' s+ really not , or blocking fire lanes or whatever , it' s really not a problem. Wildermuth : But that parking across the street is never , I ' ve never ever seen that filled. Day or night . Conrad : So Paul , on the point number 2, you ' re saying you like it . The fact of the matter is , the church is going to meet on Wednesday and they' re going to meet on holidays or they' re going to meet on religious days . Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 29 Batzli : People could keep bringing in new churches . Wildermuth: My point is that if it' s a problem for Bloomberg , he' s not going to be inclined to renew the lease or if it ' s a problem for the church , they' re not going to be inclined to want to renew the lease . I don ' t think we should put a restriction . A time restriction on it . Conrad: You mean a time in terms of the lease? Wildermuth : Yes . Conrad : That ' s none of my business . I don ' t have a . . . Wildermuth: I have no problem at all with the church being in here . Conrad : On point number 2 , whoever makes the motion , I 'd just eliminate those hours. I 'd just say church services shall be scheduled so they don' t coincide with performances or you can water that down or you can eliminate it as far as I 'm concerned. Ilguess we could get rid of those hours specifically and that might soften it a little bit . Batzli : I 'd just add at the start , to the extent practical . Conrad : Yeah , and that makes sense to me . Site plan Paul should be , there should be an absolute site plan . There are absolute dimensions that this facility could expand to and that has to go to the City Council . They have to know the physical limitations that we ' re talking about right now. The maximum occupancy. I don' t know if that should be in here or not . I think Paul ' s going to do something with it . I don' t know how we, I don ' t know if that ' s a recommendation . Somebody certainly could make that motion because I think it ' s appropriate to be found someplace . Is there a motion? Wildermuth : I ' ll take a run at this . I 'd like to move the Planning Commission approve Site Plan #89-7 with the following conditions . 1. Omit 2 altogether . Include 3. Include 4 and for 2 substitute words to the effect that the site plan is contingent upon so many square feet with a specified load factor . Something you' ll have to work with the Public Safety people. With the Department of Public Safety having looked at this , that means that the Fire Departments has looked at it too? Krauss : Yes . Wildermuth : Okay. That would be all . Emrrtings: I ' ll second it . Krauss : Could I get a clarification on that? So stipulation 1, 3 and 4 would stand . Wildermuth : Would stand as they are . 2 would be struck as it stands and we substitute a requirement for a specific dimension or physical dimensions for the site plan and a load factor . People restriction. Not to restrict Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 30 the size of the church but just to trigger another review by the Public Safety people. Batzli : You don' t want any sort of intent statement in the conditions that they' re going to try and schedule church services around peak parking hours? 11 :00 to 1:00 p.m.? That kind of thing . Wildermuth: I think if he's smart, he' s going to try and schedule around it . Otherwise the faithful are going to have to walk. Or Bloomberg ' s other tenants are going to have to walk. Batzli : Yeah . I guess I don' t know if there' s a problem or not there. I 'm so rarely at Chanhassen at noon, I don't know. Wildermuth: I think we' ve got number 4 there to fall back on. Conrad: I agree. Wildermuth moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that Site Plan #89-7 be approved without variances subjec to the following : 1. All improvements required by the Public Safety Department to bring the space into code compliance be completed prior to taking occupancy. 2. The church is limited to the space outlined on the attached floor plan. Maximum occupant load has been set at 80 persons by the Building Department. Any expansion of this use into other areas of the building will require additional site plan approval . 3. Signage shall be consistent with normal tenant provisions . A city sign permit is required. 4. If parking demand exceeds the availability of spaces in the front lot, the building owner shall be responsible for constructing additional spaces at the rear of the building . Plans for the expansion are to be approved by City staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to approve pages 40-69 of the Planning Commission Minutes dated September 20, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who abstained and the motion carried . Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Planning Commission Minutes dated October 4, 1989 as presented . All voted in favor except Jim Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 31 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Krauss : On October 9th the City Council approved a grading permit for Roman Roos for his office building . It ' s scheduled to be heard , or the site plan is scheduled to be heard on Monday. You may recall the discussions that we had on the curb cut there. Engineering still feels pretty strongly that they' d like to recommend against the curb cut and they' ve done some more work and found that it conflicts with some curb cuts across the street as well . But again , the Council is going to get that with your recommendation as well on Monday. We had a variance request for a property on Lake Riley. Now the reason why this one ' s of interest to the Planning Commission is it brought into focus problems that we have with the ordinance in dealing with neighborhoods such as this that had unusually configured or undersized lots with older homes on them. The Council ultimately approved a variance for a sideyard setback there but after some discussion we concluded that the ordinance has some deficiencies and probably could stand to have some language that addresses these sorts of conditions specifically so we' re not shooting in the dark trying to resolve them with variances every time. Em sings: What was the size of the setback that was approved on this? Krauss : It was down to 6 feet . It has a 6 foot setback so it ' s a 4 foot variance. In this particular case there were 2 wings of the house that protruded to within 6 feet of the property line . There was an open area inbetween the two wings of the house and as a part of a substantial rennovation, he wanted to infill that space which required the variance . Enunings : So it was already built that way? Krauss : There was a pre-existing condition yes . He would intensify the variance by filling it in but we' ll be adding that to the lengthy and growing list of ordinances . Conrad : It ' s growing every week . Krauss : They were scheduled to act on Lotus Lake Homeowners Association that you had heard but it got too late and they went home. I think we told you the last time that we met that the Council was going to consider the revocation of Northwest Nurseries conditional use permit . We were responding to a complaint made by a neighbor and there had been a list of outstanding issues that had to be resolved from our part as well . Ultimately I guess you ' d have to say everything was worked out . There were some site plan improvements that would resolve grading and erosion problems. Resolve drainage problems . Improve screening and remove a variance situation on a shade structure that had been constructed in the setback. There were also dates certain set for these acts to be brought into compliance and financial guarantees as well to bring the site into compliance . With that the Council approved or basically reaffirmed the CUP and did not revoke it . Olsen : They are still going through the process though. They will be coming in front of the Planning Commission in a couple of months for an Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 32 amendment to their conditional use permit and the wetland alteration permit. The same thing that was before you in January with some of the questions answered . Batzli : Does that sideyard setback impact that person that wanted to subdivide on Pleasant View at all? That long skinny lot? He didn' t have enough setback from the road . Are you going to be addressing any of that type of thing? You have the same situation where the lots were created a long time ago. Olsen: Which lot is this? Batzli : The one on Pleasant View. Olsen: Curly McNutt? Batzli : I think so . Well , it was about , I don ' t know, a couple hundred feet in from TH 101. He didn' t have enough setback from the road was the problem. He didn ' t have enough depth in his lot . It was a long skinny lot . Olsen : Curly McNutt . Krauss : And there was insufficient lot area . Batzli : Was there lot area also deficiency? Okay. Krauss : No , what we were trying to address or to attempt to specifically deal with those areas that had been platted before the ordinance came into existence and has a bunch of smaller homes or cottages where people are expanding . Olsen: Carver Beach . Red Cedar Point . Batzli : What are you trying to take into account then? People that are already. . . Krauss : Well the fact that those neighborhoods are out of compliance to begin with and that if the ordinance is used in a punitive way to prevent these properties from being upgraded , the better interest of the City is probably not being served . The goal of it would be to come up with some sort off a flexible standard that recognizes those deficiencies in those neighborhoods and tries to deal with it . There' s been an ad placed in the paper for the vacant position on the Planning Commission . I 'm not sure if it' s been published yet but it should be shortly if it has not been and there was a November� 1 deadline for applications that was set . Conrad: So in two weeks can we review applicants? Krauss : Well , that actually might work. If we can contact everybody in a sufficient amount of time. + Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 33 Conrad : I hate to wait another month . By the time we review them, if we make a decision. Get it to City Council and get them in here , we ' re talking another 6 weeks . We shouldn ' t wait that long . Krauss: We' ll certainly try. Conrad : We should also , any applicants that have had their names in , we should reinform them. We ' ve turned down a couple of them a couple times . Olsen : We always tell them on the third time. Conrad: Third time. Third time is magic . Krauss : The last thing is we have a special meeting scheduled to work on the land use plan for next week . We ' re actually going to be bringing you a map with magic markers so we can start putting pen to paper . Mark Koegler and I have taken a crack at it and we ' ve worked with Jo Ann and Gary Warren and we think that there' s sufficient information for people to start looking at it and really having something they can see and touch and work with it that way. Wildermuth : We' re planning to meet next Wednesday night? Krauss : Right . Wildermuth : Is there a chance we could move that up? Krauss : Up which way? Wildermuth : To Tuesday night . Krauss : We investigated meeting on Tuesday and that did not work for Mark Koegler . We had some other requests to do that so we called everybody and tried to figure out whether Wednesday or Thursday would be better . It seemed like Wednesday would . Wildermuth : I ' ll be gone both days . Conrad : Can everybody else make that? Erhart : Thursday' s out . Wednesday' s very difficult for me. I can take a later flight but I 'd still have to leave here about 10 after 9 : 00 so my request with Paul , if we have to have it Wednesday, to have it as early as possible. I request that the Commission consider an earlier meeting if possible . Emmings : I can meet earlier . 6 : 30 . I can do that . Ellson: I could do that . Conrad : I probably could . Can you make it at 6 : 30? You have a tough time making it at 7 : 30. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 34 Batzli : Yeah, I can. Erhart: Going back to Council issues . Is Council dealing with the issue of the Halla Nursery subdivision? Right now because their time was up to actually do the subdivision. Olsen: They gave them a 5 year time line that they had to plat the whole property or else the plat was void and they'd have to go through the process again. Erhart: That was something that was done recently? Olsen: Yeah. Erhart: Because I would just hope that the City would not put anybody in the position that would encouraging people to subdivide the rural land into 2 1/2 acre lots . I don' t think that' s probably a good one. I understood that we might be actually forcing them to complete the subdivision today. Olsen: Actually it is . Krauss : I had heard from somebody today that I think there' s an ad in the paper saying that they' re selling plant stock because the City' s making them do i t. Erhart: I heard that today too and I got a little disturbed and I said, gee we certainly don' t want to be in a position of forcing people to subdivide rural lots. I 'm glad it' s not the case. Batzli : It might be in 5 years . Erhart : Hopefully we would reconsider then in 5 years . The situation may be different. I 'd like to see it indefinitely. If we' re looking to put on the record here. Olsen : I think the factor in that though is they had no intention of ever platting it so the Council is saying, well then, they went through and they weren' t going to plat it for 20 or 30 years. Erhart: Right. We discussed that with that applicant when they came in and did that plat . I thought that was pretty clear to everybody during that meeting that they had no intention of doing it. Conrad : Then why did they do it? Erhart: Because we changed our ordinance. Emmings: To grab the 2 1/2. Conrad : Absolutely. So they want it to their advantage. Erhart: I understand that Ladd. I 'm just saying it' s to no one' s advantage to encourage rural land owners to subdivide their land . We' ll Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 35 take whatever position we have to take so we don ' t find ourself in a position of forcing people to do that . Conrad: But then why did they come in and ask for the 2 1/2? Erhart: Because the City, at the encouragement of Met Council , we down zoned every rural landowner ' s land without compensation . They found themself in that position and I guess rather than suing the city, they took that route . That' s why they did that . Conrad: They don' t have to develop. They don' t have to develop. Erhart : No. But the fact is that the City, by changing their ordinance , we downzoned their property. We took something of value away from that property owner and we forced them in a position to react. Conrad : But if they had no intention of developing it for 30 years , I wouldn ' t have done anything . + Erhart: Let ' s say they did want to develop in 25 years , you can look at our ordinance today and say, in the prior ordinance they could have developed it into 2 1/2 acre lots . Now we were changing it and let ' s say they did want to do it in 25 years . Now we have an ordinance that says they can ' t do it even in 25 years from now. I think we put , the City put them in this position. That ' s the whole big philosophical argument and probably some day will be a legal one but I just want to make sure we ' re or I just wanted to express that I don ' t want to find us in a position where we' re encouraging subdivision of rural land and apparently they found a solution. A temporary solution . Conrad : We have a note from Sieben , Grose and Emmings here . Batzli : I couldn' t find his name on there . Oh , there it is . Way down the list . Emmings : Oh , you' re so funny. Conrad : I looked under counsel . Steve, do you want to introduce this? Emmings: No. I just threw it out for consideration. I assumed it was something we'd cover . I assumed it was something that would be covered at the meeting next week. Conrad : Anything you want to bring up on this subject Paul? Krauss: No. I guess particularly in view of the fact of the late hour in which you got your packet , it ' s kind of tough to get into that in detail at this point. Conrad : You' re just lucky Headla wasn ' t here tonight . Actually we' re lucky. We saved 5 minutes of ranting and raving. Actually when I called Paul about the packets , he said it was his new strategy. He wanted more of a natural reaction to things other than any kind of detailed review. Okay, Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 36 let' s talk about Steve's things next week in our meeting . There' s a note here on land use planning workshop. Batzli : Is that a hint? Conrad : I assume there' s money to fund somebody to go? What is it, $35.00? Krauss : It' s pretty reasonable. Batzli : Where is it? Krauss : There's a couple of the. There' s one in Bloomington on November 30th and then later in February in Brooklyn Center . Olsen: Interesting things. Sometimes they' re pretty good . Conrad : Well Paul is there anybody on the Commission that you think really needs to go? I went to one once upon a time a long time ago and it was J good. Emmings: Do they offer anything in letters and teaching you how to write letters to the editor to your fellow commission members or anything like that if you don' t agree with them? Conrad : As you get on the commission for a couple years, you get less and less inclined to go to stuff like this. However, the new people that are on, it' s almost like, I 'd like to make it a requirement . Not a requirement but I 'd heavy hand them to get to it. I really would put on as much pressure as we could to get a new member there. Emmings: I was thinking just the other way around. I was thinking this would probably actually mean something to me now. Conrad: That's probably true. Emmings: When I was real new. . . Conrad: But you' re not real motivated anymore. Emmings: I'd like to . It' s just time you know. There are 3 or 4 of them here that I thought sounded real good. That one, Beyond the Basics one looked good to me. The Planning Institute looked good . That Planned Unit Development approach to Land Development looked real interesting to me. And Updating your Comprehensive Plan. What could be more relevant? I don't know. Batzli : If we went to the one in April , we'd probably be right about on target. Emmings: Or starting to. Batzli : Yeah , or starting to. We might get past the goals by then I think. Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 37 Emmings : Maybe if one person could go to one , I don ' t know. We could do a little report back you know kind of thing . Get different people to different ones . Conrad : Was there anybody else interested in going? Erhart : Any of these in Miami? Batzli : Actually had one for CLE credits not too long ago Steve. I don ' t know if you saw that. Emmings : No , really. Now that 'd be interesting . Conrad : It 'd be nice if somebody could go . Emmings : How long do we have to get to you? Some time yet I think . Krauss : Well there' s a whole series of meetings so just let us know. We' ll sign you up. Conrad : The trouble is , if you don ' t get a commitment right now, it ' s not going to happen. Anything else? Krauss : Yeah, two other things that we' ll touch on a little briefly if we could . In your packet there was some recent articles on development . . . in the Minnesota Real Estate Journal . We were featured as the headline article in the Real Estate Journal . They did an update on the City that I thought was fairly upbeat . It talked a little bit about MUSA line' issues . Chanhassen chugs along . Erhart : Did the first downtown plan show 4 lanes street down there? Krauss: Probably. The original BRW plan? I think I recall that . Emmings : I like your optimism Paul . Krauss : After talking to the editor , apparently he used some of that conversation to make their editorial statement for the week on Chanhassen and MUSA line issues in general which was a little bit taken out of context and I 'm not sure what their point was at the end of it but I guess it was well meaning anyway. But contrasting that , on the back page is the editorial by Steve Keefe on the Metro Council and he speaks glowingly of the MUSA system in general terms and a desire to see it maintained . I put that in there because depending on how you interpret it , there could be some conflict between the two. We shall see. Also, I ' ve got in your packet or I just handed out tonight information on a meeting thatfI held with Metro Council ' s staff on Tuesday. Basically I wanted to sit down with Metro Council ' s staff and reviewing whatever we come up with in the guide plan process and first of all let them know that we' re doing something because they were not aware of what we were doing and secondly to lay out a strategy for taking it through a review. I 'd have to say that the staff person I met with was Ann Perlbert who is the director of whatever their local planning assistance department became . She' s the person that would Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 38 coordinate the review. Was very receptive to the process and Mark and I had put together a paper that' s attached to this that basically lays out how much developable land we have left in the city and how rapidly we ' re using it and it fits well within the Metro Council ' s guidelines . Apparently they feel we should have a 10 year supply of land plus a 5 year _ cushion. At best we have about a 7 year supply of residential land and virtually nothing left in industrialsowe left without talking about specifics. About a plan but feeling a little bit upbeat about how this would be reviewed by the Metro Council . I think it ' s important to note that Ann is relatively new down there and she came out of local planning . She ' s not somebody that came up through the ranks in the Metro Council which is refreshing in a way. She' s dealt with the same kinds of problems we have to so we' ll keep you informed on that . Conrad : Good . Anything else? Batzli : Yes . The fill that ' s been happening on Pleasant View by Powers Blvd . there. Just kind of north of where the water tower is . What ' s happening there? Is anybody watching that? Did we approve that? Olsen: South of the water tower? Batzli : North of the water tower . Krauss : Is that Art Owens? Conrad : Out by Art Owens , right . Olsen : Right . Yes , we are looking at that one . It is Art Owens ' property. It' s another one of those cases that he doesn' t feel it' s a wetland and so we are going through the process with him to require him to go through the wetland alteration permit . Batzli : He not only dumped it but he graded it now. Olsen: Since this week? Batzli : In the last 3 weeks . He used to just have piles of dirt and he ' s smoothed it out now. Olsen : Over on the east side? Batzli : Yes . All the way around the little swamp. Olsen : We' ve been out there twice with the Fish and Wildlife and with the Corps and it is a wetland and they have filled it. They haven ' t filled in the open water area yet . Actually, the reason it all came to light was that they came to apply for permission to dump contaminated fill so that ' s when we went out and went whoa . I said , not that ' s a wetland so we went out and checked it out. Again, it takes a long time . Erhart : Is this a case where we can make the guy remove it and restore it? Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 39 Olsen : Oh yeah but what we determined . . . Ellson : Why doesn' t he like stop until this is all resolved? Olsen : He hasn' t dumped anything new that we can tell . Batzli : Have you been out there since it ' s been smoothed over? Olsen : I was out there last week. Erhart : Can you do a stop work? Olsen : Yeah, we did that and we have them even put up a posting where the driveway was because for a while there they were dumping asphalt and we had them remove that . It ' s on two properties so that ' s why it ' s a little difficult. Plus we were trying to work through the person who was applying to put the contaminated fill . Conrad : What' s the contaminated fill? Olsen : I 'm not exactly sure . Gasoline . Batzli : There was a lot of that sitting there in Tonka Bay. Olsen : I think that ' s where it was coming from. Minnetonka . Lake Minnetonka . Batzli : There was an underground tank that had leaked and they had just mounds of this contaminated fill and they couldn' t find anyplace to dump it. They put tarps over it and it just sat there for about a year . Olsen: That ' s why they wanted to move it . Emmings: Where was this? Batzli : County Road 19. Right where it takes the corner. at Tonka Plaza there. Emmings: Where they put in that new gas station? Batzli : Yep. The other thing I wanted to ask about was the nursery on 78th Street . Lotus? Is that the new one there? Is that all they' re going to do for landscaping and berming? They've been open for almost a year now. They' ve got 2 little sickly pine trees in front . Emmings: He can' t get a hold of any. Olsen : I believe he did submit a letter of credit to cover for that and he was in this fall requesting an extension . I ' ll have to double check on that one but we do have the letter of credit covering that . — Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 40 Batzli : It just seems to me that that kind of company, if they can' t have that in there in a week, it' s just beyond me how they can stay in business . Olsen : He 's coming in. He came in again this fall claiming that what he has out there is plant material and he'd be screening plant material with plant material . It' s not a done deal but I ' ll look into that. Also I think that one of the reasons is that the City is still working on the ponding area back there and we' re still trying to plat it and go through a wetland alteration permit. He might be waiting for that. For those final improvements. — Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 30 p.m. . — Submitted by Paul Krauss Director of Planning — Prepared by Nann Opheim Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 28 That ' s true . They' re just going to do that . Wildermuth: This would preclude that though . Conrad : The way this is worded doesn' t work for that so it ' s not practical . Your solution, saying the word full still doesn ' t work. Do you want to eliminate , do you want to get the intent across in this statement or do you want to get some absolutes? We don' t have the absolutes here . This is not good enough but are you comfortable with the intent statement more or less? Krauss : I 'm comfortable with it probably because of the minimal nature of this proposal . The likelihood is that it ' s not going to cause us a problem. We were only trying to cover our bases to avoid that potential . If you wanted to change it , some sort of directive that church services should try to be scheduled when the Dinner Theatre is not in full operation and then have the fallback of stipulation of condition 4, that' s probably sufficient protection . Conrad : Okay. Brian , any other? Batzli : No . Wildermuth : . . .the fact that I 'm glad to see that the Public Safety Department has looked at it because it is a wooden structure, even though it is sprinklered . The fire potential is pretty great and because it is a wooden structure and it ' s going to be a second floor meeting area , there' s a load factor that has to be looked at and that probably dictates that any addition or any expansion beyond a certain number like the 75 or 100 that was mentioned here , I think that should be included in the staff recommendation. If we' re looking at expansion beyond a particular number , this thing has got to go before the Public Safety group again . Krauss : So in other words you' re establishing a maximum occupancy load? Wildermuth : Right . So many people per square foot in that meeting area . Krauss : I think we can do that easily enough . It ' s already been calculated . Wildermuth : Good . And if it exceeds that , then I think it has to go , that has to trigger the Public Safety investigation again so that something happens . Either he shores up the first floor or something . That ' s all . As far as the parking is concerned, I think number 4 really adequately covers it . If there' s going to be a problem, the landlord and tenant' will have to work it out and the lease is short enough so if there is a problem, 18 months , nobody' s going to have to live with pain too long . Batzli : But this doesn' t expire at the end of the lease term. Krauss : No . In fact the temporary nature of it was good information but it was incidental to handling this as a site plan. Presumably once we allow this , something like this could be there forever . { .il CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN • ,.. , , . y „ . .; • .,, ,.. .: .-1'.' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ` �A- (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 v MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning DATE: October 26 , 1989 SUBJ : Update on Planning Items The City Council at their October 23 , 1989 , meeting took the following actions : 1 . Site Plan Review for the Crossroads National Bank at the -- intersection of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street was approved. As at the Planning Commission meeting, the City Council echoed concerns regarding the placement of a tem- _ porary modular building on the site. However, it was made clear that based on the applicant' s investment in the property and conditions of the HRA approval , that if the bank building is not built on the site within a two year period of time, that the total cost to the bank would be approximately $700 , 000 of lost funds . This appeared to satisfy the City Council and the request was approved. 2 . Site Plan Review for Assemblies of God Church on the Upper Level of the Frontier Building. This item was pulled from the consent agenda and was discussed extensively. Councilman Boyt raised concerns regarding the potential for churches to purchase property in the CBD and result in its being taken off of the property tax rolls. He was therefore reluctant to make any ordinance interpretation changes that would allow a church to exist without resolving this issue . After a lengthy discussion , it appeared that there was no effective — way to resolve it under the current site plan review propo- sal . The Council effectively decided to take no action on the site plan and told staff to essentially to allow it to occur pending satisfaction of building permit issuance. It was indicated that staff should accelerate the process to get a temporary conditional use permit section designed into the zoning ordinance and that at such time that this is — available, the item would be brought back before the City Council for approval under whatever guidelines may be established . Planning Commission October 26, 1989 Page 2 3 . Market Square Partnership, Proposal to Construct a Shopping Center at the Southwest Corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. The Council came up with several questions regarding this proposal that generally were similar to those which were raised at the Planning Commission. The plans that were presented to the City Council incorporate those major site plan changes to the north end of the project that were reviewed conceptually with the Planning _ Commission at the last meeting. The applicant' s only objection was to one stipulation regarding access to Outlot A and staff' s proposal that it be prohibited. Ultimately, the City Council approved the project with the condition that Outlot A be prohibited from having — additional access in the future. They also added a stipulation that a pull-out for the bus shelter be added to avoid traffic problems on Market Boulevard. — 4 . A public hearing was held for the adoption of the Official Map for T.H. 212. Councilman Boyt raised questions regarding the advisa- bility of adopting an official map in advance of formally having — completed the Environmental Impact Statement process. It was noted that other jurisdictions have already adopted the plan and that it can be used to reduce uncertainty amongst property owners — plus allowing them to have a portion of their land purchased. The Council ultimately voted to approve the Official Map. 5 . Site Plan Review for Rome Corporation Office Warehouse Building at the intersection of Park Road and Park Court. The City Council acted on the office/warehouse by granting approval. Planning and Engineering Department Staff continued to have concerns about the — eastern curb cut on Park Road. While the Planning Commission' s recommendations were conveyed, staff continued to support deletion of the curb cut. The City Council discussed this point and ultima- tely decided to grant its approval contingent upon the developer' s working with the Engineering Department to make such modifications to it as are necessary to maintain safety. The use of a _ right-in/right-out only is being considered as well. 6 . Curry Farms Wetland Alteration. Staff became aware of homeowners in the Curry Farms subdivision who were altering Class A and B — wetlands by removing wetland vegetation and replacing it with gravel or ultimately sod area. Staff discussed the matter with the residents and asked them to stop; however, the activity con- — tinued. Staff indicated that this activity was in violation of city ordinances and would require the approval of a wetland alteration permit. Staff made the City Council aware of this activity since there is some question as to the actual status of — the two Class B wetlands. Area residents indicated concern with staff' s handling of the matter and questioned the application of the wetland ordinance in this case. The City Council requested the neighbors to work with staff to resolve the matter. In all probability, it will result in a wetland alteration permit being reviewed through the Planning Commission and City Council. Planning Commission Meeting October 18 , 1989 - Page 26 Wildermuth: Because of the parking? Krauss: Right. That ' s the sole reason . Wildermuth : But I think the parking situation is addressed in 4 right? So I really don' t know why we need 2. That' s kind of a tenant-landlord situation . Krauss : 4 is there as a fallback. If a problem materializes that we can ' t deal with any other way. Ellson: Even if number 2 doesn ' t do it . . . I mean if 11 : 00 to 1 : 00 and you still have problems parking , you still have 4 to say go back and . . . + Enmings : I don ' t like telling the church when it can meet . I think they can meet whenever they want. Wildermuth : Right . I agree . Emmings : And if parking becomes a problem, then they have to build a parking lot or somebody has to build a parking lot . Wildermuth : Yeah . That ' s a tenant-landlord problem. _ Conrad: The only case I 'm interested in is if it starts affecting other properties that are not under the ownership of Bloomberg . Batzli : We should at least make sure that the projected number of people in these area . . .and I think there ' s a concern about that . Krauss: There is a concern about that because it' s quite clear that when the Theatre ' s in operation or a Wednesday matinee or something like that , with the noon rush hour , there' s inadequate parking . What we want to do is make the church or have the church fit in as inconspicuously as possible yet there is a fallback position that the Bloomberg Companies will pave the parking lot to the rear but frankly we' d just as soon that nothing had to happen back there. The way we thought to approach that was to limit those few hours or few times during the week that it would be inappropriate to have a service . Emmings : So to speak . Conrad : You know, Bloomberg has meeting rooms all over the place. They have their downstair meeting room. It can hold 150 people. And therefore, how do we schedule parking for that? Those meetings can occur while the Theatre is in session and we' re not controlling that . They' re controlling that . They schedule them when they can book them. Their party rooms . This is another party room. Krauss : I think we were explicit as to theatre performance .